HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.202102101
AGENDA
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Amended 2/8/2021 3:07 PM
February 10, 2021
4:30 PM,
WEBEX
www.webex.com
Enter Meeting Number 126 189 6308
Password provided 81611
Click "Join Meeting"
OR
Join by phone
Call: 1-408-418-9388
Meeting number (access code): 126 189 6308 #
I.SITE VISIT
II.ROLL CALL
III.MINUTES
III.A.Minutes 1/27/21
minutes.hpc.20210127.pdf
IV.PUBLIC COMMENTS
V.COMMISSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS
VI.DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VII.PROJECT MONITORING
VIII.STAFF COMMENTS
IX.CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT ISSUED
X.CALL UP REPORTS
XI.SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS
1
2
XII.OLD BUSINESS
XIII.NEW BUSINESS
XIII.A.1020 E. Cooper Avenue- Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Demolition,
Growth Management, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, Transportation and
Parking Management, PUBLIC HEARING
CONTINUED to Wednesday, February 17th
1020 E. Cooper Ave_Memo_HPC.pdf
Resolution No. X (Series of 2021)_1020 E. Cooper.pdf
Exhibit A.1_HP Guidelines Criteria.pdf
Exhibit A.2_Relocation Criteria.pdf
Exhibit A.3_Demolition Criteria.pdf
Exhibit A.4_Growth Management Review Criteria.pdf
Exhibit A.5_Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit Staff Findings.pdf
Exhibit A.6_Transportation & Parking Management.pdf
Exhibit B_Application.pdf
Exhibit C_January 13 2021 HPC minutes.pdf
Exhibit D_February 10th public comments.pdf
Exhibit E_January 13th public comments.pdf
XIV.ADJOURN
XV.NEXT RESOLUTION NUMBER
Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings
1)Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda)
2) Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
3) Staff presentation
4) Board questions and clarifications of staff
5) Applicant presentation
6) Board questions and clarifications of applicant
7) Public comments
8)Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments
9) Close public comment portion of bearing
10) Staff rebuttal/clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment
11) Applicant rebuttal/clarification
End of fact finding.
Deliberation by the commission commences.
No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public
12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners.
13) Discussion between commissioners*
2
3
14) Motion*
*Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met or not met.
Revised April 2, 2014
3
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 27, 2020
Chairperson Thompson opened the meeting at 4:30 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Kara Thompson, Scott Kendrick, Roger Moyer, Jeff Halferty,
Commissioners not in attendance: Sherri Sanzone
Staff present:
Amy Simon, Planning Director
Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner
Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney
Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Moyer moved to approve the minutes; Mr. Kendrick
seconded. All in favor.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT: Ms. Thompson stated that she is conflicted as well as Ms.
Sanzone on the 925 King Street project.
CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Simon stated that they are busy with
project monitoring. She said that staff and monitor reviewed some revisions for 105 E Hallam.
Ms. Simon said there will be a meeting to discuss the Aspen Institute project with the monitor.
She stated that a certificate of no negative effect was issued to 330 Gillespie Ave.
Ms. Yoon said that the certificate was issued and now waiting for the work order.
CALL UPS: Ms. Yoon stated that 227 E. Bleeker was taken to City Council and not called up.
Ms. Thompson left the meeting
OLD BUSINESS: 925 King Street – Demolition and recommendation on the adjustment of the
boundaries of the Historic Designation and the Establishment of TDRs. Sara Adams of
BendonAdams LLC.
Ms. Yoon stated that this project was continued from a December meeting.
Ms. Adams stated that they are proposing the demolition of the non-historic structures, a
traditional lot spit, adjust the historic boundary, and establish Transfer of Development Rights
(TDRs). She said that the lot is roughly 36000 sq. ft. and other than a few structures that were
built without permits the lot is unchanged. Ms. Adams said that this lot is known as the Ernst
Kappeli property however it has changed hands twice. She stated that there is not a lot of
documentation of this neighborhood, and they reached out to Denver’s archives for clarity. Ms.
Adams said without building permits on most of the structures it was very difficult to research
what was there. Ms. Adams showed the non-historic duplex, shed, and a shack that is slated for
demolition. She showed a picture of the non-historic shed that sits at the bank of the ditch. She
explained that the material of the shed is mixed and slapped together. Ms. Adams stated that
building #5 is being proposed to be retained, she said the structure shows evidence of being
historic. She said that building #6 has no permits nor is it historic. Ms. Adams stated that there is
a record with the county showing Mr. Kappeli’s intent to turn building #5 into a dwelling. She
explained that there was a survey done in 1965 that accompanied the application showcasing
what was on the lot. Ms. Adams showed a proposed preservation plan that identified the three
buildings that will be preserved and the five non-historic structures that will be demolished. Ms.
Adams stated that the lot split will make two parcels, 2A a non-historic parcel that is 21,045 sq.
ft. and 2B a historic parcel that is 15,001 sq. ft. She showed a topographical map that highlighted
4
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 27, 2020
the ditch, pond, and elevation change between to two proposed lots. She said that the pond is
being proposed for removal. Ms. Adams stated that with the lot split and historic boundary HPC
will have purview of Lot 2B with the miner’s cabin and log cabin however, HPC will not have
purview over Lot 2A. She explained that Lot 2A has no visual connection between the upper and
lower bench, the lots have different street frontages and there is a significant grade change
between the lots. Ms. Adams stated that the lower Lot allowable FAR is 4,473 sq ft. and for
parcel 2B the available FAR is 3,087. She explained they are proposing 2 TDRs to help remove
development pressures from the historic lot.
STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Yoon stated that the videos that were provided to the board can be
viewed by reaching out to the City of Aspen staff.
Ms. Yoon said that HPC will need to decide on the request for demolition of five structures on
the property and to provide recommendations to City Council regarding the amendment to the
historic designation boundaries that currently encompass the entire lot. She explained that this is
not a request for a new designation or to delist anything rather an amendment to the current
designation. Ms. Yoon added that HPC will be recommending the request of establishing TDRs
of the historic lot. Ms. Yoon identified the five buildings that are slated for demolition and
stating that staff supports the demotion of the non-historic buildings. Ms. Yoon Stated the
proposed amendment to the lot line is in direct relation with the three buildings being preserved
in their current location. She said that staff supports the designation staying with the parcel 2B
where the historic structures will remain. Ms. Yoon explained that HPC will need to discuss the
location of the lot line to ensure adequate buffering space between lots. Ms. Yoon stated that
staff supports the 2 TDR request from the applicant. Ms. Yoon added that there is a condition in
the resolution that all calculations must be verified before going to City Council. She stated that
staff recommends the approval of the demolition of the non-historic buildings, the adjustment to
the historic designation boundary, the establishment of 2 TDRs.
Mr. Moyer asked what staff’s opinion about the lifting of the designation on the non-historic
parcel.
Ms. Yoon stated that the staff agrees with the applicant. She explained that it is an interior lot, a
significant grade change, and there is a difficult visual connection.
Mr. Moyer asked if there would be enough square footage to develop after the TDRs taken.
Ms. Yoon said that HPC needs to consider where the lot line falls while taking into account
setbacks.
Mr. Moyer asked if there is enough room.
Ms. Yoon said that staff would like to see a bit more room.
Ms. Simon stated that when the time comes to add on to the historic resource, that it will be
preserved on the King Street face and the addition will not have to come from the side. She
explained that they would like to see an appropriate amount of depth in the lot for future plans.
Mr. Halferty asked if the setbacks will be developed by a zoning exercise or conformed by the
R15.
Ms. Yoon said that setbacks will be conforming to the underline zoning of R15A.
Mr. Halferty asked what the setbacks will be.
Mr. Kendrick said 10’, 10’, 10’ for the side and rear 25’ for the front.
5
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 27, 2020
Ms. Adams stated that there is a ditch that runs through the property. She explained that the City
is requiring an easement on each side of the bank and moving the lot line in the rear might help
and there will be restrictions still.
Mr. Moyer asked if the ditch could be moved or buried.
Ms. Adams stated that the ditch will not be moved nor buried. She said that for maintains reasons
the City wants it open.
Mr. Kendrick asked about the historic integrity of building #5. He raised the question of the
historic benefit to the community if it is tuck so far into the lot who will see it. Mr. Kendrick said
if building #5 was not going to be preserved it would be a lot easier and cleaner to draw the lot
line straight across.
Ms. Adams stated that they would be open to that plan.
Ms. Yoon said that it has been difficult to identify the historic integrity of the buildings
especially building #5. She explained staff is acting very conservative to extinguish all avenues
and identify any historic relations.
Mr. Halferty asked what the Lot sizes will be.
Ms. Yoon that the lot split will make two parcels 2A anon-historic parcel that is 21,045 sq. ft.
and 2B a historic parcel that is 15,001 sq. ft.
PUBLIC COMMENTs: None
COMMISSION COMMENTS: Mr. Kendrick stated that he is in favor of the TDRs and the
adjustment of the historic lot line to encompass the upper lot. He said that he is questioning how
the lot lines are drawn and the historic shed.
Mr. Moyer stated that he agrees with the staff. He said he is in favor of demolition and not
opposed to the TDRs. Mr. Moyer asked if it is too soon to be looking at lot lines if HPC does not
have an application for either lot. He stated that he agrees with Mr. Kendrick about making the
lot lines simpler.
Mr. Halferty said he agrees with Mr. Kendrick about the shed. Due to the cellphone connection,
Mr. Halferty’s comments were inaudible.
Mr. Kendrick asked if Ms. Adams could show the other Lot line proposal if building #5 is not
historic.
Ms. Yoon said she wants to understand and summarize what is being asked. That there is a
question about retaining building #5. She explained that the information they could find shows
there might be some historic integrity, and that is why the decision was to keep building #5. Ms.
Yoon stated that they would have to assess building #5 through the demolition criteria and see if
it meets the criteria.
Mr. Moyer asked Ms. Yoon’s opinion about the demolition of building #5.
Ms. Yoon stated that the building was not assessed under the demolition criteria.
Ms. Adams asked if she could show the original Lot split and the 1995 letter that described the
buildings and historic inventory file. Ms. Adams showed the letter that indicates that building #5
was constructed by bits and pieces of found material and that it was placed in the location. She
showed a rendering of the originally proposed Lot split with a more of a traditional line cut.
Mr. Kendrick stated if that letter is accurate, and the building is not original to the lot and an
incomplete building there is no real historic relation.
Mr. Halferty said that it seems to be remnants of stuff without permits.
Mr. Moyer asked if the city had aerial photos from the 1920s.
Ms. Yoon stated that the earliest photos they could capture of this area were from the 60s’.
6
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 27, 2020
Ms. Yoon showed the demolition criteria that was used on the other structures.
Mr. Moyer stated that building #5 meets the criteria for demolition.
Mr. Kendrick said that it meets the criteria.
Mr. Halferty agreed.
Ms. Yoon asked if HPC would like to add building #5 to the list of demolition.
All agreed.
Ms. Adams asked if building #5 is demolished can the Lot line go back to the original proposed
straight shot.
Mr. Moyer said that is what Mr. Kendrick proposed and that he agrees with.
Mr. Halferty raised concern with the lot adjustment and impacts with the historic resource.
Ms. Adams stated that it would not since the ditch will remain and create a natural buffer.
Ms. Simon stated that HPC is making a recommendation to City Council about this Lot line and
will be confirmed with and by City Council.
Ms. Johnson stated that the new information that is being shown needs to be submitted to the
Clerk’s office for public record.
Ms. Adams showed a Lot area map with the proposed straight across lot line with the historic
resources, a ditch with the proposed easements. She explained that the ditch with easements and
the setbacks already create a buffer between the properties.
Mr. Kendrick asked if duplexes are allowed in R15A.
MS. Adams stated for historic it is, and the lower lot is intended to be a single-family home.
Mr. Moyer said that he feels whatever is built there in the future will not impact the historic lot.
Mr. Kendrick stated that the motion for this project will recommend the TDRs, demolition of the
buildings, and adding building #5 to the demolition list.
Ms. Yoon brought up the proposed resolution to clarify the addition of adding building #5 to the
demolition list and the adjustment to the boundaries to the historic designation lot line.
Mr. Kendrick moved to approve Resolutions #02-2021 as amended; Mr. Moyer seconded.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Kendrick, Yes; Mr. Moyer, Yes; Mr. Halferty, Yes. All in favor. Motion
OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. Simon and Ms. Yoon showed a presentation of a Year In Review.
This presentation was an overview of the different projects that came before HPC. There was 21
meetings total, 4 in-person 17 virtual meetings. There were 25 projects presented and 27
resolutions passed. There were 13 certificates of no negative effects issued. Ms. Simon and Ms.
Yoon gave a brief summary of each approved project that came before HPC. Ms. Yoon showed
the HPC award candidates for 2020 and stated that there will be a future discussion about the
awards. Ms. Simon said that the recruitment process to fill the four vacancies is ongoing and
please pass along anyone's information.
Adjourn: All in favor.
_________________________
Wes Graham, Deputy Clerk
7
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 27, 2020
8
Page 1 of 13
Memorandum
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Kevin Rayes, Planner
Amy Simon, Planning Director
MEETING DATE: February 10, 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. HPC reviewed and continued the project
for restudy on January 13th. Staff finds the restudy to be
successful and responsive and recommends approval of the
project, subject to the conditions listed in the draft resolution.
Figure 1: 1020 E. Cooper Site Location
1020
9
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.
• 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 home southwest of its current
position 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.
• Transportation & Parking Management (26.5151.010) to meet the minimum parking and
Transportation Mitigation standards.
Figure 3: 1020 E. Cooper Avenue, 2019 Figure 2: Willit’s Map, 1896
10
Page 3 of 13
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 have provided detailed information to those interested in the progress
of the HPC review.
STAFF COMMENTS: Exhibits A.1 through A.6 to this memo indicate the review criteria for each
requested approval, and recommended findings. Following is a summary.
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, with a proposed new dormer, 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.
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.
11
Page 4 of 13
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.
Since the last hearing, the applicant has redesigned the rear building to remove and adjust
massing. The effect is a break at the second floor level and elimination of square footage,
relocated to the dormer addition to the historic building. Staff finds these changes effective in
addressing the HPC’s concerns and 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 11’
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. According to Land Use Code Section
26.470.030.D, no annual growth limit applies to affordable housing. This is in recognition of the
high priority placed on the development of affordable housing to meet community needs. The
property is in the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zone district, which is intended for intensive
long-term residential purposes. The zone district anticipates dense multi-family development,
as seen in adjacent structures to the development site. Development of a multi-family affordable
housing project within the RMF zone district is allowed by right.
12
Page 5 of 13
The proposed affordable housing units
are consistent with the residential uses
in the eastern area of town and the
permitted uses of the zone district. As
depicted in Figure 4, many of the
surrounding properties contain
residential multi-family dwellings,
including the adjacent properties to the
east and west. 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 full-time employee housing occupancy 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 standards outlined in Land Use Code Section 26.470.080.d.7.g, General
Review, Affordable Housing Mitigation, guide.
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
Residential
Multi-Family
Figure 4: Residential Multi-Family Development
Surrounding 1020 E. Cooper
13
Page 6 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.
Standards for minimum net livable area are also provided. The project complies as shown in the
charts below.
* The 2nd level consists of a storage loft accessed from the ground level
Net Livable Area Per AH Unit | Within Rear Structure
Units Beds Basement
(sf)
1st
Level
(sf)
2nd
Level
(sf)
3rd
Level
(sf)
Total
(sf)
Min.
FA
(sf)
Difference
(Expressed
as Percent)
3 2 436.5 449.7 X X 886.2 900 2% below
4 3 X X 1,011.8 X 1,011.8 1,200 16% below
5 2 X X X 786.7 786.7 900 13% below
Two of the units exceed the minimum dimensional standards prescribed by APCHA, and three
of the units are slightly 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.
Net Livable Area Per AH Unit | Within Historic Resource
Units Beds Basement
(sf)
Ground
Level
(sf)
Second
Level
(sf)
Total
(sf)
Min.
(sf)
Difference
(sf)
1 2 462.5 450.5 103.9* 1,016.8 900 116.8 above
2 3 482.9 477.6 182.9 1,143.4 900 162.0 above
Figure 5: Open Space between the Rear of the
Historic Resource and the Front of the Addition
14
Page 7 of 13
Figure 6: Open Front Porch & Deck- as viewed from the front of the property
Figure 7: Parking Area- As Viewed from the Back of the Rear Addition
15
Page 8 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 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
transportation choices. The TIA is subject to
change and will be finalized with City
Departments to ensure compliance 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.
Commercial
Area
4 Min.
0.2 Miles
Figure 8: Walking Time from 1020 E. Cooper to Downtown
1 Min.
180 ft.
1020 East
Cooper
Bus
Stop
Figure 9: Distance from 1020 E. Cooper to
Nearest Bus Stop
16
Page 9 of 13 1. The 2019 Greater Roaring Fork Regional Housing study was published and prepared for the Greater
Roaring Fork Regional Municipal and Organization Partnership.
The Aspen Area Community Plan
The 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP)
describes the vision for Aspen’s future based on
community values. The AACP acknowledges how
land use decisions related to affordable housing
impact quality of life, urban vitality, neighborhood
diversity and transportation choices. Developing
affordable housing via in-fill development has
remained an important City objective for several
decades. As stated in the 2000 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 10, only four deed-restricted units are located within the
immediate vicinity of the property and all are owner-occupied. The units at 1020 E. Cooper are
proposed as rentals and will play a pivotal role in providing much needed housing to traditionally
underserved individuals.
The challenges associated with providing sufficient housing in Aspen cannot be overstated.
According to the Greater Roaring Fork Housing Study1, in 2015, more than 60 percent of the
workforce in the Aspen, Snowmass area was made up of in-commuters (individuals travelling
up-valley for jobs). As of 2019, the Aspen Snowmass area experienced a 3,000 [residential] unit
shortfall, which is projected to increase to 3,400 units by 2027. The ongoing displacement of the
local workforce is only going to exacerbate negative transportation impacts to the Valley.
As stated in the 2012 AACP:
The 2000 AACP sought to limit average annual daily vehicle trips (AADT) to 1993 levels.
While we have consistently met that goal, the 2007 Entrance to Aspen Reevaluation
Report found that congestion has expanded farther up and down the Highway 82 corridor
during peak hours. In order to address this trend, the 2012 AACP reiterates the 2000
AACP goal of limiting AADT to 1993 levels, and then goes further by “striving to reduce
peak-hour vehicle-trips to at or below 1993 levels.”
Developing five affordable housing units within the Aspen infill area serves as a unique and
important opportunity to fulfill many of the objectives outlined in the AACP.
Figure 10: Other Deed-Restricted Units in
the Area Immediately Surrounding 1020 E.
Cooper
Existing deed-
restricted units
17
Page 10 of 13
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.
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.
18
Page 11 of 13
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 Exhibits D and E. 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 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
19
Page 12 of 13
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, a by-right use within an
established multi-family neighborhood in the infill area, supported by adopted City regulations
and policies. Staff recommends the following motion:
20
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 – HPC minutes January 13th, 2021
Exhibit D – Public comments provided for February 10th, 2021 HPC meeting
Exhibit E – Public comments provided for January 13the, 2021 HPC meeting
21
HPC Resolution # X, Series of 2021
Page 1 of 4
RESOLUTION # X, SERIES OF 2021
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, RELOCATION,
DEMOLITION, GROWTH MANAGEMENT, CERTIFICATE OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING CREDITS, AND TRANSPORTATION & PARKING MANAGEMENT FOR
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1020 E. COOPER AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED
AS 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 ID: 2737-182-32-006
WHEREAS, the applicant, 1020 Cooper LLC, represented by BendonAdams, has requested HPC
approval for Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Demolition, Growth Management,
Certificate of Affordable Housing Credits, and Transportation and Parking Management for the
property located at 1020 E. Cooper Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure shall
be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated
historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the
Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established
for their review;” and,
WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review the HPC must review the application, a
staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s conformance
with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2
and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve,
disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information
necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and,
WHEREAS, for approval of Relocation, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen
Municipal Code Section 26.415.090.C, Relocation of a Designated Property; and,
WHEREAS, for approval of Demolition, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen
Municipal Code Section 26.415.080, Demolition of a Designated Property; and
WHEREAS, for approval of Growth Management, the application shall meet the applicable
provisions of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.470, Growth Management Quota System
(GMQS), including the requirements of Code Section 26.470.050.B, General, and Code Section,
26.470.100.C, Affordable Housing; and,
WHEREAS, for approval of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, the application shall meet
the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.540, Certificates of Affordable Housing
Credits; and,
22
HPC Resolution # X, Series of 2021
Page 2 of 4
WHEREAS, for approval of Transportation and Parking Management, the application shall meet
the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.515, Transportation and Parking
Management; and
WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance
with applicable review standards and recommended approval with conditions; and
WHEREAS, the development of affordable housing and preservation of historic structures are
supported by numerous City regulatory objectives, as described in the City of Aspen Land Use
Code, and policy objectives as described in the Aspen Area Community Plan; and
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2021, HPC reviewed the project and voted to continue the application
for further restudy; and
WHEREAS, on February 10, 2021, HPC considered the application, the staff memo and public
comment, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and granted approval with
conditions by a vote of X to X (X-X).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Demolition, Growth
Management, Certificate of Affordable Housing Credits, and Transportation and Parking Management
for 1020 E. Cooper Avenue, as follows:
Section 1: Conceptual Development, Relocation and Demolition
HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development, Relocation and Demolition as proposed
subject to the following conditions:
1. The visual impacts of the lightwells adjacent to the resource, including minimizing curb
heights and using protective grates rather than railings, requires clarification for Final
review.
2. Continue to work with Referral Agencies to advance the project into Final design and
permit review.
3. Provide financial assurance of $30,000 for the relocation of the historic house until the
subgrade construction is complete. The financial security is to be provided with the
building permit application. Provide a relocation plan detailing how the relocation will
proceed and demonstrating the contractor’s qualifications to perform the work.
4. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1)
year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an
application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual
Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and
for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual
Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for
extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date.
23
HPC Resolution # X, Series of 2021
Page 3 of 4
Section 2: Growth Management and Certificate of Affordable Housing Credits
HPC hereby approves Growth Management, and Certificate of Affordable Housing Credits, subject to
the following conditions:
1. A total of five affordable housing units shall be provided on site. The unit types and dimensions
are set forth in the tables below:
* The 2nd level consists of a storage loft accessed from the ground level
REAR ADDITION
(Net Livable sq. ft.)
Units Beds Basement
(sf)
1st Level
(sf)
2nd Level
(sf)
3rd Level
(sf)
Total
(sf)
3 2 436.5 449.7 X X 886.2
4 3 X X 1,011.8 X 1,011.8
5 2 X X X 786.7 786.7
2. The applicant shall designate the category of each unit and shall provide APCHA with the
required documentation prior to Certificate of Occupancy.
3. The category at which credits are generated for each unit shall match the category at which
each unit is rented.
4. 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.
Section 3: Transportation and Parking Management
HPC hereby approves the Transportation and Parking Management as proposed subject to the
following condition:
1. A total of four off-street parking spaces will be provided and one parking unit shall be
mitigated via cash-in-lieu.
2. The final Transportation Impact Analysis and accompanying Mobility Measures will be
finalized at building permit. Mobility Measures shall not obstruct or occupy any of the off-
street parking spaces provided on the property.
3. The TDM measures shall be provided for a minimum of one (1) year.
HISTORIC RESOURCE
(Net Livable sq. ft.)
Units Beds Basement
(sf)
1st Level
(sf)
2nd Level
(sf)
Total (sf)
1 2 462.5 450.5 103.9* 1016.8
2 3 482.9 477.6 182.9 1,143
24
HPC Resolution # X, Series of 2021
Page 4 of 4
Section 4: Material Representations
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented
before the Community Development Department, the Historic Preservation Commission, or the
Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same
shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or
an authorized authority.
Section 5: Existing Litigation
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 6: Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed
a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 10th day of February, 2021.
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:
______________________________ ___________________________________
Katharine Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Kara Thompson, Chair
ATTEST:
________________________________________________________
Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk
25
Exhibit A.1
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
Staff Findings
Page 1 of 14
26
Exhibit A.1
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
Staff Findings
Page 2 of 14
27
Exhibit A.1
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
Staff Findings
Page 3 of 14
26.415.070.D Major Development. No building, structure or landscape shall be erected,
constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic
property or a property located within a Historic District until plans or sufficient information have
been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the
procedures established for their review. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted
without a development order.
1. Conceptual Development Plan Review
b) The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major development
projects are as follows:
1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials
submitted for conceptual or final development plan approval. If they are
determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a
public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be
provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c.
2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the
project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use
Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information
on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove
or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will
review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the
hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines.
3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the
application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to
approve or deny.
4) A resolution of the HPC action shall be forwarded to the City Council in
accordance with Section 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council, and call-up.
No applications for Final Development Plan shall be accepted by the City and no
associated permits shall be issued until the City Council takes action as described
in said section.
Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for Conceptual Review of this
application:
1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block,
neighborhood or district.
• Building footprint and location should reinforce the traditional patterns of the
neighborhood.
• Allow for some porosity on a site. In a residential project, setback to setback development
is typically uncharacteristic of the historic context. Do not design a project which leaves
no useful open space visible from the street.
28
Exhibit A.1
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
Staff Findings
Page 4 of 14
1.2 Preserve the system and character of historic streets, alleys, and ditches.
When HPC input is requested, the following bullet points may be applicable.
• Retain and preserve the variety and character found in historic alleys, including retaining
historic ancillary buildings or constructing new ones.
• Retain and preserve the simple character of historic ditches. Do not plant flowers or add
landscape.
• Abandoning or re-routing a street in a historic area is generally discouraged.
• Consider the value of unpaved alleys in residential areas.
• Opening a platted right of way which was abandoned or never graded may be
encouraged on a case by case basis.
1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces.
• Reflect the established progression of public to private spaces from the public sidewalk
to a semi-public walkway, to a semi private entry feature, to private spaces.
1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry
on residential projects.
• Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree or is
typical of the period of significance.
• Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style and
install them in the manner that they would have been used historically. For example on
an Aspen Victorian landmark set flagstone pavers in sand, rather than in concrete. Light
grey concrete, brick or red sandstone are appropriate private walkway materials for most
landmarks.
• The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less for residential
properties. A wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an AspenModern property.
1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site.
• Ensure that open space on site is meaningful and consolidated into a few large spaces
rather than many small unusable areas.
• Open space should be designed to support and complement the historic building.
1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process.
• When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can be
better integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC review must
include at least a preliminary representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed
design must be reviewed and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building
permit submittal.
• Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away from
the historic landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment systems of the
site, reduce the generation of additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into
the ground. Stormwater facilities and conveyances located in front of a landmark should
have minimal visual impact when viewed from the public right of way.
• Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements.
1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly
landmark trees and shrubs.
• Retaining historic planting beds and landscape features is encouraged.
• Protect historically significant vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Removal
of damaged, aged, or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department.
29
Exhibit A.1
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
Staff Findings
Page 5 of 14
• If a significant tree must be removed, replace it with the same or similar species in
coordination with the Parks Department.
• The removal of non-historic planting schemes is encouraged.
• Consider restoring the original landscape if information is available, including original
plant materials.
1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram.
• Simplicity and restraint are required. Do not overplant a site, or install a landscape which
is overtextured or overly complex in relationship to the historic resource, particularly in
Zone A. In Zone A, new planting shall be species that were used historically or species
of similar attributes.
• In areas immediately adjacent to the landmark, Zone A and Zone B, plants up 42” in
height, sod, and low shrubs are often appropriate.
• Contemporary planting, walls and other features are not appropriate in Zone A. A more
contemporary landscape may surround new development or be located in the rear of the
property, in Zone C.
• Do not cover areas which were historically unpaved with hard surfaces, except for a
limited patio where appropriate.
• Where residential structures are being adapted to commercial use, proposals to alter the
landscape will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The residential nature of the
building must be honored.
• In the case of a historic landmark lot split, careful consideration should be given so as
not to over plant either property, or remove all evidence of the landscape characteristics
from before the property was divided.
• Contemporary landscapes that highlight an AspenModern architectural style are
encouraged.
30
Exhibit A.1
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
Staff Findings
Page 6 of 14
31
Exhibit A.1
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
Staff Findings
Page 7 of 14
1.23 Re-grading the site in a manner that changes historic grade is generally not
allowed and will be reviewed on a case by case basis.
1.26 Preserve the historic circulation system.
• Minimize the impact of new vehicular circulation.
• Minimize the visual impact of new parking.
• Maintain the separation of pedestrian and vehicle which occurred historically.
5.4 If reconstruction is necessary, match the original in form, character and detail.
• Match original materials.
• When reconstructing an original porch or balcony without historic photographs, use
dimensions and characteristics found on comparable buildings. Keep style and form
simple with minimal, if any, decorative elements.
5.5 If new steps are to be added, construct them out of the same primary materials
used on the original, and design them to be in scale with the porch or balcony
• Steps should be located in the original location.
• Step width should relate to the scale of entry doors, spacing between posts, depth of deck,
etc.
• Brick, red sandstone, grey concrete, or wood are appropriate materials for steps.
7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof.
• Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Preserve the orientation and slope of the roof as
seen from the street.
• Retain and repair original and decorative roof detailing.
• Where the original roof form has been altered, consider restoration.
7.2 Preserve the original eave depth.
• Overhangs contribute to the scale and detailing of a historic resource.
• AspenModern properties typically have very deep or extremely minimal overhangs that are
key character defining features of the architectural style.
8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be
preserved.
• When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character-defining features.
These include its materials, roof form, windows, doors, and architectural details.
• If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional.
The determination of significance is based on documentation of the construction date of
the outbuilding and/or physical inspection. A secondary structure that is related to the
period of significance of the primary structure will likely require preservation.
9.2 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
• In general, on-site relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures
than those in a historic district.
• In a district, where numerous adjacent historic structures may exist, the way that
buildings were placed on the site historically, and the open yards visible from the street
are characteristics that should be respected in new development.
• Provide a figure ground study of the surrounding parcels to demonstrate the effects of a
building relocation.
• In some cases, the historic significance of the structure, the context of the site, the
construction technique, and the architectural style may make on-site relocation too
32
Exhibit A.1
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
Staff Findings
Page 8 of 14
impactful to be appropriate. It must be demonstrated that on-site relocation is the best
preservation alternative in order for approval to be granted.
• If relocation would result in the need to reconstruct a substantial area of the original
exterior surface of the building above grade, it is not an appropriate preservation option.
9.3 Site a relocated structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
• It must face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. In general, a forward
movement, rather than a lateral movement is preferred. HPC will consider setback
variations where appropriate.
• A primary structure may not be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new
building in front of it.
• Be aware of potential restrictions against locating buildings too close to mature trees.
Consult with the City Forester early in the design process. Do not relocate a building so
that it becomes obscured by trees.
9.4 Position a relocated structure at its historic elevation above grade.
• Raising the finished floor of the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable if
needed to address drainage issues. A substantial change in position relative to grade is
inappropriate.
• Avoid making design decisions that require code related alterations which could have been
avoided. In particular, consider how the relationship to grade could result in non-historic
guardrails, etc.
9.6 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells.
• The size of any lightwell that faces a street should be minimized.
• Lightwells must be placed so that they are not immediately adjacent to character defining
features, such as front porches.
• Lightwells must be protected with a flat grate, rather than a railing or may not be visible
from a street.
• Lightwells that face a street must abut the building foundation and generally may not
“float” in the landscape except where they are screened, or on an AspenModern site.
9.7 All relocations of designated structures shall be performed by contractors who
specialize in moving historic buildings, or can document adequate experience in
successfully relocating such buildings.
• The specific methodology to be used in relocating the structure must be approved by
the HPC.
• During the relocation process, panels must be mounted on the exterior of the building to
protect existing openings and historic glass. Special care shall be taken to keep from
damaging door and window frames and sashes in the process of covering the openings.
Significant architectural details may need to be removed and securely stored until
restoration.
• The structure is expected to be stored on its original site during the construction process.
Proposals for temporary storage on a different parcel will be considered on a case by
case basis and may require special conditions of approval.
• A historic resource may not be relocated outside of the City of Aspen.
10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed.
33
Exhibit A.1
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
Staff Findings
Page 9 of 14
• For Aspen Victorian properties, HPC generally relies on the 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance
maps to determine which portions of a building are historically significant and must be
preserved.
• HPC may insist on the removal of non-historic construction that is considered to be
detrimental to the historic resource in any case when preservation benefits or variations
are being approved.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one’s ability to interpret the historic character of
the primary building is maintained.
• A new addition must be compatible with the historic character of the primary building.
• An addition must be subordinate, deferential, modest, and secondary in comparison to
the architectural character of the primary building.
• An addition that imitates the primary building’s historic style is not allowed. For example,
a new faux Victorian detailed addition is inappropriate on an Aspen Victorian home.
• An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
• Proposals on corner lots require particular attention to creating compatibility.
10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the
predominant structure as viewed from the street.
• The historic resource must be visually dominant on the site and must be distinguishable
against the addition.
• The total above grade floor area of an addition may be no more than 100% of the above
grade floor area of the original historic resource. All other above grade development must
be completely detached. HPC may consider exceptions to this policy if two or more of
the following are met:
o The proposed addition is all one story
o The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic
resource and the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and
proportions of the historic resource
o The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is
considered to have been particularly detrimental to the historic resource
o The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable
floors as existed historically
o The project is on a large lot, allowing the addition to have a significant setback
from the street
o There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to
historic conditions that aren’t being changed
o The project is proposed as part of a voluntary AspenModern designation, or
o The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific constraints such
as trees that must be preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review, etc.
10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
• An addition shall be distinguishable from the historic building and still be visually
compatible with historic features.
• A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in
material, or a modern interpretation of a historic style are all techniques that may be
considered to help define a change from historic construction to new construction.
• Do not reference historic styles that have no basis in Aspen.
34
Exhibit A.1
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
Staff Findings
Page 10 of 14
• Consider these three aspects of an addition; form, materials, and fenestration. An
addition must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements.
Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and
a contemporary design response.
• Note that on a corner lot, departing from the form of the historic resource may not be
allowed.
• There is a spectrum of appropriate solutions to distinguishing new from old portions of a
development. Some resources of particularly high significance or integrity may not be
the right instance for a contrasting addition.
10.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
• An addition that is lower than, or similar to the height of the primary building, is preferred.
10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back substantially from
the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original
proportions and character to remain prominent.
• Locating an addition at the front of a primary building is inappropriate.
• Additions to the side of a primary building are handled on a case-by-case basis and are
approved based on site specific constraints that restrict rear additions.
• Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not
alter the exterior mass of a building.
10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building.
• A simple roof form that does not compete with the historic building is appropriate.
• On Aspen Victorian properties, a flat roof may only be used on an addition to a gable
roofed structure if the addition is entirely one story in height, or if the flat roofed areas
are limited, but the addition is primarily a pitched roof.
10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure
historically important architectural features.
• Loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices, and eavelines must be avoided.
11.1 Orient the new building to the street.
• Aspen Victorian buildings should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the
traditional grid pattern.
• AspenModern alignments shall be handled case-by-case.
• Generally, do not set the new structure forward of the historic resource. Alignment of
their front setbacks is preferred. An exception may be made on a corner lot or where a
recessed siting for the new structure is a better preservation outcome.
11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by
using a front porch.
• The front porch shall be functional, and used as the means of access to the front door.
• A new porch must be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally.
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale and proportion with the historic
buildings on a parcel.
• Subdivide larger masses into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to the historic
buildings on the original site.
• Reflect the heights and proportions that characterize the historic resource.
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
• The primary plane of the front shall not appear taller than the historic structure.
35
Exhibit A.1
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
Staff Findings
Page 11 of 14
11.6 Design a new structure to be recognized as a product of its time.
• Consider these three aspects of a new building; form, materials, and fenestration. A
project must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements.
Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and
a contemporary design response.
• When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic
resource.
• When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and finish
to those used historically on the site and use building materials that contribute to a
traditional sense of human scale
• When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size
and shape to those of the historic resource.
11.7 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
• This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
• Overall, details shall be modest in character.
12.1 Address accessibility compliance requirements while preserving character
defining features of historic buildings and districts.
• All new construction must comply completely with the International Building Code (IBC)
for accessibility. Special provisions for historic buildings exist in the law that allow some
flexibility when designing solutions which meet accessibility standards.
12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and
trash storage.
• Place mechanical equipment on the ground where it can be screened.
• Mechanical equipment may only be mounted on a building on an alley façade.
• Rooftop mechanical equipment or vents must be grouped together to minimize their
visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, it may be appropriate to provide screening
with materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. Use the smallest, low
profile units available for the purpose.
• Window air conditioning units are not allowed.
• Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Group them in a
discrete location. Use pedestals when possible, rather than mounting on a historic
building.
• Paint mechanical equipment in a neutral color to minimize their appearance by blending
with their backgrounds
• In general, mechanical equipment should be vented through the roof, rather than a wall,
in a manner that has the least visual impact possible.
• Avoid surface mounted conduit on historic structures.
Staff Findings: Guidelines applicable to this level of review address Site Planning and
Landscape Design, Porches, Roofs, Secondary Structures, Relocation, Additions, New
Structures on a Landmark Property, and Accessibility and Service Areas.
The proposal to site the historic structure at the front of this property with a detached addition is
in keeping with historic preservation goals to minimize alterations made directly to a historic
resource. There are only a few examples of miner’s cottages in Aspen that have been preserved
36
Exhibit A.1
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
Staff Findings
Page 12 of 14
as a free-standing structure as this one will be. This is particularly important given the small size
of this building type in comparison to the amount of square footage that the property owner has
the expectation to expand to under Aspen’s zoning allowances. In addition, the plan to program
the historic resource as mandatory occupancy housing will activate the historic resource in a
way that HPC has valued in past discussions.
No variations are needed for this project 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 impact 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
and is a condition of approval.
Inspection of the home on this site has revealed that it is two separately constructed Victorian
era buildings which, early in their history, were butted against each other in an L form and
“stitched” together. This creates some challenging conditions, including differing north-south
and east-west ridge heights. This property is outside of the area covered by the turn of the
century fire insurance maps that are often relied on for documentation of changes to buildings.
No historic photos have been located and exterior materials and windows have been altered
over time. Based on the existing information it has not been possible to tell whether or not the
house had a front porch. The applicant proposes one, which staff supports. It is designed so
as to extend the roofline of the existing shed pitch at the front of the building. Details of the
porch are to be reviewed at Final. The overall approach with regard to rehabilitation of this
resource is to reflect common characteristics of Aspen’s mining era homes. On-going physical
inspection and careful review of any new evidence uncovered during the construction process
will be necessary.
During review of a previous redevelopment proposal for the site, removal of the 1960s rear lean-
to addition on the north side of the resource was promoted by staff and HPC. This was primarily
because the applicant intended to use that addition as the required connector between new and
old construction, which was found to be unsuccessful because the element did not meet the
length and width characteristics typically required for this feature. As an existing addition that
has already had impacts on the integrity of the rear façade of the Victorian era construction staff
finds that removal of the 60s expansion is not a priority for the current proposal, and HPC cannot
insist on it because the project involves no requests for bonuses or variances (see Guideline
10.2).
37
Exhibit A.1
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
Staff Findings
Page 13 of 14
The application does include very modest expansions to the historic structure in the form of a
westward extension of the lean-to and a new dormer on the roof to add living space. Staff finds
that the lean-to, including an entry porch for the rear unit in the house, is appropriate and has no
impact on historic fabric. The work also helps to distinguish the rear construction as of a different
era. The detailing and materiality that can be used to subtly reinforce this will be discussed at
Final. Staff supports the proposed new dormer because, similarly, it adds living space to the
front structure without affecting historic fabric. The dormer is
Regarding the proposed new structure, it is in fact notably larger than the historic resource, but
the resource is particularly small in footprint and diminutive in height, making it difficult to express
the development rights allowed on the site in a similar form. The fact that the expansion is
detached very significantly reduces its historic preservation impact. 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
38
Exhibit A.1
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
Staff Findings
Page 14 of 14
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. Based on HPC feedback at the last hearing, the applicant reduced
mass on the upper floor and created a break in the vertical plane of the south façade so that the
new structure steps down in height adjacent to the resource. Height and mass have also been
reduced to the benefit of the neighbors on the east and west, and the alley, as depicted on the
previous page, and below.
Staff finds the design guidelines to be met for Conceptual approval. Additional details of the
front porch design, and minimization of the impact of the curb height and grates on the lightwells
serving the historic home’s basement will be needed in the next step of the review process.
39
Exhibit A.2
Relocation
Staff Findings
Page 1 of 2
26.415.090.C. Standards for the relocation of designated properties. Relocation for a
building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the
following standards:
1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not
affect the character of the historic district; or
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is
located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or
property; or
3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the
character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely
affect the integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the
historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and
Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met:
40
Exhibit A.2
Relocation
Staff Findings
Page 2 of 2
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the
physical impacts of relocation;
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and
preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary
financial security.
Staff Findings: The applicant proposes relocation of the existing structure approximately 11’
towards the front lot line and 2’ away from the east lot line. No variations are requested. Based
on HPC comments at the last hearing, the resource is to be 6’6” from the front lot line, rather than
5.’ The applicant has demonstrated that this is consistent with the approved setback in other HPC
approved projects in the core of town and it offers adequate area to provide a landscaped
foreground to the structure.
There are two other Victorian era homes on this
blockface, though a non-historic apartment building
sits between 1020 and those other resources,
disrupting any strong relationship between them.
Based on the 1896 Willit’s map seen at right, and the
current aerial image below, buildings on this blockface
have historically lacked a consistent front setback.
(Please note that the map at right also demonstrates
that the existing outbuildings were not present in the
Victorian era.) Staff finds that the proposed on-site
relocation of this home is an appropriate preservation
outcome because it will provide separation between
the historic resource and the new construction, and
will improve the visibility of the historic structure. It will not disrupt the integrity of the relationship
between this historic resource and any others.
The applicant has provided a
structural engineer’s preliminary
finding that the historic resource can
be safely relocated. Standard
conditions of approval regarding
appropriate relocation techniques,
and a security to be held by the City
during construction are included in
the resolution.
Staff finds that the relocation criteria
highlighted above are met and
recommends HPC grant approval.
41
Exhibit A.3
Demolition
Staff Findings
Page 1 of 2
26.415.080. Demolition of designated historic properties or properties within a historic district.
It is the intent of this Chapter to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have
demonstrated significance to the community. Consequently, no demolition of properties
designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures or properties within
a Historic District will be allowed unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards
set forth in this Section.
4. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the
property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the
standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is
demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria:
42
Exhibit A.3
Demolition
Staff Findings
Page 2 of 2
a) The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public
safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely
manner,
b) The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to
properly maintain the structure,
c) The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen
or
d) No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a) The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District
in which it is located and
b) The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity
of the Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent
designated properties and
c) Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs
of the area.
Staff Findings: Two outbuildings at the rear of the property are proposed for demolition. The
construction date of these buildings is unknown. Neither appear on historic maps from the
Victorian era, demonstrating that they were not built concurrent with the primary home. The
buildings are not seen in 1920s era photos of the site available from the Aspen Historical
Society. They are in place in a 1974 aerial photo of the site.
The property was designated as a representation of the 19th century development of Aspen,
therefore staff finds that removal of these structures meets the criteria highlighted above and
recommends HPC approval.
43
Exhibit A.4
Growth Management Review
Staff Findings
Page 1 of 2
26.470.080, General Review Standards
All development applications for growth management review shall comply with the following standards:MET NOT MET DOES NOT
APPLY
Sufficient Allotments. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development,
pursuant to Subsection 26.470.040(b). Applications for multi-year development allotment, pursuant to
Paragraph 26.470.110(a) shall be required to meet this standard for the growth management years from which the allotments
are requested.
MET
Development Conformance. The proposed development conforms to the requirements and limitations of this Title, of the zone
district or a site specific development plan, any adopted regulatory master plan, as well as any previous approvals, including
the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the
Planned Development - Project Review approval, as applicable.
MET NOT MET
Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed development shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to
serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole costs of the developer. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to,
water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste
disposal, parking and road and transit services.
MET
Affordable Housing Mitigation.
(1) For commercial development, sixty-five percent (65%) of the employees generated by the additional commercial net
leasable space, according to Section 26.470.050(b), Employee generation rates, shall be mitigated through the provision of
affordable housing.
(2) For lodge development, sixty-five percent (65%) of the employees generated by the additional lodge pillows, according to
Section 26.470.050(b), Employee generation rates, shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. For the
redevelopment or expansion of existing lodge uses, see section 26.470.100(h).
(3) For the redevelopment of existing commercial net leasable space that did not previously mitigate (see Section
26.470.070(e)), the mitigation requirements for affordable housing shall be phased at fifteen percent (15%) beginning in 2017,
and by three percent (3%) each year thereafter until sixty-five percent (65%) is reached.
N/A
Unless otherwise exempted in this Chapter, when a change in use between development categories is proposed, the
employee mitigation shall be based on the use the development is converting to. For instance, if a commercial space is being
converted to lodge units, the mitigation shall be based on the requirements for lodge space.
N/A
For free-market residential development, affordable housing net livable area shall be provided in an amount equal to at least
thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable area.N/A
For essential public facility development, mitigation shall be determined based on Section 26.470.110(d).N/A
Review Criteria for 1020 E. Cooper
The HPC may approve, approve with conditions or deny and application for Growth Management Review based on the review criteria
applicable to the specific type of development.
44
Page 2 of 2
This application requests five affordable housing allotments. According to Land Use Code Section
26.470.030.D, no annual growth limit applies to affordable housing. This is in recognition of the
high priority placed on the development of affordable housing to meet community needs. The
property is in the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zone district, which is intended for intensive long-
term residential purposes. The zone district anticipates dense multi-family development, as seen
in adjacent structures to the development site.
The proposed affordable housing units
are consistent with the residential uses
in the eastern area of town and the
permitted uses of the zone district. As
depicted in Figure 1, many of the
surrounding properties contain
residential multi-family dwellings,
including the adjacent properties to the
east and west.
Before Certificate of Occupancy is
granted for the project, the applicant
will work with APCHA to deed restrict
each unit at the category deemed
appropriate.
Staff finds that the review criteria for
Growth Management are met.
All development applications for growth management review shall comply with the following standards:MET NOT MET DOES NOT
APPLY
Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at any level of
affordability, including residential occupied (RO).MET
For all affordable housing units that are being provided as mitigation pursuant to this Chapter or for the creation of a Certificate
of Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540, or for any other reason:
a.The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended.
b.Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of methods outlined in this Chapter, including newly built units,
buy down units, certificates of affordable housing credit, or cash-in-lieu.
c.Affordable housing that is in the form of newly built units or buy-down units shall be located on the same parcel as the
proposed development or located off-site within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by
the City Council, pursuant to Section 26.470.110(b). When off-site units within City limits are proposed, all requisite approvals
shall be obtained prior to approval of the growth management application.
d.Affordable housing mitigation in the form of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, shall be
extinguished pursuant to Section 26.540.120, Extinguishment and Re-Issuance of a Certificate, utilizing the calculations in
Section 26.470.050(f), Employee/Square Footage Conversion.
e.If the total mitigation requirement for a project is less than .25 FTEs, a cash-in-lieu payment may be made by right. If the
total mitigation requirement for a project is .25 or more FTEs, a cash-in-lieu payment shall require City Council approval,
pursuant to Section 26.470.110(c).
f.Affordable housing units shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.100(d), Affordable housing, and be restricted to a
Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to
provide mitigation units at a lower category designation.
g.Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit's net livable
area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special
Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430.
