The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutExhibit_E_January_13th_public_commentsFrom:Lincoln manuel To:Amy Simon; Kevin Rayes Subject:1020 Cooper project Date:Tuesday, January 12, 2021 8:00:59 AM Dear HPC, The project at 1020 Cooper is important to our community and to our neighborhood. The reuse of an old building and the addition of a new building along the alley for affordable housing is exactly what our neighborhood needs. The renderings look great. The project is building less than allowed, and the architecture relates to the neighborhood. The relationship between the old building and new building works well. Four parking spaces seems reasonable for five units considering the close proximity to downtown, transit, and trails. Overall we support this housing project. Lincoln Manuel 409 Park Circle #2 Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments From:Tiffany Smith To:Kevin Rayes Subject:1020 E. Cooper Project - Please Include in Public Comments for HPC Board Mtg on Jan 13 Date:Thursday, January 7, 2021 4:38:06 PM Dear Kevin Rayes and Aspen HPC Board, As a resident of 1012 E. Cooper, I’m writing to you regarding my concerns about the new 1020 E. Cooper project. As with the prior 1020 E. Cooper development project by David McMahan, my primary concern is that the current plan for the addition is still both too tall and too large for the lot and in relation to the historic building. As we have stated all along about both projects, the mass and height of the new structure are still not compliant with 10.3 and 10.4 of the HPC Guidelines as they pertain to these issues. Although affordable housing is a worthy pursuit, HPC’s primary responsibility is to ensure that development projects are compliant with and are in the spirit of HPC Guidelines. And this new re-development is actually larger than the previous one, and thus dwarfs the historic house. I also find it curious that although HPC has strict instructions about the need for the new addition to look quite dissimilar from the historic structure, in this case, per their latest rendering, the buildings actually look very similar – both are very basic, angular structures painted in an extremely dark monochromatic color. Honestly, it sort of looks like Darth Vader’s house, and not at all like a happy multi-family complex, as it was initially pitched to the neighbors. It makes one wonder who their target residents really are? And are the developers being authentic when they say they want to build a structure that fits among their neighbors and in that neighborhood. I would give it a 2 out of 10 for attractiveness and appropriateness. And speaking of neighbors, the 1020 E. Cooper Project’s historic home’s placement on the lot, within five feet of the sidewalk, is out of alignment with both its own historic placement on the lot and its neighbors to the west. Two of those neighbors are themselves historic Aspen homes with traditionally sized front yards and the other is ours at 1012, a replicated Victorian with a large front yard. We realize that the neighbors to the east are at the sidewalk but those projects were not historic developments, and were built decades ago anyway. Lastly, another big concern is the lack of parking that 1020 is going to have. It is simply not at all realistic to think that the 10+ people that will be residing there will only need four parking spots. They will need at least 8-10 parking places and possibly more depending on if the lot is condominiumized (as proposed) and the units are sold to a variety of local business owners to then rent to their employees. If there are two 3-bedroom units and three 2-bedroom units, there could be at least three adults in each of the 3-bedroom units and at least 2 adults in each of the 2-bedroom units, which would mean a total of at least 12 adults living in that complex. And since their APCHA application is for a Category 4 or below rating, then there could be many more residents than that if it’s designated Category 1 or 2, which often means young single people who’ll be sharing rooms. Parking will be a huge problem not only for the local residents who have parking in the back because there is absolutely no extra parking in our alley, but also for street parking. E. Cooper is almost always completely parked up during winter, spring break and summer – and often fall too during leaf season. This is precious parking for local residents, contractors and day-trip visitors, many of whom come over the Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments Pass when it’s open. Basically, there isn’t room for extra dedicated parking spots on the street without “bumping” others who already park there. At the end of the day, this narrow, undersized lot with a historic home previously owned by a popular Aspen newspaper columnist is really best suited for a single-family dwelling or perhaps a duplex, not a large multi-unit complex. This project in no way honors Su Lum, our neighbor who we knew, and her love of Aspen, its history, her home and her garden. She must be turning over in her grave at the idea of this giant black monolith that swallows up almost her entire lovely lot. Aspen HPC Board, as you are directed to honor and appreciate Aspen’s heritage and historic resources, I respectfully request that you seriously consider what I have said and prioritize Aspen’s history and the neighborhood’s wellbeing over that of a corporate real estate development team. Mr. Rayes, I’m planning to attend the meeting virtually but in case I can’t or there is a technology glitch, please include my email to the board as part of the public comments. Thank you for your service to Aspen. Best regards, Tiffany Smith 1012 E. Cooper, Unit #1 Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments From:Stephen Abelman To:Kevin Rayes Cc:Amy Simon Subject:1020 East Cooper Avenue / Stephen and Helene Abelman Date:Friday, January 8, 2021 11:34:39 AM Dear Kevin, Amy, City of Aspen and the HPC Board, Happy New Year to you all. We hope you all are healthy and having a good start to 2021. We, Stephen and Helene Abelman are owners of two condominium units at 1012 East Cooper Avenue, Cooper Avenue Victorian ( CAV ), just to the west of the proposed 1020 project. We have concerns regarding the size and intensity of the project, along with the legal issues surrounding this project. The history of this property, with the McMahon Family's previous application proposal for a single family home, shows both size and mass concerns, not only by the neighboring property owners, but ALSO by the HPC Board and the City of Aspen. The legal guidelines are again being ignored in the present 1020 proposal. We are very much in favor of affordable housing in Aspen, but do not feel the pursuit of affordable housing has the rights to ignore the present legal and building guidelines relative to lot size, presently set by the HPC Board and the City of Aspen. Along with the mass and scale issues, the surrounding parking situation is also, presently difficult at best. Adding the 5 units, of any