Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAll Feb 10th public comments combinedFrom:Karen Watson To:ann.mullins@cityofaspen.co; rachel.richards@cityofaspen.co; Skippy Mesirow; Torre; Ward Hauenstein; Kevin Rayes; Amy Simon; Sarah Yoon Subject:1020 East Cooper Parking concerns Date:Monday, January 25, 2021 9:34:41 AM Dear City of Aspen: My family and I have been coming to Aspen since I was young. Last Summer (2020) I rented a 3 bedroom condo at 1024 East Cooper #2 (Tracy McCuthin’s unit). We had one assigned parking spot. I brought my car and my daughter brought her car for work reasons. There was NO off street parking to be found. I called my agent and complained. We had such a difficult time finding parking, that my husband drove a car home (cancelling his flight home). Loving Aspen as much as we do, we put an offer on a unit at Eau Clair but cancelled that when we were told there was NO assigned parking! This is a huge issue already and is getting worse with the more structures being built without sufficient parking. I cannot imagine five, 2-3 bedroom condos being proposed on the historic sight at 1020 East Cooper with only 4 designated off street parking spots. How can that be preserving anything much less the historic property! Karen Watson Sent from my iPad 1280 Ute Avenue • Suite 21 • Aspen, Colorado 81611 RESERVATIONS 970/925-5775 • OFFICE 970/925-4554 • FAX 970/925-5317 WEBSITE www.huts.org • E-MAIL huts@huts.org February 1, 2021 Amy Simon, Planning Director Kevin Rayes, Planner C ity of Aspen Community Development C ity of Aspen Community Development Re: 1020 East Coo p er Project Dear Amy and Kevin, 10th Mountain Division Hut Association supports the proposal to develop affordable housing at 1020 East Cooper Street. The community benefits of this project such as historic preservation, affordable housing, environmental sustainability and local character are undisputable and the proponents are to be commended for bringing a thoughtful and valuable project to the table. Unfortunately, it seems that owners of adjacent residential units are concerned that this project will be bad for the neighborhood. While one can understand that these owners want to preserve and protect their interests, it bears noting that there are numerous examples in the As pen area where affordable housing has been integrated with free market housing with very positive outcomes. One good example is 10th Mountain’s affordable housing project it constructed on Ute Avenue in 1994. Fritz and Fabi Benedict , founders of 10th Mountain Division Hut Association, had previously donated land to 10th Mountain for affordable housing purposes and by 1994 there was a clear need to develop housing in order to attract and retain qualified, long term, valuable employees . 10th Mountain constructed - in the midst of free market real estate - a s ingle building with a studio and a 2-bedroom unit plus a small attached garage and has managed them to Aspe n Pitkin County Housing Authority rules and regulations ever since. This housing project adds value to 10th Mountain, to the community, and to the neighborhood because it is designed, built, maintained, and adminis tered thoug htfully and to high standards. Most important, t he long -term residents are good people and good neighbors: they take pride in where they live, look out for their neighbors, keep their front porches tidy, park their cars in designated areas and undoubtedly cont ribute to the town’s vibrant and critically important local community character. The 10th Mountain Division Hut Association, a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization, has been headquartered in Aspen since 1981 and operat es a system of 36 backcountry huts in the central Rocky Mountains of Colorado. Its main administrative offices are located in the B enedict Building at 1280 Ute Avenue. Sincerely, Ben Dodge Executive Director From:Bukk Carleton To:Kevin Rayes; Amy Simon Subject:Thoughts for HPC staff Date:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 9:26:33 AM Dear Amy and Kevin, Would you please disseminate this to the entire HPC staff? I would appreciate a response as to their thinking. Bukk Carleton 1012 E Cooper Dear HPC Staff, As a property owner and taxpayer in Aspen, I appreciate the work you do. Regarding the application for 1020 East Cooper Avenue, I was surprised at what culminated after a staff review – it was and is my understanding that it is the staff’s job to obtain facts with regard to how well a project complies with HPC’s guidelines and then pass those facts onto the HPC Board so that they can then make an informed and accurate decision. Listening to the hearing last week, I did not hear that coming through. Instead, what I heard was an endorsement for approval of the proposed plan without the objective facts being disseminated to the Board. HPC guidelines would apply in regard to this application in the following manner: 1) The guidelines call for any additional space to be added to the property should not be increased beyond 100% of what is presently existing. If the staff was making a distinction between that guideline which mentions a building attached to the existing building and a building that is separated from the existing building, then I am wondering why they would think the existing guidelines should not apply. A separate building would call for even more space needs due to the need for access and meeting fire codes. In like manner, if the staff were driving a 11’ high truck and came upon a tunnel entrance indicating that the top of the tunnel was 10’6” would they continue to drive into the tunnel? Even if by some notion, they felt there was some exemption to the guideline it would be in any case incumbent upon staff to point out that the new proposal was close to 5,000 SF more than double the earlier proposal of 2000+ SF and that amount of square footage was already decided by City Council to be too large in mass and scale for the property. 2) The developer’s design calls for relocating the existing structure to the front of the lot. The guidelines call for setbacks emulating contemporary setbacks with neighboring historic structures which are set back and have a front lawn. All neighboring properties have front lawns. Part of HPC guidelines state that there will be a lawn in front of a historic structure and thus moving this structure to the front of the lot does not meet HPC guidelines. 