HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021.01.13 Exhibit_C_Public_CommentsJanuary 6, 2021
CHRISTOPHER D. BRYAN
cbryan@garfieldhecht.com
Via E-Mail
City of Aspen
Historic Preservation Commission
c/o Ms. Sarah Yoon
Community Development Department
130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor
Aspen, Colorado 81611
E-mail: sarah.yoon@cityofaspen.com
RE: Application of 1020 E. Cooper, LLC
Multi-Family Affordable Housing at 1020 E. Cooper Ave.
Dear Commissioners:
This firm represents the Riverside Condominium Association (“Riverside”) and the
Cooper Avenue Victorian Condominium Association, Inc. (“Cooper Victorian”) (Riverside and
Cooper Victorian are referred to collectively herein as the “Associations”). These complexes are
located on either side of 1020 E. Cooper Avenue, Aspen, Colorado at 1024 E. Cooper Avenue
and 1012 E. Cooper Avenue, respectively. This letter will serve as the Associations’ concerns
and opposition to the application submitted by 1020 E. Cooper, LLC (“Applicant”) for approval
of a multi-family complex (the “Application”) that is scheduled for public hearing before you on
January 13, 2021.
As you are aware, members of these two Associations actively participated in the review
process for the 2019 proposal by Applicant to redevelop this property with the relocation of the
historic landmark and an addition thereto to create a larger single family home. At that time,
members of Riverside and Cooper Victorian opposed the project due mainly to the proposed
mass and scale of the addition, concerns that were shared and voiced by HPC members, who
narrowly approved the project on a vote of 4-2. The 2019 proposal was called up by the City
Council and then remanded back to HPC due to these same concerns of mass and scale pursuant
to Sections 10.3 and 10.4 of the Historic Preservation Guidelines. The 2019 proposal was never
finally approved.
Specifically, HPC and City Council members were concerned with the large addition on
the back of the historic home and the effect on the neighbors. When the HPC considered the
proposal at its August 26, 2020, meeting, it came to light that the applicant’s re-design had raised
the roof another few feet, without discussion with HPC, and several Commissioners still believed
Exhibit C- Public Comments Received
that the mass and scale of the project was not appropriate. The hearing was continued to
September 23, 2020, but it appears that the Applicant, in accordance with a prior e-mail to
concerned neighbors, decided to revise the project to its current form – an application for a
multi-family development.
As this current application is for a new building in addition to the relocation and remodel
of the historic home, Section 11 of the Guidelines applies rather than Section 10. Regardless, the
concerns regarding mass and scale still exist, and additional concerns regarding parking and
subdivision are also raised with this new proposal. Specifically, Section 11.2 states that the new
building should not overwhelm the historic structure; Section 11.3 states that the new building
must be similar in scale and proportion to the historic structure; and Section 11.4 states that the
primary plane of the front of the new building should not appear taller than the historic structure.
Moreover, since this is a multi-family complex, the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities
Act (“ADA”) apply, pursuant to Section 12.1.
The Application states that the existing historic structure will be relocated toward the
front of the lot and will be converted into two two-bedroom units, with a new structure located
behind it that will consist of three units – a two-bedroom and two three-bedroom units. The
Application states that these units will be sold to local employers to utilize as affordable housing
pursuant to either Category 3 or 4 of the APCHA guidelines, and that Applicant expects the
project to house 12.75 full time employees. It is worth noting that all of the renderings of the
project show families living in these units, meaning that this maximum provision of employee
housing likely will not be realized.
The Application states that the new building will nearly reach the allowed maximum
height of 32 feet, which is approximately 3 feet higher than the 2019 proposal, and over double
the height of the existing historic structure. Renderings of the project in the Application show a
deck on the front of the new building that is even above the roof of the historic structure.