type makes parking even more problematic. Having 5 units, most likely 10+ people living at 1020 East Cooper, will make for a parking nightmare. as the building can only have 4 parking spaces, 3 regular spaces and 1 ADA designated space. Another problem that needs to be addressed is the close proximity of the proposed 1020 structure to both buildings on the east and west sides, thus causing a fire hazard issue if our fire department needs to get in between the buildings. In the end, if any of us as individuals, proposed building a structure as large as this proposed project, we would clearly be denied. This is what occured with the McMahan's, after going to the HPC and the City of Aspen. It is not right that now, due to corporate developer pressure on the HPC Board and the City of Aspen, an entire neighborhood has to endure a project which does not fit legally and physically on this smaller property. It is quite obvious, in looking at the renderings and the potential number of residents living on this small property , that the project size is not appropriate, nor sensible. A single family home, duplex or 3 unit structure is a much more practicable solution. Thanks for reading our concerns and please pass them on to the HPC Board, along with the other public comments regarding this project. Kind regards, Stephen and Helene Abelman 1012 East Cooper Avenue Unit 4 and Unit 5 Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments From:Jessie Young To:Amy Simon; Kevin Rayes Subject:1020 East Cooper Date:Tuesday, January 12, 2021 9:56:04 PM Hi Amy and Kevin, I am writing in support of the proposed project at 1020 East Cooper. From the materials I have reviewed and having lived in affordable housing on the east side of town at 962 East Hopkins for a number of years having only recently moved to Smuggler Park, I believe that additional affordable housing - especially located on this side of town - is important to our community and to the neighborhood. The project's location along Highway 82 adds to its desirability for additional housing units (as opposed to a single family home). This neighborhood, with such great access to downtown, can greatly benefit from more "lights on" as is being offered by this project. From my experience living in the neighborhood, it often feels deserted and would benefit from more activity and residents. With the headache that is the "entrance to Aspen," additional affordable housing on this side of town is essential. The reuse of an old building and the addition of a new building along the alley for affordable housing is exactly what is needed. It appears that the project is building less than allowed, and the architecture relates to the neighborhood. The relationship between the historic building and new building works well. Four parking spaces seems reasonable for five units considering the close proximity to downtown, transit, and trails and the availability of on-street parking. Furthermore - having lived essentially in the basement affordable housing unit at 962 East Hopkins (an opportunity I was lucky to have had), I can attest that having more housing in town that does not bury our workforce is a valid goal in and of itself. Warm Regards, Jessie Young -- Jessie Young jbvyoung@gmail.com 970.948.4534 Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments January 12, 2021 Dear HPC Members, As many of you know, the Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA) is an active community organization in Aspen for over 45 years, and during that time we’ve successfully supported the business community by making Aspen more competitive in the resort marketplace. In recent years, we have represented our members in public affairs by advocating for the development of affordable housing and transportation upgrades/improvements, and we have taken an active role in convening community dialogue and initiatives that we believe serve the community at-large. As the competition tightens, one of the key challenges our local businesses face is the ability to attract and retain qualified employees across a broad span of industries, due to the lack of affordable housing for both individuals and families. This challenge is certainly not new, but it is proving more challenging to solve. We are proud to be a part of a community where both private and public sectors are working toward addressing this deficit with the provision of affordable housing developments in and around town. We also applaud the development of affordable housing throughout the valley. All housing for our workforce helps, as we have seen local rental units converted into short-term rentals for visitors. As demand continues to increase for the quality of life that our mountain towns offer, so does the complexity of the solutions. There are no easy answers as we weigh the tensions between stakeholders. One constant will prevail: ACRA will support the development of employee housing in Aspen and the opportunities it creates for our businesses and community members to thrive. Thank you for your service to Aspen. All the best, Debbie Braun President and CEO Aspen Chamber Resort Association Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments Philip Jeffreys Aspen Skiing Company (970) 379-7950 cell P.O. Box 1248 pjeffreys@aspensnowmass.com Aspen, CO 81612 January 12th, 2021 Dear HPC Members, As one of the largest employers in Aspen, we recognize the importance of housing our workforce and have actively worked to bridge the gap between the current demand and actual supply. We know that the City of Aspen has several projects in the pipeline, but the deficit is large enough that we cannot rely on the City of Aspen and a few select employers to deliver affordable housing developments. We also need the private sector to play a contributing role – and as such, we support the 1020 East Cooper Project Team in their endeavor to deliver high-quality affordable housing in the downtown area. We know firsthand how challenging it can be to garner community support for even the most well-conceived project. We believe the 1020 East Cooper Project is a well-placed, much-needed, housing development that will add to the growing fabric of full-time employees living in the East of Aspen neighborhood. l also understand the need for diverse offerings in our affordable housing stock and we appreciate the effort to create units that will allow for young professionals and families to be close to downtown and proximate to the services they need whether it be City Market or being able to walk or ride to the Yellow Brick. For years, the Aspen Skiing Company has housed critical employees in an 8 unit affordable housing complex a block away at 832 E. Cooper. Mixing affordable and free market housing helps maintain Aspen’s vibrancy and is goal of the Aspen Area Community Plan. This project is a great example of how we can embed much needed affordable housing into our community in a meaningful way – and not just rely on larger housing developments to get us closer to meeting demand. As an employer and neighbor, we support this project and look forward to the vibrancy it will contribute to this neighborhood. Philip Jeffreys Project Manager – Workforce Housing Aspen Skiing Company Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments From:Nicole Henning To:Amy Simon Cc:Wes Graham Subject:FW: HPC members: Please deliver this letter to the Chair and the other HPC members before their meeting tomorrow Date:Tuesday, January 12, 2021 11:05:25 AM From: Stirling, Bill <Bill.Stirling@elliman.