Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHPC Transcript.1020 E Cooper Ave.20210117 Aspen Historic Preservation Commission January 13, 2021 4:30 PM, City Council Meeting Room 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 2 ROLL CALL: 1 MS. THOMPSON: We’ll bring the Commission to 2 order and we will get started. 3 Wes, can we do a roll call. 4 MR. GRAHAM: Jeff. 5 MR. HALFERTY: Present. 6 MR. GRAHAM: Kara. 7 MS. THOMPSON: Present. 8 MR. GRAHAM: Scott. 9 MR. KENDRICK: Here. 10 MR. GRAHAM: Roger. 11 MR. MOYER: Present. 12 MR. GRAHAM: Sheri. 13 MS. SANZONE: Here. 14 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. Thank you, Wes. 15 MINUTES: 16 MS. THOMPSON: We’re going to move on. We have 17 minutes to approve for 12/16. I do have one note, Wes, on 18 page eight there’s a note that says that I said that this 19 doesn’t set a precedent for the Board and I -- that’s 20 supposed to read it does not set a good precedent for the 21 Board. It’s kind of a third of the way down. 22 MR. GRAHAM: Copy. 23 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. Does anybody else have any 24 revisions or notes on those minutes? 25 3 MR. MOYER: No. 1 MS. THOMPSON: Is there a motion to approve? 2 MR. HALFERTY: I so move to approve. 3 MR. KENDRICK: I second. 4 MS. THOMPSON: All in favor. 5 MR. MOYER: Aye. 6 PUBLIC COMMENT: 7 MS. THOMPSON: Great. Okay. We’re going to move 8 onto public comment. Is there anybody here from the 9 public who has comments for the Board that does not relate 10 to any agenda item tonight? All of the names I heard I 11 believe do relate to the agenda. Amy, is there anyone 12 that -- okay. So, we’re going to move onto commissioner 13 member comments. 14 COMMISSIONER COMMENT: 15 MS. THOMPSON: Does anybody from the Board have 16 any comments they would like to share tonight? 17 MR. MOYER: I do. What about the Saving Places 18 conferences, anyone looked into that meeting? 19 MS. SIMON: Yes, Roger, it’s, of course, all 20 virtual this year. If you are interested in attending, I 21 can forward you the agenda info. I didn’t see quite as 22 many of the sort of technical sessions that some of you 23 are most interested in but we’d be happy to sign you up if 24 you’d like to go. I think Kara’s going to join and Sarah 25 4 and I will attend but if anyone else is interested, let me 1 know. 2 MR. HALFERTY: What are -- what are the dates? 3 MS. SIMON: I want to say it’s the beginning of 4 February. I’ll send you out an e-mail and you can tell us 5 if it’s something that you want to participate in and it’s 6 also possible, of course, to get continuing education 7 credits for this if you would need that. 8 MR. HALFERTY: Thank you. 9 MR. MOYER: Thanks. 10 MS. THOMPSON: Thanks, Roger. Anybody else from 11 the Board? Jeff, Sheri. 12 MR. WOOD: I just -- I just logged on. I’m 13 sorry I’m late. This is Jeff Wood. 14 MS. THOMPSON: All right. Thank you, Jeff. We 15 are going to mute you until it is time for public comment 16 just so we don’t have any conflict. 17 DISCLOSURE CONFLICT: 18 Okay. We’re going to move over to disclosure of 19 conflict of interest. I believe Sheri is conflicted. 20 MS. SANZONE: I am. I’ll be leaving the meeting 21 after our general items that we discuss initially. 22 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. Are there any other 23 conflicts of interest? Nope. 24 25 5 PROJECT MONITORING: 1 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. Moving onto project 2 monitoring. Staff comments no certificate of negative 3 effect. Moving onto Amy. 4 MS. SIMON: Let’s see. We just did a project 5 monitoring meeting. Thank you, Jeff and Roger, for 6 juggling that. There were some minor tweaks to your 517 7 East Hopkins, which is where Aspen Daily News used to be 8 located, which is approved. They are in the permit 9 process and, hopefully, we’ll be moving quickly towards 10 issuance. 11 I do have something to discuss with Roger and 12 Jeff at 105 East Hallam, the brick house across from the 13 Red Brick School. I’ll reach out to you on that. 14 Sarah, do you have any project monitoring? 15 MS. YOON: I do. I have one for Sheri and one 16 for Scott. I think I sent an e-mail probably right around 17 the holiday so I’ll just touch back with you guys on that 18 information and we can schedule a time to discuss those 19 issues. 20 MS. SIMON: Okay and we don’t have any notice of 21 call up to report on for this meeting. I do want to let 22 you know that last night City Council approved the 23 voluntary AspenModern designation at 211 West Hopkins. 24 (indiscernible) that you all had talked about recently 25 6 over by Paepcke Park. They’re really excited -- you know 1 -- it’s one of the primary types of resources that we have 2 worked for 20 some years to try to preserve and are so 3 grateful that the family that owned it worked with the new 4 buyer and brought us the proposal. It was approved 5 unanimously and Council was really pleased with it. So, 6 thank you, everybody, for your work. 7 MS. THOMPSON: Great and Amy, do we need to 8 reassign Gretchen’s monitoring projects? Will we do that 9 at a later date? 10 MS. SIMON: I already started to do that a 11 little bit to make sure that they were covered and I will 12 follow-up with any that we need to assign someone new to 13 soon. 14 NOTICES: 15 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. Great. I believe, Kate, 16 can you confirm that we have the public notice for 17 tonight’s agenda item? Oh, you’re muted. We can’t hear 18 you. No, we can’t. 19 MR. TRUE: So, we can move forward, Kate and I 20 did discuss the -- the notice and it was appropriate. 21 Perhaps I could go in and help her with her -- or she can 22 get out and come back in but we did discuss the notice and 23 it’s okay. 24 7 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. Great. Perfect. So -- 1 uhm -- I think we’ll move on to new business. 2 MS. THOMPSON: 1020 East Cooper Avenue. 3 MS. SIMON: Could I just check in first, Sheri, 4 will you want to return to the meeting to do election 5 chair and vice-chair? 6 MS. SANZONE: Sorry, I forgot about that. Yes, 7 I will return to the meeting. So, could you text me and 8 let me know? 9 MS. SIMON: Yes. 10 MS. SANZONE: Great. Thank you. 11 MS. SIMON: Thank you. 12 And on that note, Kate, are we able to hear you 13 now and did you want to say anything about how we’ll 14 handle the election or just hold the whole discussion 15 until the end? 16 MS. THOMPSON: No. 17 MS. SIMON: No. Okay. Well, hopefully, we’ll 18 resolve that quickly but we do have a strategy we can talk 19 with you all about whether you just want to do a voice 20 vote or we have an e-mail system that we can use if you 21 prefer to do so by secret ballot for election of chair and 22 vice-chair at the end of the public hearing tonight. 23 UNKNOWN MALE: The lawyer’s figuring it out 24 there. 25 8 MS. THOMPSON: Why don’t -- why don’t we talk 1 about that -- uhm -- at the election portion when we have 2 the attorneys back online. 3 Okay, so, Sheri will come back and we’ll text 4 her and then moving onto 1020 East Cooper Avenue -- new 5 business. 6 NEW BUSINESS: 7 MS. SIMON: Yeah, so I’ll just give a very quick 8 -- oh, there we are. Yes. 9 MS. JOHNSON: Okay. Thank you. Thank you for 10 your patience. I apologize. That’s never happened to me 11 before. I did want to kind of make a note about the 12 election in case commissioners are curious. You know due 13 to COVID we’re having to have these meetings remotely. 14 Usually, we have our elections in person. I think that if 15 you -- if you want to nominate or a commissioner wants to 16 volunteer and have a vote, we certainly can do it orally. 17 However, you do have the option to use secret ballots and 18 Wes, with the clerk’s office, and myself have arranged for 19 Commissioners if you want to use secret ballot we can make 20 that work by e-mail and we can -- you know -- who voted 21 for whom would not be public information by statute. So, 22 I just wanted to make that clear. We’re not going to do 23 elections until the end of -- until we’re finished with 24 the one agenda item but in case Commissioners were curious 25 9 how this is going to work, I wanted to provide some -- 1 some guidance on that. Thank you. 2 MS. SIMON: Thanks, Kate. 3 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. 4 MS. SIMON: Kara, so just a very quick 5 introduction to this project and then we’re going to have 6 the applicant present. Then the Board will ask questions. 7 Staff will present. You may ask questions. Public 8 comments, so the usual order of business. 9 This review tonight is for 1020 East Cooper 10 Avenue. This is a property that has been in front of the 11 Board in the recent past for a proposed expansion as a 12 single-family home. That project has been completely 13 withdrawn and is no longer any part of this discussion. 14 There is a new property owner involved and they’re 15 proposing a 100 percent voluntary affordable housing 16 development with five units, including a historic 17 resource. So, I think with that I’ll just let Sara Adams 18 and the applicant team take over with that review of what 19 they’re proposing. 20 MS. ADAMS: Okay. Thank you, Amy. Can everyone 21 hear me okay? 22 UNKNOWN MALE: We can hear you, Sara. 23 MS. ADAMS: Great. Jim DeFrancia is going to 24 kick us off. 25 10 MR. DeFRANCIA: Thank you. Thanks very much, 1 Sara. Thank you, Amy. Members of the Commission, Jim 2 DeFrancia. Jean Coulter and I are proposing the project 3 before you this evening and I just wanted to open with a 4 comment about our motives and our intent. 5 I’ve been -- I’ve served on your body once upon 6 a time. It was a pleasure and an honor to do so. I’ve 7 served on P and Z as well and been active in the 8 development community for quite some time in Aspen and 9 I’ve always had a consistent concern about affordable 10 housing and particularly where it could be provided within 11 town because providing affordable housing outside of the 12 roundabout and certainly down valley just adds to the 13 traffic problems and parking problems and, of course, the 14 expectation has always been that that was a governmental 15 problem to solve. 16 But, recently, with activity by some aggressive 17 folks like Peter Fornell, it’s been proven that you can 18 actually build some affordable housing -- all affordable 19 housing and not have to use it to justify why you build a 20 multimillion-dollar condominium to go along with it and 21 you can do that and you can do that profitably and by 22 profitably, I mean a reasonable profit. Nobody’s going to 23 retire and go to the Caribbean but you can make a 24 respectable return on your investment. 25 11 This site appealed to us because we felt this 1 was a good place to prove that very point and also, having 2 served before on HPC I have great sensitivity to historic 3 properties, as do my partners, and while there’s questions 4 that could be raised about the historic value if you just 5 take, I guess, a very narrow view of scoring, and it 6 didn’t meet the right number of points, that’s one view. 7 But there are other aspects of historic preservation and 8 historic value and that relates to the people that live 9 there and things that happen there and things of that 10 nature and you see Su Lum’s old residence and that enjoys 11 some affection in the community. 12 So, I found that this was a unique opportunity 13 to show that the private sector could both provide 14 affordable housing as well as maintain and revive a 15 historic structure and to do it profitably and so, we, as 16 a community, don’t have to just look to the government and 17 public funds to accomplish our social objectives. So, 18 that’s what’s behind all this and we’ve got a great team 19 that we’ve put together and Sara will lead that team in 20 presenting it and we hope that you will concur with the 21 observations that this is good for the community. Thanks 22 very much. 23 MS. ADAMS: Thanks, Jim. I shared my screen. 24 Can everyone see it? Great. Okay. 25 12 So, 1020 East Cooper. This is a review before 1 HPC, as Jim said. It’s a 100 percent affordable housing 2 project. We’re requesting the following reviews before 3 the Board tonight: HPC conceptual review, relocation, 4 demolition of the rear sheds that sit partway into the 5 alley right-of-way, growth management, transportation and 6 parking, and the establishment of affordable housing 7 credits. 8 As you’ll see on this list, there’s no 9 variations requested with this project. It’s a fully 10 code-compliant project and we’re pretty proud of that. 11 Here’s the project team. So, I’m Sara Adams 12 with Bendon Adams, the land planner. The ownership team 13 -- the property’s owned by 1020 East Cooper, LLC, which is 14 controlled and managed by Jim DeFrancia, who was just 15 speaking and Jean Coulter, who’s also on the line. The 16 architecture was completed by David Johnson Architects, 17 DJA. Brian Beasley was the lead and he’s on the line 18 along with David and Collin, as well. The engineering 19 portion of the project was completed by Sopris 20 Engineering, Jesse Swann and the general contractor 21 selected for this project is RA Nelson and Jason Morley is 22 the heading up that part of the project. 23 So, I always like to start with some background 24 on the property. As Jim said, this is a designated 25 13 property. The size of the lot is 4379 square feet. It’s 1 part of the AspenModern program. There’s limited 2 information on this property. It was, unfortunately, 3 outside of the boundaries of the Sanborn Fire Insurance 4 maps that we use for a lot of our historic research. 5 Luckily, it is shown on the Willits map, which you can see 6 in the top left corner of my screen circled. 7 The two sheds at the rear of the property, shown 8 in this existing condition survey at the middle, that sit 9 in the alley are not shown on this historic map and they 10 are proposed for demolition being that they’re outside of 11 the period of significance for this property. 12 We’re pretty lucky because at this early point 13 in the process we can inspect the interior framing. The 14 photos at the right of this slide show the interior of the 15 building as it is right now. We thought being able to 16 inspect the interior framing would give us a clear 17 direction on any restoration but it actually resulted in 18 more questions than answers, unfortunately. It’s -- it 19 appears to be two buildings that were stitched together at 20 some point in time. We have no idea when. There is a 21 small rear addition that you can see in the bottom right 22 photo that was added. 23 So, we spent a lot of time thinking about the 24 appropriate historic preservation philosophy for this -- 25 14 for this property. We decided to keep the building 1 exactly as it is, so, maintain the existing conditions. 2 We don’t want to guess at the appearance of these two 3 buildings and we also don’t want to create a faux 4 Victorian and there’s just not enough evidence to tell us 5 how to restore this building or these two buildings that 6 were stitched together. So, we really felt that the best 7 approach was to leave the footprint and the massing in 8 place. 9 We provided a preservation plan -- a preliminary 10 preservation plan in our plan set that shows -- you know 11 -- openings that we found evidence that could be reopened 12 that have been closed. You can see an example top right 13 corner photo and we also are proposing to open up the 14 front porch. There’s framing that provides physical 15 evidence that there was an open front porch. But, again, 16 we’ll continue to explore the framing, happy to do a site 17 visit with HPC if that’s allowed with all the protocols to 18 -- to talk about the -- an appropriate preservation plan 19 but we feel at least a historic preservation philosophy 20 that’s appropriate for this site is to leave the building 21 as is. 22 So, at the very early stages of exploring the 23 potential for an affordable housing project on this small 24 site, we analyzed the neighborhood and the existing 25 15 context. The historic preservation guidelines really look 1 at a specific property but they also addressed 2 neighborhood compatibility in chapter one. It’s really 3 important that a project fits into the established 4 development parameters and patterns and so we wanted to 5 look not just at the uses in the neighborhood but also at 6 the -- the neighborhood context within the specific block 7 of 1020. 8 So, here, I’m showing you two maps. The map at 9 the left shows affordable housing projects in the 10 neighborhood. The yellow square is 1020 East Cooper and 11 orange footprints are affordable housing projects. At 12 right is a detail of the city’s GIS zone district map and 13 I circled the RMF zone district and in the orange square 14 is 1020 East Cooper. So, 1020 East Cooper is clearly in 15 the RMF, the residential multi-family zone district. It’s 16 a high-density neighborhood. Because it’s located close 17 to downtown, it’s on transit and public pathways. So, 18 it’s an appropriate place for high-intensity residential. 19 The intent of the zone district in the land use code is to 20 provide for intensive long-term residential purposes, 21 which is absolutely met in an affordable housing project. 22 So, this is just one step closer at our 23 neighborhood analysis. So, we really started at a macro 24 level and then wanted to take a closer look at the block 25 16 face. As you can see, there’s some single families. In 1 the middle is our -- our Google Earth map showing the 2 block face. 1020 is right in the middle. We have some 3 single-family Aspen Victorian buildings at left and then 4 the block face progresses into more dense multi-family 5 projects. 6 We provided a bird’s-eye view and inputted the 7 proposed footprint so you could see the relationship of 8 setbacks and building footprints compared to the existing 9 pattern in the neighborhood. We are proposing to lift up 10 the landmark and shift it to the five-foot setback line 11 towards Cooper in order to provide distance between the 12 two buildings that we’re proposing, because they’re 13 detached and also to kind of fill in this gap that’s 14 created where the buildings towards the river are at the 15 property line and then it starts to kind of erode back to 16 this corner lot that has a pretty generous front yard. 17 I’m going to get into the details of the 18 project. Wait a second. Oh, okay. I’m going to walk you 19 through the -- sorry, my slides got a little messed up. 20 So, the details of the project. We aren’t 21 asking for any variations, as I said. This is a code-22 compliant project. As you can see in this second row, we 23 are under the allowable floor area pretty significantly. 