Although the Application states that by setting this building back from the historic structure the
“perception of the height difference” is reduced, it is difficult to see how one can reduce a
doubling of height. Furthermore, the 2019 proposal, at staff’s request, demolished the non-
historic addition to the landmark home as an aid in reducing the mass of the project. The current
proposal appears to maintain this non-historic addition in order to allow for more square footage
for units in the landmark. Clearly, the mass and scale of the proposal has not been reduced from
that in 2019 and, in fact, is increased as described herein and by the creation of five units on the
property, taking the mass and scale consideration from that of a single family to potentially
seventeen occupants if each unit is occupied by a family.
Applicant wants HPC to consider the fact that the Riverside Condos and the Cooper
Avenue Victorian Condos are “three stories” and thus that should make this project acceptable in
mass and scale; however, this ignores the directive of the Guidelines, which requires HPC to
consider mass and scale as compared with the historic structure. How the project appears in
mass and scale to neighboring properties is irrelevant, especially when these neighboring
structures are not historic landmarks. The criteria of Sections 11.3 and 11.4 of the Guidelines
Exhibit C- Public Comments Received
simply cannot be met. Especially in light of the fact the 2019 project, which was of a smaller
mass and scale of this proposal and for which HPC and City Council had concerns that similar
Sections 10.3 and 10.4 (applying to additions to historic structures) could not be met, a finding
that the mass and scale of this proposal is appropriate would be arbitrary and capricious and
could subject the City to costly and protracted litigation.
It is important to note that the cover letter for the Application states, at the top of page 4,
that “[t]he units are proposed to be rentals that are sold to Pitkin County employers to rent to
APCHA qualified employees. . .” Yet, the Application specifically states that a historic lot split,
pursuant to Section 11.5 of the Guidelines, is not being requested. As the City Attorney knows, it
is unlawful to sell units separately unless a subdivision or condominiumization has been
approved. Our review of the relevant public records and other available materials indicates that
no subdivision agreement has been approved for this property. That critical issue needs to be
addressed by the Applicant in order for this project to qualify as affordable housing and is
relevant to the issue of parking for this proposal. Absent proper land use approvals that are a
prerequisite for the proposed development, HPC would be unlawfully exceeding its jurisdiction
and abusing its discretion in approving the Application.
Pursuant to Section 26.515.040 of the Aspen Municipal Code (“City Code”) and Table
26.515-1 therein, Applicant is to provide one parking space per unit, which means five parking
spaces. Applicant proposes four parking spaces, one of which will have to be designated and
designed as an ADA space (which is required by Section 12.1 of the Guidelines), with a payment
of cash-in-lieu to satisfy the fifth space requirement. In support of the proposition that this will
be sufficient parking, the Application states that car share and We-Cycle memberships will be
offered to tenants along with a “welcome packet with alternative forms of transportation, bike
and walking trail maps, and bus schedules” in order to discourage car ownership. However, if
these units are to be sold to various employers, as the Application contemplates and as discussed
above, Applicant has no control over whether these proposals will be followed. Furthermore, it is
unrealistic to believe that twelve or more people occupying the units will, collectively, only own
three cars (the ADA parking space will not be available for use unless a resident holds an ADA
parking permit). Although the letter of the City Code may be technically met by this proposal,
HPC is duty-bound to consider, in a practical sense, this impact on the historic property that has
always been a small, single-family home necessitating only one or at most two on-street parking
spots. If approved, the five units could easily end up needing twelve parking spots (one per
bedroom), creating a major problem for the surrounding neighborhood and congesting an
already-busy dense part of town – not to mention diminishing the charm of the historic property
at issue. Even local employees have many reasons to have to run errands in town or to leave
Aspen to meet basic shopping or travel needs for which a car is necessary.
Section 12.1 of the Guidelines requires that this project comply with the ADA. The
Application provides for one ADA parking spot but otherwise does not mention (much less
prove) compliance with ADA accessibility requirements. Every unit is either more than one story
or only accessible by stairs. It is unclear whether common areas would even be ADA-compliant
Exhibit C- Public Comments Received
or -accessible. In fact, the Application fails to address Section 12.1 at all. For this reason alone,
the Application must be denied for failure to satisfy Section 12.1’s criteria.