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 11:00 AM To: Nicole Henning <nicole.henning@cityofaspen.com> Subject: HPC members: Please deliver this letter to the Chair and the other HPC members before their meeting tomorrow To: Chair of the HPC From: Bill Stirling Ref: Former Sue Lum historical house on East Cooper, City of Aspen Thanks for your dedication to the historic preservation process. It is time consuming and can be arduous. However, it has inestimable value for the long term, as historic preservation is essential in identifying our late 19th and 20th C. Victorian architectural legacy. Maintaining our rich inventory of residential and commercial buildings through the Victorian program gives locals and visitors an on going reminder of the richness of our early design history. The voluntary protection of our modern bau haus, early ski style and log cabin architecture is also essential for reminding everyone of the unique collection of Post WW II buildings in our midst. How lucky we were to have Herbert Bayer, such a brilliant Bau Haus specialist in our midst in the mid 20th C. What a stroke of luck! Even the meanest Victorian style miner’s cabin is part of our heritage. Sometimes our Victorians are beaten up and neglected, but still it is worth the time, effort and cost of preserving even the smaller residences. It is so important to be reminded of how the folks from the early days lived from the hard rock miners to the Silver barons. I urge you to support the proposal before you to preserve the Sue Lum home, move it closer to E. Cooper and then allow construction of the 3 story addition on the back of the lot. The Vic will still be front and center and a gift to the streets. However, what is even more compelling is the fact that this application will be a 100 % affordable housing project. This is unique and encouraging. It shows that it is possible for a private developer to produce 100% affordable housing. It is in the spirit of the 100% affordable rental projects brilliantly conceived by Peter Fornel with certificates purchased by commercial developers in need of affordable housing mitigation. The need for affordable housing is great. The beginnings of “worker housing” began with Mayors S. Standley, Herman Edel and myself in the 70’s and throughout the 80’s, and then supported by ensuing Mayors and Councils. Though we now have over 3000 affordable units, a mix of sale and rental condos, it is refreshing and encouraging that the private sector is tackling the challenge. The citizens passed the affordable housing real estate transfer tax in 1990. What a boon that pool of Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments money has been. But we always need assistance from the private sector. What a mix! Affordable housing and historic preservation! Good luck with your deliberations. Sincerely, Bill Stirling, Mayor of Aspen, 1983-91. BILL STIRLING DOUGLAS ELLIMAN REAL ESTATE DIRECT: 970.920.2300 OFFICE: 970.925.8810 MOBILE: 970.948.8287 FAX: 970.920.2131 Bill.Stirling@elliman.com 630 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 101, ASPEN, CO 81611 MY LISTINGS At Douglas Elliman, we won't ask you for your social security number, bank account or other highly confidential information over email. *Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring ANY money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have the authority to bind a third party to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication. This email is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete it. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not keep, use, disclose, copy or distribute this email without the author's prior permission. We will never send or ask for sensitive or non-public information via e-mail, including bank account, social security information or wire information. We have taken precautions to minimize the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise you to carry out your own virus checks on any attachment to this message. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. The information contained in this communication may be confidential and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege. If you are the intended recipient and you do not wish to receive similar electronic messages from us in the future then please respond to the sender to this effect. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Company. Douglas Elliman may engage a third party vendor to answer telephone, email, text, and internet inquiries. This vendor acts as an agent for Douglas Elliman, and keeps all information confidential. Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments From:Bukk Carleton To:Amy Simon; Kevin Rayes Subject:1020 East Cooper Avenue Date:Monday, January 11, 2021 8:45:58 AM RE: 1020 East Cooper Avenue Dear HPC members: As we all know, HPC stands for Historic Preservation Commission. Preservation means not only keeping a few sticks from the past upright, but it means preserving the look, the feel, and the property itself. Your commission has various guidelines one must follow to be approved under yourrulings. At the moment, you have a plan in front of you on 1020 East Cooper which pushes the existing building as far to the front of the property line as possible – just feet from EastCooper Avenue and the sidewalk. On the backside, the design pushes the building to the last inch of the 5’ setback,creating a need to place cars under the building and thus raising the building to a 3-storyheight. To the west, they have pushed the building to 5’ of a lot line which they are not legallyallowed to do, as they have not properly assimilated that land obtained through adversepossession. In addition, the same illegal proposed location will result in the buildingbeing just 6 ½ feet from the existing building (1012 East Cooper) on the westside of theproperty which is a violation of the City’s fire code. This is not preservation of property. All other historical buildings in the neighborhoodhave front lawns. All the buildings that use the alley have cars parked outside theirbuildings thus creating smaller structures and more land availability. Your restrictions call for any new buildings on the site to be no more than 100% of whatexists. The proposed plan is 4x that amount. Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments Why is the HPC staff recommending approval of this application for the developer? Is itbecause the developer says it is providing affordable housing? The HPC has received multiple complaints from the neighbors that the proposed plansare detrimental to the neighborhood- not only disrupting ways of living but also creatingdollar devaluation. This is all very true. But what no one has discussed is what will happen to the people using this property ifbuilt as proposed? Instead of enjoying a new home; they will be miserable. Where will they park their cars?Where will their guests park? Will they be forced to stand in lines for buses or walk thestreets of Aspen? Where will their children put their bikes? Where will their childrenplay? What about their pets? Why should a family with a child in a stroller be forced tolive on a third floor? Just because these people are earning less than others in Aspen,does not mean they should not be able to enjoy their lives. The elephant in the room no one wants to talk about is the fact that the developers arenot interested in the welfare of the neighborhood, the City, or the people who will beliving in what they create- they are only in it to make tons of money. In fact, they statedin one of their neighborhood Zoom meetings that once it is built, they will sell- leavingall those living in, next to, or in the neighborhood in distress. If the developers of this property were really interested in those needing affordablehousing, they would build on the land available by the airport, where there is enoughland and space where people living there can enjoy their lives. Or the developer couldplan a larger development on a larger parcel where a small fraction of the planned unitswould be affordable, and people could integrate in a normal way with the rest of thecommunity. To get what they want, the developers have cleverly cherry-picked the City’s various regulations. This should not be allowed. For example, do not allow them to avail themselves to the benefits of historicalpreservation categorization but then avoid the requirement that any new building be lowin height by instead bringing in the height limits permitted under multifamily zoning. They continuously cherrypick and then if they cannot get what they want under eitherHPC or Zoning, they will pull out the affordable housing claim. The result is ahumongous structure that is no benefit to the neighborhood, the City, nor the peopledestined to live in it. The result is a massive use of a tiny historical property which has Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments never been contemplated by the City. I have a simple request. If you are interested in preserving Aspen, please do your job. Ifthis developer wants to erect a structure that meets your requirements, I am sureeveryone would welcome it. But if not, let the developer walk away and do not feelguilty. The developer will have just proven it is not interested in the welfare of thosewho need affordable housing, the developer is just proving that its objective was to attaina massive profit by creating a structure that would yield retail values at $2,200 persquare foot. The developer’s current plan has created a design using every square inch of land forbuilding- just like a can of sardines. And those people destined to live in that buildingwill have the same feeling- existing (not living) in a can of sardines. Please do what you have been entrusted to do. Best regards, Bukk Carleton 1012 E Cooper Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments Aspen Office 625 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone (970) 925-1936 Facsimile (970) 925-3008 GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Since 1975 www.garfieldhecht.com 2381840_2 January 6, 2021 CHRISTOPHER D. BRYAN cbryan@garfieldhecht.com Via E-Mail City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission c/o Ms. Sarah Yoon Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 E-mail: sarah.yoon@cityofaspen.com RE: Application of 1020 E. Cooper, LLC Multi-Family Affordable Housing at 1020 E. Cooper Ave. Dear Commissioners: This firm represents the Riverside Condominium Association (“Riverside”) and the Cooper Avenue Victorian Condominium Association, Inc. (“Cooper Victorian”) (Riverside and Cooper Victorian are referred to collectively herein as the “Associations”). These complexes are located on either side of 1020 E. Cooper Avenue, Aspen, Colorado at 1024 E. Cooper Avenue and 1012 E. Cooper Avenue, respectively. This letter will serve as the Associations’ concerns and opposition to the application submitted by 1020 E. Cooper, LLC (“Applicant”) for approval of a multi-family complex (the “Application”) that is scheduled for public hearing before you on January 13, 2021. As you are aware, members of these two Associations actively participated in the review process for the 2019 proposal by Applicant to redevelop this property with the relocation of the historic landmark and an addition thereto to create a larger single family home. At that time, members of Riverside and Cooper Victorian opposed the project due mainly to the proposed mass and scale of the addition, concerns that were shared and voiced by HPC members, who narrowly approved the project on a vote of 4-2. The 2019 proposal was called up by the City Council and then remanded back to HPC due to these same concerns of mass and scale pursuant to Sections 10.3 and 10.4 of the Historic Preservation Guidelines. The 2019 proposal was never finally approved. Specifically, HPC and City Council members were concerned with the large addition on the back of the historic home and the effect on the neighbors. When the HPC considered the proposal at its August 26, 2020, meeting, it came to light that the applicant’s re-design had raised the roof another few feet, without discussion with HPC, and several Commissioners still believed Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments City of Aspen HPC January 6, 2021 Page 2 2381840_3 that the mass and scale of the project was not appropriate. The hearing was continued to September 23, 2020, but it appears that the Applicant, in accordance with a prior e-mail to concerned neighbors, decided to revise the project to its current form – an application for a multi-family development. As this current application is for a new building in addition to the relocation and remodel of the historic home, Section 11 of the Guidelines applies rather than Section 10. Regardless, the concerns regarding mass and scale still exist, and additional concerns regarding parking and subdivision are also raised with this new proposal. Specifically, Section 11.2 states that the new building should not overwhelm the historic structure; Section 11.3 states that the new building must be similar in scale and proportion to the historic structure; and Section 11.4 states that the primary plane of the front of the new building should not appear taller than the historic structure. Moreover, since this is a multi-family complex, the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) apply, pursuant to Section 12.1. The Application states that the existing historic structure will be relocated toward the front of the lot and will be converted into two two-bedroom units, with a new structure