MET
Review Criteria for 1020 E. Cooper
The HPC may approve, approve with conditions or deny and application for Growth Management Review based on the review criteria
applicable to the specific type of development.
Residential
Multi-Family
Figure 1: Residential Multi-Family Development
Surrounding 1020 E. Cooper
45
Exhibit A.5
Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits
Staff Findings
Page 1 of 1
26.540.070, Review Criteria for establishing an affordable housing credit.
Staff Findings:
The minimum size requirements are met by two of the five units. Three of the units are slightly
below the minimum size requirements prescribed by APCHA guidelines but are well within the 20
percent buffer that can be administratively approved and has been accepted by APCHA. Given
the amenities provided to the units, including private balconies and porches, outside common
space, as well as extra storage for each residence, staff finds that a slight reduction in unit size is
appropriate. Additionally, at least 50 percent of the Net Livable area associated with each unit is
above finished or natural grade- whichever is more restrictive. Staff finds that granting 12.75
FTEs to this project is appropriate.
An Affordable Housing Credit may be established by the HPC if all of the
following criteria are met. The proposed units do not need to be constructed
prior to this review.
MET NOT MET
DOES
NOT
APPLY
The proposed affordable housing unit(s) comply with the review standards of
Section 26.470.070.4(a-d).MET
The affordable housing unit(s) are not an obligation of a Development Order
and are not otherwise required by this Title to mitigate the impacts of
development.
MET NOT MET
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
APCHA Standards
Unit Type Occupancy Standard
One bedroom 1.75 FTEs/Unit
Two-bedroom 2.25 FTEs/Unit
Three-bedroom 3.00 FTEs/Unit
46
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit A.6
Transportation & Parking Management
Staff Findings
26.515.060.C, Transportation & Parking Management
Staff Findings:
Pursuant to the Land Use Code, one parking unit is required for each affordable housing (AH)
unit; in this case, five parking units for five AH units. 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. Four onsite parking spaces are proposed, including one ADA -
accessible space. These spaces are accessed from the rear alley and located beneath a covered
area associated with the rear addition. Remaining parking mitigation will be met with cash-in-lieu.
Staff supports the parking mitigation as proposed. Providing on -site parking is generally preferred
to cash-in-lieu as it reduces transportation impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. In this case,
80 percent of required parking mitigation will be met on -site, which is a major benefit for tenants
and contributes to the livability and quality of this project. Given the residential use of the
surrounding neighborhood, plenty of on-street parking exists throughout the immediate area.
Lastly, the proximity of this property to the commercial core and public transportation facilities will
further reduce vehicle use for tenants. Again, it should be emphasized that 100 percent of parking
mitigation may be met via cash-in-lieu. The applicant plans to provide 80 percent of required
parking mitigation on-site, which staff considers a benefit to tenants and the surrounding
neighborhood.
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 to satisfy the requirements
of the Engineering and Parking Departments. At this point, the applicant has indicated that
All development and redevelopment projects are required to submit a Mobility
Plan, which shall include and describe a project’s mitigations for TIA and
Parking Requirements. The Engineering, Transportation, and Community
Development Department staff shall determine whether the project conforms to
this Chapter requirements using the following standards:
MET NOT MET DOES NOT
APPLY
Project TIA and the resulting mitigation program meets requirements for
exempt, minor or major project categories as outlined in the TIA Guidelines.MET
Project provides full mitigation for the Parking Requirements pursuant to
Section 26.515.050.MET NOT MET
The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone
district.MET
If existing development is expanded, additional Parking Requirements shall be
provided for that increment of the expansion.N/A
If existing development is redeveloped, on-site parking deficits may not be
maintained unless all parking, or at least 20 spaces are provided as Public
Parking.
N/A
Review Criteria for 1020 E. Cooper
26.515.060.C - Transportation & Parking Management Review Criteria
47
Page 2 of 2
subscriptions to car-sharing and bike sharing services will be made available to tenants for one
year. Staff finds that providing a TDM for one year meets the applicability of this project.
Additionally, bicycle parking will be provided on-site, and other infrastructure improvements will
be made to encourage alternative transportation choices. The TIA is subject to change and will
be assessed at building permit. Staff included a condition in the Resolu tion prohibiting Mobility
Measures from occupying any of the off-street parking spaces on the property.
Staff finds that this application meets the minimum parking and TIA requirements for the property.
48
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
City of Aspen
Historic Preservation Commission
c/o Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street, 3rd floor
Aspen, CO 81611
January 27, 2021
Re: 1020 East Cooper Project Restudy
Dear Historic Preservation Commission and Community Development,
Thank you for the constructive feedback during the January 13, 2021 HPC hearing. We have
restudied the project to incorporate your comments, bring forth a Land Use Code compliant
project, and maintain much needed local workforce housing. This is a consolidated application
as permitted in the Land Use Code to streamline the review process. As such, HPC is asked to
balance not just the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines but other important aspects of the
Land Use Code including Growth Management and Affordable Housing Credit Certificates to
name a few. The restudy is summarized below and addressed in the attached Exhibits.
Mass + Scale
The mass, scale and height of the detached rear building has been reduced to better relate to the
historic resource. Floor area has been reduced by 484sf. The three bedroom unit proposed on the
third floor has been relocated to the rear unit in the landmark and replaced with a two bedroom
unit. Dormers are proposed on the non-historic roof to add a full height bedroom within the
existing landmark footprint. The dormers are pulled in from the sides of the landmark, do not
conflict with the cross gable roof form, and are hidden from street view in compliance with
Guideline 7.6.
The third floor massing is significantly stepped back from the south elevation to read as a two story
building (Guidelines 11.3, 11.4, 11.6, 11.7). A large deck faces Aspen Mountain to provide private
outdoor space for the two bedroom unit and to accommodate for a unit size reduction within
APCHA parameters. The gable roof is brought down to the second level and dormers are added to
further reduce mass and scale of the third story (Guideline 11.3, 11.4, 11.6, 11.7). Exterior storage
for the second and third levels (Units 201 and 301) is removed to reduce mass and scale.
Page 1 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
49
Page 2 of 9
1020 East Cooper Project
January 27, 2021 Revision
Height has been reduced 2 feet on the east/west ridge and 1 foot on the north/south ridge.
Reducing height strengthens the relationship between the landmark and the detached alley
building and conforms to Guidelines 11.3, 11.4 and 11.6.
Front Setback + Distance between buildings
As directed by Commissioners Moyer and Kendrick, the front setback is increased 1 foot to be 6’6”
to the front of the gable end and 11’6” to the front wall off the entry porch. The 10’ distance
between buildings cannot be reduced due to Building Code requirements. The length of the
parking stalls cannot be reduced any further without major operational impacts. The 3’ wide
walkway beneath the carport is the Building Code minimum and cannot be reduced. After exploring
all of these options, the only way to increase the size of the front yard setback beyond the Code
required 5’ is to reduce the size of the rear housing unit by roughly 22sf.
Figure 1: West Elevation, January 13, 2021.
Figure 2: West Elevation revised, January 27, 2021. Height of alley building is reduced, the third floor mass is reduced and
setback from the south, east, and north elevations.
Exhibit B- Application
50
Page 3 of 9
1020 East Cooper Project
January 27, 2021 Revision
The 1896 Willits Map of the neighborhood
shows a range of front setbacks from generous
front setbacks to zero front yard development.
This pattern of varying front yards is still evident
in the neighborhood and is preserved in the
proposed project (Guideline 1.1).
A large spruce tree is preserved in the middle of
the site that visually represents a feeling of
openness between the buildings and creates the
opportunity to consolidate open space for a
communal gathering area for residents
(Guideline 1.7). In addition to the community
area, meaningful open space is privatized for
each unit in the form of a porch or deck
(Guideline 1.7). This property is located on
Cooper Street/ Highway 82 and has heavy traffic, especially in the summer. Consolidating open
space between the buildings shields the residents from the noise and dust coming off the Highway.
A similar approach was taken at 210 West Main Street, Ted Guy’s new affordable housing project
that has a central courtyard area between the two buildings, and is also found at the affordable
housing project on the corner of 7th & Main.
Guideline 1.5 recognizes the importance of a progression from public to private space, through a
singular walkway to a front porch with private spaces behind the landmark. From Cooper Avenue
there is a 6’6” front setback to the gable end and 10’6” to the entrance (Guideline 1.7). 5’ side
setbacks are proposed for the east and west elevations which brings the east side yard into
conformance with the Code (the building currently sits 2’5” from the property line and a 4’ wood
fence sits between the landmark and the east property line). Right of way improvements are
proposed as part of this
project including replacing the 5’ sidewalk and existing curb and gutter. The addition of street trees
is still under consideration by the City and will be finalized during building permit review.
The proposed open space around the landmark and the open front porch are similar to other
successful HPC projects with even smaller front setbacks:
Figure 3: Willits map of neighborhood.
Page 3 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
51
Page 4 of 9
1020 East Cooper Project
January 27, 2021 Revision
From top to bottom: 201 E Hyman – 5’ front setback with 2 story side addition; 205 S. Spring – 3’
front setback with two story alley building; 623 E. Hopkins – 4’ front setback with three story alley
building.
Page 4 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
52
Page 5 of 9
1020 East Cooper Project
January 27, 2021 Revision
The project is fully compliant with the Residential Multi-family Zone District and is well below the
allowable floor area as demonstrated in Table 1. Calculations and floor plans were reviewed with
the City Zoning Officer and Building Department for Code compliance.
Table 1: RMF Zone District
RMF Zone District Dimensional Requirement 1020 East Cooper
Project
Lot Size No lot size minimum for historic properties 4,379sf
Floor Area 1:25:1 and 5,474sf 0.84:1 and 3,678 sf
Density Allowances • Less than 1 unit/1,500 sf of lot area
= .75:1 FAR
• Equal to or greater than 1
unit/1,500sf of lot area = 1.25:1
FAR
• Equal to or greater than 1
unit/750sf of lot area = 1.5:1 FAR
5 units on 4,379sf lot =
1 unit/ 875.8 sf of lot area
or 1.71 units/1,500sf of lot
area
1.25:1 FAR allowed
Max. height 32 ft South elevation 27ft 6in
North elevation 26ft 8.5 in
Front Setback 5 ft 6 ft 6in
Side Setbacks 5 ft 5 ft
Rear Setbacks 5 ft 5 ft
Parking Mitigation for 5 parking spaces - ability to
pay cash in lieu payment for all 5 spaces
4 onsite spaces provided,
cash in lieu payment for 1
space
Min Trash and Recycle
Area size
120 sf 124.72 sf
Affordable Housing
The 1020 Project is a voluntary 100% affordable housing project that requests affordable housing
credits in exchange for creating voluntary deed restricting units. Five housing units are proposed –
three 2-bedroom units and two 3-bedroom units. A breakdown of the unit sizes and locations is
provided in Table 2. A total of 12.75 full time equivalents (FTEs) are generated by the 1020 Project.
The units are proposed to be rentals that are sold to Pitkin County employers to rent to APCHA
qualified employees. According to the Land Use Code and APCHA Standards, category designation
will be finalized at the time of deed restriction by the owner but will be at Category 4 or less.
Page 5 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
53
Page 6 of 9
1020 East Cooper Project
January 27, 2021 Revision
Table 2: Affordable Housing Unit Breakdown
Unit Bed-
room
Basement
Net
Livable
Area (sf)
Ground
Level Net
Livable
Area (sf)
Second
Level Net
Livable
Area (sf)
Third
Level Net
Livable
Area (sf)
Total
Size (sf)
without
storage
Exterior
Storage
landmark
101
2 462.5 450.5 103.9* x 1,016.9 X
landmark
102
3 482.9 477.6 182.9 x 1,143.4 x
103 2 436.5 449.7 x x 886.2 6.1
201 3 x x 1,011.8 x 1,011.8 28
301 2 x x x 786.7 786.7 28
TOTAL Net Livable Area (sf) 4,845
*Unit 101 has a storage loft accessed from the ground level.
Density
Concerns about the impact of the proposed density on the neighborhood were raised by neighbors
and a few Commissioners. 1020 East Cooper is located in the Residential Multi-family Zone District
which is designated by the City as the appropriate location for high density long term residential
uses due to its proximity to downtown and existing development patterns. This neighborhood was
zoned for Tourist Accommodations in the 1960s and was designated Residential Multi-family over
40 years ago in 1975. There is no question that the proposed 5 units at 1020 East Cooper comply
with the permitted uses in the Residential Multi-family Zone District.
There was some confusion during the January HPC hearing based on neighbor comments that the
project would house 26 occupants. APCHA regulations specify the priority for occupancy of deed
restricted rental units per household. Household is defined as “a) All persons who will be occupying
a unit regardless of legal or marital status, b) a married couple, whether both will be living in the
unit or not...” The APCHA priority is one qualified person per bedroom. This means that 2 qualified
people is the preferred occupancy of a 2-bedroom unit. Tenants are requalified every two years.
The 1020 project proposes 12 bedrooms, which according to the APCHA Guidelines noted below,
means a preference of 12 people.
APCHA Regulations, [underline and bold added for emphasis]
“3. Verification of Qualified Household Size The total number of persons in a household,
including qualified adults and dependents (See Definitions), are counted in determining the
unit size for which an APCHA applicant may qualify. The priority is one qualified person per
bedroom. Proof of legal dependency and custody is required. A dependent subject to a
custody order must live in the household a minimum of 100 days per year as demonstrated
by court documents or a notarized custody affidavit in order to qualify as a member of the
household. TWO ADULTS THAT SHARE CUSTODY OF CHILDREN ARE ALLOWED IN TOTAL
THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS OF INDIVIDUALS PLUS ONE. FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE ARE
TWO CHILDREN, THE HOUSEHOLD WOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE AT MOST FIVE
BEDROOMS COMBINED. If at the time of application, a household is expecting the birth of
a child, such child will be counted as a member of the household upon APCHA’s receipt of a
Page 6 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
54
Page 7 of 9
1020 East Cooper Project
January 27, 2021 Revision
letter from a doctor stating the due date and receipt of a custody order agreement if
applicable. In establishing household size, all individuals who will be occupying a unit
regardless of legal or marital status shall be parties to or named in the application and must
submit all verification documents.”
Commissioner Halferty suggested placing more units below grade to reduce above grade mass.
We have a basement level proposed for the three stacked units – 101, 102, and 103 to maximize
below grade square footage. The Land Use Code discourages subgrade affordable housing units
by requiring that at least 50% of net livable area is located above grade. We have designed all
three stacked units to comply with this Code requirement.
Creative storage solutions are found throughout the 1020 project. Communal bike storage and
ski/snowboard storage is proposed on the non-historic building. Each unit has private assigned
storage and ample closets. Hanging storage, that can fit a kayak or storage bins, is proposed above
the parking spaces in the carport. All of these creative storage solutions provide organized landing
zones that help reduce visible clutter.
Parking
The current single family residence does not have any onsite parking. The 1020 Project is required
to mitigate for five parking spaces – one “space” per unit. Mitigation can be 100% cash in lieu with
no onsite parking spaces, or a mix of onsite and cash in lieu. Recognizing the importance of a
percentage of onsite parking, four onsite spaces, including an ADA compliant space, are proposed
in the carport accessed off the alley.
Carshare memberships will be offered to each unit for their first year to discourage car ownership,
in addition to Wecycle memberships, and onsite bike racks. A welcome packet with alternative
forms of transportation, bike and walking trail maps, and bus schedules will be provided to tenants.
All of these measures discourage car ownership and encourage Aspen’s robust alternative
transportation options. The 1020 Project is conveniently located a few blocks from downtown, bus
stops, and trails.
Historic Preservation
1020 East Cooper has been heavily altered over time - upon physical inspection it appears that
two, simple 19th century miner’s cabins were stitched together in an “L” footprint at some point
in time. Historic framing, gable roof form, and historic siding are evident inside the building but
raise more questions than answers. A lot of old lumber is found with mechanical cuts and new
nails which confuses any clear preservation plan. The 1020 Project restores window openings,
clapboard siding, and a typical open front porch. Historic structures are found throughout the
neighborhood - the restoration of the cabin contributes to the character and pedestrian friendly
experience along Cooper.
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines are addressed in Exhibit 1. Requests to relocate the
landmark to the revised 6’6” front setback in accordance with the Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines, and to demolish the non-historic and encroaching sheds are included in Exhibit 1. A
rear dormer is proposed that is not visible from Cooper Avenue and is located in the non-historic,
Page 7 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
55
Page 8 of 9
1020 East Cooper Project
January 27, 2021 Revision
over-framed portion of the landmark. The proposed dormer results from the reduction of the
third floor massing from a three bedroom unit to a two bedroom unit.
Residential Design Standards
Residential Design Standards (RDS) are required for multi-family residential projects that are not
listed on the historic inventory. The new building is subject to RDS and meets all requirements as
demonstrated in Exhibit 6.
Tree
The large spruce tree located within the property boundaries between the rear of the house and
the non-historic sheds has been previously approved for removal by the Parks Department. The
spruce tree that straddles the east property line is not proposed for removal and mitigation unless
consent is received from the Riverside Condominiums because it sits on the shared property line
with roots extending to both properties. A 10’ radius drip line was determined by the City Forester
on July 14, 2020 and is accommodated in the application.
Outreach
Neighborhood engagement is central to the 1020 Project. A project website,
www.1020eastcooperproject.com, was launched in mid-October to serve as a landing site for
information about the project and upcoming outreach events. Before the land use application was
completed, the Applicant mailed project introduction postcards to property owners within 300’
with information about the website, the project team and the upcoming project. The Applicant
also e-mailed this information to neighboring HOAs and other parties who had made comments on
a prior application in earlier hearings.
Two online meetings were held between the project team and neighbors on October 26, 2020 and
October 28, 2020 to introduce the project team and to provide an overview of the project. An
online outreach meeting was held on December 1, 2020 with neighbors to review the land use
application after it was deemed complete by the City of Aspen.
Another online meeting to review the redesign is proposed on February 4, 2021 prior to the next
HPC hearing. Neighborhood engagement is planned throughout the land use review process and
the website will be frequently updated through final Certificate of Occupancy.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this important project that balances many community
goals including affordable housing and historic preservation. Together, as a community, we can
address the lack of housing with thoughtful projects throughout town. As stated in the 2012 Aspen
Area Community Plan “the creation of affordable housing is the responsibility of our entire
community, not just government.” Preserving a historic resource as part of an affordable housing
plan is a welcome challenge that results in an authentic project with genuine character, adaptive
reuse of a historic asset, and lights on vitality.
Page 8 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
56
Page 9 of 9
1020 East Cooper Project
January 27, 2021 Revision
Sincerely,
Sara Adams, AICP
BendonAdams LLC
Exhibits
1 – Historic Preservation Reviews revised
1.a Conceptual HP Design Review
1.b Demolition of Non-Historic Sheds
1.c Relocation
2 – Relocation Letter [no change]
3 – Growth Management and Establishment of Housing Credits revised
4 – Parking and Transportation [no change]
5 – Transportation Impact Analysis [no change]
6 – Residential Design Standards for non-historic new building [no change]
7 - Pre-application summary [no change]
8 - Land Use Application
9 – Proof of Ownership [no change]
10 – Letter regarding lot size [no change]
11 - Authorization to Represent [no change]
12 - Agreement to Pay [no change]
13 - Vicinity Map [no change]
14 – Mailing List [no change]
15 – HOA letter [no change]
16 - Survey, Proposed drawing set, Renderings, and Preliminary Civil Drawings and Drainage letter
[provided for January 13, 2021 hearing]
17 – Streetscape [no change]
18 - Response to Development Review Committee comments (provided January 4, 2021) [no
change]
19- Drawing set dated February 10, 2021 revised
Page 9 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
57
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021)
1020 East Cooper Project
Exhibit 1
Historic Preservation Reviews
26.415.070. Development involving designated historic property or property within
a historic district.
No building, structure or landscape shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or
improved involving a designated historic property or a property located within a Historic District until plans
or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in
accordance with the procedures established for their review. An application for a building permit cannot
be submitted without a development order.
b) The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major development projects
are as follows:
(1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for
conceptual or final development plan approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant
will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of
the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c.
(2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's
conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report
will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for
the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence
presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines.
Response: Applicable Design Guidelines are addressed below:
Streetscape
1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or
district.
• Building footprint and location should reinforce the traditional patterns of the neighborhood.
• Allow for some porosity on a site. In a residential project, setback to setback development is
typically uncharacteristic of the historic context. Do not design a project which leaves no useful
open space visible from the street.
Response – The proposed project reinforces the traditional street grid with both buildings perpendicular to
Cooper Street. Open space is provided between the two buildings and surrounding both buildings. Visible
open space surrounds the historic building, and an existing spruce tree will be visible directly behind the
landmark.
1.2 Preserve the system and character of historic streets, alleys, and ditches.
When HPC input is requested, the following bullet points may be applicable.
Page 10 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
58
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021)
1020 East Cooper Project
• Retain and preserve the variety and character found in historic alleys, including retaining historic
ancillary buildings or constructing new ones.
• Retain and preserve the simple character of historic ditches. Do not plant flowers or add
landscape.
• Abandoning or re-routing a street in a historic area is generally discouraged.
• Consider the value of unpaved alleys in residential areas.
• Opening a platted right of way which was abandoned or never graded may be encouraged on a
case by case basis.
Response – No changes are proposed in the right of way unless required by Engineering and Parks
Departments. Sidewalk, curb and gutter replacements are proposed in the civil drawing set. Street trees
are under consideration by the Parks Department. Two non-historic sheds sit in the alley and are proposed
to be demolished.
1.3 Remove driveways or parking areas accessed directly from the street if they were not part of the
original development of the site.
• Do not introduce new curb cuts on streets.
• Non-historic driveways accessed from the street should be removed if they can be relocated to
the alley.
Response – n/a.
1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact.
• If an alley exists at the site, the new driveway must be located off it.
• Tracks, gravel, light grey concrete with minimal seams, or similar materials are appropriate for
driveways on Aspen Victorian properties.
Response – All vehicular access is proposed off the alley.
1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces.
• Reflect the established progression of public to private spaces from the public sidewalk to a semi-
public walkway, to a semi private entry feature, to private spaces.
Response – A simple straight walkway is proposed from the sidewalk to the front porch of the historic
buildings. A low fence is contemplated across the front of the property. Access to the rear building is
proposed from the alley.
1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential
projects.
• Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree or is typical of
the period of significance.
• Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style and install
them in the manner that they would have been used historically. For example on an Aspen
Page 11 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
59
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021)
1020 East Cooper Project
Victorian landmark set flagstone pavers in sand, rather than in concrete. Light grey concrete, brick
or red sandstone are appropriate private walkway materials for most landmarks.
• The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less for residential properties.
A wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an AspenModern property.
Response – A simple walkway perpendicular from the street to the front porch is proposed off the
sidewalk.
1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site.
• Ensure that open space on site is meaningful and consolidated into a few large spaces rather than
many small unusable areas.
• Open space should be designed to support and complement the historic building.
Response – Open space is preserved around the historic building in compliance with the required setbacks
in the RMF zone district. The front yard has been increased by a foot. Communal open space is provided
between the buildings and beneath the preserved spruce tree in the east yard. Decks are proposed to
support and completement the historic building by reducing mass through building setbacks. A side porch
is proposed on the landmark to relate to the front porch. Side porches are typical building characteristics
found on 19th century miner’s cabins.
1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process.
• When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can be better
integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC review must include at least
a preliminary representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed design must be reviewed
and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building permit submittal.
• Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away from the
historic landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment systems of the site, reduce
the generation of additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into the ground.
Stormwater facilities and conveyances located in front of a landmark should have minimal visual
impact when viewed from the public right of way.
• Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements.
Response – Storm water design is considered as part of the design and a preliminary plan was included in
the drawing set submitted for the January 13, 2021 hearing.
1.9 Landscape development on AspenModern landmarks shall be addressed on a case by case basis.
Response – n/a.
1.10 Built-in furnishings, such as water features, fire pits, grills, and hot tubs, that could interfere with or
block views of historic structures are inappropriate.
• Site furnishings that are added to the historic property should not be intrusive or degrade the
integrity of the neighborhood patterns, site, or existing historic landscape.
• Consolidating and screening these elements is preferred.
Response – A grill is potentially proposed between the two buildings. This location does not impact the
historic building.
Page 12 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
60
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021)
1020 East Cooper Project
1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and
shrubs.
• Retaining historic planting beds and landscape features is encouraged.
• Protect historically significant vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Removal of
damaged, aged, or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department.
• If a significant tree must be removed, replace it with the same or similar species in coordination
with the Parks Department.
• The removal of non-historic planting schemes is encouraged.
• Consider restoring the original landscape if information is available, including original plant
materials.
Response – The spruce tree in the east side yard is proposed to remain based on neighbor comments.
1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram.
• Simplicity and restraint are required. Do not overplant a site, or install a landscape which is
overtextured or overly complex in relationship to the historic resource, particularly in Zone A. In
Zone A, new planting shall be species that were used historically or species of similar attributes.
• In areas immediately adjacent to the landmark, Zone A and Zone B, plants up 42” in height, sod,
and low shrubs are often appropriate.
• Contemporary planting, walls and other features are not appropriate in Zone A. A more
contemporary landscape may surround new development or be located in the rear of the
property, in Zone C.
• Do not cover areas which were historically unpaved with hard surfaces, except for a limited patio
where appropriate.
• Where residential structures are being adapted to commercial use, proposals to alter the
landscape will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The residential nature of the building must
be honored.
• In the case of a historic landmark lot split, careful consideration should be given so as not to over
plant either property, or remove all evidence of the landscape characteristics from before the
property was divided.
• Contemporary landscapes that highlight an AspenModern architectural style are encouraged.
Response – Simple landscaping is proposed around the historic structure and will be more developed for
Final Review.
1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block views of historic
structures are inappropriate.
• Low plantings and ground covers are preferred.
• Do not place trees, shrubs, or hedgerows in locations that will obscure, damage, or block
significant architectural features or views to the building. Hedgerows are not allowed as fences.
Page 13 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
61
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021)
1020 East Cooper Project
• Consider mature canopy size when planting new trees adjacent to historic resources. Planting
trees too close to a landmark may result in building deteriorate or blocked views and is
inappropriate.
• Climbing vines can damage historic structures and are not allowed.
Response – Sod and low plants are contemplated around the landmark to not obscure historic
characteristics and to avoid accelerating deterioration of historic material.
1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of landscape lighting.
• Landscape and pathway lighting is not permitted in Zone A (refer to diagram) on Aspen Victorian
properties unless an exception is approved by HPC based on safety considerations.
• Landscape, driveway, and pathway lighting on AspenModern properties is addressed on a case-
by-case basis.
• Landscape light fixtures should be carefully selected so that they are compatible with the building,
yet recognizable as a product of their own time.
• Driveway lighting is not permitted on Aspen Victorian properties.
• Landscape uplighting is not allowed.
Response – Landscape lighting is not proposed at this time.
1.15 Preserve original fences.
• Fences which are considered part of the historic significance of a site should not be moved,
removed, or inappropriately altered.
• Replace only those portions of a historic fence that are deteriorated beyond repair.
• Replacement elements must match the existing.
Response – The existing fence is not original and is proposed to be removed and possibly replaced.
1.16 When possible, replicate a missing historic fence based on photographic evidence.
Response – n/a.
1.17 No fence in the front yard is often the most appropriate solution.
• Reserve fences for back yards and behind street facing façades, as the best way to preserve the
character of a property.
Response – A low picket fence is contemplated in the front yard to define the property and frame the
historic building.
1.18 When building an entirely new fence, use materials that are appropriate to the building type and
style.
• The new fence should use materials that were used on similar properties during the period of
significance.
• A wood fence is the appropriate solution in most locations.
Page 14 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
62
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021)
1020 East Cooper Project
• Ornate fences, including wrought iron, may create a false history are not appropriate for Aspen
Victorian landmarks unless there is evidence that a decorative fence historically existed on the
site.
• A modest wire fence was common locally in the early 1900s and is appropriate for Aspen Victorian
properties. This fence type has many desirable characteristics including transparency, a low
height, and a simple design. When this material is used, posts should be simply detailed and not
oversized.
Response – Side yard fencing is not proposed at this time; however, the applicant is in discussions with
the neighboring properties to understand their preference for fencing along the shared lot lines.
1.19 A new fence should have a transparent quality, allowing views into the yard from the street.
• A fence that defines a front yard must be low in height and transparent in nature.
• For a picket fence, spacing between the pickets must be a minimum of 1/2 the width of the picket.
• For Post-WWII properties where a more solid type of fence may be historically appropriate,
proposals will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
• Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment.
Response – The low picket fence along the front of the property meets these requirements and is
transparent as defined above.
1.20 Any fence taller than 42” should be designed so that it avoids blocking public views of important
features of a designated building.
• A privacy fence should incorporate transparent elements to minimize the possible visual impacts.
Consider staggering the fence boards on either side of the fence rail. This will give the appearance
of a solid plank fence when seen head on. Also consider using lattice, or other transparent
detailing on the upper portions of the fence.
• A privacy fence should allow the building corners and any important architectural features that
are visible from the street to continue to be viewed.
• All hedgerows (trees, shrub bushes, etc.) are prohibited in Zones A and B.
Response – The fence along the front of the property is less than 42” in height.
1.21 Preserve original retaining walls
• Replace only those portions that are deteriorated beyond repair. Any replacement materials
should match the original in color, texture, size and finish.
• Painting or covering a historic masonry retaining wall or covering is not allowed.
• Increasing the height of a retaining wall is inappropriate.
Response – n/a.
1.22 When a new retaining wall is necessary, its height and visibility should be minimized.
• All wall materials, including veneer and mortar, will be reviewed on a case by case basis and should
be compatible with the palette used on the historic structure.
Response – n/a.
Page 15 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
63
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021)
1020 East Cooper Project
1.23 Re-grading the site in a manner that changes historic grade is generally not allowed and will be
reviewed on a case by case basis.
Response – Minor grading of the site is proposed to ensure proper drainage away from the buildings.
Significant regrading is not proposed.
1.24 Preserve historically significant landscapes with few or no alterations.
• An analysis of the historic landscape and an assessment of the current condition of the landscape
should be done before the beginning of any project.
• The key features of the historic landscape and its overall design intent must be preserved.
Response – n/a. This property does not have a recognized historically significant landscape.
1.25 New development on these sites should respect the historic design of the landscape and its built
features.
• Do not add features that damage the integrity of the historic landscape.
• Maintain the existing pattern of setbacks and siting of structures.
• Maintain the historic relationship of the built landscape to natural features on the site.
• All additions to these landscapes must be clearly identifiable as recent work.
• New artwork must be subordinate to the designed landscape in terms of placement, height,
material, and overall appearance. Place new art away from significant landscape features.
• Avoid installing utility trenches in cultural landscapes if possible.
Response – n/a. This property does not have a recognized historically significant landscape.
1.26 Preserve the historic circulation system.
• Minimize the impact of new vehicular circulation.
• Minimize the visual impact of new parking.
• Maintain the separation of pedestrian and vehicle which occurred historically.
Response – Parking is located off the alley.
1.27 Preserve and maintain significant landscaping on site.
• Protect established vegetation during any construction.
• If any tree or shrub needs to be removed, replace it with the same or similar species.
• New planting should be of a species used historically or a similar species.
• Maintain and preserve any gardens and/or ornamental planting on the site.
• Maintain and preserve any historic landscape elements.
Response – The preserved spruce tree in the east yard will be protected during construction in accordance
with the City of Aspen Parks Department regulations.
Page 16 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
64
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021)
1020 East Cooper Project
Restoration
Materials
2.1 Preserve original building materials.
• Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place.
• Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments,
steps and foundations, should be preserved.
• Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired in place.
Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity.
• Original AspenModern materials may be replaced in kind if it has been determined that the
weathering detracts from the original design intent or philosophy.
2.2 The finish of materials should be as it would have existed historically.
• Masonry naturally has a water-protective layer to protect it from the elements. Brick or stone
that was not historically painted shall not be painted.
• If masonry that was not painted historically was given a coat of paint at some more recent time,
consider removing it, using appropriate methods.
• Wood should be painted, stained or natural, as appropriate to the style and history of the building.
2.3 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary
surfaces.
• If the original material is wood clapboard for example, then the replacement material must be
wood as well. It should match the original in size, and the amount of exposed lap and finish.
• Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those
should be replaced, not the entire wall. For AspenModern buildings, sometimes the replacement
of a larger area is required to preserve the integrity of the design intent.
2.4 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for original building materials.
• Original building materials such as wood siding and brick should not be replaced with synthetic
materials.
2.5 Covering original building materials with new materials is inappropriate.
• Regardless of their character, new materials obscure the original, historically significant material.
• Any material that covers historic materials may also trap moisture between the two layers. This
will cause accelerated deterioration to the historic material which may go unnoticed.
2.6 Remove layers that cover the original material.
Page 17 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
65
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021)
1020 East Cooper Project
• Once the non-historic siding is removed, repair the original, underlying material.
Response – Existing conditions beneath the vinyl siding do not show historic siding. Historic siding is found
in the interior of the building where the two historic buildings were stitched together. This siding will be
used to dimension new siding for the exterior of the historic building for discussion during Final Review.
Windows
3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window.
• Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions, sills,
heads, jambs, moldings, operations, and groupings of windows.
• Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them.
• Preserve the original glass. If original Victorian era glass is broken, consider using restoration glass
for the repair.
3.2 Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall.
• Enclosing a historic window is inappropriate.
• Do not change the size of an original window opening.
3.3 Match a replacement window to the original in its design.
• If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window must also be double-hung. If the
sash have divided lights, match that characteristic as well.
3.4 When replacing an original window, use materials that are the same as the original.
3.5 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening.
• Changing the window opening is not permitted.
• Consider restoring an original window opening that was enclosed in the past.
3.6 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original
window.
• A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window’s casing, the sash steps back to
the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, which individually only
measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are important details. They distinguish the actual
window from the surrounding plane of the wall.
• The historic profile on AspenModern properties is typically minimal.
3.7 Adding new openings on a historic structure is generally not allowed.
• Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear or secondary walls.
• New windows should be similar in scale to the historic openings on the building, but should in
some way be distinguishable as new, through the use of somewhat different detailing, etc.
• Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a façade.
Page 18 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
66
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021)
1020 East Cooper Project
• Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character defining façade will negatively affect
the integrity of a structure.
3.8 Use a storm window to enhance energy conservation rather than replace a historic window.
• Install a storm window on the interior, when feasible. This will allow the character of the original
window to be seen from the public way.
• If a storm window is to be installed on the exterior, match the sash design and material of the original
window. It should fit tightly within the window opening without the need for sub-frames or panning
around the perimeter. A storm window should not include muntins unless necessary for structure.
Any muntin should be placed to match horizontal or vertical divisions of the historic window.
Response – No original or historic windows exist. Traditional double hung windows are proposed in the
historic building. Framing within the historic building does not clearly demonstrate original openings, but
provides some insight that informs the proposed window locations.
Doors
4.1 Preserve historically significant doors.
• Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These include the door, door
frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms and flanking
sidelights.
• Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances.
• If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so that the
door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic position.
• Previously enclosed original doors should be reopened when possible.
4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening.
• Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height.
4.3 When a historic door or screen door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic
appearance.
4.4 When replacing a door or screen door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original
door or a door associated with the style of the building.
• A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement.
• A historic door or screen door from a similar building also may be considered.
• Simple paneled doors were typical for Aspen Victorian properties.
• Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic
evidence can support their use.
4.5 Adding new doors on a historic building is generally not allowed.
Page 19 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
67
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021)
1020 East Cooper Project
• Place new doors in any proposed addition rather than altering the historic resource.
• Greater flexibility in installing a door in a new location may be considered on rear or secondary
walls.
• A new door in a new location should be similar in scale and style to historic openings on the
building and should be a product of its own time.
• Preserve the historic ratio of openings to solid wall on a façade. Significantly increasing the
openings on a character defining façade negatively affects the integrity of a structure.
4.6 If energy conservation and heat loss are concerns, use a storm door instead of replacing a historic
entry door.
• Match the material, frame design, character, and color of the primary door.
• Simple features that do not detract from the historic entry door are appropriate for a new storm
door.
• New screen doors should be in character with the primary door.
4.7 Preserve historic hardware.
• When new hardware is needed, it must be in scale with the door and appropriate to the style of
the building.
• On Aspen Victorian properties, conceal any modern elements such as entry key pads.
Response – There are no historic doors on this property. A simple front door is proposed facing Cooper
Avenue.
Porch
5.1 Preserve an original porch or balcony.
• Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions, material and
spacing of balusters.
• Expanding the size of a historic porch or balcony is inappropriate.
5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details.
• Removing an original balustrade, for example, is inappropriate.
5.3 Enclosing a porch or balcony is not appropriate.
• Reopening an enclosed porch or balcony is appropriate.
5.4 If reconstruction is necessary, match the original in form, character and detail.
• Match original materials.
• When reconstructing an original porch or balcony without historic photographs, use dimensions
and characteristics found on comparable buildings. Keep style and form simple with minimal, if
any, decorative elements.
Page 20 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
68
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021)
1020 East Cooper Project
5.5 If new steps are to be added, construct them out of the same primary materials used on the original,
and design them to be in scale with the porch or balcony
• Steps should be located in the original location.
• Step width should relate to the scale of entry doors, spacing between posts, depth of deck, etc.
• Brick, red sandstone, grey concrete, or wood are appropriate materials for steps.
5.6 Avoid adding handrails or guardrails where they did not exist historically, particularly where visible
from the street.
• If handrails or guardrails are needed according to building code, keep their design simple in
character and different from the historic detailing on the porch or balcony.
Response – A simple traditional open front porch with one step is proposed facing Cooper Avenue. Framing
within the historic building is unclear as to whether the front entry was an open porch or enclosed. An open
porch is proposed at this time since it was a traditional characteristic of 19th century miner’s cabins, and an
open porch aligns with the 1896 Willits map L shaped footprint.
A side porch is proposed along the west elevation in the non-historic portion of the landmark to provide a
private covered entry to the rear housing unit.
Architectural Details
6.1 Preserve significant architectural features.
• Repair only those features that are deteriorated.
• Patch, piece-in, splice, or consolidate to repair the existing materials, using recognized
preservation methods whenever possible.
• On AspenModern properties, repair is preferred, however, it may be more important to preserve
the integrity of the original design intent, such as crisp edges, rather than to retain heavily
deteriorated material.
6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods that minimize
damage to the original material.
• Document its location so it may be repositioned accurately. Always devise methods of replacing
the disassembled material in its original configuration.
6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced.
• Match the original in composition, scale, and finish when replacing materials or features.
• If the original detail was made of wood, for example, then the replacement material should be
wood, when feasible. It should match the original in size and finish.
Page 21 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
69
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021)
1020 East Cooper Project
6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features are required to be based on original
designs.
• The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a
misrepresentation of the building’s heritage.
• When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical evidence, develop
a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and maintains similar
scale, proportion and material.
6.5 Do not guess at “historic” designs for replacement parts.
• Where scars on the exterior suggest that architectural features existed, but there is no other
physical or photographic evidence, then new features may be designed that are similar in character
to related buildings.
• Using ornate materials on a building or adding new conjectural detailing for which there is no
documentation is inappropriate.
Response – Original architectural details are lost with the exception of the gable end inside the interior of
the historic building. Any relevant historic details on the gable end will be used on the historic building
for review during Final Design. All other details will be simple, traditional, and similar to features found
on other 19th century miner’s cabins.
Roof
7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof.
• Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Preserve the orientation and slope of the roof as seen from
the street.
• Retain and repair original and decorative roof detailing.
• Where the original roof form has been altered, consider restoration.
7.2 Preserve the original eave depth.
• Overhangs contribute to the scale and detailing of a historic resource.
• AspenModern properties typically have very deep or extremely minimal overhangs that are key
character defining features of the architectural style.
7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices.
• Skylights and solar panels are generally not allowed on a historic structure. These elements may
be appropriate on an addition.
7.4 New vents should be minimized, carefully placed, and painted a dark color.
• Direct vents for fireplaces are generally not permitted to be added on historic structures.
• Locate vents on non-street facing facades.
• Use historic chimneys as chases for new flues when possible.
Page 22 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
70
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021)
1020 East Cooper Project
7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional.
• Reconstruct a missing chimney when documentation exists.
7.6 A new dormer should remain subordinate to the historic roof in scale and character.
• A new dormer is not appropriate on a primary, character defining façade.
• A new dormer should fit within the existing wall plane. It should be lower than the ridgeline and
set in from the eave. It should also be in proportion with the building.
• The mass and scale of a dormer addition must be subordinate to the scale of the historic building.
• While dormers improve the livability of upper floor spaces where low plate heights exist, they also
complicate the roof and may not be appropriate on very simple structures.
• Dormers are not generally not permitted on AspenModern properties since they are not
characteristics of these building styles.
7.7 Preserve original roof materials.
• Avoid removing historic roofing material that is in good condition. When replacement is
necessary, use a material that is similar to the original in both style as well as physical qualities
and use a color that is similar to that seen historically.
7.8 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to the original.
• If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and
have a matte, non-reflective finish.
• Flashing should be in scale with the roof material.
• Flashing should be tin, lead coated copper, galvanized or painted metal and have a matte, non-
reflective finish.
• Design flashing, such as drip edges, so that architectural details are not obscured.
• A metal roof is inappropriate for an Aspen Victorian primary home but may be appropriate for a
secondary structure from that time period.
• A metal roof material should have a matte, non-reflective finish and match the original seaming.
7.9 Avoid using conjectural features on a roof.
• Adding ornamental cresting, for example, where there is no evidence that it existed, creates a
false impression of the building’s original appearance, and is inappropriate.
7.10 Design gutters so that their visibility on the structure is minimized to the extent possible.
• Downspouts should be placed in locations that are not visible from the street if possible, or in
locations that do not obscure architectural detailing on the building.
• The material used for the gutters should be in character with the style of the building.
Page 23 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
71
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021)
1020 East Cooper Project
New Building
Response – The existing roof form is proposed to remain as is. Composite shingles that are low
maintenance and similar in style to wood shingles are proposed to replace the existing asphalt roof.
Gutters, downspouts, and roof penetrations will be presented at Final Design Review.
A dormer is proposed on the rear of the historic building, below the ridge. The dormer is proposed in the
overframed portion of the landmark and non-historic addition. The dormer meets Guideline 7.6 in the
location on the rear non-historic portion of the landmark and the small footprint. The mass and scale of the
dormer is subordinate to the landmark and does not conflict with the simple cross gable roof.
Building Placement
11.1 Orient the new building to the street.
• AspenVictorian buildings should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional
grid pattern.
• AspenModern alignments shall be handled case by case.
• Generally, do not set the new structure forward of the historic resource. Alignment of their front
setbacks is preferred. An exception may be made on a corner lot or where a recessed siting for
the new structure is a better preservation outcome.
Response – The new building is located behind the landmark and along the alley. It is parallel to the lot
lines which is consistent with the traditional grid pattern. Setback variances are not requested for the new
building.
Mass and Scale
11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front
porch.
• The front porch shall be functional, and used as the means of access to the front door.
• A new porch must be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally.
Response – The entrance to the new building is defined by a front porch at the street facing ground level
unit. The small size and one story nature of the proposed porch is similar to traditional front porches. A
small porch is proposed on the west elevation attached to an existing non-historic addition to the
landmark. This small porch provides a sheltered entrance and access to the rear unit in the historic
building.
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale and proportion with the historic buildings on a
parcel.
• Subdivide larger masses into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to the historic buildings
on the original site.
• Reflect the heights and proportions that characterize the historic resource.
Page 24 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
72
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021)
1020 East Cooper Project
Response – The proposed L shaped footprint of the new building directly references the historic building’s
footprint. The prominent gable roof form has a similar pitch to the historic building. Material changes
and facade setbacks between the second level and third level breaks up the massing into smaller modules
that relate to the historic building. The third floor unit has been significantly reduced by almost 300sf and
is setback from the north, east and south facades to reduce mass and scale. The height of the north-
south ridge has been reduced by ~1 foot and the height of the east-west ridge has been reduced by ~2
feet.
Sliding wood shutters and windows of a similar proportion to the landmark are proposed to add interest
and to break up the façade of the building. Vertical wood board and batten on the upper level of the alley
building adds depth and dimension to the front façade. Galvanized metal siding is proposed for the first
level and as accents on the upper levels to add interest to the east and west facades that face the
neighboring multi-family buildings. See also response to 11.4 below.
A bump out is proposed at the southwest corner of the landmark, in a non-historic location, to allow a
small accessible bathroom at grade which makes this unit visitable under ADA standards. Two small
exterior storage units are proposed on the west elevation of the landmark to provide additional storage.
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
• The primary plane of the front shall not appear taller than the historic structure.
Response – The primary plane of the new building is 20’ 5” (measured to the third floor deck) which is
similar scale to the 16’ 6” one story historic building, especially in consideration of the 10 feet separation.
The 10 feet distance between new and historic construction pushes the new building toward the alley and
reduced the perception of height as viewed from Cooper. The new building contextually sits between
three story buildings to the east and west of the 1020 property, and successfully completes the
streetscape in this high density residential neighborhood while preserving a one story historic cabin at the
front of the property.
Decks and open stairs are proposed behind the landmark to break up the mass and to provide relief to
the Riverside Condominiums. Exterior storage units on the second and third floor have been removed to
further reduce the south and east facades as shown below.
Page 25 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
73
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021)
1020 East Cooper Project
The preservation of the spruce tree on the shared lot line between 1020 Project and Riverside provides a
natural buffer between the properties; however, it also limits the ability to spread out and step up massing
behind the landmark.
11.5 The intent of the historic landmark lot split is to remove most of the development potential from
the historic resource and place it in the new structure.
• This should be kept in mind when determining how floor area will be allocated between
structures proposed as part of a lot split.
Response – A historic lot split is not proposed on this property; however, a new detached building is
proposed that removes development pressure from the landmark into the new construction.
11.6 Design a new structure to be recognized as a product of its own time.
• Consider these three aspects of a new building; form, materials, and fenestration. A project
must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from
the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design
response.
• When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic resource.
• When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and finish to
those used historically on the site and use building materials that contribute to a traditional
sense of human scale.
• When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size and
shape to those of the historic resource.
Response – The new building relates to building form and material application. Windows are rectangular
but are contemporary along the front (south) elevation. Building form relates to the landmark in
footprint, roof form, and roof pitch. Wood is proposed as the primary material to relate to the landmark.
The style and application of wood siding recalls historic woodsheds along Aspen’s alleys and is similar to
Figures 1 &2: Comparison of January 13, 2021 south elevation to February 10, 2021 revised elevation.
Page 26 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
74
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021)
1020 East Cooper Project
the some of the historic wood found within the walls of the 1020 landmark. Durability and low
maintenance are a primary consideration in the selection of weathered wood and galvanized metal on
the rear building.