As discussed throughout the Application, the subject property is located in the
Residential Multi-Family (“RMF”) Zone District, which is governed by Section 26.710.090 of
the City Code. As City staff members know, and the Commissioners too, Section 26.710.090(d)
requires lots to have a minimum of 6,000 square foot area and a minimum width of 60 feet. The
subject lot is 4,379 square feet. There is an exception in Chapter 26.312 of the City Code,
entitled “Nonconformities,” that provides an exception that “a lot of record containing a property
listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures need not meet the
minimum lot area requirement of its zone district for historic structures.” See Section
26.312.050(c). However, unlike the provision in the section immediately prior to this, which
states that certain lots created before 1971 that “do not meet the requirements for lot width and
area” can continue as nonconforming (see Section 26.312.050(b)), the historic landmark
nonconforming lot must nonetheless meet the zone district lot width requirements. In this
instance, such cannot be met, as the lot is less than 60 feet wide. Furthermore, the purpose of the
Nonconformities Chapter is “to permit nonconformities to continue, but not to allow
nonconformities to be enlarged or expanded. The provisions of this Chapter are designed to
curtail substantial investment in nonconformities in order to preserve the integrity of the zone
districts and the other provisions of this Title but should not be construed as an abatement
provision.” The City Code dictates that nonconforming historic landmark sites must meet all
provisions of Chapter 26.415 concerning Historic Preservation. As set forth above, the mass and
scale of the proposed project do not meet the Guidelines’ requirements. That indisputable fact,
coupled with the small size of the subject lot (enhancing even more the inappropriate mass and
scale of the subject project), certainly enlarges and expands the existing nonconformity in
violation of Chapter 26.312 of the City Code. For these additional reasons the project should be
denied. If HPC fails to require compliance with that City Code requirement, it will be exposing
the City to legal challenge.
Finally, with the small lot size and the additional strip of land that was added to it from
the lot of 1012 E. Cooper pursuant to the 2006 adverse possession claim (see Letter from Tom
Todd to HPC dated 10/30/20 included in the Application), the proposed new building would sit
only seven feet from the Cooper Avenue Victorian building since that is barely two feet from the
adjusted lot line and the proposal is up to the five-foot sideyard setback. The fire department
requires a minimum ten-foot distance between multi-family buildings. This is yet another
example of the project’s inappropriate mass and scale, and another reason that approval of the
Application is inappropriate and contrary to the applicable criteria.
In sum, we respectfully request that HPC take a hard look at the mass and scale of this
proposal and the criteria of Sections 11.3 and 11.4 of the Guidelines, in conjunction with the
review and discussion of the prior proposal for this property in 2019 and 2020 and concerns
therewith, along with the City Code’s Nonconformities Chapter and safety requirements . HPC
should not be persuaded or sidetracked by the proposal to bring addition affordable housing units
Exhibit C- Public Comments Received
to the center of Aspen – this is not the place for such a proposal, not only because it dwarfs the
historic structure and ignores the realities of car ownership and the occupation of units, but also
because it enlarges and expands a nonconformity and creates a fire hazard. Furthermore, HPC
must consider the requirements of Section 12.1 of the Guidelines, which are not even discussed
or addressed by the Application.
For these reasons, HPC should vote not to approve the Application.
While the Application is laudable in some respects, this is simply the wrong location in
Aspen for the proposed development. We are confident that HPC and City staff will come to the
proper conclusion that the Application is neither viable pursuant to the Guidelines nor legally
permissible.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding the Associations’
concerns.
Very truly yours,
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
/S/ CHRISTOPHER D. BRYAN
Christopher D. Bryan
cc: Riverside Condominium Association
Cooper Avenue Victorian Condominium Association, Inc.