24 With the density that we’re proposing, we could build just 25 17 under 5500 square feet and we’re -- we’re just over 2400 1 square feet in our -- in our proposed floor area. 2 As you can see, we’re at the height limit -- 3 just under the height limit. We meet our setback 4 requirements for parking. The requirement in the code is 5 zero on-site parking spaces. You’re allowed to pay cash 6 in lieu for 100 percent of parking requirement and we are 7 providing four on-site parking spaces and cash in lieu for 8 the one space that’s not provided and we’re also meeting 9 our trash and recycle size requirements. 10 So, at right is our footprint. We have our four 11 parking spaces accessed off the alley. On the far right 12 is our ADA space here. We have our trash and recycle just 13 in front of that ADA space. We have our preserved tree 14 that’s sitting along the east property line and the drip 15 line that Parks has verified is appropriate for this tree 16 is met -- met with the proposed footprint. We have a bike 17 rack proposed here and then we have amenity space which I 18 will show you later proposed underneath the tree. 19 There’s two exterior storage units attached to 20 the landmark that we’ve removed based on recommendations 21 in the staff memo. When we were looking at parking 22 onsite, we spoke at length with the transportation 23 department with Lynn to get ideas on appropriate 24 transportation measures, alternative forms of 25 18 transportation. So, we’re proposing and committing to a 1 Car-To-Go membership for the first year for all tenants. 2 There will be a We-Cycle membership. As I noted, this is 3 walking distance to downtown and we also committed to 4 putting together an alternative transportation packet for 5 tenants. This is a rental project so when tenants come in 6 to sign their lease, they’ll get an information packet 7 that explains all the different types of alternative 8 transportation and trails and pathways that -- that are 9 available in Aspen. 10 So, I’m going to walk you through the 11 floorplans, starting with the lower level and the main 12 level, which is shown -- lower level at left and the main 13 level at right. We’re proposing five units. There’s two 14 units proposed in the landmark which are stacked, basement 15 and then first floor and then we’re proposing three units 16 in the detached building that’s located along the alley. 17 The breakdown is three of the units are two-bedroom units 18 and then two of the upper floor units are three-bedroom 19 units. We’re proposing everything at -- at cat. four or 20 lower. 21 So, starting with the landmark, as we mentioned, 22 we’d be picking it up and moving it to the five-foot 23 setback line. This first unit has the -- the use of the 24 restored porch. So, private entry into the restored 25 19 porch. There is an interior storage loft above the 1 kitchen area and then you go downstairs where there’s 2 bedrooms. There’s two full baths in this two-bedroom unit 3 and a powder room at grade. 4 For the unit at the rear, again, private entry 5 and a covered porch here. You walk in. There’s interior 6 storage above the kitchen. There’s a powder room that’s 7 an ADA powder room so it makes this unit a visitable unit. 8 This is a small bump out -- a small addition in the non-9 historic section of the landmark that we’re proposing to 10 make this a visitable unit. You go downstairs into the 11 basement lower level where you have two bedrooms and two 12 full bathrooms. 13 In the detached building at the rear, your 14 entrance is kind of facing the back of the landmark -- 15 excuse me. This is our type B unit. It’s an ADA unit. 16 This is also stacked. It has two full bathrooms, stairs 17 that go down to a second -- a second bedroom and full bath 18 and there’s exterior storage for this unit located kind of 19 by the stair access to the upper levels. 20 You also note in the basement we have stairs 21 going down to two storage units that service the two 22 three-bedroom units on the second and the third floor. In 23 addition, we have washer-dryers in all of the units and 24 the other amenities that I’ve noted previously. 25 20 So, these are the two upper-floor units. We 1 have the second floor at left, third floor at right. So, 2 you go up the stairs into the three-bedroom unit. It has 3 three full bathrooms and it’s very similar to the third 4 floor three-bedroom unit and you can see how the drip line 5 of the tree is really driving this kind of pull-back for 6 the private decks for both of these units and the 7 footprint. 8 So, going into the breakdown of the affordable 9 housing units that’s within your purview tonight, as I 10 noted, three of the units -- the three two-bedroom units 11 all exceed the minimum size requirement in the APCHA 12 guidelines. The two three-bedroom units are slightly 13 smaller than the minimum size but they’re all within the 14 20 percent reduction. The 20 percent reduction is 15 afforded by APCHA and by planning staff. The criteria to 16 support a reduction is based on onsite amenities, extra 17 storage and large windows. Both of these units have -- I 18 forgot to show you -- have storage that’s exterior but on 19 their floor level and then also in that basement here. 20 So, there’s ample storage for those units and large 21 windows and they’re above grade. Those are the things 22 that APCHA’s looking at to support a slight reduction. 23 The project would generate 12.75 affordable housing 24 21 credits based on the APCHA guidelines and the land use 1 code. 2 So, moving into the design, we’re proposing a 3 three-story building behind the one-story landmark. As I 4 noted previously, there’s ten feet separation between the 5 two detached buildings. You know we present a conceptual. 6 We’re always looking at those three characteristics that 7 are in the historic preservation design guidelines where 8 you need to relate the new building to form, materials and 9 fenestration. You pick two of the three. We all know 10 that. 11 Form is one of the areas that we’re being very 12 conservative in our relationship with the landmark. We’re 13 proposing an L-shaped footprint which matches the 14 landmark. Gable roofs are the primary roof form and a 15 pitch of the gable end that facing Cooper matches the 16 pitch of the gable end of the miner’s cabin. We think 17 that this approach is very successful in creating a strong 18 relationship in form. 19 Materials -- right now, we’re proposing 20 unpainted wood siding that references the miner’s cabin. 21 We’re still working on those details for final review and 22 for final discussion but our thought is that form and 23 materials will relate to the landmark. 24 22 Then fenestration is -- is a little more 1 contemporary but it’s still in keeping with the landmark. 2 The proportions are the double-hung proportions but 3 they’re either oriented vertically or horizontally with 4 the exception of this larger picture window that just 5 provides nice views to the mountain for that unit. 6 The front elevation shown here, you can see that 7 the massing is really pushed back on this site. We also 8 wanted to be very sensitive to the river side condo 9 windows but shifting the landmark forward to the five-foot 10 setback line and having a 10-foot separation between the 11 buildings. We also -- you can see here; this is the alley 12 elevation. We have a five-foot setback that we are 13 proposing to meet code and we also used dormers on the 14 third floor to really try to break up that strong gable 15 end and to reduce the perception of the mass. As you can 16 see on the front elevation, it’s a little shaded in our 17 renderings but we have decks that are pulled back that 18 access those units and really kind of emphasize that L-19 shaped form and then here’s our preserved spruce tree. 20 So, we learned a lot from researching the past 21 application and we paid a lot of attention to the east and 22 west façades that face the neighbors to make sure that 23 there was interest there and that it wasn’t just a blank 24 façade. So, we’ve added architectural interest with the 25 23 addition of shutters and material changes and, as I 1 mentioned, we’re preserving the tree that’s rendered here 2 and so we’re really pulling back that east façade with the 3 decks and kind of pushing the mass more towards the middle 4 of the site to provide relief to the riverside condos. 5 You can see at bottom left this is the rendering 6 of the amenity space that we’re proposing. It’s small. 7 This is a five-unit project but we think this is a nice 8 opportunity to provide some outdoor space kind of near the 9 dripline of the tree. You can see our bike racks are back 10 here. 11 At bottom right -- you received this yesterday 12 -- an update. We’re moving the storage that you can see 13 in the orange circle -- the exterior storage -- this is a 14 rendered view of what that façade would look like without 15 the storage. 16 So, we are really proud of our communication 17 efforts with this project. We’ve really tried to put all 18 the information that we can out to the community and to 19 communicate with the neighbors. We created a website as a 20 landing page for information about this project. We 21 wanted to have one place where everyone could go to get 22 updated information on the project and this will be live 23 through the whole life of the project through construction 24 so that there’s contact information and updates. Anyone 25 24 can register for updates on the website. We post updates 1 regularly and we also created a project e-mail, again, to 2 have any questions from neighbors or from the community go 3 straight to a project e-mail that we responded to within 4 48 hours unless it was over a weekend. We were pretty 5 strict about getting back to any questions and we used a 6 lot of the questions that we received through the project 7 e-mail to create an FAQ page, which is posted, and you can 8 see a screenshot of it right here, that answers a lot of 9 the questions that we were receiving from -- from 10 neighbors and that we -- we keep trying to update. 11 We also held four online Zoom neighborhood 12 meetings since the fall to introduce the project, 13 introduce the direction of the project and then after the 14 application was accepted by the city as complete, we 15 presented the details of the project, the massing, the 16 dimensions, and we have also had the application and any 17 updates linked on our website with notification sent to 18 anyone who’s signed up if there’s new information on the 19 website. 20 So, we’re really proud of this project. We’re 21 proud to contribute a code-compliant affordable housing 22 project to Aspen. The project meets multiple city goals 23 and we think it really balances the design guidelines and 24 a successful multi-family project. 25 25 I pulled a few clips from the Aspen area 1 community plan from 2012 and also the Historic 2 Preservation Design Guidelines, both which emphasize the 3 need for housing and the responsibility for the entire 4 community to create housing in the AACP. The quote from 5 the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines kind of grows 6 out of some of the public comment that we’ve been 7 receiving. You know the introduction of the guidelines 8 reminds HPC that not every guideline will tie to every 9 project but the guidelines must be balanced and addressed 10 on a case-by-case basis and they need to be weighed with 11 the practicality of the measure and then we think that 12 we’ve achieved that in this -- in this project and we’re 13 looking forward to hearing your comments on our project. 14 I think Jim has a few -- a few things to add. 15 Jim. Are you -- you might be muted if you’re trying to 16 talk. Oh, oh. Jim, are you there? Do you want to make a 17 few closing comments? I think I did such a good job he 18 has no comment. Okay. 19 Amy, do you want to jump in? I don’t want to 20 wait too long. I’m going to stop sharing unless there’s 21 questions. Should I leave my screen up? 22 MS. SIMON: I have -- I do have a question for 23 you Sara. 24 MS. ADAMS: Okay. 25 26 MS. SIMON: Thank you for the presentation. 1 MS. ADAMS: You’re welcome. 2 MS. SIMON: Very thorough as always. Could you 3 go back to the revised rendering of -- uhm -- the historic 4 -- the porch? Do you have any idea of where the kind of 5 the end of the historic structures are in relation to what 6 you’re proposing here? 7 MS. ADAMS: The end of the hist -- can you see 8 my cursor? I always wonder on these PDFs -- yes? Okay. 9 MS. SIMON: Yes, I can. 10 MS. ADAMS: And, Brian, feel free to jump in -- 11 Brian Beasley, if I get this wrong. This gable end goes 12 back into the kind of interesting gable that’s facing this 13 elevation. So, it does -- it’s somewhere in here. 14 MS. SIMON: I see. Okay. 15 MS. ADAMS: So, on the rendering, if you follow 16 this roofline, I would say it’s -- it’s somewhere in there 17 right like that. 18 MS. SIMON: Okay. Perfect. Thank you. 19 MS. ADAMS: You know because the gable end 20 doesn’t stick out the back is kind of what I’m trying to 21 show. 22 MS. SIMON: Yeah. No, that makes sense. 23 MS. ADAMS: Okay. 24 MS. SIMON: Thanks, Sara. 25 27 MS. ADAMS: You’re welcome. 1 MS. THOMPSON: Does anybody else have questions 2 for Sara before (indiscernible). 3 MR. MOYER: I have -- I have a question, Sara. 4 Can you all hear me? 5 MS. SIMON: Yep. 6 MS. ADAMS: Yes, hi, Roger. 7 MR. MOYER: Two questions, Sara. If this were a 8 three-unit project, would it be economically feasible? 9 And second question, if it were a four-unit project, would 10 it be economically feasible? 11 MS. ADAMS: I have to throw those questions to 12 Jim and Jean from the ownership group. Jean, can you jump 13 in? It seems like Jim may be having some challenges with 14 the technology. 15 MS. COULTER: Hi, everyone, can you hear me? 16 MS. ADAMS: Yes. 17 MS. COULTER: This is Jean Coulter and I think 18 one of the things that’s important to recognize is that 19 with the historic asset that has room for two units in it 20 and then to get to a three-unit project, you’re going to 21 have an annex building detached off the back. In general, 22 although Jim did speak to the profitability of it, this is 23 not a traditional real estate development margin. This 24 has a huge component of good will for a group that’s had a 25 28 long relationship with Aspen and so, in terms of 1 profitability, I really do feel that five units is -- is 2 breakeven. Beneath that it really doesn’t work because of 3 the costs of the structure -- annex structure. 4 MS. THOMPSON: Does that answer your question, 5 Roger? You’re muted. 6 MR. MOYER: Yes, thank you. Did you hear me? 7 MS. THOMPSON: Yes. 8 MR. KENDRICK: In regards to the -- I have a 9 follow-up question. Hello. 10 MS. THOMPSON: Go for it. Yeah, go for it. 11 MR. KENDRICK: Does this project need historic 12 designation to work? Would it work better without it or 13 possibly work at all without it? 14 MS. ADAMS: Amy, do you want to answer that 15 since it’s a code? 16 MS. SIMON: Sure. It does need to be a 17 historically designated property. Well, I guess, first, I 18 should say it is a historically designated and that was a 19 decision made in the eighties finding at that time -- 20 maybe even in the seventies -- sorry -- that it was 21 appropriate to protect this as one of the communities 22 Victorian-era resources. There have been some discussions 23 about -- you know -- integrity and value and whether we 24 should talk about a delisting. That is not something that 25 29 staff supports. It would be a complicated process that 1 would require HPC and Council to agree that there was no 2 historic merit on the site and I don’t think that’s a path 3 you want to go down. So, it is a designated property and 4 as a designated property it is allowed to be developed 5 with any use that can be permitted in this same district. 6 If the designation were removed, it might be limited to 7 only a development as a single-family home because the 8 property is smaller than the minimum normal lot size. 9 MR. KENDRICK: Thank you. 10 MS. ADAMS: And just to -- from the ownership 11 side of things -- you know -- I -- we’re happy to have the 12 landmark on this property. We think we’ve come up with a 13 really great solution and we think that it allows 14 community members that qualify to live in a historic 15 resource and I think that’s pretty special. You know a 16 lot of the historic landmarks, especially in the west end, 17 are really limited to non-deed-restricted housing and I 18 think it’s really special to be able to provide this type 19 of project that shows the community that we can blend 20 different community values and make it work. 21 MR. KENDRICK: My other question is -- two 22 questions, actually. Has the adverse possession issue 23 been addressed and dealt with because I know that there 24 was some concern about that, both in the previous 25 30 applicant and in the current letters from -- from 1 neighbors? And then, is there a -- I’m assuming there’s 2 no -- uhm -- no problem with the distance between the 3 neighboring building in terms of fire code. 4 MS. ADAMS: Correct. Yes, your first question 5 about the adverse possession claim. Yes, we addressed 6 that in a letter from Tom Todd, who’s the attorney on the 7 project. That was included in your land use application 8 and that was reviewed by the City Attorney’s Office. So, 9 that -- that issue’s been addressed. 10 Your second question -- oh, about the fire 11 protection and distance between buildings. Yes, Building 12 Department has reviewed our -- our project and has found 13 that it complies with the building code. The entire 14 building will be sprinklered and it’s my understanding 15 that distances for fire code are measured from your 16 property line and don’t take into account what’s happening 17 on other people’s properties. Is that correct, Amy? 18 MS. SIMON: Yes -- 19 MS. ADAMS: -- okay -- 20 MS. SIMON: -- that is correct. Thank you. 21 MR. KENDRICK: And then one -- one more 22 question, if you would? The -- the neighboring building 23 to the west had a lot to say about the previous 24 31 application. I haven’t seen any letters from them 1 directly. Have you received any input from them? 2 MS. ADAMS: Yes, we have. They’ve been on the 3 four Zoom calls -- maybe not all four but they’ve been on 4 a -- on the Zoom calls. I think I saw Tiffany and Michael 5 on the -- in the lineup tonight. But, yes, we have heard 6 from them and have received some letters and questions 7 through our project e-mail that we’ve tried to respond to 8 as best we can. 9 MR. KENDRICK: Okay. Thank you. 10 MS. ADAMS: You’re welcome. 