3) The guidelines call for any new structure to not overwhelm the existing structure. The height of the new building standing 18’ above the existing structure (almost a triple over the existing building height) is certainly overwhelming and, again, does not meet the HPC guidelines and should have been flagged as a serious deficiency of this application. 4) The whole question of whether the property is appropriate for multifamily use. The lot is approximately 43’ wide. The Zoning requirement calls for a minimum width of 60’. This should have been flagged as a significant issue suggesting multi-family use may not be appropriate on this non-conforming lot. 5) The developer has proposed three-bedroom units which are “only” 16% lower than what is (again) the requirement for 3-bedroom units. Regardless of the developer’s desire or thinking, 16% less does not meet requirements and one would think that would be brought to the attention of the Board by staff as well. At this point, I would think the staff would pass on these facts to the commission so the Board could then decide as to what they wish to do with the application. I have two additional thoughts as to the staff’s responsibility for a fact-finding mission: A) It should physically measure the distances in the rear alley to see what driving radii are or are not being met in the design. This would include an analysis based on summer and winter weather when snow becomes an impediment B) Determine what is the maximum number of occupants that can be put into a proposed structure on this lot as designed. APCHA guidelines provide minimum occupancy to meet requirements, but that will not prevent a landlord from allowing significantly higher occupancy, which diminishes livability and quality of life for all residents, and of course puts pressure on the neighborhood. At a minimum, according to APCHA guidelines, roommates could occupy the buildings up to the number of bedrooms which would provide 12 individuals living on this property with only 4 parking spaces available. To my mind, the neighbors should not have to come up with this information, it should be provided by the Staff to the applicant, the public and to the Board. It seemed apparent to me that the Staff bought into the developer’s concept that existing HPC guidelines promulgated to preserve the history of Aspen are items that can be ignored. Whether they are called “guidelines”, “statutes” or “regulations”, these are the rules established by the City to be sure that the historic preservation is just that - preserved. Thus, it is not appropriate for the Staff to a) buy into a developer’s claim as to what is and is not permissible to be ignored in the way of rules and b) to become an advocate of a proposal if the staff is to ignore all the guidelines in making a pitch for approval. By doing so, having eliminated the parameters by which the Board is supposed to adhere to- the Staff, in effect, has become no better than a group of people with an opinion, and that opinion having eliminated both the facts and the guidelines, is no better than the opinion of a person walking down the street. With that said, if the staff wanted to have a second section where they can break out any of their thoughts (which might be positive or negative), then I would suggest that be separately defined and explained. Some thoughts I would propose would encompass- what kind of a lifestyle will the occupants experience in the proposed development? That, of course, gets into opinion. As a group, the staff might think it is adequate or desirable. To my mind, the current 1020 proposal would give occupants a lifestyle significantly below what one would hope would be provided to a normal individual living in Aspen, who should not be considered a second-class citizen. Examples of not being able to live a normal life: - Not providing enough parking spaces for the number of units so at least one individual (and probably eight people) will be forced to spend their time walking the streets of Aspen or flagging down a bus. - If the occupants have children, where will they play? - Where will pets go outside? - If the occupants have young children still in cribs or too young to walk, why will the occupants have to climb three floors with a stroller to be able to live? - Why should the occupants have to keep their shades drawn just so that they are not looking into someone’s face just 10’ away? - Why should three people assigned to a 3-bedroom unit be forced to squeeze into a unit with a 2 bedroom size? Certainly, this design does not result in a lifestyle that the developers would wish upon themselves. I am also convinced that if the Staff is providing opinions you might want to point out that if the developers did not design a plan that forced cars to have to park under the planned building, then a whole floor could be eliminated. I hope the above is useful not just in the instance of 1020’s application but all future applications that will come before you. Again, I am interested in feedback from the staff as to what they believe their function is and whether, in fact, the staff believes it should be transmitting facts to the board and the public - but leaving the decision as to what to do with the facts up to the Board. I would hope it would be part of the staff’s obligation to look at not only the various rules and regulations (i.e. guidelines) but whether the proposed structure(s) provide those individual(s) who are the lifeblood of the City- providing services in which all residents/visitors are dependent upon- a normal lifestyle. Perhaps instead of coming up with the feel-good term of “affordable housing” a more accurate description – at least for this project – is “inferior housing.” Best regards, Bukk Carleton From:Caroline McDonald To:Torre; Ann Mullins; Ward Hauenstein; rachael.richards@cityoaspen.com; Skippy Mesirow; Amy Simon; Kristi; Bukk Carleton; will mcdonald; cbryan@garfieldhecht.com; bvc@concors.com; Lou Stover; Ray