Exhibit C- Public Comments Received
Dear Members of the Historic Preservation Commission,
As a resident of Aspen for over fifty years, I have long admired the emphasis Aspen has put on
maintaining the unique history of our community. The is evident in the role your commission
has played in protecting our historic properties.
I live directly to the East of 1020 Cooper and my home is on the lower level of the 1024 Cooper
complex. My property is my retirement and I’m very afraid of what I have seen with the plans
for 1020 Cooper the last couple of years. It’s a repetitive cycle – someone buys the property,
puts together plans to maximize their profits, and then tries to bend / break the HPC rules to
suit their needs. Why do people continue to buy this property if they don’t want to build within
the HPC guidelines? They are very aware of the HPC guidelines before they elect to purchase
the property.
This project is even larger and more massive than the last one that was rejected by the City
Council and the HPC. If this project were approved, I would have no sunlight into my unit and
my view out of my windows would be a blank wall. My home’s value would drop dramatically.
Our alley is unpaved and already overwhelmed with cars. How would this many people only
need 3-4 parking spots?
The HPC guidelines were put in place for a reason – to prevent huge, monolithic structures like
this from being built. I have faith the commission will do the right thing and not approve this
project that will line the pockets of its developers with profits while watching the property
values of neighbors deteriorate.
This is a wonderful, historic property that just needs the right buyer.
Godspeed,
Len Horowitz
Exhibit C- Public Comments Received
From:MT Biz
To:Kevin Rayes
Cc:Amy Simon
Subject:1020 E Cooper Ave projrct
Date:Thursday, January 7, 2021 10:22:24 AM
To whom it may concern,
RE: 1020 East Cooper Ave---redevelopment.
I am absolutely not opposed to the employee housing that is proposed.
I live next to 949 East Cooper Ave (over 30 years)- The St Regis Hotel employee housing;
and also with in ear shot of The Ski company’s housing on the corner of East Cooper and
South West End.
I do have problems with a few points:
1- Mass and scale; the plans I have seen so far ; it portends a big boxy oversized structure-not
in character with the changing neighborhood
2- The parking is totally inadequate for volume of tenants suggested.
In fact with the present units on East Cooper, parking is full all summer and winter on both
sides of East Cooper; from City Market to the roaring fork bridge---off season is getting
increasingly busier too.
3-The present designs are totally misrepresented on the back alley size of their plans—it
is a narrow alley
4-Their car count for alley parking is totally out of line with reality.
–A few suggestions as this project goes thru review_
-on site parking must be increased-reduce bedroom count.
-.
-No side setback variances should be granted
-There should only be 2 entrances one front and one rear of building .
-Minimum 12 month leases or perhaps go from rental to owner occupied to respect serenity of
surrounding neighborhood.. Strict HOA rules to not alow clutter on decks or property
itself, 1024 É Cooper has these rules along with maximum occupants allowed and mandatory
quiet hours
-This is not a location to try over size maximum density.
-
Mark Tye
Owner 935 East Cooper Ave and #3 Riverside Townhomes; 1024 East Cooper Ave
Exhibit C- Public Comments Received
From:Kristi
To:Torre; Ann Mullins; Ward Hauenstein; Rachael Richards; Skippy Mesirow; Public Comment; Amy Simon;
Jessica.Garrow@cityofaspen.com; Torre; Ann Mullins; Ward Hauenstein; Rachael Richards; Skippy Mesirow;
Public Comment; Amy Simon; Jessica.Garrow@cityofaspen.com
Subject:1020 E Cooper Avenue Proposed Development
Date:Thursday, January 7, 2021 11:41:39 AM
Happy New Year to all!