located behind it that will consist of three units – a two-bedroom and two three-bedroom units. The Application states that these units will be sold to local employers to utilize as affordable housing pursuant to either Category 3 or 4 of the APCHA guidelines, and that Applicant expects the project to house 12.75 full time employees. It is worth noting that all of the renderings of the project show families living in these units, meaning that this maximum provision of employee housing likely will not be realized. The Application states that the new building will nearly reach the allowed maximum height of 32 feet, which is approximately 3 feet higher than the 2019 proposal, and over double the height of the existing historic structure. Renderings of the project in the Application show a deck on the front of the new building that is even above the roof of the historic structure. Although the Application states that by setting this building back from the historic structure the “perception of the height difference” is reduced, it is difficult to see how one can reduce a doubling of height. Furthermore, the 2019 proposal, at staff’s request, demolished the non- historic addition to the landmark home as an aid in reducing the mass of the project. The current proposal appears to maintain this non-historic addition in order to allow for more square footage for units in the landmark. Clearly, the mass and scale of the proposal has not been reduced from that in 2019 and, in fact, is increased as described herein and by the creation of five units on the property, taking the mass and scale consideration from that of a single family to potentially seventeen occupants if each unit is occupied by a family. Applicant wants HPC to consider the fact that the Riverside Condos and the Cooper Avenue Victorian Condos are “three stories” and thus that should make this project acceptable in mass and scale; however, this ignores the directive of the Guidelines, which requires HPC to consider mass and scale as compared with the historic structure. How the project appears in mass and scale to neighboring properties is irrelevant, especially when these neighboring structures are not historic landmarks. The criteria of Sections 11.3 and 11.4 of the Guidelines Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments City of Aspen HPC January 6, 2021 Page 3 2381840_3 simply cannot be met. Especially in light of the fact the 2019 project, which was of a smaller mass and scale of this proposal and for which HPC and City Council had concerns that similar Sections 10.3 and 10.4 (applying to additions to historic structures) could not be met, a finding that the mass and scale of this proposal is appropriate would be arbitrary and capricious and could subject the City to costly and protracted litigation. It is important to note that the cover letter for the Application states, at the top of page 4, that “[t]he units are proposed to be rentals that are sold to Pitkin County employers to rent to APCHA qualified employees. . .” Yet, the Application specifically states that a historic lot split, pursuant to Section 11.5 of the Guidelines, is not being requested. As the City Attorney knows, it is unlawful to sell units separately unless a subdivision or condominiumization has been approved. Our review of the relevant public records and other available materials indicates that no subdivision agreement has been approved for this property. That critical issue needs to be addressed by the Applicant in order for this project to qualify as affordable housing and is relevant to the issue of parking for this proposal. Absent proper land use approvals that are a prerequisite for the proposed development, HPC would be unlawfully exceeding its jurisdiction and abusing its discretion in approving the Application. Pursuant to Section 26.515.040 of the Aspen Municipal Code (“City Code”) and Table 26.515-1 therein, Applicant is to provide one parking space per unit, which means five parking spaces. Applicant proposes four parking spaces, one of which will have to be designated and designed as an ADA space (which is required by Section 12.1 of the Guidelines), with a payment of cash-in-lieu to satisfy the fifth space requirement. In support of the proposition that this will be sufficient parking, the Application states that car share and We-Cycle memberships will be offered to tenants along with a “welcome packet with alternative forms of transportation, bike and walking trail maps, and bus schedules” in order to discourage car ownership. However, if these units are to be sold to various employers, as the Application contemplates and as discussed above, Applicant has no control over whether these proposals will be followed. Furthermore, it is unrealistic to believe that twelve or more people occupying the units will, collectively, only own three cars (the ADA parking space will not be available for use unless a resident holds an ADA parking permit). Although the letter of the City Code may be technically met by this proposal, HPC is duty-bound to consider, in a practical sense, this impact on the historic property that has always been a small, single-family home necessitating only one or at most two on-street parking spots. If approved, the five units could easily end up needing twelve parking spots (one per bedroom), creating a major problem for the surrounding neighborhood and congesting an already-busy dense part of town – not to mention diminishing the charm of the historic property at issue. Even local employees have many reasons to have to run errands in town or to leave Aspen to meet basic shopping or travel needs for which a car is necessary. Section 12.1 of the Guidelines requires that this project comply with the ADA. The Application provides for one ADA parking spot but otherwise does not mention (much less prove) compliance with ADA accessibility requirements. Every unit is either more than one story or only accessible by stairs. It is unclear whether common areas would even be ADA-compliant Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments City of Aspen HPC January 6, 2021 Page 4 2381840_3 or -accessible. In fact, the Application fails to address Section 12.1 at all. For this reason alone, the Application must be denied for failure to satisfy Section 12.1’s criteria. As discussed throughout the Application, the subject property is located in the Residential Multi-Family (“RMF”) Zone District, which is governed by Section 26.710.090 of the City Code. As City staff members know, and the Commissioners too, Section 26.710.090(d) requires lots to have a minimum of 6,000 square foot area and a minimum width of 60 feet. The subject lot is 4,379 square feet. There is an exception in Chapter 26.312 of the City Code, entitled “Nonconformities,” that provides an exception that “a lot of record containing a property listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures need not meet the minimum lot area requirement of its zone district for historic structures.” See Section 26.312.050(c). However, unlike the