11 MS. THOMPSON: Jeff, do you have any questions 12 before we move onto staff? 13 MR. HALFERTY: Yes, I have some of the same 14 questions that Scott had concerning the adverse possession 15 as well as the neighbors both to the west and the east but 16 it sounds like the applicant has reached out to them. 17 Architecturally, can you go into -- not to get 18 into too many details -- when you talk about those 19 shutters, Sara, like the shutters off the alley façade 20 what’s -- is that for visual or sound or both or -- 21 MS. ADAMS: Brian or David, do you want to jump 22 in on that piece? You might be best to answer that. 23 Hello. 24 32 MR. HALFERTY: Maybe it’s premature to talk 1 about that. 2 MS. ADAMS: Okay. Well, I know that there were 3 -- there were a few thoughts about the shutters when we 4 were reviewing them. 5 MR. HALFERTY: Just curious -- that’s fine. 6 MS. ADAMS: Yeah, one of -- one of the ideas was 7 to provide some visual interest. As I noted, we did a lot 8 of research and learning based on the last HPC application 9 for this project and what struck us were comments about 10 kind of blank walls facing buildings and placement of 11 windows and things like that and we really took that to 12 heart and one of the ways we tried to break up the massing 13 was proposing these structures that could be slid in front 14 of the windows that would I’m sure provide some sound 15 amenities but it was more about providing some visual 16 interest and kind of breaking up the mass on those 17 façades. 18 MR. HALFERTY: Thanks. 19 STAFF COMMENTS: 20 MS. THOMPSON: Let’s move onto staff 21 presentation. 22 MR. RAYES: Good evening. My name is Kevin 23 Rayes. I’m a planner in the Community Development 24 Department. I’m going to go ahead and share my screen 25 33 real quick. Before I begin I just want to make sure -- is 1 everyone able to see that presentation? Okay. 2 MS. THOMPSON: Yes. 3 MR. RAYES: Very good. So, Sara did a great job 4 going over the details of this project. Amy and I are 5 going to briefly go over the development and talk about 6 some of the things that Sara touched on but we’re just 7 going to highlight some of the review criteria that we 8 find particularly important to this project. So, Amy’s 9 going to touch on the conceptual, major development, 10 relocation and demolition and I’m going to go over the 11 growth management, the certificates of affordable housing 12 credit and the transportation and parking management. 13 Following today’s review for conceptual, if the 14 application is approved, it’s going to then go to City 15 Council for call up and then it will go back to HPC for 16 detailed review. So, I’m going to go ahead and start off 17 the presentation and then pass it over to Amy, just a 18 quick introduction here. 19 So, as Sara mentioned, 1020 East Cooper is on a 20 lot that’s just over 4300 square feet in area. It’s 21 located in the residential multi-family zone district. 22 The picture on the right there is from about 2019 and 23 that’s -- I think that’s what the house looks like today, 24 more or less. Again, the applicant is planning to convert 25 34 the site to 100 percent affordable housing for a total of 1 five units and the applicant is also planning to demolish 2 the two sheds at the rear of the property. 3 So, I’m going to hand it over to Amy and she’s 4 going to touch on some of the conceptual criteria. 5 MS. SIMON: Kevin, would you go forward to the 6 next slide? I changed my mind and then we’ll go back to 7 this one. 8 MR. RAYES: Yeah, no worries. 9 MS. SIMON: Thank you. Okay. We’ll just start 10 from the site plan and Kevin and I will try to avoid 11 repeating what the applicant has just told you other than 12 to make some clarifications and indicate our support or 13 conditions of approval. This is a side-by-side 14 comparison. On the left is the existing survey and on the 15 right is the proposal and one of the reviews that HPC 16 needs to consider tonight is relocation. 17 So, just starting with that, as Sara described, 18 the entire existing home, except for a little lean-to, 19 open kind of covered porch on the back is to be picked up 20 and moved forward on the lot approximately 12 feet forward 21 and two feet westward. A few things that come of this 22 that staff finds are particularly helpful in meeting the 23 criteria are that the historic building will be preserved 24 as a freestanding structure with a very good relationship 25 35 to the street. We are preserving all of the building and, 1 as Sara said, this building appears to be two structures 2 stitched together with a maybe 1960’s era addition on the 3 back. Rather than try to make too many interpretations of 4 the history of the building and remove pieces and parts, 5 the decision has been made to preserve it intact. 6 In the previous review that HPC looked at, the 7 rear addition was proposed to be removed. That was partly 8 because the applicant was adding directly to the building 9 and at one time they wanted to use that sixties addition 10 as their connector and it didn’t meet the characteristics 11 that we want of a connector so we encouraged its removal 12 then but it is not as relevant to the discussion now. 13 Again, the idea is to preserve the existing building, work 14 with it and restore features that are consistent with 15 miner’s cottages throughout Aspen. There’s 125 others 16 with very typical features that the applicant will reflect 17 on this project like a front porch and a front bay window 18 and things like that. So, staff does support picking up 19 the house and moving it to the proposed location and 20 retaining all of the existing structure. 21 Let’s see -- Kevin mentioned there are two sheds 22 you see. I don’t know if you see my cursor but at the 23 back of the site there are two existing sheds that are 24 proposed to be demolished. We do not know the exact 25 36 construction date of these buildings. They do not appear 1 on any of the Victorian-era maps that we can find. They 2 do not appear in any photos that we’ve found from the 3 Historical Society from the early 1900s that show the 4 backyard. They’re not there. The first time that we saw 5 them appear in any kind of mapping or photos was around 6 the early 1970s. We don’t know when they were built but 7 they were not built related to the time period of the 8 Victorian-era house, obviously, and so we do not find that 9 their preservation is necessary or required by that 10 criteria. So, we support their removal. That is allowing 11 for an appropriate building envelope to expand the 12 property. 13 The fact that this historic resource is going to 14 be preserved completely freestanding is exceptional. 15 There are really very few properties in town where that is 16 the guaranteed outcome where you have a miner’s cottage 17 that will be freestanding, visible on four sides with some 18 buffer area around it, some landscape meeting the 19 building. We really think that from the start is a very 20 successful outcome of this project. 21 In a staff memo we mentioned some very small 22 conditions that have -- that are listed in your 23 resolution. There are light wells obviously serving the 24 new basement under the house. We just want to make sure 25 37 that those are designed appropriately with the minimal 1 curb height, with grates instead of railings, just to 2 downplay their visibility. 3 Sara mentioned that they have removed the two-4 storage closets that were initially proposed to be placed 5 on the west side of the resource. We really find that was 6 an appropriate action and appreciate their being removed 7 from project because they were touching the most original 8 part of the structure and we’re glad to see that gone. 9 As far as the proposed new building in the back, 10 as I said, we have good separation here. It’s 10 feet 11 distance between the two buildings and the fact that they 12 are detached from each other makes a huge difference in 13 terms of interpretation of HPC’s guidelines. You’re not 14 talking about an addition anymore. You’re not worried 15 about that transition piece, how much of the resource is 16 being demolished, how do they touch each other, how do 17 they appear in relation to each other. It’s a much 18 different situation than when you’re adding directly to 19 the building. Also, the fact that this new structure is 20 behind the resource and not side-by-side to it changes the 21 reading of the design guidelines. 22 So, Kevin, if you wouldn’t mind switching back 23 to the previous slide with the elevations. 24 38 Obviously, the new structure is larger than the 1 old structure. That is a typical challenge in our 2 historic preservation regulations. There are development 3 rights permitted here and we try to work with people so 4 that they can exercise those in an appropriate way that 5 supports the preservation of the resource and allows 6 development and we find that the design guidelines are met 7 for the new construction in the back. In the memo, we 8 went through several findings about how the applicant has 9 tried to pull down the plate heights at the corners on the 10 upper elevation or upper level of the property. They are 11 starting to show how they will meet the form, fenestration 12 and materials picked, too, in terms of compatibility. 13 The widths of the building are similar. The 14 footprints of the buildings are similar and, again, we are 15 finding that the design guidelines are met. We have 16 suggested a few conditions of approval in the resolution, 17 which we can go over as Kevin proceeds through the slides. 18 But, in terms of conceptual, relocation and demolition, we 19 support the project. 20 MR. RAYES: All right. Very good. So, I’m 21 going to go ahead and dive into the growth management and 22 affordable housing credits portion of the presentation 23 here. I just want to touch on some of the main criteria 24 that we find to be important. 25 39 So, as already has been mentioned by Sara, the 1 applicant is planning to convert this site to 100 percent 2 affordable housing. So, it’s important to understand that 3 these units are not required for affordable housing 4 mitigation. These -- you know -- the credits can be sold 5 to a developer that needs to mitigate but this is 100 6 percent -- you know -- not needed for affordable housing 7 mitigation. So, they’re -- the applicant is proposing 8 three units that are each going to be two bedrooms and 9 then two units that are each going to be three bedrooms. 10 So, that comes to a total of 12.75 FTEs according to the 11 formula prescribed in our land use code and that is what 12 the applicant is requesting. 13 So, I want to just touch on some of the designs 14 of the units. Sara showed some slides on this but I’m 15 going to just briefly highlight a couple things here. So, 16 this is a side elevation of the historic resource at the 17 front of the property and then the rear addition behind 18 that. 19 So, we’ll start in the basement area of the -- 20 of the development here. So, under the historic resource, 21 they’re planning to build a two-bedroom unit. Again, it’s 22 a stacked unit. There are going to be two two-bedroom 23 units in the historic resource so half of the unit -- of 24 each unit is in the basement and then in the rear addition 25 40 they are also planning to build a stacked unit, two-1 bedroom unit in the basement there and then as you -- then 2 there’s also external storage here in the basement as 3 well. 4 As you move up to the first floor of these 5 buildings, you have the second portion of those stacked 6 two-bedroom units right here and then the same in the rear 7 as well and then on the right we have the carport, which 8 I’m going to touch on in a little bit under the 9 transportation of this. 10 Moving to the next floor of only the historic 11 resource, one thing I want to highlight -- so, Sara 12 mentioned that they were removing some of the external 13 storage associated with the historic resource in order to 14 preserve the integrity of the -- of the structure. One 15 innovative thing that staff finds to be really great as 16 part of this is they’re planning to build some additional 17 internal storage. It’s going to be accessed via the ship 18 ladders here shown on these renderings but this is going 19 to add some additional storage for each of those two-20 bedroom units and it’s going to be accessed from the 21 interior which is great. 22 Going back to the rear addition, going to the 23 next floor -- to the second floor, now we’re going to the 24 three-bedroom unit. This is all -- all on one floor. 25 41 It’s on the second floor of the three-bedroom unit and 1 then going to the third floor, the same applies here as 2 well. It’s a three-bedroom unit. Both of those units 3 have some storage as well. I haven’t highlighted that in 4 this presentation but it is depicted in the plans so the 5 amount of storage here is -- is quite generous. 6 So, I want to just break down the unit sizes 7 really quick starting with the historic resource. So, as 8 seen in the table here, again, there’s going to be two 9 two-bedroom units in the historic resource. I’ll just 10 call your attention to the total square foot -- square 11 feet of the net livable area of each of these units. 12 They’re just over a 1000 square feet net livable area. 13 The minimum floor area prescribed by APCHA standards is 14 900 square feet. So, each of these units is over 100 feet 15 -- square feet above the minimum required. So, these are 16 really high-quality units and again, as Sara mentioned, 17 the fact that these are in a historic resource makes them 18 quite unique and quite special. 19 Moving forward to the rear addition, again, we 20 have three total units in that, one of which is two 21 bedrooms and two of which are three bedrooms. The two-22 bedroom unit is 908 square feet, which is just above the 23 minimum required. The two three-bedroom units -- I want 24 to call these out. These are slightly smaller than the 25 42 minimum required and I have this expressed as a percentage 1 and these are each 16 percent below the minimum and the 2 reason that I call that out as a percentage is because 3 APCHA has a path that if the net livable square footage is 4 not quite what it needs to be you can reduce it up to 20 5 percent from the minimum as long as the following criteria 6 are met. So, I just want to call these out. 7 So, as long as the applicant can show that 8 several various amenities are provided on site then 9 there’s a justifiable reason that these units can be 10 slightly smaller than the minimum prescribed. So, if 11 there’s significant storage, such as additional storage 12 outside the unit; if there’s above average natural light 13 such as adding more window area than the building code 14 requires; if the net livable unit sizes exceed the minimum 15 requirement and if the -- if there’s unit amenities such 16 as access to outdoor space or private patios. These are 17 the criteria to kind of keep in mind when looking at a 18 unit that might be slightly smaller. 19 So, I just want to address these and show that 20 these are actually -- these are indeed met as part of this 21 project. So, in these renderings here, on the left we 22 have a rendering of the historic resource. As you can 23 see, there’s a private porch. There’s some green space. 24 So, that’s a great amenity. There’s plenty of 25 43 fenestration on that resource. On the right is a 1 rendering of the space between the historic resource and 2 the rear addition. Again, there’s plenty of green space 3 here. That tree is being preserved. That’s a common 4 area. Just above that person in the rendering there are 5 private balconies on both the second and the third floors. 6 That’s associated with those two units that are slightly 7 smaller and the other thing I want to point out is those 8 two units that don’t quite meet the minimum, those -- both 9 of those units are fully above grade and so that’s an 10 important thing to take into consideration is neither of 11 those units -- there’s no portion of those units that’s in 12 the basement and so they have plenty of natural light and 13 plenty of fenestration. 14 I do want to point one thing out. We received a 15 comment in the public comments about ADA accessibility. 16 There was concern that these units would not meet that 17 requirement and I just want to point out we’ve been able 18 to work with the building department and with the 19 applicant to ensure that all the ADA requirements are met 20 for these units. 21 The last thing I want to point out. Each of the 22 units are going to have a washer and dryer inside of them 23 as well. So, that’s an important thing to point out. 24 44 One last thing that I -- that I should mention. 1 I did -- I did call out some of the storage. I didn’t 2 call it all out here so I recommend that HPC review the 3 plans a little bit more closely and see that there is 4 quite a bit of storage associated with all of the units. 5 So, staff finds the criteria related to growth 6 management and the certificates of affordable housing 7 credit are met. We recommend approval for the total 12.75 8 FTEs. 9 So, moving to transportation and parking 10 mitigation. So, within our land use code the residential 11 multi-family zone district, which is where this property 12 is located, it requires one parking unit per residential 13 unit within a multi-family development. So, in this case, 14 five parking units are required. I want to point out that 15 a parking unit doesn’t necessarily mean a parking space. 16 A parking unit can be met with an onsite space or it can 17 be met with cash in lieu. So, that’s an important thing 18 to take note. So -- so, within this residential multi-19 family zone district 100 percent of the parking mitigation 20 may be met via cash in lieu. So, in other words, no 21 onsite parking is required on this site. 22 So, with that -- with that in mind -- you know 23 -- the applicant has showed that they’re going to be 24 providing four onsite spaces, one of which is going to be 25 45 ADA accessible. Staff finds that this is -- this is a 1 great benefit to the project. It’s oftentimes difficult 2 to get parking -- onsite parking for affordable housing 3 projects as they try to increase the density and -- you 4 know -- parking is one of the first things to go. In this 5 case, the applicant is meeting 80 percent of their -- of 6 their parking requirement with onsite parking. The 7 remaining 20 percent is going to be met via cash in lieu 8 and again, for an affordable housing project, this is 9 terrific. There’s plenty of on-street parking in the 10 surrounding neighborhood. 