Before the meeting scheduled January 13th 2021 I wanted to forward a column written by the
much loved and outspoken, Su Lum. Over and over I have listened to the developers talk of
how Su would be behind this project and we should give this project our blessing?? The
developer obviously didn’t know Su Lum AT ALL or is blatantly trying to mislead everyone!~
Anyone who knew anything at all about Su Lum knew cramming a bunch of condos (employee
or not) on a small lot in the core of Aspen was not what preserving Aspen was or is about and
or what she stood for. She would be rolling in her grave to know a developer took over her
beloved little house and turned it into another oversized condo project to get tax and or other
credit and breaks for an even larger project!
https://www.aspentimes.com/opinion/lum-preserving-the-splinters/
Aspen does not need another property like 1024 East Cooper approved and built with no
consideration for preserving any green space at all. We don’t need more like this on the main
street coming into town! PLEASE don’t allow anyone to take away the front yard of 1020 East
Cooper. Take that and you might as well build a box and cover the entire property, the charm
is gone! They fact that the tiny lot could house 15 individuals plus guest is a huge issue. There
is not near enough parking for the project considering how many people can live there at any
certain time! MOST people in Aspen have a car and/or a motorcycle. I have lived in Aspen
since ’95 and I can honestly say I cannot think of a sole back then or now that didn’t/doesn’t
own a car or motorcycle. (most cars in Aspen area larger SUV’s ) Are applicants going to be
required to sell their vehicles in order to rent? Or does no one care, just cram more down 82
and in the Eastend neighborhood?!?!? Please take these well founded concerned into
consideration.
I respect that your job is hard and want to thank you for doing what you do.
Thanks so much
Kristi Gilliam
1024 East Cooper #8
970-948-0153
Exhibit C- Public Comments Received
From:Tiffany Smith
To:Kevin Rayes
Subject:1020 E. Cooper Project - Please Include in Public Comments for HPC Board Mtg on Jan 13
Date:Thursday, January 7, 2021 4:38:06 PM
Dear Kevin Rayes and Aspen HPC Board,
As a resident of 1012 E. Cooper, I’m writing to you regarding my concerns about the new
1020 E. Cooper project.
As with the prior 1020 E. Cooper development project by David McMahan, my primary
concern is that the current plan for the addition is still both too tall and too large for the lot and
in relation to the historic building. As we have stated all along about both projects, the mass
and height of the new structure are still not compliant with 10.3 and 10.4 of the HPC
Guidelines as they pertain to these issues. Although affordable housing is a worthy pursuit,
HPC’s primary responsibility is to ensure that development projects are compliant with and
are in the spirit of HPC Guidelines. And this new re-development is actually larger than the
previous one, and thus dwarfs the historic house.
I also find it curious that although HPC has strict instructions about the need for the new
addition to look quite dissimilar from the historic structure, in this case, per their latest
rendering, the buildings actually look very similar – both are very basic, angular structures
painted in an extremely dark monochromatic color. Honestly, it sort of looks like Darth
Vader’s house, and not at all like a happy multi-family complex, as it was initially pitched to
the neighbors. It makes one wonder who their target residents really are? And are the
developers being authentic when they say they want to build a structure that fits among their
neighbors and in that neighborhood. I would give it a 2 out of 10 for attractiveness and
appropriateness.
And speaking of neighbors, the 1020 E. Cooper Project’s historic home’s placement on the lot,
within five feet of the sidewalk, is out of alignment with both its own historic placement on
the lot and its neighbors to the west. Two of those neighbors are themselves historic Aspen
homes with traditionally sized front yards and the other is ours at 1012, a replicated Victorian
with a large front yard. We realize that the neighbors to the east are at the sidewalk but those
projects were not historic developments, and were built decades ago anyway.
Lastly, another big concern is the lack of parking that 1020 is going to have. It is simply not at
all realistic to think that the 10+ people that will be residing there will only need four parking
spots. They will need at least 8-10 parking places and possibly more depending on if the lot is
condominiumized (as proposed) and the units are sold to a variety of local business owners to
then rent to their employees. If there are two 3-bedroom units and three 2-bedroom units, there
could be at least three adults in each of the 3-bedroom units and at least 2 adults in each of the
2-bedroom units, which would mean a total of at least 12 adults living in that complex. And
since their APCHA application is for a Category 4 or below rating, then there could be many
more residents than that if it’s designated Category 1 or 2, which often means young single
people who’ll be sharing rooms. Parking will be a huge problem not only for the local
residents who have parking in the back because there is absolutely no extra parking in our
alley, but also for street parking. E. Cooper is almost always completely parked up during
winter, spring break and summer – and often fall too during leaf season. This is precious
parking for local residents, contractors and day-trip visitors, many of whom come over the
Exhibit C- Public Comments Received
Pass when it’s open. Basically, there isn’t room for extra dedicated parking spots on the street
without “bumping” others who already park there.