surfdog; Megan Tackett; Sarah Yoon Subject:Partially read public comments at HPC meeting 01/13/2021 Date:Thursday, January 14, 2021 4:16:53 PM 01/13/2021, HPC MEETING, 1020 E COOPER APCHA Seemingly, the first buyers of 1020 E. Cooper who wished to build a single-family home were dissuaded by community development’s 19 step process to drop their project; then to recoup some of their losses sold their property to employee housing developers for future sale to meet the housing mitigation needs of proposed large scale commercial development. Who can say that this was not the outcome that community development wanted? This, considering the ease that this persuasion can be accomplished with a motivated staff and the current code. It is common knowledge that the city is hell-bent in obtaining as much employee housing as they can, by any and all means possible. No one can blame the wishful second homeowner for dropping their project considering community development’s staff history of addressing subjective minutia, protracted reviews, bias, fraudulent representation of self- validation, and the significant costs associated with an onerous process that generates 160 pages of mostly rhetorical busywork that everyone in government knows exists but no one does anything about. This gross overreach of discretionary authority has been allowed by a succession of city councils because of the significant revenue stream and self serving staff recommendations. Municipal government’s purpose is to provide services to the public at cost, not to be an onerous enterprise enabled by home rule legislation against the so-called rich, second homeowner. Such over-the-top municipal enterprise as practiced by community development can be perceived by the public as predatory. How can a succession of city councils over decades, turn a blind eye to legislating ordinances that if they were in the shoes of the ordinance’s recipients, they would not condone themselves? This is a question that should be answered. Comparing the two packages submitted for HPC review, the Australian’s single-family home and the five plex, one is struck first by the significant massing of the three story, five Plex and secondly by the review criteria differences. Clearly the impact and the scale of the proposed employee housing development will have deleterious effects on the neighborhood that a single-family home would not. Staff findings: staff concerns relating to parking: “80% of required parking mitigation will be met on site which is a major benefit for tenants and contributes to the livability and quality of this project.” What’s great for this project is not great for the neighborhood. Besides limiting views and sun exposures, this significant development will burden the neighborhood with additional vehicles that will not be able to park in season. Exhibit A-7, staff findings: “given the residential use of the surrounding neighborhood, plenty of on street parking exists throughout the immediate area.” This statement is blatantly false . To estimate that only four parking spaces will suffice for a five, unit employee housing apartment is unrealistic considering there could be one car owned for each of the possible 8-18, tenants of the 5 apartment units. Everyone who lives in this neighborhood will attest that there is a dearth of parking spaces available in season. Cash in lieu for parking space is not a viable solution because it does not solve the problem that the neighborhood will be burdened with for decades. This city sponsored cash in lieu solution addressing deficiency in required parking typifies a shortsighted and cash hungry government that does not give a hoot for the quality of life of the property owners in this neighborhood. What’s good for city staff and the corporate developers is not good for the quality of life in this neighborhood. Most definitely if this employee housing project is completed as defined, this neighborhood's property values will decline and this city council should be held accountable. This proposed development, HPC steered and justification rationalized by Amy, is an egregious example of municipal overreach of discretionary authority by Community Development as exemplified by their duplicity in review standards. 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 ASPEN OFFICE 625 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone (970) 925-1936 Facsimile (970) 925-3008 GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Since 1975 www.garfieldhecht.com 2398127.3 January 22, 2021 CHRISTOPHER D. BRYAN cbryan@garfieldhecht.com Via E-Mail Jim True, City Attorney City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 E-mail: jim.true@cityofaspen.com RE: Application of 1020 E. Cooper, LLC Multi-Family Affordable Housing at 1020 E. Cooper Ave. Dear Jim: As you are aware, this firm represents the Riverside Condominium Association (“Riverside”) and the Cooper Avenue Victorian Condominium Association, Inc. (“Cooper Victorian”) (Riverside and Cooper Victorian are referred to collectively herein as the “Associations”). We wanted to reach out to you after the January 13, 2021, Historic Preservation Commission (“HPC”) meeting to discuss some issues that, in the limited public comment time, could not be sufficiently vetted at the hearing but that your office and the City Staff members should consider as Applicant revises its proposal. First, the obvious issue is that the proposal fails to comply with pertinent provisions of the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (the “Guidelines”). As stated therein, “[t]he design guidelines provide a basis for making decisions about the appropriate treatment of historic resources and compatible new construction.” The Guidelines “serve to reinforce the purpose of the Historic Preservation Chapter in the Aspen Land Use Code.” City Staff and the HPC are charged with determining “that a sufficient number of the relevant guidelines have been adequately met in order to approve a project proposal.” Property owners are encouraged to choose “[u]ses that closely relate to the building’s original use . . . Every reasonable effort should be made to provide a compatible use for the building that will require