11 We talked with the transportation and parking 12 department about how on-street parking works in this part 13 of town and they have capped the number of parking permits 14 that each resident can receive and that’s going to help 15 reduce some of the traffic and the parking in the on-16 street area around town. I just want to point out -- you 17 know -- some might find this surprising that no onsite 18 parking is required but, again, the purpose of the 19 residential multi-family zone district is for intensive 20 uses for kind of higher density multi-family development 21 and the parking regulations that we have in place are a 22 result of some professional parking studies, Council 23 consideration and public input and the parking code was 24 just updated probably about a year and a half ago so it’s 25 46 a -- it’s a pretty up-to-date code that we’re working with 1 here. 2 With regards to the ADA space that I mentioned, 3 that’s the space identified as number four. We did 4 receive a public comment that was concerned that if there 5 was not an ADA qualified tenant living in these units that 6 space would never be occupied and so then there would only 7 be three spaces but we were able to work with the building 8 department and figure out that this space can always be 9 occupied. 10 The requirement for the applicant is to build a 11 space that meets the dimensional requirements for ADA but 12 if they end up having no tenants that are ADA eligible, 13 then they can use -- then any tenant can use that space. 14 It’s only when there’s an ADA eligible tenant that that 15 space would be occupied by someone who -- who requires it. 16 So, no matter what situation, what kind of -- whoever’s 17 living in these apartments, that space would be occupied. 18 So, moving forward from this, the applicant, in 19 addition to parking, they’re providing bicycle parking as 20 well, which is great. As Sara mentioned, they’re also 21 providing car sharing memberships for the first year for 22 tenants and the other thing I want to point out here is 23 the location of the property should really be taken into 24 account. The context of where this is is really 25 47 important. So, here on the right we have 1020 highlighted 1 in the salmon-colored box and to the left here we have 2 kind of the commercial area of town where businesses kind 3 of start to pop up and when you put this in Google Maps, 4 if a tenant didn’t have a car and they wanted to walk to 5 town, according to Google Maps, it would take them four 6 minutes. It’s .2 miles. So, it’s really not a very far 7 walk to get to the grocery store or to get to jobs. 8 The same applies -- you know -- with the bus 9 stop. So, here we have 1020. If a tenant wanted to walk 10 to the bus, it’s less than a minute away. It’s 180 feet. 11 So, it’s completely reasonable to believe that some of the 12 tenants in this -- in this building would not need a car. 13 So, staff finds that the transportation and 14 parking mitigation standards are met. So, here’s -- 15 here’s staff’s recommendation. We recommend that the 16 Historic Preservation Commission approve the application 17 for the following: For a conceptual major development, 18 relocation, demolition, growth management, transportation 19 and parking management, and certificates of affordable 20 housing credits. 21 We do have some conditions listed in the 22 resolution that we’re happy to discuss if there’s any 23 questions on that and we’re also happy -- you know -- I 24 didn’t go over -- you know -- all of the public comments 25 48 that we received so if there’s other questions on those 1 I’m happy to -- happy to touch on those as well. 2 Before I kind of close this out, I just want to 3 draw your attention to the -- to both the 2000 and 2012 4 Aspen Area Community Plan and both of these plans -- for 5 those commissioners that are not familiar with these 6 plans, these -- the idea behind these plans is to set the 7 tone and the values for the community as we move forward 8 kind of in the long-term. So, that’s kind of the idea of 9 these plans and there’s one phrase in these -- in both of 10 the 2000 and the 2012 plan that I think really speaks to 11 this project. It states, our housing policy should 12 bolster our economic and social diversity, reinforce 13 variety and enhance our sense of community by integrating 14 affordable housing into the fabric of our town. A healthy 15 social balance includes all income ranges and types of 16 people. Each project should endeavor to further that mix 17 and to avoid segregation of economic and social classes. 18 So, in this map on the right here -- this is 19 also in the memo -- you know -- we did a -- just a quick 20 site context analysis of the surrounding neighborhood and 21 within the immediate block -- you know -- we only found 22 four other affordable housing units in this -- in this 23 area and I want to point out that all of these units are 24 own -- are ownership units and this project is proposed to 25 49 be rental units. So, you know the fact that they’re going 1 to be category four or less, it really provides an 2 opportunity for people that are just moving to Aspen or 3 just kind of trying to figure things out to kind of live 4 in a place that’s in town within the -- within the infield 5 area. So, I want to just point that out to the 6 Commissioners tonight. 7 One last slide here, so, in the resolution 8 that’s on file, we received a request from our attorney to 9 add some language and I just want to highlight it here. 10 So, section two of the resolution, it talks about growth 11 management and certificates of affordable housing credits 12 and special review. We need to actually remove that. 13 There’s no special review as part of this but the HPC 14 hereby approves growth management and certificates of 15 affordable housing credits. We want to add an additional 16 line. There’s three bullet points already. We want to 17 add this line that says, prior to the certificate of 18 occupancy, a deed restriction must be recorded and must 19 comply with the APCHA regulations in effect at the time 20 that said deed restriction is approved and recorded. 21 So, with HPC’s blessing this evening, we would 22 like to add this language to the resolution. It’s more or 23 less boilerplate language. We ran it by the applicant and 24 50 they -- they have given us the thumbs up to add this 1 language as well as part of the conditions of approval. 2 So, with that in mind, I’m happy to answer any 3 questions this evening and I’m sure Amy can help answer 4 some questions as well. Thank you. 5 MS. THOMPSON: Thanks, Kevin and Amy. I do have 6 one question for you, Amy. I just want to make sure I’m 7 interpreting what you said earlier correctly. In the 8 memo, you note that 10.3, 10.10 and 10.12, which relate to 9 additions, are not met and I want to clarify. That’s 10 because we are not considering that building in the back 11 an addition. That is a considered an entirely new 12 structure. Correct? 13 MS. SIMON: Kara, I’m sorry. Can you tell me 14 what you’re looking at -- where you see that comment? 15 MS. THOMPSON: Oh, I’m looking at the chart -- 16 the red and green page 27. 17 MS. SIMON: No, this -- this is actually about 18 the little storage closets, which have now been removed. 19 This -- 20 MS. THOMPSON: -- I see -- 21 MS. SIMON: -- this interpretation of chapter 10 22 that you see here was really about the historic resource 23 itself and any alterations being proposed to it. So, we 24 did find those storage closets to be a concern and the 25 51 applicant responded. So, we would find that if we were 1 revising this right now. 2 MS. THOMPSON: Understood. Okay. Thank you. 3 That was I think my only question. Kevin was very 4 descriptive in all of the other criteria. 5 Does anybody else from the Board have any 6 questions? 7 MR. HALFERTY: No, I think I’m okay, too. 8 MR. MOYER: I do. 9 MS. THOMPSON: Oh, go ahead. 10 MR. MOYER: In regards to alleys and 11 transportation and parking, reflecting upon one of the 12 comments, that alley is very wide. The comment was it was 13 only 12-feet distance to turn around or something. Can 14 you answer that please? 15 MS. SIMON: Yes. In the memo, we did try to 16 provide response to some of the public comments and maybe 17 we’ll just expand on that as something that’s repeated as 18 the meeting goes on but Roger points out a letter that was 19 received today that suggests that there’s not enough 20 turning radius in the alley for cars to enter the new 21 proposed parking area and I did reach out to that writer 22 and I’m not sure if they’re on the call but, 23 unfortunately, it appears they’re parking in the alley 24 themselves and not on private property. The alley is a 25 52 20-foot-wide right-of-way, which is the standard. There 1 are some encroachments into it including existing sheds on 2 this property, which will be demolished but we do not find 3 that there is any reason why this parking that’s proposed 4 for 1020 East Cooper won’t function perfectly and 5 appropriately. 6 MR. MOYER: One other question. There was 7 mention in the alley about the possibility of paving. 8 That’s certainly not part of our purview, I don’t believe. 9 Is it something that might be done in the future? Is 10 there something where this could be encouraged or is that 11 something we just don’t get into? 12 MS. SIMON: That is the call of the Engineering 13 Department. 14 Kevin, did you hear any discussion or Sara, have 15 you had any discussion with the department about paving 16 the alley? 17 MR. RAYES: I have not had any discussion about 18 that. 19 MS. ADAMS: I haven’t either. That was the 20 first we heard of it was this afternoon so we haven’t had 21 a chance to address it. 22 MS. THOMPSON: Any other questions before we 23 move onto public comments? 24 53 MS. SIMON: Kara, can I make a suggestion about 1 public comment? We have distributed approximately 15 2 letters to the Board and I am prepared to summarize each 3 one for you but I think what’s best is to let those who 4 are attending the meeting speak and then I will not 5 attempt to summarize their comments and I’ll just narrow 6 it down to others to make sure that everything is on the 7 record and everyone knows the input that’s been received. 8 MS. THOMPSON: That sounds great. Okay. So, if 9 there’s no more questions from the Board for staff, we’re 10 going to move onto public comment. 11 PUBLIC COMMENTS: 12 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. It looks like we have a 13 lot of people who have called in. I would like to remind 14 everybody that we have three minutes for public comments 15 per person and if you wouldn’t all mind by starting with 16 identifying yourself and then making your statement in 17 support or not in support. So, I can go -- do we have a 18 list of people? Can anybody from the City help me out 19 with who we should call on first? 20 MS. SIMON: Sure, I’ll just try to roll through 21 the screen here. We have MEG or -- 22 MS. GEIGER: Hi. I’m Mary Elizabeth Geiger with 23 Garfield and Hecht. 24 MS. SIMON: Thank you. 25 54 MS. GEIGER: Thank you. Do you want me to go 1 ahead and start? 2 MS. SIMON: Yes, please. 3 MS. THOMPSON: Please do. 4 MS. GEIGER: Okay. Thanks. So, I’m here with 5 Chris Bryan, also from Garfield and Hecht. We represent 6 the Riverside Condo Association, which is at 1024 East 7 Cooper and Cooper Avenue Victorian Condo Association at 8 1012 East Cooper. So, these are the neighbors on either 9 side, east/west sides of the proposed project. These two 10 entities did actively participate in the hearing process 11 on the last proposal for 1020 East Cooper and I really 12 just want to emphasize that the Historic Preservation 13 Commission’s mission is to preserve historic properties 14 and review these proposed -- proposals affecting historic 15 properties to assure compliance with the guidelines. 16 Focus here on guidelines 11.3, 11.4, with regard 17 to mass and scale and I believe a lot of the issues that 18 were raised the last go around with the prior proposal are 19 still applicable here. Most importantly, this is a non-20 conforming lot. As already has been discussed, it’s over 21 1500 feet smaller than the standard required lot size in 22 this zone district. RMF requires 6000 square feet. 23 So -- you know -- there’s been some question as 24 to whether or not it just has to -- you know -- well, back 25 55 up for a second, there was some discussion about whether 1 or not this project could go forward if there was not the 2 historic resource and staff answered that it could not. 3 Without that historic resource, the flexibility on a non-4 conforming lot goes away and you do -- you wouldn’t be 5 able to put this project in. 6 I want to be clear that -- you know -- our 7 clients are not opposed to affordable housing but the mass 8 and scale of this proposal is much too large for really 9 the lot and frankly dwarfs the historic resource. 10 The -- with regard to the relocation to the 11 front of the lot, to move the historic resource up to the 12 five-foot setback, I think it’s important to focus on some 13 of the slides that were shown earlier that show there are 14 front lawns as this block progresses away from the river 15 that are significant and part of this historic property is 16 having that significant front lawn. By taking that away, 17 you, again, lose some of the historic properties of the 18 structure and the landmark. 19 Finally, just really -- there’s no -- there was 20 some discussion, too, about the material light and green 21 space. If you look at these renderings again, there’s not 22 going to be a lot of natural light coming into these back 23 units, especially on the first floor and the second floor. 24 There’s only 10 feet between the two properties. You’re 25 56 going to -- I know there’s a discussion about 12.75 FTEs 1 but realistically, we know that these will be maxed out 2 with the number of occupants. It’s going to be very 3 difficult and that really also enhances the mass and scale 4 issue. 5 So, I’d like for the Commission to really look 6 at the fact that this is a very small lot and the mass and 7 scale of this project dwarfs that historic landmark. 8 Thank you. 9 MS. THOMPSON: Thank you for your comments. 10 Okay. Amy, did I hear you say we’re just going in 11 alphabetical order? Dennis. 12 MS. SIMON: I was just going to kind of look 13 across the grid here. The next person I see has a 14 cellphone number that maybe ends with -78. 15 MS. THOMPSON: If you are on a cellphone, I 16 believe you have to hit star six to unmute. 17 MS. SIMON: We can come back to that person. 18 The next person’s cellphone or phone seems to end with 19 -67. 20 Ruth, are you able to unmute these individuals? 21 RUTH: I cannot unmute them. I sent a request 22 to unmute. 23 MS. SIMON: There we go. Okay, it looks like -- 24 57 RUTH: -- and it is correct that it is star six 1 to both mute and unmute. 2 MS. SIMON: Okay. So, Barron, if you’re able to 3 hear, if you’d hit star six, we should be able to take 4 your comment. 5 MR. BARRON CONCORS: Can you hear me? 6 MS. SIMON: Yes. 7 MS. THOMPSON: Yep. 8 MR. BARRON CONCORS: Okay. Thanks everyone for 9 taking the time. This has been coming before the 10 Commission for quite a bit of time now and while I 11 appreciate the developers having the Q and A system, the 12 issue -- the main issue remains the same as the previous 13 project, which I’m surprised was glossed over in all the 14 discussions prior to this, which is mass and scale. If we 15 remember, it was sent back several times by the HPC and 16 even rescinded by the City Council last time due to mass 17 and scale and that -- that problem has probably gotten 18 even worse and while we all are proponents of affordable 19 housing, the use of this project is irrelevant to the 20 guidelines that are in place. 21 So, I would encourage us all and you can see the 22 passion, you can see the number of people that showed up 23 for this meeting because we’re concerned about the mass 24 and scale. It’s a small lot. It overwhelms the lot. 25 58 Yes, there are two big structures on either side. Neither 1 one of them are historic in nature. So, thank you for 2 taking the consideration and time and I’ll turn it over to 3 the next person. 4 MS. THOMPSON: Thank you, Barron. 5 MS. SIMON: Okay. The next person I see ends 6 with a phone number -67. Okay, we’ll move on -- 7 MS. PETERS: -- can you hear me? 8 MS. SIMON: There you go. 9 MS. PETERS: Okay. Thank you. Sorry about 10 that. Hi, this is Julie Peters and I live right behind 11 the unit at 1015 East Hyman and I have a parking space -- 12 a parallel parking space that’s designated as such and 13 it’s in our plat and my concern is the same as my 14 neighbors. I’m worried about how many people will be 15 coming in and out to not get hit. 16 I’ve spoken with the neighbors to the east of me 17 in -- I think it’s called Sunny Side Condos and they’ve 18 had issues backing -- with one of the buildings -- two 19 buildings to the east of 1020 and they’ve had issues 20 backing and so I just wanted to make -- make that -- you 21 know -- make you aware of that that it is really tight 22 back here and my other concern’s just -- I hope they’ve 23 taken into consideration also the fire -- the fire engines 24 59 coming down. We had a fire in a dumpster once when the 1 alley was closed off years ago. 2 MS. THOMPSON: All right. Thank you so much, 3 Julie, for calling in. 4 MS. PETERS: Thank you. 5 MS. SIMON: Okay. The next speaker is Buck 6 Carlton. 7 MR. CARLTON: Hi, yeah, I’m sort of surprised 8 that the -- we were so close with the individual and all 9 he needed to do was drop his line -- his roofline a little 10 bit and lose a little bit of square footage and he would 11 have been a welcome neighbor but now we’ve got a situation 12 where so many of the guidelines and rules of the HPC have 13 to be broken to make this thing happen, the first one 14 being is that regulation is that you should only have 100 15 percent more of growth put on the property than what is 16 there now and you’re talking now about 4000 square feet. 17 Somewhere someone talked about 2000 but I don’t know how 18 they came up with it because, in fact, that’s not the case 19 as even was pointed out by an individual. So, here the 20 HPC is breaking its own guidelines. 21 The next guideline is that the setback should 22 equal the other setbacks that other historical properties 23 have done and they all have setbacks, even including the 24 neighbors like 1012, which is 30 feet back. So, to move 25 60 something up to the front, again, is something breaking 1 your guidelines. 2 And then we have your guideline saying that the 3 back building should not overshadow the front building. 