provision in the section immediately prior to this, which states that certain lots created before 1971 that “do not meet the requirements for lot width and area” can continue as nonconforming (see Section 26.312.050(b)), the historic landmark nonconforming lot must nonetheless meet the zone district lot width requirements. In this instance, such cannot be met, as the lot is less than 60 feet wide. Furthermore, the purpose of the Nonconformities Chapter is “to permit nonconformities to continue, but not to allow nonconformities to be enlarged or expanded. The provisions of this Chapter are designed to curtail substantial investment in nonconformities in order to preserve the integrity of the zone districts and the other provisions of this Title but should not be construed as an abatement provision.” The City Code dictates that nonconforming historic landmark sites must meet all provisions of Chapter 26.415 concerning Historic Preservation. As set forth above, the mass and scale of the proposed project do not meet the Guidelines’ requirements. That indisputable fact, coupled with the small size of the subject lot (enhancing even more the inappropriate mass and scale of the subject project), certainly enlarges and expands the existing nonconformity in violation of Chapter 26.312 of the City Code. For these additional reasons the project should be denied. If HPC fails to require compliance with that City Code requirement, it will be exposing the City to legal challenge. Finally, with the small lot size and the additional strip of land that was added to it from the lot of 1012 E. Cooper pursuant to the 2006 adverse possession claim (see Letter from Tom Todd to HPC dated 10/30/20 included in the Application), the proposed new building would sit only seven feet from the Cooper Avenue Victorian building since that is barely two feet from the adjusted lot line and the proposal is up to the five-foot sideyard setback. The fire department requires a minimum ten-foot distance between multi-family buildings. This is yet another example of the project’s inappropriate mass and scale, and another reason that approval of the Application is inappropriate and contrary to the applicable criteria. In sum, we respectfully request that HPC take a hard look at the mass and scale of this proposal and the criteria of Sections 11.3 and 11.4 of the Guidelines, in conjunction with the review and discussion of the prior proposal for this property in 2019 and 2020 and concerns therewith, along with the City Code’s Nonconformities Chapter and safety requirements . HPC should not be persuaded or sidetracked by the proposal to bring addition affordable housing units Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments City of Aspen HPC January 6, 2021 Page 5 2381840_3 to the center of Aspen – this is not the place for such a proposal, not only because it dwarfs the historic structure and ignores the realities of car ownership and the occupation of units, but also because it enlarges and expands a nonconformity and creates a fire hazard. Furthermore, HPC must consider the requirements of Section 12.1 of the Guidelines, which are not even discussed or addressed by the Application. For these reasons, HPC should vote not to approve the Application. While the Application is laudable in some respects, this is simply the wrong location in Aspen for the proposed development. We are confident that HPC and City staff will come to the proper conclusion that the Application is neither viable pursuant to the Guidelines nor legally permissible. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding the Associations’ concerns. Very truly yours, GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. /S/ CHRISTOPHER D. BRYAN Christopher D. Bryan cc: Riverside Condominium Association Cooper Avenue Victorian Condominium Association, Inc. Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments From:Amy Simon To:Kevin Rayes; Sara Adams Subject:FW: 1020 E Cooper Avenue Proposed Development Date:Thursday, January 7, 2021 11:48:04 AM From: Kristi <kristi@rof.net> Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 11:41 AM To: Torre <torre@cityofaspen.com>; Ann Mullins <Ann.Mullins@cityofaspen.com>; Ward Hauenstein <ward.hauenstein@cityofaspen.com>; Rachael Richards <rachael.richards@cityofaspen.com>; Skippy Mesirow <skippy.mesirow@cityofaspen.com>; Public Comment <PublicComment@cityofaspen.com>; Amy Simon <amy.simon@cityofaspen.com>; Jessica.Garrow@cityofaspen.com; Torre <torre@cityofaspen.com>; Ann Mullins <Ann.Mullins@cityofaspen.com>; Ward Hauenstein <ward.hauenstein@cityofaspen.com>; Rachael Richards <rachael.richards@cityofaspen.com>; Skippy Mesirow <skippy.mesirow@cityofaspen.com>; Public Comment <PublicComment@cityofaspen.com>; Amy Simon <amy.simon@cityofaspen.com>; Jessica.Garrow@cityofaspen.com Subject: 1020 E Cooper Avenue Proposed Development Happy New Year to all! Before the meeting scheduled January 13th 2021 I wanted to forward a column written by the much loved and outspoken, Su Lum. Over and over I have listened to the developers talk of how Su would be behind this project and we should give this project our blessing?? The developer obviously didn’t know Su Lum AT ALL or is blatantly trying to mislead everyone!~ Anyone who knew anything at all about Su Lum knew cramming a bunch of condos (employee or not) on a small lot in the core of Aspen was not what preserving Aspen was or is about and or what she stood for. She would be rolling in her grave to know a developer took over her beloved little house and turned it into another oversized condo project to get tax and or other credit and breaks for an even larger project! https://www.aspentimes.com/opinion/lum-preserving-the-splinters/ Aspen does not need another property like 1024 East Cooper approved and built with no consideration for preserving any green space at all. We don’t need more like this on the main street coming into town! PLEASE don’t allow anyone to take away the front yard of 1020 East Cooper. Take that and you might as well build a box and cover the entire property, the charm is gone! They fact that the tiny lot could house 15 individuals plus guest is a huge issue. There is not near enough parking for the project considering how many people can live there at any certain time! MOST people in Aspen have a car and/or a motorcycle. I have lived in Aspen since ’95 and I can honestly say I cannot think of a sole back then or now that didn’t/doesn’t Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments own a car or motorcycle. (most cars in Aspen area larger SUV’s ) Are applicants going to be required to sell their vehicles in order to rent? Or does no one care, just cram more down 82 and in the Eastend neighborhood?!?!? Please take these well founded concerned into consideration. I respect that your job is hard and want to thank you for doing what you do. Thanks so much Kristi Gilliam 1024 East Cooper #8 970-948-0153 Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments From:Sarah Yoon To:Kevin Rayes Subject:FW: Partially read public