minimal alteration to the building and its site.” Section 24.415.010 of the Aspen City Code (“Code”) incorporates the Guidelines by stating “. . . new construction in historic areas shall respect the character of each such setting, not by imitating surrounding structures, but by being compatible with them as defined in historic preservation guidelines.” (emphasis added). Section 24.415.060(B)(1) states that the HPC has adopted the Guidelines, which “set forth the standards necessary to preserve and maintain the historic and architectural character of designated properties and districts.” Further, Section 24.415.060(B)(2) states that “[c]onformance with the applicable [HPC] guidelines and the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304 will be necessary for the approval of any proposed work.” The proposal for 1020 E. Cooper is proceeding as a “major development” in accordance with Code Section 26.415.070(D)(3)(b)(2), which provides that “[t]he HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project’s conformance GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. Jim True, Aspen City Attorney January 22, 2021 Page 2 2398127.3 with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.” At the HPC hearing, the “HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny.” (Code Section 26.415.070(D)(3)(b)(3).) Any attempt to argue that the Guidelines are merely advisory and not binding is preposterous. In this instance, it is clear that the historic resource is merely being used as a vehicle to crowd five “affordable housing units” into an undersized lot, failing to follow the Guidelines and preserve the historic resource and disregarding quality of life issues. This is a serious abuse of the historic preservation process, an abuse that has been perpetuated by City Staff not only in supporting the proposal but, in essence, advocating for it to the detriment of the HPC’s mission in violation of the Code and Guidelines. The policies set forth above are not being followed – the historic resource currently sits on the site with a large front and side yard; it is being moved to the minimal front and side yard setback of five feet. The historic resource is a small single-family home without a basement or window wells; it is being put on a basement, split into two residential units, and window wells added. Adaptive uses (new uses) of historic resources should “retain[s] the historic character of the building while accommodating new functions.” As an example, the Guidelines state that it would be “inappropriate to turn the living room of a historic building into a bathroom,” for it results in a major change in the floor plan. In the current proposal, the floor plan of the historic resource is eviscerated. Chapter 1 of the Guidelines opens with “[t]he character of a historic structure is greatly influenced by. . . the physical characteristics of the specific site, and the way in which the historic resource is situated on the lot.” Under the current proposal, as stated above, the historic resource will be relocated in a way that destroys the historic nature of the resource’s site location and the site itself. The lot will be completely filled with structures with the exception of the minimal five-foot setbacks and the ten-foot strip between the buildings. As discussed at the January 13 HPC hearing, the lots to the west of this property all have large front yards, following the “overall development pattern of the neighborhood” – as currently located, the historic resource is “consistent” with the neighborhood; the relocation will create a deviation therefrom. Guideline 1.1 states that “[a]ll projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or district.” All of that has been ignored here. Guideline 1.7 states that applicants should “[e]nsure that open space on site is meaningful and consolidated into a few large spaces rather than many small unusable areas.” Open space on this site will not be preserved by the proposal, and the space provided is such that residents will be crowded together in trying to use it. Guideline 9.2 states that “[p]roposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. . . It must be demonstrated that on-site relocation is the best preservation alternative in order for approval to be granted.” Based on the foregoing, it can hardly be said that is the true in this instance. Furthermore, pursuant to Guideline 9.3, “[i]t must face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback.” Although forward movement is preferred to lateral (though that is occurring here as well), the loss of 25 feet of front lawn cannot be ignored. Both the HPC and City Council had serious concerns that the prior proposal, for a single-family home attached to the historic resource, did not comply with the Guidelines as it was too large in mass and scale as compared with the historic resource. The matter was continued several times by HPC based upon these concerns, was approved by a vote of 4-2 (again, these concerns), was called up by City Council and remanded back to HPC due to these concerns, and then continued several times until the new applicant came back with the current proposal. Although this is a “new” proposal, for a detached, separate building, GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. Jim True, Aspen City Attorney January 22, 2021 Page 3 2398127.3 this issue is exacerbated and, based upon the prior process and concerns, should be looked at through the same lens. Chapter 11 of the Guidelines is crucial to the analysis of this proposal. In the introduction, it states that “a new building should be designed in a manner that reinforces the basic visual characteristics of the site.” Here, the proposal destroys the basic visual characteristics of the site. “A new design must relate to the fundamental characteristics of the historic resource (site, location mass, form, materials details).” Id. “A new building must be compatible in mass and scale with its historic neighbor.” Id. The current proposal is larger – both physically and in scope (due to it being a multi-family structure of five units) – than the 2019 proposal of a single-family home. Guidelines 11.3 and 11.4 require the HPC