4 Well, when you have a building that’s 30-feet high -- 34-5 feet high over a building that’s 10-feet high, you sure as 6 heck are overshadowing it in having a 10-foot differential 7 is not going to make the difference. 8 Then if you say, well, gee, under zoning we can 9 do it, well, then you have the fact that zoning shouldn’t 10 even be applying because you’ve got a -- a lot that’s only 11 43 feet wide. There’s no exception to that and yet, now, 12 here you’re trying to bring in an exception so that, in 13 fact, a multifamily can come in. So, zoning doesn’t even 14 apply to that and, once again, you’re breaking your own 15 rules. 16 So, now, you’ve got a situation where you’ve got 17 so many of your own rules broken that you’re wondering why 18 staff is approving it but then you also wonder, when 19 you’re looking at what you’re giving the people who live 20 in and you’re giving them a thing where there’s no place 21 for the kids to play. There’s no parking for at least one 22 person. Where do you think he’s going to keep roaming the 23 streets of Aspen for the rest of his life? And they’re 24 going to have no place to -- if you’re a person with a kid 25 61 in a stroller, you’ve got to go up three floors to get to 1 your place to live and then you’ve got a shrinkage of your 2 -- of your three-bedroom houses of your units. Why are we 3 doing that? All places -- everywhere you’re doing you’re 4 trying to squeeze, squeeze, squeeze and yet in the same 5 time every one of these guys is going to be getting their 6 paybacks by selling units. 7 So, now, we come to the Board -- the Commission 8 votes against all their own rules it’s going to be a 9 laughingstock of the community. No one’s going to believe 10 what the HPC does and then people aren’t going to stop 11 laughing when hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal 12 fees are going to be spent by the City and no one’s going 13 to be laughing when they realize that developers have 14 walked away with millions of dollars but when they’ve left 15 people with a lifestyle that’s something they certainly 16 wouldn’t want. They wouldn’t want to be climbing up and 17 down the place. They wouldn’t want to have the kids a 18 place to live (sic) and yet they’re making millions of 19 dollars and the people that should be respected that are 20 doing so much for this city, what they’re calling 21 affordable housing that doesn’t mean they should be 22 treated without the respect they’re due and this building 23 being so cramped, everybody shrunk in there like a -- like 24 62 a sardine can, I can tell you they’re not being treated 1 with respect. 2 You want to break it down to two or three units, 3 great. You want to bring it back to single, great. 4 Otherwise, let the developers, if they’re so excited, go 5 down to the airport where there’s plenty of room for 6 people to live a normal life. 7 Thank you for your time. 8 MS. THOMPSON: Thank you, Buck, for calling in. 9 MS. SIMON: Okay, next I see Chris Bryan. We 10 did hear from Ms. Geiger. Chris, do you have more to add? 11 MR. BRYAN: Yeah, I do but I’ll reserve my 12 comments toward the end so I can summarize some other 13 issues. 14 MS. SIMON: Okay. 15 MR. BRYAN: Please come back to me. Thank you. 16 MS. SIMON: Sure. Dennis Moon. Dennis, on the 17 phone you have to hit star, six. There you go. 18 MR. MOON: Hello. Can you hear me? 19 MS. SIMON: Yes, we can. 20 MR. MOON: I live directly behind the property, 21 1007 Hyman. 22 MS. SIMON: Go ahead, Dennis. We can hear you. 23 MR. MOON: Yes, the young lady that spoke 24 earlier, Julie Peters, I believe she has parking spots, 25 63 which are deeded plats running parallel that we talked 1 about. It’s a problem behind the shed. I know we said it 2 wasn’t but I do believe someone needs to confirm that. 3 It’s very narrow and -- and very dangerous. I do not see 4 how a 90-degree angle will be made. Thank you. 5 MS. SIMON: Okay. Thank you. Diane. 6 Ruth -- there you go. 7 Go ahead, Diane. Do you have a comment? 8 Let’s move onto Greg. 9 GREG: I’ll pass on this. Just here to observe 10 but I’ve got to go from the meeting now anyway so keep up 11 the good work, everybody. Thank you. 12 MS. SIMON: Thank you. Next, we have Hal. Hal, 13 would you like to make a comment? 14 Okay. With nothing from Hal, let’s hear from 15 Jay Mayten. 16 Ruth, are you able to unmute Jay? 17 RUTH: I’m sending a mute request as we go 18 through the list. I cannot unmute them, however. I can 19 just request it. 20 MS. SIMON: So, at the bottom of your screen 21 does everyone see that you have buttons to mute and start 22 video if you would like? Unmute. 23 All right, let’s continue on. We have a Jeff. 24 RUTH: That’s your board member. 25 64 MS. THOMPSON: I was going to say, is that our 1 Jeff? 2 MS. SIMON: Sorry, I assumed it was a different 3 Jeff. Jim T. 4 RUTH: And that’s Jim True. 5 MS. SIMON: Oh, sorry. 6 MR. TRUE: Jim True. 7 MS. SIMON: Hi, Jim True. Sorry. 8 Okay, next is Kristi. 9 MS. GILLIAM: Yes, I’m Kristi Gilliam. My big 10 concern on this property is it sounds so great and the 11 pictures -- you know -- the pictures that you all had put 12 out there for the most part, the cabin looks fairly cute 13 but your pictures are, I think, not what the property 14 really is. In the last picture that we had that you all 15 were showing where it had the cute little tree that was in 16 the back and some people in the back of that yard, that 17 tree is currently on our side of the property and it rubs 18 up against number -- unit number 10 in the back and that’s 19 -- and that is -- so that just shows how close we are to 20 that piece of property. It is -- which is I think it is 21 -- it is so tight in there. 22 Right now, it sounds all good if there was one 23 person per bedroom but there is nothing that I can find on 24 APCHA that says that you can’t have two people per bedroom 25 65 and two people per bedroom when you’ve got 12 bedrooms 1 there would be 24 people plus guests. Uhm -- that is a 2 huge number of people. Even at our complex at 1024 East 3 Cooper most of our units are three-bedroom units and we 4 have now in our rules and regulations and our guidelines 5 that no matter if it’s a two-bedroom or a three-bedroom 6 unit you can only have four people in that unit max. We 7 don’t care if it’s a family or not and one of the reasons 8 that -- or one of the reasons that we’re doing this was, 9 one, was we don’t have AC in our units and it doesn’t 10 sound like this place will either and it was so loud all 11 the time and that is going to be a problem with so many 12 people. I’m 57 years old but if I lived with four people 13 I can tell you we’d be having parties there at my place 14 all the time. 15 The -- uhm -- the trash, too, was a huge issue. 16 We could never get on top of the trash situation. We had 17 one dumpster in the back of our property and it was always 18 being filled and overfilled. We -- uhm -- we were getting 19 complaints from Chateau Éclair. We were getting 20 complaints from the neighbors in the back and also the 21 city due to the trash overflow and the bear problems that 22 we had. 23 Uhm -- we haven’t even talked about whether or 24 not they’re going to be smoking or not in that complex but 25 66 we don’t have smoking anywhere on our property because the 1 smoke and the pot and the smell of it was so intense, 2 especially when we had -- you know -- too many people in 3 our units. 4 And the other thing, parking, I certainly 5 appreciate what Kevin was talking about but Kevin -- I 6 don’t know where Kevin lives but I do have a three-bedroom 7 unit and the second car that is a part of my unit most of 8 the summer was parked close to Smuggler Mountain. There 9 was absolutely no parking whatsoever on -- for the off-10 street and I realize this summer that the city was doing 11 something a little bit different where they weren’t 12 ticketing people but even prior to that, there is 13 absolutely not enough parking and what we’re finding that 14 -- whether it is a housekeeper coming to Chateau Roaring 15 Fork or Chateau Éclair or Comcast coming, those people 16 cannot find parking spots to park in and they are 17 continually parking in the back of our complex as it is. 18 With it -- with it being that there could be 24 19 people living on that piece of property there is going to 20 be -- there will be so many more cars than what we are 21 talking about three and four cars. I honestly -- when I 22 moved to Aspen at 31 years old and I was a working 23 employee like everybody else, I did not know one person 24 that did not have a car. We all had cars and we all had 25 67 the four-wheel drive cars. We didn’t have the cars today 1 -- 2 MS. THOMPSON: -- Kristi, (indiscernible) -- 3 MS. GILLIAM: -- and there may be some that 4 don’t have cars but everyone’s got them and I think it’s 5 ridiculous to think that four cars back there is going to 6 be enough for them and their guests. I think the project 7 is a great project-- 8 MS. THOMPSON: -- Kristi, can you please -- I’m 9 sorry, I just want to let you know we’re just a little bit 10 over on your time. 11 MS. GILLIAM: Okay, just one final comment 12 (indiscernible) the stuff that you all have done, but 13 these are serious concerns that we’re going to be left 14 with if this project goes through and I think that it 15 needs to be better thought out. I think it is too large. 16 MS. THOMPSON: Thank you and could you state 17 what your address is just for our records? 18 MS. GILLIAM: It’s 1024 Cooper so I am right 19 there and, again, that tree is -- I don’t know if I just 20 got cut off or not but the tree that they are showing, 21 that is on our property. We are going to be just -- I 22 mean we’re basically -- we’re right over -- 23 MS. THOMPSON: -- we have to -- okay, thank you. 24 68 MS. SIMON: Moving on. I hope I pronounce this 1 correctly. Leisha. Leisha John. 2 MS. JOHN: Yes, hello. 3 MS. SIMON: Go ahead. 4 MS. JOHN: Thank you. So, I’ve been to four or 5 five of these meetings. I used to live at 1024 East 6 Cooper. I have since moved across the street to Chateau 7 Roaring Fork and I have to say I do appreciate the tweaks 8 that have been made to the project along the way, but, 9 like others have said, my biggest issue is around the mass 10 and scale compared to the very small lot and I’m all for 11 affordable housing. I think it’s wonderful. We need more 12 of it in Aspen but I agree with the others, it’s way too 13 many units and it’s way too many people. 14 Parking’s already a huge issue. When I lived at 15 1024 East Cooper, whenever we had a guest come to visit, 16 we were -- you know -- haggling with our other neighbors, 17 could we use your parking spot. There -- there just is 18 not enough there. So, between mass and scale and the 19 parking issues, I think we need to rethink the project as 20 well. Thank you. 21 MS. SIMON: Thank you, Leisha. 22 Lou Stover. 23 MS. STOVER: Hello. This is Lou Stover at 1006 24 East Cooper. I am also very concerned about the mass and 25 69 scale and the sheer number of people. This is unthinkable 1 in our previously happy neighborhood. 2 Also, Diane, who tried to speak earlier is very 3 concerned about the alley and the snowplow, the issues of 4 people coming and going and sometimes blocking the alley. 5 That happens right now and I can’t imagine what it’s going 6 to be like with all these additional people and trying to 7 turn cars around and come and go because this is a dead 8 end, unpaved alley and the portion that this development 9 is addressing is the narrow dead end of that alley. It’s 10 going to be a mess and we’re going to be the ones that 11 have to live with it. So, I’m very discouraged about 12 that. Thanks. 13 MS. SIMON: Thank you, Lou. 14 The next I see is Michael Smith. 15 MR. SMITH: Hello, can you hear me? 16 MS. SIMON: Yes, we can. 17 MR. SMITH: It’s Michael Smith at 1012 East 18 Cooper. You know I feel like what we have seen tonight 19 has been laudable as a sales pitch for the Affordable 20 Housing Commission but this is the Historic Preservation 21 Commission and I asked the question, what’s the developer 22 doing for historic preservation? 23 They aren’t tearing down the structure. Well, 24 nobody would be allowed to tear down the structure. I 25 70 mean that’s not permitted. So -- you know -- let’s look 1 at what they’re doing. 2 I look at merits and the detriments. The only 3 merit I can come up with on the historic preservation side 4 of this thing is that they’re going to fix the cabin up. 5 They’re going to paint it and make it look nicer and while 6 that’s great -- you know -- that’s not very much compared 7 against the detriments and we’ve heard them but I’m going 8 to back over it and I’m going to talk about some 9 additional ones. 10 There is a complete destruction of open space. 11 The current historic resource has substantial open space 12 and follows the overall alignment pattern of the block. 13 If you look at the other historics and our unit also, over 14 20 feet back. Most of the buildings on the block are at 15 least 15 feet from the front property. HPC guideline 1.1 16 requires (indiscernible) in the neighborhood and they, 17 quote, do not design a project which leaves no useful open 18 space visible from the street. This site plan fails both 19 tests. 20 Then mass and scale, the project shreds the 21 historic guideline at 11.3 and 11.4 requiring that, quote, 22 a new building appear similar in scale and proportion to 23 the historic building and have a front elevation similar 24 in scale to the historic. It’s not possible to look at 25 71 the front rendering on page 134 of the packet and conclude 1 that these criteria are even remotely met. 2 There’s a three-story rear structure that towers 3 18-feet above the roof. It sits just 10 feet back just 4 like any addition required to be set back even if it was a 5 single-family attached addition because there’s the 10-6 foot connector element. The prior project was 7 considerably smaller being only two stories and much 8 narrower and it was sent back by City Council to 9 reconsider mass and scale. So, this is an absurdity that 10 this is even being recommended. 11 Overcrowding and reduction of the quality of 12 life is another clear detriment. More than 12 residents 13 are likely to be living on this non-conforming lot. It’s 14 smaller and we’ve heard narrower than required. The site 15 plan strips away nearly all the open space but for a 16 narrow strip between the two and some of that’s a 17 staircase. There’s not much usable space. You’re going 18 to cram five units on an undersized lot. It’s not right. 19 Parking is already at an extreme challenge -- 20 you’ve heard it -- in the neighborhood. You know there 21 could easily be 10 cars required here. People may not use 22 their car daily but they still own a car. 23 The units themselves are undersized -- you know 24 -- a couple of them, as we’ve seen, and may have 25 72 inadequate storage for the residents. HPC guidelines page 1 12 advises us to, quote, seek uses that are compatible 2 with the historic character of the building. What is 3 that? This was a historic miner’s cabin -- you know -- a 4 historic family home surrounded by ample open space. 5 Let’s not forget that that is what you should be seeking. 6 While a single-family home is certainly -- 7 MS. THOMPSON: -- Michael, your -- your three 8 minutes is up. So, if you could just make one final 9 statement and we’ll move on. 10 MR. SMITH: Okay. (indiscernible) units here 11 but what they’re asking is far too much for the site. 12 MS. THOMPSON: Thank you so much for calling in 13 and for your comments. 14 MS. SIMON: Thank you. Next is Scott McDonald. 15 Scott, if you’d like to make a comment, star six. 16 Otherwise, we’ll move to the next person. 17 MR. McDONALD: Star six. 18 MS. SIMON: There we go. Go ahead, Scott. 19 MR. McDONALD: I’m starting -- okay. Seemingly, 20 the first buyers of 1020 East Cooper who wished to build a 21 single-family home were dissuaded by Community 22 Development’s 19-step process to drop their project, then 23 to recoup some of their losses, sold their property to 24 employee housing developers for future sale to meet the 25 73 housing mitigation needs of proposed large-scale 1 commercial development. 2 Who can say that this was not the outcome that 3 Community Development wanted? This considering the ease 4 that this persuasion can be accomplished by a motivated 5 staff and the current code. It is a common knowledge that 6 the city is hellbent in obtaining as much employee housing 7 as they can by any and all means possible. No one can 8 blame the wishful second home owner for dropping their 9 project considering community development’s staff history 10 of addressing subjective minutia, protracted reviews, 11 biased fraudulent representation of self-validation and 12 the significant costs associated with an onerous process 13 that generates 160 pages of mostly rhetorical busy work 14 that everyone in the government knows exists but no one 15 does anything about. 16 This gross overreach of discretionary authority 17 has been allowed by a succession of city councils because 18 of the significant revenue stream and staff 19 recommendations. Municipal government’s purpose is to 20 provide services to the public at cost and not to be an 21 onerous enterprise enabled by home-rule legislation 22 against the so-called rich second homeowner. Such over-23 the-top municipal enterprise, as practiced by Community 24 Development, can be perceived by the public as predatory. 25 74 How can a succession of city councils over decades turn a 1 blind eye to legislating ordinances that, if they were in 2 the shoes of the ordinances’ recipients, they would not 3 condone themselves? This is a question that should be 4 answered. 5 Comparing the two packages submitted for HPC 6 review, the Australian single-family home and the five-7 plex, one is struck first by the significant massing of 8 the three-story five-plex and secondly, by the review 9 criteria differences. Clearly, the impact and the scale 10 of the proposed employee housing development will have 11 deleterious effects on the neighborhood that a single-12 family home would not. Staff findings, staff concerns 13 relating to parking, 80 percent of required parking 14 mitigation will be met onsite which is a major benefit for 15 the tenants and contributes to the livability and quality 16 of this project. That’s great for the front in this 17 project but it’s not great for the neighborhood. 