comments at HPC meeting 01/13/2021 Date:Thursday, January 14, 2021 4:30:04 PM From: Caroline McDonald <scottandcarolinemcd@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 4:16 PM To: Torre <torre@cityofaspen.com>; Ann Mullins <Ann.Mullins@cityofaspen.com>; Ward Hauenstein <ward.hauenstein@cityofaspen.com>; rachael.richards@cityoaspen.com; Skippy Mesirow <skippy.mesirow@cityofaspen.com>; Amy Simon <amy.simon@cityofaspen.com>; Kristi <kristi@rof.net>; Bukk Carleton <bgcarleton@gmail.com>; will mcdonald <willymcd@gmail.com>; cbryan@garfieldhecht.com; bvc@concors.com; Lou Stover <loucardiff@gmail.com>; Ray surfdog <raysurfdog@gmail.com>; Megan Tackett <megan@aspendailynews.com>; Sarah Yoon <sarah.yoon@cityofaspen.com> Subject: Partially read public comments at HPC meeting 01/13/2021 01/13/2021, HPC MEETING, 1020 E COOPER APCHA Seemingly, the first buyers of 1020 E. Cooper who wished to build a single-family home were dissuaded by community development’s 19 step process to drop their project; then to recoup some of their losses sold their property to employee housing developers for future sale to meet the housing mitigation needs of proposed large scale commercial development. Who can say that this was not the outcome that community development wanted? This, considering the ease that this persuasion can be accomplished with a motivated staff and the current code. It is common knowledge that the city is hell-bent in obtaining as much employee housing as they can, by any and all means possible. No one can blame the wishful second homeowner for dropping their project considering community development’s staff history of addressing subjective minutia, protracted reviews, bias, fraudulent representation of self- validation, and the significant costs associated with an onerous process that generates 160 pages of mostly rhetorical busywork that everyone in government knows exists but no one does anything about. This gross overreach of discretionary authority has been allowed by a succession of city councils because of the significant revenue stream and self serving staff recommendations. Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments Municipal government’s purpose is to provide services to the public at cost, not to be an onerous enterprise enabled by home rule legislation against the so-called rich, second homeowner. Such over-the-top municipal enterprise as practiced by community development can be perceived by the public as predatory. How can a succession of city councils over decades, turn a blind eye to legislating ordinances that if they were in the shoes of the ordinance’s recipients, they would not condone themselves? This is a question that should be answered. Comparing the two packages submitted for HPC review, the Australian’s single-family home and the five plex, one is struck first by the significant massing of the three story, five Plex and secondly by the review criteria differences. Clearly the impact and the scale of the proposed employee housing development will have deleterious effects on the neighborhood that a single-family home would not. Staff findings: staff concerns relating to parking: “80% of required parking mitigation will be met on site which is a major benefit for tenants and contributes to the livability and quality of this project.” What’s great for this project is not great for the neighborhood. Besides limiting views and sun exposures, this significant development will burden the neighborhood with additional vehicles that will not be able to park in season. Exhibit A-7, staff findings: “given the residential use of the surrounding neighborhood, plenty of on street parking exists throughout the immediate area.” This statement is blatantly false . To estimate that only four parking spaces will suffice for a five, unit employee housing apartment is unrealistic considering there could be one car owned for each of the possible 8-18, tenants of the 5 apartment units. Everyone who lives in this neighborhood will attest that there is a dearth of parking spaces available in season. Cash in lieu for parking space is not a viable solution because it does not solve the problem that the neighborhood will be burdened with for decades. This city sponsored cash in lieu solution addressing deficiency in required parking typifies a shortsighted and cash hungry government Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments that does not give a hoot for the quality of life of the property owners in this neighborhood. What’s good for city staff and the corporate developers is not good for the quality of life in this neighborhood. Most definitely if this employee housing project is completed as defined, this neighborhood's property values will decline and this city council should be held accountable. This proposed development, HPC steered and justification rationalized by Amy, is an egregious example of municipal overreach of discretionary authority by Community Development as exemplified by their duplicity in review standards. All large scale developments should have employee housing on site. Why should the never ending corporate greed for more profits result in an environmental, density and living standard penalty to stable neighborhoods? APCHA specified subsistence wage, tranche housing has been made to order for higher corporate profits and market dominance by wage limit mandates. Is APCHA a blessing to Aspen employees or a low wage purgatory trap? Greed, largesse and social capital has always been the name of the game in Aspen, where we truly have the best municipal government that money can buy. It is not surprising, considering the voting demographics, that there has not been for two decades any meaningful representation in Aspen government to protect property rights for the free market homeowner and there has never been any city compunction to rectify this deficiency. This biased governance is fundamentally un-American and reprehensible. If you pay significant taxes you should have some say in not being regulatorily taken to the cleaners. The City Staff of Barwick's Ghost are still here. Scott and Caroline McDonald Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments Dear Members of the Historic Preservation Commission, As a resident of Aspen for over fifty years, I have long admired the emphasis Aspen has put on maintaining the unique history of our community. The is evident in the role your commission has played in protecting our historic properties. I live directly to the East of 1020 Cooper and my home is on the lower level of the 1024 Cooper complex. My property is my retirement and I’m very afraid of what I have seen with the plans for 1020 Cooper the last couple of years. It’s a repetitive cycle – someone buys the property, puts together plans to maximize their profits, and then tries to bend / break the HPC rules to suit their needs. Why do people continue to buy this property if they don’t want to build within the HPC guidelines? They are very aware of the HPC guidelines before they elect to purchase the property. This project