At the end of the day, this narrow, undersized lot with a historic home previously owned by a
popular Aspen newspaper columnist is really best suited for a single-family dwelling or
perhaps a duplex, not a large multi-unit complex. This project in no way honors Su Lum, our
neighbor who we knew, and her love of Aspen, its history, her home and her garden. She must
be turning over in her grave at the idea of this giant black monolith that swallows up almost
her entire lovely lot.
Aspen HPC Board, as you are directed to honor and appreciate Aspen’s heritage and historic
resources, I respectfully request that you seriously consider what I have said and prioritize
Aspen’s history and the neighborhood’s wellbeing over that of a corporate real estate
development team.
Mr. Rayes, I’m planning to attend the meeting virtually but in case I can’t or there is a
technology glitch, please include my email to the board as part of the public comments.
Thank you for your service to Aspen.
Best regards,
Tiffany Smith
1012 E. Cooper, Unit #1
Exhibit C- Public Comments Received
From:Stephen Abelman
To:Kevin Rayes
Cc:Amy Simon
Subject:1020 East Cooper Avenue / Stephen and Helene Abelman
Date:Friday, January 8, 2021 11:34:39 AM
Dear Kevin, Amy, City of Aspen and the HPC Board,
Happy New Year to you all. We hope you all are healthy and having a good start to 2021.
We, Stephen and Helene Abelman are owners of two condominium units at 1012 East Cooper
Avenue, Cooper Avenue Victorian ( CAV ), just to the west of the proposed 1020 project. We
have concerns regarding the size and intensity of the project, along with the legal issues
surrounding this project.
The history of this property, with the McMahon Family's previous application proposal for a
single family home, shows both size and mass concerns, not only by the neighboring property
owners, but ALSO by the HPC Board and the City of Aspen. The legal guidelines are again
being ignored in the present 1020 proposal.
We are very much in favor of affordable housing in Aspen, but do not feel the pursuit of
affordable housing has the rights to ignore the present legal and building guidelines relative to
lot size, presently set by the HPC Board and the City of Aspen.
Along with the mass and scale issues, the surrounding parking situation is also, presently
difficult at best. Adding the 5 units, of any type makes parking even more problematic.
Having 5 units, most likely 10+ people living at 1020 East Cooper, will make for a parking
nightmare. as the building can only have 4 parking spaces, 3 regular spaces and 1 ADA
designated space.
Another problem that needs to be addressed is the close proximity of the proposed 1020
structure to both buildings on the east and west sides, thus causing a fire hazard issue if our
fire department needs to get in between the buildings.
In the end, if any of us as individuals, proposed building a structure as large as this proposed
project, we would clearly be denied. This is what occured with the McMahan's, after going to
the HPC and the City of Aspen. It is not right that now, due to corporate developer pressure
on the HPC Board and the City of Aspen, an entire neighborhood has to endure a project
which does not fit legally and physically on this smaller property. It is quite obvious, in
looking at the renderings and the potential number of residents living on this small property ,
that the project size is not appropriate, nor sensible.
A single family home, duplex or 3 unit structure is a much more practicable solution.
Thanks for reading our concerns and please pass them on to the HPC Board, along with the
other public comments regarding this project.
Kind regards,
Stephen and Helene Abelman
1012 East Cooper Avenue
Unit 4 and Unit 5
Exhibit C- Public Comments Received
Exhibit C- Public Comments Received