18 Besides limiting views and sun exposures, this 19 significant development would burden the neighborhood with 20 additional vehicles that will not be able to park in 21 season. Exhibit A7, staff findings, given residential use 22 of the surrounding neighborhood plenty of on-street 23 parking exists throughout the immediate area. This 24 statement is blatantly false. To estimate that only four 25 75 parking spots -- spaces will suffice for a five-unit 1 employee housing apartment is unrealistic considering 2 there could be one car owned for each of the possible 3 eight to 18 tenants of the five-unit apartment. Everyone 4 who lives in this neighborhood will attest that there is a 5 dearth of parking spots -- spaces available in-season. 6 Cash in lieu for parking -- 7 MS. THOMPSON: -- Scott -- would you -- would 8 you please mind wrapping up your comments because you’ve 9 gone over your time? 10 MR. McDONALD: Yeah, I am. 11 MS. THOMPSON: Thank you so much. 12 MR. McDONALD: City sponsored cash in lieu 13 solution addressing deficiency in required parking 14 typifies the short-sighted and cash hungry government that 15 could give a hoot for the quality of life of the property 16 owners in the neighborhood. That’s good for the -- what’s 17 good for the city and the corporate developers is not good 18 for the quality of life in this neighborhood. Most 19 definitely if this employee housing -- 20 MS. THOMPSON: -- thank you -- 21 MR. McDONALD: -- project is -- 22 MS. THOMPSON: -- thank you so much for your 23 comments, Scott. 24 76 MS. SIMON: Thank you. Stephen Abelman, please. 1 Stephen, did you want to speak? 2 MR. ABELMAN: Can you hear me? 3 MS. SIMON: Yes. 4 MR. ABELMAN: Hi, good evening. You know we 5 definitely support affordable housing. Kevin, your 6 statement about all of us living in harmony in Aspen, the 7 city we love, is right on and to the developers, which we 8 realize you feel (indiscernible) out here. Just trying -- 9 you know -- it doesn’t make sense to squeeze as many 10 people into this small property (indiscernible). Just 11 because the economics don’t work with less than five units 12 doesn’t mean that we have to force the situation to have 13 five units. That’s not the right way to solve a problem. 14 Two to three units as -- you know -- others have mentioned 15 earlier would condone a much more quality of life not 16 having so many people living on that small piece of 17 property. 18 I know Scott had mentioned earlier that -- 19 asking about if any of the neighbors have made comments. 20 There’s been many, many letters written to the HPC, to 21 City Council, mayor and council persons. So, we’re all 22 feeling this. We’re feeling that, yes, the project has 23 some merit but not in its -- in its intensity. Thank you 24 very much. 25 77 MS. SIMON: Thank you, Stephen. 1 MS. THOMPSON: Stephen, where do -- where do you 2 live in relation to the property? 3 MR. ABELMAN: 1012 East Cooper, just to the west 4 of the proposed 1020 project. 5 MS. THOMPSON: Thank you. 6 MS. SIMON: Thanks, Kara. 7 Next is Tiffany Smith and Tiffany if you could 8 also state your name and address for the record. 9 MS. SMITH: Hi. Can you hear me? 10 MS. SIMON: Yes, we can. 11 MS. SMITH: Perfect. Okay. Yes, Tiffany Smith 12 and I live at 1012 East Cooper. My continued primary 13 concern with the 1020 East Cooper project is, of course, 14 the mass and scale -- you know -- in relation to -- both 15 to the historical source and the very narrow and non-16 compliant lot size. 17 That said, parking is obviously going to be an 18 enormous problem. It always is. 19 I’m very troubled by the fact that HPC continues 20 to seemingly dismiss and undervalue the historic resource 21 at 1020 and, in fact, several members of the HPC, you all 22 said in a Zoom meeting to us last summer before the 23 McManns had even sold the property that you all could 24 easily vote to delist the property and assign it to 25 78 affordable housing since our area’s zoned multi-family. 1 You all seem to have the attitude that the homes of the 2 traditionally working-class residents of the east end have 3 less historic value than those of the wealthy west-enders. 4 I argue that because historic resources have become so 5 rare in our multi-family zoned area that the 1020 house 6 and it’s lovely lot, formerly owned by -- you know -- 7 somewhat iconic Aspenite, Su Lum, is actually more 8 precious and should be honored and not completely and 9 literally overshadowed by an enormous dark tower looming 10 over it. This project does nothing meaningful to honor 11 Aspen’s history nor will it provide a nice living 12 environment for its overcrowded residents and the 13 neighborhood. 14 I think that perhaps actually this project has 15 little to do with dire need of additional affordable 16 housing in Aspen since there are several affordable 17 housing projects already in the works there but rather 18 it’s simply a moneymaking scheme for wealthy corporate 19 developers to get the extremely valuable affordable 20 housing credits as per Jim’s own testimony and interviews 21 in local papers and for the property owners, since any 22 investor can buy these units and rent them out to local 23 employees, who want the steady rental income and the long-24 term property valuation. 25 79 Just because our side of town is zoned to multi-1 family doesn’t mean that every lot must be filled with a 2 multi-family project. Aspen’s east end should not become 3 a mountain town version of Brooklyn. That’s not why 4 people come here and that’s not why people are drawn to 5 Aspen nor does the fact that this property is now being 6 developed for affordable housing mean that the planners 7 get to follow different sets of rules, cherry pick from 8 different sets and completely dismiss and ignore the 9 honest, realistic and consistent concerns of the 10 neighbors. 11 I think we’re all feeling sort of like a 2021 12 version of George Bailey and It’s a Wonderful Life 13 fighting Aspen’s system. It’s so said that we feel like 14 the fix is in. So, for what it’s worth, if you all will 15 put profits and politics aside and downsize the project to 16 perhaps three affordable housing units, because we have no 17 objection whatsoever to affordable housing, that this 18 would make the addition smaller and thus enhance the 19 presence of the historic cabin. It would also allow for 20 more green space for the residence of this property and 21 decrease pressure on parking. 22 This is the plan that I think -- 23 MS. THOMPSON: -- thank you so much -- 24 MS. SMITH: -- the neighborhood would embrace. 25 80 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. We’re a little bit out of 1 time but thank you so much for your comments. We 2 appreciate you calling in. 3 MS. SMITH: Thank you. 4 MS. SIMON: Next is Will McDonald. One more 5 time, Will, if you wanted to speak, it’s your turn. 6 Okay, if not, I want to make sure that we 7 haven’t missed anyone. I do have (indiscernible) to enter 8 and Chris Bryan asked to be able to speak. Is there 9 anyone who has called that has not been recognized that 10 was still waiting? 11 Okay. Not hearing from anyone, Chris Bryan, 12 please. 13 MR. BRYAN: Hello. My name’s Chris Bryan. I’m 14 an attorney for the HOAs on either side of this proposed 15 development and it’s remarkable to me that we haven’t 16 heard one public comment in support of this project. 17 This board and commission knows what it’s 18 supposed to do. It’s supposed to follow the guidelines. 19 It’s not following 11.3 if it approves this project. The 20 new building is supposed to appear similar in scale and 21 proportion. This is a single-story historic home that 22 will be dwarfed by a multi-family building that’s nearly 23 32 feet high with what looks like porches that overhang on 24 the front that go over the historic structure. 25 81 The prior proposal that did not get approval was 1 not this high and there were concerns about mass and scale 2 then. Now, the problem’s been doubled down on and this 3 will be expanded when occupied by multiple families with 4 all of their things and I appreciate the storage component 5 that’s been added but I don’t think that’s going to be 6 nearly enough for this many fulltime employees in a -- in 7 a five-unit development. The height of the new building 8 is more than twice of the historic structure. 9 I also draw your attention to HPC guideline 10 section 11.4. The design of a front elevation is to be 11 similar in scale to the historic building. The primary 12 plane of the front shall not appear taller than the 13 historic structure. Again, this project, as currently 14 conceived, is too high and it’s too large. The scale is 15 out of proportion with the green space that is hidden 16 between the buildings and that does not change the 17 appearance of the mass and scale. 18 Throughout the public hearing process over the 19 past year for the prior proposal it became evident that 20 not only HPC members but City Council itself had some 21 problems with the mass and scale and this project’s even 22 worse. In the prior proceedings, the commissioners 23 commented that it headed down the wrong path regarding 24 mass and scale -- that’s a direct quote from the 25 82 transcript -- and that the historic resource wasn’t the 1 main player on the site. That’s a direct quote from your 2 prior proceedings. That’s even more true now. 3 Look at page six of the staff report. The 2019 4 application for this parcel had a proposed floor area of 5 2370 square feet. This project is almost 4200 square feet 6 and just as with the prior proposal this project cannot 7 result in buildings that are double the size of the 8 original structure. What is before you now creates 9 livable area that is over three times the size of the 10 historic structure’s livable area as it exists today and 11 the total would be over 5000 square feet of livable area 12 and the existing home that Su Lum left as a historic 13 resource is less than a 1000 square feet of livable area. 14 The HPC, despite the staff recommendation, needs 15 to do its job here and it would be arbitrary and 16 capricious to approve this project when it had problems 17 with the earlier project. If this project gets approved, 18 the city will be exposed to legal challenge and that’s in 19 no one’s best interest. None of the neighbors believe 20 that this is a appropriate for this. Your own guidelines 21 say it’s not appropriate. HPC is here to preserve 22 historic structures not to create affordable housing so 23 HPC is duty-bound to follow its own guidelines and not 24 ignore them. 25 83 Here’s what I recommend you do. Either deny 1 this application as currently conceived or continue it and 2 have them come back with a smaller project that decreases 3 density, increases parking and has less mass and scale 4 problems. 5 I would love to see what a three-unit affordable 6 housing project would look like. I bet a lot of the 7 opponents on this -- that have opined tonight and in 8 public comment would be supporters of that. Why not go 9 back -- let them go back to the drawing board and try 10 again. These are talented architects. These are 11 knowledgeable developers and applicants. The have one of 12 the best consultants in the city. They can do this but 13 right now the project cannot be approved without violating 14 your guidelines. 15 MS. THOMPSON: Thank you for your comments. 16 MS. SIMON: Kara, I would like to enter in the 17 public record that comments that were received by staff 18 and reported to HPC in the clerk’s office by e-mail. I’m 19 only going to mention and quickly summarize the ones that 20 were presented by speakers who were not here tonight. So, 21 if you don’t mind I will briefly go through this. 22 You received a letter from Len Horowitz at 1024 23 Cooper. He objects to the size of the project and feels 24 84 it will impact views and sun, expresses concerns about not 1 enough parking. 2 Mark Tye, 935 East Cooper and #3 Riverside 3 Townhomes near the property 1024 East Cooper. He’s not 4 opposed to employee housing. He has issues with mass and 5 scale and parking. 6 Let’s see. We heard from Kristine, Tiffany and 7 Stephen. 8 Danusia Novak of 1015 East Hyman. She feels the 9 density is too much and suggests three units and request 10 the city pave the alley. 11 Phil Sterling wrote a letter supporting the 12 proposal and the preservation of Su Lum’s home and the 13 construction of an affordable housing project. 14 Jessie Young also supports the affordable 15 housing project in this location. Great access to 16 downtown, finds the design relates to the neighborhood and 17 thinks the parking’s reasonable given the location. 18 The Aspen Chamber Resort Association, Debbie 19 Braun, wrote a letter in support of the application saying 20 that with increased demand for affordable housing APCHA 21 supports the development of this project. 22 Lincoln Manuel, 409 Park Circle, supports the 23 affordable housing project and finds the design is 24 85 appropriate and relates to the neighborhood and finds the 1 parking is reasonable given the proximity to downtown. 2 Lorne and Laura Leil have concerns with the mass 3 and scale of the project. I believe they live across the 4 alley. They feel that three lots is appropriate -- or 5 three units is appropriate. 6 Finally, the Aspen Skiing Company supports the 7 project and recognizes the gap between supply and demand 8 for affordable housing in Aspen and feels we can’t just 9 rely on the city and a few employers to address this. The 10 private sector needs to help. They feel it’s well-placed, 11 much needed and they like the idea of mixing free market 12 and affordable housing in the neighborhood. 13 That’s it. 14 MS. THOMPSON: All right. Thank you, Amy. 15 MR. McDONALD: Will (indiscernible) East Cooper. 16 MS. THOMPSON: I’m sorry. Who is this? 17 MR. McDONALD: Will McDonald. 18 MS. THOMPSON: Yes, I don’t believe we heard 19 from you yet. 20 MR. McDONALD: I just wanted to reiterate what 21 all my neighbors were saying about the mass and scale and 22 parking. I know I myself am one of the few houses around 23 that doesn’t have any onsite parking, so I’m off-street 24 parking and many times I’ll have to park a block away or a 25 86 lot of times I won’t even drive anywhere out of fear of 1 not having a parking spot by my place. It happens quite 2 often. 3 Further, a lot of the depictions of the house 4 are kind of laughable when you actually step back and you 5 look at the scale of it. They seem to be depicting a much 6 smaller place and then the private -- uhm -- porch is 7 pretty much sitting right on the highway. So, I don’t see 8 how that’s too private and having cars going 50 miles an 9 hour by you doesn’t sound very nice to me. I can’t 10 believe there wouldn’t be a yard and a setback with that 11 house. Anyways, that’s it. I just wanted to reiterate my 12 opposing -- opposition to it. 13 MS. THOMPSON: Thank you, Will. 14 Okay. Is there anyone else that we missed from 15 public comment? 16 We are going to move onto board questions and 17 clarifications relating to the public comments. 18 MS. ADAMS: Kara, can we clarify a few things 19 that were mentioned that aren’t accurate? 20 MS. THOMPSON: Yes, Sara, you can. 21 MS. ADAMS: Okay. Thanks. Wait. Let me put on 22 my video. All right. Okay. Thank you for that. We 23 appreciate all of the public comment from a lot of the 24 neighbors that we have been talking to through all of our 25 87 Zoom calls and all of our e-mails and we -- you know -- we 1 hear you and we understand where you’re coming from. 2 But just to clear up a few of the things that 3 were brought up in the public comment. The land use code 4 is met. We’re not cherry-picking sections of the code. 5 We are under the floor area and we’re meeting all of the 6 requirements in the RMF zone district. 7 The community is asking for affordable housing 8 and that’s what we’re providing. You know HPC is asked to 9 wear more than just your Historic Preservation hat. The 10 land use code says that to streamline projects HPC gets to 11 review lots of different parts of the code, not just 12 historic preservation so you are charged with reviewing an 13 affordable housing project when it’s on a landmark site. 14 So, just to kind of clear that up as you know. 15 You’re definitely charged with this challenge of 16 balancing the historic preservation design guidelines and 17 they’re guidelines. They’re not standards and figuring 18 out -- you know -- what needs to be met and what’s 19 appropriate considering the greater community need. It’s 20 not -- it’s not as cut and dry as meeting every single 21 guideline because they’re not standards. They’re 22 guidelines. 23 So, we’re -- we’re proud of this project. A lot 24 of the talk of reducing the density to three units is not 25 88 possible for this project. That’s not on the table. 1 That’s not something that we can do. I also think even 2 reducing to four units means that we’re losing a three-3 bedroom unit. These units are nice and we want them to be 4 nice and we want to be proud of them. I think that this 5 is a good project that provides housing to a community 6 that keeps asking for it. 7 So, I just wanted to clear up some of those -- 8 some of those pieces. Thank you for letting me speak. 9 MR. HALFERTY: We need a motion to extend, Kara, 10 sorry. 11 MS. THOMPSON: I think we need -- do we need 12 that now or at 7:00? 13 MS. SIMON: It can wait until closer to 7:00 if 14 you want to. 15 MR. HALFERTY: Okay. 16 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. Thank you, Jeff. 17 Board, do you guys have any questions, 18 clarifications related to public comment? 19 BOARD QUESTIONS: 20 MR. MOYER: I -- I have one question going back 21 -- way back when I asked the questions earlier in the 22 meeting. Sara mentioned that if was reduced in size it 23 would -- whatever was added to the historic resource would 24 89 have to connect to the historic resource. Can you explain 1 that, Amy or Sara? 2 MS. ADAMS: Roger, I’m not quite sure I’m 3 tracking with what you’re saying. What did you think I 4 said? 5 MR. MOYER: Well, I made a note. You said that 6 if the project was smaller that we wouldn’t have two 7 separate buildings that whatever was -- whatever was added 8 to the historic resource would have to connect to the 9 historic resource. 10 MS. ADAMS: Oh, I -- 11 MS. COULTER: Roger, that was me. This is Jean 12 Coulter (indiscernible) -- 13 MS. THOMPSON: -- okay. Thanks, Jean. 14 MS. COULTER: Which is to say that -- that there 15 are two units in the historic and that’s the maximum 16 amount and then we would presume to do a detached annex 17 for additional units and it requires -- in order to get 18 those units, there’s so much infrastructure related with 19 the annex buildings that the costs -- it’s cost 20 prohibitive until you put about three units in that back 21 building. 