to consider the mass and scale of the new building as it relates to the historic resource. The City Staff report for the January 13 HPC meeting hardly even mentions these provisions, nor does it really discuss mass and scale. Applicant wants HPC to consider the fact that the Riverside Condos and the Cooper Avenue Victorian Condos are “three stories” and thus that should make this project acceptable in mass and scale; however, this ignores the directive of the Guidelines, which requires HPC to consider mass and scale as compared with the historic structure. How the project appears in mass and scale to neighboring properties is irrelevant, especially when these neighboring structures are not historic landmarks. Moreover, the lots on which Riverside Condos and the Cooper Avenue Victorian Condos are located are significantly larger than the small, nonconforming lot where the historic resource is located. The criteria of Guidelines 11.3 and 11.4 simply cannot be met by this proposal. Especially in light of the fact the 2019 project, which was of a smaller mass and scale than this proposal and for which HPC and City Council had concerns that similar Sections 10.3 and 10.4 (applying to additions to historic structures) could not be met, a finding that the mass and scale of this proposal is appropriate would be arbitrary and capricious and could subject the City to costly and protracted litigation. This historic resource is tiny; the proposal is massive in comparison. In particular, Guideline 11.4 states that “[t]he primary plane of the front [of the new structure] shall not appear taller than the historic structure.” The proposed new building is nearly three times the height of the historic resource, almost to the maximum height allowed in the zone district. There will not be any natural light available between the buildings on the property, and by maximizing the setbacks, none on either side as well. City Staff failed to follow the Code and outline how this proposal conforms to the Guidelines, because it does not, but Staff evidently was too invested in allowing affordable housing that it chose to ignore these issues, in dereliction of its duties. Second, it has been stated by Staff, HPC members, and ourselves that this is a non-conforming lot for the Residential Multi-Family (“RMF”) Zone District (4379 square feet compared to the required 6000 square feet), such that but for the historic resource, a multi-family structure could not be constructed on the lot at all; only a single-family home would be allowed. As discussed throughout the Application and the January 13 HPC hearing, the subject property is located in the RMF Zone District, which is governed by Section 26.710.090 of the City Code. As City staff members know, and the Commissioners too, Section 26.710.090(d) requires lots to have a minimum of 6,000 square foot area and a minimum width of 60 feet. The subject lot is 4,379 square feet. There is an exception in Chapter 26.312 of the City Code, entitled “Nonconformities,” that provides an exception that “a lot of record containing a property listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures need not meet the minimum lot area requirement of its zone district for historic structures.” See Section 26.312.050(c). However, unlike the GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. Jim True, Aspen City Attorney January 22, 2021 Page 4 2398127.3 provision in the Code section immediately prior to this, which states that certain lots created before 1971 that “do not meet the requirements for lot width and area” can continue as nonconforming (see Section 26.312.050(b)), the historic landmark nonconforming lot must nonetheless meet the zone district lot width requirements. In this instance, the lot is fewer than 60 feet wide, and the use thereof should be limited accordingly. It is important to note that the lots for Riverside and Cooper Victorian actually exceed the minimal lot size in the RMF Zone District. This small lot is an anomaly in this neighborhood and should be recognized as such. Furthermore, the purpose of the Nonconformities Chapter is “to permit nonconformities to continue, but not to allow nonconformities to be enlarged or expanded. The provisions of this Chapter are designed to curtail substantial investment in nonconformities in order to preserve the integrity of the zone districts and the other provisions of this Title but should not be construed as an abatement provision.” Construction of this project would be a substantial investment in a nonconformity and would not preserve the integrity of the zone district. The small size of the subject lot enhances even more the inappropriate mass and scale of the subject project and certainly enlarges and expands the existing nonconformity in violation of Chapter 26.312 of the City Code. For these additional reasons, the project should be denied. In sum, it is clear that this proposal is a classic example of trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Applicant’s presentation of an affordable housing project has caused City Staff and the HPC to ignore the applicable Code and Guidelines, which will work to the City’s detriment and expose the City to legal challenge. Su Lum’s house is a designated historic landmark in Aspen; it should not be used as a vehicle to allow a dense, multi-family development on a tiny lot in violation of the City’s own rules and regulations. Purchasing property with a historic resources does not, and should not, allow the owner to “game the system,” which is what is happening with this proposal and City Staff’s recommendations. Please contact me to discuss these issues further before all parties involved spend additional time and financial resources on this matter. Very truly yours, GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. Christopher D. Bryan cc: Riverside Condominium Association Cooper Avenue Victorian Condominium Association, Inc. Mary Elizabeth Geiger, Esq. Kate Johnson, Esq. 610 S. West End Street Aspen, CO 81611 T: 970.925.5000 / 800.345.1471 www.gantaspen.com January 11, 2021 RE: Support for 1020 East Cooper Project HPC Members, Our communities’ efforts over the years to ensure employee housing