11.7 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
• This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
• Overall, details shall be modest in character.
Response – The new building is clearly a product of its own time while simultaneously supporting and
highlighting the historic landmark. Details are subtle in nature and materials are durable to limit capital
expenses for the affordable housing residents.
26.415.080. Demolition of designated historic properties or properties within a
historic district.
It is the intent of this Chapter to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have demonstrated
significance to the community. Consequently no demolition of properties designated on the Aspen
Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures or properties within a Historic District will be allowed
unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section.
4. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the property
owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the standards for
demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the
application meets any one of the following criteria:
a ) The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and
the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner,
b) The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly
maintain the structure,
c) The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or
d) No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a) The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District in which it
is located and
b) The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the
Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated
properties and
c) Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the
area.
Response – Two non-historic sheds are located partly on the 1020 property and partly within the alley. The
sheds are not shown on the Willits Map or any other 19th century aerial photographs. As such, the two
sheds are not related to the period of significance of the miner’s cabin and are requested to be demolished.
Page 27 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
75
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021)
1020 East Cooper Project
26.415.090. Relocation of designated historic properties.
The intent of this Chapter is to preserve designated historic properties in their original locations as much
of their significance is embodied in their setting and physical relationship to their surroundings as well as
their association with events and people with ties to particular site. However, it is recognized that
occasionally the relocation of a property may be appropriate as it provides an alternative to demolition or
because it only has a limited impact on the attributes that make it significant.
C. Standards for the relocation of designated properties. Relocation for a building, structure or object
will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards:
1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the
character of the historic district; or
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located
and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or property; or
3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic ha rdship; or
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the
character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the
integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic,
architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and
Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical
impacts of relocation;
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of
the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security.
Response – The historic landmark is proposed to be stabilized and moved to the 6’6” front setback toward
Cooper Avenue. The landmark is not part of a historic district and its relocation forward provides better
visibility of the restored miner’s cabin along Cooper Avenue. The context and setting of the landmark have
significantly changed over time with three story large condominium buildings to the east and west of the
property. Pulling the landmark forward gives it street presence and positively contributes to the streetscape.
The standard $30,000 letter of credit or similar form of financial assurance is acceptable to the owner to
ensure safe relocation of the landmark.
Design guidelines are addressed below:
9.1 Developing a basement by underpinning and excavating while the historic structure remains in place
may help to preserve the historic fabric.
• This activity will require the same level of documentation, structural assessment, and posting of
financial assurances as a building relocation.
Page 28 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
76
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021)
1020 East Cooper Project
Response – n/a. The historic building is proposed to be relocated on the site.
9.2 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
• In general, on-site relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those
in a historic district.
• In a district, where numerous adjacent historic structures may exist, the way that buildings were
placed on the site historically, and the open yards visible from the street are characteristics that
should be respected in new development.
• Provide a figure ground study of the surrounding parcels to demonstrate the effects of a building
relocation.
• In some cases, the historic significance of the structure, the context of the site, the construction
technique, and the architectural style may make on-site relocation too impactful to be
appropriate. It must be demonstrated that on-site relocation is the best preservation alternative
in order for approval to be granted.
• If relocation would result in the need to reconstruct a substantial area of the original exterior
surface of the building above grade, it is not an appropriate preservation option.
Response – Relocating the house forward on the lot brings the landmark into closer relationship to buildings
along the block to the east, many of which have a zero foot front setback. A 6’6” front yard setback creates
an appropriate transition from the zero foot setbacks to the west and the more generous front yard setbacks
to the west. A more prominent location on the property highlights the landmark in a high density
neighborhood.
Figure 3: Birds eye view showing the original 5’ front setback. An updated bird’s eye view to illustrate the revised 6’6” front
setback is pending and will be presented to HPC at the February 10th hearing.
Page 29 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
77
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021)
1020 East Cooper Project
9.3 Site a relocated structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
• It must face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. In general, a forward
movement, rather than a lateral movement is preferred. HPC will consider setback variations
where appropriate.
• A primary structure may not be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in
front of it.
• Be aware of potential restrictions against locating buildings too close to mature trees. Consult with
the City Forester early in the design process. Do not relocate a building so that it becomes obscured
by trees.
Response – The structure is proposed to be moved to comply with the 5 feet side setbacks and to exceed
the 5 feet front yard setback. The perpendicular orientation of the building to Cooper Avenue is
maintained which reinforces the traditional street grid and traditional siting of historic buildings.
9.4 Position a relocated structure at its historic elevation above grade.
• Raising the finished floor of the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable if needed
to address drainage issues. A substantial change in position relative to grade is inappropriate.
• Avoid making design decisions that require code related alterations which could have been avoided.
In particular, consider how the relationship to grade could result in non-historic guardrails, etc.
Response – There are challenging grades on the property, as noted on the improvement survey. A slight
increase in height is proposed for the landmark to accommodate a single step to the front porch and to
promote positive drainage away from the historic resource.
9.5 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation.
• On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a
miner’s cottage where there is no evidence that one existed historically is out of character and is
not allowed.
• Exposed concrete or painted metal flashing are generally appropriate.
• Where a stone or brick foundation existed historically, it must be replicated, ideally using stone
salvaged from the original foundation as a veneer. The replacement must be similar in the cut of
the stone and design of the mortar joints.
• New AspenModern foundations shall be handled on a case by case basis to ensure preservation
of the design intent.
Response – The new foundation will be exposed concrete or painted metal flashing.
9.6 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells.
• The size of any lightwell that faces a street should be minimized.
• Lightwells must be placed so that they are not immediately adjacent to character defining
features, such as front porches.
Page 30 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
78
Exhibit 1
HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021)
1020 East Cooper Project
• Lightwells must be protected with a flat grate, rather than a railing or may not be visible from a
street.
• Lightwells that face a street must abut the building foundation and generally may not “float” in
the landscape except where they are screened, or on an AspenModern site.
Response – Lightwells are the minimum 3 x 3 size for egress, and are minimized to the greatest extent
possible while still providing natural light to below grade bedrooms.
9.7 All relocations of designated structures shall be performed by contractors who specialize in moving
historic buildings, or can document adequate experience in successfully relocating such buildings.
• The specific methodology to be used in relocating the structure must be approved by the HPC.
• During the relocation process, panels must be mounted on the exterior of the building to protect
existing openings and historic glass. Special care shall be taken to keep from damaging door and
window frames and sashes in the process of covering the openings. Significant architectural
details may need to be removed and securely stored until restoration.
• The structure is expected to be stored on its original site during the construction process.
Proposals for temporary storage on a different parcel will be considered on a case by case basis
and may require special conditions of approval.
• A historic resource may not be relocated outside of the City of Aspen.
Response – A letter from a licensed engineer is included as Exhibit 2. A house mover has inspected the
historic building and proposed relocation and is confident in a successful relocation.
9.8 Proposals to relocate a building to a new site are highly discouraged.
• Permanently relocating a structure from where it was built to a new site is only allowed for special
circumstances, where it is demonstrated to be the only preservation alternative.
Response – n/a.
Page 31 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
79
MIKE THELE, P.E.
S t r u c t u r a I E n g i n e e r i n g S e r v i c e s, I n c.
0296 Seven Oaks Road : Carbondale, Colorado 81623
(970) 963-3181 : Toll Free (888) 845-3911 : Fax (970) 963-3182
mike@mikethelepe.com
October 27, 2020
Collin Frank, AIA
DJ Architects
119 South Spring St. Ste. 203
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: 1020 East Cooper Project
Aspen, Colorado
Dear Collin,
This is in regards to proposed improvements to the existing residence at 1020 East Cooper Street in
Aspen. Current plans by your office indicate that the existing building is to be moved on the site to
facilitate construction of a full basement and building additions placed to the north. On May 30,
2019 I visited the project site to observe and review the existing residence in regards to its
soundness, ability to withstand the physical move and its rehabilitation needs after the move.
The existing residence is a single story wood framed structure with gable roofs and a framed floor
over a shallow crawl space. I understand that the south portion of the residence including the living
room and two bedrooms is the original construction and is considered historic. The north portion
including the kitchen, dining and an additional bedroom are a subsequent addition to the original.
The addition appears to have a concrete foundation. The crawlspace below the original construction
was not accessible. Portions of the building may have experienced some settlement considering the
limited function of some doors and windows.
Based on observations the existing building structure appears to be basically sound and should be
able to withstand the physical move. I understand that the Covered Patio along the north side of the
building is to be demolished prior to the move. The physical move of the building should be
conducted by a qualified building mover with appropriate experience in stabilizing and moving
similar structures.
Rehabilitation needs will include a full review and analysis of the existing building structure to
determine if the structure meets current building code requirements and to coordinate with the
proposed new construction plans. The existing roof structure will likely need improvements to meet
current roof snow load demands. The existing floor structure may need to be replaced or modified to
Page 32 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
80
1020 East Cooper Project
October 27, 2020
Page two
coordinate with the new basement plans. Complete construction documents would be required for
the proposed remodel and additions.
The conclusions of this review are based on visual observations only. No finish materials were
removed to observe concealed conditions and no measurements or analyses were provided.
Regards,
Page 33 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
81
Exhibit 3
Growth Management Review + Affordable Housing Credits (Jan. 27, 2020)
1020 East Cooper Project
Exhibit 3
Growth Management
Establishment of Housing Credits
Growth Management
26.470.050.B General Requirements: All development applications for growth management review shall
comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve, approve with conditions or deny
and application for growth management review based on the following generally applicable criteria and
the review criteria applicable to the specific type of development:
1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed
development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi-year allotments, pursuant to
Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet this standard.
Response – Five affordable housing allotments are requested. According to Land Use Code Section
26.470.030.D, no annual limit applies to affordable housing.
2. The proposed development is compatible with land uses in the surrounding area, as well as with
any applicable adopted regulatory master plan.
Response - The high density residential neighborhood is multi-family residential buildings with some single
family buildings. The proposed affordable housing units are consistent with the residential uses in this
neighborhood and the intent of the Residential Multi-Family Zone District.
3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district.
Response - The development conforms to the Residential Multi-Family Zone District.
4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission
approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Planned Development – Project
Review approval, as applicable.
Response - Conceptual HPC review is requested as part of this application.
5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the employees generated by the
additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection 26.470.100.A, Employee generation
rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan
shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at Category 4 rate as defined
in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide
mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable
Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant
to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate.
Response - Not applicable.
Page 34 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
82
Exhibit 3
Growth Management Review + Affordable Housing Credits (Jan. 27, 2020)
1020 East Cooper Project
6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or
finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30%)
of the additional free-market residential net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above
natural or finished grade, whichever is higher.
Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and be
restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as
amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable
housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at
any level of affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of
Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished
pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate, utilizing the
calculations in Section 26.470.100 Employee/Square Footage Conversion.
Response - Not applicable.
7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such additional
demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes,
but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage
control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services.
Response - The property is already developed. Additional public infrastructure will be upgraded as needed
by the applicant.
26.470.070.4 Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in accordance
with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions or
denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria:
a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A
recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors.
Response - The proposed units comply with the APCHA Guidelines as shown below:
Page 35 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
83
Exhibit 3
Growth Management Review + Affordable Housing Credits (Jan. 27, 2020)
1020 East Cooper Project
Table 1: Affordable Housing Unit Breakdown
Unit Bed-
room
Basement
Net
Livable
Area (sf)
Ground
Level Net
Livable
Area (sf)
Second
Level Net
Livable
Area (sf)
Third
Level Net
Livable
Area (sf)
Extra
Storage
Total
Size (sf)
Excluding
storage
Size
range(sf)
Private
Deck
Stacked
Unit
landmark
101
2 462.52 450.47 103.9* x x 1,016.9 900 -720 y y
landmark
102
3 482.85 477.6 182.9 x x 1,143.4 1200-
960
y y
103 2 436.51 449.7 x x 6.1 886.2 900-720 y y
201 3 x x 1,011.8 X 28 1,011.8 1200-
960
y n
301 3 x x x 786.7 28 786.7 900-720 y n
TOTAL Net Livable Area (sf) 4,845
*Units 101 and 102 have lofted interior storage.
A total of 12.75 FTEs are proposed. Each unit has assigned storage, private outdoor space, and interior
washer/dryers. A bike rack, locking ski/snowboard storage, and hanging storage in the carport are
proposed on the property. The revised project was required to reduce mass and scale which now
results in four units that are slightly smaller than the minimum size listed in the APCHA Affordable
Housing Development Policy. All units are within the 20% reduction allowance by APCHA. Criteria to
grant a reduction to the minimum net livable square footage is addressed below.
Permitted Adjustments to Net Minimum Livable Square Footage
The approval of the city or county of Net Minimum Livable square footage of affordable
housing units for construction or conversion must be obtained prior to the issuance of a
building permit. Any adjustment is subject to the approval of the city or county.
1. Permitted Reduction of Square Footage
Net Minimum Livable Square Footage may be reduced by the city or county based on the
specific criteria identified below, and if the permit applicant sufficiently demonstrates that
construction requires accommodation for physical conditions of the property or in
consideration of design for livability, common storage, amenities, location and site design,
including but not limited to provisions for the following:
• Significant storage space located outside the unit;
Page 36 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
84
Exhibit 3
Growth Management Review + Affordable Housing Credits (Jan. 27, 2020)
1020 East Cooper Project
Response – Extra storage units are provided for all of the units. Additional storage above parking
spaces within the carport, locking ski storage, and bike storage is provided.
• Above average natural light, i.e. more windows than required by code;
Response – All units have above average natural light.
• Efficient, flexible layout with limited hall and staircase space;
Response – The units have limited hallways and staircases.
• Availability of site amenities, such as pool or proximity to park or open space;
Response – The project is located within close walking distance to downtown, the local grocery
store, the Roaring Fork River, and multiple bike and walking trails. Open space is provided onsite in
the side yards and between the buildings. The project is near a RFTA bus stop on Cooper.
The landmark unit 102 has a private side porch; and the third floor two-bedroom unit 301 has large
decks and views of Aspen Mountain.
• Unit location within the development, i.e. above ground location versus ground level or
below ground; and/or
Response – Units 201 and 301 are entire above grade with private decks. Units 102 and 103 are
mostly above grade with bedrooms in the basement level.
• Possibility that project can achieve higher density of deed restricted units with a reduction
variance.
Response – The project is able to achieve a higher density of units with a reduction in unit size.
b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or
buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be
accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation
requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a fee-in-lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning
Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation
requirement is one (1) or more units, a fee-in-lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to
Paragraph 26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be used to satisfy mitigation
requirements by approval of the Community Development Department Director, pursuant to Section
26.540.080 Extinguishment of the Certificate. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix
of these methods.
Response - The proposed deed restricted units are not required for mitigation purposes.
Page 37 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
85
Exhibit 3
Growth Management Review + Affordable Housing Credits (Jan. 27, 2020)
1020 East Cooper Project
c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of
the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. This dimensional
requirement may be varied through Special Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430.
Response – All units comply with the 50% requirement as shown on the drawing set.
d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers
according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select
the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines
established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. The proposed units may be rental
units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal
instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City
encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with the
lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County or other similar governmental or quasi-
municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory "for sale" provision.
Response - The applicant proposes a 100% rental project with the intention of selling the units to employers
to rent to qualified employees. The owner respectfully requests to designate category at the time of deed
restriction with the understanding that units will be Category 4 or lower.
e. Non-Mitigation Affordable Housing. Affordable housing units that are not required for mitigation, but
meet the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d). The owner of such non-mitigation affordable housing
is eligible to receive a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540.
Response - The affordable housing units are all voluntary units which are eligible for affordable housing
credits.
Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit
The project proposes 5 deed restricted rental units, which equals 12.75 affordable housing credit certificate
as calculated in Table 1 above.
26.540.070 Review criteria for establishing an affordable housing credit. An Affordable Housing Credit may
be established by the Planning and Zoning Commission if all of the following criteria are met. The proposed
units do not need to be constructed prior to this review.
A. The proposed affordable housing unit(s) comply with the review standards of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d).
Response –These standards are addressed above.
B. The affordable housing unit(s) are not an obligation of a Development Order and are not otherwise
required by this Title to mitigate the impacts of development.
Page 38 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
86
Exhibit 3
Growth Management Review + Affordable Housing Credits (Jan. 27, 2020)
1020 East Cooper Project
Response – The proposed units are not affected by a Development Order and are not committed to satisfy
mitigation requirements for any other development.
Page 39 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
87
Exhibit 4
Parking/Transportation
1020 East Cooper Project
Exhibit 4
Transportation
Transportation and Parking Management
26.515.060.C. Review Criteria. All development and redevelopment projects are required to submit a
Mobility Plan, which shall include and describe a project’s mitigations for TIA and Parking Requirements.
The Engineering, Transportation, and Community Development Department staff shall determine whether
the project conforms to this Chapter requirements using the following standards:
1. Project TIA and the resulting mitigation program meets requirements for exempt, minor or
major project categories as outlined in the TIA Guidelines.
Response – A completed TIA is attached.
2. Project provides full mitigation for the Parking Requirements pursuant to Section 26.515.050.
Response –The Residential Multi-family Zone District allows 100% of the parking mitigation
be provided through cash in lieu. Four parking spaces are provided, including an ADA
compliant space for the five affordable housing units. A mix of onsite and cash in lieu is
proposed to promote alternative forms of transportation and to address the need for onsite
parking. Four onsite spaces and cash in lieu for one parking space mitigates for the 5
parking spaces in accordance with Code.
3. If existing development is expanded, additional Parking Requirements shall be provided for that
increment of the expansion.
Response – n/a.
4. If existing development is redeveloped, on-site parking deficits may not be maintained unless
all parking, or at least 20 spaces are provided as Public Parking.
Response – n/a.
Page 40 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
88
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1907
CPF
HPC APPLICATION 10/28/2020
BIMcloud: BIMServer - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 24/1020 Cooper_ Wednesday, October 28, 2020 12:35 PM | ASPEN CO1020 E. COOPER PROJECT119 South Spring St. | Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
T 970-925-3444
www.djarchitects.com
A1.03
SITE PLAN | TIA | 3/16"
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David
Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use
and in conjunction with the specified project.
None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or
plans shall be used by or disclosed for any
purpose whatsoever without the written
authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.
Sheet No.10'-0"19'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"2'-2"4'-103/4"EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN-
10' DRIPLINE
BIKE AREA
ACCESS
POINT PROPERTY LINESETBACKSETBACK SETBACKPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
3 0 ' CROW FLIES DISTAN
CE
40' WALKING DISTANCE
UP
9'-0"8'-1115/16"9'-01/16"8'-0"8'-11/2"67/16"
5'-0"
SETBACK
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 TIA SITE PLAN
0 4'8'12'
N
Page 41 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
89
DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS:
APPLICANT CONTACT
INFORMATION:
NAME, COMPANY,
ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL
Peak Hour Max Trips Generated MMLOS TDM Total Trips Mitigated
PM 3.6 8 0.02 8.02 0.00
A bike rack is proposed on the property. A bear proof trash can is proposed for the Mountain Valley RFTA bus stop as suggested by the
Transportation Department.
TDM
Provide details in the space provided for the proposed carshare participation. Carshare programs have been linked to increased use of
alternative transportation modes and reduced SOV trips. The successful project will provide access to Aspen’s CAR TO GO carshare program.
Trip reduction potential will depend on the level to which the development participates. Car share memberships can be provided to all
employees or residents of new developments.
A year membership will be provided to all initial and eligible tenants in the project. A year membership promotes use of the carshare program
and discourages car ownership.
Project Description
In the space below provide a description of the proposed project.
A single family home is proposed to be converted into a 5-unit affordable housing project. Four onsite parking spaces are proposed. A bike rack
is provided for residents and a year membership to the City's car-to-go program is proposed for each unit to promote alternative forms of
transportation and to discourage car ownership.
MMLOS
Include any additional information that pertains to the MMLOS plan in the space provided below.
Sara Adams
BendonAdams
300 S. Spring St. #202, Aspen CO 81621
970-925-2855
sara@bendonadams.com
Summary and Narrative:
Narrative:
10/30/2020
1020 East Cooper Project
1020 East Cooper Avenue
Trip Generation
SUMMARY
Trip Mitigation NET TRIPS TO BE
MITIGATED
Click on the "Generate Narrative" Button to the right.
Respond to each of the prompts in the space provided.
Each response should cover the following:
1. Explain the selected measure.
2. Call out where the measure is located.
3. Demonstrate how the selected measure is appropriate to enhance the project site
and reduce traffic impacts.
4. Explain the Enforcement and Financing Plan for the selected measure.
5. Explain the scheduling and implementation responsibility of the mitigation measure.
6. Attach any additional information and a site map to the narrative report.
Page 42 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
90
Provide an overview of the Enforcement and Financing plan for the proposed transportation mitigation measures.
Transportation measures will be implemented at the time of unit occupation.
Monitoring and Reporting
Provide a monitoring and reporting plan. Refer to page 17 in the Transportation Analysis Guidelines for a list of monitoring plan
requirements. Components of a Monitoring and Reporting Plan should include (1) Assessment of compliance with guidelines, (2) Results and
effectiveness of implemented measures, (3) Identification of additional strategies, and (4) Surveys and other supporting data.
The TIA can be audited by the City of Aspen or APCHA to confirm compliance.
Enforcement and Financing
Enforcement is the responsibility of the City and APCHA. Financing for the carshare program will be through the employers that own the unit.
Scheduling and Implementation Responsibility of Mitigation Measures
Provide an overview of the scheduling and implementation responsibility for the proposed transportation mitigation measures.
Slopes Between Back of Curb and Sidewalk
2% Slope at Pedestrian Driveway Crossings
Pedestrian Directness Factor (See callout number 9 on the MMLOS sheet for an example)
Bicycle Parking
Bus Stop Trash Recepticle
Alternative forms of transporation, RFTA schedules and information, bike/trail maps, and information about Wecycle will be included in a
welcome package for new renters.
Include any additional information that pertains to the TDM plan in the space provided below.
We are open to other options for a 100% residential project.
MMLOS Site Plan Requirements
Include the following on a site plan. Clearly call out and label each measure. Attach the site plan to the TIA submittal.
Explain the proposed trip reduction marketing/incentive program in the space provided. A trip reduction marketing programs should include
a number of the following strategies: orientation to trip reduction programs and benefits; orientation to specific alternative transportation
modes such as bus service information, bike/walk route maps, etc.; publishing of web or traditional informational materials; events and
contests such as commuter fairs, new employee orientations, bike to work days, etc.; educational opportunities such bicycle commute/repair
classes; web or traditional materials aimed at guests/customers such as bike/walk maps, free transit day passes, etc.; incentive programs
such as prizes, rewards or discounts for alternative commuting.
Page 43 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
91
= input= calculation
DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS:
APPLICANT CONTACT
INFORMATION:
NAME, COMPANY,
ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL
Minor
Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting Total
Commercial (sf)0.0 sf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Free-Market Housing (Units)-1 Units -0.19 -0.48 -0.67 -0.46 -0.36 -0.82
Affordable Housing (Units)5 Units 1.80 1.95 3.75 2.45 2.00 4.45
Lodging (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Essential Public Facility (sf)0.0 sf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.61 1.47 3.08 1.99 1.64 3.63
Land Use Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting
Commercial 2.27 0.69 0.31 4.14 0.4 0.6
Free-Market Housing 0.67 0.29 0.71 0.82 0.56 0.44
Affordable Housing 0.75 0.48 0.52 0.89 0.55 0.45
Lodging 0.25 0.57 0.43 0.31 0.52 0.48
Essential Public Facility 0.86 0.62 0.38 1.66 0.4 0.6
Sara Adams
BendonAdams
300 S. Spring St. #202, Aspen CO 81621
970-925-2855
sara@bendonadams.com
Trip Generation
10/30/2020
AM Peak Average PM Peak Average
Trips Generated
AM Peak-Hour PM Peak-Hour
TOTAL NEW TRIPS
ASSUMPTIONS
ASPEN TRIP GENERATION
Is this a major or minor project?
1020 East Cooper Avenue
1020 East Cooper Project
Net New
Units/Square Feet of
the Proposed ProjectProposed Land Use
*For mixed-use (at least two of the established land uses) sites, a 4% reduction for AM Peak-Hour and a 14% reduction for PM Peak-Hour is applied to
the trip generation.
Instructions:
IMPORTANT: Turn on Macros: In order for code to run correctly the security settings need to be altered. Click "File"
and then click "Excel Options." In the "Trust Center"category, click "Trust Center Settings", and then click the "Macro
Settings"category. Beneath "Macro Settings" select "Enable all Macros."
Sheet 1. Trip Generation: Enter the project's square footage and/or unit counts under Proposed Land Use. The
numbers should reflect the net change in land use between existing and proposed conditions. If a landuse is to be
reduced put a negative number of units or square feet.
Sheet 2. MMLOS: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable under each of the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections.Points are
only awarded for proposed (not existing) and confirmed aspects of the project.
Sheet 3. TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project.
Sheet 4. Summary and Narrative: Review the summary of the project's mitigated trips and provide a narrative which
explains the measures selected for the project. Click on "Generate Narrative" and individually explain each measure
that was chosen and how it enhances the site or mitigates vehicle traffic. Ensure each selected measure make sense for
Minor Development -Inside the Roundabout Major Development -Outside the Roundabout
Helpful Hints:
1. Refer to the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for information on the use of this tool.
2. Refer to TIA Frequently Asked Questions for a quick overview.
2. Hover over red corner tags for additional information on individual measures.
3. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will not
receive credit for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the context
of project location and future use.
Transportation Impact Analysis
TIA Frequently Asked Questions
Page 44 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
92
= input
= calculation
8
Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points
1
Does the project propose a detached sidewalk where an attached
sidewalk currently exists? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer
meet standard minimum widths?
No 0
2 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width greater than the standard
minimum width?No 0
3 Does the project propose a landscape buffer greater than the
standard minimum width?No 0
0
4
Does the project propose a detached sidewalk on an adjacent
block? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard
minimum widths?
No 0
5 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width on an adjacent block
greater than the standard minimum width?No 0
6 Is the proposed landscape buffer on an adjacent block greater than
the standard minimum width?No 0
0
7 Are slopes between back of curb and sidewalk equal to or less than
5%?Yes 0
8 Are curbs equal to (or less than) 6 inches?Yes 0
9
Is new large-scale landscaping proposed that improves the
pedestrian experience? Properties within the Core do not have ample
area to provide the level of landscaping required to receive credit in
this category.
No 0
10 Does the project propose an improved crosswalk? This measure must
get City approval before receiving credit. No 0
0
11 Are existing driveways removed from the street?No 0
12 Is pedestrian and/or vehicle visibility unchanged by new structure or
column?Yes 0
13 Is the grade (where pedestrians cross) on cross-slope of driveway 2%
or less?Yes 0
14
Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian access points from
the ROW? This includes improvements to ADA ramps or creating new
access points which prevent pedestrians from crossing a street.
No 0
15 Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian or bicyclist interaction
with vehicles at driveway areas?No 0
0
16 Is the project's pedestrian directness factor less than 1.5?Yes 0
17
Does the project propose new improvements which reduce the
pedestrian directness factor to less than 1.2? A site which has an
existing pedestrian directness factor less than 1.2 cannot receive
credit in this category.
No 0
18 Is the project proposing an off site improvement that results in a
pedestrian directness factor below 1.2?* No 0
19 Are traffic calming features proposed that are part of an approved
plan (speed humps, rapid flash)?*No 0
MMLOS Input Page
Subtotal
SubtotalSidewalk Condition on Adjacent BlocksSidewalk Condition on Project FrontageSubtotal
Instructions: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable to each measure under the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections.
Subtotal
PedestriansTOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS MITIGATED:Pedestrian RoutesTraffic Calming and Pedestrian NetworkDriveways, Parking, and Access ConsiderationsPage 45 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
93
0
20
Are additional minor improvements proposed which benefit the
pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen
staff?
No 0
21
Are additional major improvements proposed which benefit the
pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen
staff?
No 0
0
0
Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points
22 Is a new bicycle path being implemented with City approved design?No 0
23 Do new bike paths allow access without crossing a street or
driveway?No 0
24 Is there proposed landscaping, striping, or signage improvements to
an existing bicycle path?No 0
25 Does the project propose additional minor bicycle improvements
which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 0
26 Does the project propose additional major bicycle improvements
which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 0
0
Bicycle Parking27 Is the project providing bicycle parking?Yes 5
5
5
Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points
28 Is seating/bench proposed?No 0
29 Is a trash receptacle proposed?Yes 3
30 Is transit system information (signage) proposed?NA 0
31 Is shelter/shade proposed?No 0
32 Is enhanced pedestrian-scale lighting proposed?No 0
33 Is real-time transit information proposed?No 0
34 Is bicycle parking/storage proposed specifically for bus stop use?No 0
35 Are ADA improvements proposed?No 0
3
36 Is a bus pull-out proposed at an existing stop?No 0
37 Is relocation of a bus stop to improve transit accessibility or roadway
operations proposed?No 0
38 Is a new bus stop proposed (with minimum of two basic amenities)?No 0
0
3
Pedestrian Total*
Bicycles Total*
Transit Total*BicyclesModifications to Existing Bicycle PathsTransitBasic AmenitiesSubtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
Enhanced AmenitiesSubtotal
Subtotal
SubtotalAdditional Proposed ImprovementsPage 46 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
94
Category Measure
Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT
Reductions
Will an onsite ammenities strategy be implemented?No
Which onsite ammenities will be implemented?
Will a shared shuttle service strategy be implemented?NA
What is the degree of implementation?
What is the company size?
What percentage of customers are eligible?
3 Nonmotorized Zones Will a nonmotorized zones strategy be implemented?NA 0.00%
0.00%
Category Measure
Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT
Reductions
Will a network expansion stragtegy be implemented?NA
What is the percentage increase of transit network coverage?
What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips?
Will a service frequency/speed strategy be implemented?NA
What is the percentage reduction in headways (increase in frequency)?
What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips?
What is the level of implementation?
Will a transit access improvement strategy be implemented?NA
What is the extent of access improvements?
7 Intercept Lot Will an intercept lot strategy be implemented?NA 0.00%
0.00%
Category Measure
Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT
Reductions
Will there be participation in TOP?No
What percentage of employees are eligible?100%
Is a transit fare subsidy strategy implemented?NA
What percentage of employees are eligible?
What is the amount of transit subsidy per passenger (daily equivalent)?
Is an employee parking cash-out strategy being implemented?NA
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a workplace parking pricing strategy implemented?NA
What is the daily parking charge?
What percentage of employees are subject to priced parking?
Is a compressed work weeks strategy implemented?NA
What percentage of employees are participating?
What is the workweek schedule?
Is an employer sponsered shuttle program implemented?NA
What is the employer size?
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a carpool matching strategy implemented?NA
What percentage of employees are eligble?
Is carshare participation being implemented?Yes
How many employee memberships have been purchased?<100
What percentage of employees are eligble?100%
Is participation in the bikeshare program WE-cycle being implemented?NA
How many memberships have been purchased?<100
What percentage of employees/guests are eligble?100%
Is an end of trip facilities strategy being implemented?NA
What is the degree of implementation?
What is the employer size?
Is a self-funded emergency ride home strategy being implemented?NA
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a carpool/vanpool priority parking strategy being implemented?NA
What is the employer size?
What number of parking spots are available for the program?
Is a private employer shuttle strategy being implemented?NA
What is the employer size?
What percentage of employees are eligible?
Is a trip reduction marketing/incentive program implemented?Yes
What percentage of employees/guests are eligible?
0.44%
0.00%
0.44%
1. 22% work trips represents a mixed-used site (SF Bay Area Travel Survey). See Assumptions Tab for more detail.
Maximum Reduction Allowed in CategoryTransit System Improvements Strategies1
2
4
5
6
8
9
10
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category
Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.00%
Bikeshare Program
0.00%
TDM Input Page
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%Commute Trip Reduction Programs StrategiesOnsite Servicing
Shared Shuttle Service
Neighborhood/Site Enhancements Strategies0.00%
0.00%
Network Expansion
Service Frequency/Speed
Transit Access Improvement
Participation in TOP
Transit Fare Subsidy
Employee Parking Cash-Out
Workplace Parking Pricing
Compressed Work Weeks
Employer Sponsored Vanpool
Carpool Matching
Carshare Program
Self-funded Emergency Ride Home
Carpool/Vanpool Priority Parking
Private Employer Shuttle
Trip Reduction Marketing/Incentive
Program
End of Trip Facilities
Cross Category Maximum Reduction, Neighborhood and Transit
Global Maximum VMT Reductions
11
12
13
14
15
21
16
17
18
19
20
Instructions TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. Proposed TDM or
MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will not receive credit for
measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the context of project
location and future use.
Page 47 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
95
Residential Design Standards
Administrative Compliance Review Applicant Checklist - Multi-family Development
Standard Complies Alternative
Compliance N/A Sheet #(s)/Notes
B.1.Building Orientation
(Flexible)
B.2.Garage Access
(Non-flexible)
B.3.Garage Placement
(Non-flexible)
B.4.Entry Connection
(Non-flexible)
B.5Principle Window
(Flexible)
Instructions: Please fill out the checklist below, marking whether the proposed design complies with the applicable standard as written or is requesting Alternative Compliance (only
permitted for Flexible standards). Also include the sheet #(s) demonstrating the applicable standard. If a standard does not apply, please mark N/A and include in the Notes section why
it does not apply. If Alternative Compliance is requested for a Flexible standard, include in the Notes section how the proposed design meets the intent of the standard(s). Additional
sheets/graphics may be attached.
Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the
applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review.
Address:
Parcel ID:
Zone District/PD:
Representative:
Email:
Phone:
Page 1 of 1
exhibit 6
Page 48 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
96
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Amy Simon, amy.simon@cityofaspen.com
DATE: August 27, 2019
PROJECT LOCATION: 1020 E. Cooper Avenue
REQUEST: Major Development, Demolition, Relocation, Growth Management, Affordable Housing Credits
REPRESENTATIVE: Sara Adams, sara@bendonadams.com
DESCRIPTION: 1020 E. Cooper is a landmark designated property which contains a heavily altered Victorian
era single family home. Two outbuildings, date of construction unknown, sit at the rear of the site. The lot
is 4,379 square feet in size and is located in the RMF zone district. Because the minimum lot area for the
zone district is 6,000 square feet, 1020 E. Cooper is considered to be a non-conforming lot of record.
Landmark designation permits the site to be developed with any of the allowed RMF uses, according to
Section 26.312 of the Municipal Code.
A potential purchaser in interested in creating multi-family housing and affordable housing credits. This will
require review by the Historic Preservation Commission which is likely to include a proposal to demolish the
sheds at the rear of the site, to demolish non-historic additions to the miner’s cottage, to re-position the
miner’s cottage and to expand above and below grade. Setback variations may be requested. A tree that
straddles the east property line is to be protected and retained in the redevelopment.
Please refer to the RMF zone district for guidance on dimensional requirements. The parking requirement is
1 parking unit per dwelling unit which may be provided as a mix of on-site parking, TIA measures and cash-
in-lieu. At least one on-site space would likely need to be accessible and approximately twice the width of
a standard parking space. In addition, the alley frontage will need to include adequate trash and recycling
storage and utilities.
Prior to the preparation of a recommendation to HPC, staff will refer the application to other City
Departments for comments and proposed conditions of approval. The applicant will be required to prepare
a Transportation Impact Analysis for Engineering Review.
The first review step will be Conceptual design, Demolition, Relocation, Variations, Growth Management,
and Affordable Housing Credits. Following Conceptual approval, staff will inform Council of HPC’s
decision, allowing them the opportunity to “call up” any aspects of the approval that they find require
additional discussion. This is standard practice for all significant reviews before HPC.
The last step is Final design review.
RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS:
Section Number Section Title
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.304.035 Neighborhood Outreach
Page 49 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
97
26.312.050 Nonconforming Lots of Record
26.415.070.D Major Development
26.415.080 Demolition
26.415.090 Relocation
26.415.110.C Historic Preservation Variations, Benefits
26.470.080 General Review Standards: Affordable Housing
26.470.100.C Planning and Zoning Commission Applications, Affordable Housing
26.515 Transportation and Parking Management
26.540.070 Review Criteria for Establishing an Affordable Housing Credit
26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements
26.600 Impact Fees
26.620 School Land Dedication
26.710.090 Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Zone District
12.10.050 Trash Storage Space Required for Multi-Family Developments
For your convenience – links to the Land Use Application and Land Use Code are below:
Land Use Application Land Use Code Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
Review by: Staff for completeness and recommendations
HPC for determinations
Public Hearing: Yes
Neighborhood Outreach: Yes
Referrals: Yes, Engineering, Parks, APCHA, Environmental Health
Fees: Conceptual- $3,250 for 10 billable hours of planning staff time plus referral
fees in the amount of $325 deposit for 1 hour of Engineering Review, a $975
flat fee for Parks, a $975 flat fee for APCHA and a $975 flat fee for
Environmental Health for a total of $6,500. (Additional/ lesser deposit hours
will be billed/ refunded at a rate of $325 per hour)
Final- $1,950 for 6 billable hours of planning staff time. (Additional/
lesser deposit hours will be billed/ refunded at a rate of $325 per hour)
APPLICATION CHECKLIST: Below is a list of submittal requirements. Please email the application as one
pdf to amy.simon@cityofaspen.com for an initial determination of completeness.
Completed Land Use Application and signed Fee Agreement.
Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).
Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of
a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and
encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all
Page 50 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
98
owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements
affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application.
Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name,
address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.
HOA Compliance form
List of adjacent property owners for both properties within 300’ for public hearing.
An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, certified by a
registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado.
A written description of the proposal and an explanation of how the proposed development complies
with the relevant review standards and design guidelines (please note that landmarks are except from the
Residential Design Standards.)
Scaled site plan and drawings of all proposed structures or additions.
A written report from a licensed engineer or architect regarding the soundness of the miner’s cottage to
be relocated.
Evidence of the financial ability to undertake the safe relocation, preservation and repair of the miner’s
cottage through the posting of bonds or other financial measures deemed appropriate.
Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated historic
property including photographs and other exhibits, as needed, to accurately depict location and extent of
proposed work.
The net livable square footage of each residential unit in the development.
If applicable, the conditions under which reductions from net minimum livable square footage
requirements are requested according to APCHA guidelines.
Proposed Category Designation of sale or rental restriction for each unit in the development.
Proposed employees housed by the affordable housing unit in increments of no less than one one-
hundredth (0.01) according to Section 26.470.100.2- Employees Housed.
A mobility plan meeting the requirements of Chapter 26.515 of the Aspen Municipal Code.
For Conceptual the following items will need to be submitted in addition to the items listed above:
• Graphics identifying preliminary selection of primary exterior building materials.
• A preliminary stormwater design.
Page 51 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
99
For Final the following items will need to be submitted in addition to the items listed above:
• Drawings of the street facing facades must be provided at ¼” scale.
• Final selection of all exterior materials and sample or clearly illustrated photographs.
• A lighting plan and landscape plan, including any visible stormwater mitigation features.
Once the copy is deemed complete by staff, the application fee will be requested.
Disclaimer:
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current
zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate.
The summary does not create a legal or vested right.
Page 52 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
100
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM
Complete only if required by the PreApplication checklist
Project and Location
Applicant:
Zone District: Gross Lot Area: Net Lot Area:
**Please refer to section 26.575.020 for information on how to calculate Net Lot Area
Please fill out all relevant dimensions
Single Family and Duplex Residential
1) Floor Area (square feet)
2) Maximum Height
3) Front Setback
4) Rear Setback
5) Side Setbacks
6) Combined Side Setbacks
7) % Site Coverage
Existing Allowed Proposed Multi-family Residential
1) Number of Units
2) Parcel Density (see 26.710.090.C.10)
3) FAR (Floor Area Ratio)
4) Floor Area (square feet)
4) Maximum Height
5) Front Setback
6) Rear Setback
Existing Allowed Proposed
8) Minimum distance between buildings
Proposed % of demolition
7) Side Setbacks
Proposed % of demolition
Commercial
Proposed Use(s)
Existing Allowed Proposed
1) FAR (Floor Area Ratio)
2) Floor Area (square feet)
3) Maximum Height
4) Off-Street Parking Spaces
5) Second Tier (square feet)
6) Pedestrian Amenity (square feet)
Proposed % of demolition
Existing non-conformities or encroachments:
Variations requested:
Lodge
Additional Use(s)
1) FAR (Floor Area Ratio)
2) Floor Area (square feet)
3) Maximum Height
4) Free Market Residential(square feet)
4) Front setback
5) Rear setback
6) Side setbacks
7) Off-Street Parking Spaces
8) Pedestrian Amenity (square feet)
Proposed % of demolition
Existing Allowed Proposed
Page 53 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
101
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020
LAND USE APPLICATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTIVATIVE:
Description: Existing and Proposed Conditions
Review: Administrative or Board Review
Required Land Use Review(s):
Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) required fields:
Net Leasable square footage Lodge Pillows Free Market dwelling units
Affordable Housing dwelling units Essential Public Facility square footage
Have you included the following? FEES DUE: $
Pre-Application Conference Summary
Signed Fee Agreement
HOA Compliance form
All items listed in checklist on PreApplication Conference Summary
Name:
Address:
Phone#: email:
Address:
Phone #: email:
Name:
Project Name and Address:
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)
Page 54 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
102
Holland & Hart LLP Attorneys at Law
Phone (970) 925-3476 Fax (970) 925-9367 www.hollandhart.com
600 East Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, CO 81611-1991
Aspen Billings Boise Boulder Carson City Cheyenne Colorado Springs Denver Denver Tech Center Jackson Hole Las Vegas Reno Salt Lake City Santa Fe Washington, D.C.
Thomas J. Todd
Phone (970) 925-3476
Fax (970) 925-9367
ttodd@hollandhart.com
November 20, 2020
Ms. Amy Simon
Community Development Department
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Proof of Ownership in Support of Development Application for the East 13.79’ of Lot O and
all of Lot P, Block 34, East Aspen Addition to the City of Aspen, also known as 1020 East
Cooper Avenue, Aspen Colorado 81611
Dear Amy:
Holland & Hart represents 1020 Cooper LLC, a Colorado limited liability company. The
undersigned has been requested by our client to provide you with proof of ownership of the above
referenced real property (the “Property”).
The undersigned, an attorney licensed in the State of Colorado, hereby informs you that the
record owner of the Property is 1020 Cooper LLC, a Colorado limited liability company. 1020 Cooper
LLC has full right, power and authority to apply for this Development Application. The complete legal
description of the Property is as follows:
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.
The Property is subject to the liens, encumbrances, easements, and restrictions listed on Exhibit “A”
attached hereto.
Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. Todd
of Holland & Hart LLP
TJT/sm
Attachment
cc: 1020 Cooper LLC
Ms. Sara Adams, BendonAdams
Page 55 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
103
2
EXHIBIT “A”
List of Liens, Encumbrances, Easements and Restrictions
(Note: All recording information is based on the Pitkin County, State of Colorado real
property records.)
1. Taxes and assessments for the year 2020 and subsequent years only, a lien not yet
due or payable.
2. Reservations and exceptions contained in the U. S. Patent recorded October 21, 1955
in Book 180 at Page 454.
3. Reservations and exceptions contained in U. S. Patent recorded August 29, 1958 in
Book 185 at Page 69.
4. Easements, conditions, covenants, restrictions, reservations and notes on the Plat of
East Aspen Addition to the City of Aspen recorded August 24, 1959 in Plat Book 2A
at Page 252
5. Easements, conditions, covenants, restrictions, reservations and notes on the Plat of
1020 E Cooper Lot Line Adjustment/Subdivision Exemption Recorded October 8,
2019 in Plat Book 126 at Page 7.
6. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in City of Aspen Historic
Preservation Commission Resolution No. 21, Series of 2019 recorded December 26,
2019 at Reception No. 661468.
15614683_v3
Page 56 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
104
T 970.925.3476 F 970.925.9367
600 East Main Street, Suite 104
Aspen, CO 81611-1991
www.hollandhart.com
Alaska
Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
Utah
Washington, D.C.
Wyoming
Thomas J. Todd
Phone (970) 925-3476
Fax (970) 925-9367
ttodd@hollandhart.com
October 30, 2020
Via E-Mail
Ms. Amy Simon
Historic Preservation Officer
Community Development Office
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
James R. True, Esq.
City Attorney
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Pending Historic Preservation Commission Application for 1020 E. Cooper
Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 8161, aka the East 13.79’ of Lot O and all of Lot P,
East Aspen Addition to City of Aspen
Dear Amy and Jim:
Holland & Hart LLP represents 1020 Cooper LLC, the owner of the above referenced
property (the “Subject Property”).
This letter is in response to the comments contained in the September 8, 2020 letter
submitted by counsel for Cooper Avenue Victorian Condominium unit owner Bukk Carleton
relative to the Lot Line Adjustment/Subdivision Exemption Plat for the Subject Property,
recorded on October 8, 2019 at Plat Book 126 at Page 7 under Reception No. 659373 of the
Pitkin County real property records (the “Boundary Adjustment Plat”).
By way of background, the prior owner of the Subject Property, longtime Aspen
journalist Su Lum, acquired the Subject Property in 1972 and owned it until her death in 2017.
The 3.79’ wide strip of land that serves as the western portion of the Subject Property (the “Strip
of Land”) was the subject of a quiet title action brought by Ms. Lum against the Cooper Avenue
Victorian Condominiums which settled in 2006, resulting in the owners of all five condominium
units within the Cooper Avenue Victorian Condominiums and Cooper Avenue Victorian
Condominium Association, Inc. quit claiming their interests in the Strip of land to Ms. Lum.
As part of the disposition of the Subject Property from the Estate of Su Lum, 1020
Cooper LLC processed with the City of Aspen the Boundary Adjustment Plat to confirm the
Page 57 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
105
Ms. Amy Simon
Historic Preservation Officer
October 30, 2020
Page 2
www.hollandhart.com
Alaska
Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
Utah
Washington, D.C.
Wyoming
inclusion of the Strip of Land together with the eastern 10’ of Lot O within the historically
recognized boundaries of the Subject Property.
The Boundary Adjustment Plat process was specifically prescribed by Community
Development office staff and an application for a Boundary Adjustment under the
Administrative Subdivision procedures in Section 26.480.050(c) of the Municipal Code was
submitted and duly processed, resulting in the City-approved and recorded Boundary Adjustment
Plat referenced above. Thus, no application for a Major Subdivision Approval was applicable or
required.
It is also worth noting that Cooper Avenue Victorian Condominium Association, Inc.
caused to be recorded a First Amended Condominium Map on December 13, 2011 in Plat Book
98 at Page 93 under Reception No. 585047 (also administratively approved by the City of
Aspen) which expressly recognized the Strip of Land as being excluded from the Cooper Avenue
Victorian Condominiums General Common Elements, noting the 2006 quit claim conveyances
of the Strip of Land described above.
Any time period for challenging the processing and approval of the Boundary Adjustment
Plat has long passed and the Cooper Avenue Victorian Condominium Association and the
individual unit owners therein have absolutely no claim or interest in the Strip of Land, and they
have no basis for challenging the composition or description of the Subject Property as set forth
in the Boundary Adjustment Plat. Accordingly, we view the neighbor’s objections to the
inclusion of this westerly portion of the Subject Property with the pending HPC application to be
unsupported and wholly without merit.
Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions or desire additional information.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. Todd
for Holland & Hart LLP
TJT
cc: 1020 Cooper LLC
Sara Adams, BendonAdams
15605911_v1
Page 58 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
106
Page 59 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
107
Page 60 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
108
10221014
1039
1039
1039
1039
1039
1039
1039
1039
1039
1039
1039
1039
1039
1039
1039
1039
1039
1039
1039
1101
1034
1024
1020
1034
1034
1024
1034
1034
1031
1022
1024
1015
1034
1034
1010
1015
1024
1034
1034
1024
1034
1015
1034
1016
1034
1024
1034
1020
1024
1034
10341033
1034
1024
1015
1024
1034
1034
1018
1024
1015
203
1039
1004
950 1039
1001
1039
1020
1020
960
1039
960
1020
1039
1020
1004
1039
1039
1020
960
1039
1001
1039
1004
1039
1039
1039
1020
1020
1039
960
1039
950
926
900
926926
926
926
923
926926900
950
947
1001
943
1001
917
1001
1012
943
1001
933
1012
1012
1001
927
1012
1001
1012
1006
945
909
922
901
901
909
1007
1007
928
901
901
1007
1007
909
901
926
909
909
1007
1006
1006
1001
909
901
941
901
1007
1001
935
901
909
901
1007
909
1000
939
914
909
901
901
909
909
1020
909
910
900
934
901
901
909
901
949
924
909
1007
909
PD
PD
PD
R-15
R/MF
E CO
O
P
E
R
A
V
E
E DU
R
A
N
T
A
V
ECLEVELAND STE CO
O
P
E
R
A
V
ECLEVELAND STE CO
O
P
E
R
A
V
E
E HY
M
A
N
A
V
E
E HY
M
A
N
A
V
E
Date: 10/1/2020
Geographic Information Systems
This map/drawing/image is a graphical
representation of the features
depicted and is not a legal representation.
The accuracy may change
depending on the enlargement or reduction.
Copyright 2020 City of Aspen GIS
0 0.01 0.020.01
mi
When printed at 8.5"x11"
4
Legend
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)
Emissions Inventory Boundary
(EIB)
City of Aspen
Greenline 8040
Stream Margin
Hallam Bluff ESA
Historic Sites
Historic Districts
Parcels
Zone Overlay
DRAINAGE
LP PD
DRAIN/TRANS
GCS PD
L PD
LP
PD
Zoning
R-3 High Density Residential
AH Affordable Housing
R/MF Residential/Multi-Family
R/MFA Residential/Multi-Family
R-6 Medium Density Residential
R-15 Moderate Density
Residential
R-15-A Moderate Density
Residential
R-15B Moderate Density
Residential
R-30 Low Density Residential
RR Rural Residential
L Lodge
CL Commercial Lodge
CC Commercial Core
C-1 Commercial
SCI Service Commercial
Industrial
NC Neighborhood Commercial
MU Mixed Use
SKI Ski Area Base
C Conservation
OS Open Space
P Park
Scale: 1:1,349
1020 E Cooper
Vicinity Map
Page 61 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
109
Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius
Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web
site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to
ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic
system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral
estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County
does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners.
Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning
the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this
site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and
reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the
user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and
liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or
data obtained on this web site.
This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be
printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to
page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the
margins such that they no longer line up on the labels
sheet. Print actual size.
From Parcel: 273718232006 on 10/29/2020
Instructions:
Disclaimer:
http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com
Page 62 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
110
TROUSDALE JEAN VICK LVG TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 9983
WEISS BERNIE
ASPEN, CO 81611
625 E MAIN ST 102B #211
ASPEN VILLAGER LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
1001 E COOPER AVE # 6
BALDWIN MELINDA LLC
WINNETKA, IL 60093
835 ASH ST
MEAD GEORGE
WISCONSIN RAPIDS, WI 54404
550 THIRD ST SO
VINCENTI CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
1015 E HYMAN AVE
PARGITER SALLY J
ASPEN, CO 81611
943 E COOPER #C
PHARR MARK R TIGER III & ALLYSON
LAFAYETTE, LA 70508
101 BONNER DR
SCHULTZ BRIAN & ELIZABETH
DALLAS, TX 75220
9301 MEADOWBROOK DR
UTE 202 LLC
TAMARAC, FL 33321
7457 GRANVILLE DR #301
PRESUTTI DANA
ASPEN, CO 816112119
1001 E COOPER AVE #4
HYMAN AVENUE VICTORIAN CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
990 E HYMAN AVE
CHILES JAMES T & JENNIFER ALBRECHT
DALLAS, TX 75202
901 MAIN #2600
SUNRISE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
1007 E HYMAN AVE
HORWITZ LEONARD REV TRUST
KANSAS CITY, MO 641113413
720 W 44TH ST #2006
BLUE SKYE DAISY BROOKE PARTNERSHIP LLLP
ASPEN, CO 81611
1024 E HOPKINS #17
EHRMAN HOPE J
LAKE FOREST, IL 60045
170 MARION AVE
MEYERSTEIN FAMILY TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
115 BOOMERANG RD #5103
PALMERO KEN
CARBONDALE , CO 81623
11 OLD ORCHARD RD
MONTGOMERY JOHN
MEMPHIS, TN 38103
41 UNION AVE #200
MAYOTTE MONICA & TERRY
BOCA RATON, FL 33486
860 SW 21ST ST
MATHIESON MICHAEL
DENVER, CO 80206
155 STEELE ST #617
BOUSTEAD DOUGLAS
ADIRONDACK, NY 12808
PO BOX 186
1039 E COOPER LLC
COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80906
2003 PINE GROVE AVE
ASPEN RIVERSIDE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
1039 E COOPER AVE #15A
POLICARO FRANCO G
ASPEN, CO 81611
1004 E DURANT AVE #2
LITZENBERGER JOHN
ASHEVILLE, NC 28804
125 HOWLAND RD
PORTER FRANK H JR
CHAGRIN FALLS, OH 44022
33970 MEADOW LN
HOLSTEIN MATTHEW & KATE
ASPEN, CO 81611
947 E COOPER AVE
COOPER AVE VICTORIAN CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
1012 E COOPER AVE
Page 63 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
111
WISE PEGGY S QPRT
WINNETKA, IL 60093
1401 TOWER RD
NORTHROCK HOLDINGS LLC
WARWICK WK 06 BERMUDA,
UNIT 22 MIZZENTOP
MIZZENTOP DR
BAYLEY LORI A
MALDEN, MA 02148
2 BOWER ST
LUMEN LLC
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
455 MARKET ST 23RD FLOOR
KANIPE J STEPHEN & PATRICIA
ASPEN, CO 81611
1015 E HYMAN AVE #3
TACHE MARK C
ASPEN, CO 81611
1001 E HYMAN
SILVER GLEN TOWNHOUSES CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
E HYMAN AVE
26 EAU CLAIRE LLC
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130
600 PORT OF NEW ORLEANS PL #9F
PACK R MICHAEL
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108
5005 TEXAS ST STE 305
BERNI SHAEL MORGAN
GREENWICH, CT 06830
660 STEAMBOAT RD 4TH FL
NARK WILSON JANIS A
ASPEN, CO 81611-4117
1039 E COOPER #5
KESSLER CONDOS ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
950/960 E DURANT AVE
ROARING FORK 70 LLC
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140
3103 N BAY RD
JACOBSON DAVID & ANDREA LYNN
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48302
5255 PONVALLEY RD
WUSLICH DIANE S
ASPEN, CO 81611
1007 E HYMAN AVE #8
ARKIN JONATHAN
ASPEN, CO 816111935
625 E MAIN ST #102B
EUBANK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
1022 E HYMAN AVE
RANGER LIVING TRUST
CHESTERFIELD, MO 63017
445 WHITESTONE FARM DR
RK PARTNERS LLC
SHORT HILLS, NJ 07078
31 WASHINGTON AVE
PETITIE ROCHE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
926 E COOPER AVE
TWO PANTHER LLC
DENVER, CO 80209
1020 S GILPIN ST
NAGER DEBBIE TRUST
LEAWOOD, KS 66209
4803 W 120TH PL
TENG NANCY H TRUST
ELMHURST, IL 60126
1050 S EUCLID AVE #5108
MCGAFFEY FAMILY & CO NO C LLC
SEATTLE, WA 98109
2465 NOB HILL AVE NORTH
ASPEN VALLEY LAND TRUST
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
320 MAIN ST #204
LERNER JAY R & BOBETTE S
OMAHA, NE 68154
10855 W DODGE RD #270
SMILIOS PENNY WHITE
ASPEN, CO 81611
1007 E HYMAN AVE #2
306 ASSOCIATES LLC
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48302
PO BOX 7067
GERBER-MCMANUS SUE
EL CAJON, CA 92020
1111 CRYSTAL LN
ALLEN JENNIFER C
AUSTIN, TX 78746
6613 WHITEMARSH VALLEY WALK
Page 64 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
112
CHATEAU EAU CLAIRE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
1034 E COOPER ST
GERDA HOLDINGS LLC
LIGHTHOUSE POINT, FL 33074
PO BOX 50424
BARBERA IVANA
CHATTANOOGA, TN 37405
345 FRAZIER AVE #206
CHATEAU ROARING FORK LLC
NEW ALBANY, OH 43054
8000 WALTON PKWY #100
THOMPSON ARTHUR JR & HASSELINE
TUSCALOOSA, AL 35406
7200 COMMODORE DR
PLATINUM IRREV TRUST
SAN DIEGO, CA 92123
5482 COMPLEX ST # 113
ASPENEYES LLC
HOUSTON, TX 77079
13410 TAYLORCREST RD
IRREVOCABLE TRUST
WEST LEBANON, NH 03784
21 TECHNOLOGY DR #6
LIB LLC
PALO ALTO , CA 94301
314 LYTTON AVE #200
1016 EAST HYMAN HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
730 E DURANT AVE #200
NOORI ABDUL RASOL & MANDANA
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
330 MILBURN
COLETTA CAROL
MEMPHIS, TN 38103
41 UNION AVE #200
CRF TOWNHOUSE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 4450
BELSHER ELIZABETH S TRUST
PHOENIX, AZ 85018
4919 E GRANDVIEW LN
VILLAGER TOWNHOUSE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
1001 E COOPER AVE
HANDZUS MICHAL
HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254
123 29TH ST
LASHER KELLY G
ASPEN, CO 816121127
PO BOX 1127
PORTNOY GERALD A REV TRUST
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 554145138
222 2ND ST SE #701
PBIA & CO
PALM SPRINGS, FL 33461
1732 S CONGRESS AVE #323
CHATEAU EAU CLAIRE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
1034 E COOPER ST
KARASIK CHARLES
SIOUX FALLS, SD 57186
BOX 00794325
PARADIGM PARTNERS
DENVER, CO 80202
1543 WAZEE ST #400
INDEPENDENCE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
1104 DALE AVE
VAN DEUSEN CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
1006 E HYMAN AVE
PINE GLEN TOWNHOUSE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
MOLNY CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
1020 E HYMAN AVE
PETERS JULIE
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 1643
JOHNSON SALLYANNE C
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 5050
DI LORENZO MICHAEL
OAKWOOD, OH 45419
609 GARDEN RD
CHATEAU ROARING FORK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
1039 E COOPER AVE
Page 65 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
113
211 ASHLEY PROJECT LLC
CHARLESTON, SC 29413
PO BOX 22424
FISHER JAMES B
JAMESTOWN , NC 27282
2709 ST ANDREWS CT
ZOE FUTURES LLC
DALLAS, TX 75205
4144 SAN CARLOS
DERBY INVESTMENT INC
WICHITA, KS 672181032
4601 E DOUGLAS AVE #111
HANDELIN MARY M LIVING TRUST
FORT BRAGG, CA 95437
16299 PEARSON LN
ILLMER NANCY & RICHARD
DALLAS, TX 75201
1918 N OLIVE ST #1003
BGC III IRREVOCABLE TRUST
WEST LEBANON, NH 03784
21 TECHNOLOGY DR #6
LEAL FAMILY INVESTMENTS LLC
COCOA, FL 32926
3224 FAIRFAX LN
BERENS MARILYN REV TRUST
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140
4925 COLLINS AVE #6A
SUSI MARILEE E REV TRUST
BOCA RATON, FL 33496
7806 CHARNEY LN
CITY OF ASPEN
ASPEN, CO 81611
130 S GALENA ST
MURACO JULIE DECLARATION TRUST
NEW YORK , NY 10023
41 CENTRAL PARK W #10E
ADAMS GILBERT C III
MALDEN, MA 02148
2 BOWER ST
WOOD JEFFREY R & SHANA B
HOUSTON, TX 77056
4900 WOODWAY DR #880
IPMD 2018 PROPERTY TRUST
TORONTO ONTARIO CANADA M9P1R5,
10 WESTMOUNT PARK RD
GRANTHAM CHARLES EDWARD
RALEIGH, NC 27617
5849 LEASE LN
926 DURANT LLC
WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401
915 S DIXIE HWY
TEN SIXTEEN EAST HYMAN
SPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
1016 E HYMAN AVE
EXETER 20454 WY LLC
CHEYENNE, WY 82009
205 STOREY BLVD #200
GML ASPEN PROPERTY LLC
FT WORTH, TX 76107
3815 LISBON ST #203
LEVY MITCHELL & ELISSA
SANTA MONICA, CA 90402
201 OCEAN AVE #1203P
PEARLSTONE RICHARD
ASPEN, CO 81611
1001 E COOPER AVE #2
TRT OF COLORADO LLC
TUSCALOOSA, AL 35406
7200 COMMODORE DR
STEEL JOAN E TRUST
CHICAGO, IL 60611-6690
161 E CHICAGO AVE #60N4
HENRY CASADY M
ASPEN, CO 81611
525 W HALLAM ST
OLSON PETER W & CANDICE C
ASPEN , CO 81611
1022 E HYMAN AVE UNIT 1
BARASH JAMES ROBERT & BETTEANNE
COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80906
50 W CHEYENNE MTN BLVD
TYE MARK M TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 8992
THREE BEES LLC
BAY SHORE, NY 11706
103 HARBOUR LN
SCHULTZ BRIAN & ELIZABETH
DALLAS, TX 75220
9301 MEADOWBROOK DR
Page 66 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
114
FISHER WINSTON & JESSICA
NEW YORK, NY 10171
299 PARK AVE 42ND FL
BMB 1 LLC
DALLAS, TX 75248
6923 SPANKY BRANCH CT
CHATEAU ROARING FORK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
1039 E COOPER AVE
OZIER FAMILY COLORADO LP
WICHITA FALLS, TX 76310
2896 WRANGLERS RETREAT
YPSI ANN ASSOCIATES
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304
39577 WOODWARD AVE #300
ASPEN PAD LLC
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33119
PO BOX 190754
WEIL LORNE
NEW YORK , NY 10107
250 WEST 57TH STREET #2223
SEID MELVIN C REV TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
1104 DALE AVE
STOVER RAYMOND J H JR & MARY L
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 1941
VGCT VENTURES LLC
ATLANTA, GA 30305
8 CHEROKEE RD NW
HICKS LESLIE
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 8225
MAXON PATRICIA ANNE TRUST
TELLURIDE, CO 81435
240 S MAHONEY DR #1
COHEN SYDNEY G
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140
2401 COLLINS AVE #1601
ARKIN ERIC
ASPEN, CO 816111935
625 E MAIN ST #102B
GOLDSTEIN BARRY J
DENVER, CO 80246
950 S CHERRY #320
SILVERSTREAM TOWNHOMES CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 49
PIERCE ANITA M
DAVENPORT, IA 52801
102 S HARRISON ST #200
SANDELL LINDA JO
SAINT LOUIS, MO 63108
4624 PERSHING PL
MURPHY RICHARD P & MARY K
OMAHA, NE 68132
6720 DAVENPORT ST
WW-WPB LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
570 S RIVERSIDE AVE
ABELMAN STEPHEN C & HELENE P
SAINT PETERSBURG, FL 33703
400 BAY LAUREL CT NE
LITTLE JEWEL CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
1004 E DURANT AVE
GREGORY-CONZELMAN GWEN TRUST
LAKE FOREST, IL 60045
410 LEXINGTON
MCPHEE SHARON S 1985 TRUST
HONOLULU, HI 968211173
4389 MALIA ST #463
OLSON PETER W & CANDICE C
ASPEN , CO 81611
1022 E HYMAN AVE UNIT 1
AC ONE LLC
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72203
PO BOX 3417
SCHONWALD ALEXANDER REV TRUST
SAINT LOUIS, MO 63124
828 CELLA RD
POLICARO DOMINIC FRANK
ASPEN, CO 81611
1004 E DURANT #3
CHATEAU ROARING FORK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
1039 E COOPER AVE
MCDONOUGH JOELLE
ASPEN, CO 81611
1007 E HYMAN AVE #7
Page 67 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
115
MORK HALBERT L FAMILY TRUST
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
77 ASPEN WY
KANTOR MITCHELL A TRUST
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48301
5595 SHADOW LN
CHATEAU ROARING FORK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
1039 E COOPER AVE
WILMERDING PATSY R REV TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
203 S CLEVELAND
SEGUIN WILLIAM L REV TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
1001 E COOPER AVE #7
DORNEMANN MICHAEL
GREENWICH, CT 06830
390 LAKE AVE
TAT TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 7813
3 PEAKS LLC
SUNFISH LAKE, MN 55118
260 SALEM CHURCH RD
GUTNICK ERIC I LIVING TRUST
FORT BRAGG, CA 95437
16299 PEARSON LN
WEAVER WENDY WILLMANN
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 2477
EAST COOPER COURT CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 2021
BARBERA LAURA
CHATTANOOGA, TN 37405
345 FRAZIER AVE #206
GLEASON FAMILY LLC
SIDNEY, OH 45365
235 OVERLAND DR
JPS NEVADA TRUST
HENDERSON, NV 890745991
1701 N GREEN VALLEY PKWY #9C
PURINS ANSIS
ASPEN, CO 81611
1001 E COOPER AVE #4
NORMAN JEFFREY L & ANNA M
ASPEN, CO 81611
730 E DURANT AVE
THOMPSON MARGARET M REV LVG TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
1020 E DURANT AVE # 103
FISHER ELIZABETH B
CHAPEL HILL, NC 275178502
23120 UMSTEAD
GILLIAM KRISTI
ASPEN, CO 81611
1024 E COOPER #8
KANTOR MITCHELL A TRUST
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48301
5595 SHADOW LN
KANTOR NANCY L TRUST
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48302
5595 SHADOW LN
HUCKELBUTT HOUSE LLC
DALLAS, TX 75225
3924 SOUTHWESTERN BLVD
SILVERSTREAM TOWNHOMES CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 49
CARSON YOST EXEMPT LIFETIME TRUST
FORT WORTH, TX 76107
116 RIVERCREST DR
ABELMAN STEPHEN C & HELENE P
SAINT PETERSBURG, FL 33703
400 BAY LAUREL CT NE
LEAL FAMILY PARTNERS LTD
COCOA , FL 32926
3224 FAIRFAX LANE
OGBURN TOM & CAROLYN
WESTLAKE, TX 762624804
2000 BRAZOS CT
DORAN MICHAEL H ASP TEST TRST
NORCROSS, GA 30092
4280 GUNNIN RD
WEISS LYNN
ASPEN, CO 816111935
625 E MAIN ST #102B
COOPER TACHE CHRISTEN
ASPEN, CO 81611
1001 E HYMAN
Page 68 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
116
SYLVESTER JAMES W
POUGHKEEPSIE, NY 12603
758 FREEDOM PLAINS RD
SCHRAGER TERRI L
OMAHA, NE 68127
3217 S 101ST ST
THOMPSON BRAD H REV LVG TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
1020 E DURANT AVE # 103
RIVERSIDE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
1024 E COOPER AVE
SMITH MICHAEL B & TIFFANY S
HOUSTON, TX 77057
6134 WILLERS WAY
TCDC HOLDINGS INC
KANSAS CITY, MO 64108
2345 GRAND BLVD #2400
VANHEES JOANNE G & ARNOLD
NEW YORK, NY 10014
95 HORATIO ST #9K
MCCORMICK MURIEL E
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 3515
SCHROY BRIAN
BOULDER, CO 803025824
441 ARAPAHOE AVE
TYE MARK M TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 8992
UTE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
1020 E DURANT AVE
WHITE JALEH REV TRUST
ASPEN, CO 816112053
960 E DURANT AVE #7
ERNEMANN MICHAEL FREDERICH
LONDON EC #2A 4LX ENGLAND,
LONDON FLAT 4 GALAXY HOUSE
32 LEONARD ST
INDEPENDENCE GATE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
922 E COOPER AVE
26 EAU CLAIRE LLC
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130
550 BIENVILLE ST
CAULFIELD JENNIFER & JOHN
ASPEN, CO 81611
1020 E DURANT AVE #101
SHAPIRO GANT LLC
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55436
5704 DEVILLE DR
MJB GST TRUST
SHAWNEE MISSION, KS 66208
5651 OAKWOOD RD
913 NEVADA TRUST
LAS VEGAS , NV 89148
9589 COMISKY CT
COLETTA BRANDY
MEMPHIS, TN 38103
41 UNION AVE #200
CHADVALE REALTY INC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 11976
SEGUIN MARILYN A REV TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
1001 E COOPER AVE #7
KANTOR NANCY L TRUST
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48302
5595 SHADOW LN
MCDONALD SCOTT
PARK CITY, UT 84098
4666 MCKINNEY CT
WICKAM BRENTON M
SAN MATEO, CA 944012509
215 CHESTERTON PL
VILLAGER 3 LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
625 E HYMAN #201
DOLGINOW SCOTT TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
203 S CLEVELAND
HANN SANG E DR & ANN K
LAKE FOREST, IL 60045
555 MAYFLOWER RD
LITZENBERGER DREW & VIRGINIA
ASHEVILLE, NC 28804
125 HOWLAND RD
KOFFRON ROBERT & PAULETTE
FARMINGTON HILLS, MI 48331
28009 HICKORY DR
Page 69 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
117
PORTER FRANCES H
CHAGRIN FALLS, OH 440222778
305 FALLS WALK WAY
PULLEN CLAUDIA
CHATTANOOGA, TN 37405
345 FRAZIER AVE #206
SEID MELVIN C REV TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
1104 DALE AVE
FREEMAN HEATH
ASPEN, CO 81611
1039 E COOPER AVE #17A
HINMAN JACQUELINE C REV TRUST
ENGLEWOOD, CO 80113
15 CHERRY HILLS FARM DR
COATES NELIGH C JR REV TRUST
SAN ANTONIO, TX 782303045
2702 CEMBALO BLVD #308
L & E PROPERTIES LTD
DENVER, CO 80237
3701 S NARCISSUS WAY
PONDROM CYRENA N & LEE G
MADISON, WI 53705
210 PRINCETON AVE
ELLSWEIG DAVID
ASPEN, CO 81611
1020 E DURANT AVE #102
MARTIN MONICA A
NEW YORK, NY 10021
301 E 79TH ST #35P
Page 70 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
118
Page 71 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
119
XGAS
X
G
A
S
XGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XU
T
XU
T
X
U
T
XUT XUT XUT XUT
XWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXELXELXELXELXELXELXEL
XEL XEL
XELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELxxxxxxxxxxxxx x x x x x x XGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA
TELTELTEL TEL
TVTVTVTVTV TV
svc sa svc sa svc sa svc sa svc sa svc sa svcUELU
E
L
UEL UEL UEL UEL
WLSVC>>>>>>
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>SUBJECT PROPERTY
PARCEL #273718232006
1020 E COOPER AVE
RIVERSIDE CONDO ASSOC
PARCEL #273718127801
1024 E COOPER AVE
(NOT PART OF PROJECT)
COOPER AVE VICTORIAN CONDO ASSOC
PARCEL #273718232802
1012 E COOPER AVE
(NOT PART OF PROJECT)
PROJECT BENCHMARK
FOUND #5 REBAR & RED
PLASTIC CAP PLS 33638
0.2' ABOVE GRADE
ELEV=7946.3
20.00'
ALLEY
73.70'
RIGHT OF WAY
ME: 42.8'±ME: 43.3
'±ME: 42.9
'±ME: 42.9
'±
ME: 44.8'±ME: 44.7'±ME: 44.9'±
ME: 45.2'±
ME: 45.2'±
ME: 44.8'±
ME: 44.5'±
ME: 44.9'±
ME: 44.1'±ME: 44.1'±
EX: 43.8'±
EX: 45.3'±EX: 45.8'±
EX: 45.8'±
EX: 44.0'±
EX: 43.3'±
EX: 42.9'±EX: 42.8'±EX: 42.4'±1.0%4.0%
FG: 43.53
FG: 43.26
FG: 43.71
2.0%1.8%
2.0%1.8%4.2%4.2%1.4%
0.7%4.2%4.2%
2.0%
FG: 43.16 FG: 43.78
FG: 43.92
FG: 44.21
2.4%
FG: 43.79
FG: 44.25
FG: 43.63FG: 43.25
FG: 43.66
FG: 43.72
FG: 43.22
FG: 43.28
FFE:7943.28'
FG: 44.00
FG: 43.96
FG: 43.95
FG: 43.78
FG: 44.51
FG: 44.61
FG: 45.68
FG: 44.57
FG: 44.66
FG: 45.68
FG: 45.78
FG: 45.04
FG: 45.68
3.9%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%2.0%1.4%1.5%2.0%
2.0%
1.7%
0.9%
2.0%8.0%FG: 43.92 0.8%0.8%3.8%
5.1%
3.8%
4.0%
1.0%
1.2%
0.9%
1.1%
TC: 44.18
TBC: 44.93
FL: 44.50
TC: 44.72 ME: 44.9'±
TC: 44.49
TBC: 45.08
FL: 44.71
TC: 44.91
ME: 45.1'±
PROPOSED DRY WELL
RIM: 43.06
SEWER
CLEANOUT
RIM: 43.42
SEWER EJECTOR
VAULT RIM: 43.36
INLET RIM: 42.83
REPLACE 50 L.F.
EXISTING CURB AND
GUTTER TO MATCH
EXISTING SIZE AND
GRADES.
PROTECT EXISTING TREE
DURING CONSTRUCTION
REPLACE EXISTING
ASPHALT IN KIND
PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED 2"
ASPHALT OVERLAY
(12" MIN WIDTH)
PROPOSED FULL
DEPTH SAWCUT E. COOPER AVE.2 STEPS (UP)
6" RISE
794579437944FG: 43.72
FG: 43.85
FG: 44.42
FG: 43.28
FG: 44.47
FG: 43.79
LP/RIM: 43.60
LP/RIM: 44.37
FFE:7944.00'
FFE:7945.78'
EX: 44.3'±
FG: 43.82
FG: 43.58
FG: 43.85
2.3%1.5%1.0%EX: 44.6'±
STAIRS
DOWN
DOWN2.0%FG: 44.22 FG: 44.12
EX: 44.1'±
EX: 43.5'±
EX: 43.6'±
EX: 44.1'±1.0%2.0%1.0%1.0%
INLET RIM: 44.97
TRENCH DRAIN
RIM: 44.57
TRENCH DRAIN
RIM: 44.53
TRENCH DRAIN
RIM: 44.26
TRENCH DRAIN
RIM: 44.23
LP/RIM: 43.67
LP/RIM: 44.00 10.0%10.0%FG: 45.78
FG: 44.82
1.6%
2.0%1.9%FG: 44.36
3.3%7.3%
2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%3.9%
2.0%1.5%TBC: 44.08 TBC: 44.28 1.5%1.6%1.7%2.0%4.8%1.5%
1.5%5.0%
6" CURB ALONG EDGE
OF WALKWAY.
TBC: 43.66
TBC: 43.43
TBC: 42.93
FG: 42.93 TBC: 44.42 TBC: 44.29 TBC: 44.22
TBC: 44.82
TBC: 44.20
FG: 44.32
EXTERIOR CLOSET TO AVOID
IMPACTS TO EXISTING TREE
STORM PIPE SHALL BE ROUTED
ROUTED BELOW SLAB ON GRADE
PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL STORM
PIPE LAYOUT. MATERIAL, SIZE,
SLOPE & ALIGNMENT TO BE
FINALIZED IN SUPPORT OF
FUTURE BUILDING PERMIT (TYP)10.6'
TO PROPERTY
LINE
13.1'
TO PROPOSED BUILDING
10.1'
BETWEEN STRUCTURES
3-FT WIDE CONCRETE
DRAIN PAN
REPLACED ELECTRIC
VAULT & TRANSFORMER.
VAULT LID SET 6" ABOVE
FINAL/EXISTING GRADES
REPLACE EXISTING
SIDEWALK ADJOINING
SUBJECT PROPERTY
REPLACE EXISTING CURB
& GUTTER IN FRONT OF
SUBJECT PROPERTY
AREA DRAIN OR SLOT DRAIN AT
ENTRANCE & ROUTED THROUGH
STRUCTURE TO DRY WELL (AREA
LOCATED ABOVE STRUCTURE)
PROPOSED AREA INLET. SIZE &
LOCATION TO BE FINALIZED IN SUPPORT
OF FUTURE BUILDING PERMIT (TYP)
OPRIS ES NGINEERING, LLC.
CIVIL CONSULTANTS
JOB NO.
DATE:
502 MAIN STREET
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
(970) 704-0311
FAX: (970)-704-0313
DESIGNED BY
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
DATE REVISION
C-1.0
DRAWING NO.
TITLE
G:\2020\30111\CIVIL\CIVIL DWGS\PLOT\30111-G&D PLAN.DWG - Oct 14, 2020 - 2:37pmDRAINAGE DIRECTION/SLOPE
SPOT ELEVATION
EXAMPLE: TOP OF CONCRETE @ 7945.00' =
BOW = BOTTOM OF WALL
EOA = EDGE OF ASPHALT
EX = EXISTING GRADE
FFE = FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION
FG = FINISHED GRADE
FL = FLOW LINE
HP = HIGH POINT
LP = LOW POINT
MATCH EX = MATCH EXISTING
RIM = RIM ELEVATION
TBC = TOP BACK OF CURB
TOC = TOP OF CONCRETE
CONCEPTUAL
GRADING &
DRAINAGE PLANBASIS OF ELEVATION: THE 1998 CITY OF ASPEN DREXEL BARREL
CONTROL DATUM, WHICH IS BASED ON AN ELEVATION OF
7720.88' (NAVD 1998) ON THE NGS STATION "S-159".
THIS ESTABLISHED A SITE BENCHMARK LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHWEST PROPERTY CORNER. LS# 33638, ELEV: 7946.3' PER
SURVEY PREPARED BY SOPRIS ENGINEERING INC.
SPOT ELEVATION LEGEND
SITE BENCHMARK
MEMBER UTILITIES
FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND
BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE
CALL 2-BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
RNORTH1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
05 5 10
5
202.5
PROPOSED DRAINAGE DRY-WELL
PROPOSED SEWER MANHOLE
PROPOSED WATER VALVE
PROPOSED CURB STOP
PROPOSED GAS METER/VALVE
PROPOSED ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
PROPOSED SEWER CLEANOUT
PROPOSED STORM INLET
PROPOSED 8" WATER MAIN8'' WL
PROPOSED 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN
PROPOSED TELEPHONE
PROPOSED UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
PROPOSED CABLE
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
TEL TEL
UE
TV TV
8'' SA
EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT
EXISTING WATER VALVE
EXISTING CURB STOP
EXISTING GAS METER
EXISTING ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
EXISTING CATV PEDESTAL
EXISTING SEWER CLEANOUT
EXISTING 8" WATER MAINXWLXWL
EXISTING 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN
EXISTING GAS
EXISTING TELEPHONE
XGAS XGAS
EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
EXISTING CABLE
XUT XUT
XEL XEL
XTV XTV
EXISTING IRRIGATION PIPEXIRRXIRR
XSA XSA
30111
10-15-20
CJB 10/01/20
CJB 10/01/20
JKS 10/14/20
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN1020 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, COLORADOCONCEPTUAL HPC APPROVALPROPOSED SAWCUT
PROPOSED FULL DEPTH ASPHALT
PROPOSED 2" ASPHALT OVERLAY
PROPOSED CONCRETE
PROPOSED LEGEND
UTILITY LEGEND
VICINITY MAP
SITE
SCALE: 1" = 2,000'NORTHXX: XX.XX
2.0%
FG: 45.00
NOTE:
THESE PLANS ARE CONCEPTUAL OR ILLUSTRATIVE IN NATURE. PRECISE INFORMATION SHALL BE PROVIDED AS
PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION, AND IN SITUATIONS WHERE THE FINAL HPC APPROVAL PLANS
AND APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT DIFFER, THE APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT SHALL RULE.
PROPOSED GRAVEL
PROPOSED PORCH
PROPOSED PLANTING BED
PROPOSED LAWN AREA
Page 72 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
120
XGAS
X
G
A
S
XGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XU
T
XU
T
X
U
T
XUT XUT XUT XUT
XWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXEL
XEL
XEL XEL
XELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELxxxxxxxxxxxxx x x x x x xXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGAS
XGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA
TELTELTEL TEL
TVTVTVTVTV TV
sa svc sa svc sa svc sa svc sa svc sa svc sa svcUELUELUELUELUEL UEL
WLSVCINSTALL (2) 4" PVC CONDUITS
TO BUILDING FOR TELEPHONE
AND CABLE SERVICE.
INSTALL & EXTEND NEW WATER
SERVICE PER COA WATER
DEPARTMENT STANDARDS TO
PROPOSED WATER ENTRY ROOM
EXISTING 14" WATER MAIN
LOCATION AND SIZE OF WATER TAP TO BE
CONFIRMED PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT.
(NOTE: ALL UTILITY WORK WITHIN CDOT'S ROW
SHALL BE PERFORMED UNDER AN APPROVED CDOT
SPECIAL USE PERMIT)
REPLACE 50 L.F. EXISTING CURB AND
GUTTER TO MATCH EXISTING SIZE
AND GRADES. SEE G&D SHEET C1.0
PROTECT EXISTING TREE
DURING CONSTRUCTIONCONTRACTOR TO ABANDON EXISTING
UTILITY LINES SERVING THE SUBJECT
PROPERT (1020 E COOPER AVENUE)
CONTRACTOR TO SAWCUT AND
PATCH PER TRENCH DETAIL ON
THIS SHEET
REPLACE EXISTING ASPHALT IN KIND.
PROPOSED LOCATION OF ELECTRIC
METERS & DISTRIBUTION PANEL
PROPOSED UTILITIES TO BE INSTALLED WITH 2' MINIMUM
VERTICAL SEPARATION FROM STORM DRAIN. INSTALL
UTILITY LOCATE TAPE ABOVE CONDUIT. FINAL DESIGN TO
BE PROVIDED IN SUPPORT OF FUTURE BUILDING PERMIT
PROPOSED 33 L.F. GRAVITY SDR 26 SEWER SERVICE
AT 2% MINIMUM SLOPE (SIZE TO BE DETERMINED
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT)
INVERT AT CLEANOUT=7939.0±
INSTALL 2-WAY CLEANOUT W/ FRAME & GRATE
EXISTING TRANSFORMER TO BE
PROTECTED THROUGH ALL PHASES OF
CONSTRUCTION
EX. TRANSFORMER
TO BE REPLACED
PROPERTY (TYP)
NEW SECONDARY ELECTRIC SERVICE
(ESTIMATE: 600 AMP SERVICE. ACTUAL
ELECTRIC DEMAND TO BE CONFIRMED
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT)
EXISTING WATER SERVICE TO BE ABANDONED AT THE
MAIN PER COA WATER DEPARTMENT STANDARDS.
CONTRACTOR TO UTILIZE A MANHOLE TRENCH BOX
FOR ABANDONMENT TO LIMIT OVERALL
DISTURBANCE. ALL UTILITY WORK WITHIN CDOT'S
ROW SHALL BE PERFORMED UNDER AN APPROVED
CDOT SPECIAL USE PERMIT
NEW CABLE SERVICE LINE
EXTENDED FROM EXISTING
CABLE PEDESTAL PER COMCAST
STANDARDS
EXISTING CABLE
PEDESTAL
EXISTING BOLLARDS
(TO BE REMOVED)
NEW TELEPHONE SERVICE PULLED
FROM EXISTING PEDESTAL PER
CENTURY LINK STANDARDS
PROPOSED 2"
ASPHALT OVERLAY
(12" MIN WIDTH)
PROPOSED FULL DEPTH SAWCUT
NEW BOLLARDS @ EACH
CORNER OF VAULT
E. COOPER AVE.(STATE HIGHWAY 82)20.00'
ALLEY
EXISTING 3.5'X8'
ELEC. EASEMENT
PROPOSED 4' DIA. VAULT W/
5'X5' LID CENTERED OVER
EXISTING TRANSFORMER.
INSTALL NEW TRANSFORMER
HATCHED AREA REFLECTS
REQUIRED SEPARATION/EASEMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTY
PARCEL #273718232006
1020 E COOPER AVE
RIVERSIDE CONDO ASSOC
PARCEL #273718127801
1024 E COOPER AVE
(NOT PART OF PROJECT)
COOPER AVE VICTORIAN CONDO ASSOC
PARCEL #273718232802
1012 E COOPER AVE
(NOT PART OF PROJECT)
PROPOSED SEWER EJECTOR PIT
DESIGNED BY MEP IN SUPPORT
OF FUTURE BUILDING PERMIT
APPLICATION
EXISTING TELEPHONE
PEDESTAL
CONTRACTOR TO INSPECT EXISTING SEWER TAP &
COORDINATE WITH ASPEN CONSOLIDATED SANITATION
DISTRICT & ENGINEER OF RECORD ON WHETHER A NEW
TAP WILL BE REQUIRED.
EXTEND NEW SDR 26 SHARED SEWER SERVICE (SIZE TBD)
TO PROJECT AND REMOVE/ABANDON EXISTING 4" VCP
SHARED SERVICE AGREEMENT TO BE REQUESTED PRIOR
TO BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
INV OF MAIN LINE=7937.3±
INVERT OF SEWER SERVICE=7938.3±
CONNECT FORCE MAIN TO
MAINLINE GRAVITY SEWER
SERVICE
PROPOSED GRAVITY SEWER
SERVICE TO EJECTOR PUMP ENTRY PORCH W/ WATER ENTRY ROOMLOCATED BELOW W/IN CRAWLSPACEACCESS HATCH TO
CRAWLSPACE & WATER
ENTRY ROOM
8.0'
3.5'
8.0'
ADA
PARKING
STALL
8.0'
ACCESS AISLE
PROPOSED
DRY WELL
PROPOSED
AREA INLET
5' WIDE SIDEWALK
TO BE REPLACED IN
KIND
EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENT
(10'x9.4') PER BK 98 PG 93
EXISTING ELEC. EASEMENT
(2'x8') PER BK 126 PG 7
CONCEPTUAL STORM DRAIN LAYOUT.
FINAL SIZE, SLOPE & ALIGNMENT TO BE
DETERMINED IN SUPPORT OF FUTURE
BUILDING PERMIT (TYP)
PROPOSED DRAINAGE DRY-WELL
PROPOSED SEWER MANHOLE
PROPOSED WATER VALVE
PROPOSED ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
PROPOSED SEWER CLEANOUT
PROPOSED STORM INLET
PROPOSED 8" WATER MAIN8'' WL
PROPOSED 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN
PROPOSED TELEPHONE
PROPOSED UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
PROPOSED CABLE
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
TEL TEL
UE
TV TV
8'' SA
EXISTING WATER VALVE
EXISTING ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
EXISTING CATV PEDESTAL
EXISTING WATER MAINXWLXWL
EXISTING 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN
EXISTING GAS
EXISTING TELEPHONE
XGAS XGAS
EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
EXISTING CABLE
XUT XUT
XEL XEL
XTV XTV
EXISTING IRRIGATION PIPEXIRRXIRR
XSA XSA
OPRIS ES NGINEERING, LLC.
CIVIL CONSULTANTS
30111JOB NO.
DATE:10-15-20
502 MAIN STREET
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
(970) 704-0311
FAX: (970)-704-0313
DESIGNED BY
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
CJB 10/01/20
CJB 10/01/20
JKS 10/14/20
DATE REVISION
C-2.0
DRAWING NO.
TITLE
G:\2020\30111\CIVIL\CIVIL DWGS\PLOT\30111-UTIL PLAN.DWG - Oct 14, 2020 - 2:55pmNORTHCONCEPTUAL
UTILITY PLANCONCEPTUAL DESIGN1020 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, COLORADOHPC CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
05 5 10
5
202.5
UTILITY PLAN LEGEND
MEMBER UTILITIES
FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND
BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE
CALL 2-BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
1. ALL MINIMUM DEPTHS, SEPARATION DISTANCES, MATERIALS AND/OR USE OF CONDUIT SHALL
BE CONFIRMED AND COORDINATED WITH THE UTILITY PROVIDER PER UTILITY AGREEMENTS.
2. ALL UTILITY LINES AND/OR CONDUITS TO BE BACKFILLED WITH SUITABLE MATERIAL FREE OF
ROCKS >1 1/2" Ø. USE CLASS 6 AGGREGATE BASE MATERIAL FOR BEDDING, AND/OR SUITABLE
ONSITE MATERIAL. INSTALL PER UTILITY PROVIDER SPECIFICATIONS. BACKFILL TRENCHES
WITH SUITABLE ONSITE MATERIALS. MINIMUM COMPACTION 95% IN PAVED AREAS.
3. GAS AND ELECTRIC TO BE INSTALLED IN SEPARATE TRENCHES. SEWER SERVICES TO BE
INSTALLED A MINIMUM 10' FROM WATER SERVICES AS FEASIBLE. COMMUNICATIONS MAY BE
INSTALLED IN COMBINED TRENCHES PER CONSTRUCTION FEASIBILITY AS LONG AS MINIMUM
SEPARATION DISTANCES AND DEPTHS OF BURY ARE MAINTAINED. INSTALL WARNING TAPE
OVER ALL UTILITY LINES.
UTILITY SERVICE MINIMUM DEPTH
WATER--------------------------------7.0'
SEWER--------------------------------5.0'
ELECTRIC----------------------------3.0'
CABLE TV----------------------------3.0'
PHONE--------------------------------3.0'
GAS----------------------------------- 2.0'
1. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE ABANDONMENT, RELOCATION, AND BURIAL OF THE EXISTING UTILITIES WITH
THE UTILITY PROVIDERS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTAIN HIS CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION.
CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT OPERATE OUTSIDE THIS AREA WITHOUT THE PRIOR CONSENT OF THE PROPERTY
OWNER(S) INVOLVED.
3. THE LOCATIONS OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES HAVE BEEN PLOTTED BASED ON UTILITY MAPS, LOCATES OR
OTHER INFORMATION PROVIDED BY UTILITY COMPANIES AND ACTUAL FIELD LOCATIONS IN SOME INSTANCES.
THESE UTILITIES, AS SHOWN MAY NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
THE CONTRACTOR TO CONTACT ALL UTILITY COMPANIES FOR FIELD LOCATION OF UTILITIES PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION.
4. ALL UTILITIES, BOTH UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD, SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN CONTINUOUS SERVICE
THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE AND LIABLE
FOR ANY DAMAGES TO, OR INTERRUPTION OF, SERVICES CAUSED BY THE CONSTRUCTION.
5. ALL SITE AND UTILITY WORK SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF ASPEN RULES & REGULATIONS. A
PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
6. EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY PROVIDED BY SOPRIS ENGINEERING, LLC.
7. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL EXISTING TREES THAT ARE TO REMAIN. A TREE PROTECTION PLAN MUST BE
APPROVED BY CITY PARKS DEPARTMENT AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION.
8. ALL UTILITY METER LOCATIONS SHOWN FOR REFERENCE. REFER TO MEP PLANS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
GENERAL UTILITY NOTES:
SHALLOW UTILITY NOTES:
NOTE:
THESE PLANS ARE CONCEPTUAL OR ILLUSTRATIVE IN NATURE. PRECISE INFORMATION SHALL BE PROVIDED AS
PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION, AND IN SITUATIONS WHERE THE FINAL HPC APPROVAL PLANS
AND APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT DIFFER, THE APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT SHALL RULE.
PROPOSED SAWCUT
PROPOSED FULL DEPTH ASPHALT
PROPOSED 2" ASPHALT OVERLAY
PROPOSED LEGEND
PROPOSED GRAVEL
PROPOSED PLANTING BED
PROPOSED LAWN AREA
Page 73 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
121
xxxxxxxx>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>RIVERSIDE CONDO ASSOC
PARCEL #273718127801
1024 E COOPER AVE
(NOT PART OF PROJECT)
COOPER AVE VICTORIAN CONDO ASSOC
PARCEL #273718232802
1012 E COOPER AVE
(NOT PART OF PROJECT)
E. COOPER AVE.
7945
7943
7944
APPROXIMATE LIMITS
OF ROOF OVERHANG
PROPOSED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT
TOTAL PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS
AREA: 3,720 SF
TOTAL SITE IMPERVIOUS: 85%
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
WATER QUALITY DRYWELL.
NOTE: DRYWELL TO BE LOCATED
10' FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY LINE
AND STRUCTURES
PROPOSED BURIED STORMWATER
CONVEYANCE PIPE, TYP.
PROPOSED BURIED STORMWATER
CONVEYANCE PIPE, TYP.
PROPOSED BURIED STORMWATER
CONVEYANCE PIPE, TYP.
PROPOSED CONCRETE WALKWAY.
PROPOSED VALLEY INLET.
ADDITIONALLY SERVES AS
DRYWELL OVERFLOW POINT
PROPOSED CONCRETE DRAIN PAN.
PROPOSED TRENCH DRAIN
CONCRETE PATIO
PROPOSED AREA INLET
PROPOSED AREA INLET
PROPOSED AREA INLET
PROPOSED AREA INLET
PROPOSED AREA INLETxxEXISTING SINGLE STORY RESIDENCE
TOTAL EXISTING SITE IMPERVIOUS
AREA: 1,945 SF ±
EXISTING SITE IMPERVIOUS: 45%
OS-1
OS-2
OS-3
RIVERSIDE CONDO ASSOCCOOPER AVE VICTORIAN
CONDO ASSOC CHATEAU EAU CLAIRE
OS-4
EXISTING INLET
AT LOW POINT
EXISTING INLET
AT LOW POINT
EAST COOPER STREET
OPRIS ES NGINEERING, LLC.
CIVIL CONSULTANTS
JOB NO.
DATE:
502 MAIN STREET
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
(970) 704-0311
FAX: (970)-704-0313
DESIGNED BY
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
DATE REVISION
C-3.0
DRAWING NO.