22 MR. MOYER: Okay. Thank you. 23 90 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. Does anybody else have any 1 questions or clarifications for -- related to public 2 comment? (indiscernible) Oh, Roger, you’re muted again. 3 MR. HALFERTY: I have no questions. 4 MR. MOYER: I have one other question. There 5 was -- it was interesting to me. One of the -- I think it 6 was Kristine mentioned smoking and if -- if something were 7 approved, could part of our purview be to designate that 8 this rental unit would, in fact, be smoking free? 9 MS. THOMPSON: I’m going to defer to Amy. I 10 think that’s a -- 11 MS. SIMON: -- I’m going to defer to Jim True 12 and Kate Johnson. I don’t believe that the city’s in a 13 position to restrict any unit. 14 MS. JOHNSON: That is outside of this board’s 15 abilities -- capabilities. There’s no sort of mechanism 16 written into the -- into your provisions and your 17 authority that I -- that would allow you to do something 18 like that. 19 MR. MOYER: And that -- okay, and also would 20 that -- would that apply to pets? 21 MS. JOHNSON: Yes. I mean it’s outside of your 22 authority to put terms on these units regarding smoking 23 and pets. Certainly, if Jim True disagrees with me I’ll 24 defer to him but I know of no authority that this 25 91 commission has to put those restrictions on this -- on a 1 project like this. 2 MR. TRUE: I do not disagree but I did want to 3 comment that the applicant would have -- you could request 4 of the applicant that they accept those voluntarily but 5 that’s -- you can’t require that as a condition pursuant 6 to your authority. If the applicant wants to voluntarily 7 add that as a condition that they accept, that’s up to 8 them. 9 MR. MOYER: Thank you. 10 MR. KENDRICK: I do have one question of 11 clarification and I’m not sure who would answer it. Is 12 there anybody that can explain the -- uhm -- 13 qualifications for winning one of these units. There 14 seems to be a lot of concern that there’s going to be at 15 least two people per bedroom and 24 people in the back -- 16 back building and I -- I see the concern with having a lot 17 of people there and high density. But I just -- I don’t 18 see that -- you know -- if a three-bedroom unit has to go 19 to a family that -- that there’s going to be six people, 20 all with cars -- you know -- living in a -- in a three-21 bedroom unit. So, can somebody clarify to me how -- you 22 know -- how one qualifies for -- for those units? 23 MR. RAYES: I’m happy to chime in and Sara can 24 follow-up if -- if I miss anything but since these are 25 92 going to be rental units I don’t believe there’s any sort 1 of lottery associated with it. That’s usually associated 2 when -- when it’s units for purchase and assuming that the 3 ownership of these units stays under the developer, they 4 would have the first priority over who can -- can occupy 5 these units and then from there I think they can defer to 6 APCHA and they may find additional people to fill the 7 rooms but the owner has the first sort of option to fill 8 the units. 9 Sara, feel free to chime in if I’ve -- 10 MS. ADAMS: -- sure -- 11 MR. RAYES: -- if I’ve stated anything. 12 MS. ADAMS: So -- uhm -- Kevin’s right. These 13 are going to be rental units and the -- the APCHA 14 standards for rental units require the tenants to qualify. 15 I think it’s every year now. If not, then it’s every 16 other year and so you have to prove that you meet the 17 occupancy requirements and I believe for a three-bedroom, 18 it’s three people. So, that could be a married couple and 19 a child. That could be three roommates -- you know -- 20 there’s different ways to slice it. I think the neighbors 21 are representing the absolute maximum, which I -- I 22 haven’t experienced when I lived in affordable housing. 23 So, that’s kind of how the standard goes. There’s no 24 definitive way to explain that other than there would be 25 93 three occupants in a three-bedroom. That’s -- that’s just 1 what the guidelines say but that’s how rentals work. You 2 have to qualify every year or every other year with who 3 lives there, where do you work, do you have enough hours, 4 what’s your income to meet the category for the deed 5 restriction. 6 Does that help answer your question, Scott? 7 MR. KENDRICK: So, it can be three unrelated 8 parties renting a three -- three-bedroom unit. 9 MS. ADAMS: Yeah, it could be three roommates. 10 Yep or it could be a family. 11 MS. GILLAM: Could it be three roommates and 12 they have their -- a friend living with them, too? 13 UNKNOWN MALE: I’m sorry. 14 MS. ADAMS: What’s going on? Do you -- do you 15 want me to answer that. Kara, I’m not sure how you want 16 me to -- Kara, I’m sorry, I’m not sure how you want me to 17 handle that. 18 MS. THOMPSON: That’s okay. I mean quite 19 frankly this is an APCHA regulation. It’s -- it’s not 20 under HPC purview to -- uhm -- to review that. We’re not 21 a review authority on who lives in the house. Right, Amy? 22 So, we would have to -- I mean these are going to be deed-23 restricted units. So, yeah, that’s a little bit outside 24 of our realm. 25 94 Okay, I did -- before we move on I just want to 1 take a moment and just thank everybody who has made a 2 public comment, has written in. I think it’s really 3 important that these projects have public engagement. So, 4 we really do, as a board, appreciate all of the comments 5 we’ve heard tonight. 6 Okay. Board, do you have any other 7 clarifications you’d like to make until we move onto our 8 discussion? 9 Amy, do you have any staff rebuttal or 10 clarifications? 11 MS. SIMON: No. Thank you. 12 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. All right. So, the public 13 comment is now closed and we will discuss, as a board, 14 based off of the information that’s been presented to us. 15 All right. We have quite a bit to talk about. 16 We have one, two, three, four, five, six criteria. I 17 think, obviously, the -- the biggest one for us to discuss 18 is our conceptual review, mass and scale, but I don’t want 19 to move past relocation, demolition, growth management, 20 affordable housing and transportation. So, Roger -- and I 21 do want to I think primarily focus right now on the mass 22 and scale comments. 23 For the board though I would like to -- to just 24 note that this is an important project and I think it’s 25 95 important for us to -- to get to a point where we can get 1 a fairly cohesive opinion where we are all kind of in 2 agreement. So, that would be our goal for the end of this 3 discussion, at least as I see it. 4 So, Roger, do you want to start us off? 5 MR. MOYER: Sure, I’ll start off. I have a huge 6 number of comments but I think speaking strictly to mass 7 and scale, it’s way too large and it will not fit into the 8 neighborhood and there are a multitude of reasons. I’d 9 like you all to know that I live in a multi-unit building 10 on Park Circle and all of these concerns that we have to 11 deal with parking, traffic, pets, smoking, amount of 12 people in a building, we’ve had to deal with our little 13 six-townhouse building and four studios for many years and 14 we -- we’ve solved it pretty much but it’s terrifying what 15 happens with you have development immediately to your 16 building. 17 Amy, what’s the city -- it’s an 11-unit building 18 on Park Circle at the north end. What’s -- what’s the 19 address of that building? Do you know? Do you remember? 20 MS. SIMON: I do not. I’m sorry, Roger. 21 MR. MOYER: It’s -- it’s interesting because 22 that building is a -- I think it’s 11 units and it’s a 23 rental building. There were something like 500 applicants 24 at those apartments and already when one walks by the 25 96 building there’s all this stuff on the -- on the front 1 entrances because there’s not enough storage space. 2 Already there’s not enough parking in the building and the 3 people that live in the building are parking where all the 4 folks were -- that hike up Smuggler park and it’s 5 interesting all of this stuff and we really need to take a 6 look at that and Nora tried to point that out to us over 7 the years she was on because she lives in an alley and her 8 alley -- a couple of times I tried to go to their house to 9 pick up Holly, I couldn’t drive down the alley. It was 10 blocked. So, I had to drive around. 11 So, at any rate, all of these comments were -- 12 were terrific and I think if this project went to City 13 Council right now they’d deny it and I am -- I am not 14 prepared to allow it to go on at the size that it is. 15 It’s just too big and we really need to take a look. We 16 need to go around town and look at what we approved. It’s 17 marvelous what we did back in the ‘90s when we -- when we 18 do our best to preserve the historic resource but along 19 with that preservation we have to be cognizant of 20 everything else, the ramifications of what we do and I 21 think we’ve blown it. In many circumstances, we’ve 22 created some really big monsters and along with those 23 monsters, because they’re not multiple house -- they’re 24 just one-family structures, and we don’t have that many 25 97 cars, it still creates a real problem for the immediate 1 neighbors and this -- this, because it’s multi-faceted, 2 who knows how many people could be living there. It’s 3 simply not going to do. So, those are my comments on mass 4 and scale. 5 MS. THOMPSON: Roger, do you believe there’s a -6 - there’s a difference between the mass and scale since 7 this is a separate structure. It’s not -- like staff had 8 noted, it’s not connected to the historic resource? 9 MR. MOYER: I think design wise and -- and as 10 far as what staff has approved and the relocation and all 11 of that -- it’s all okay. I mean it’s all legal. All 12 right. But it’s not -- it’s just too big. We’re -- we’re 13 really going to mess up the neighborhood and we’ve got to 14 stop doing that and when you have 15 neighbors adamantly 15 opposing, we’re not doing our job and -- and it’s tough 16 because it’s employee housing and we want and need that 17 and it’s a marvelous place in employee housing but it’s 18 not a marvelous place for possibly 26 people to be living 19 there and 26 people is 26 cars and 26 people is 26 bags of 20 garbage every two to three days and 26 people is a hell of 21 a lot of cigarettes and 26 people could be 26 dogs and all 22 of these issues are part of a neighborhood life and it’s 23 not up to us to -- to mess up a neighborhood although -- 24 you know -- we’ve done a lot to have a history -- to 25 98 preserve and rebuild the historic structure. We’ve 1 allowed ourselves to allow things to happen too much 2 perhaps but it’s a tough one. It’s really tough because 3 I’d like to see it happen but I can’t support it with the 4 mass and scale that it is. It’s just not -- it’s not what 5 we need to do. 6 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. Jeff. 7 MR. HALFERTY: Yeah, thank you. I think that 8 was an excellent presentation from the applicant. Thank 9 you for all the neighbors’ concerns and public comment. 10 Yeah, so we’ve seen this reiteration a couple 11 different times -- uhm -- but just the things like Roger 12 talked about the preservation of the historic resource and 13 preserve all four walls is always an amenity but there’s 14 always a little push and shove. Although the building 15 isn’t attached on the proposed application, I feel like 16 the mass and scale is just too large. 17 I’m all for affordable housing. I came up 18 through affordable housing and I’m a big proponent of it 19 but I think all of the things that were lightly touched 20 upon by the neighbors and some of the opposition is a very 21 good point. 22 The fact that the applicants aren’t asking for 23 any variation -- uhm -- is fantastic but the fact is that 24 we do have a very small historic resource, barely 11 feet 25 99 off the ground and when you go up 32 feet or whatever it 1 scales out to be, it’s a large -- uhm -- addition, let 2 alone the number of parking spaces and one of my 3 guidelines is don’t talk about controlling the 4 neighborhoods or smoking or trash although all of that 5 stuff but it’s unfortunately part of a housing 6 development. 7 Again, I think the restoration of the historic 8 resource is nicely done. I think that the -- I think that 9 the position of the house coming from the south is 10 actually excellent because it does create a little bit of 11 open space there but I just think the scale is just too 12 tall. It’s hard -- I question whether a two-story unit 13 would make sense there or some subgrade units would make 14 sense on the north side of the lot but that’s something 15 that the applicants can look into but the -- it just seems 16 -- just even from the 2D elevation from Main Street -- 17 sorry, from Cooper -- you know -- it’s just too tall and 18 -- you know -- we’ve made other -- our board and other 19 prior boards have made other mistakes on that when it 20 comes to visual plan. 21 I understand that the two neighbors, both to the 22 east and west, are larger buildings but they’re multi-23 family. It’s a different type of architecture. This has 24 always been a tough anomaly like the other historic 25 100 resource (indiscernible) like two large structures but it 1 is still our preservation -- our goal and our purview as 2 historic preservation members is to make an architecture 3 that fits in with the historic resource as well as the 4 neighborhood but mostly the resource and I just feel -- 5 uhm -- especially with chapters 10 and 11, that the 6 addition is not exactly conforming to our resource and I 7 feel like the architects are real talented and the 8 applicants do a great job. I think we can definitely 9 revisit and the number of units perhaps goes down but 10 mostly the mass and scale and how it lurches over the top 11 of or perches over the top of the historic resource. 12 So, at this time, I would vote to continue this 13 (indiscernible) the Historic Preservation (indiscernible). 14 Thank you. 15 MS. SIMON: Kara, excuse me. This time would be 16 a good time for a motion to extend the meeting to 7:30. 17 MR. KENDRICK: I move to extend the meeting to 18 7:30. 19 MR. MOYER: Second. 20 MS. THOMPSON: All in favor. 21 MR. KENDRICK: Aye. 22 (indiscernible) 23 MS. THOMPSON: All right. Thanks, Jeffrey. Are 24 you all done with your comments for now? We lost him. 25 101 MR. MOYER: He’s vanished. 1 MS. THOMPSON: I don’t know where he went. 2 MR. KENDRICK: I will -- yeah, I will jump in 3 now. I have to say that -- you know -- there’s a lot of 4 competing elements on this project. I appreciate a lot of 5 the comments from both sides. Whereas, I am a very big 6 proponent of affordable housing -- uhm -- we are -- you 7 know -- here to preserve historic resource and I, like -- 8 like Jeff and like Roger, I do believe that the mass and 9 scale is just too large for this project. 10 I am -- I have problems with the resource being 11 moved that close to the street and eliminating virtually 12 all open space on the -- on the lot as well. I -- I just 13 -- I don’t know. It’s a tough one. I -- you know -- the 14 neighboring buildings are both large and multi-families so 15 in that context it does fit with the neighborhood but at 16 the same time I just think it’s -- it’s a little too 17 overwhelming on the historic resource and that I -- I 18 would need to see -- you know -- the scale -- you know -- 19 reduced before I’d be willing to fully support the 20 project. 21 MS. THOMPSON: I do agree with you. It’s a 22 challenge -- you know -- I think we’ve struggled for quite 23 some time now. 24 102 Well, did we lose Jeff entirely? Where’d he go? 1 I want to make sure he’s here for the discussion. Jeff, 2 can you still -- 3 MR. HALFERTY: (indiscernible) I’m here. 4 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. Uhm -- obviously, we’ve 5 struggled with this lot and with this concept -- uhm -- I 6 think to Scott’s point it is challenging because we are -- 7 the property is surrounded by two very large buildings and 8 the resource is quite small. 9 I do agree that the mass and scale, as it is 10 right now, is a little overwhelming but I also think we 11 need to balance kind of what’s reasonable for the site. 12 So, I look at this and I appreciate the setback -- the 13 attempted setback between the two structures, which 14 obviously is code required for fire. I -- uhm -- I 15 wonder, just looking at it, if we all -- to give the 16 applicant direction because I think we’re all in agreement 17 here about the mass and scale -- uhm -- that -- is it -- 18 is it impossible for you all to see a building of this 19 height and width. Does it -- what specific feedback would 20 you have for the applicant to -- to be able to develop 21 this further? 22 MR. HALFERTY: I think it’s the relationship 23 between the resource, even with the setback between the 24 resource and the new development. I just think it’s a 25 103 scale difference, the height difference. I think if the 1 applicant could restudy not necessarily the form but maybe 2 the plate height and maybe the amount of levels to respond 3 closer to the historic resource. That just would be my 4 comments. I’m not sure. I know it’s hard. 5 MS. THOMPSON: Roger, you look like you have 6 something to say. 7 MR. MOYER: I mean strictly architecturally 8 thinking, you have a very tiny little house and it’s 9 great. It’s going to be redone and we -- we get to 10 preserve that little house but the -- the structure behind 11 is simply too wide and too high and I don’t know how they 12 can reduce that without having less units and perhaps it 13 has to be a three-unit project or a two-unit project. I’m 14 not sure but, strictly speaking with mass and scale, it’s 15 overwhelming. 16 Going to the points, the relocation forward I’m 17 not terribly in favor of. I think we need to bring it a 18 little bit. The sheds removal I have no problem with. 19 The storage closets, which were attached to the historic 20 structure, of course, we don’t want to add anything to the 21 historic resource. So, addressing those, those are my 22 comments on those other issues. 23 MS. THOMPSON: Thank you. In terms of the mass 24 and scale, I think we’ve actually seen a few projects like 25 104 this recently. If -- what I could be a proponent of is 1 stepping back the upper story more because this needs to 2 be -- I think it needs to relate to the -- to the 3 buildings next to it but also to the historic so to me 4 creating a little bit more variation of that façade and 5 maybe significantly stepping it back from -- from where it 6 currently is could achieve that because I -- I’m 7 struggling with saying it needs to be one story shorter. 