availability has been an integral part of our success as a community. Providing for the ability to effectively recruit and retain qualified talent to our workforce. Over the years, both completion to other resort areas as well as diminished opportunities for additional employee housing burden this deficit. The proposed project at 1020 East Cooper is a unique opportunity to continue these efforts, does not require any land use code amendments and will preserve a historic asset. It seems to me to be a natural fit, and such an opportunity does not come along that often. In the interest of continuing to support our efforts to preserve our mountain town quality of life, ensure additional employee housing needs are met, and remain competitive in a tightening market; I am very much in support of this project and urge your support and approval as well. I am available for further comment if you wish. Direct Number: 970-920-6070 Email Address: donnie.lee@gantaspen.com Sincerely, Donnie Lee General Manager From:Kristi To:Torre; Ann Mullins; Ward Hauenstein; Rachael Richards; Skippy Mesirow; Public Comment; Amy Simon; Jessica.Garrow@cityofaspen.com; Torre; Ann Mullins; Ward Hauenstein; Rachael Richards; Skippy Mesirow; Public Comment; Amy Simon; Jessica.Garrow@cityofaspen.com; Sarah Yoon; jeffrey.halferty@cityofaspen.com; gretchen.greenwood@cityofaspen.com; kara.thompson@cityofaspen.com.; roger.moyer@cityofaspen.com; scott.kendrick@cityofaspen.com; sheri.sanzone@cityofaspen.com Subject:1020 E Cooper Avenue Proposed Development Date:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 11:24:22 AM Dear Council and HPC- I want to thank each of you for trying to do your best in many difficult situations recently. I don’t want to see this happen at 1020 East Cooper. 201 West Main was redeveloped by longtime Owner/Developer into 8 Employee housing units. Selling for $710,000 to $745,000 (2 already closed) Click to view listing(s) I had a client view the two unsold units on Saturday. She thought it might be a good investment, considering the fact that she could resale, in a few years and make a nice profit. She called me after the showing and she was disgusted! She said it was the worst thing she had ever seen. She could not believe Aspen would consider putting its valued employees in these. She said she wouldn’t put her dog in it! Plastic bathtubs, Formica counters, cheapest construction she had ever seen. She said there was no way they spent over $100/per square foot. (I am not here to debate the actual cost, just relaying what I was told) With 8 units at an average of $725,000 the developer is looking at making approx. $5,800,000. It’s highly doubtful, even in this market, this same Owner could have made near this amount on Main Street using the higher quality materials needed to sell a house in Aspen these days. This Owner/Developer mostly likely got a lot of credits too! This is most likely going to be the same situation at 1020 East Cooper. Both developers bragging about needing “no city subsiding” which they certainly don’t need with everything they get in return!!!! The City has made a fortune this year and should be able to buy property and/or develop the property they have and make the employee housing units something employees, Pitkin County, neighbors, visitors, etc. can be proud of not a bunch of junk where the developers are the real winners. I ask all of you to dig deep and ask yourself: Is the proposed project for 1020 East Cooper a true reflection of HPC and a statement and reason HPC was formed? Will this project be something the neighborhood can be proud of for years to come? Will it be a property that will transcend those passing by on daily bases, to a time when BIGGER DID NOT ALWAYS MEAN BETTER? A time when a small house with grass and a yard WAS the American dream. Is this proposed project something HPC and City Council can honestly be proud of and feel that with a lot of hard work and difficult decisions, they approved the best application for this special (and one of the few) historic properties located a main entrance to Aspen for all to see and admire???????????? IF IT WON’T BE, IT SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED, NO MATTER WHO GETS PAID OR WHO WILL BE LIVING THERE! Thanks so much Kristi Gilliam 1024 East Cooper #8 970-948-0153 From:Baron Concors To:Kristi; Kevin Rayes Subject:Re: 1015 East Hyman Date:Friday, February 5, 2021 9:12:59 AM Hi Kevin, I'm a neighbor as well. I wanted to let you know I went over and talked to the resident who has this parking spot in the alley. The fence you speak of is actually a trellis that sits on top of the railroad ties that form her patio. This patio has been there since the property was built so it is not blocking any access to the parking spot. I also took a picture of the current parking situation - see attached. I measured 12 feet from her car to the sheds (where the future parking spots for 1020 Cooper are planned.) I want to make sure it is called out that this is still an outstanding issue for the proposed development at 1020 Cooper. At the last hearing, Amy said someone must be parking in the alley illegally and we now have confirmed that is not accurate. It will be physically impossible for someone to pull into / pull out of a 90 degree parking spot with less than 12 feet of distance to work with. This is the narrowest point in alley. Not sure what next steps are on this but this will be raised as an issue at the hearing on 2/10 Best, Baron On 2/5/21, 9:29 AM, "Kristi" <kristi@rof.net> wrote: Here is Kevins contact. -----Original Message----- From: Kevin Rayes <kevin.rayes@cityofaspen.com> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 5:26 PM To: Kristi <kristi@rof.net> Subject: RE: 1015 East Hyman Hi Kristi, I am the same Kevin on the zoom call last week. I am happy to help and get everyone on the same page regarding the neighboring parking space. You may have to zoom into the condo plat that I sent in order to read some of the text. I went ahead and highlighted the parking area memorialized in the condo plat so you can see it easier (see attachment above). The affordable units are memorialized in the supplemental condo plat attached above. The