TITLE
G:\2020\30111\CIVIL\CIVIL DWGS\PLOT\30111-DRN PLAN.DWG - Oct 15, 2020 - 8:24amCONCEPTUAL
DRAINAGE
MITIGATION PLAN
MEMBER UTILITIES
FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND
BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE
CALL 2-BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
RNORTH
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
020 20 40
20
8010
30111.02
10-15-20
NEK 10/01/20
NEK 10/01/20
JKS 00/00/00
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN1020 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, COLORADOCONCEPTUAL HPC APPROVALNOTE:
THESE PLANS ARE CONCEPTUAL OR ILLUSTRATIVE IN NATURE. PRECISE INFORMATION SHALL BE PROVIDED AS
PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION, AND IN SITUATIONS WHERE THE FINAL HPC APPROVAL PLANS
AND APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT DIFFER, THE APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT SHALL RULE.NORTH1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
05 5 10
5
202.5
EXISTING CONDITIONS
POST DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
POST DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE BASIN
LEGEND
EXISTING DRAINAGE BASIN
DRAINAGE FLOW ARROW
EXISTING CONTOUR
EXISTING CONTOUR INTERVAL7900
PROPOSED CONTOUR
PROPOSED CONTOUR INTERVAL7900
EXISTING GIS CONTOUR
Page 74 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
122
1020 E Cooper Street- Engineering Letter HPC Application October 15, 2020
50 2 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970)704-0311• Fax (970)704-0313
S OP RIS E NG INEERING • LL C ci vil consultants
Bendon Adams
c/o Sara Adams
300 S. Spring Street, Ste 202
Aspen, CO 81611
sara@bendonadams.com
RE: 1020 E Cooper Street-Conceptual Engineering Report
Sopris Engineering, LLC Job No. 30111.02
Dear Sara,
Sopris Engineering, LLC (SE) has prepared this letter to summarize the Civil Engineering requirements and
recommendations in support of the potential redevelopment of 1020 E. Cooper Street located in Aspen, CO.
It is our understanding that the project is seeking approval from HPC in support of an affordable housing project on
the subject property. This letter is specific to utility extensions, conceptual site grading and stormwater mitigation
options for the project team to further evaluate as the design progresses towards Building Permit Application.
Conceptual Grading & Drainage, Utility and Drainage Mitigation Plans have been provided as an attachment for
illustrative support of this document.
Background & Existing Conditions
The subject property is located at 1020 E. Cooper Street in Aspen, CO (Parcel ID#273718232006) and according to
Pitkin County Assessor’s webpage the existing building was constructed in 1888 with an effective year built of 1964
and was originally constructed as a single family residence.
Based on our review of the existing conditions survey and site visits the property consists of an existing single story
wood frame house with a building footprint at ground elevation of approximately 1,100 sf. Existing ground cover
includes various concrete walkways and intermittent lawn area/vegetation. Two detached shed structures front the
alley to the north. The total existing onsite impervious area has been estimated at 1,945+/- sf which includes the
existing residence, out structures and concrete pathways. Surface grades and existing drainage patterns generally
slope from the southeast to the northwest across the site with relatively flat landscape grades around the residence.
Existing gutters and a downspout appear to discharge directly to the adjacent ground. As such, tributary roof
drainage appears to be conveyed over the existing ground towards the alley north of the subject property. No other
onsite stormwater improvements were observed during our site visit or indicated on the existing conditions survey.
It should be noted that the site does lies slightly below E. Cooper Street. The design of the improvements
considered raising the sidewalk to coincide with the top back of curb but since this approach would require
improvements on the neighboring property to the east it was not pursued. Instead, offsite basins associated E.
Cooper Street were evaluated to determine whether there were any drainage concerns given this existing condition.
Our findings related to this are further discussed below within the Existing Offsite Basins section.
According to Figure 3.1 of the City’s Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP) the underlying soils likely consist of
Type B Soils which have moderate infiltration rates. This will be confirmed once geotechnical exploration work has
been performed. The subject property falls within Zone X as identified on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel
#08097C0366E, effective date August 15, 2019. Zone X includes areas determined to be outside the 500-year flood
plain.
Page 75 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
123
1020 E Cooper Street- Engineering Letter HPC Application October 15, 2020
Page 2
5 02 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970)704-0311• Fax (970)704-0313
S OP RIS E NG INEERING • LL C ci vil consultants
The subject property falls within Drainage System 1, Basin 12 as described within the City’s Surface Drainage
Master Plan (SDMP), dated November 2001 prepared by WRC Engineering, Inc. Drainage System 1 currently
consists of street curb and gutter, roadside ditches and a network of storm sewer pipes. According to the SDMP
there is an existing 18” HDPE storm sewer beneath E. Cooper Street, directly south of the subject property.
Preliminary investigation of this existing storm sewer collection system revealed the shallow depths prohibitive for
direct connection of the development’s anticipated stormwater mitigation infrastructure.
An existing electric and communications utility easement (Rec. # 659373) is located at the northeast corner of the
property and accommodates portions of an existing 4’x4’ transformer vault as well as the COA Electric clearance
requirements. Further discussion of the existing easement as it relates to this and future development can be found
in the Site Utilities section of this letter. There is also a 2’x8’ electric easement at the northwest corner of the site
that accommodates an existing transformer located on the neighboring property.
Lastly, according to Figure 7.1a of the City’s URMP the subject property falls outside Aspen Mountain’s mudflow
zone, however it should be noted that the City is in the process of updating mudflow studies and regulations which
may influence any potential mudflow requirements for the subject property.
Existing Offsite Basins
As mentioned above the subject property lies slightly below the flowline elevation of E. Cooper Street and therefore
corresponding offsite drainage basins were evaluated to assess the risk of offsite stormwater runoff entering the
subject property. Based on site visits and our review of the City’s SDMP, Basin 12 was subdivided into several sub-
basins to estimate peak runoff rates and corresponding conveyance capacities. These drainage basins are further
described below and supporting calculations are provided as an attachment to this letter.
Basin OS-1 is an existing basin within E. Cooper Street directly south and east of the subject property. An
existing at grade access to the Chateau Eu Claire and the associated northern edge of the E Cooper Street
attached site walk serves as the northern boundary for the basin. An existing low point and associated inlet was
observed just west of the E Cooper Street bridge crossing of the Roaring Fork River. As such, the eastern limits
of the basin were established by the breakline tributary to this inlet. The southern extent of the basin was
established at the crown of E Cooper Street. Overall imperviousness is estimated to be 100% based on existing
ground cover.
Runoff generated within the basin is collected within a 4’ concrete drain pan directly south of the Riverside
Townhomes. Surface runoff collected within this drain pan continues west within the concrete flowline into a
formal curb and gutter system in front of the subject property (Basin OS-2). The drain pan was field measured to
have an approximate 0.2’ available flow depth and approximately 1.5% longitudinal slope. Based on this
information, runoff generated from a 100 year storm event is estimated to be fully contained within the drain pan
at an approximate 0.14’ flow depth. This analysis concludes that no existing offsite runoff will be tributary to the
site from the north side of the E. Cooper Street right of way east of the subject property.
Basin OS-2 is an existing basin within E. Cooper Street directly south of the subject property. The northern limit
of the basin was established to be the top of curb on the north side of E. Copper Street. The basin is bound by
Basin OS-1 to the east and the projected subject property line to the west. The southern extent of the basin was
established at the crown of E. Cooper Street. Overall imperviousness is estimated to be 100% based on existing
ground cover.
Page 76 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
124
1020 E Cooper Street- Engineering Letter HPC Application October 15, 2020
Page 3
5 02 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970)704-0311• Fax (970)704-0313
S OP RIS E NG INEERING • LL C ci vil consultants
Runoff generated within the basin is collected within an existing curb and gutter system on the north side of E.
Cooper Street. Surface runoff then continues west within the gutter flowline to a curb inlet west of the subject
property, near the intersection with S. Cleveland Street. Portions of the existing curb will be replaced with COA
compliant curb & gutter with this project, however the existing curb height was measured for conservative
analysis. The curb height was field measured to have an approximate 4.5” height, 2” gutter drop and average
1.5% longitudinal slope. Based on this information, the 100 year storm event is estimated to be fully contained
within existing parking lane at an approximate 0.13’ flow depth. This analysis concludes that runoff from the
basin will not overtop the curb and no existing offsite runoff will be tributary to the site from the north side of E.
Cooper Street in front of the subject property.
Basin OS-3 is an existing basin within E. Cooper Street detached sidewalk directly south of the subject property.
The northern limit of the basin was established to be the northern edge of the sidewalk adjacent to the
development. The basin is bound by Basin OS-1 to the east and the projected subject property line to the west.
The southern extent of the basin was established at top back of curb on the north side of E Cooper Street. A
small portion of existing sidewalk from the adjacent Riverside Condo property to the east was additionally
included within the basin limits. Overall imperviousness is estimated to be 75% based on existing ground cover.
Runoff generated within this small basin runs along the southern edge of sidewalk towards the west and likely
evaporates and/or percolates into the adjacent landscape area. Drainage conveyance calculations indicate that
this existing conveyance has adequate capacity and the runoff from this small basin does not enter the subject
property.
Basin OS-4 is an existing basin comprised of the various properties south of E. Cooper Street that contribute
surface runoff to the south side of E. Cooper Street in front of the subject property. This basin was evaluated to
determine whether or not tributary flows would overtop the crown of the road. Overall imperviousness is
estimated to be 85% based on existing ground cover. In addition, a conservative 5-minute time of concentration
was used to estimate peak runoff rates for this larger basin.
Runoff generated within this basin is ultimately collected within the existing curb and gutter system on the south
side of E. Cooper Street. Surface runoff then continues west within the gutter flowline to a curb inlet west of the
subject property. The existing curb height was field measured to have an approximate 5.5” height, 2” gutter drop
and 1.5% longitudinal slope. Based on this information, the 100 year storm event is estimated to be fully
contained within the existing parking lane at an approximate 0.41’ flow depth. This analysis concludes that runoff
from the basin will not overtop the crown of E. Cooper Street and no existing offsite runoff will be tributary to the
site from the south side of E Cooper Street.
To conclude, based on the offsite drainage analysis associated with E. Cooper Street, it has been determined
that offsite flows do not adversely impact the subject property and that the existing condition is found to be
acceptable for redevelopment. Estimated offsite peak runoff rates are summarized within Table 1. In addition,
supporting calculations and a drainage basin delineation plan are included as attachments to this letter.
Table 1 – Existing Peak Runoff Values
10-yr 100-yr 10-yr 100-yr 10-yr 100-yr
OS-1 0.076 100% 0.86 0.89 5.0
3.72 6.32 0.24 0.43
OS-2 0.032 100% 0.86 0.89 5.0
3.72 6.32 0.10 0.18
OS-3 0.013 75% 0.66 0.77 5.0
3.72 6.32 0.03 0.06
OS-4 0.984 85% 0.74 0.82 5.0
3.72 6.32 2.71 5.10
Subcatchment
Name
Area
(ac)
Pe rcent
Impervious
ness
Runoff Coefficient, C Selected
tc (min)
Rainfall Intensity,I(in/hr) Peak Flow, Q (cfs)
Page 77 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
125
1020 E Cooper Street- Engineering Letter HPC Application October 15, 2020
Page 4
5 02 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970)704-0311• Fax (970)704-0313
S OP RIS E NG INEERING • LL C ci vil consultants
Proposed Development, Stormwater Requirements and Stormwater Mitigation
It is our understanding that the project will include a remodel and relocation of the existing residence and an
expansion to accommodate multiple affordable housing units. Additional improvements include off-alley parking
along the north side of the property, various walkways, bicycle racks, trash enclosure, landscaping, stormwater
mitigation infrastructure and utility service extensions.
Based on the proposed improvements the project will be classified as a “Major Project” as identified within the City’s
URMP. Based on the location of the subject property the stormwater mitigation requirements will include water
quality treatment for all exposed impervious areas. Onsite stormwater detention is not required for the proposed
improvements as conveyance to the City’s street gutter system will be provided via an improved alley way. Surface
runoff will then sheet flow west down the gravel alley consistent with the analysis provided in the City’s SDMP
prepared by WRC Engineering.
Water Quality Treatment: Based on the estimated total impervious area, the resulting required water quality
treatment volume will be approximately 59 cf. Preliminary investigation for integrating permeable pavers, green roofs
and/or bioretention basins has proven challenging given the nature of the affordable housing development. The
gable type roofs and historic nature of the project prevents utilizing green roofs and the density of the site would
place permeable pavers and bioretention gardens very close to the proposed structures which will require
impermeable liners and underdrain piping that come at an additional cost and these underdrains would end up in the
dry well regardless given the inability to connect directly to the City’s storm drain system. Based on these constraints
a dry well is being proposed for water quality treatment. Dry Wells are a stormwater mitigation BMP that
incorporates manhole structures with perforated barrels at the deeper depths. Washed screened rock is installed
around the exterior of the perforated sections. When sub-soils are capable of moderate to high infiltration rates, dry
wells are considered to be a viable BMP. They dramatically reduce the increased runoff and volume of stormwater
generated from surrounding impervious areas and promote infiltration; thereby improving the water quality of
stormwater runoff.
The required water quality capture volume for a dry well shall be 150% of the design water quality capture volume as
outlined within Chapter 8 of the City’s URMP. Per the City’s URMP dry wells shall not be located within 10-ft of any
structure or 10-ft from a private property line. Based on these criteria there is only one potential location for a dry
well as illustrated on the attached conceptual civil drawings; unless a variance request is pursued. The resulting
anticipated water quality capture volume based on the anticipated proposed impervious areas and a 1.5 factor of
safety is estimated to be 89 cf. Given the minimum depths required to meet Section 8.5.4.2 of the City’s URMP
there will be an additional 60 cf of capacity within the dry well which will provide additional detention and attenuation
of stormwater runoff. Conceptual civil plans are included as an attachment for illustrative support of the proposed
site plan and stormwater mitigation design.
Site Utilities
Coordination with the various utility providers has taken place to verify layouts, routing, and feasibility of serving the
proposed improvements. This section describes our findings. Preliminary utility plans have been included within the
attached civil drawings for illustrative support. Additional details and finalized design will be submitted when a
Building Permit Application is pursued.
Water Service & Fire Flow Analysis
The City of Aspen Water Department is the provider of potable water for the subject property. Currently the site is
served off the existing 14 inch DIP main that runs down E. Cooper Avenue. The existing service size is unknown but
Page 78 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
126
1020 E Cooper Street- Engineering Letter HPC Application October 15, 2020
Page 5
5 02 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970)704-0311• Fax (970)704-0313
S OP RIS E NG INEERING • LL C ci vil consultants
the service is to be capped and abandoned if determined to be inadequate to support the proposed improvements.
A new service tap meeting the fire and domestic demands will be provided per COA Water Department Standards.
The water service is anticipated to be routed to a water entry room near the southeast corner of the historic landmark
building, beneath a proposed porch. The master meter will be located within a tempered space and entrance will be
provided through an access hatch integrated within the porch in compliance with Section 5.8 of the Water
Distribution Standards. A common service line agreement may be pursued by the development to facilitate separate
service feeds to the various units. This will be determined in support of a future building permit application if
necessary.
Final size of the service line will be coordinated with the Water Department staff based on anticipated building
program demands and fire sprinkler suppression requirements. Final fixture counts and resulting consumptive
demands will be determined by the Mechanical Engineer and coordinated with City staff prior to pursuing a Building
Permit Application.
Sanitary Sewer
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) is the supplier of sanitary sewer service to the subject property and
surrounding area. An existing 8” collector line exists in the alley to the north of the proposed building. There is an
existing service from this line to the existing residence. A shared sewer service will likely be provided for the
proposed development and a new tap and service line is anticipated. The final size of the service line will be
determined by the project MEP in support of building permit design. A small ejector vault and pump system will be
required in order to lift below grade spaces up to the District’s system within the alley. The ejector system is
anticipated to be located exterior of the structure(s) and located on the north side of the development. The design of
the system will be provided in support of any future building permit application.
Shallow Utilities
The shallow utilities proposed to serve 1020 E. Cooper Avenue include electric, cable, and telephone. An existing
gas main does run along the alley however natural gas service is not being proposed at this time. The information
provided within this section includes utility locates obtained during the improvement survey as well as discussions
with the individual utility providers.
City of Aspen Electric currently serves the subject property via a transformer located within an existing dedicated
easement (Rec. # 659373) near the northeast corner of the subject property. The existing transformer and vault
is primarily located on the adjacent property to the east, however a small portion of the transformer and vault lie
within the City’s Right of Way. The size and location of the existing transformer was discussed and coordinated
with City Engineering Staff. Relocating the existing transformer would require an additional splice vault within
the alley. City Staff decided additional infrastructure was not desirable and determined a new 4-ft diameter vault
is to be centered beneath the existing transformer. A new 5’x5’ transformer lid and upgraded transformer will be
placed atop the vault and portions of the upgraded infrastructure will remain within the alley. However, City
Engineering did request an easement on the subject property be provided to accommodate shifting the
transformer to the south and out of the right-of-way should the City pursue this in the future. After further review
of this option it has been determined that the existing onsite electric easement at the northeast corner is
adequate to comply with the separation requirements if/when the transformer is ever moved further to the south.
Comcast Cable service is currently provided via a pedestal located within an existing easement on the property
directly adjacent to the west. The upgraded service is proposed to come from this same pedestal and will follow
Page 79 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
127
1020 E Cooper Street- Engineering Letter HPC Application October 15, 2020
Page 6
5 02 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970)704-0311• Fax (970)704-0313
S OP RIS E NG INEERING • LL C ci vil consultants
a similar alignment to the existing line. Cable service is anticipated to be routed below grade directly to the north
building and routed internal to the building to serve the various units.
Century Link service is currently provided via an existing pedestal located near the northwest corner of the
property. New service to meet the development’s needs is anticipated to originate from this existing pedestal.
A Conceptual Utility Plan has been included as an attachment (C-2.0) for illustrative support. A final Utility Plan will
be submitted in support of any future building permit.
Conclusion
Based on our evaluation of the existing site conditions and proposed development the project has a viable option for
providing water quality mitigation that complies with City standards and offsite drainage basins will not have any
adverse impacts to the proposed development. In addition, utilities necessary to serve the project are available.
The design of all onsite stormwater mitigation infrastructure, water quality treatment facilities, and utility service
extensions, to include size and location, will be further analyzed as the project design progresses. Final designs will
be provided with any future building permit application.
If you have any questions or need any additional information please don’t hesitate contacting our office.
Sincerely,
SOPRIS ENGINEERING, LLC
Jesse K Swann, PE
Project Manager
Encl: C-1.0- Conceptual Grading & Drainage Plan, C-2.0- Conceptual Utility Plan, C-3.0- Conceptual Drainage
Mitigation Plan, Hyraflow Calculations
Page 80 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
128
XGAS
X
G
A
S
XGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XU
T
XUT
XU
T
XUT XUT XUT XUT
XWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXELXELXELXELXELXELXEL
XEL XEL
XELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELxxxxxxxxxxxxx x x x x x x XGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA
TELTELTEL TEL
TVTVTVTVTV TV
svc sa svc sa svc sa svc sa svc sa svc sa svcUELUE
L
UEL UEL UEL UEL
WLSVC>>>>>>
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>SUBJECT PROPERTY
PARCEL #273718232006
1020 E COOPER AVE
RIVERSIDE CONDO ASSOC
PARCEL #273718127801
1024 E COOPER AVE
(NOT PART OF PROJECT)
COOPER AVE VICTORIAN CONDO ASSOC
PARCEL #273718232802
1012 E COOPER AVE
(NOT PART OF PROJECT)
PROJECT BENCHMARK
FOUND #5 REBAR & RED
PLASTIC CAP PLS 33638
0.2' ABOVE GRADE
ELEV=7946.3
20.00'
ALLEY
73.70'
RIGHT OF WAY
ME: 42.8'±ME:
43
.3
'±ME: 42.9
'±ME: 42.9
'±
ME: 44.8'±ME: 44.7'±ME: 44.9'±
ME: 45.2'±
ME: 45.2'±
ME: 44.8'±
ME: 44.5'±
ME: 44.9'±
ME: 44.1'±ME: 44.1'±
EX: 43.8'±
EX: 45.3'±EX: 45.8'±
EX: 45.8'±
EX: 44.0'±
EX: 43.3'±
EX: 42.9'±EX: 42.8'±EX: 42.4'±1.0%4.0%
FG: 43.53
FG: 43.26
FG: 43.71
2.0%1.8%
2.0%1.8%4.2%4.2%1.4%
0.7%4.2%4.2%
2.0%
FG: 43.16 FG: 43.78
FG: 43.92
FG: 44.21
2.4%
FG: 43.79
FG: 44.25
FG: 43.63FG: 43.25
FG: 43.66
FG: 43.72
FG: 43.22
FG: 43.28
FFE:7943.28'
FG: 44.00
FG: 43.96
FG: 43.95
FG: 43.78
FG: 44.51
FG: 44.61
FG: 45.68
FG: 44.57
FG: 44.66
FG: 45.68
FG: 45.78
FG: 45.04
FG: 45.68
3.9%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%2.0%1.4%1.5%2.0%
2.0%
1.7%
0.9%
2.0%8.0%FG: 43.92 0.8%0.8%3.8%
5.1%
3.8%
4.0%
1.0%
1.2%
0.9%
1.1%
TC: 44.18
TBC: 44.93
FL: 44.50
TC: 44.72 ME: 44.9'±
TC: 44.49
TBC: 45.08
FL: 44.71
TC: 44.91
ME: 45.1'±
PROPOSED DRY WELL
RIM: 43.06
SEWER
CLEANOUT
RIM: 43.42
SEWER EJECTOR
VAULT RIM: 43.36
INLET RIM: 42.83
REPLACE 50 L.F.
EXISTING CURB AND
GUTTER TO MATCH
EXISTING SIZE AND
GRADES.
PROTECT EXISTING TREE
DURING CONSTRUCTION
REPLACE EXISTING
ASPHALT IN KIND
PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED 2"
ASPHALT OVERLAY
(12" MIN WIDTH)
PROPOSED FULL
DEPTH SAWCUT E. COOPER AVE.2 STEPS (UP)
6" RISE
794579437944FG: 43.72
FG: 43.85
FG: 44.42
FG: 43.28
FG: 44.47
FG: 43.79
LP/RIM: 43.60
LP/RIM: 44.37
FFE:7944.00'
FFE:7945.78'
EX: 44.3'±
FG: 43.82
FG: 43.58
FG: 43.85
2.3%1.5%1.0%EX: 44.6'±
STAIRS
DOWN
DOWN2.0%FG: 44.22 FG: 44.12
EX: 44.1'±
EX: 43.5'±
EX: 43.6'±
EX: 44.1'±1.0%2.0%1.0%1.0%
INLET RIM: 44.97
TRENCH DRAIN
RIM: 44.57
TRENCH DRAIN
RIM: 44.53
TRENCH DRAIN
RIM: 44.26
TRENCH DRAIN
RIM: 44.23
LP/RIM: 43.67
LP/RIM: 44.00 10.0%10.0%FG: 45.78
FG: 44.82
1.6%
2.0%1.9%FG: 44.36
3.3%7.3%
2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%3.9%
2.0%1.5%TBC: 44.08 TBC: 44.28 1.5%1.6%1.7%2.0%4.8%1.5%
1.5%5.0%
6" CURB ALONG EDGE
OF WALKWAY.
TBC: 43.66
TBC: 43.43
TBC: 42.93
FG: 42.93 TBC: 44.42 TBC: 44.29 TBC: 44.22
TBC: 44.82
TBC: 44.20
FG: 44.32
EXTERIOR CLOSET TO AVOID
IMPACTS TO EXISTING TREE
STORM PIPE SHALL BE ROUTED
ROUTED BELOW SLAB ON GRADE
PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL STORM
PIPE LAYOUT. MATERIAL, SIZE,
SLOPE & ALIGNMENT TO BE
FINALIZED IN SUPPORT OF
FUTURE BUILDING PERMIT (TYP)10.6'
TO PROPERTY
LINE
13.1'
TO PROPOSED BUILDING
10.1'
BETWEEN STRUCTURES
3-FT WIDE CONCRETE
DRAIN PAN
REPLACED ELECTRIC
VAULT & TRANSFORMER.
VAULT LID SET 6" ABOVE
FINAL/EXISTING GRADES
REPLACE EXISTING
SIDEWALK ADJOINING
SUBJECT PROPERTY
REPLACE EXISTING CURB
& GUTTER IN FRONT OF
SUBJECT PROPERTY
AREA DRAIN OR SLOT DRAIN AT
ENTRANCE & ROUTED THROUGH
STRUCTURE TO DRY WELL (AREA
LOCATED ABOVE STRUCTURE)
PROPOSED AREA INLET. SIZE &
LOCATION TO BE FINALIZED IN SUPPORT
OF FUTURE BUILDING PERMIT (TYP)
OPRIS ESNGINEERING, LLC.
CIVIL CONSULTANTS
JOB NO.
DATE:
502 MAIN STREET
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
(970) 704-0311
FAX: (970)-704-0313
DESIGNED BY
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
DATE REVISION
C-1.0
DRAWING NO.
TITLE
G:\2020\30111\CIVIL\CIVIL DWGS\PLOT\30111-G&D PLAN.DWG - Oct 14, 2020 - 2:57pmDRAINAGE DIRECTION/SLOPE
SPOT ELEVATION
EXAMPLE: TOP OF CONCRETE @ 7945.00' =
BOW = BOTTOM OF WALL
EOA = EDGE OF ASPHALT
EX = EXISTING GRADE
FFE = FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION
FG = FINISHED GRADE
FL = FLOW LINE
HP = HIGH POINT
LP = LOW POINT
MATCH EX = MATCH EXISTING
RIM = RIM ELEVATION
TBC = TOP BACK OF CURB
TOC = TOP OF CONCRETE
CONCEPTUAL
GRADING &
DRAINAGE PLANBASIS OF ELEVATION: THE 1998 CITY OF ASPEN DREXEL BARREL
CONTROL DATUM, WHICH IS BASED ON AN ELEVATION OF
7720.88' (NAVD 1998) ON THE NGS STATION "S-159".
THIS ESTABLISHED A SITE BENCHMARK LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHWEST PROPERTY CORNER. LS# 33638, ELEV: 7946.3' PER
SURVEY PREPARED BY SOPRIS ENGINEERING INC.
SPOT ELEVATION LEGEND
SITE BENCHMARK
MEMBER UTILITIES
FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND
BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE
CALL 2-BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
RNORTH1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
05 5 10
5
202.5
PROPOSED DRAINAGE DRY-WELL
PROPOSED SEWER MANHOLE
PROPOSED WATER VALVE
PROPOSED CURB STOP
PROPOSED GAS METER/VALVE
PROPOSED ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
PROPOSED SEWER CLEANOUT
PROPOSED STORM INLET
PROPOSED 8" WATER MAIN8'' WL
PROPOSED 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN
PROPOSED TELEPHONE
PROPOSED UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
PROPOSED CABLE
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
TEL TEL
UE
TV TV
8'' SA
EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT
EXISTING WATER VALVE
EXISTING CURB STOP
EXISTING GAS METER
EXISTING ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
EXISTING CATV PEDESTAL
EXISTING SEWER CLEANOUT
EXISTING 8" WATER MAINXWLXWL
EXISTING 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN
EXISTING GAS
EXISTING TELEPHONE
XGAS XGAS
EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
EXISTING CABLE
XUT XUT
XEL XEL
XTV XTV
EXISTING IRRIGATION PIPEXIRRXIRR
XSA XSA
30111
10-15-20
CJB 10/01/20
CJB 10/01/20
JKS 10/14/20
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN1020 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, COLORADOCONCEPTUAL HPC APPROVALPROPOSED SAWCUT
PROPOSED FULL DEPTH ASPHALT
PROPOSED 2" ASPHALT OVERLAY
PROPOSED CONCRETE
PROPOSED LEGEND
UTILITY LEGEND
VICINITY MAP
SITE
SCALE: 1" = 2,000'NORTHXX: XX.XX
2.0%
FG: 45.00
NOTE:
THESE PLANS ARE CONCEPTUAL OR ILLUSTRATIVE IN NATURE. PRECISE INFORMATION SHALL BE PROVIDED AS
PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION, AND IN SITUATIONS WHERE THE FINAL HPC APPROVAL PLANS
AND APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT DIFFER, THE APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT SHALL RULE.
PROPOSED GRAVEL
PROPOSED PORCH
PROPOSED PLANTING BED
PROPOSED LAWN AREA
REDUCED FOR
ATTACHMENT TO REPORT
Page 81 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
129
XGAS
X
G
A
S
XGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XU
T
XU
T
XUT XUT XUT XUT
XWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXEL
XEL
XEL XEL
XELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELxxxxxxxxxxxxx x x x x x xXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGAS
XGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA
TELTELTEL TEL
TVTVTVTVTV TV
sa svc sa svc sa svc sa svc sa svc sa svc sa svcUELU
E
L
UEL UEL UEL UEL
WLSVCINSTALL (2) 4" PVC CONDUITS
TO BUILDING FOR TELEPHONE
AND CABLE SERVICE.
INSTALL & EXTEND NEW WATER
SERVICE PER COA WATER
DEPARTMENT STANDARDS TO
PROPOSED WATER ENTRY ROOM
EXISTING 14" WATER MAIN
LOCATION AND SIZE OF WATER TAP TO BE
CONFIRMED PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT.
(NOTE: ALL UTILITY WORK WITHIN CDOT'S ROW
SHALL BE PERFORMED UNDER AN APPROVED CDOT
SPECIAL USE PERMIT)
REPLACE 50 L.F. EXISTING CURB AND
GUTTER TO MATCH EXISTING SIZE
AND GRADES. SEE G&D SHEET C1.0
PROTECT EXISTING TREE
DURING CONSTRUCTIONCONTRACTOR TO ABANDON EXISTING
UTILITY LINES SERVING THE SUBJECT
PROPERT (1020 E COOPER AVENUE)
CONTRACTOR TO SAWCUT AND
PATCH PER TRENCH DETAIL ON
THIS SHEET
REPLACE EXISTING ASPHALT IN KIND.
PROPOSED LOCATION OF ELECTRIC
METERS & DISTRIBUTION PANEL
PROPOSED UTILITIES TO BE INSTALLED WITH 2' MINIMUM
VERTICAL SEPARATION FROM STORM DRAIN. INSTALL
UTILITY LOCATE TAPE ABOVE CONDUIT. FINAL DESIGN TO
BE PROVIDED IN SUPPORT OF FUTURE BUILDING PERMIT
PROPOSED 33 L.F. GRAVITY SDR 26 SEWER SERVICE
AT 2% MINIMUM SLOPE (SIZE TO BE DETERMINED
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT)
INVERT AT CLEANOUT=7939.0±
INSTALL 2-WAY CLEANOUT W/ FRAME & GRATE
EXISTING TRANSFORMER TO BE
PROTECTED THROUGH ALL PHASES OF
CONSTRUCTION
EX. TRANSFORMER
TO BE REPLACED
PROPERTY (TYP)
NEW SECONDARY ELECTRIC SERVICE
(ESTIMATE: 600 AMP SERVICE. ACTUAL
ELECTRIC DEMAND TO BE CONFIRMED
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT)
EXISTING WATER SERVICE TO BE ABANDONED AT THE
MAIN PER COA WATER DEPARTMENT STANDARDS.
CONTRACTOR TO UTILIZE A MANHOLE TRENCH BOX
FOR ABANDONMENT TO LIMIT OVERALL
DISTURBANCE. ALL UTILITY WORK WITHIN CDOT'S
ROW SHALL BE PERFORMED UNDER AN APPROVED
CDOT SPECIAL USE PERMIT
NEW CABLE SERVICE LINE
EXTENDED FROM EXISTING
CABLE PEDESTAL PER COMCAST
STANDARDS
EXISTING CABLE
PEDESTAL
EXISTING BOLLARDS
(TO BE REMOVED)
NEW TELEPHONE SERVICE PULLED
FROM EXISTING PEDESTAL PER
CENTURY LINK STANDARDS
PROPOSED 2"
ASPHALT OVERLAY
(12" MIN WIDTH)
PROPOSED FULL DEPTH SAWCUT
NEW BOLLARDS @ EACH
CORNER OF VAULT
E. COOPER AVE.(STATE HIGHWAY 82)20.00'
ALLEY
EXISTING 3.5'X8'
ELEC. EASEMENT
PROPOSED 4' DIA. VAULT W/
5'X5' LID CENTERED OVER
EXISTING TRANSFORMER.
INSTALL NEW TRANSFORMER
HATCHED AREA REFLECTS
REQUIRED SEPARATION/EASEMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTY
PARCEL #273718232006
1020 E COOPER AVE
RIVERSIDE CONDO ASSOC
PARCEL #273718127801
1024 E COOPER AVE
(NOT PART OF PROJECT)
COOPER AVE VICTORIAN CONDO ASSOC
PARCEL #273718232802
1012 E COOPER AVE
(NOT PART OF PROJECT)
PROPOSED SEWER EJECTOR PIT
DESIGNED BY MEP IN SUPPORT
OF FUTURE BUILDING PERMIT
APPLICATION
EXISTING TELEPHONE
PEDESTAL
CONTRACTOR TO INSPECT EXISTING SEWER TAP &
COORDINATE WITH ASPEN CONSOLIDATED SANITATION
DISTRICT & ENGINEER OF RECORD ON WHETHER A NEW
TAP WILL BE REQUIRED.
EXTEND NEW SDR 26 SHARED SEWER SERVICE (SIZE TBD)
TO PROJECT AND REMOVE/ABANDON EXISTING 4" VCP
SHARED SERVICE AGREEMENT TO BE REQUESTED PRIOR
TO BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
INV OF MAIN LINE=7937.3±
INVERT OF SEWER SERVICE=7938.3±
CONNECT FORCE MAIN TO
MAINLINE GRAVITY SEWER
SERVICE
PROPOSED GRAVITY SEWER
SERVICE TO EJECTOR PUMP ENTRY PORCH W/ WATER ENTRY ROOMLOCATED BELOW W/IN CRAWLSPACEACCESS HATCH TO
CRAWLSPACE & WATER
ENTRY ROOM
8.0'
3.5'
8.0'
ADA
PARKING
STALL
8.0'
ACCESS AISLE
PROPOSED
DRY WELL
PROPOSED
AREA INLET
5' WIDE SIDEWALK
TO BE REPLACED IN
KIND
EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENT
(10'x9.4') PER BK 98 PG 93
EXISTING ELEC. EASEMENT
(2'x8') PER BK 126 PG 7
CONCEPTUAL STORM DRAIN LAYOUT.
FINAL SIZE, SLOPE & ALIGNMENT TO BE
DETERMINED IN SUPPORT OF FUTURE
BUILDING PERMIT (TYP)
PROPOSED DRAINAGE DRY-WELL
PROPOSED SEWER MANHOLE
PROPOSED WATER VALVE
PROPOSED ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
PROPOSED SEWER CLEANOUT
PROPOSED STORM INLET
PROPOSED 8" WATER MAIN8'' WL
PROPOSED 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN
PROPOSED TELEPHONE
PROPOSED UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
PROPOSED CABLE
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
TEL TEL
UE
TV TV
8'' SA
EXISTING WATER VALVE
EXISTING ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
EXISTING CATV PEDESTAL
EXISTING WATER MAINXWLXWL
EXISTING 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN
EXISTING GAS
EXISTING TELEPHONE
XGAS XGAS
EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
EXISTING CABLE
XUT XUT
XEL XEL
XTV XTV
EXISTING IRRIGATION PIPEXIRRXIRR
XSA XSA
OPRIS ESNGINEERING, LLC.
CIVIL CONSULTANTS
30111JOB NO.
DATE:10-15-20
502 MAIN STREET
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
(970) 704-0311
FAX: (970)-704-0313
DESIGNED BY
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
CJB 10/01/20
CJB 10/01/20
JKS 10/14/20
DATE REVISION
C-2.0
DRAWING NO.
TITLE
G:\2020\30111\CIVIL\CIVIL DWGS\PLOT\30111-UTIL PLAN.DWG - Oct 14, 2020 - 2:56pmNORTHCONCEPTUAL
UTILITY PLANCONCEPTUAL DESIGN1020 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, COLORADOHPC CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
05 5 10
5
202.5
UTILITY PLAN LEGEND
MEMBER UTILITIES
FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND
BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE
CALL 2-BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
1. ALL MINIMUM DEPTHS, SEPARATION DISTANCES, MATERIALS AND/OR USE OF CONDUIT SHALL
BE CONFIRMED AND COORDINATED WITH THE UTILITY PROVIDER PER UTILITY AGREEMENTS.
2. ALL UTILITY LINES AND/OR CONDUITS TO BE BACKFILLED WITH SUITABLE MATERIAL FREE OF
ROCKS >1 1/2" Ø. USE CLASS 6 AGGREGATE BASE MATERIAL FOR BEDDING, AND/OR SUITABLE
ONSITE MATERIAL. INSTALL PER UTILITY PROVIDER SPECIFICATIONS. BACKFILL TRENCHES
WITH SUITABLE ONSITE MATERIALS. MINIMUM COMPACTION 95% IN PAVED AREAS.
3. GAS AND ELECTRIC TO BE INSTALLED IN SEPARATE TRENCHES. SEWER SERVICES TO BE
INSTALLED A MINIMUM 10' FROM WATER SERVICES AS FEASIBLE. COMMUNICATIONS MAY BE
INSTALLED IN COMBINED TRENCHES PER CONSTRUCTION FEASIBILITY AS LONG AS MINIMUM
SEPARATION DISTANCES AND DEPTHS OF BURY ARE MAINTAINED. INSTALL WARNING TAPE
OVER ALL UTILITY LINES.
UTILITY SERVICE MINIMUM DEPTH
WATER--------------------------------7.0'
SEWER--------------------------------5.0'
ELECTRIC----------------------------3.0'
CABLE TV----------------------------3.0'
PHONE--------------------------------3.0'
GAS----------------------------------- 2.0'
1. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE ABANDONMENT, RELOCATION, AND BURIAL OF THE EXISTING UTILITIES WITH
THE UTILITY PROVIDERS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTAIN HIS CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION.
CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT OPERATE OUTSIDE THIS AREA WITHOUT THE PRIOR CONSENT OF THE PROPERTY
OWNER(S) INVOLVED.
3. THE LOCATIONS OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES HAVE BEEN PLOTTED BASED ON UTILITY MAPS, LOCATES OR
OTHER INFORMATION PROVIDED BY UTILITY COMPANIES AND ACTUAL FIELD LOCATIONS IN SOME INSTANCES.
THESE UTILITIES, AS SHOWN MAY NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
THE CONTRACTOR TO CONTACT ALL UTILITY COMPANIES FOR FIELD LOCATION OF UTILITIES PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION.
4. ALL UTILITIES, BOTH UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD, SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN CONTINUOUS SERVICE
THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE AND LIABLE
FOR ANY DAMAGES TO, OR INTERRUPTION OF, SERVICES CAUSED BY THE CONSTRUCTION.
5. ALL SITE AND UTILITY WORK SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF ASPEN RULES & REGULATIONS. A
PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
6. EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY PROVIDED BY SOPRIS ENGINEERING, LLC.
7. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL EXISTING TREES THAT ARE TO REMAIN. A TREE PROTECTION PLAN MUST BE
APPROVED BY CITY PARKS DEPARTMENT AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION.
8. ALL UTILITY METER LOCATIONS SHOWN FOR REFERENCE. REFER TO MEP PLANS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
GENERAL UTILITY NOTES:
SHALLOW UTILITY NOTES:
NOTE:
THESE PLANS ARE CONCEPTUAL OR ILLUSTRATIVE IN NATURE. PRECISE INFORMATION SHALL BE PROVIDED AS
PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION, AND IN SITUATIONS WHERE THE FINAL HPC APPROVAL PLANS
AND APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT DIFFER, THE APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT SHALL RULE.
PROPOSED SAWCUT
PROPOSED FULL DEPTH ASPHALT
PROPOSED 2" ASPHALT OVERLAY
PROPOSED LEGEND
PROPOSED GRAVEL
PROPOSED PLANTING BED
PROPOSED LAWN AREA
REDUCED FOR
ATTACHMENT TO REPORT
Page 82 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
130
x x x x x
xxx>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>RIVERSIDE CONDO ASSOCPARCEL #2737181278011024 E COOPER AVE(NOT PART OF PROJECT)COOPER AVE VICTORIAN CONDO ASSOCPARCEL #2737182328021012 E COOPER AVE(NOT PART OF PROJECT)E. COOPER AVE.794579437944APPROXIMATE LIMITSOF ROOF OVERHANGPROPOSED AFFORDABLE HOUSINGDEVELOPMENTTOTAL PROPOSED IMPERVIOUSAREA: 3,720 SFTOTAL SITE IMPERVIOUS: 85%APPROXIMATE LOCATION OFWATER QUALITY DRYWELL.NOTE: DRYWELL TO BE LOCATED10' FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY LINEAND STRUCTURESPROPOSED BURIED STORMWATERCONVEYANCE PIPE, TYP.PROPOSED BURIED STORMWATERCONVEYANCE PIPE, TYP.PROPOSED BURIED STORMWATERCONVEYANCE PIPE, TYP.PROPOSED CONCRETE WALKWAY.PROPOSED VALLEY INLET.ADDITIONALLY SERVES ASDRYWELL OVERFLOW POINTPROPOSED CONCRETE DRAIN PAN.PROPOSED TRENCH DRAINCONCRETE PATIOPROPOSED AREA INLETPROPOSED AREA INLETPROPOSED AREA INLETPROPOSED AREA INLETPROPOSED AREA INLETx x EXISTING SINGLE STORY RESIDENCETOTAL EXISTING SITE IMPERVIOUSAREA: 1,945 SF ±EXISTING SITE IMPERVIOUS: 45%OS-1OS-2OS-3RIVERSIDE CONDO ASSOCCOOPER AVE VICTORIANCONDO ASSOCCHATEAU EAU CLAIREOS-4EXISTING INLETAT LOW POINTEXISTING INLETAT LOW POINTEAST COOPER STREETOPRISESNGINEERING, LLC.CIVIL CONSULTANTSJOB NO.DATE:502 MAIN STREETCARBONDALE, CO 81623(970) 704-0311FAX: (970)-704-0313DESIGNED BYDRAWN BYCHECKED BYDATEREVISIONC-3.0DRAWING NO.TITLEG:\2020\30111\CIVIL\CIVIL DWGS\PLOT\30111-DRN PLAN.DWG - Oct 15, 2020 - 8:28am
CONCEPTUALDRAINAGEMITIGATION PLANMEMBER UTILITIESFOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUNDBEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATECALL 2-BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCEKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRNORTH1 inch = ft.( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALE020204020801030111.0210-15-20NEK10/01/20NEK10/01/20JKS00/00/00CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
1020 E. COOPER AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO
CONCEPTUAL HPC APPROVALNOTE:THESE PLANS ARE CONCEPTUAL OR ILLUSTRATIVE IN NATURE. PRECISE INFORMATION SHALL BE PROVIDED ASPART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION, AND IN SITUATIONS WHERE THE FINAL HPC APPROVAL PLANSAND APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT DIFFER, THE APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT SHALL RULE.NORTH1 inch = ft.( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALE055105202.5EXISTING CONDITIONSPOST DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONSPOST DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE BASINLEGENDEXISTING DRAINAGE BASINDRAINAGE FLOW ARROWEXISTING CONTOUREXISTING CONTOUR INTERVAL7900PROPOSED CONTOURPROPOSED CONTOUR INTERVAL7900EXISTING GIS CONTOURPage 83 of 96Exhibit B- Application131
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, Oct 14 2020
OS-1 4' PAN, 100yr
Triangular
Side Slopes (z:1) = 10.00, 10.00
Total Depth (ft) = 0.20
Invert Elev (ft) = 100.00
Slope (%)= 1.50
N-Value = 0.013
Calculations
Compute by:Known Q
Known Q (cfs) = 0.43
Highlighted
Depth (ft)= 0.14
Q (cfs)= 0.430
Area (sqft)= 0.20
Velocity (ft/s)= 2.19
Wetted Perim (ft) = 2.81
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.17
Top Width (ft)= 2.80
EGL (ft)= 0.21
0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section
99.75 -0.25
100.00 0.00
100.25 0.25
100.50 0.50
100.75 0.75
101.00 1.00
Reach (ft)
Page 84 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
132
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, Oct 14 2020
OS-1 4' PAN
Triangular
Side Slopes (z:1) = 10.00, 10.00
Total Depth (ft) = 0.20
Invert Elev (ft) = 100.00
Slope (%)= 1.50
N-Value = 0.013
Calculations
Compute by:Q vs Depth
No. Increments = 10
Highlighted
Depth (ft)= 0.02
Q (cfs)= 0.003
Area (sqft)= 0.00
Velocity (ft/s)= 0.65
Wetted Perim (ft) = 0.40
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.03
Top Width (ft)= 0.40
EGL (ft)= 0.03
0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section
99.75 -0.25
100.00 0.00
100.25 0.25
100.50 0.50
100.75 0.75
101.00 1.00
Reach (ft)
Page 85 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
133
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, Oct 14 2020
OS-3 5' SIDEWALK, 100yr
User-defined
Invert Elev (ft) = 100.00
Slope (%)= 1.50
N-Value = 0.013
Calculations
Compute by:Known Q
Known Q (cfs) = 0.06
(Sta, El, n)-(Sta, El, n)...
( 0.00, 100.10)-(5.00, 100.05, 0.013)
Highlighted
Depth (ft)= 0.04
Q (cfs)= 0.060
Area (sqft)= 0.08
Velocity (ft/s)= 0.75
Wetted Perim (ft) = 4.04
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.04
Top Width (ft)= 4.00
EGL (ft)= 0.05
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section
99.75 -0.25
100.00 0.00
100.25 0.25
100.50 0.50
100.75 0.75
101.00 1.00
Sta (ft)
Page 86 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
134
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, Oct 14 2020
OS-3 5' SIDEWALK
User-defined
Invert Elev (ft) = 100.00
Slope (%)= 1.50
N-Value = Composite
Calculations
Compute by:Q vs Depth
No. Increments = 10
(Sta, El, n)-(Sta, El, n)...
( 0.00, 100.10)-(5.00, 100.05, 0.013)
Highlighted
Depth (ft)= 0.05
Q (cfs)= 0.149
Area (sqft)= 0.13
Velocity (ft/s)= 1.19
Wetted Perim (ft) = 5.05
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.06
Top Width (ft)= 5.00
EGL (ft)= 0.07
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section
99.75 -0.25
100.00 0.00
100.25 0.25
100.50 0.50
100.75 0.75
101.00 1.00
Sta (ft)
Page 87 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
135
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, Oct 14 2020
OS-2 COOPER STREET NORTH, 100yr
User-defined
Invert Elev (ft) = 100.00
Slope (%)= 1.50
N-Value = 0.013
Calculations
Compute by:Known Q
Known Q (cfs) = 0.18
(Sta, El, n)-(Sta, El, n)...
( -20.00, 100.89)-(0.50, 100.38, 0.013)
Highlighted
Depth (ft)= 0.13
Q (cfs)= 0.180
Area (sqft)= 0.10
Velocity (ft/s)= 1.81
Wetted Perim (ft) = 1.66
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.15
Top Width (ft)= 1.53
EGL (ft)= 0.18
-5 0 5 10
Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section
99.75 -0.25
100.00 0.00
100.25 0.25
100.50 0.50
100.75 0.75
101.00 1.00
Sta (ft)
Page 88 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
136
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, Oct 14 2020
OS-2 COOPER STREET NORTH, MAX
User-defined
Invert Elev (ft) = 100.00
Slope (%)= 1.50
N-Value = 0.013
Calculations
Compute by:Known Depth
Known Depth (ft) = 0.38
(Sta, El, n)-(Sta, El, n)...
( -20.00, 100.89)-(0.50, 100.38, 0.013)
Highlighted
Depth (ft)= 0.38
Q (cfs)= 4.320
Area (sqft)= 1.11
Velocity (ft/s)= 3.91
Wetted Perim (ft) = 7.51
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.46
Top Width (ft)= 7.13
EGL (ft)= 0.61
-5 0 5 10
Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section
99.75 -0.25
100.00 0.00
100.25 0.25
100.50 0.50
100.75 0.75
101.00 1.00
Sta (ft)
Page 89 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
137
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, Oct 14 2020
OS-4 COOPER STREET SOUTH, MAX
User-defined
Invert Elev (ft) = 100.00
Slope (%)= 1.50
N-Value = 0.013
Calculations
Compute by:Known Q
Known Q (cfs) = 5.10
(Sta, El, n)-(Sta, El, n)...
( -0.50, 100.46)-(2.00, 100.17, 0.013)-(10.00, 100.53, 0.013)-(23.00, 100.79, 0.013)
Highlighted
Depth (ft)= 0.41
Q (cfs)= 5.100
Area (sqft)= 1.29
Velocity (ft/s)= 3.95
Wetted Perim (ft) = 7.76
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.50
Top Width (ft)= 7.33
EGL (ft)= 0.65
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section
99.75 -0.25
100.00 0.00
100.25 0.25
100.50 0.50
100.75 0.75
101.00 1.00
Sta (ft)
Page 90 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
138
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, Oct 14 2020
OS-4 COOPER STREET SOUTH, MAX
User-defined
Invert Elev (ft) = 100.00
Slope (%)= 1.50
N-Value = 0.013
Calculations
Compute by:Known Depth
Known Depth (ft) = 0.46
(Sta, El, n)-(Sta, El, n)...
( -0.50, 100.46)-(2.00, 100.17, 0.013)-(10.00, 100.53, 0.013)-(23.00, 100.79, 0.013)
Highlighted
Depth (ft)= 0.46
Q (cfs)= 7.688
Area (sqft)= 1.67
Velocity (ft/s)= 4.60
Wetted Perim (ft) = 8.88
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.58
Top Width (ft)= 8.41
EGL (ft)= 0.79
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section
99.75 -0.25
100.00 0.00
100.25 0.25
100.50 0.50
100.75 0.75
101.00 1.00
Sta (ft)
Page 91 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
139
COOPERN33° 32' 03"
W 687.12' TIEEAST COOPER AVENUEEAST HYMAN AVENUECLEVEL
A
N
D
S
T
R
E
E
T
ALLEY
(20.20')
13.79'LOT KLOT LLOT MLOT NLOT OLOT PLOT QLOT RLOT ALOT BLOT CLOT DLOT ELOT FLOT GLOT HCOOPER
A
V
E
V
I
C
T
O
R
I
A
N
C
O
N
D
O
A
S
S
O
C
PARCEL
#
2
7
3
7
1
8
2
3
2
8
0
2
1012 E C
O
O
P
E
R
A
V
E
ASPEN,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
STOVER
R
A
Y
M
O
N
D
J
H
J
R
&
M
A
R
Y
L
PARCEL
#
2
7
3
7
1
8
2
3
2
0
0
4
1006 E C
O
O
P
E
R
A
V
E
ASPEN,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
MCDON
A
L
D
S
C
O
T
T
PARCEL
#
2
7
3
7
1
8
2
3
2
0
0
3
1000 E C
O
O
P
E
R
A
V
E
ASPEN,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
RIVERSI
D
E
C
O
N
D
O
A
S
S
O
C
PARCEL
#
2
7
3
7
1
8
1
2
7
8
0
1
1024 E C
O
O
P
E
R
A
V
E
ASPEN,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
SILVER
G
L
E
N
T
O
W
N
H
O
U
S
E
S
C
O
N
D
O
A
S
S
O
C
PARCEL
#
2
7
3
7
1
8
1
1
2
8
0
0
E HYMA
N
A
V
E
ASPEN,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
VINCEN
T
I
C
O
N
D
O
A
S
S
O
C
PARCEL
#
2
7
3
7
1
8
1
1
2
8
0
0
E HYMA
N
A
V
E
ASPEN,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
SUNRISE
C
O
N
D
O
A
S
S
O
C
PARCEL
#
2
7
3
7
1
8
2
3
2
8
0
1
1007 E
H
Y
M
A
N
A
V
E
ASPEN,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
COOPER
T
A
C
H
E
C
H
R
I
S
T
E
N
PARCEL
#
2
7
3
7
1
8
2
3
2
0
0
1
1001 E
H
Y
M
A
N
A
V
E
ASPEN,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
RIGHT-OF-WAY
(73.70')
SUBJECT
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
PARCEL
#
2
7
3
7
1
8
2
3
2
0
0
6
1020 E C
O
O
P
E
R
A
V
E
ASPEN,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
4,379 S
Q
.
F
T
.
±
O
R
0
.
1
0
1
A
C
R
E
S
±S73° 21' 03"W 617.26' TIEFOUND #4 REBAR & YELLOW
PLASTIC CAP PLS 25947
0.2' BELOW GRADE
ELEV=7942.5
FOUND #5 REBAR &
RED PLASTIC CAP
PLS 33638
0.2' ABOVE GRADE
ELEV=7946.3
FOUND #5 REBAR
0.3' BELOW GRADE
FOUND #5 REBAR &
YELLOW PLASTIC CAP
PLS 19598
0.1' ABOVE GRADE
FOUND #5 REBAR &
YELLOW PLASTIC CAP
PLS 2376
0.2' BELOW GRADE
FOUND #5 REBAR &
YELLOW PLASTIC CAP
ILLEGIBLE
0.3' ABOVE GRADE
FOUND 1" IRON PIPE
FOUND #5 REBAR &
YELLOW PLASTIC CAP
ILLEGIBLE
0.1' BELOW GRADE
FOUND #5 REBAR &
YELLOW PLASTIC CAP
ILLEGIBLE
0.3 ABOVE GRADE
FOUND #5 REBAR
0.2' ABOVE GRADE
FOUND #5 REBAR &
YELLOW PLASTIC CAP
PLS 19598
FLUSH WITH GRADE
FOUND #4REBAR & RED
PLASTIC CAP PLS 24303
0.1' BELOW GRADE
SET #5 REBAR & ORANGE PLASTIC
CAP PLS 28643
FLUSH WITH GRADE
NEAREST INTERSECTION OFCOOPER AVE & CLEAVLAND ST(177.9')N15° 46'
0
3
"
E
8
7
8
.
9
5
'
ASPEN
G
P
S
-
4
WEST E
N
D
&
HOPKIN
S
ASPEN
G
P
S
-
1
WEST E
N
D
&
DURANT
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
I, Mark S. Beckler, hereby certify to: 1020 Cooper LLC, a Colorado limited liability company and Land Title Guarantee
Company
That this is an "Improvement Survey Plat" as defined by C.R.S. § 38-51-102(9) and that it is a monumented Land Survey
showing the location of all setbacks, structures, visible utilities, fences, or walls situated on the described parcel and
within five feet of all boundaries of such parcel, any conflicting boundary evidence or visible encroachments, utilities
marked by client and all depicted easements described in Land Title Guarantee Company's, commitment for title
insurance file no. Q62010331.1, or other sources as specified on the improvement survey plat.
The error of closure for this plat is less than 1/15,000.
_____________________________________
Mark S. Beckler L.S. #28643 2020-08-07
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The Easterly 13.79 feet of Lot O and all of Lot P, Block 34, East Aspen Addition to the City of Aspen
According to the Lot Line Adjustment/Subdivision Exemption Plat of 1020 E. Copper, recorded October
8, 2019 as reception no. 659373.
County of Pitkin
State of Colorado
NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL
ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS
AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION
BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN
YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.
SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC
CIVIL CONSULTANTS
502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3
CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623
(970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM 8/7/2020 - 30111 - G:\2020\30111\SURVEY\Survey DWGs\Survey Plots and Exhibits\30111_ISP.dwg
VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1" = 2000'
GENERAL UTILITY NOTES:
The locations of underground utilities have been plotted based on utility maps,
construction/design plans, other information provided by utility companies and actual
field locations in some instances. These utilities, as shown, may not represent actual
field conditions. It is the responsibility of the contractor to contact all utility
companies for field location of utilities prior to construction.
IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT
1020 E COOPER AVE
THE EASTERLY 13.79 FEET OF LOT 0 AND ALL OF LOT P, BLOCK 34, EAST ASPEN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN
PITKIN COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO.
SHEET 1 OF 2
SOURCE DOCUMENTS:
·the Improvement Survey Map certified June 4, 2019 prepared by Tuttle Surveying Services, Job #19053 (not of the
Pitkin County, Colorado Records)
·the Plat of East Aspen Addition, recorded August 24, 1959 in Book 2 at Page 252
·Lot Line Adjustment/Subdivision Exemption Plat, recorded October 8, 2019 as Reception No. 659373.
·Historic Preservation Resolution #21, Series of 2019, recorded December 26, 2019 as Reception No. 661468
ALL OF THE PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO RECORDS-UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
NOTES
1) Date of Survey: July 2020.
2) Date of Preparation: July - August 2020.
3) Linear Units: The linear unit used in the preparation of this plat is the U.S. Survey Foot as defined by the United
States Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology.
4) Basis of Bearing: Bearings are based on the 2009 Marcin Engineering-City of Aspen Control Map, yielding a site
bearing of N 74°18'31" W from the SE Corner of Lot L, Block 34, East Aspen Addition, a found #5 rebar and yellow
plastic cap illegible, and the South East Corner of said BLock 34, a found #5 rebar and yellow plastic cap PLS 19598.
5) This survey does not constitute a title search by Sopris Engineering, LLC (SE) to determine ownership or easements of
record. For all information regarding easements, rights of way and/or title of record, SE relied upon a title
commitment prepared by Land Title Guarantee Company, Order Number Q62010331.1, Effective Date, July 2, 2020
and documents and plats of record as shown in the Source Documents, hereon.
6) Basis of elevation: The 1998 City of Aspen Drexel Barrel control datum, which is based on an elevation of 7720.88'
(NAVD 1988) on the NGS station "S-159". This established two site benchmarks, shown on page 1.
7) The FIRM flood map for this property is number 08097C0366E, effective on 08/15/2019, property is in area of
minimal flood hazard, zone X.
8) Slope - 0 - 10% per "Percent Slope within Aspen". City of Aspen - June 1, 2009 and per field work all natural slopes 0 -
10% this survey.
9) Geological Hazards - None per "Potential Geological Hazards Area". City of Aspen Master Drainage Plan. WRC
Engineering Inc. - 2001
10) Mud Flow
None per "Maximum Flow Depth, 100-Year Event". City of Aspen Master Drainage Plan. WRC Engineering Inc. - 2001
nor per "Aspen Mountain Mud Flow Zones". City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan Fig. 7.1 - 2010
11) Wetlands - None per "U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Map"
12) Contour Interval: One (1) foot.
13) Tree measurements were performed to City of Aspen standards (Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 13 Sec. 13.20.020).
14) Address: 1020 E COOPER AVE
15) Pitkin County Parcel No.--273-718-23-2006
SITE
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
020 20 40
20
8010
Page 92 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
140
XGAS
X
G
A
S
X
G
A
S
XGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XUT
XU
T
XU
T
X
U
T
XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT
XWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXEL
XEL
XEL XEL
XELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x x x x x x x xXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGAS
XGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGAS5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK
10'STBK10'STBK10'STBK10'STBK10'STBK10'STBK10'STBK15'STBK15'STBK15'STBK15'STBK15'STBK15'STBK15'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK10'STBK10'STBK10'STBK10'STBK10'STBK10'STBK10'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBKXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAEAST COOPER AVENUEALLEY
(20.20')LOT OLOT ELOT FLOT GRIGHT-OF-
W
A
Y
(73.70')
10'
SETBACK
10'
SETBACK
5'
SETBACK
5'
SETBACK
RAISED
WOODEN
PLANTER
RAISED
WOODEN
PLANTER
GATE
EX:7944.5'±EX:7944.5'±EX:7944.6'±EX:7944.5'±EX:7944.5'±EX:7944.5'±EX:7944.5'±EX:7944.0'±EX:7944.2'±EX:7944.1'±EX:7943.9'±EX:7943.9'±EX:7944.1'±EX:7944.0'±EX:7944.1'±EX:7943.6'±EX:7943.3'±EX:7942.9'±EX:7942.8'±EX:7942.9'±EX:7942.9'±EX:7942.9'±
EX:7942.9'±EX:7943.0'±EX:7942.9'±EX:7943.0'±EX:7942.9'±EX:7942.9'±EX:7943.5'±EX:7943.5'±EX:7943.4'±EX:7943.4'±EX:7943.0'±
EX:7943.1'±EX:7943.0'±EX:7943.0'±794579457944
7943
7944
7943
7943
7943
794379437943 7943 7943
79
4
4
7944 79457945794412.2'5.0'17.5'35.0'29.7'40.0'
7.3'29.7'7.5'14.1'10.3'14.1'10.3'20.2'12.1'20.1'12.1'
MAILBOX
CONCRETE
CONCRETE SIDEWALKCONCRETE
GRAVEL
GRAVEL
GRAVEL
CONCRETE
P
O
R
C
H
WITH ROOF
O
V
E
R
H
A
N
G ASPHALTTOP BACK OF CURB
FLOWLINE OF CURB
CURB STOP
CABLE
BOX
BUSH BUSH
BUSH
BUSH
4 TREES
DECIDUOU
S
2.8"X6'
TREE
DECIDUOU
S
1.5"X3'
TREE
CONIFERO
U
S
14.1"X28'
FINISHED FLOOR 7944.8'±
FINISHED FLOOR 7943.3'±
FINISHED FLOOR 7943.2'±
FINISHED FLOOR 7944.8'±
BALLARD
CONCRETE
PAD
TRANSFORMER
& PAD
GAS METER
TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
TELEPHONE
CONNECTION
ELECTRIC METER
TELEPHONE
PEDESTAL
ROCK
RETAINING
WALL
ROCK
RETAINING
WALL
LOG DECORATIVE BORDER
4' WIRE FENCE 2.5' WOOD FENCE4' WOOD FENCE
3' WOOD FENCE2.5' METAL FENCE1 STORY S
I
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
WOOD FRA
M
E
STRUCTUR
E
1020 E CO
O
P
E
R
A
V
E
,
ASPEN, CO
8
1
6
1
1
CONCRETE
PORCH
WITH ROOF
OVERHANG
SHED
SHED
RAIL ROAD TIE RETAINING WALL EX:7945.3'±EX:7944.8'±EX:7944.5'±EX:7944.5'±EX:7944.3'±EX:7944.3'±EX:7944.1'±EX:7944.0'±EX:7944.3'±EX:7944.5'±EX:7944.7'±EX:7944.8'±EX:7944.8'±EX:7944.9'±S74° 18' 31"E 43.79'S15° 41' 29"W 100.00'N74° 18' 31"W 43.79'N15° 41' 29"E 100.00'
TREE
CONIFERO
U
S
10.8"X21'N74° 18' 31"W 239.94'(BASIS OF BEARING)2.2'
4.4'
3.7'
0.9'
2.4'
22.7'EX:7945.0'±EX:7944.7'±EX:7944.3'±EX:7944.3'±EX:7943.8'±EX:7942.7'±EX:7944.0'±EX:7942.5'±
EX:7942.7'±EX:7942.5'±EX:7942.8'±EX:7943.0'±EX:7943.3'±EX:7943.3'±EX:7943.3'±EX:7943.4'±EX:7943.1'±EX:7943.2'±EX:7943.0'±EX:7943.1'±EX:7943.0'±EX:7942.8'±EX:7944.1'±PRINCIPLE BUILDING SETBACKACCESSORY BUILDING SETBACK15'
SETBACK
PRINCIPLE BUILDING SETBACKACCESSORY BUILDING SETBACK5'
SETBACK
METAL STAIRS FREE STANDING
TRANSFORMER
& PAD
2.09'
8'
2'
2'X8' ELECTRIC EASEMENT
(BOOK 126 PAGE 7)
8'
3.5'
3.5'X8' ELECTRIC EASEMENT
(BOOK 126 PAGE 7)XSATEE XSASAN SEWER
RIM = 7944.47
IN EAST 4" PVC = 7939.37
OUT WEST 4" PVC = 7938.45
SAN SEWER
RIM = 7938.68
IN EAST 8" PVC = 7931.98
OUT WEST 8" PVC = 7931.99
NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL
ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS
AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION
BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN
YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.
SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC
CIVIL CONSULTANTS
502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3
CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623
(970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM 8/7/2020 - 30111 - G:\2020\30111\SURVEY\Survey DWGs\Survey Plots and Exhibits\30111_ISP.dwg
GENERAL UTILITY NOTES:
The locations of underground utilities have been plotted based on utility maps,
construction/design plans, other information provided by utility companies and actual
field locations in some instances. These utilities, as shown, may not represent actual
field conditions. It is the responsibility of the contractor to contact all utility
companies for field location of utilities prior to construction.
IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT
THE EASTERLY 13.79 FEET OF LOT 0 AND ALL OF LOT P, BLOCK 34, EAST ASPEN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN
PITKIN COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO.
SHEET 2 OF 2
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
04 4 8
4
162
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
EXISTING CURB STOP
EXISTING GAS METER
EXISTING ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
EXISTING ELECTRIC METER
EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
EXISTING STORM SEWERXSDXSD
EXISTING 8" WATER MAINXWLXWL
EXISTING 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN
EXISTING GAS
EXISTING TELEPHONE
XGAS XGAS XGAS
EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
EXISTING CABLE
XUT XUT XUT
XEL XEL XEL
XTV XTV XTV
XSA XSA
EXISTING LEGEND
1020 E COOPER AVE
52.0'
303.7'
Page 93 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
141
Neighborhood Context
1 - 1000 East Cooper, single family home, AspenVictorian
2 - 1006 East Cooper, single family home, AspenVictorian
3 - 1012 East Cooper, 5 unit multifamily building “Cooper Ave Victorians”
4 - 1024 East Cooper, 10 unit multifamily building “Riverside Condos”
5 - 1034 East Cooper, ~25 unit multifamily building “Chateau Eau Claire”
6 - 1039 East Cooper, ~47 unit multifamily building “Chateau Roaring Fork”
7 - 1001 East Cooper, 8 unit multifamily building “Villager Townhouse”
8 - 949 East Cooper, 5 unit property “East Cooper Court”, AspenVictorian
1 2 3 4 5
6
7 8
1 2 3 44 5
6
78
6
Proposed 1020 East Cooper Project
Page 94 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
142
Exhibit 18
DRC Review Comment Response
January 4, 2021
1020 East Cooper Project
Exhibit 18
Response to DRC Review Comments
Building Department
Comment 1: Will be addressed at building permit.
Comment 2: The egress well has been removed from the revised plan.
Comment 3: Will be addressed at building permit.
Comment 4: Unit 103 has been redesigned to be Type B accessible unit.
Comment 5: The clear dimensions of the column work with the door/ramp access of a typical minivan.
Comment 6: Trash is on accessible route as confirmed by Building Department. Clearances will be
included in building permit.
Comments 7 – 14: Will be addressed at building permit.
Engineering Department
I reviewed the conceptual drainage report Jesse sent over last week and it addresses all of my comments
for DRC. I spoke to the Electric Department and it is acceptable to have the 2’x8’ easement in the proposed
parking space since it is to the side and not in front of the doors.
A few things to note for building permit submittal
1. Fire flow calcs will be required if a 4” service line is needed. Calcs that show a 2” 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.
Response – these items will be included in the building permit application. An electric easement drawing
demonstrating the proposed location for the upgraded vault/transformer was submitted to the City of Aspen
Engineering Department on December 21, 2020 for review.
Environmental Health Department
1020 E. Cooper Ave. – Space Allotment for Trash and Recycling Storage
Liz Chapman – Environmental Health and Sustainability
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.
a. Applicant indicates alley access will be facilitated by the use of the handicap parking access
to provide an unobstructed path to the trash area.
Page 95 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
143
Exhibit 18
DRC Review Comment Response
January 4, 2021
1020 East Cooper Project
b. Applicant has indicated this space will be equipped with bear-proof technology to prevent
wildlife access.
2. These proposals meet with approval by Environmental Health.
Response: No comment necessary.
Parks Department
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.
Response: The dripline will be maintained as noted. A complete landscape plan will be submitted as part of
the Final Design application for HPC review. Planting trees at the rear of the property will be explored when
the landscape plan is developed.
Page 96 of 96
Exhibit B- Application
144
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1907
CPF
HPC APPLICATION 1/28/2021
BIMcloud: BIMServer - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 24/1020 Cooper_ Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:37 AM | ASPEN CO1020 E. COOPER PROJECT119 South Spring St. | Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
T 970-925-3444
www.djarchitects.com
Z1.01
FAR PROPOSED
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David
Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use
and in conjunction with the specified project.
None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or
plans shall be used by or disclosed for any
purpose whatsoever without the written
authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.
Sheet No.
30.01 sq ft
30.01 sq ft
25.51 sq ft
9'-6"9'-6"
8'-6"
10'-0"9'-6"8'-6"
10'-0"10'-0"202.01 sq ft
253.10 sq ft
202.01 sq ft
85.02 sq ft
199.91 sq ft
170.72 sq ft
199.91 sq ft
295.27 sq ft
65.09 sq ft
39.67 sq ft
84.91 sq ft
170.60 sq ft
1968.21 SF TOTAL BELOW GRADE WALL AREA
-85.53 SF TOTAL EXPOSED BELOW GRADE WALL AREA
1882.68 SF TOTAL BURIED BELOW GRADE WALL AREA
95.7% BURIED
4.3% EXPOSEDCRAWLSPACE/MECH.CRAWLSPACE/MECH./WATERCRAWLSPACE/MECH.EGRESS
49.17 sq ft
2 BED AH UNIT #103
527.06 sq ft
2 BED AH UNIT #102
551.75 sq ft
2 BED AH UNIT #101
542.70 sq ft
STORAGE
36.52 sq ft
STORAGE
36.52 sq ft
MECHANICAL
90.95 sq ft
DECK
41.82 sq ft
3'-101/4"3'-11/2"CAR PORT
506.59 sq ft
STORAGE
10.93 sq ft
DECK
122.13 sq ft
UP
3 BED AH UNIT #102
572.12 sq ft
2 BED AH UNIT #101
558.18 sq ft
2 BED AH UNIT #103
545.79 sq ft
TRASH AREA
124.72 sq ft
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"-1 LOWER LEVEL AREA PLAN PROPOSED
0 4'8'12'
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL AREA PLAN PROPOSED
0 4'8'12'
Exhibit B- Application
145
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1907
CPF
HPC APPLICATION 1/28/2021
BIMcloud: BIMServer - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 24/1020 Cooper_ Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:37 AM | ASPEN CO1020 E. COOPER PROJECT119 South Spring St. | Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
T 970-925-3444
www.djarchitects.com
Z1.02
FAR PROPOSED
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David
Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use
and in conjunction with the specified project.
None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or
plans shall be used by or disclosed for any
purpose whatsoever without the written
authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.
Sheet No.
3 BED AH UNIT #201
1,086.19 sq ft
DECK
170.44 sq ft
UNIT #101 STORAGE
113.75 sq ft
UNIT #102 BEDROOM
204.47 sq ft
2 BED AH UNIT #301
826.25 sq ft
DECK
212.37 sq ft
CA:0.21 sq ft
DECK
69.45 sq ft
CA:0.07 sq ft
LEVEL USE TOTAL AREA FLOOR AREA
2 BED AH UNIT #101 542.7 0
2 BED AH UNIT #102 551.75 0
2 BED AH UNIT #103 527.06 0
EGRESS 49.17 0
MECHANICAL 90.95 0
STORAGE 73.04 0
TOTAL (4.3% exposed)1834.67 78.89
2 BED AH UNIT #101 558.18 558.18
2 BED AH UNIT #102 572.12 572.12
2 BED AH UNIT #103 545.79 545.79
STORAGE 10.93 10.93
3 BED AH UNIT #201 1086.19 1086.19
3 BED AH UNIT #301 826.25 826.25
DECK 12.53 0
DECK 41.82 0
DECK 122.13 0
DECK 170.44 0
DECK 281.82 0
TOTAL DECKS (821.06sf exempt)628.74 0
CAR PORT 506.59 0
6,798.31 sq ft 3678.35
DECKS
CARPORT
F.A.R. SCHEDULE
LOWER LEVEL
MAIN LEVEL
SECOND LEVEL
THIRD LEVEL
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"2 SECOND LEVEL AREA PLAN PROPOSED
0 4'8'12'SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"3 THIRD LEVEL AREA PLAN PROPOSED
0 4'8'12'
Exhibit B- Application
146
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1907
CPF
HPC APPLICATION 1/28/2021
BIMcloud: BIMServer - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 24/1020 Cooper_ Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:37 AM | ASPEN CO1020 E. COOPER PROJECT119 South Spring St. | Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
T 970-925-3444
www.djarchitects.com
Z1.03
NLA PROPOSED
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David
Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use
and in conjunction with the specified project.
None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or
plans shall be used by or disclosed for any
purpose whatsoever without the written
authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.
Sheet No.CRAWLSPACE/MECH.CRAWLSPACE/MECH./WATERCRAWLSPACESTORAGE #301
27.95 sq ft
STORAGE #201
27.95 sq ft
2 BED AH UNIT #102
482.85 sq ft
2 BED AH UNIT #101
462.52 sq ft
2 BED AH UNIT #103
436.51 sq ft
DWDWRG
RG
RGSTORAGE #103
6.07 sq ft
REF
REF
REF
DW
UP
3 BED AH UNIT #102
477.60 sq ft
2 BED AH UNIT #101
450.47 sq ft
2 BED AH UNIT #103
449.70 sq ft
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"-1 LOWER LEVEL NLA PLAN PROPOSED
0 4'8'12'SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL NLA PLAN PROPOSED
0 4'8'12'
Exhibit B- Application
147
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1907
CPF
HPC APPLICATION 1/28/2021
BIMcloud: BIMServer - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 24/1020 Cooper_ Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:37 AM | ASPEN CO1020 E. COOPER PROJECT119 South Spring St. | Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
T 970-925-3444
www.djarchitects.com
Z1.04
NLA PROPOSED
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David
Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use
and in conjunction with the specified project.
None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or
plans shall be used by or disclosed for any
purpose whatsoever without the written
authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.
Sheet No.
DW RGREF
3 BED AH UNIT #201
1,011.79 sq ft
UNIT #101 STORAGE
104.27 sq ft
UNIT #102 BEDROOM
182.89 sq ftDWRG
REF
2 BED AH UNIT #301
789.52 sq ft
NET LIVABLE SCHEDULE
FLOOR
LOWER LEVEL
MAIN LEVEL
SECOND LEVEL
THIRD LEVEL
2 BED AH UNIT #101
2 BED AH UNIT #102
2 BED AH UNIT #103
STORAGE #201
STORAGE #301
2 BED AH UNIT #101
2 BED AH UNIT #103
3 BED AH UNIT #102
STORAGE #103
3 BED AH UNIT #201
UNIT #101 STORAGE
UNIT #102 BEDROOM
2 BED AH UNIT #301
AREA
462.52
482.85
436.51
27.95
27.95
450.47
449.70
477.60
6.07
1,011.79
104.27
182.89
789.52
4,910.09 sq ft
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"2 SECOND LEVEL NLA PLAN PROPOSED
0 4'8'12'SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"3 THIRD LEVEL NLA PLAN PROPOSED
0 4'8'12'
Exhibit B- Application
148
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1907
CPF
HPC APPLICATION 1/28/2021
BIMcloud: BIMServer - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 24/1020 Cooper_ Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:37 AM | ASPEN CO1020 E. COOPER PROJECT119 South Spring St. | Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
T 970-925-3444
www.djarchitects.com
A1.01
SITE PLAN | EXISTING |
3/16"
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David
Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use
and in conjunction with the specified project.
None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or
plans shall be used by or disclosed for any
purpose whatsoever without the written
authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.
Sheet No.10'-0"SETBACK2'-51/16"2'-07/8"3'-9"3'-73/16"EXISTING
TRANSFORMER
METAL STAIRS
RAIL ROAD TIE
RETAINING WALL
4 DECIDUOUS
TREES 2.8" X 6'
DECIDUOUS TREE
1.5"X3'
TOP BACK OF CURB
FLOWLINE OF CURB
ROCK RET.
WALL
ROCK RET.
WALL
2.5' WOOD
FENCE
FOUND #5 REBAR
.3' BELOW GRADE
FIN. FLR.
7944.8'+/-
FIN. FLR.
7944.8'+/-
FOUND #5 REBAR & RED PLASTIC CAP PLS 336380.2' ABOVE GRADEELEV=7946.3
SET #5 REBAR & ORANGE PLASTIC CAP PLS 28643FLUSH WITH GRADE
TELEPHONE PEDSTAL
ELECTRICMETER
FOUND #4 REBAR & YELLOW PLASTIC CAP PLS 259470.2' BELOW GRADEELEV=7942.5
TELEPHONECONNECTION
3.5'X8' ELECTRIC EASEMENT
(BOOK 126 PAGE 7)
GATE
MAILBOX
TELEPHONE
PEDESTAL
A L L E Y
(20' WIDTH)
EAST COOPER AVENUE
LOT O LOT P
LOT Q
CONCRETECONCRETE SIDEWALKCONCRETECONCRETE PORCHW/ ROOF OVERHANG
ASPHALT
CABLEBOX
BUSH
BUSH
BUSH
BUSHLOG DECORATIVE BORDER4' WIRE FENCE4' WOOD FENCE3' WOOD FENCE
2.5' METAL FENCE
1 STORY SINGLE FAMILYWOOD FRAME STRUCTURE1020 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611
SHED(TO BE DEMOLISHED)
FIN. FLR.7943.3'±
FINISHED FLOOR 7943.2'±
CONCRETEPAD
CONIFEROUSTREE14.1" X 28'(TO BE REMOVED)
COOPER AVE. VICTORIANCONDO ASSOC.PARCEL #2737182328021012 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611
RIVERSIDECONDO ASSOC.PARCEL #2737181278011024 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611
CONCRETE PORCHW/ ROOF OVERHANG
RAISEDWOODENPLANTER
RAISEDWOODENPLANTER
7943
7944
7943
7945
794 5
SHED(TO BE DEMOLISHED)PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
HOUSE TO BE RELOCATED(SEE A1.02)
EXISTINGTRANSFORMER
4,379 SQ.FT.± OR 0.101 ACRES±
SUBJECT PROPERTYPARCEL #2737182320061020 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611 8'-0"2'-23/8"2'-0"8'-0"3.5'X8' ELECTRIC EASEMENT
(BOOK 126 PAGE 7)
2'X8' ELECTRIC EASEMENT
(BOOK 126 PAGE 7)
SETBACK
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 SITE PLAN | EXISTING | 3/16"
0 4'8'12'
N
Exhibit B- Application
149
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1907
CPF
HPC APPLICATION 1/28/2021
BIMcloud: BIMServer - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 24/1020 Cooper_ Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:37 AM | ASPEN CO1020 E. COOPER PROJECT119 South Spring St. | Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
T 970-925-3444
www.djarchitects.com
A1.02
SITE PLAN |
PROPOSED | 3/16"
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David
Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use
and in conjunction with the specified project.
None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or
plans shall be used by or disclosed for any
purpose whatsoever without the written
authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.
Sheet No.5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"1'-6"5'-01/2"3'-0"19'-0"ENTRY
PORCH
ENTRY PORCH
EGRESS
EGRESS
EGRESS
BIKES
HISTORIC STRUCTURE/
ADDITION FOOTPRINT
PROPOSED NEW
APARTMENT FOOTPRINT
PROPOSED
TRASH
ENCLOSURE
FOOTPRINT
STORAGE
CL.
PLANTING BED
PLANTING BEDPLANTING BED PLANTING BED
EXISTING
TRANSFORMER
LAWN
TOP BACK OF CURB
FLOWLINE OF CURB
FOUND #5 REBAR
.3' BELOW GRADE
FOUND #5 REBAR & RED PLASTIC CAP PLS 336380.2' ABOVE GRADEELEV=7946.3
SET #5 REBAR & ORANGE PLASTIC CAP PLS 28643FLUSH WITH GRADEFOUND #4 REBAR & YELLOW PLASTIC CAP PLS 259470.2' BELOW GRADEELEV=7942.5
3.5'X8' ELECTRIC EASEMENT
(BOOK 126 PAGE 7)
NEW FENCE
GATENEW FENCE
GATE
NEW WOOD FENCE
CRAWL
ACCESS
DN
UPPLANTING BEDDN
UTILITY METERS
LAWN
LAWN
PLANTING BEDPLANTING BED
LILAC BUSHES
LILAC BUSHES
PLANTING
BED
PLANTING BEDPROPERTY LINEA L L E Y
(20' WIDTH)
SETBACKSETBACK SETBACKE A S T C O O P E R A V E .
EAST COOPER AVENUE
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
ASPHALT
2.5' METAL FENCE
CONIFEROUSTREE10.8" X 21'
COOPER AVE. VICTORIANCONDO ASSOC.PARCEL #2737182328021012 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611
RIVERSIDECONDO ASSOC.PARCEL #2737181278011024 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
4,379 SQ.FT.± OR 0.101 ACRES±
SUBJECT PROPERTYPARCEL #2737182320061020 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611
UP
5'-0"10'-0"ENTRY PORCH
BBQ
NEW
TRANSFORMER
3.5'X8' ELECTRIC EASEMENT
(BOOK 126 PAGE 7)
2'X8' ELECTRIC EASEMENT
(BOOK 126 PAGE 7)
NEW BOLLARDS
NEW BOLLARDS
SETBACK
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 SITE PLAN | PROPOSED | 1/4"
0 4'8'12'
SITE 7945.78' = ARCH 100'-0"
N
Exhibit B- Application
150
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1907
CPF
HPC APPLICATION 1/28/2021
BIMcloud: BIMServer - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 24/1020 Cooper_ Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:37 AM | ASPEN CO1020 E. COOPER PROJECT119 South Spring St. | Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
T 970-925-3444
www.djarchitects.com
A1.03
SITE PLAN | TIA | 3/16"
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David
Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use
and in conjunction with the specified project.
None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or
plans shall be used by or disclosed for any
purpose whatsoever without the written
authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.
Sheet No.5'-01/2"35'-01/8"29'-61/4"
29'-61/4"40'-05/8"10'-0"19'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"2'-2"4'-103/4"EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN-
10' DRIPLINE
BIKE AREA
ACCESS
POINT PROPERTY LINESETBACKSETBACK SETBACKPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
3 0 ' CROW
F
LI
E
S DISTAN
C
E
40' WALKING DISTANCE
DRW
UP
9'-0"8'-1115/16"9'-01/16"8'-0"8'-11/2"67/16"
5'-0"
SETBACK
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 TIA SITE PLAN
0 4'8'12'
N
Exhibit B- Application
151
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1907
CPF
HPC APPLICATION 1/28/2021
BIMcloud: BIMServer - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 24/1020 Cooper_ Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:37 AM | ASPEN CO1020 E. COOPER PROJECT119 South Spring St. | Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
T 970-925-3444
www.djarchitects.com
A1.04
SITE PLAN | LANSCAPE
PROPOSED | 3/16"
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David
Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use
and in conjunction with the specified project.
None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or
plans shall be used by or disclosed for any
purpose whatsoever without the written
authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.
Sheet No.10'-0"SETBACK5'-0"SETBACK5'-0"SETBACK 5'-0"SETBACK5'-0"3'-0"
3'-0"2'-07/8"3'-9"3'-73/16"7943'-33/8"
7944'-0"
7945'-93/8"
ENTRY
PORCH
ENTRY PORCH
EGRESS
EGRESS
EGRESS
BIKES
HISTORIC STRUCTURE/
ADDITION FOOTPRINT
PROPOSED NEW
APARTMENT FOOTPRINT
PROPOSED
TRASH
ENCLOSURE
FOOTPRINT
STORAGE
CL.
PLANTING BED
PLANTING BEDPLANTING BED PLANTING BED
EXISTING
TRANSFORMER
LAWN
TOP BACK OF CURB
FLOWLINE OF CURB
FOUND #5 REBAR
.3' BELOW GRADE
FOUND #5 REBAR & RED PLASTIC CAP PLS 336380.2' ABOVE GRADEELEV=7946.3
SET #5 REBAR & ORANGE PLASTIC CAP PLS 28643FLUSH WITH GRADEFOUND #4 REBAR & YELLOW PLASTIC CAP PLS 259470.2' BELOW GRADEELEV=7942.5
3.5'X8' ELECTRIC EASEMENT
(BOOK 126 PAGE 7)
NEW FENCE
GATENEW FENCE
GATE
NEW WOOD FENCE
CRAWL
ACCESS
DN
UPPLANTING BEDDN
UTILITY METERS
LAWN
LAWN
PLANTING BEDPLANTING BED
LILAC BUSHES
LILAC BUSHES
PLANTING
BED
PLANTING BEDPROPERTY LINESETBACKSETBACK SETBACKE A S T C O O P E R A V E .
EAST COOPER AVENUE
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
ASPHALT
2.5' METAL FENCE
CONIFEROUSTREE10.8" X 21'
COOPER AVE. VICTORIANCONDO ASSOC.PARCEL #2737182328021012 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611
RIVERSIDECONDO ASSOC.PARCEL #2737181278011024 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
4,379 SQ.FT.± OR 0.101 ACRES±
SUBJECT PROPERTYPARCEL #2737182320061020 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611
UP
9'-0"9'-0"9'-0"8'-0"8'-0"115/16"6"10'-0"19'-0"5'-0"5'-0"
5'-0"8'-0"2'-23/8"2'-0"8'-0"6"4'-6"3'-0"5'-0"3'-0"3'-0"5'-0"3'-0"
5'-0"
ENTRY PORCH
BBQ
NEW
TRANSFORMER
3.5'X8' ELECTRIC EASEMENT
(BOOK 126 PAGE 7)
2'X8' ELECTRIC EASEMENT
(BOOK 126 PAGE 7)
NEW BOLLARDS
SETBACK
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 LANDSCAPE PLAN | PROPOSED | 3/16"
0 4'8'12'
N
Exhibit B- Application
152
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1907
CPF
HPC APPLICATION 1/28/2021
BIMcloud: BIMServer - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 24/1020 Cooper_ Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:37 AM | ASPEN CO1020 E. COOPER PROJECT119 South Spring St. | Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
T 970-925-3444
www.djarchitects.com
A1.06
EXISTING MAIN LEVEL
FLOOR PLAN |
DEMOLITION
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David
Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use
and in conjunction with the specified project.
None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or
plans shall be used by or disclosed for any
purpose whatsoever without the written
authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.
Sheet No.5'-01/2"35'-0"29'-61/4"
29'-61/4"40'-03/4"4
A2.01
EXTERIOR WALL TO BE REMOVED
WALLS TO BE REMOVED
REAR PORCH TO BE REMOVED
1
A2.01
1
A2.022A2.02
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL DEMOLITION
0 4'8'12'SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"2 ROOF EXISTING PLAN
0 4'8'12'
Exhibit B- Application
153
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1907
CPF
HPC APPLICATION 1/28/2021
BIMcloud: BIMServer - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 24/1020 Cooper_ Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:37 AM | ASPEN CO1020 E. COOPER PROJECT119 South Spring St. | Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
T 970-925-3444
www.djarchitects.com
A1.08
LOWER/MAIN LEVEL
FLOOR PLAN |
PROPOSED
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David
Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use
and in conjunction with the specified project.
None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or
plans shall be used by or disclosed for any
purpose whatsoever without the written
authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.
Sheet No.WW3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN-
10' DRIPLINE
SEWER EJECTOR
DRYWELL
CRAWLSPACE/MECH.CRAWLSPACE/MECH./WATERCRAWLSPACE2
A2.02 4
A2.01
DRDRLAUNDRY
CL.
CL.
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
BATHBATH
BEDROOM
BATH
CL.
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
BATH
BATH
CL.
CL.LAUNDRY
CL.
EGRESS
WELL
EGRESS
WELL
MECHANICAL
UNIT #201
STORAGE
UNIT #301
STORAGE
EGRESS
WELL
STORAGE
UP
UP
1A2.01
1A2.02
2A2.01
3
A2.01
DWDWRG
RG
RG5'-01/2"35'-0"29'-61/4"
29'-61/4"40'-03/4"10'-0"19'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"2
A2.02 4
A2.01
EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN-
10' DRIPLINE
PROPERTY LINESETBACKSETBACK SETBACKPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
STORAGE CLS.
103
DR
REF
REF
REF
DW
W
UP
9'-0"9'-0"9'-0"8'-0"8'-11/2"61/2"
5'-0"
1A2.01
1A2.02
2A2.01
3
A2.01
SETBACK
LIVING
KITCHEN
BATH
CL.
KITCHEN
DININGPOWDER
KITCHEN
DINING
POWDER
LIVING
LIVING
CL.
CL.
ENTRY PORCH
ENTRY PORCH
STORAGE
CL.BEDROOM
CL.
DINING
LAUNDRY
UP
DN
DN
DN
TRASH AREA
104
STAIR
105
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"-1 LOWER LEVEL PROPOSED
0 4'8'12'SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL PROPOSED
0 4'8'12'
Exhibit B- Application
154
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1907
CPF
HPC APPLICATION 1/28/2021
BIMcloud: BIMServer - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 24/1020 Cooper_ Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:37 AM | ASPEN CO1020 E. COOPER PROJECT119 South Spring St. | Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
T 970-925-3444
www.djarchitects.com
A1.09
SECOND/THIRD LEVEL
FLOOR PLAN |
PROPOSED
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David
Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use
and in conjunction with the specified project.
None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or
plans shall be used by or disclosed for any
purpose whatsoever without the written
authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.
Sheet No.
DW RG2
A2.02 4
A2.015'-0"5'-0"5'-0"PROPERTY LINESETBACKSETBACK SETBACKPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
STAIR
200
DRW
REF
1A2.01
1A2.02
2A2.01
3
A2.01
5'-0"
SETBACK
LAUNDRY
BEDROOM
BATHCL.
CL.
CL.
BEDROOM
KITCHEN
LIVING
DINING
CL.
BEDROOM
BATH
BATH
DN
OPEN TO BELOW CL.
BEDROOM
STORAGE LOFT DWRG
2
A2.02 4
A2.015'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"PROPERTY LINESETBACKSETBACK SETBACKPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
DRW
REF
1A2.01
1A2.02
2A2.01
3
A2.01
5'-0"
SETBACK
LAUNDRY
BEDROOM
CL.
KITCHEN
LIVING
DINING
BATH
CL.
BEDROOM
CL.
POWDER
DECK
DECK
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"2 SECOND LEVEL PROPOSED
0 4'8'12'SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"3 THIRD LEVEL PROPOSED
0 4'8'12'
Exhibit B- Application
155
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1907
CPF
HPC APPLICATION 1/28/2021
BIMcloud: BIMServer - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 24/1020 Cooper_ Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:37 AM | ASPEN CO1020 E. COOPER PROJECT119 South Spring St. | Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
T 970-925-3444
www.djarchitects.com
A1.10
ROOF PLAN
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David
Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use
and in conjunction with the specified project.
None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or
plans shall be used by or disclosed for any
purpose whatsoever without the written
authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.
Sheet No.
2
A2.02 4
A2.01
SNOW FENCE
STANDING SEAM
STANDING SEAM
STANDING SEAM
ASPHALT SHINGLE
SNOW FENCE
1A2.01
1A2.02
2A2.01
3
A2.01
CEDAR SHINGLE ROOF
TO BE REPLACED AS REQ.
STANDING SEAM 10 : 1210 : 1210 : 1210 : 12
3 : 12
3 : 123 : 123 : 12
EXISTING ROOF BELOW
10 : 12
NEW SHED DORMER
NEW SHED ROOF
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 ROOF PLAN
0 4'8'12'
Exhibit B- Application
156
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1907
CPF
HPC APPLICATION 1/28/2021
BIMcloud: BIMServer - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 24/1020 Cooper_ Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:38 AM | ASPEN CO1020 E. COOPER PROJECT119 South Spring St. | Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
T 970-925-3444
www.djarchitects.com
A2.01
ELEVATIONS
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David
Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use
and in conjunction with the specified project.
None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or
plans shall be used by or disclosed for any
purpose whatsoever without the written
authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.
Sheet No.
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
108'-0"
THIRD LEVEL
118'-6"20'-93/4"3'-03/4"22'-03/4"ASPHALT SHINGLE
EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN
METAL STANDING SEAM
SNOW FENCE
SHUTTER SYSTEM
GALV. GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT
RECLAIMED SIDING
W/ 3X BATTONS
GALV. W FLANGE BEAM
GALV. W FLANGE COLUMN
GALV. METAL SIDING
NEW BOLLARDS
NEW
TRANSFORMER
6' FENCE-
TRASH AREA
UTILITIES/
METERS
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
108'-0"
THIRD LEVEL
118'-6"15'-63/4"SEE ELEVATION 3/A2.01
METAL ROOFING-
STANDING SEAM
NEW PROFILED WOOD COLUMNS
NEW WOOD PICKET FENCE
FRONT YARD ONLY
WOOD SOFFIT BOARDS @ PORCH
COMPOSITE SHAKE ROOFING
WOOD FASCIA BOARD
COLOR PENDING APPROVED
MOCK-UP BY HPC.
EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN
RESHINGLE WITH COMPOSITE SHAKE ROOF
EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN
REROOF WITH METAL-STANDING SEAM
EXISTING NON-HISTORIC WINDOWS AND
DOORS TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED
EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE
RECLAD IN ORIGINAL 6"
HORIZONTAL CEDAR LAP SIDING
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
108'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
108'-0"
THIRD LEVEL
118'-6"
THIRD LEVEL
118'-6"27'-6"27'-4"SNOW FENCE
STANDING SEAM
SNOW FENCE
ASHPHALT SHINGLE
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN
GALV. GUARDRAIL
GALV. GUTTERS
& DOWNSPOUTS
GALV. METAL SIDNG
RECLAIMED SIDING
W/ 3X BATTONS
GALV. W FLANGE BEAM
6' FENCE-
TRASH AREA
GALV. W FLANGE COLUMN
BBQ
BIKE RACK
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
108'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
108'-0"
THIRD LEVEL
118'-6"
THIRD LEVEL
118'-6"
METAL ROOFING-
STANDING SEAM
COMPOSITE SHAKE ROOFING
WOOD FASCIA BOARD
COLOR PENDING APPROVED
MOCK-UP BY HPC.
NEW SHED DORMER ROOF
WITH METAL-STANDING SEAM
NEW WINDOWS
EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE
RECLAD IN ORIGINAL 6"
HORIZONTAL CEDAR LAP SIDING
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 NORTH ELEVATION
0 2'4'8'
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 SOUTH ELEVATION
0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3 AUX. SOUTH ELEVATION
0 2'4'8'
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"4 AUX. NORTH ELEVATION
0 2'4'8'
Exhibit B- Application
157
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1907
CPF
HPC APPLICATION 1/28/2021
BIMcloud: BIMServer - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 24/1020 Cooper_ Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:39 AM | ASPEN CO1020 E. COOPER PROJECT119 South Spring St. | Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
T 970-925-3444
www.djarchitects.com
A2.02
ELEVATIONS
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David
Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use
and in conjunction with the specified project.
None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or
plans shall be used by or disclosed for any
purpose whatsoever without the written
authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.
Sheet No.
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
108'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
108'-0"
THIRD LEVEL
118'-6"
THIRD LEVEL
118'-6"26'-81/2"16'-11/2"29'-81/2"STANDING SEAM
NEW PROFILED WOOD COLUMNS
WOOD BOARD SIDING.
COLOR PENDING APPROVED
MOCK-UP BY HPC.
COMPOSITE SHAKE ROOFING
WOOD FASCIA BOARD
COLOR PENDING APPROVED
MOCK-UP BY HPC.
ASHPHALT SHINGLE
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN
GALV. GUARDRAIL
GALV. METAL SIDNG
GALV. METAL SIDING
RECLAIMED SIDING
W/ 3X BATTONS
GALV. W FLANGE BEAM
NEW
TRANSFORMER6' FENCE-
TRASH AREA
GALV. W FLANGE COLUMN
0"
MAIN LEVEL
0"
MAIN LEVEL
8'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
8'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
18'-6"
THIRD LEVEL
18'-6"
THIRD LEVEL
26'-95/16"16'-47/8"10'-01/4"29'-17/16"NEW PROFILED WOOD COLUMNS
WOOD BOARD SIDING.
COLOR PENDING APPROVED
MOCK-UP BY HPC.
COMPOSITE SHAKE ROOFING
WOOD FASCIA BOARD
COLOR PENDING APPROVED
MOCK-UP BY HPC.
ASPHALT SHINGLE
METAL STANDING SEAM
SNOW FENCE
SHUTTER SYSTEM
RECLAIMED SIDING
W/ 3X BATTONS
GALV. W FLANGE BEAM
GALV. W FLANGE COLUMN
GALV. METAL SIDING
GALV. METAL SIDING
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION
0 2'4'8'
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 WEST ELEVATION
0 2'4'8'
Exhibit B- Application
158
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1907
CPF
HPC APPLICATION 1/28/2021
BIMcloud: BIMServer - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 24/1020 Cooper_ Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:39 AM | ASPEN CO1020 E. COOPER PROJECT119 South Spring St. | Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
T 970-925-3444
www.djarchitects.com
A2.03
PROPOSED
MATERIALS
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David
Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use
and in conjunction with the specified project.
None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or
plans shall be used by or disclosed for any
purpose whatsoever without the written
authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.
Sheet No.
GALVANIZED METAL SIDING (VINTAGE COLOR)
RECLAIMED WOOD BATTONS W/ GALVANIZED BOLTS
RECLAIMED WOOD SIDING w/ BATTONS GALVANIZED SLIDER HARDWARE FOR SHUTTERS
GALVANIZED RAILINGS AND STRUCTURE FOR STAIRS
GALVANIZED METAL SIDING (RUNNING BOND LAYUP)
GALVANIZED METAL SIDING (CORNER DETAIL)
GALVANIZED METAL ROOFING (15" STANDING SEAM)
ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING (DARK GREY)
Exhibit B- Application
159
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1907
CPF
HPC APPLICATION 1/28/2021
BIMcloud: BIMServer - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 24/1020 Cooper_ Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:39 AM | ASPEN CO1020 E. COOPER PROJECT119 South Spring St. | Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
T 970-925-3444
www.djarchitects.com
HP-1
HISTORIC
PRESERVATION
ELEVATIONS
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David
Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use
and in conjunction with the specified project.
None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or
plans shall be used by or disclosed for any
purpose whatsoever without the written
authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.
Sheet No.
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
108'-0"
THIRD LEVEL
118'-6"EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN
RESHINGLE WITH COMPOSITE SHAKE ROOF
EXISTING PORCH ROOF
STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE RECLAD
IN ORIGINAL 6" HORIZONTAL CEDAR
LAP SIDING
EXISTING NON-HISTORIC WINDOWS AND
DOORS TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN
RESHINGLE WITH COMPOSITE SHAKE ROOF
EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN
REROOF WITH METAL-STANDING SEAM
EXISTING NON-HISTORIC WINDOWS AND
DOORS TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED
EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE
RECLAD IN ORIGINAL 6"
HORIZONTAL CEDAR LAP SIDING
EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN
RESHINGLE WITH COMPOSITE SHAKE ROOF
EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE
RECLAD IN ORIGINAL 6"
HORIZONTAL CEDAR LAP
SIDING
EXISTING REAR PORCH TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING NON-HISTORIC WINDOWS TO BE
REMOVED
EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN
RESHINGLE WITH COMPOSITE SHAKE ROOF
EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE
RECLAD IN ORIGINAL 6"
HORIZONTAL CEDAR LAP
SIDING
EXISTING REAR
PORCH TO BE
REMOVED
EXISTING NON-HISTORIC WINDOWS TO BE
REMOVED
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 NORTH ELEVATION: HP PLAN
0 2'4'8'
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 SOUTH ELEVATION: HP PLAN
0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION: HP PLAN
0 2'4'8'
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 WEST ELEVATION: HP PLAN
0 2'4'8'
Exhibit B- Application
160
DRAWING ISSUE
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:1907
CPF
HPC APPLICATION 2/2/2021
BIMcloud: BIMServer - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 24/1020 Cooper_ Tuesday, February 2, 2021 8:39 PM | ASPEN CO1020 E. COOPER PROJECT119 South Spring St. | Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
T 970-925-3444
www.djarchitects.com
A2.02
ELEVATIONS
All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
owned by and are the property of David
Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use
and in conjunction with the specified project.
None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or
plans shall be used by or disclosed for any
purpose whatsoever without the written
authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC.
Sheet No.
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
108'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
108'-0"
THIRD LEVEL
118'-6"
THIRD LEVEL
118'-6"26'-81/2"16'-11/2"29'-81/2"STANDING SEAM
NEW PROFILED WOOD COLUMNS
WOOD BOARD SIDING.
COLOR PENDING APPROVED
MOCK-UP BY HPC.
COMPOSITE SHAKE ROOFING
WOOD FASCIA BOARD
COLOR PENDING APPROVED
MOCK-UP BY HPC.
ASHPHALT SHINGLE
EXISTING TREE
TO REMAIN
GALV. GUARDRAIL
GALV. METAL SIDNG
NEW SHED DORMER
GALV. METAL SIDING
RECLAIMED SIDING
W/ 3X BATTONS
GALV. W FLANGE BEAM
NEW
TRANSFORMER6' FENCE-
TRASH AREA
GALV. W FLANGE COLUMN
0"
MAIN LEVEL
0"
MAIN LEVEL
8'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
8'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
18'-6"
THIRD LEVEL
18'-6"
THIRD LEVEL
26'-95/16"16'-47/8"10'-01/4"29'-17/16"NEW PROFILED WOOD COLUMNS
WOOD BOARD SIDING.
COLOR PENDING APPROVED
MOCK-UP BY HPC.
COMPOSITE SHAKE ROOFING
WOOD FASCIA BOARD
COLOR PENDING APPROVED
MOCK-UP BY HPC.
NEW SHED DORMER
ASPHALT SHINGLE
METAL STANDING SEAM
SNOW FENCE
SHUTTER SYSTEM
RECLAIMED SIDING
W/ 3X BATTONS
GALV. W FLANGE BEAM
GALV. W FLANGE COLUMN
GALV. METAL SIDING
GALV. METAL SIDING
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION
0 2'4'8'
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 WEST ELEVATION
0 2'4'8'
Exhibit B- Application
161
Exhibit B- Application
162
Exhibit B- Application
163
Exhibit B- Application
164
Exhibit C- January 13 HPC Minutes
165
Exhibit C- January 13 HPC Minutes
166
Exhibit C- January 13 HPC Minutes
167
Exhibit C- January 13 HPC Minutes
168
Exhibit C- January 13 HPC Minutes
169
Exhibit C- January 13 HPC Minutes
170
Exhibit C- January 13 HPC Minutes
171
From:Karen Watson
To:ann.mullins@cityofaspen.co; rachel.richards@cityofaspen.co; Skippy Mesirow; Torre; Ward Hauenstein; Kevin
Rayes; Amy Simon; Sarah Yoon
Subject:1020 East Cooper Parking concerns
Date:Monday, January 25, 2021 9:34:41 AM
Dear City of Aspen:
My family and I have been coming to Aspen since I was young. Last Summer (2020) I rented a 3 bedroom condo at
1024 East Cooper #2 (Tracy McCuthin’s unit). We had one assigned parking spot. I brought my car and my
daughter brought her car for work reasons. There was NO off street parking to be found. I called my agent and
complained. We had such a difficult time finding parking, that my husband drove a car home (cancelling his flight
home). Loving Aspen as much as we do, we put an offer on a unit at Eau Clair but cancelled that when we were
told there was NO assigned parking! This is a huge issue already and is getting worse with the more structures
being built without sufficient parking. I cannot imagine five, 2-3 bedroom condos being proposed on the historic
sight at 1020 East Cooper with only 4 designated off street parking spots. How can that be preserving anything
much less the historic property!
Karen Watson
Sent from my iPad
Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments
172
1280 Ute Avenue • Suite 21 • Aspen, Colorado 81611
RESERVATIONS 970/925-5775 • OFFICE 970/925-4554 • FAX 970/925-5317
WEBSITE www.huts.org • E-MAIL huts@huts.org
February 1, 2021
Amy Simon, Planning Director Kevin Rayes, Planner
City of Aspen Community Development City of Aspen Community Development
Re: 1020 East Coo p er Project
Dear Amy and Kevin,
10th Mountain Division Hut Association supports the proposal to develop affordable housing at 1020 East
Cooper Street. The community benefits of this project such as historic preservation, affordable housing,
environmental sustainability and local character are undisputable and the proponents are to be
commended for bringing a thoughtful and valuable project to the table.
Unfortunately, it seems that owners of adjacent residential units are concerned that this project will be
bad for the neighborhood. While one can understand that these owners want to preserve and protect
their interests, it bears noting that there are numerous examples in the As pen area where affordable
housing has been integrated with free market housing with very positive outcomes. One good example is
10th Mountain’s affordable housing project it constructed on Ute Avenue in 1994.
Fritz and Fabi Benedict , founders of 10th Mountain Division Hut Association, had previously donated land
to 10th Mountain for affordable housing purposes and by 1994 there was a clear need to develop housing
in order to attract and retain qualified, long term, valuable employees . 10th Mountain constructed - in the
midst of free market real estate - a s ingle building with a studio and a 2-bedroom unit plus a small
attached garage and has managed them to Aspe n Pitkin County Housing Authority rules and regulations
ever since. This housing project adds value to 10th Mountain, to the community, and to the neighborhood
because it is designed, built, maintained, and adminis tered thoug htfully and to high standards. Most
important, t he long -term residents are good people and good neighbors: they take pride in where they
live, look out for their neighbors, keep their front porches tidy, park their cars in designated areas and
undoubtedly cont ribute to the town’s vibrant and critically important local community character.
The 10th Mountain Division Hut Association, a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization, has been headquartered in
Aspen since 1981 and operat es a system of 36 backcountry huts in the central Rocky Mountains of
Colorado. Its main administrative offices are located in the B enedict Building at 1280 Ute Avenue.
Sincerely,
Ben Dodge
Executive Director
Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments
173
From:Bukk Carleton
To:Kevin Rayes; Amy Simon
Subject:Thoughts for HPC staff
Date:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 9:26:33 AM
Dear Amy and Kevin,
Would you please disseminate this to the entire HPC staff?
I would appreciate a response as to their thinking.
Bukk Carleton
1012 E Cooper
Dear HPC Staff,
As a property owner and taxpayer in Aspen, I appreciate the work you do.
Regarding the application for 1020 East Cooper Avenue, I was surprised at what culminated
after a staff review – it was and is my understanding that it is the staff’s job to obtain
facts with regard to how well a project complies with HPC’s guidelines and then pass those
facts onto the HPC Board so that they can then make an informed and accurate decision.
Listening to the hearing last week, I did not hear that coming through. Instead, what I heard
was an endorsement for approval of the proposed plan without the objective facts being
disseminated to the Board.
HPC guidelines would apply in regard to this application in the following manner:
1) The guidelines call for any additional space to be added to the property should not be
increased beyond 100% of what is presently existing. If the staff was making a distinction
between that guideline which mentions a building attached to the existing building and a
building that is separated from the existing building, then I am wondering why they would
think the existing guidelines should not apply. A separate building would call for even more
space needs due to the need for access and meeting fire codes. In like manner, if the staff were
Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments
174
driving a 11’ high truck and came upon a tunnel entrance indicating that the top of the tunnel
was 10’6” would they continue to drive into the tunnel? Even if by some notion, they felt
there was some exemption to the guideline it would be in any case incumbent upon staff to
point out that the new proposal was close to 5,000 SF more than double the earlier proposal of
2000+ SF and that amount of square footage was already decided by City Council to be too
large in mass and scale for the property.
2) The developer’s design calls for relocating the existing structure to the front of the lot. The
guidelines call for setbacks emulating contemporary setbacks with neighboring historic
structures which are set back and have a front lawn. All neighboring properties have front
lawns. Part of HPC guidelines state that there will be a lawn in front of a historic structure and
thus moving this structure to the front of the lot does not meet HPC guidelines.
3) The guidelines call for any new structure to not overwhelm the existing structure. The
height of the new building standing 18’ above the existing structure (almost a triple over the
existing building height) is certainly overwhelming and, again, does not meet the HPC
guidelines and should have been flagged as a serious deficiency of this application.
4) The whole question of whether the property is appropriate for multifamily use. The lot is
approximately 43’ wide. The Zoning requirement calls for a minimum width of 60’. This
should have been flagged as a significant issue suggesting multi-family use may not be
appropriate on this non-conforming lot.
5) The developer has proposed three-bedroom units which are “only” 16% lower than what
is (again) the requirement for 3-bedroom units. Regardless of the developer’s desire or
thinking, 16% less does not meet requirements and one would think that would be brought to
the attention of the Board by staff as well.
At this point, I would think the staff would pass on these facts to the commission so the Board
could then decide as to what they wish to do with the application.
I have two additional thoughts as to the staff’s responsibility for a fact-finding mission:
A) It should physically measure the distances in the rear alley to see what driving radii are or
are not being met in the design. This would include an analysis based on summer and winter
weather when snow becomes an impediment
B) Determine what is the maximum number of occupants that can be put into a proposed
structure on this lot as designed. APCHA guidelines provide minimum occupancy to meet
requirements, but that will not prevent a landlord from allowing significantly
Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments
175
higher occupancy, which diminishes livability and quality of life for all residents, and of
course puts pressure on the neighborhood. At a minimum, according to APCHA guidelines,
roommates could occupy the buildings up to the number of bedrooms which would provide 12
individuals living on this property with only 4 parking spaces available.
To my mind, the neighbors should not have to come up with this information, it should be
provided by the Staff to the applicant, the public and to the Board.
It seemed apparent to me that the Staff bought into the developer’s concept that existing HPC
guidelines promulgated to preserve the history of Aspen are items that can be ignored.
Whether they are called “guidelines”, “statutes” or “regulations”, these are the rules
established by the City to be sure that the historic preservation is just that - preserved.
Thus, it is not appropriate for the Staff to a) buy into a developer’s claim as to what is and is
not permissible to be ignored in the way of rules and b) to become an advocate of a proposal if
the staff is to ignore all the guidelines in making a pitch for approval. By doing so, having
eliminated the parameters by which the Board is supposed to adhere to- the Staff, in effect, has
become no better than a group of people with an opinion, and that opinion having eliminated
both the facts and the guidelines, is no better than the opinion of a person walking down the
street.
With that said, if the staff wanted to have a second section where they can break out any of
their thoughts (which might be positive or negative), then I would suggest that be separately
defined and explained.
Some thoughts I would propose would encompass- what kind of a lifestyle will the occupants
experience in the proposed development?
That, of course, gets into opinion. As a group, the staff might think it is adequate or desirable.
To my mind, the current 1020 proposal would give occupants a lifestyle significantly below
what one would hope would be provided to a normal individual living in Aspen, who should
not be considered a second-class citizen. Examples of not being able to live a normal life:
- Not providing enough parking spaces for the number of units so at least one individual
(and probably eight people) will be forced to spend their time walking the streets of Aspen or
flagging down a bus.
- If the occupants have children, where will they play?
- Where will pets go outside?
- If the occupants have young children still in cribs or too young to walk, why will the
Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments
176
occupants have to climb three floors with a stroller to be able to live?
- Why should the occupants have to keep their shades drawn just so that they are not
looking into someone’s face just 10’ away?
- Why should three people assigned to a 3-bedroom unit be forced to squeeze into a unit
with a 2 bedroom size?
Certainly, this design does not result in a lifestyle that the developers would wish upon
themselves.
I am also convinced that if the Staff is providing opinions you might want to point out that if
the developers did not design a plan that forced cars to have to park under the planned
building, then a whole floor could be eliminated.
I hope the above is useful not just in the instance of 1020’s application but all future
applications that will come before you.
Again, I am interested in feedback from the staff as to what they believe their function is and
whether, in fact, the staff believes it should be transmitting facts to the board and the public -
but leaving the decision as to what to do with the facts up to the Board.
I would hope it would be part of the staff’s obligation to look at not only the various rules and
regulations (i.e. guidelines) but whether the proposed structure(s) provide those individual(s)
who are the lifeblood of the City- providing services in which all residents/visitors are
dependent upon- a normal lifestyle.
Perhaps instead of coming up with the feel-good term of “affordable housing” a more accurate
description – at least for this project – is “inferior housing.”
Best regards, Bukk Carleton
Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments
177
From:Caroline McDonald
To:Torre; Ann Mullins; Ward Hauenstein; rachael.richards@cityoaspen.com; Skippy Mesirow; Amy Simon; Kristi;
Bukk Carleton; will mcdonald; cbryan@garfieldhecht.com; bvc@concors.com; Lou Stover; Ray surfdog; Megan
Tackett; Sarah Yoon
Subject:Partially read public comments at HPC meeting 01/13/2021
Date:Thursday, January 14, 2021 4:16:53 PM
01/13/2021, HPC MEETING, 1020 E COOPER APCHA
Seemingly, the first buyers of 1020 E. Cooper who wished to build a
single-family home were dissuaded by community development’s 19
step process to drop their project; then to recoup some of their losses
sold their property to employee housing developers for future sale to
meet the housing mitigation needs of proposed large scale commercial
development.
Who can say that this was not the outcome that community
development wanted? This, considering the ease that this persuasion
can be accomplished with a motivated staff and the current code. It is
common knowledge that the city is hell-bent in obtaining as much
employee housing as they can, by any and all means possible.
No one can blame the wishful second homeowner for dropping their
project considering community development’s staff history of
addressing subjective minutia, protracted reviews, bias, fraudulent
representation of self- validation, and the significant costs associated
with an onerous process that generates 160 pages of mostly rhetorical
busywork that everyone in government knows exists but no one does
anything about.
This gross overreach of discretionary authority has been allowed by a
succession of city councils because of the significant revenue stream
and self serving staff recommendations.
Municipal government’s purpose is to provide services to the public at
cost, not to be an onerous enterprise enabled by home rule legislation
against the so-called rich, second homeowner.
Such over-the-top municipal enterprise as practiced by community
development can be perceived by the public as predatory.
How can a succession of city councils over decades, turn a blind eye to
legislating ordinances that if they were in the shoes of the ordinance’s
recipients, they would not condone themselves? This is a question that
should be answered.
Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments
178
Comparing the two packages submitted for HPC review, the Australian’s
single-family home and the five plex, one is struck first by the significant
massing of the three story, five Plex and secondly by the review criteria
differences.
Clearly the impact and the scale of the proposed employee housing
development will have deleterious effects on the neighborhood that a
single-family home would not.
Staff findings: staff concerns relating to parking: “80% of required
parking mitigation will be met on site which is a major benefit for
tenants and contributes to the livability and quality of this project.”
What’s great for this project is not great for the neighborhood.
Besides limiting views and sun exposures, this significant development
will burden the neighborhood with additional vehicles that will not be
able to park in season.
Exhibit A-7, staff findings: “given the residential use of the surrounding
neighborhood, plenty of on street parking exists throughout the
immediate area.” This statement is blatantly false .
To estimate that only four parking spaces will suffice for a five, unit
employee housing apartment is unrealistic considering there could be
one car owned for each of the possible 8-18, tenants of the 5
apartment units.
Everyone who lives in this neighborhood will attest that there is a
dearth of parking spaces available in season. Cash in lieu for parking
space is not a viable solution because it does not solve the problem that
the neighborhood will be burdened with for decades.
This city sponsored cash in lieu solution addressing deficiency in
required parking typifies a shortsighted and cash hungry government
that does not give a hoot for the quality of life of the property owners
in this neighborhood.
What’s good for city staff and the corporate developers is not good for
the quality of life in this neighborhood. Most definitely if this employee
housing project is completed as defined, this neighborhood's property
values will decline and this city council should be held accountable.
This proposed development, HPC steered and justification rationalized
by Amy, is an egregious example of municipal overreach of
discretionary authority by Community Development as exemplified by
their duplicity in review standards.
Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments
179
All large scale developments should have employee housing on site.
Why should the never ending corporate greed for more profits result in
an environmental, density and living standard penalty to stable
neighborhoods? APCHA specified subsistence wage, tranche housing
has been made to order for higher corporate profits and market
dominance by wage limit mandates. Is APCHA a blessing to Aspen
employees or a low wage purgatory trap? Greed, largesse and social
capital has always been the name of the game in Aspen, where we truly
have the best municipal government that money can buy.
It is not surprising, considering the voting demographics, that there has
not been for two decades any meaningful representation in Aspen
government to protect property rights for the free market homeowner
and there has never been any city compunction to rectify this
deficiency. This biased governance is fundamentally un-American and
reprehensible. If you pay significant taxes you should have some say in
not being regulatorily taken to the cleaners.
The City Staff of Barwick's Ghost are still here.
Scott and Caroline McDonald
Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments
180
ASPEN OFFICE
625 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 201
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone (970) 925-1936
Facsimile (970) 925-3008
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Since 1975
www.garfieldhecht.com
2398127.3
January 22, 2021
CHRISTOPHER D. BRYAN
cbryan@garfieldhecht.com
Via E-Mail
Jim True, City Attorney
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor
Aspen, Colorado 81611
E-mail: jim.true@cityofaspen.com
RE: Application of 1020 E. Cooper, LLC
Multi-Family Affordable Housing at 1020 E. Cooper Ave.
Dear Jim:
As you are aware, this firm represents the Riverside Condominium Association (“Riverside”) and
the Cooper Avenue Victorian Condominium Association, Inc. (“Cooper Victorian”) (Riverside and
Cooper Victorian are referred to collectively herein as the “Associations”). We wanted to reach out to you
after the January 13, 2021, Historic Preservation Commission (“HPC”) meeting to discuss some issues
that, in the limited public comment time, could not be sufficiently vetted at the hearing but that your
office and the City Staff members should consider as Applicant revises its proposal.
First, the obvious issue is that the proposal fails to comply with pertinent provisions of the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (the “Guidelines”). As stated therein, “[t]he design
guidelines provide a basis for making decisions about the appropriate treatment of historic resources and
compatible new construction.” The Guidelines “serve to reinforce the purpose of the Historic Preservation
Chapter in the Aspen Land Use Code.” City Staff and the HPC are charged with determining “that a
sufficient number of the relevant guidelines have been adequately met in order to approve a project
proposal.” Property owners are encouraged to choose “[u]ses that closely relate to the building’s original
use . . . Every reasonable effort should be made to provide a compatible use for the building that will
require minimal alteration to the building and its site.” Section 24.415.010 of the Aspen City Code
(“Code”) incorporates the Guidelines by stating “. . . new construction in historic areas shall respect the
character of each such setting, not by imitating surrounding structures, but by being compatible with them
as defined in historic preservation guidelines.” (emphasis added). Section 24.415.060(B)(1) states that the
HPC has adopted the Guidelines, which “set forth the standards necessary to preserve and maintain the
historic and architectural character of designated properties and districts.” Further, Section
24.415.060(B)(2) states that “[c]onformance with the applicable [HPC] guidelines and the common
development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304 will be necessary for the approval of any
proposed work.” The proposal for 1020 E. Cooper is proceeding as a “major development” in accordance
with Code Section 26.415.070(D)(3)(b)(2), which provides that “[t]he HPC will review the application,
the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project’s conformance
Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments
181
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
Jim True, Aspen City Attorney
January 22, 2021
Page 2
2398127.3
with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.” At the HPC hearing, the “HPC may approve,
disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information
necessary to make a decision to approve or deny.” (Code Section 26.415.070(D)(3)(b)(3).) Any attempt to
argue that the Guidelines are merely advisory and not binding is preposterous.
In this instance, it is clear that the historic resource is merely being used as a vehicle to crowd five
“affordable housing units” into an undersized lot, failing to follow the Guidelines and preserve the
historic resource and disregarding quality of life issues. This is a serious abuse of the historic preservation
process, an abuse that has been perpetuated by City Staff not only in supporting the proposal but, in
essence, advocating for it to the detriment of the HPC’s mission in violation of the Code and Guidelines.
The policies set forth above are not being followed – the historic resource currently sits on the site with a
large front and side yard; it is being moved to the minimal front and side yard setback of five feet. The
historic resource is a small single-family home without a basement or window wells; it is being put on a
basement, split into two residential units, and window wells added. Adaptive uses (new uses) of historic
resources should “retain[s] the historic character of the building while accommodating new functions.” As
an example, the Guidelines state that it would be “inappropriate to turn the living room of a historic
building into a bathroom,” for it results in a major change in the floor plan. In the current proposal, the
floor plan of the historic resource is eviscerated.
Chapter 1 of the Guidelines opens with “[t]he character of a historic structure is greatly influenced
by. . . the physical characteristics of the specific site, and the way in which the historic resource is situated
on the lot.” Under the current proposal, as stated above, the historic resource will be relocated in a way
that destroys the historic nature of the resource’s site location and the site itself. The lot will be
completely filled with structures with the exception of the minimal five-foot setbacks and the ten-foot
strip between the buildings. As discussed at the January 13 HPC hearing, the lots to the west of this
property all have large front yards, following the “overall development pattern of the neighborhood” – as
currently located, the historic resource is “consistent” with the neighborhood; the relocation will create a
deviation therefrom. Guideline 1.1 states that “[a]ll projects shall respect the historic development pattern
or context of the block, neighborhood or district.” All of that has been ignored here. Guideline 1.7 states
that applicants should “[e]nsure that open space on site is meaningful and consolidated into a few large
spaces rather than many small unusable areas.” Open space on this site will not be preserved by the
proposal, and the space provided is such that residents will be crowded together in trying to use it.
Guideline 9.2 states that “[p]roposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. . .
It must be demonstrated that on-site relocation is the best preservation alternative in order for approval to
be granted.” Based on the foregoing, it can hardly be said that is the true in this instance. Furthermore,
pursuant to Guideline 9.3, “[i]t must face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback.”
Although forward movement is preferred to lateral (though that is occurring here as well), the loss of 25
feet of front lawn cannot be ignored.
Both the HPC and City Council had serious concerns that the prior proposal, for a single-family
home attached to the historic resource, did not comply with the Guidelines as it was too large in mass and
scale as compared with the historic resource. The matter was continued several times by HPC based upon
these concerns, was approved by a vote of 4-2 (again, these concerns), was called up by City Council and
remanded back to HPC due to these concerns, and then continued several times until the new applicant
came back with the current proposal. Although this is a “new” proposal, for a detached, separate building,
Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments
182
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
Jim True, Aspen City Attorney
January 22, 2021
Page 3
2398127.3
this issue is exacerbated and, based upon the prior process and concerns, should be looked at through the
same lens.
Chapter 11 of the Guidelines is crucial to the analysis of this proposal. In the introduction, it states
that “a new building should be designed in a manner that reinforces the basic visual characteristics of the
site.” Here, the proposal destroys the basic visual characteristics of the site. “A new design must relate to
the fundamental characteristics of the historic resource (site, location mass, form, materials details).” Id.
“A new building must be compatible in mass and scale with its historic neighbor.” Id. The current
proposal is larger – both physically and in scope (due to it being a multi-family structure of five units) –
than the 2019 proposal of a single-family home. Guidelines 11.3 and 11.4 require the HPC to consider the
mass and scale of the new building as it relates to the historic resource. The City Staff report for the
January 13 HPC meeting hardly even mentions these provisions, nor does it really discuss mass and scale.
Applicant wants HPC to consider the fact that the Riverside Condos and the Cooper Avenue Victorian
Condos are “three stories” and thus that should make this project acceptable in mass and scale; however,
this ignores the directive of the Guidelines, which requires HPC to consider mass and scale as compared
with the historic structure. How the project appears in mass and scale to neighboring properties is
irrelevant, especially when these neighboring structures are not historic landmarks. Moreover, the lots on
which Riverside Condos and the Cooper Avenue Victorian Condos are located are significantly larger
than the small, nonconforming lot where the historic resource is located.
The criteria of Guidelines 11.3 and 11.4 simply cannot be met by this proposal. Especially in light
of the fact the 2019 project, which was of a smaller mass and scale than this proposal and for which HPC
and City Council had concerns that similar Sections 10.3 and 10.4 (applying to additions to historic
structures) could not be met, a finding that the mass and scale of this proposal is appropriate would be
arbitrary and capricious and could subject the City to costly and protracted litigation. This historic
resource is tiny; the proposal is massive in comparison. In particular, Guideline 11.4 states that “[t]he
primary plane of the front [of the new structure] shall not appear taller than the historic structure.” The
proposed new building is nearly three times the height of the historic resource, almost to the maximum
height allowed in the zone district. There will not be any natural light available between the buildings on
the property, and by maximizing the setbacks, none on either side as well. City Staff failed to follow the
Code and outline how this proposal conforms to the Guidelines, because it does not, but Staff evidently
was too invested in allowing affordable housing that it chose to ignore these issues, in dereliction of its
duties.
Second, it has been stated by Staff, HPC members, and ourselves that this is a non-conforming lot
for the Residential Multi-Family (“RMF”) Zone District (4379 square feet compared to the required 6000
square feet), such that but for the historic resource, a multi-family structure could not be constructed on
the lot at all; only a single-family home would be allowed. As discussed throughout the Application and
the January 13 HPC hearing, the subject property is located in the RMF Zone District, which is governed
by Section 26.710.090 of the City Code. As City staff members know, and the Commissioners too,
Section 26.710.090(d) requires lots to have a minimum of 6,000 square foot area and a minimum width of
60 feet. The subject lot is 4,379 square feet. There is an exception in Chapter 26.312 of the City Code,
entitled “Nonconformities,” that provides an exception that “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
requirement of its zone district for historic structures.” See Section 26.312.050(c). However, unlike the
Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments
183
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
Jim True, Aspen City Attorney
January 22, 2021
Page 4
2398127.3
provision in the Code section immediately prior to this, which states that certain lots created before 1971
that “do not meet the requirements for lot width and area” can continue as nonconforming (see Section
26.312.050(b)), the historic landmark nonconforming lot must nonetheless meet the zone district lot width
requirements. In this instance, the lot is fewer than 60 feet wide, and the use thereof should be limited
accordingly. It is important to note that the lots for Riverside and Cooper Victorian actually exceed the
minimal lot size in the RMF Zone District. This small lot is an anomaly in this neighborhood and should
be recognized as such. Furthermore, the purpose of the Nonconformities Chapter is “to permit
nonconformities to continue, but not to allow nonconformities to be enlarged or expanded. The provisions
of this Chapter are designed to curtail substantial investment in nonconformities in order to preserve the
integrity of the zone districts and the other provisions of this Title but should not be construed as an
abatement provision.” Construction of this project would be a substantial investment in a nonconformity
and would not preserve the integrity of the zone district. The small size of the subject lot enhances even
more the inappropriate mass and scale of the subject project and certainly enlarges and expands the
existing nonconformity in violation of Chapter 26.312 of the City Code. For these additional reasons, the
project should be denied.
In sum, it is clear that this proposal is a classic example of trying to fit a square peg in a round
hole. Applicant’s presentation of an affordable housing project has caused City Staff and the HPC to
ignore the applicable Code and Guidelines, which will work to the City’s detriment and expose the City to
legal challenge. Su Lum’s house is a designated historic landmark in Aspen; it should not be used as a
vehicle to allow a dense, multi-family development on a tiny lot in violation of the City’s own rules and
regulations. Purchasing property with a historic resources does not, and should not, allow the owner to
“game the system,” which is what is happening with this proposal and City Staff’s recommendations.
Please contact me to discuss these issues further before all parties involved spend additional time
and financial resources on this matter.
Very truly yours,
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
Christopher D. Bryan
cc: Riverside Condominium Association
Cooper Avenue Victorian Condominium Association, Inc.
Mary Elizabeth Geiger, Esq.
Kate Johnson, Esq.
Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments
184
610 S. West End Street
Aspen, CO 81611
T: 970.925.5000 / 800.345.1471
www.gantaspen.com
January 11, 2021
RE: Support for 1020 East Cooper Project
HPC Members,
Our communities’ efforts over the years to ensure employee housing availability has been an
integral part of our success as a community. Providing for the ability to effectively recruit and retain
qualified talent to our workforce. Over the years, both completion to other resort areas as well as
diminished opportunities for additional employee housing burden this deficit.
The proposed project at 1020 East Cooper is a unique opportunity to continue these efforts, does
not require any land use code amendments and will preserve a historic asset. It seems to me to be
a natural fit, and such an opportunity does not come along that often.
In the interest of continuing to support our efforts to preserve our mountain town quality of life,
ensure additional employee housing needs are met, and remain competitive in a tightening market;
I am very much in support of this project and urge your support and approval as well.
I am available for further comment if you wish.
Direct Number: 970-920-6070
Email Address: donnie.lee@gantaspen.com
Sincerely,
Donnie Lee
General Manager
Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments
185
From:Kristi
To:Torre; Ann Mullins; Ward Hauenstein; Rachael Richards; Skippy Mesirow; Public Comment; Amy Simon;
Jessica.Garrow@cityofaspen.com; Torre; Ann Mullins; Ward Hauenstein; Rachael Richards; Skippy Mesirow;
Public Comment; Amy Simon; Jessica.Garrow@cityofaspen.com; Sarah Yoon; jeffrey.halferty@cityofaspen.com;
gretchen.greenwood@cityofaspen.com; kara.thompson@cityofaspen.com.; roger.moyer@cityofaspen.com;
scott.kendrick@cityofaspen.com; sheri.sanzone@cityofaspen.com
Subject:1020 E Cooper Avenue Proposed Development
Date:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 11:24:22 AM
Dear Council and HPC-
I want to thank each of you for trying to do your best in many difficult situations
recently.
I don’t want to see this happen at 1020 East Cooper.
201 West Main was redeveloped by longtime Owner/Developer into 8 Employee
housing units. Selling for $710,000 to $745,000 (2 already closed) Click to view
listing(s) I had a client view the two unsold units on Saturday. She thought it might
be a good investment, considering the fact that she could resale, in a few years and
make a nice profit. She called me after the showing and she was disgusted! She said
it was the worst thing she had ever seen. She could not believe Aspen would
consider putting its valued employees in these. She said she wouldn’t put her dog in
it! Plastic bathtubs, Formica counters, cheapest construction she had ever seen. She
said there was no way they spent over $100/per square foot. (I am not here to debate
the actual cost, just relaying what I was told)
With 8 units at an average of $725,000 the developer is looking at making approx.
$5,800,000. It’s highly doubtful, even in this market, this same Owner could have
made near this amount on Main Street using the higher quality materials needed to
sell a house in Aspen these days. This Owner/Developer mostly likely got a lot of
credits too! This is most likely going to be the same situation at 1020 East Cooper.
Both developers bragging about needing “no city subsiding” which they certainly
don’t need with everything they get in return!!!! The City has made a fortune this year
and should be able to buy property and/or develop the property they have and make
the employee housing units something employees, Pitkin County, neighbors, visitors,
etc. can be proud of not a bunch of junk where the developers are the real winners.
I ask all of you to dig deep and ask yourself: Is the proposed project for 1020 East
Cooper a true reflection of HPC and a statement and reason HPC was formed? Will
this project be something the neighborhood can be proud of for years to come? Will it
be a property that will transcend those passing by on daily bases, to a time when
BIGGER DID NOT ALWAYS MEAN BETTER? A time when a small house with
grass and a yard WAS the American dream. Is this proposed project something HPC
and City Council can honestly be proud of and feel that with a lot of hard work and
difficult decisions, they approved the best application for this special (and one of the
few) historic properties located a main entrance to Aspen for all to see and
admire???????????? IF IT WON’T BE, IT SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED, NO
MATTER WHO GETS PAID OR WHO WILL BE LIVING THERE!
Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments
186
Thanks so much
Kristi Gilliam
1024 East Cooper #8
970-948-0153
Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments
187
From:Baron Concors
To:Kristi; Kevin Rayes
Subject:Re: 1015 East Hyman
Date:Friday, February 5, 2021 9:12:59 AM
Hi Kevin, I'm a neighbor as well. I wanted to let you know I went over and talked to the resident who has this parking spot in the alley. The fence you speak of is actually a trellis that sits on top of the railroad ties that form her patio. This patio has been there since the property was built so it is not blocking any access to the parking spot. I also took a picture of the current parking
situation - see attached. I measured 12 feet from her car to the sheds (where the future parking spots for 1020 Cooper are planned.)
I want to make sure it is called out that this is still an outstanding issue for the proposed development at 1020 Cooper. At the last hearing, Amy said someone must be parking in the alley illegally and we now have confirmed that is not accurate. It will be physically impossible for someone to pull into / pull out of a 90 degree parking spot with less than 12 feet of distance to work with.
This is the narrowest point in alley.
Not sure what next steps are on this but this will be raised as an issue at the hearing on 2/10
Best, Baron
On 2/5/21, 9:29 AM, "Kristi" <kristi@rof.net> wrote:
Here is Kevins contact.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Rayes <kevin.rayes@cityofaspen.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 5:26 PM
To: Kristi <kristi@rof.net>
Subject: RE: 1015 East Hyman
Hi Kristi,
I am the same Kevin on the zoom call last week. I am happy to help and get
everyone on the same page regarding the neighboring parking space.
You may have to zoom into the condo plat that I sent in order to read some
of the text. I went ahead and highlighted the parking area memorialized in
the condo plat so you can see it easier (see attachment above). The
affordable units are memorialized in the supplemental condo plat attached
above. The parking spot is included in this plat as well but it is much more
faint and hard to see.
The parking space is memorialized within the property boundary of 1015 E.
Hyman. It appears a fence was constructed along the perimeter of the
property at some point in the past, partially blocking full access to the
spot. From what I can tell, the individual parking in this space may be
partially encroaching into City right-of-way (see attached screenshot).
Do you know if the fence located at the rear of 1015 E. Hyman was ever
permitted?
Thanks.
To promote the health and safety of our staff and community and to minimize
the spread of COVID-19, Community Development staff are conducting business
by email and phone and are only available in person by appointment. Contact
information for our entire staff and how best to get the services you need
can be found on our website: cityofaspen.com/177/Community-Development.
Thank you for your understanding.
Kevin Rayes
Community Development Department
Planner
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
P 970.429.2797
C 970.319.6499
https://avanan.url-protection.com/v1/url?
o=www.cityofaspen.com&g=Y2FjYjdjMzU2Yzg3OTk1Yg==&h=NmNmMTkwNTkxM2JhNmM4MWJkNzQ1OWZhOTRhZjNlZGZlOWJkYzM5NWQxYTJhYzNiZWIxMzk2ODcwOTlkYTE2NA==&p=YXAzOmNpdHlvZmFzcGVuOmF2YW5hbjpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2VtYWlsOmQwYWQ1Yzk5NGQ5NjFiOGMzODFlMzEyYjQyMzIwNTMxOnYx
https://avanan.url-protection.com/v1/url?
o=www.aspencommunityvoice.com&g=OTYyZjE3YTEyMDczZGI5Yg==&h=YTI2MTYxMTY5NDY3ZTY3ZmFmZTAzNzBlOGY2MTI5MGFmY2I1MTkyZmM5MjBhZTZiNGRmNjdlNWM3YmM2MTUxNw==&p=YXAzOmNpdHlvZmFzcGVuOmF2YW5hbjpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2VtYWlsOmQwYWQ1Yzk5NGQ5NjFiOGMzODFlMzEyYjQyMzIwNTMxOnYx
Notice and Disclaimer:
This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it
is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt
from disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended
recipient, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in
error and then delete it. Further, the information or opinions contained in
this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of
Aspen. If applicable, the information and opinions contain in the email are
based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon
factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and
information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any
claim of detrimental reliance.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kristi <kristi@rof.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 12:56 PM
To: Kevin Rayes <kevin.rayes@cityofaspen.com>
Subject: 1015 East Hyman
Hi Kevin- I believe you were the Kevin on the Zoom call last week regarding
the parking for the property across the Alley from 1015 East Hyman. (TS
HORRIBLE!) On the Plat that you just sent, I didn't see the employee
housing units... I am trying to find out if the parking spot that Julie
(owner of an employee housing unit at 1015 East Hyman) is a deeded spot and
or whose property is she parking on? She has had the same parking space
since '91 and bought it being told this was her spot. If it is not hers than
that is going to be one more person having to parking somewhere on the
street if this structure is approved! It is sooooo tight as it is. Let me
know what you find out! Thanks so much!! (You can see her small car
parked there on the left hand side over the years) Kristi Gilliam .
Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments
188
From:Lorne Leil
To:Kevin Rayes
Cc:ggreenwood@ggaaspen.com; Amy Simon; Sarah Yoon
Subject:Re: 1020 Cooper Project
Date:Wednesday, January 13, 2021 9:17:27 PM
Attachments:image001.png
I cannot make the meeting but a neighbor just sent me a message this topic came up at the
hearing. I talked to the neighbor who parks in the alley and she confirmed it is a designated
parking spot on the plat of our property. I suggest you reach out to her to confirm - her name is
Julie Peters. If that is in fact a real parking spot, 1020 Cooper's project cannot happen - those
tenants would be unable to pull out of their parking spots.
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 7:43 PM Kevin Rayes <kevin.rayes@cityofaspen.com> wrote:
Hi Lorne,
Thank you for your comments.
We will pass these along to the HPC prior to tomorrow’s hearing.
Are you interested in tuning into the hearing?
If so, please let me know and we will send you a link to join.
Thanks.
To promote the health and safety of our staff and community and to minimize the spread
of COVID-19, Community Development staff are conducting business by email and phone
and are only available in person by appointment. Contact information for our entire staff
and how best to get the services you need can be found on our website:
cityofaspen.com/177/Community-Development. Thank you for your understanding.
Kevin Rayes
Community Development Department
Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments
189
Planner
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
P 970.429.2797
C 970.319.6499
www.cityofaspen.com
www.aspencommunityvoice.com
Notice and Disclaimer:
This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed
and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure
pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the
sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further, the
information or opinions contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are
not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable, the information and opinions contain
in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future,
and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions
and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim
of detrimental reliance.
From: Lorne Leil <lorne.leil@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 5:38 PM
To: ggreenwood@ggaaspen.com; Amy Simon <amy.simon@cityofaspen.com>; Kevin
Rayes <kevin.rayes@cityofaspen.com>
Subject: 1020 Cooper Project
Hello, Please see my attached letter for the HPC regarding the proposed development at
1020 Cooper Avenue. We live directly behind the property. Thank you
Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments
190
Lorne Leil
Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments
191
From:Tiffany Smith
To:Kevin Rayes
Cc:Amy Simon
Subject:1020 E. Cooper Ave. Neighborhood
Date:Friday, January 15, 2021 1:30:00 PM
Dear Kevin,
Thank you for your presentation at Wednesday night’s online meeting regarding the 1020 E.
Cooper Project. I appreciate your service to Aspen. That said, I do have serious doubts and
reservations regarding some of the things you presented, particularly the idea that there will be
“plenty of parking” when our own personal experience is that there is already often NOT
ENOUGH parking in that block and in the alley. Local residents, day-trip tourists, contractors,
visitors of residents and holiday renters already park there by the dozens.
I was also interested in Figure 7 that was shown – an image of a short barely 2-block area
described as having “only four deed-restricted affordable units”. Only 4 units in a tiny area?
And in fact, when I just looked at APCHA’s Affordable Housing map online, between West
End St. (1 block west of Cleveland, our corner) and the River and within 2 blocks N and S of
E. Cooper, there are 23 AH rental units and 4 AH owned units. And besides, not 1 resident
on Wednesday night’s web meeting made an issue of having more affordable housing units in
our neighborhood. In fact, we welcomed the idea if handled appropriately. The main issues, as
have been stated time and again, are the out-of-proportion mass and scale of the 1020 E.
Cooper addition, a lack of respect for the historic resource and the project’s lack of parking.
And lastly, I was particularly struck by your seemingly sincere belief in this statement that you
showed to us: 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”
In reference to this, I’d like to give you – and any official associated with this project – a little
background on some of the people who live on our block, and I think once you’ve read this
that you’ll agree that our neighborhood already reflects the: “A healthy social balance
includes all income ranges and types of people” sentiment – and see that we’re not
exactly exclusive Beverly Hills ;)
* Scott McDonald and his son, Will, were both raised at the little historic house on the corner
of E. Cooper and Cleveland, 2 doors down from us. They’re hardly upper-class.
*Lou and Ray Stover, at 1006 E. Cooper, neighbors of the McDonalds’ and the ones who
followed what HPC told them to do several years ago and built a wonderful addition to their
own historic resource. In fact, in complying with HPC’s ruling on their project, they shrunk
their plan’s footprint and left a lot of money (in in-door square footage) on the table. This is
obviously something Jim DeFrancia and Jean Coulter are refusing to do because they don’t
want to leave any money on the table. Lou grew up in a small Texas town where her father
was a professor. Ray’s lived all over as his father was in the foreign service. Ray actually
served as a pilot during Viet Nam. They built a small tech business together and have settled
full-time in Aspen. The friendly and civic-minded Stovers definitely aren’t Bill and Melinda
Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments
192
Gates.
*Across the alley from them is Diane Munisch and I think she was an accountant and now she
works the cheese counter at Whole Foods down in Willits. And our friend, Sally Ann, who
lives there too is a therapist. And most of the people who live in their complex on E. Hyman
are similar – just normal people who chose Aspen for its small mountain town lifestyle.
*In our 4/5-unit complex at 1012 E. Cooper, a non-historic 70’s version of a Victorian-style
building, there are Bob and Paulette Koffron of Michigan, a retired engineer (who was raised
on a farm) and a retired school teacher respectively, Bukk Carleton from back East who is in
real estate and often rents out his unit to local seasonal workers – this last summer it was a
delightful young woman who worked at the theatre, and then there’s Steve and Enee Ableman
from Florida, and Michael and I from Texas – all of us were raised in a very middle class way
and work/worked professional jobs. Personally, I grew up in a small 3-2 out in the suburbs,
attended public schools and helped put myself through college and helped put Michael
through grad school. In fact, my dad was raised very poor in a small Texas town – like not-
enough-food/stuff-newspapers-in-your-shoes/wash-windows-before-school-when-your-7-
years-old poor but he went to college on a basketball scholarship then joined the Navy and
was fortunately able to pull himself out of his impoverished circumstances. None of us at 1012
are the Lord and Lady Grantham landed gentry types either. NOTE: Yes, we have 5 units at
our complex (1 of which is a tiny efficiency) but our lot is over 6,000 SF, so almost a 1/3
larger than 1020.
