HomeMy WebLinkAboutCombined public comments February 16From:Kristi
To:Torre; Ann Mullins; Ward Hauenstein; Rachael Richards; Skippy Mesirow; Public Comment;
Jessica.Garrow@cityofaspen.com; Amy Simon; Rachael Richards
Subject:1020 East Cooper
Date:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 4:50:53 PM
Dear Council –
I respect each one of you for doing what you and trying to please all.
1020 East Cooper has been difficult for all of us, who have attended and
sat through these meetings month after month to see that rules are not
bent and stretched. We do want to protect our properties (we have
worked hard for them!) and also PROTECT one of the last remaining
Historic assets. Please keep in mind, we all have worked extremely
hard in our lives to make Aspen our home. PLEASE don’t overlook the
people that live on the EAST side already. Many of us are NOT the
Walmart’s or Jones’s many of us are hardworking people that pay our
taxes and try to be good neighbors to those around us. I may not be an
employee, but I have worked my &&& off since 1995 in Aspen to make
a life, working 3 jobs in the beginning so I could afford to own. We
need our council to enforce the rules and not bend just because a bigger
dog comes in looking to line his pockets and disrupt the entire
neighborhood, at all of our detriment and expense.
Thank you so much for hearing me out, once again.
Kristi Gilliam
Gilliam Properties of Aspen
970-948-0153
file:///taurus/...fter%20Feb%2017%20packet%20upload/Geiger_Information%20for%20HPC%20Packet%20-%201020%20E.%20Cooper.txt[2/16/2021 5:47:40 PM]
From: Mary Elizabeth Geiger <megeiger@garfieldhecht.com>
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 9:35 AM
To: Kate Johnson; Jim True
Cc: kevin.reyes@cityofaspen.com; Chris Bryan; Amy Simon
Subject: Information for HPC Packet - 1020 E. Cooper
Attachments: Vincenti House_Condo Plat_Parking Highlighted.pdf; IMG_0911.jpg
All: there was some discussion at the hearing on January 13, 2021, as to whether the parking space
being used in the alley behind 1020 E. Cooper is a legal/deeded parking space. Per the attached plat for
1015 E. Hyman, it is. Please be sure to include this information in the packet when it is uploaded today
as this is important to the efficacy if using the alley for additional parking and whether the turn radius
can be accomplished for the proposed spaces. The owner who parks in that spot took the attached
photograph of the alley. She measured from her car to the sheds (where the 1020 Cooper cars would
park) and it was 11.5 feet. This is the narrowest point in the alley. It will be impossible for cars to
maneuver into a 90 degree parking spot with such little room.
Please do not hesitate to contact either Chris or me if you have any questions.
-Mary Elizabeth
_______________________________
Mary Elizabeth Geiger
Attorney
Garfield & Hecht, P.C.
Aspen | Avon | Carbondale | Crested Butte | Denver | Glenwood Springs | Rifle
901 Grand Ave., Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Phone: (970) 947-1936 x813
Facsimile: (970) 947-1937
Cell: (970) 452-9047**
Email: megeiger@garfieldhecht.com
Webpage: https://avanan.url-
protection.com/v1/url?o=www.garfieldhecht.com&g=NDVhNmYzYjI0ZWFjODgxYQ==&h=YWI5ZmVjNDd
mODEzMmE5MDczMDk0OGI1MjcxY2JkMzQ2MThlMTBjM2JhNWUwZjQ1ZWJmMGY2NWIwM2VjOGE3Y
Q==&p=YXAzOmNpdHlvZmFzcGVuOmF2YW5hbjpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2VtYWlsOmI3ZWFiZmI2Y2
Q3MjllMTMxZmJjZWE5ODE4NTExZjJiOnYx
NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and
confidential information intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution,
copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone (970-947-1936) and delete this
message and all copies and backups thereof. Thank you.
Today
i
4
.t
IL
,
i
> :� OC
>
(42
lop to
('n
M
cn
00
co -4
so
co
>
@c
c
m
il
3:
m
1 z
a
44 X
c I
4f- Cf
0
=4
<
n
UP
F�
7S
o�
cr
it
:5 OZ,
Z
925'
''It T-
'T
-445
12
01 9,25
c
P
z
z
IJ
(ZA
F'4
t
f"6
o42!
C"
Nit
I
5;R
CI -4
ON
f-)U-�"q—
A
r�q
CY 0 L4
F-4 C,
Cij
c
z
m R -q �I p-z
T jr
�-
7- S 2
p �qi�q
oMr
VIA
11-54 =n
ia
4f -95 �'
% P
T- � U;,
4�
XK-1
7
4
7
TT
r-
>
-I
From:Amy Simon
To:Mary Elizabeth Geiger; Kate Johnson; Jim True
Cc:Kevin Rayes; Chris Bryan
Subject:RE: Information for HPC Packet - 1020 E. Cooper
Date:Friday, February 12, 2021 11:58:00 AM
Good morning- the packet was already uploaded before we received your comment. We will forward
additional public comments to the HPC in a batch before the hearing.
We have had several internal discussions about the parking question in the alley. This is a standard 20'
wide platted alley.
Representations being made about parking on the opposite side of the alley behind 1020 E. Cooper seem
to be inaccurate. A neighbor submitted the photo below to the record for the January 13th meeting. This
photo shows a car fully parked in the alley, which is not permitted. Furthermore, the sheds shown in this
photo are proposed to be removed which will address the fact that they encroach into the alley by about
4' themselves.
The Vicenzi condos behind 1020 E. Cooper have a plat on record from 1982, below, showing two on-site
parking spaces. Sorry for the image quality- this is the record as filed with the Clerk and Recorder. The
parking space indicated with a red arrow seems to have been subsequently filled in by the condo owners
with trees, based on the GIS image to the left, making the condo out of compliance with their parking
requirement. The parking space with a green arrow is in use by a tenant of the building, Julie Peters of
Unit 5, as we understand it. It appears that space is not being fully accommodated on the property as it
was shown on the plat. Various fences, objects, snow, etc. have eased the area available to park out
towards the alley and are causing Julie’s car to at least at times encroach into the public right-of-way,
which is not approved and must be corrected.
Please let me know if you have any further questions about this. Thank you.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Elizabeth Geiger <megeiger@garfieldhecht.com>
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 9:35 AM
To: Kate Johnson <kate.johnson@cityofaspen.com>; Jim True <jim.true@cityofaspen.com>
Cc: kevin.reyes@cityofaspen.com; Chris Bryan <cbryan@garfieldhecht.com>; Amy Simon
<amy.simon@cityofaspen.com>
Subject: Information for HPC Packet - 1020 E. Cooper
All: there was some discussion at the hearing on January 13, 2021, as to whether the parking space being
used in the alley behind 1020 E. Cooper is a legal/deeded parking space. Per the attached plat for 1015 E.
Hyman, it is. Please be sure to include this information in the packet when it is uploaded today as this is
important to the efficacy if using the alley for additional parking and whether the turn radius can be
accomplished for the proposed spaces. The owner who parks in that spot took the attached photograph of
the alley. She measured from her car to the sheds (where the 1020 Cooper cars would park) and it was
11.5 feet. This is the narrowest point in the alley. It will be impossible for cars to maneuver into a 90
degree parking spot with such little room.
Please do not hesitate to contact either Chris or me if you have any questions.
-Mary Elizabeth
_______________________________
Mary Elizabeth Geiger
Attorney
Garfield & Hecht, P.C.
Aspen | Avon | Carbondale | Crested Butte | Denver | Glenwood Springs | Rifle
901 Grand Ave., Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Phone: (970) 947-1936 x813
Facsimile: (970) 947-1937
Cell: (970) 452-9047**
Email: megeiger@garfieldhecht.com
Webpage: https://avanan.url-protection.com/v1/url?
o=www.garfieldhecht.com&g=NDVhNmYzYjI0ZWFjODgxYQ==&h=YWI5ZmVjNDdmODEzMmE5MDczMDk0
OGI1MjcxY2JkMzQ2MThlMTBjM2JhNWUwZjQ1ZWJmMGY2NWIwM2VjOGE3YQ==&p=YXAzOmNpdHlvZmF
zcGVuOmF2YW5hbjpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZW1haWxzX2VtYWlsOmI3ZWFiZmI2Y2Q3MjllMTMxZmJjZWE5ODE4
NTExZjJiOnYx
NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and
confidential information intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or
other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in
error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone (970-947-1936) and delete this message and all
copies and backups thereof. Thank you.
From:Chris Bryan
To:Kate Johnson; Jim True
Cc:Amy Simon; Kevin Rayes; Phillip Supino
Subject:FW: Errors in 1020 E. Cooper Updated Application
Date:Sunday, February 14, 2021 6:37:12 PM
Kate and Jim –
Thanks for your letter dated February 12, 2021. As I understand the letter, the City is fully
supporting the 1020 E. Cooper Ave. redevelopment proposal. But there are still issues that
have not been addressed in the City’s vetting this proposal—namely, erroneous calculations in
the application that either were not caught in staff’s review or were ignored for unexplained
reasons. While some of the errors that my HOA clients have pointed out have been corrected,
some still persist. Below is an email from Michael Smith of Cooper Victorian Homeowners
Association that he sent to staff.
While you and I may disagree as to the wisdom and propriety of approving this dense 5-unit
project on the subject property, I think we can all agree that HPC should have the accurate
information to make its decision.
Please ensure that these issues will be addressed and that the record will reflect this
correspondence and the corrections that staff will presumably make before HPC meets on
Wednesday.
Thanks,
CHRIS
_______________________________
Christopher D. Bryan
Shareholder
Garfield & Hecht, P.C.
Aspen | Avon | Carbondale | Crested Butte | Denver | Glenwood Springs | Rifle
625 E. Hyman Ave., Suite 201
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: (970) 925-1936 x802
Facsimile: (970) 925-3008
Email: cbryan@garfieldhecht.com
Webpage: www.garfieldhecht.com
NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it may contain legally
privileged and confidential information intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading,
dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately
by telephone ((970) 925-1936) and delete this message and all copies and backups thereof.
Thank you.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Gmail 2 <msmith1012e@gmail.com>
Subject: Errors in 1020 E. Cooper Updated Application
Date: February 12, 2021 at 4:22:27 PM CST
To: Kevin Rayes <kevin.rayes@cityofaspen.com>
Cc: 1020EastCooperProject <1020eastcooperproject@gmail.com>, Amy Simon
<amy.simon@cityofaspen.com>
Kevin,
I have reviewed the updated information provided by the applicant and while It appears that the
errors that I pointed out in the Floor Area calculations in the packet for the 02-10-21 meeting have
been corrected, I find that the HPC meeting packet continues to contain potentially false or
misleading information.
1. The letter from Bendon Adams (p.49) states that “Floor area has been reduced from 4,277 sf
(December application) to 4,241 sf (January application) to 3,899.5 sf (February “current”
application).” This implies there has been a 378 sf reduction in floor area (8.8%), which is absolutely
untrue. Bendon Adams certainly knows this. Floor area was corrected in the “current” application
to 3,899.5 from a stated 3,678.4 sf in the most recent application that contained numerous errors
and yet was still accepted by the city and posted on its website. However, some of the errors that
were fixed in this latest submittal were errors that existed in each of the prior (December and
January) submittal. One error corrected was the counting of stairway area on the topmost level in
two of the units (units #101 and #103). This error existed in the prior submittals, and therefore the
applicant is making a false statement about the reduction in floor area. Based on my calculation
from the public data, actual floor area for the December application was 4,146 sf and 4,110 from the
January application (the difference being the two exterior storage areas the HPC would not allow
being constructed on the exterior of the historic resource). The reduction from 4,110 sf in January,
when the applicant was told to reduce the mass and scale, to the most recent submittal is 210.5
sf (5.1%).
2. I question the appropriateness of including the 114 sf attic storage space as floor area and living
area (104 sf) for unit #101. The City of Aspen floor area guidelines state that “Attic space that is
conveniently accessible and is either habitable or can be made habitable shall be counted in the
calculation of Floor Area.” It was never quite clear how this area was to be accessed but a
reexamination of the drawings seems to show that this storage space may be accessed from a pull-
down ladder (see applicants main level NLA plan drawings for this unit). According to the City of
Aspen in their Floor Area guidance: “An attic area accessible only through an interior pull-down
access ladder is exempt.” Removing this as living space would make this unit only 3 sf above the
APCHA minimum, and this is currently the only unit that exceeds that minimum. I can see the
motivation of the applicant to include the footage, but who at the City of Aspen has reviewed this
and ruled on whether this should be considered Floor Area and living space?
Also, please also provide this letter to the HPC Commissioners. I remain concerned that they are not
receiving the full picture of how immaterially the applicant has changed their project to respond to
their concerns about mass and scale and open space. Certainly with no reduction in bedrooms but a
reduction in living space and storage, livability has decreased.
Sincerely,
Michael Smith
713 703-6501 (cell)
msmith1012e@gmail.com
From:Michael Smith
To:1020EastCooperProject
Cc:Kevin Rayes; Amy Simon
Subject:Re: Errors in 1020 E. Cooper Updated Application
Date:Tuesday, February 16, 2021 2:06:42 PM
Sara,
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate the thoroughness of your response, but have a few
items I would like to clarify with you.
First, contrary to what you wrote, I never said or even assumed your mistake was intentional,
but after I challenged your floor area calculations in my earlier letter to the city, the fact that
you indeed did discover errors in your floor area calculation should certainly have indicated to
you that those errors existed or might have existed in your earlier applications. At a minimum
it should have caused you to re-check those submittals since you compare your now corrected
floor area in your revised submittal to the earlier numbers. That is why I my letter below said
“Bendon Adams certainly knows this.” Again, you were put on notice that your floor area
calculations had problems. You may characterize your failure to re-check your numbers as an
“honest mistake”, but it is hard not to view it as bad faith for you to not review your prior
submittals when you are making comparisons. According to your response, my letter below
has prompted that review. While it is appreciated, I think the public and the city staff (as well
as your customer) deserved more careful work from the beginning.
Second, I never had any consultants looking at your drawings and identifying potential issues.
I simply conducted a fairly basic review of the architect’s drawings from your February 10
submittal and compared them to your prior submittals. It became clear to me there were
errors. Since I am not an architect or land use professional, you might well understand my
skepticism regarding the thoroughness of the entire review process within your firm and at the
city.
Third, I take it a ship ladder represents a permanent ladder, rather than a pull-down ladder, that
will allow access to the attic space in Unit 101. Can you please verify that this will be such a
ladder? I understand that if this is different from a pull-down ladder, then it could lead to the
space being counted as floor area when it would not be if it were a pull-down ladder.
Sincerely,
Michael Smith
713 703-6501 (cell)
msmith1012e@gmail.com
On Feb 16, 2021, at 1:36 PM, 1020EastCooperProject
<1020eastcooperproject@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Michael, HPC, and City Staff.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have looked into it and found that your
comments in part 1 are partially correct and your comments in part 2 are not correct.
We appreciate the heads up on the floor area calculations and make every effort to be
as accurate as possible in our application. Please see our response below.
1. The letter from Bendon Adams (p.49) states that “Floor area has been reduced
from 4,277 sf (December application) to 4,241 sf (January application) to 3,899.5
sf (February “current” application).” This implies there has been a 378 sf
reduction in floor area (8.8%), which is absolutely untrue. Bendon Adams
certainly knows this. Floor area was corrected in the “current” application to
3,899.5 from a stated 3,678.4 sf in the most recent application that contained
numerous errors and yet was still accepted by the city and posted on its website.
However, some of the errors that were fixed in this latest submittal were errors
that existed in each of the prior (December and January) submittal. One error
corrected was the counting of stairway area on the topmost level in two of the
units (units #101 and #103). This error existed in the prior submittals, and
therefore the applicant is making a false statement about the reduction in floor
area. Based on my calculation from the public data, actual floor area for the
December application was 4,146 sf and 4,110 from the January application (the
difference being the two exterior storage areas the HPC would not allow being
constructed on the exterior of the historic resource). The reduction from 4,110
sf in January, when the applicant was told to reduce the mass and scale, to
the most recent submittal is 210.5 sf (5.1%).
The December submittal was reviewed by the City’s Zoning Officer and deemed
accurate. The City’s calculations and measurements are complex and the floor plans are
finalized or “stamped” by Zoning during building permit review. We do our best to
provide accurate calculations but sometimes things are accidentally overlooked. The
City counts stairs on all levels except the topmost level. This methodology applies to
calculations of both floor area and net livable area. It appears that DJA counted the
stairs on the ground level of Units 101,102 and 103 when calculating floor area, and the
stairs were correctly exempted when calculating net livable area. The December
application did not have a second floor stairway in Unit 102, therefore the stairway
should have been exempted on the ground level and counted in the basement. The
February application for consideration by HPC on 2/10 proposes the addition of a
dormer, second floor bedroom, and extension of the stacked stairway to the second
level. This means that the stairway is counted on the basement and ground levels, and
exempted on the second level.
Upon a closer look, this mistake was carried forward to all iterations and has recently
been corrected. We appreciate Michael’s consultants looking at our drawings and
identifying potential issues – we strive to have as accurate a drawing set as possible for
Conceptual HPC Review. The total floor area in the December and January applications
(which are no longer proposed) that was counted when it should have been exempted
is: Unit 101=76sf; Unit 102=60sf; and Unit 103=56sf.
The assumption that this miscalculation was intentional is unfounded. The applicant
and Zoning Officer both missed it on the “floor area” pages of the drawing set. The key
takeaway is that the project was and is well under the maximum floor area and the
project has been reduced in mass and scale. For context, the square footage that was
missed in the stair calculation is a total of ~192sf. The error in the floor area calculation
was an honest mistake and has been corrected.
2. I question the appropriateness of including the 114 sf attic storage space as floor
area and living area (104 sf) for unit #101. The City of Aspen floor area
guidelines state that “Attic space that is conveniently accessible and is either
habitable or can be made habitable shall be counted in the calculation of Floor
Area.” It was never quite clear how this area was to be accessed but a
reexamination of the drawings seems to show that this storage space may be
accessed from a pull-down ladder (see applicants main level NLA plan drawings
for this unit). According to the City of Aspen in their Floor Area guidance: “An
attic area accessible only through an interior pull-down access ladder is exempt.”
Removing this as living space would make this unit only 3 sf above the APCHA
minimum, and this is currently the only unit that exceeds that minimum. I can
see the motivation of the applicant to include the footage, but who at the City of
Aspen has reviewed this and ruled on whether this should be considered Floor
Area and living space?
The storage space in Unit 101 was reviewed by the Zoning Officer and the Building
Department prior to the HPC meeting on January 13th. Zoning confirmed that the
proposed loft storage accessed by a ship ladder meets the Land Use Code criteria to be
counted as both net livable space and floor area, and the Building Department
confirmed that Building Codes are met with the proposed space.
Sincerely, Sara
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 3:22 PM Gmail 2 <msmith1012e@gmail.com> wrote:
Kevin,
I have reviewed the updated information provided by the applicant and while It
appears that the errors that I pointed out in the Floor Area calculations in the
packet for the 02-10-21 meeting have been corrected, I find that the HPC
meeting packet continues to contain potentially false or misleading
information.
1. The letter from Bendon Adams (p.49) states that “Floor area has been
reduced from 4,277 sf (December application) to 4,241 sf (January application)
to 3,899.5 sf (February “current” application).” This implies there has been a
378 sf reduction in floor area (8.8%), which is absolutely untrue. Bendon
Adams certainly knows this. Floor area was corrected in the “current”
application to 3,899.5 from a stated 3,678.4 sf in the most recent application
that contained numerous errors and yet was still accepted by the city and posted
on its website. However, some of the errors that were fixed in this latest
submittal were errors that existed in each of the prior (December and January)
submittal. One error corrected was the counting of stairway area on the topmost
level in two of the units (units #101 and #103). This error existed in the prior
submittals, and therefore the applicant is making a false statement about the
reduction in floor area. Based on my calculation from the public data, actual
floor area for the December application was 4,146 sf and 4,110 from the
January application (the difference being the two exterior storage areas the HPC
would not allow being constructed on the exterior of the historic resource). The
reduction from 4,110 sf in January, when the applicant was told to reduce
the mass and scale, to the most recent submittal is 210.5 sf (5.1%).
2. I question the appropriateness of including the 114 sf attic storage space as
floor area and living area (104 sf) for unit #101. The City of Aspen floor area
guidelines state that “Attic space that is conveniently accessible and is either
habitable or can be made habitable shall be counted in the calculation of Floor
Area.” It was never quite clear how this area was to be accessed but a
reexamination of the drawings seems to show that this storage space may be
accessed from a pull-down ladder (see applicants main level NLA plan
drawings for this unit). According to the City of Aspen in their Floor Area
guidance: “An attic area accessible only through an interior pull-down access
ladder is exempt.” Removing this as living space would make this unit only
3 sf above the APCHA minimum, and this is currently the only unit that
exceeds that minimum. I can see the motivation of the applicant to include the
footage, but who at the City of Aspen has reviewed this and ruled on whether
this should be considered Floor Area and living space?
Also, please also provide this letter to the HPC Commissioners. I remain
concerned that they are not receiving the full picture of how immaterially the
applicant has changed their project to respond to their concerns about mass and
scale and open space. Certainly with no reduction in bedrooms but a reduction
in living space and storage, livability has decreased.
Sincerely,
Michael Smith
713 703-6501 (cell)
msmith1012e@gmail.com
From:Gmail 2
To:Kevin Rayes
Subject:1020 E. Cooper Packet Discrepancies
Date:Monday, February 8, 2021 4:35:59 PM
Kevin,
I have spent some time reading through the HPC packet for the upcoming meeting and find
some issues that may include significant mistakes or even misrepresentations by the applicant.
I’m wondering who at the city is verifying what is submitted and reporting any inaccuracies or
misrepresentations to the HPC Board? Problems I see:
1. The applicant has indicated that unit 102 of the Landmark is now a 3 bedroom unit. In the
table on page 14 of the packet, the applicant represents that the 1,143 SF three bedroom unit is
162 SF above the APCHA minimum. However, they are comparing the footage to the 900 SF
standard for a 2 bedroom unit. This 3 bedroom unit is actually 57 SF below the 1,200 SF
APCHA minimum for a 3 bedroom unit. So it appears that only a single unit of the proposed
five units actually exceeds the minimum dimensional standards set forth by APCHA. This
appears to me to be a significant issue that should be highlighted to the HPC Board, given the
significant concern about the overcrowding and lack of livability that may result from this
development.
2. The Applicant’s table on p. 146 of the packet sets forth the schedule of Floor Area. If you
go back to the same table provided for the prior application (p.136 of the packet for the
01/13/21 meeting) you see that applicant is representing that total Floor Area has been reduced
by 599 SF (from 4,277.4 to 3,678.4 SF). Unit 101, which did not appear to change at all, now
shows 558 SF of main level Floor Area, which is a reduction of 117 SF from the prior
representation. However, the applicant’s table on p.148 shows no change in net livable area of
unit 101 from the prior submittal. Is it possible that the floor plans for the unit stayed the
same, the Floor Area decreased by 117 SF and the net livable footage remained the same?
3. The same Floor Area table on p.146 of the packet shows Unit 102 is a 2 bedroom unit with
572 SF of Floor Area, which is a reduction of 111 SF from the applicant’s prior submittal.
Nevertheless, the applicant represents (p.14) that this is now a 3 bedroom unit with an
additional 82 SF of net livable area compared to the prior submittal. Clearly, the reduction in
Floor Area represented by the table on p.146 seems incompatible with the increase in footage.
4. The change in Floor Area referred to above in point #2 based on the Architect’s total Floor
Area tables shows a reduction of 599 SF. The total net livable footage has been reduced by
166 SF. There was some reduction in exterior storage space, which could account for a Floor
Area reduction that is larger that the net livable footage reduction, but it seems unlikely to
explain the large difference between 166 SF and 599 SF. Has anyone queried the applicant to
explain how the Floor Area has been reduced 14% when net livable footage only decreased by
3%?
5. Separately, the applicant represents in the letter on p.49 that the Floor Area has been
reduced by 484 SF (not 599 SF). Possibly this is referring only to the detached rear building,
but in the case of that structure, net livable footage was reduced by only 248 SF. So again,
there seems to be a very large difference between the two numbers.
Hopefully I am wrong about these possible errors. If they exist, however, it demonstrates that
the applicant is either very careless with its submittal or making misrepresentations that they
hope the HPC staff does not catch. I believe the members of the public and the HPC Board
both are counting on staff to properly verify this submittal and make sure what is presented is
wholly accurate.
If you are not going to be able to check these items above and verify the accuracy of the
applicant’s submittal prior to Wednesday’s meeting, I would ask that you let me know and
also provide this email to the HPC Board as a relevant public comment regarding the
applicant’s submittal. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Michael Smith
713 703-6501 (cell)
msmith1012e@gmail.com
From:Caroline McDonald
To:Kevin Rayes; Amy Simon
Cc:Ward Hauenstein; Torre; Rachael Richards; Ann Mullins; Skippy Mesirow
Subject:This is a Complaint letter to be included in the 1020ECooper February 17th agenda pkg; from Scott and Caroline
McDonald, 1000 E. Cooper
Date:Tuesday, February 16, 2021 3:39:44 PM
This is our complaint to the city of Aspen about the Community Development's HPC process
regarding the duplicities of the 1020 E Cooper Project and others.
This complaint is really about why the city of Aspen was so difficult in its plans review process for
1020 E Cooper, for a single family home on a 4000 sq ft lot. The city's apparent coordinated attack
on the applicant owner with inordinate accumulated time and review costs. The applicant had
enough of this nonsense endorsed by council and staff of their never ending trap of HPC's circular
logic and subjective micromanagement. I can personally testify this will drive any applicant mad,
which was the plan all along, to force the applicant to sell or contract his property to meet housing
mitigation requirements for purportedly the 1A development. This seems a logical conclusion
because Jim DeFrancia is involved in building this high density, 5 unit, closet apartment project. The
city's importance placed on massing and height concerns regarding the impact to the neighborhood
were immediately thrown out the window for DeFrancia's 3 story massive monolith. DeFrancia was
a former HPC commissioner, fancy that. He abides by the secret different strokes for different folks
ordinance practiced by the city council who have the discretionary authority to end this extortion
enterprise.
This DeFrancia development at 1020 E. Cooper, is at the expense of an already overdeveloped
neighborhood with inadequate parking. This is all about Crown greed, Gorsuch greed, and Lowe
greed to maximize the operational profits at 1A by not including staff housing on-site.
The massive development of 1A, 320,000 sq ft of hotel and condos, some free market, carries with it
city mandated housing mitigation for 91 full-time employees. The limitless cupidity of the city of
Aspen is the same as the developers, with yearning eyes on the significant tax revenue stream 1A
would provide. That can buy a lot of city largess and it drives the city to be just as desperate for
employee housing as the developers. This is why the city of Aspen over-reached its extensive
discretionary, subjective empowerment to torture and bully the single-family home applicant of
1020 E. Cooper into submission to sellout to the corporate developers.
1A, which crawls up the slopes of Ajax Mt. is nothing less than an ostentatious monument for the
Crowns, the Gorsuch’s and the Lowe Enterprises. Talk about excessive massing and scale for the site
and the subordination of Ajax Mt.
Aspen is finite, but not for the city or the developers.
Dear Commissioners,
Staff indicates in their Exhibit A.1 of the packet that all HPC design guidelines that
apply are met. This is patently false. Staff is not entitled to “alternative facts”.
The facts are these:
1.1 States:
• Building footprint and location should reinforce the traditional pattern of the
neighborhood.
• Allow for some porosity on a site. In a residential project, setback to setback
development is typically uncharacteristic of the historic context. Do not design
a project which leaves no useful open space visible from the street.
The 1890 Sanborn maps, which the staff chooses not to use, show the Cooper block
at Cleveland and also show a detail of the east half of the Cooper block from the site
of 1024 to the River. All the buildings labeled dwellings have substantial yard space
and front setbacks. We also know that the four exiting historic dwellings on this
block, including the subject property, have substantial front setbacks and open
space. This project has been designed as a setback to setback development, with
extremely minimal pervious cover, which leaves no useful open space visible from
the street. Clearly, 1.1 is not met.
1.7 States:
• Ensure that open space on site is meaningful and consolidated into a few large
spaces rather than many small unusable areas.
• Open space should be designed to support and complement the historic
building
The open space on this site is wholly inadequate, especially when one considers the
density of use that the applicant is proposing. Almost all the open space is used as
narrow, impervious walkways and staircases around the buildings. The tiny
(approx. 150 SF) gathering space behind the historic is not meaningful, and
certainly does not support and complement the historic building in any way.
Clearly, 1.7 is not met.
11.3 States: Construct a new building to appear similar in scale and proportion with
the historic buildings on a parcel.
There is no similarity in scale and proportion between the 3-story new building and
the single story historic building. No degree in architecture is required to see that.
Still, staff claims its true. Clearly, 11.3 is not met.
11.4 States: Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building
• The primary plane of the front shall not appear taller than the historic
structure.
The ridge peak of the historic stands 15’-6” above grade. The ridge peak of the
proposed new building rises 32’-6” above grade. Without any need for
interpretation, the 3-story structure that the applicant proposes to construct behind
the historic resource is dramatically taller and not at all similar in scale to the
historic building. Clearly, 11.4 is not met.
If staff wants to ignore the published HPC guidelines in the interest of
promoting affordable housing (and helpfully lining the pockets of a wealthy
developer), then staff should at least be honest about it. State openly that these
guidelines have not been met, but that the end goal of affordable housing makes
such guidelines unnecessary. Otherwise, all future historic preservations that come
before this commission will use the approval of this massive 3-story box behind the
historic to say that their 3-story proposal clearly meets the guidelines. I see no
exceptions in the guidelines that allow staff to apply the criteria differently for
single-family homes as compared to mulit-family homes. Staff is making a farce of
the historic preservation process for very little good purpose. In the end, approval
of this project as proposed will destroy the credibility of Historic
Preservation, and will also harm the livability of this neighborhood, all to add
a mere 0.06% (six one-hundredth’s of 1%) to APCHA’s affordable housing
stock as compared to a reasonable 3 unit project. This project as configured
should be rejected.
Sincerely,
Michael Smith
1012 E. Cooper #1
From:Mike pack
To:Amy Simon
Cc:Stephen Kanipe; Sam Weller; Kristi Gilliam Hyman Ave Alley; Friars Mike
Subject:1020 E Cooper project
Date:Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00:03 PM
Hi Amy. I’m Mike Pack and President of the Vincenti HOA directly across the alley from this project. To be clear,
I am in favor of the reasonable development of this site. 3 units would be very compatible on that lot. NOT 5.
Cooper is also Hwy 82 ;kids aren’t playing on that road BUT could play on a paved alley also the increase traffic
warrants the pavement of the alley. Most of us have lived here ( and paid taxes) for decades without asking the City
for anything. I’m aware of the existing procedure to have an alley paved but I strongly feel that the City owns the
alley and should be responsible for paving it ..
Please call if you have any questions. Mike Pack. 1-619-291-4441
From:Lou Stover
To:Amy Simon; Kevin Rayes
Subject:1020 Cooper project from an on-the-scene view .. please distribute
Date:Tuesday, February 16, 2021 4:18:11 PM
Hello Aspen Historical,
At the last HPC meeting, the developers were directed/told that the project is too big. They
have since only made a few minor changes ... but it is still way too big. There are still five
units and 10 bedrooms with no upper limit on the number of occupants. Sounds like it could
turn into a “frat house” in a family neighborhood.
First it was pitched as “historic”. Then the theme was switched to “affordable housing”. We
neighbors have been portrayed as “anti employee housing”, which is not true.
Concerns about the narrow alley behind the project have been ignored. Why isn’t the City
standing behind its citizens? Why isn’t the City working to achieve a settlement between the
parties? With all the construction of affordable housing in the City, why couldn’t this one be
designed in a reasonable size for this neighborhood? What percentage of reduction to the
stock of total units would one less unit make? The height and mass of the rear building could
become acceptable.
Please remember that long after the developers have disappeared, we will have to live with the
cars, blocked alley, parking, noise and people from this over sized development.
Regards,
Lou Stover
1006 E Cooper
Aspen