parking spot is included in this plat as well but it is much more faint and hard to see. The parking space is memorialized within the property boundary of 1015 E. Hyman. It appears a fence was constructed along the perimeter of the property at some point in the past, partially blocking full access to the spot. From what I can tell, the individual parking in this space may be partially encroaching into City right-of-way (see attached screenshot). Do you know if the fence located at the rear of 1015 E. Hyman was ever permitted? Thanks. To promote the health and safety of our staff and community and to minimize the spread of COVID-19, Community Development staff are conducting business by email and phone and are only available in person by appointment. Contact information for our entire staff and how best to get the services you need can be found on our website: cityofaspen.com/177/Community-Development. Thank you for your understanding. Kevin Rayes Community Development Department Planner 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 P 970.429.2797 C 970.319.6499 https://avanan.url-protection.com/v1/url? o=www.cityofaspen.com&g=Y2FjYjdjMzU2Yzg3OTk1Yg==&h=NmNmMTkwNTkxM2JhNmM4MWJkNzQ1OWZhOTRhZjNlZGZlOWJkYzM5NWQxYTJhYzNiZWIxMzk2ODcwOTlkYTE2NA==&p=YXAzOmNpdHlvZmFzcGVuOmF2YW5hbjpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2VtYWlsOmQwYWQ1Yzk5NGQ5NjFiOGMzODFlMzEyYjQyMzIwNTMxOnYx https://avanan.url-protection.com/v1/url? o=www.aspencommunityvoice.com&g=OTYyZjE3YTEyMDczZGI5Yg==&h=YTI2MTYxMTY5NDY3ZTY3ZmFmZTAzNzBlOGY2MTI5MGFmY2I1MTkyZmM5MjBhZTZiNGRmNjdlNWM3YmM2MTUxNw==&p=YXAzOmNpdHlvZmFzcGVuOmF2YW5hbjpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2VtYWlsOmQwYWQ1Yzk5NGQ5NjFiOGMzODFlMzEyYjQyMzIwNTMxOnYx Notice and Disclaimer: This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further, the information or opinions contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable, the information and opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance. -----Original Message----- From: Kristi <kristi@rof.net> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 12:56 PM To: Kevin Rayes <kevin.rayes@cityofaspen.com> Subject: 1015 East Hyman Hi Kevin- I believe you were the Kevin on the Zoom call last week regarding the parking for the property across the Alley from 1015 East Hyman. (TS HORRIBLE!) On the Plat that you just sent, I didn't see the employee housing units... I am trying to find out if the parking spot that Julie (owner of an employee housing unit at 1015 East Hyman) is a deeded spot and or whose property is she parking on? She has had the same parking space since '91 and bought it being told this was her spot. If it is not hers than that is going to be one more person having to parking somewhere on the street if this structure is approved! It is sooooo tight as it is. Let me know what you find out! Thanks so much!! (You can see her small car parked there on the left hand side over the years) Kristi Gilliam . From:Lorne Leil To:Kevin Rayes Cc:ggreenwood@ggaaspen.com; Amy Simon; Sarah Yoon Subject:Re: 1020 Cooper Project Date:Wednesday, January 13, 2021 9:17:27 PM Attachments:image001.png I cannot make the meeting but a neighbor just sent me a message this topic came up at the hearing. I talked to the neighbor who parks in the alley and she confirmed it is a designated parking spot on the plat of our property. I suggest you reach out to her to confirm - her name is Julie Peters. If that is in fact a real parking spot, 1020 Cooper's project cannot happen - those tenants would be unable to pull out of their parking spots. On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 7:43 PM Kevin Rayes <kevin.rayes@cityofaspen.com> wrote: Hi Lorne, Thank you for your comments. We will pass these along to the HPC prior to tomorrow’s hearing. Are you interested in tuning into the hearing? If so, please let me know and we will send you a link to join. Thanks. To promote the health and safety of our staff and community and to minimize the spread of COVID-19, Community Development staff are conducting business by email and phone and are only available in person by appointment. Contact information for our entire staff and how best to get the services you need can be found on our website: cityofaspen.com/177/Community-Development. Thank you for your understanding. Kevin Rayes Community Development Department Planner 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 P 970.429.2797 C 970.319.6499 www.cityofaspen.com www.aspencommunityvoice.com Notice and Disclaimer: This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further, the information or opinions contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable, the information and opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance. From: Lorne Leil <lorne.leil@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 5:38 PM To: ggreenwood@ggaaspen.com; Amy Simon <amy.simon@cityofaspen.com>; Kevin Rayes <kevin.rayes@cityofaspen.com> Subject: 1020 Cooper Project Hello, Please see my attached letter for the HPC regarding the proposed development at 1020 Cooper Avenue. We live directly behind the property. Thank you Lorne Leil From:Tiffany Smith To:Kevin Rayes Cc:Amy Simon Subject:1020 E. Cooper Ave. Neighborhood Date:Friday, January 15, 2021 1:30:00 PM Dear Kevin, Thank you for your presentation at Wednesday night’s online meeting regarding the 1020 E. Cooper Project. I appreciate your service to Aspen. That said, I do have serious doubts and reservations regarding some of the things you presented, particularly the idea that there will be “plenty of parking” when our own personal experience is that there is already often NOT ENOUGH parking in that block and in the alley. Local residents, day-trip tourists, contractors, visitors of residents and holiday renters already park there by the dozens. I was also interested in Figure 7 that was shown – an image of a short barely 2-block area described as having “only four deed-restricted affordable units”. Only 4 units in a tiny area? And in fact, when I just looked at APCHA’s Affordable Housing map online, between West End St. (1 block west of Cleveland, our corner) and the River and within 2 blocks N and S