*At 1024 E. Cooper, there’s Kristi Gilliam, a local real estate agent, Jaime Rubinson, also in
Aspen real estate, 3 local landscape workers, a guy who manages the rug store in town, Baron
Concors, who’s a tech officer from Dallas, and a couple of owners who rent out their places to
local and seasonal workers, etc. Again, no elites there, it’s mostly just people who work in
Aspen.
*Across the alley from 1020, is Julie (she’s the one who has the deeded parking space in the
alley). She’s a retired teacher and a local who owns the affordable housing unit in her
complex. She’s a sweet woman who likes to walk her cat and visit the neighbors. Not exactly
an exclusive socialite.
And, of course, there are many more similar stories among our neighbors but these are the
ones that come to mind as I write this. All this is to say, that making a big point of factoring in
“economic and social diversity” while deciding on this particular project should not be a
primary focus since we’re fortunate to already have lots of locals and semi-locals, including
local employees, we’re of varying income levels and experiences and our origins are from
across the nation and world – plus, none of us are members of some exclusive class. That’s
what we love about it! And here’s the thing – we are very aware of and immensely grateful for
the blessings that we have. So, before you stand in judgement of us – or any other
neighborhood, please consider what I’ve shared with you and actually get to know the people
in a neighborhood before making assumptions about their intentions. It’s about kindness and
respect for everyone. It’s about the truth.
In closing, if the City of Aspen is authentic about socially and economically integrating the
city, then they have work to do in other neighborhoods – the West End north of Main, Red
Mountain, Cemetery Lane area, the areas close to Aspen Mountain, the area along 82, east of
town, etc. They’re part of the “fabric of our town” too and it’s not fair for the areas of town
that are zoned multi-family to alone bear the burden of inappropriately high-density projects
Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments
193
that upset the livability conditions of a neighborhood.
Again, thank you for your service to the Aspen community.
All the best,
Tiffany Smith
Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments
194
From:Lincoln manuel
To:Amy Simon; Kevin Rayes
Subject:1020 Cooper project
Date:Tuesday, January 12, 2021 8:00:59 AM
Dear HPC,
The project at 1020 Cooper is important to our community and to our neighborhood. The reuse of an
old building and the addition of a new building along the alley for affordable housing is exactly what
our neighborhood needs. The renderings look great. The project is building less than allowed, and
the architecture relates to the neighborhood. The relationship between the old building and new
building works well. Four parking spaces seems reasonable for five units considering the close
proximity to downtown, transit, and trails. Overall we support this housing project.
Lincoln Manuel
409 Park Circle #2
Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments
195
From:Tiffany Smith
To:Kevin Rayes
Subject:1020 E. Cooper Project - Please Include in Public Comments for HPC Board Mtg on Jan 13
Date:Thursday, January 7, 2021 4:38:06 PM
Dear Kevin Rayes and Aspen HPC Board,
As a resident of 1012 E. Cooper, I’m writing to you regarding my concerns about the new
1020 E. Cooper project.
As with the prior 1020 E. Cooper development project by David McMahan, my primary
concern is that the current plan for the addition is still both too tall and too large for the lot and
in relation to the historic building. As we have stated all along about both projects, the mass
and height of the new structure are still not compliant with 10.3 and 10.4 of the HPC
Guidelines as they pertain to these issues. Although affordable housing is a worthy pursuit,
HPC’s primary responsibility is to ensure that development projects are compliant with and
are in the spirit of HPC Guidelines. And this new re-development is actually larger than the
previous one, and thus dwarfs the historic house.
I also find it curious that although HPC has strict instructions about the need for the new
addition to look quite dissimilar from the historic structure, in this case, per their latest
rendering, the buildings actually look very similar – both are very basic, angular structures
painted in an extremely dark monochromatic color. Honestly, it sort of looks like Darth
Vader’s house, and not at all like a happy multi-family complex, as it was initially pitched to
the neighbors. It makes one wonder who their target residents really are? And are the
developers being authentic when they say they want to build a structure that fits among their
neighbors and in that neighborhood. I would give it a 2 out of 10 for attractiveness and
appropriateness.
And speaking of neighbors, the 1020 E. Cooper Project’s historic home’s placement on the lot,
within five feet of the sidewalk, is out of alignment with both its own historic placement on
the lot and its neighbors to the west. Two of those neighbors are themselves historic Aspen
homes with traditionally sized front yards and the other is ours at 1012, a replicated Victorian
with a large front yard. We realize that the neighbors to the east are at the sidewalk but those
projects were not historic developments, and were built decades ago anyway.
Lastly, another big concern is the lack of parking that 1020 is going to have. It is simply not at
all realistic to think that the 10+ people that will be residing there will only need four parking
spots. They will need at least 8-10 parking places and possibly more depending on if the lot is
condominiumized (as proposed) and the units are sold to a variety of local business owners to
then rent to their employees. If there are two 3-bedroom units and three 2-bedroom units, there
could be at least three adults in each of the 3-bedroom units and at least 2 adults in each of the
2-bedroom units, which would mean a total of at least 12 adults living in that complex. And
since their APCHA application is for a Category 4 or below rating, then there could be many
more residents than that if it’s designated Category 1 or 2, which often means young single
people who’ll be sharing rooms. Parking will be a huge problem not only for the local
residents who have parking in the back because there is absolutely no extra parking in our
alley, but also for street parking. E. Cooper is almost always completely parked up during
winter, spring break and summer – and often fall too during leaf season. This is precious
parking for local residents, contractors and day-trip visitors, many of whom come over the
Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments
196
Pass when it’s open. Basically, there isn’t room for extra dedicated parking spots on the street
without “bumping” others who already park there.
At the end of the day, this narrow, undersized lot with a historic home previously owned by a
popular Aspen newspaper columnist is really best suited for a single-family dwelling or
perhaps a duplex, not a large multi-unit complex. This project in no way honors Su Lum, our
neighbor who we knew, and her love of Aspen, its history, her home and her garden. She must
be turning over in her grave at the idea of this giant black monolith that swallows up almost
her entire lovely lot.
Aspen HPC Board, as you are directed to honor and appreciate Aspen’s heritage and historic
resources, I respectfully request that you seriously consider what I have said and prioritize
Aspen’s history and the neighborhood’s wellbeing over that of a corporate real estate
development team.
Mr. Rayes, I’m planning to attend the meeting virtually but in case I can’t or there is a
technology glitch, please include my email to the board as part of the public comments.
Thank you for your service to Aspen.
Best regards,
Tiffany Smith
1012 E. Cooper, Unit #1
Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments
197
From:Stephen Abelman
To:Kevin Rayes
Cc:Amy Simon
Subject:1020 East Cooper Avenue / Stephen and Helene Abelman
Date:Friday, January 8, 2021 11:34:39 AM
Dear Kevin, Amy, City of Aspen and the HPC Board,
Happy New Year to you all. We hope you all are healthy and having a good start to 2021.
We, Stephen and Helene Abelman are owners of two condominium units at 1012 East Cooper
Avenue, Cooper Avenue Victorian ( CAV ), just to the west of the proposed 1020 project. We
have concerns regarding the size and intensity of the project, along with the legal issues
surrounding this project.
The history of this property, with the McMahon Family's previous application proposal for a
single family home, shows both size and mass concerns, not only by the neighboring property
owners, but ALSO by the HPC Board and the City of Aspen. The legal guidelines are again
being ignored in the present 1020 proposal.
We are very much in favor of affordable housing in Aspen, but do not feel the pursuit of
affordable housing has the rights to ignore the present legal and building guidelines relative to
lot size, presently set by the HPC Board and the City of Aspen.
Along with the mass and scale issues, the surrounding parking situation is also, presently
difficult at best. Adding the 5 units, of any type makes parking even more problematic.
Having 5 units, most likely 10+ people living at 1020 East Cooper, will make for a parking
nightmare. as the building can only have 4 parking spaces, 3 regular spaces and 1 ADA
designated space.
Another problem that needs to be addressed is the close proximity of the proposed 1020
structure to both buildings on the east and west sides, thus causing a fire hazard issue if our
fire department needs to get in between the buildings.
In the end, if any of us as individuals, proposed building a structure as large as this proposed
project, we would clearly be denied. This is what occured with the McMahan's, after going to
the HPC and the City of Aspen. It is not right that now, due to corporate developer pressure
on the HPC Board and the City of Aspen, an entire neighborhood has to endure a project
which does not fit legally and physically on this smaller property. It is quite obvious, in
looking at the renderings and the potential number of residents living on this small property ,
that the project size is not appropriate, nor sensible.
A single family home, duplex or 3 unit structure is a much more practicable solution.
Thanks for reading our concerns and please pass them on to the HPC Board, along with the
other public comments regarding this project.
Kind regards,
Stephen and Helene Abelman
1012 East Cooper Avenue
Unit 4 and Unit 5
Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments
198
From:Jessie Young
To:Amy Simon; Kevin Rayes
Subject:1020 East Cooper
Date:Tuesday, January 12, 2021 9:56:04 PM
Hi Amy and Kevin,
I am writing in support of the proposed project at 1020 East Cooper. From the materials I have reviewed
and having lived in affordable housing on the east side of town at 962 East Hopkins for a number of years
having only recently moved to Smuggler Park, I believe that additional affordable housing - especially
located on this side of town - is important to our community and to the neighborhood. The project's
location along Highway 82 adds to its desirability for additional housing units (as opposed to a single
family home). This neighborhood, with such great access to downtown, can greatly benefit from more
"lights on" as is being offered by this project. From my experience living in the neighborhood, it often feels
deserted and would benefit from more activity and residents. With the headache that is the "entrance to
Aspen," additional affordable housing on this side of town is essential.
The reuse of an old building and the addition of a new building along the alley for affordable housing is
exactly what is needed. It appears that the project is building less than allowed, and the architecture
relates to the neighborhood. The relationship between the historic building and new building works well.
Four parking spaces seems reasonable for five units considering the close proximity to downtown, transit,
and trails and the availability of on-street parking. Furthermore - having lived essentially in the basement
affordable housing unit at 962 East Hopkins (an opportunity I was lucky to have had), I can attest that
having more housing in town that does not bury our workforce is a valid goal in and of itself.
Warm Regards,
Jessie Young
--
Jessie Young
jbvyoung@gmail.com
970.948.4534
Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments
199
January 12, 2021
Dear HPC Members,
As many of you know, the Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA) is an active community organization
in Aspen for over 45 years, and during that time we’ve successfully supported the business community by
making Aspen more competitive in the resort marketplace. In recent years, we have represented our
members in public affairs by advocating for the development of affordable housing and transportation
upgrades/improvements, and we have taken an active role in convening community dialogue and
initiatives that we believe serve the community at-large.
As the competition tightens, one of the key challenges our local businesses face is the ability to attract
and retain qualified employees across a broad span of industries, due to the lack of affordable housing for
both individuals and families. This challenge is certainly not new, but it is proving more challenging to
solve.
We are proud to be a part of a community where both private and public sectors are working toward
addressing this deficit with the provision of affordable housing developments in and around town. We
also applaud the development of affordable housing throughout the valley. All housing for our workforce
helps, as we have seen local rental units converted into short-term rentals for visitors.
As demand continues to increase for the quality of life that our mountain towns offer, so does the
complexity of the solutions. There are no easy answers as we weigh the tensions between stakeholders.
One constant will prevail: ACRA will support the development of employee housing in Aspen and the
opportunities it creates for our businesses and community members to thrive.
Thank you for your service to Aspen.
All the best,
Debbie Braun
President and CEO
Aspen Chamber Resort Association
Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments
200
Philip Jeffreys
Aspen Skiing Company (970) 379-7950 cell
P.O. Box 1248 pjeffreys@aspensnowmass.com
Aspen, CO 81612
January 12th, 2021
Dear HPC Members,
As one of the largest employers in Aspen, we recognize the importance of housing our workforce
and have actively worked to bridge the gap between the current demand and actual supply.
We know that the City of Aspen has several projects in the pipeline, but the deficit is large enough
that we cannot rely on the City of Aspen and a few select employers to deliver affordable housing
developments. We also need the private sector to play a contributing role – and as such, we support
the 1020 East Cooper Project Team in their endeavor to deliver high-quality affordable housing in
the downtown area. We know firsthand how challenging it can be to garner community support for
even the most well-conceived project.
We believe the 1020 East Cooper Project is a well-placed, much-needed, housing development that
will add to the growing fabric of full-time employees living in the East of Aspen neighborhood. l also
understand the need for diverse offerings in our affordable housing stock and we appreciate the
effort to create units that will allow for young professionals and families to be close to downtown
and proximate to the services they need whether it be City Market or being able to walk or ride to
the Yellow Brick. For years, the Aspen Skiing Company has housed critical employees in an 8 unit
affordable housing complex a block away at 832 E. Cooper. Mixing affordable and free market
housing helps maintain Aspen’s vibrancy and is goal of the Aspen Area Community Plan.
This project is a great example of how we can embed much needed affordable housing into our
community in a meaningful way – and not just rely on larger housing developments to get us closer
to meeting demand.
As an employer and neighbor, we support this project and look forward to the vibrancy it will
contribute to this neighborhood.
Philip Jeffreys
Project Manager – Workforce Housing
Aspen Skiing Company
Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments
201
From:Nicole Henning
To:Amy Simon
Cc:Wes Graham
Subject:FW: HPC members: Please deliver this letter to the Chair and the other HPC members before their meeting
tomorrow
Date:Tuesday, January 12, 2021 11:05:25 AM
From: Stirling, Bill <Bill.Stirling@elliman.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 11:00 AM
To: Nicole Henning <nicole.henning@cityofaspen.com>
Subject: HPC members: Please deliver this letter to the Chair and the other HPC members before
their meeting tomorrow
To: Chair of the HPC
From: Bill Stirling
Ref: Former Sue Lum historical house on East Cooper, City of Aspen
Thanks for your dedication to the historic preservation process. It is time consuming and can be
arduous. However, it has inestimable value for the long term, as historic preservation is essential in
identifying our late 19th and 20th C. Victorian architectural legacy. Maintaining our rich inventory of
residential and commercial buildings through the Victorian program gives locals and visitors an on
going reminder of the richness of our early design history. The voluntary protection of our modern
bau haus, early ski style and log cabin architecture is also essential for reminding everyone of the
unique collection of Post WW II buildings in our midst. How lucky we were to have Herbert Bayer,
such a brilliant Bau Haus specialist in our midst in the mid 20th C. What a stroke of luck!
Even the meanest Victorian style miner’s cabin is part of our heritage. Sometimes our Victorians are
beaten up and neglected, but still it is worth the time, effort and cost of preserving even the smaller
residences. It is so important to be reminded of how the folks from the early days lived from the
hard rock miners to the Silver barons.
I urge you to support the proposal before you to preserve the Sue Lum home, move it closer to E.
Cooper and then allow construction of the 3 story addition on the back of the lot. The Vic will still be
front and center and a gift to the streets. However, what is even more compelling is the fact that
this application will be a 100 % affordable housing project. This is unique and encouraging. It shows
that it is possible for a private developer to produce 100% affordable housing. It is in the spirit of the
100% affordable rental projects brilliantly conceived by Peter Fornel with certificates purchased by
commercial developers in need of affordable housing mitigation.
The need for affordable housing is great. The beginnings of “worker housing” began with Mayors S.
Standley, Herman Edel and myself in the 70’s and throughout the 80’s, and then supported by
ensuing Mayors and Councils. Though we now have over 3000 affordable units, a mix of sale and
rental condos, it is refreshing and encouraging that the private sector is tackling the challenge. The
citizens passed the affordable housing real estate transfer tax in 1990. What a boon that pool of
Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments
202
money has been. But we always need assistance from the private sector. What a mix! Affordable
housing and historic preservation!
Good luck with your deliberations.
Sincerely, Bill Stirling, Mayor of Aspen, 1983-91.
BILL STIRLING
DOUGLAS ELLIMAN REAL ESTATE
DIRECT: 970.920.2300
OFFICE: 970.925.8810
MOBILE: 970.948.8287
FAX: 970.920.2131
Bill.Stirling@elliman.com
630 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 101, ASPEN, CO 81611
MY LISTINGS
At Douglas Elliman, we won't ask you for your social security number, bank account or other highly confidential information
over email. *Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring ANY money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to
confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have the authority to bind a third party to a real
estate contract via written or verbal communication.
This email is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender
immediately and then delete it. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not keep, use, disclose, copy or distribute this
email without the author's prior permission. We will never send or ask for sensitive or non-public information via e-mail,
including bank account, social security information or wire information. We have taken precautions to minimize the risk of
transmitting software viruses, but we advise you to carry out your own virus checks on any attachment to this message. We
cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. The information contained in this communication
may be confidential and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege. If you are the intended recipient and you do not wish
to receive similar electronic messages from us in the future then please respond to the sender to this effect. Please note that
any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the
Company.
Douglas Elliman may engage a third party vendor to answer telephone, email, text, and internet inquiries. This vendor acts
as an agent for Douglas Elliman, and keeps all information confidential.
Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments
203
From:Bukk Carleton
To:Amy Simon; Kevin Rayes
Subject:1020 East Cooper Avenue
Date:Monday, January 11, 2021 8:45:58 AM
RE: 1020 East Cooper Avenue
Dear HPC members:
As we all know, HPC stands for Historic Preservation Commission. Preservation means
not only keeping a few sticks from the past upright, but it means preserving the look, the
feel, and the property itself.
Your commission has various guidelines one must follow to be approved under yourrulings.
At the moment, you have a plan in front of you on 1020 East Cooper which pushes the
existing building as far to the front of the property line as possible – just feet from EastCooper Avenue and the sidewalk.
On the backside, the design pushes the building to the last inch of the 5’ setback,creating a need to place cars under the building and thus raising the building to a 3-storyheight.
To the west, they have pushed the building to 5’ of a lot line which they are not legallyallowed to do, as they have not properly assimilated that land obtained through adversepossession. In addition, the same illegal proposed location will result in the buildingbeing just 6 ½ feet from the existing building (1012 East Cooper) on the westside of theproperty which is a violation of the City’s fire code.
This is not preservation of property. All other historical buildings in the neighborhoodhave front lawns. All the buildings that use the alley have cars parked outside theirbuildings thus creating smaller structures and more land availability.
Your restrictions call for any new buildings on the site to be no more than 100% of whatexists. The proposed plan is 4x that amount.
Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments
204
Why is the HPC staff recommending approval of this application for the developer? Is itbecause the developer says it is providing affordable housing?
The HPC has received multiple complaints from the neighbors that the proposed plansare detrimental to the neighborhood- not only disrupting ways of living but also creatingdollar devaluation. This is all very true.
But what no one has discussed is what will happen to the people using this property ifbuilt as proposed?
Instead of enjoying a new home; they will be miserable. Where will they park their cars?Where will their guests park? Will they be forced to stand in lines for buses or walk thestreets of Aspen? Where will their children put their bikes? Where will their childrenplay? What about their pets? Why should a family with a child in a stroller be forced tolive on a third floor? Just because these people are earning less than others in Aspen,does not mean they should not be able to enjoy their lives.
The elephant in the room no one wants to talk about is the fact that the developers arenot interested in the welfare of the neighborhood, the City, or the people who will beliving in what they create- they are only in it to make tons of money. In fact, they statedin one of their neighborhood Zoom meetings that once it is built, they will sell- leavingall those living in, next to, or in the neighborhood in distress.
If the developers of this property were really interested in those needing affordablehousing, they would build on the land available by the airport, where there is enoughland and space where people living there can enjoy their lives. Or the developer couldplan a larger development on a larger parcel where a small fraction of the planned unitswould be affordable, and people could integrate in a normal way with the rest of thecommunity.
To get what they want, the developers have cleverly cherry-picked the City’s various
regulations. This should not be allowed.
For example, do not allow them to avail themselves to the benefits of historicalpreservation categorization but then avoid the requirement that any new building be lowin height by instead bringing in the height limits permitted under multifamily zoning. They continuously cherrypick and then if they cannot get what they want under eitherHPC or Zoning, they will pull out the affordable housing claim. The result is ahumongous structure that is no benefit to the neighborhood, the City, nor the peopledestined to live in it. The result is a massive use of a tiny historical property which has
Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments
205
never been contemplated by the City.
I have a simple request. If you are interested in preserving Aspen, please do your job. Ifthis developer wants to erect a structure that meets your requirements, I am sureeveryone would welcome it. But if not, let the developer walk away and do not feelguilty. The developer will have just proven it is not interested in the welfare of thosewho need affordable housing, the developer is just proving that its objective was to attaina massive profit by creating a structure that would yield retail values at $2,200 persquare foot.
The developer’s current plan has created a design using every square inch of land forbuilding- just like a can of sardines. And those people destined to live in that buildingwill have the same feeling- existing (not living) in a can of sardines.
Please do what you have been entrusted to do.
Best regards, Bukk Carleton
1012 E Cooper
Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments
206
Aspen Office
625 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 201
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone (970) 925-1936
Facsimile (970) 925-3008
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Since 1975
www.garfieldhecht.com
2381840_2
January 6, 2021
CHRISTOPHER D. BRYAN
cbryan@garfieldhecht.com
Via E-Mail
City of Aspen
Historic Preservation Commission
c/o Ms. Sarah Yoon
Community Development Department
130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor
Aspen, Colorado 81611
E-mail: sarah.yoon@cityofaspen.com
RE: Application of 1020 E. Cooper, LLC
Multi-Family Affordable Housing at 1020 E. Cooper Ave.
Dear Commissioners:
This firm represents the Riverside Condominium Association (“Riverside”) and the
Cooper Avenue Victorian Condominium Association, Inc. (“Cooper Victorian”) (Riverside and
Cooper Victorian are referred to collectively herein as the “Associations”). These complexes are
located on either side of 1020 E. Cooper Avenue, Aspen, Colorado at 1024 E. Cooper Avenue
and 1012 E. Cooper Avenue, respectively. This letter will serve as the Associations’ concerns
and opposition to the application submitted by 1020 E. Cooper, LLC (“Applicant”) for approval
of a multi-family complex (the “Application”) that is scheduled for public hearing before you on
January 13, 2021.
As you are aware, members of these two Associations actively participated in the review
process for the 2019 proposal by Applicant to redevelop this property with the relocation of the
historic landmark and an addition thereto to create a larger single family home. At that time,
members of Riverside and Cooper Victorian opposed the project due mainly to the proposed
mass and scale of the addition, concerns that were shared and voiced by HPC members, who
narrowly approved the project on a vote of 4-2. The 2019 proposal was called up by the City
Council and then remanded back to HPC due to these same concerns of mass and scale pursuant
to Sections 10.3 and 10.4 of the Historic Preservation Guidelines. The 2019 proposal was never
finally approved.
Specifically, HPC and City Council members were concerned with the large addition on
the back of the historic home and the effect on the neighbors. When the HPC considered the
proposal at its August 26, 2020, meeting, it came to light that the applicant’s re-design had raised
the roof another few feet, without discussion with HPC, and several Commissioners still believed
Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments
207
City of Aspen HPC
January 6, 2021
Page 2
2381840_3
that the mass and scale of the project was not appropriate. The hearing was continued to
September 23, 2020, but it appears that the Applicant, in accordance with a prior e-mail to
concerned neighbors, decided to revise the project to its current form – an application for a
multi-family development.
As this current application is for a new building in addition to the relocation and remodel
of the historic home, Section 11 of the Guidelines applies rather than Section 10. Regardless, the
concerns regarding mass and scale still exist, and additional concerns regarding parking and
subdivision are also raised with this new proposal. Specifically, Section 11.2 states that the new
building should not overwhelm the historic structure; Section 11.3 states that the new building
must be similar in scale and proportion to the historic structure; and Section 11.4 states that the
primary plane of the front of the new building should not appear taller than the historic structure.
Moreover, since this is a multi-family complex, the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities
Act (“ADA”) apply, pursuant to Section 12.1.
The Application states that the existing historic structure will be relocated toward the
front of the lot and will be converted into two two-bedroom units, with a new structure located
behind it that will consist of three units – a two-bedroom and two three-bedroom units. The
Application states that these units will be sold to local employers to utilize as affordable housing
pursuant to either Category 3 or 4 of the APCHA guidelines, and that Applicant expects the
project to house 12.75 full time employees. It is worth noting that all of the renderings of the
project show families living in these units, meaning that this maximum provision of employee
housing likely will not be realized.
The Application states that the new building will nearly reach the allowed maximum
height of 32 feet, which is approximately 3 feet higher than the 2019 proposal, and over double
the height of the existing historic structure. Renderings of the project in the Application show a
deck on the front of the new building that is even above the roof of the historic structure.
Although the Application states that by setting this building back from the historic structure the
“perception of the height difference” is reduced, it is difficult to see how one can reduce a
doubling of height. Furthermore, the 2019 proposal, at staff’s request, demolished the non-
historic addition to the landmark home as an aid in reducing the mass of the project. The current
proposal appears to maintain this non-historic addition in order to allow for more square footage
for units in the landmark. Clearly, the mass and scale of the proposal has not been reduced from
that in 2019 and, in fact, is increased as described herein and by the creation of five units on the
property, taking the mass and scale consideration from that of a single family to potentially
seventeen occupants if each unit is occupied by a family.
Applicant wants HPC to consider the fact that the Riverside Condos and the Cooper
Avenue Victorian Condos are “three stories” and thus that should make this project acceptable in
mass and scale; however, this ignores the directive of the Guidelines, which requires HPC to
consider mass and scale as compared with the historic structure. How the project appears in
mass and scale to neighboring properties is irrelevant, especially when these neighboring
structures are not historic landmarks. The criteria of Sections 11.3 and 11.4 of the Guidelines
Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments
208
City of Aspen HPC
January 6, 2021
Page 3
2381840_3
simply cannot be met. Especially in light of the fact the 2019 project, which was of a smaller
mass and scale of this proposal and for which HPC and City Council had concerns that similar
Sections 10.3 and 10.4 (applying to additions to historic structures) could not be met, a finding
that the mass and scale of this proposal is appropriate would be arbitrary and capricious and
could subject the City to costly and protracted litigation.
It is important to note that the cover letter for the Application states, at the top of page 4,
that “[t]he units are proposed to be rentals that are sold to Pitkin County employers to rent to
APCHA qualified employees. . .” Yet, the Application specifically states that a historic lot split,
pursuant to Section 11.5 of the Guidelines, is not being requested. As the City Attorney knows, it
is unlawful to sell units separately unless a subdivision or condominiumization has been
approved. Our review of the relevant public records and other available materials indicates that
no subdivision agreement has been approved for this property. That critical issue needs to be
addressed by the Applicant in order for this project to qualify as affordable housing and is
relevant to the issue of parking for this proposal. Absent proper land use approvals that are a
prerequisite for the proposed development, HPC would be unlawfully exceeding its jurisdiction
and abusing its discretion in approving the Application.
Pursuant to Section 26.515.040 of the Aspen Municipal Code (“City Code”) and Table
26.515-1 therein, Applicant is to provide one parking space per unit, which means five parking
spaces. Applicant proposes four parking spaces, one of which will have to be designated and
designed as an ADA space (which is required by Section 12.1 of the Guidelines), with a payment
of cash-in-lieu to satisfy the fifth space requirement. In support of the proposition that this will
be sufficient parking, the Application states that car share and We-Cycle memberships will be
offered to tenants along with a “welcome packet with alternative forms of transportation, bike
and walking trail maps, and bus schedules” in order to discourage car ownership. However, if
these units are to be sold to various employers, as the Application contemplates and as discussed
above, Applicant has no control over whether these proposals will be followed. Furthermore, it is
unrealistic to believe that twelve or more people occupying the units will, collectively, only own
three cars (the ADA parking space will not be available for use unless a resident holds an ADA
parking permit). Although the letter of the City Code may be technically met by this proposal,
HPC is duty-bound to consider, in a practical sense, this impact on the historic property that has
always been a small, single-family home necessitating only one or at most two on-street parking
spots. If approved, the five units could easily end up needing twelve parking spots (one per
bedroom), creating a major problem for the surrounding neighborhood and congesting an
already-busy dense part of town – not to mention diminishing the charm of the historic property
at issue. Even local employees have many reasons to have to run errands in town or to leave
Aspen to meet basic shopping or travel needs for which a car is necessary.
Section 12.1 of the Guidelines requires that this project comply with the ADA. The
Application provides for one ADA parking spot but otherwise does not mention (much less
prove) compliance with ADA accessibility requirements. Every unit is either more than one story
or only accessible by stairs. It is unclear whether common areas would even be ADA-compliant
Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments
209
City of Aspen HPC
January 6, 2021
Page 4
2381840_3
or -accessible. In fact, the Application fails to address Section 12.1 at all. For this reason alone,
the Application must be denied for failure to satisfy Section 12.1’s criteria.
As discussed throughout the Application, the subject property is located in the
Residential Multi-Family (“RMF”) Zone District, which is governed by Section 26.710.090 of
the City Code. As City staff members know, and the Commissioners too, Section 26.710.090(d)
requires lots to have a minimum of 6,000 square foot area and a minimum width of 60 feet. The
subject lot is 4,379 square feet. There is an exception in Chapter 26.312 of the City Code,
entitled “Nonconformities,” that provides an exception that “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 requirement of its zone district for historic structures.” See Section
26.312.050(c). However, unlike the provision in the section immediately prior to this, which
states that certain lots created before 1971 that “do not meet the requirements for lot width and
area” can continue as nonconforming (see Section 26.312.050(b)), the historic landmark
nonconforming lot must nonetheless meet the zone district lot width requirements. In this
instance, such cannot be met, as the lot is less than 60 feet wide. Furthermore, the purpose of the
Nonconformities Chapter is “to permit nonconformities to continue, but not to allow
nonconformities to be enlarged or expanded. The provisions of this Chapter are designed to
curtail substantial investment in nonconformities in order to preserve the integrity of the zone
districts and the other provisions of this Title but should not be construed as an abatement
provision.” The City Code dictates that nonconforming historic landmark sites must meet all
provisions of Chapter 26.415 concerning Historic Preservation. As set forth above, the mass and
scale of the proposed project do not meet the Guidelines’ requirements. That indisputable fact,
coupled with the small size of the subject lot (enhancing even more the inappropriate mass and
scale of the subject project), certainly enlarges and expands the existing nonconformity in
violation of Chapter 26.312 of the City Code. For these additional reasons the project should be
denied. If HPC fails to require compliance with that City Code requirement, it will be exposing
the City to legal challenge.
Finally, with the small lot size and the additional strip of land that was added to it from
the lot of 1012 E. Cooper pursuant to the 2006 adverse possession claim (see Letter from Tom
Todd to HPC dated 10/30/20 included in the Application), the proposed new building would sit
only seven feet from the Cooper Avenue Victorian building since that is barely two feet from the
adjusted lot line and the proposal is up to the five-foot sideyard setback. The fire department
requires a minimum ten-foot distance between multi-family buildings. This is yet another
example of the project’s inappropriate mass and scale, and another reason that approval of the
Application is inappropriate and contrary to the applicable criteria.
In sum, we respectfully request that HPC take a hard look at the mass and scale of this
proposal and the criteria of Sections 11.3 and 11.4 of the Guidelines, in conjunction with the
review and discussion of the prior proposal for this property in 2019 and 2020 and concerns
therewith, along with the City Code’s Nonconformities Chapter and safety requirements . HPC
should not be persuaded or sidetracked by the proposal to bring addition affordable housing units
Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments
210
City of Aspen HPC
January 6, 2021
Page 5
2381840_3
to the center of Aspen – this is not the place for such a proposal, not only because it dwarfs the
historic structure and ignores the realities of car ownership and the occupation of units, but also
because it enlarges and expands a nonconformity and creates a fire hazard. Furthermore, HPC
must consider the requirements of Section 12.1 of the Guidelines, which are not even discussed
or addressed by the Application.
For these reasons, HPC should vote not to approve the Application.
While the Application is laudable in some respects, this is simply the wrong location in
Aspen for the proposed development. We are confident that HPC and City staff will come to the
proper conclusion that the Application is neither viable pursuant to the Guidelines nor legally
permissible.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding the Associations’
concerns.
Very truly yours,
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
/S/ CHRISTOPHER D. BRYAN
Christopher D. Bryan
cc: Riverside Condominium Association
Cooper Avenue Victorian Condominium Association, Inc.
Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments
211
From:Amy Simon
To:Kevin Rayes; Sara Adams
Subject:FW: 1020 E Cooper Avenue Proposed Development
Date:Thursday, January 7, 2021 11:48:04 AM
From: Kristi <kristi@rof.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 11:41 AM
To: Torre <torre@cityofaspen.com>; Ann Mullins <Ann.Mullins@cityofaspen.com>; Ward
Hauenstein <ward.hauenstein@cityofaspen.com>; Rachael Richards
<rachael.richards@cityofaspen.com>; Skippy Mesirow <skippy.mesirow@cityofaspen.com>; Public
Comment <PublicComment@cityofaspen.com>; Amy Simon <amy.simon@cityofaspen.com>;
Jessica.Garrow@cityofaspen.com; Torre <torre@cityofaspen.com>; Ann Mullins
<Ann.Mullins@cityofaspen.com>; Ward Hauenstein <ward.hauenstein@cityofaspen.com>; Rachael
Richards <rachael.richards@cityofaspen.com>; Skippy Mesirow
<skippy.mesirow@cityofaspen.com>; Public Comment <PublicComment@cityofaspen.com>; Amy
Simon <amy.simon@cityofaspen.com>; Jessica.Garrow@cityofaspen.com
Subject: 1020 E Cooper Avenue Proposed Development
Happy New Year to all!
Before the meeting scheduled January 13th 2021 I wanted to forward a column written by the
much loved and outspoken, Su Lum. Over and over I have listened to the developers talk of
how Su would be behind this project and we should give this project our blessing?? The
developer obviously didn’t know Su Lum AT ALL or is blatantly trying to mislead everyone!~
Anyone who knew anything at all about Su Lum knew cramming a bunch of condos (employee
or not) on a small lot in the core of Aspen was not what preserving Aspen was or is about and
or what she stood for. She would be rolling in her grave to know a developer took over her
beloved little house and turned it into another oversized condo project to get tax and or other
credit and breaks for an even larger project!
https://www.aspentimes.com/opinion/lum-preserving-the-splinters/
Aspen does not need another property like 1024 East Cooper approved and built with no
consideration for preserving any green space at all. We don’t need more like this on the main
street coming into town! PLEASE don’t allow anyone to take away the front yard of 1020 East
Cooper. Take that and you might as well build a box and cover the entire property, the charm
is gone! They fact that the tiny lot could house 15 individuals plus guest is a huge issue. There
is not near enough parking for the project considering how many people can live there at any
certain time! MOST people in Aspen have a car and/or a motorcycle. I have lived in Aspen
since ’95 and I can honestly say I cannot think of a sole back then or now that didn’t/doesn’t
Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments
212
own a car or motorcycle. (most cars in Aspen area larger SUV’s ) Are applicants going to be
required to sell their vehicles in order to rent? Or does no one care, just cram more down 82
and in the Eastend neighborhood?!?!? Please take these well founded concerned into
consideration.
I respect that your job is hard and want to thank you for doing what you do.
Thanks so much
Kristi Gilliam
1024 East Cooper #8
970-948-0153
Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments
213
From:Sarah Yoon
To:Kevin Rayes
Subject:FW: Partially read public comments at HPC meeting 01/13/2021
Date:Thursday, January 14, 2021 4:30:04 PM
From: Caroline McDonald <scottandcarolinemcd@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 4:16 PM
To: Torre <torre@cityofaspen.com>; Ann Mullins <Ann.Mullins@cityofaspen.com>; Ward
Hauenstein <ward.hauenstein@cityofaspen.com>; rachael.richards@cityoaspen.com; Skippy
Mesirow <skippy.mesirow@cityofaspen.com>; Amy Simon <amy.simon@cityofaspen.com>; Kristi
<kristi@rof.net>; Bukk Carleton <bgcarleton@gmail.com>; will mcdonald <willymcd@gmail.com>;
cbryan@garfieldhecht.com; bvc@concors.com; Lou Stover <loucardiff@gmail.com>; Ray surfdog
<raysurfdog@gmail.com>; Megan Tackett <megan@aspendailynews.com>; Sarah Yoon
<sarah.yoon@cityofaspen.com>
Subject: Partially read public comments at HPC meeting 01/13/2021
01/13/2021, HPC MEETING, 1020 E COOPER APCHA
Seemingly, the first buyers of 1020 E. Cooper who wished to build a
single-family home were dissuaded by community development’s 19
step process to drop their project; then to recoup some of their losses
sold their property to employee housing developers for future sale to
meet the housing mitigation needs of proposed large scale commercial
development.
Who can say that this was not the outcome that community
development wanted? This, considering the ease that this persuasion
can be accomplished with a motivated staff and the current code. It is
common knowledge that the city is hell-bent in obtaining as much
employee housing as they can, by any and all means possible.
No one can blame the wishful second homeowner for dropping their
project considering community development’s staff history of
addressing subjective minutia, protracted reviews, bias, fraudulent
representation of self- validation, and the significant costs associated
with an onerous process that generates 160 pages of mostly rhetorical
busywork that everyone in government knows exists but no one does
anything about.
This gross overreach of discretionary authority has been allowed by a
succession of city councils because of the significant revenue stream
and self serving staff recommendations.
Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments
214
Municipal government’s purpose is to provide services to the public at
cost, not to be an onerous enterprise enabled by home rule legislation
against the so-called rich, second homeowner.
Such over-the-top municipal enterprise as practiced by community
development can be perceived by the public as predatory.
How can a succession of city councils over decades, turn a blind eye to
legislating ordinances that if they were in the shoes of the ordinance’s
recipients, they would not condone themselves? This is a question that
should be answered.
Comparing the two packages submitted for HPC review, the Australian’s
single-family home and the five plex, one is struck first by the significant
massing of the three story, five Plex and secondly by the review criteria
differences.
Clearly the impact and the scale of the proposed employee housing
development will have deleterious effects on the neighborhood that a
single-family home would not.
Staff findings: staff concerns relating to parking: “80% of required
parking mitigation will be met on site which is a major benefit for
tenants and contributes to the livability and quality of this project.”
What’s great for this project is not great for the neighborhood.
Besides limiting views and sun exposures, this significant development
will burden the neighborhood with additional vehicles that will not be
able to park in season.
Exhibit A-7, staff findings: “given the residential use of the surrounding
neighborhood, plenty of on street parking exists throughout the
immediate area.” This statement is blatantly false .
To estimate that only four parking spaces will suffice for a five, unit
employee housing apartment is unrealistic considering there could be
one car owned for each of the possible 8-18, tenants of the 5
apartment units.
Everyone who lives in this neighborhood will attest that there is a
dearth of parking spaces available in season. Cash in lieu for parking
space is not a viable solution because it does not solve the problem that
the neighborhood will be burdened with for decades.
This city sponsored cash in lieu solution addressing deficiency in
required parking typifies a shortsighted and cash hungry government
Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments
215
that does not give a hoot for the quality of life of the property owners
in this neighborhood.
What’s good for city staff and the corporate developers is not good for
the quality of life in this neighborhood. Most definitely if this employee
housing project is completed as defined, this neighborhood's property
values will decline and this city council should be held accountable.
This proposed development, HPC steered and justification rationalized
by Amy, is an egregious example of municipal overreach of
discretionary authority by Community Development as exemplified by
their duplicity in review standards.
All large scale developments should have employee housing on site.
Why should the never ending corporate greed for more profits result in
an environmental, density and living standard penalty to stable
neighborhoods? APCHA specified subsistence wage, tranche housing
has been made to order for higher corporate profits and market
dominance by wage limit mandates. Is APCHA a blessing to Aspen
employees or a low wage purgatory trap? Greed, largesse and social
capital has always been the name of the game in Aspen, where we truly
have the best municipal government that money can buy.
It is not surprising, considering the voting demographics, that there has
not been for two decades any meaningful representation in Aspen
government to protect property rights for the free market homeowner
and there has never been any city compunction to rectify this
deficiency. This biased governance is fundamentally un-American and
reprehensible. If you pay significant taxes you should have some say in
not being regulatorily taken to the cleaners.
The City Staff of Barwick's Ghost are still here.
Scott and Caroline McDonald
Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments
216
Dear Members of the Historic Preservation Commission,
As a resident of Aspen for over fifty years, I have long admired the emphasis Aspen has put on
maintaining the unique history of our community. The is evident in the role your commission
has played in protecting our historic properties.
I live directly to the East of 1020 Cooper and my home is on the lower level of the 1024 Cooper
complex. My property is my retirement and I’m very afraid of what I have seen with the plans
for 1020 Cooper the last couple of years. It’s a repetitive cycle – someone buys the property,
puts together plans to maximize their profits, and then tries to bend / break the HPC rules to
suit their needs. Why do people continue to buy this property if they don’t want to build within
the HPC guidelines? They are very aware of the HPC guidelines before they elect to purchase
the property.
This project is even larger and more massive than the last one that was rejected by the City
Council and the HPC. If this project were approved, I would have no sunlight into my unit and
my view out of my windows would be a blank wall. My home’s value would drop dramatically.
Our alley is unpaved and already overwhelmed with cars. How would this many people only
need 3-4 parking spots?
The HPC guidelines were put in place for a reason – to prevent huge, monolithic structures like
this from being built. I have faith the commission will do the right thing and not approve this
project that will line the pockets of its developers with profits while watching the property
values of neighbors deteriorate.
This is a wonderful, historic property that just needs the right buyer.
Godspeed,
Len Horowitz
Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments
217
Dear HPC Members,
My wife and I live directly behind the 1020 Cooper property. We have monitored the proposed
projects the last few years and were glad to see the city council and HPC deny the effort to
build such massive structures that overwhelm the historic resource.
This project is no different. Why wouldn’t your previous concerns about mass and scale apply
to this development as well? We welcome affordable housing in our community, but this is a
very small lot that will be completely overwhelmed with a large structure. If they really want
affordable housing, make it three units instead of five.
Also, there is a designated parking spot in the alley of our property that is directly behind the
current sheds located on 1020 Cooper – please see pictures below. Based on the current plans,
there is no possible way cars will be able to pull into and out of the proposed development
parking. I measured the distance from the current sheds to the vehicle parked on our property
and it is only 12 feet.
According to the City of Aspen Engineering Standards (see below), Section 4, any 90-degree
angle parking spots require a width of 24 feet in the alley. The proposed plan would be half this
amount and present a dangerous, unrealistic parking scenario for the tenants.
Finally, we have a serious parking issue in our neighborhood already as we have an unpaved
alley which makes it very difficult to traverse with snow on the ground.
My sincere hope is that the HPC members honor their roles as public servants and makes a
decision that is best for the public – not for developers.
Sincerely,
Lorne and Laura Leil
1015 Hyman #2
Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments
218
Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments
219
There is a
designated
parking spot on
the plat directly
behind the
current sheds
running east to
west.
12 feet width
between sheds
and parked car
in designated
spot. This does
not meet City
of Aspen
Engineering
standards and
makes it
impossible for
cars to pull in
and out of
proposed
parking spots.
12 feet
Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments
220
From:Lou Stover
To:Amy Simon; Kevin Rayes
Subject:1020 E. Cooper
Date:Friday, January 8, 2021 12:21:55 PM
Hello there,
I am very concerned about the proposal ed redevelopment of 1020 E Cooper, Aspen. There
has been a lot of word smithing about this project, which reminds me of my corporate
marketing days: PR articles in the papers, references to Su Lum, etc. As Su’s neighbor I
know she didn’t like our project with its shed in the back. Read what she actually wrote.
It’s just TOO BIG. Too many units, too few parking places, congestion in an already crowded
dead end alley, etc.
It introduces renters to what has been an all owner neighborhood. Again, word smithing: it’s
being called Multi-family.
And we have to live with this monstrosity.
Lou Stover
1006 E. Cooper
Aspen
Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments
221
From:Danusia Novak
To:Torre; ann.mullins@cityofaspen.co; Ward Hauenstein; rachel.richards@cityofaspen.co; Skippy Mesirow
Cc:Kristi@rof.net; cbryan@garfieldhecht.com; Kevin Rayes; Amy Simon
Subject:1020 East Cooper, LLC project
Date:Monday, January 11, 2021 12:59:11 PM
Dear Commissioners,
I am the president of the Vincenti Homeowners Association which consists of
the 5 units directly across the alley from this proposed development.
4 out of the 5 of us have lived here in excess of 30 years.
While I applaud the expansion from a single family home to employ housing units,
the proposed development is too excessive. I feel 3 employee housing units for that small a lot
would be more consistent with the neighborhood. I would also insist that the alley which is
owned by the City of Aspen be paved. There is obviously minimum parking on Cooper aka
Hwy 82 .
Paving of the alley would also eliminate the dust created by the cars and also allow children
and grandchildren enjoy a play area.
Any additional thoughts or questions, please contact me at 619-291-4441.
Sincerely,
Mike Pack
1015 E. Hyman #4
Aspen, CO 81611
Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments
222
From:Amy Simon
To:MT Biz; Kevin Rayes
Subject:RE: 1020 E Cooper Ave projrct
Date:Thursday, January 7, 2021 10:41:26 AM
Thank you Mark. We will forward this to the HPC. If you decide you want to attend the virtual
meeting please let me know if you need guidance on how to join. Hope all is well for you.
From: MT Biz <fun22@comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 10:22 AM
To: Kevin Rayes <kevin.rayes@cityofaspen.com>
Cc: Amy Simon <amy.simon@cityofaspen.com>
Subject: 1020 E Cooper Ave projrct
To whom it may concern,
RE: 1020 East Cooper Ave---redevelopment.
I am absolutely not opposed to the employee housing that is proposed.
I live next to 949 East Cooper Ave (over 30 years)- The St Regis Hotel employee housing; and also
with in ear shot of The Ski company’s housing on the corner of East Cooper and South West End.
I do have problems with a few points:
1- Mass and scale; the plans I have seen so far ; it portends a big boxy oversized structure-not in
character with the changing neighborhood
2- The parking is totally inadequate for volume of tenants suggested.
In fact with the present units on East Cooper, parking is full all summer and winter on both sides of
East Cooper; from City Market to the roaring fork bridge---off season is getting increasingly busier
too.
3-The present designs are totally misrepresented on the back alley size of their plans—it is a
narrow alley
4-Their car count for alley parking is totally out of line with reality.
–A few suggestions as this project goes thru review_
-on site parking must be increased-reduce bedroom count.
-.
-No side setback variances should be granted
-There should only be 2 entrances one front and one rear of building .
-Minimum 12 month leases or perhaps go from rental to owner occupied to respect serenity of
surrounding neighborhood.. Strict HOA rules to not alow clutter on decks or property itself, 1024
É Cooper has these rules along with maximum occupants allowed and mandatory quiet hours
-This is not a location to try over size maximum density.
-
Mark Tye
Owner 935 East Cooper Ave and #3 Riverside Townhomes; 1024 East Cooper Ave
Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments
223