8 I don’t think the -- I just struggle with that concept to 9 giving feedback to the applicant. In terms of the -- 10 Jeff. 11 MR. HALFERTY: Sorry, yeah, I just was going -- 12 Kara, I was going to say, like, as far as the comments, I 13 don’t think necessarily take density down that but I 14 appreciate that the -- the new development is above grade 15 and no folks will live below grade. A lot of times it 16 works when bedrooms are down below grade maybe some of 17 that mass does go below grade when the height comes down. 18 You still get the density that the developer is trying to 19 do but at least the height isn’t perceived that much 20 higher to the historical resource. So, that’s my comment. 21 MS. THOMPSON: On the relocation, if we -- I’m 22 in support of the moving of the project south. I -- I 23 don’t have a problem with its relocation. I think it 24 allows more space -- more distance between the project and 25 105 the addition and -- uhm -- it does -- it does meet our 1 setback requirement. 2 The parking is an interesting discussion because 3 I think we all obviously live in Aspen. I think most -- 4 you’ve lived in affordable housing and I wish I could get 5 a unit -- working on it -- but I -- the parking is always 6 interesting and I think it’s -- it’s a consistent issue 7 throughout all of the downtown. It’s not unique to 8 historic properties. It’s not unique to any of these 9 neighborhoods. I do really appreciate that they’re -- 10 that the applicant is putting forward these spots on the 11 lot. I think I could be in favor of that under the 12 transportation requirement here. I’m not -- I’m not sure 13 how we solve that because I don’t think it’s appropriate 14 for us to dictate how many people live in a building. 15 Does anybody have any comments here? 16 MR. KENDRICK: I agree that we can’t really 17 dictate how many people live in a building. At the same 18 time, the mass of this proposed project allows more people 19 to live there and if we reduce the mass -- you know -- it 20 also reduces the burden of infrastructure on that 21 property. 22 To the point of the parking, I don’t really have 23 an answer. Like you said, it’s tough everywhere. I guess 24 if there were fewer units it would be fewer required 25 106 parking spaces. I think just reducing the mass would help 1 solve a lot of the problems that we are having in terms of 2 wanting to move forward on this project. 3 MS. THOMPSON: Do you guys -- what I’m kind of 4 hearing, I believe, is that we should -- uhm -- request a 5 continuance so we can just see a reduced mass and then 6 address the rest of the -- the implications with that -- 7 at that next discussion. 8 MR. MOYER: I think that’s where we’re going, 9 yes. 10 MS. THOMPSON: Yeah. Are there any other 11 comments we should make regarding the other or are there 12 any other comments that you guys have regarding the rest 13 of the criteria that we need to discuss here? 14 The demolition of the sheds, I think we’re all 15 in favor of. No one brought that up. I don’t -- I don’t 16 see how that would be an issue. 17 I think we all agree that the affordable housing 18 and those growth management criteria are acceptable 19 because we do support APCHA -- affordable housing on the 20 property. Is that correct for the board? 21 MR. KENDRICK: But it does say develop five 22 affordable housing units. So, I don’t know if we want to 23 speak to that now or after the continuation and my -- my 24 comment on the relocation would be I would like to see it 25 107 set back a little bit even if it it’s, like -- you know --1 three or four feet farther back than the five feet just 2 because I -- I just don’t think it gives the historic 3 resource enough space to really be seen in a historical 4 context. 5 MS. THOMPSON: Amy, did you have a comment? 6 MR. MOYER: I agree with Scott. 7 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. 8 MS. SIMON: I do. Then you are potentially 9 reducing the distance between the back of the historical 10 house and the front of the addition. They are -- they are 11 meeting the required setback in this neighborhood which is 12 only five feet. So, just looking for a balance it’s a lot 13 of things to weigh. 14 MS. THOMPSON: Yeah. 15 MR. KENDRICK: Understood. 16 MS. THOMPSON: Yeah, this is an interesting 17 neighborhood. I’m comfortable with where the house is 18 with the relocation plan. It seems reasonable to me. 19 Does any -- does the board have more comments or 20 shall we hear from Sara? 21 MR. KENDRICK: No. 22 MR. MOYER: We’ll listen to Sara. 23 MS. THOMPSON: Yeah. 24 108 MS. ADAMS: Thanks. I just want to make sure 1 that we’re understanding your direction as we -- you know 2 -- we definitely want to continue this. We want to make 3 this work because affordable housing is so important and 4 you’re charged not with just historic preservation but 5 also affordable housing and that’s a -- that’s a tough 6 conversation. 7 To clarify just a few points, we can’t go more 8 subgrade than we already are. We can’t have our units be 9 more than 50 percent below grade so we’ve exhausted that, 10 Jeff. That was one of the things that we were really 11 trying to look at. 12 You know we have some constraints. We committed 13 to coming up with a code-compliant project for setbacks. 14 Scott and Roger, we hear that you want a larger front yard 15 setback than the required five feet. Is -- would there be 16 support for pushing into the rear yard on the upper floors 17 where it won’t impact the alley circulation, similar to 18 what we did for other affordable housing projects. Just 19 trying to get some direction and also if there could be 20 any comments on the roof form. If we could bring it down 21 to a flat roof -- uhm -- then that might be bringing down 22 the mass without losing important beds and housing units 23 for the community. So, just trying to take your 24 109 temperature on where we go with this to try to avoid 1 losing housing units which no one wants to do. 2 MR. KENDRICK: I did like Kara’s idea of having 3 some units setback to try and visually reduce the mass of 4 the rear unit and, yes, having some overhangs to bring it 5 a little closer I think that section between the two 6 buildings is never going to be seen -- you know -- other 7 than people that are living there. Like, walking past it 8 you don’t -- I think if we lose a little bit of that it’s 9 going to be okay. It’s not going to be -- it’s not going 10 to be noticeable. 11 MS. THOMPSON: That’s a fire code. I don’t 12 believe they can put those structures closer to one 13 another. Sara, is that correct? 14 MS. ADAMS: I think we can work with the fire 15 code to be closer. I think it could be six feet but I’m 16 not sure -- so, Scott, are you saying to leave the rear 17 setback complying with the five feet but then just make 18 the distance between buildings smaller so -- because no 19 one’s going to experience that except for the people 20 living in the units? Is that what you’re saying? 21 MR. KENDRICK: Yeah. You were saying -- uhm -- 22 extend the top two floors. 23 MS. ADAMS: Yeah, over the -- over the rear 24 setback and get a little bit of a variation so that we 25 110 could maintain our 10 feet but just kind of cantilever and 1 we wouldn’t impact alley circulation if we’re on the upper 2 floors. Cantilevers on the upper floors so the variance 3 -- does that make sense? 4 MR. KENDRICK: Yeah, that makes sense. 5 MS. ADAMS: All right. 6 MR. KENDRICK: For some -- I guess I missed 7 that. I was thinking you were cantilevering it towards 8 the historic resource. 9 MS. ADAMS: Oh, gosh, no, no, no. Wrong way. 10 The other way. 11 MR. KENDRICK: I mean I hate to encroach on 12 alleys at all but I would rather see that and have the 13 historic resource have a little bit more space in the 14 front, even if it’s only a couple of feet. I don’t know 15 how else (indiscernible). 16 MR. MOYER: Sara, I’m not opposed to front 17 setback on the second story nor am I opposed to 18 cantilevering over the alley. 19 MS. ADAMS: Okay. Great. Thanks. 20 MR. HALFERTY: Yeah, myself included. I agree. 21 MS. ADAMS: Okay because I think that will help 22 us maintain the units. How do -- how do you feel about 23 the roof form? If we could make it a flat roof or mix up 24 the roofline a little bit then we’re bringing the mass 25 111 down, again, without losing important units. It’s kind of 1 this balancing act. Right? 2 MR. MOYER: I’m not opposed to a study to change 3 the roofline. 4 MS. THOMPSON: No, I wouldn’t be either. I 5 think that this is a little bit different because it is a 6 separate structure and I think especially with the -- the 7 height of the adjacent building the flat roof would be -- 8 I would support that. 9 MS. ADAMS: Okay. No, that’s super helpful. 10 Thank you. 11 MR. KENDRICK: And I think I would support that 12 as well but I also want to reiterate that for -- or at 13 least iterate that getting some community buy-in on 14 whatever the new -- the new tweaks on the design I think 15 are going to be very important to this. 16 MS. ADAMS: What do you mean by community buy-17 in? I mean -- 18 MR. KENDRICK: -- neighbors. Direct neighbors 19 especially. I mean there was -- 20 MS. ADAMS: Okay, so -- 21 MR. KENDRICK: -- there was a lot of pushback on 22 the mass and scale. 23 MS. ADAMS: Right, it’s similar to the single-24 family project. It was the same comments. 25 112 MS. THOMPSON: Right. 1 MR. KENDRICK: Right and it’s bigger now that it 2 was then. 3 MS. ADAMS: Right and -- right and so we’re -- 4 we’ll -- we’ll continue to communicate with them the best 5 that we can while also meeting these other community 6 goals. It’s a big challenge. 7 MR. KENDRICK: Yes. Yes, it is. 8 MR. MOYER: A final comment, Sara. I still 9 think it’s too many units. 10 MS. ADAMS: So, Roger, if we come back with five 11 units are you going to be opposed to the project? 12 MR. MOYER: I -- I think so. I think it’s 13 simply too many units. 14 MS. ADAMS: Okay, based on what impacts are you 15 concerned about that we could maybe try to mitigate 16 creatively? 17 MR. MOYER: Well, it’s all those impacts, the 18 parking and the number of people, and all of those issues 19 with -- because I’ve lived through this. I live in a 20 multi building in the neighborhood and it’s -- it’s 21 really, really difficult and it’s -- we should not add to 22 and adverse lifestyle for a lot of people. 23 MS. SIMON: I do want the board to be a little 24 careful about trying to interpret the impacts of the 25 113 project based on number of units. If they’re meeting the 1 code criteria for parking, for instance, I think you need 2 to really look at that carefully in your findings. So, I 3 hope that the applicant will still have the opportunity to 4 try to balance everyone’s concerns. 5 MR. MOYER: Okay. I apologize. We have -- if 6 it’s within the rules and regulations then so be it. 7 MS. ADAMS: And we can -- when we come back, 8 Roger, we can provide a content study. We’ve studied all 9 the density in the neighborhood, the Victorians have five 10 units directly next door and the Riverside has definitely 11 a lot more than five units. 12 MS. THOMPSON: Yeah, and in terms of that, 13 obviously, the applicant has flexibility with the types of 14 units whether they’re one bedroom or two bedroom or three, 15 however, many so I wouldn’t -- I don’t think we can say 16 limit them to a certain number of units. That’s not 17 within (indiscernible) -- 18 MR. KENDRICK: -- but I (indiscernible) -- 19 MR. MOYER: -- understood -- 20 MR. KENDRICK: -- to the neighboring properties, 21 which are also much larger. 22 MS. ADAMS: Do you mean -- 23 MR. HALFERTY: Again, I -- we’re -- 24 114 MS. ADAMS: -- Scott, do you mean the lots are 1 larger? 2 MR. KENDRICK: Yes. The lots on either side of 3 the project are considerably larger. 4 MS. THOMPSON: I don’t think we can -- yeah, I 5 really struggle with making a strict comparison like that 6 because -- uhm -- the lots are larger but they have 7 different setbacks, like, we -- we -- 8 MR. HALFERTY: -- different zoning -- 9 MS. THOMPSON: -- different zoning, different -- 10 some of them were built on the property line. Some of 11 them have six (indiscernible) in the fronts, like, we 12 can’t -- I struggle with that comparison because we’re -- 13 this project is, like Sara’s indicating (indiscernible) 14 and -- uhm -- yeah, I feel like that’s a significant 15 restraint in and of itself here. So -- Jeff. 16 MR. HALFERTY: Yeah -- you know -- again, our 17 purview is to look at the guidelines as it pertains to 18 this application and this particular lot. That’s the 19 context of this issues between the two east and west 20 neighbors and the rest of the neighborhood for our purview 21 move forward is to look at the guidelines and see how it 22 proceeds through the historic resource and the 23 preservation of this particular (indiscernible), so -- 24 MS. THOMPSON: I lost you there at the end. 25 115 MR. HALFERTY: I was just saying that’s really 1 our purview -- 2 MS. THOMPSON: -- yeah -- 3 MR. HALFERTY: -- and that’s it. 4 MS. THOMPSON: Yeah, I mean my biggest -- 5 biggest concern is the mass and the scale. I feel like 6 (indiscernible) yeah, I don’t want to say anything again. 7 Do you have any other questions for us, Sara, 8 before we move on? 9 MS. ADAMS: No, this has been really helpful and 10 thank you for the comments and allowing me to ask some 11 questions. I appreciate it. 12 MS. SIMON: Kara, the proposed continuation date 13 is February 10th. 14 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. Do we have a motion to 15 continue? 16 MR. MOYER: I move to continue to February 10th. 17 MS. THOMPSON: I’ll second. Do we need a roll 18 call vote for this or all in favor? 19 MS. SIMON: I think you can just do all in 20 favor. 21 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. I couldn’t -- 22 MR. GRAHAM: Technically, you need a roll call 23 vote. 24 MS. SIMON: Oh. 25 116 MS. THOMPSON: Oh. 1 MR. GRAHAM: Jeff. 2 MR. HALFERTY: Yes. 3 MR. GRAHAM: Kara. 4 MS. THOMPSON: Yes. 5 MR. GRAHAM: Scott. 6 MR. KENDRICK: Yes. 7 MR. GRAHAM: Roger. 8 MR. MOYER: Yes. 9 MS. THOMPSON: All right. Thank you so much to 10 the applicant and to everybody who called in tonight. 11 It’s a fun project to see. We’re looking forward to 12 seeing it again. 13 MS. ADAMS: Thanks, everybody. 14 MS. SIMON: Thank you. 15 MR. KENDRICK: Thank you, Sara. 16 MS. SIMON: All right, we’ll just give everyone 17 a moment and I will text Sheri and Kate can give you some 18 guidance on how to do your elections. 19 NEW BUSINESS: 20 MS. JOHNSON: It’s really up to the commission 21 how they want to proceed here. If you want to do an oral 22 vote, just on the record, we certainly could do that. 23 Sometimes I know that -- you know -- I haven’t been 24 present at any of these elections so if you have a -- you 25 117 know -- the way you did it last year is the way you want 1 to do it, I’m fine with that. I do -- I will tell you 2 though that if you want to vote by secret ballot, 3 basically, before COVID you would just write somebody’s 4 name as the chair and then vice-chair on a sheet of paper. 5 You’d pass it to the clerk. The clerk would tally those. 6 We can do that via e-mail if the commission desires to 7 vote by secret ballot but -- you know -- if somebody wants 8 to either nominate a chair, vice-chair combination and 9 then take a vote, we can -- we can go that way or if 10 somebody wants to volunteer, we can put it to a vote that 11 way as well. Thank you. 12 MS. THOMPSON: Thanks, Kate. Does the board 13 have any comments, any preference here? 14 MR. MOYER: I think we -- I think we just 15 discuss it amongst ourselves openly. 16 MS. THOMPSON: Yeah, I’m comfortable with that. 17 MR. KENDRICK: Yeah, I don’t need a secret 18 ballot. 19 MR. MOYER: In fact -- in fact, I would nominate 20 you, Kara, for chair. You’re doing a terrific job. 21 MR. KENDRICK: I would -- I concur with that. 22 MR. MOYER: Years ago, I was vice-chair and that 23 sort of thing and I don’t need to do that again. So, 24 anyone who wants to step up can do that. 25 118 MS. THOMPSON: Thank you. 1 MS. SANZONE: All right, so, Kara, do you accept 2 the nomination? 3 MS. THOMPSON: I will accept the nomination. 4 MS. SANZONE: Yay. 5 MS. THOMPSON: Uhm -- 6 MS. SANZONE: Is anyone interested in vice-7 chair? 8 MS. THOMPSON: Yeah. 9 MR. KENDRICK: Amy Simon, is she available? 10 MS. SANZONE: (indiscernible) that on her 11 signature anymore. 12 MR. KENDRICK: Right. 13 MS. THOMPSON: She doesn’t need another job. 14 She has, like, eight. 15 MS. SANZONE: Yeah, really. 16 MR. MOYER: Hasn’t Jeff been vice-chair? 17 MR. HALFERTY: I have. How about Kendrick? 18 What about Scotty? 19 MR. KENDRICK: I’m withdrawing my name for 20 professional reasons. 21 MR. MOYER: Okay. Well, then, Jeffrey, you’re 22 it. 23 MR. HALFERTY: I’m in. All in. 24 119 MS. THOMPSON: Do we need some roll call votes 1 here? What do we need? 2 MR. KENDRICK: All in favor of Kara. 3 MS. JOHNSON: You can just do it by -- yeah -- 4 nomination and then, Wes, if you could do the roll call 5 that would be great. 6 MR. MOYER: I nominate Kara as chair and Jeffrey 7 as vice-chair. 8 MS. SANZONE: Second. 9 MR. GRAHAM: Jeff. 10 MR. HALFERTY: Yes. I try to get out but they 11 take me back in. 12 MR. GRAHAM: Kara. 13 MS. THOMPSON: Yes. 14 MR. GRAHAM: Scott. 15 MR. KENDRICK: Yes. 16 MR. GRAHAM: Roger. 17 MR. KENDRICK: Yes. We’re done. 18 MR. GRAHAM: Sheri. 19 MS. SANZONE: Yes. 20 MS. THOMPSON: Okay. Motion passed. 21 MR. HALFERTY: Thanks guys. 22 MS. THOMPSON: Thanks, guys. 23 MS. SANZONE: Awesome day. 24 120 MS. SIMON: Thank you, everybody. Thanks for 1 hanging in there. We will see you in a couple weeks and 2 except for those of you who we’ll be reaching out to on 3 project monitoring. Thanks, everybody. 4 MR. MOYER: You’re all great. You’re all 5 terrific. Thank you. 6 MR. GRAHAM: Great board. Thank you, guys. 7 MS. SIMON: All right. Goodnight. 8 MR. MOYER: Wait a minute. Motion to adjourn. 9 MS. THOMPSON: Move to adjourn. 10 MR. KENDRICK: Second. Aye. 11 MS. THOMPSON: Aye. 12 MR. MOYER: Yes. 13 MS. SIMON: Bye. 14 (Whereupon, this matter was concluded.) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 121 TRANSCRIPTIONIST’S CERTIFICATE 1 I, Susan M. Antonelli, do hereby attest that the 2 above and foregoing is a true and accurate transcription 3 pursuant to the quality of the Webex digitally-recorded 4 proceedings to the best of my knowledge, skill and ability 5 of the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee meeting that 6 took place on January 13, 2021, Aspen, Colorado. 7 Dated this 13th day of March, 2021. 8 9 10 /s/Susan M. Antonelli____ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25