of E. Cooper, there are 23 AH rental units and 4 AH owned units. And besides, not 1 resident on Wednesday night’s web meeting made an issue of having more affordable housing units in our neighborhood. In fact, we welcomed the idea if handled appropriately. The main issues, as have been stated time and again, are the out-of-proportion mass and scale of the 1020 E. Cooper addition, a lack of respect for the historic resource and the project’s lack of parking. And lastly, I was particularly struck by your seemingly sincere belief in this statement that you showed to us: Our housing policy should bolster our economic and social diversity, reinforce variety, and enhance our sense of community by integrating affordable housing into the fabric of our town. A healthy social balance includes all income ranges and types of people. Each project should endeavor to further that mix and to avoid segregation of economic and social classes” In reference to this, I’d like to give you – and any official associated with this project – a little background on some of the people who live on our block, and I think once you’ve read this that you’ll agree that our neighborhood already reflects the: “A healthy social balance includes all income ranges and types of people” sentiment – and see that we’re not exactly exclusive Beverly Hills ;) * Scott McDonald and his son, Will, were both raised at the little historic house on the corner of E. Cooper and Cleveland, 2 doors down from us. They’re hardly upper-class. *Lou and Ray Stover, at 1006 E. Cooper, neighbors of the McDonalds’ and the ones who followed what HPC told them to do several years ago and built a wonderful addition to their own historic resource. In fact, in complying with HPC’s ruling on their project, they shrunk their plan’s footprint and left a lot of money (in in-door square footage) on the table. This is obviously something Jim DeFrancia and Jean Coulter are refusing to do because they don’t want to leave any money on the table. Lou grew up in a small Texas town where her father was a professor. Ray’s lived all over as his father was in the foreign service. Ray actually served as a pilot during Viet Nam. They built a small tech business together and have settled full-time in Aspen. The friendly and civic-minded Stovers definitely aren’t Bill and Melinda Gates. *Across the alley from them is Diane Munisch and I think she was an accountant and now she works the cheese counter at Whole Foods down in Willits. And our friend, Sally Ann, who lives there too is a therapist. And most of the people who live in their complex on E. Hyman are similar – just normal people who chose Aspen for its small mountain town lifestyle. *In our 4/5-unit complex at 1012 E. Cooper, a non-historic 70’s version of a Victorian-style building, there are Bob and Paulette Koffron of Michigan, a retired engineer (who was raised on a farm) and a retired school teacher respectively, Bukk Carleton from back East who is in real estate and often rents out his unit to local seasonal workers – this last summer it was a delightful young woman who worked at the theatre, and then there’s Steve and Enee Ableman from Florida, and Michael and I from Texas – all of us were raised in a very middle class way and work/worked professional jobs. Personally, I grew up in a small 3-2 out in the suburbs, attended public schools and helped put myself through college and helped put Michael through grad school. In fact, my dad was raised very poor in a small Texas town – like not- enough-food/stuff-newspapers-in-your-shoes/wash-windows-before-school-when-your-7- years-old poor but he went to college on a basketball scholarship then joined the Navy and was fortunately able to pull himself out of his impoverished circumstances. None of us at 1012 are the Lord and Lady Grantham landed gentry types either. NOTE: Yes, we have 5 units at our complex (1 of which is a tiny efficiency) but our lot is over 6,000 SF, so almost a 1/3 larger than 1020. *At 1024 E. Cooper, there’s Kristi Gilliam, a local real estate agent, Jaime Rubinson, also in Aspen real estate, 3 local landscape workers, a guy who manages the rug store in town, Baron Concors, who’s a tech officer from Dallas, and a couple of owners who rent out their places to local and seasonal workers, etc. Again, no elites there, it’s mostly just people who work in Aspen. *Across the alley from 1020, is Julie (she’s the one who has the deeded parking space in the alley). She’s a retired teacher and a local who owns the affordable housing unit in her complex. She’s a sweet woman who likes to walk her cat and visit the neighbors. Not exactly an exclusive socialite. And, of course, there are many more similar stories among our neighbors but these are the ones that come to mind as I write this. All this is to say, that making a big point of factoring in “economic and social diversity” while deciding on this particular project should not be a primary focus since we’re fortunate to already have lots of locals and semi-locals, including local employees, we’re of varying income levels and experiences and our origins are from across the nation and world – plus, none of us are members of some exclusive class. That’s what we love about it! And here’s the thing – we are very aware of and immensely grateful for the blessings that we have. So, before you stand in judgement of us – or any other neighborhood, please consider what I’ve shared with you and actually get to know the people in a neighborhood before making assumptions about their intentions. It’s about kindness and respect for everyone. It’s about the truth. In closing, if the City of Aspen is authentic about socially and economically integrating the city, then they have work to do in other neighborhoods – the West End north of Main, Red Mountain, Cemetery Lane area, the areas close to Aspen Mountain, the area along 82, east of town, etc. They’re part of the “fabric of our town” too and it’s not fair for the areas of town that are zoned multi-family to alone bear the burden of inappropriately high-density projects that upset the livability conditions of a neighborhood. Again, thank you for your service to the Aspen community. All the best, Tiffany Smith