is even larger and more massive than the last one that was rejected by the City Council and the HPC. If this project were approved, I would have no sunlight into my unit and my view out of my windows would be a blank wall. My home’s value would drop dramatically. Our alley is unpaved and already overwhelmed with cars. How would this many people only need 3-4 parking spots? The HPC guidelines were put in place for a reason – to prevent huge, monolithic structures like this from being built. I have faith the commission will do the right thing and not approve this project that will line the pockets of its developers with profits while watching the property values of neighbors deteriorate. This is a wonderful, historic property that just needs the right buyer. Godspeed, Len Horowitz Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments Dear HPC Members, My wife and I live directly behind the 1020 Cooper property. We have monitored the proposed projects the last few years and were glad to see the city council and HPC deny the effort to build such massive structures that overwhelm the historic resource. This project is no different. Why wouldn’t your previous concerns about mass and scale apply to this development as well? We welcome affordable housing in our community, but this is a very small lot that will be completely overwhelmed with a large structure. If they really want affordable housing, make it three units instead of five. Also, there is a designated parking spot in the alley of our property that is directly behind the current sheds located on 1020 Cooper – please see pictures below. Based on the current plans, there is no possible way cars will be able to pull into and out of the proposed development parking. I measured the distance from the current sheds to the vehicle parked on our property and it is only 12 feet. According to the City of Aspen Engineering Standards (see below), Section 4, any 90-degree angle parking spots require a width of 24 feet in the alley. The proposed plan would be half this amount and present a dangerous, unrealistic parking scenario for the tenants. Finally, we have a serious parking issue in our neighborhood already as we have an unpaved alley which makes it very difficult to traverse with snow on the ground. My sincere hope is that the HPC members honor their roles as public servants and makes a decision that is best for the public – not for developers. Sincerely, Lorne and Laura Leil 1015 Hyman #2 Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments There is a designated parking spot on the plat directly behind the current sheds running east to west. 12 feet width between sheds and parked car in designated spot. This does not meet City of Aspen Engineering standards and makes it impossible for cars to pull in and out of proposed parking spots. 12 feet Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments From:Lou Stover To:Amy Simon; Kevin Rayes Subject:1020 E. Cooper Date:Friday, January 8, 2021 12:21:55 PM Hello there, I am very concerned about the proposal ed redevelopment of 1020 E Cooper, Aspen. There has been a lot of word smithing about this project, which reminds me of my corporate marketing days: PR articles in the papers, references to Su Lum, etc. As Su’s neighbor I know she didn’t like our project with its shed in the back. Read what she actually wrote. It’s just TOO BIG. Too many units, too few parking places, congestion in an already crowded dead end alley, etc. It introduces renters to what has been an all owner neighborhood. Again, word smithing: it’s being called Multi-family. And we have to live with this monstrosity. Lou Stover 1006 E. Cooper Aspen Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments From:Danusia Novak To:Torre; ann.mullins@cityofaspen.co; Ward Hauenstein; rachel.richards@cityofaspen.co; Skippy Mesirow Cc:Kristi@rof.net; cbryan@garfieldhecht.com; Kevin Rayes; Amy Simon Subject:1020 East Cooper, LLC project Date:Monday, January 11, 2021 12:59:11 PM Dear Commissioners, I am the president of the Vincenti Homeowners Association which consists of the 5 units directly across the alley from this proposed development. 4 out of the 5 of us have lived here in excess of 30 years. While I applaud the expansion from a single family home to employ housing units, the proposed development is too excessive. I feel 3 employee housing units for that small a lot would be more consistent with the neighborhood. I would also insist that the alley which is owned by the City of Aspen be paved. There is obviously minimum parking on Cooper aka Hwy 82 . Paving of the alley would also eliminate the dust created by the cars and also allow children and grandchildren enjoy a play area. Any additional thoughts or questions, please contact me at 619-291-4441. Sincerely, Mike Pack 1015 E. Hyman #4 Aspen, CO 81611 Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments From:Amy Simon To:MT Biz; Kevin Rayes Subject:RE: 1020 E Cooper Ave projrct Date:Thursday, January 7, 2021 10:41:26 AM Thank you Mark. We will forward this to the HPC. If you decide you want to attend the virtual meeting please let me know if you need guidance on how to join. Hope all is well for you. From: MT Biz <fun22@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 10:22 AM To: Kevin Rayes <kevin.rayes@cityofaspen.com> Cc: Amy Simon <amy.simon@cityofaspen.com> Subject: 1020 E Cooper Ave projrct To whom it may concern, RE: 1020 East Cooper Ave---redevelopment. I am absolutely not opposed to the employee housing that is proposed. I live next to 949 East Cooper Ave (over 30 years)- The St Regis Hotel employee housing; and also with in ear shot of The Ski company’s housing on the corner of East Cooper and South West End. I do have problems with a few points: 1- Mass and scale; the plans I have seen so far ; it portends a big boxy oversized structure-not in character with the changing neighborhood 2- The parking is totally inadequate for volume of tenants suggested. In fact with the present units on East Cooper, parking is full all summer and winter on both sides of East Cooper; from City Market to the roaring fork bridge---off season is getting increasingly busier too. 3-The present designs are totally misrepresented on the back alley size of their plans—it is a narrow alley 4-Their car count for alley parking is totally out of line with reality. –A few suggestions as this project goes thru review_ -on site parking must be increased-reduce bedroom count. -. -No side setback variances should be granted -There should only be 2 entrances one front and one rear of building . -Minimum 12 month leases or perhaps go from rental to owner occupied to respect serenity of surrounding neighborhood.. Strict HOA rules to not alow clutter on decks or property itself, 1024 É Cooper has these rules along with maximum occupants allowed and mandatory quiet hours -This is not a location to try over size maximum density. - Mark Tye Owner 935 East Cooper Ave and #3 Riverside Townhomes; 1024 East Cooper Ave Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments