Loading...
Feb 10, 2021 HPC Packet - Continued to Feb. 17Page 1 of 13 Memorandum TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Kevin Rayes, Planner Amy Simon, Planning Director MEETING DATE: February 10, 2021 RE: 1020 E. Cooper Avenue – Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Demolition, Growth Management, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, Transportation and Parking Management, PUBLIC HEARING APPLICANT /OWNER: 1020 Cooper LLC James DeFrancia, Manager REPRESENTATIVE: BendonAdams LOCATION: Street Address: 1020 E. Cooper Avenue Legal Description: The East 13.79’ of Lot O and all of Lot P, Block 34, East Aspen Addition to the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado Parcel Identification Number: PID# 2737-182-32-006 CURRENT ZONING & USE RMF (Residential Multi-Family), Single-family home PROPOSED ZONING & USE: RMF, Multi-family dwelling SUMMARY: The applicant has requested Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Demolition, Growth Management, Certificate of Affordable Housing Credits, Transportation and Parking Management approvals for five multi-family units on a landmarked property, to be condominiumized and deed restricted. Two of the units will be located in the existing historic structure with a new basement, and three are in a detached new structure located at the rear of the property. HPC reviewed and continued the project for restudy on January 13th. Staff finds the restudy to be successful and responsive and recommends approval of the project, subject to the conditions listed in the draft resolution. Figure 1: 1020 E. Cooper Site Location 1020 900329000238 Page 2 of 13 BACKGROUND: 1020 E. Cooper Avenue is a designated 4,379 square foot lot in the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zone district. The site contains a Victorian era home and two sheds of an unknown construction date. This area of town was not included in the historic Sanborn maps that are typically referenced by HPC in its decision-making, and no historic photos of this house have been located. The only record of the building, other than what can be discovered on-site, is the 1896 Willit’s Map, which shows the footprint (Figure 2). Investigation of the framing of the house has demonstrated that the form of the 19th century home remains intact. The exterior of the house has been altered over time through replacement of materials and windows (Figure 3). REQUEST OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) The Applicant is seeking the following land use approvals. •Conceptual Major Development (Section 26.415.070.D) to modify the site and the historicresource, and to construct a new detached building along the alley. •Relocation (Section 26.415.090) to relocate the historic home southwest of its current position and to excavate a new basement and foundation below the structure. •Demolition (Section 26.415.080.A) to remove two non-historic outbuildings from theproperty. •Growth Management (Section 26.470.050.B) & (Section 26.470.070.4) to develop fiveaffordable housing units on the property. •Certificate of Affordable Housing Credits (Section 26.540) to generate Certificates ofAffordable Housing Credit. •Transportation & Parking Management (26.5151.010) to meet the minimum parking and Transportation Mitigation standards. Figure 3: 1020 E. Cooper Avenue, 2019 Figure 2: Willit’s Map, 1896 1000330000239 Page 3 of 13 The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is the review authority on this application, however Conceptual approval is subject to Call-up Notice to City Council. Final approval will be needed before the project proceeds to building permit. Per Land Use Code section 26.304.035 the applicant was required to provide enhanced public notice and neighborhood outreach, as is typical for projects of community interest. A website and information meetings have provided detailed information to those interested in the progress of the HPC review. STAFF COMMENTS: Exhibits A.1 through A.6 to this memo indicate the review criteria for each requested approval, and recommended findings. Following is a summary. Conceptual Major Development Section 26.415.070.D.3.c.2 of the Municipal Code states that Conceptual review approval shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) including its height, scale, massing and proportions, therefore design guidelines related to those topics are the focus of this review step. The details of the preservation plan, landscape plan and fencing, lighting, fenestration, and selection of new materials will be addressed at Final. Staff finds the proposal to preserve the historic resource as free-standing, with a detached and adequately distanced new structure at the rear of the lot to be a successful preservation outcome. There are only a few examples of miner’s cottages in Aspen that have been preserved with no significant addition, as this one will be. Regarding the site plan, no variations are needed, and the applicant plans a traditional landscaped setting adjacent to the historic resource with grass and planting beds. A tree that straddles the property line with the neighbor to the east is being preserved in coordination with the requirements of the Parks Department. Parking and infrastructure are all designed to meet City requirements and located at the rear of the site as required. A preliminary stormwater mitigation plan is provided, indicating a drywell will be located within the parking area. This strategy is appropriate and has no effect on the historic resource. The historic resource is to be placed on a new basement. The basement includes the required egress lightwells, which have been located discretely on the sides of the building. The visual impacts of the lightwells, including curb heights and protective grates, needs to be minimized for Final review. The applicant plans to retain the existing form of the historic resource including a modestly sized 1960s era non-historic addition, with a proposed new dormer, as is allowable within the preservation guidelines. As the project evolves towards final design, details of an appropriate rehabilitation that reflects common characteristics of Aspen’s mining era homes, such as a front porch, will be evaluated. Regarding the new building proposed along the alley, a detached structure is preferred by the HPC guidelines and is allowed greater design flexibility than an addition to a historic resource because demolition to historic fabric does not occur and the scale and integrity of the resource are more authentically preserved. 1100331000240 Page 4 of 13 The applicable guidelines for new construction as expressed in Chapter 11 are primarily written to anticipate a new structure being proposed directly next to a historic resource, for instance in a historic landmark lot split where the new and old structures would be side by side. The impact of the height of the rear building on the historic resource will be reduced because of its placement some distance behind it. Since the last hearing, the applicant has redesigned the rear building to remove and adjust massing. The effect is a break at the second floor level and elimination of square footage, relocated to the dormer addition to the historic building. Staff finds these changes effective in addressing the HPC’s concerns and supports the proposed new structure as the appropriate gestures towards the historic resource have been made. The context of the property, and the fact that it is a mid-block lot, allow for the addition to appear as a backdrop. It is unnecessary for the new building to have a front porch, as suggested by guideline 11.2, because there would be no visibility from the street. The architect has creating a relationship to the historic structure by using roof forms and material references as required by guideline 11.6. The plate height on the upper floor is low at building corners, with dormers used to balance massing and livability considerations. Relocation The existing home, except for a non-historic porch at the rear, is to be moved approximately 11’ forward and 2’ eastward. It will be placed on a new basement and will be elevated slightly above the current relationship to grade to allow for positive drainage to be created. One step will be constructed leading to the porch deck. Staff finds that the relocation criteria are met as the re-positioning of the building on the site does not diminish its integrity or disrupt its relationship with nearby historic resources and it allows new construction on the site to be adequately distanced from the miner’s cottage while complying with all setback requirements. Demolition Two sheds at the rear of the property and partially sitting in the alley are proposed to be demolished. These structures were not built concurrent with the primary home based on the 1896 Willit’s map, and they are not seen in 1920s era photos of the rear of the site available from the Aspen Historical Society. The earliest documentation of them in place that staff has located is a 1974 aerial photo. The property was designated as a representation of the 19th century development of Aspen; therefore staff finds the sheds to be non-contributing to the history of the property and appropriate for removal. Growth Management and Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit: A total of five deed-restricted affordable housing units are proposed for the site- two in the historic resource and three in the rear building. According to Land Use Code Section 26.470.030.D, no annual growth limit applies to affordable housing. This is in recognition of the high priority placed on the development of affordable housing to meet community needs. The property is in the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zone district, which is intended for intensive long-term residential purposes. The zone district anticipates dense multi-family development, as seen in adjacent structures to the development site. Development of a multi-family affordable housing project within the RMF zone district is allowed by right. 1200332000241 Page 5 of 13 The proposed affordable housing units are consistent with the residential uses in the eastern area of town and the permitted uses of the zone district. As depicted in Figure 4, many of the surrounding properties contain residential multi-family dwellings, including the adjacent properties to the east and west. This application was referred to APCHA for review and recommendation. Community Development & APCHA staff are highly supportive of this project and acknowledge the community benefit that five affordable housing units will bring. The applicant seeks to establish 12.75 Certificates of Affordable Housing credits, which is commensurate to the full-time employee housing occupancy standards prescribed by APCHA. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.540.070, Review Criteria for establishing an affordable housing credit, to determine the number of certificates of affordable housing credits awarded to a project, the review standards outlined in Land Use Code Section 26.470.080.d.7.g, General Review, Affordable Housing Mitigation, guide. APCHA Standards Unit Type Occupancy Standard One bedroom 1.75 FTEs/Unit Two-bedroom 2.25 FTEs/Unit Three-bedroom 3.00 FTEs/Unit PROPOSED CERTIFICATES Two-bedroom 3 Units x 2.25 FTEs =6.75 FTEs Three-bedroom 2 Units X 3.00 FTEs =6 FTEs Total Proposed 12.75FTEs Residential Multi-Family Figure 4: Residential Multi-Family Development Surrounding 1020 E. Cooper 1300333000242 Page 6 of 13 1. Unit dimensions may be reduced by up to 20 percent below the minimum if additional amenities are provided to improve livability. 2. No on-site parking mitigation is required in the R/MF zone district. Mitigation can be 100% cash-in- lieu or a mix of onsite and cash-in-lieu. Standards for minimum net livable area are also provided. The project complies as shown in the charts below. * The 2nd level consists of a storage loft accessed from the ground level Net Livable Area Per AH Unit | Within Rear Structure Units Beds Basement (sf) 1st Level (sf) 2nd Level (sf) 3rd Level (sf) Total (sf) Min. FA (sf) Difference (Expressed as Percent) 3 2 436.5 449.7 X X 886.2 900 2% below 4 3 X X 1,011.8 X 1,011.8 1,200 16% below 5 2 X X X 786.7 786.7 900 13% below Two of the units exceed the minimum dimensional standards prescribed by APCHA, and three of the units are slightly below the minimum size requirements1. Four parking spaces are provided on site (including an ADA-compliant space), which is well above the minimum required2. The site will also contain plenty of outdoor area, including access to private patios and porches. Each unit will contain a washer and dryer as well as extra storage space. Lastly, as required in the Land Use Code, more than half the net livable area of each unit will be above natural grade. Despite the slight reduction in size, staff considers these as high-quality units that incorporate several valuable amenities. Net Livable Area Per AH Unit | Within Historic Resource Units Beds Basement (sf) Ground Level (sf) Second Level (sf) Total (sf) Min. (sf) Difference (sf) 1 2 462.5 450.5 103.9* 1,016.8 900 116.8 above 2 3 482.9 477.6 182.9 1,143.4 900 162.0 above Figure 5: Open Space between the Rear of the Historic Resource and the Front of the Addition 1400334000243 Page 7 of 13 Figure 6: Open Front Porch & Deck- as viewed from the front of the property Figure 7: Parking Area- As Viewed from the Back of the Rear Addition 1500335000244 Page 8 of 13 1. On-street parking in this area requires a permit. The Parking Department caps the number of permits per residence, minimizing on-street parking congestion in the area. Transportation and Parking Management: Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.515.060.C, Transportation & Parking Management, one parking unit is required per residential unit within a multi-family development, in this case five. The City’s parking regulations are the result of professional parking studies, Council consideration, and public input, and they are applied objectively to all development types. The Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zone district allows 100 percent of parking mitigation to be met via cash-in-lieu or via a combination of cash-in-lieu and on-site parking. This is due to the location of the zone district in the community, proximal to mass transit, walkable to all community services and amenities, and zoned to provide dense housing development. The site is located less than one minute from a bus stop and 0.2 miles from the commercial center of town. In addition to the transit and multi-modal services accessible to the site, four on-site parking spaces are proposed, including one ADA-accessible space. These spaces are on the alley and located beneath a covered area of the rear addition. Remaining parking mitigation will be met via cash-in-lieu. Staff supports the parking mitigation as proposed, and it complies with the regulations in the Land Use Code. Providing on-site parking is generally preferred to cash-in-lieu as it reduces adverse parking impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. In this case, 80 percent of the required parking mitigation will be met on-site, which contributes to the livability and quality of this project. Furthermore, given the residential use of the surrounding neighborhood, on-street parking exists throughout the area.1 In addition to the on-site parking, the applicant has completed the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project and plans to provide a range of Mobility Measures that satisfy the requirements of the Engineering and Parking Departments. At this point, the applicant has indicated that car-sharing and bike-sharing memberships will be made available to tenants for a minimum of one year. Bicycle parking will also be provided on- site, and other infrastructure improvements will be made to encourage alternative transportation choices. The TIA is subject to change and will be finalized with City Departments to ensure compliance at building permit. Staff included a condition in the Resolution prohibiting Mobility Measures from occupying any of the off-street parking spaces on the property. Commercial Area 4 Min. 0.2 Miles Figure 8: Walking Time from 1020 E. Cooper to Downtown 1 Min. 180 ft. 1020 East Cooper Bus Stop Figure 9: Distance from 1020 E. Cooper to Nearest Bus Stop 1600336000245 Page 9 of 13 1. The 2019 Greater Roaring Fork Regional Housing study was published and prepared for the Greater Roaring Fork Regional Municipal and Organization Partnership. The Aspen Area Community Plan The 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) describes the vision for Aspen’s future based on community values. The AACP acknowledges how land use decisions related to affordable housing impact quality of life, urban vitality, neighborhood diversity and transportation choices. Developing affordable housing via in-fill development has remained an important City objective for several decades. As stated in the 2000 AACP and reiterated in the 2012 AACP: “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…” Within the area surrounding 1020 E. Cooper, there is a limited number of deed-restricted affordable units. As depicted in Figure 10, only four deed-restricted units are located within the immediate vicinity of the property and all are owner-occupied. The units at 1020 E. Cooper are proposed as rentals and will play a pivotal role in providing much needed housing to traditionally underserved individuals. The challenges associated with providing sufficient housing in Aspen cannot be overstated. According to the Greater Roaring Fork Housing Study1, in 2015, more than 60 percent of the workforce in the Aspen, Snowmass area was made up of in-commuters (individuals travelling up-valley for jobs). As of 2019, the Aspen Snowmass area experienced a 3,000 [residential] unit shortfall, which is projected to increase to 3,400 units by 2027. The ongoing displacement of the local workforce is only going to exacerbate negative transportation impacts to the Valley. As stated in the 2012 AACP: The 2000 AACP sought to limit average annual daily vehicle trips (AADT) to 1993 levels. While we have consistently met that goal, the 2007 Entrance to Aspen Reevaluation Report found that congestion has expanded farther up and down the Highway 82 corridor during peak hours. In order to address this trend, the 2012 AACP reiterates the 2000 AACP goal of limiting AADT to 1993 levels, and then goes further by “striving to reduce peak-hour vehicle-trips to at or below 1993 levels.” Developing five affordable housing units within the Aspen infill area serves as a unique and important opportunity to fulfill many of the objectives outlined in the AACP. Figure 10: Other Deed-Restricted Units in the Area Immediately Surrounding 1020 E. Cooper Existing deed- restricted units 1700337000246 Page 10 of 13 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The Residential Design Standards found at Section 26.410 of the Municipal Code apply only to the new structure proposed for this site. RDS review is an administrative process which does not require public notice or evaluation by HPC. The standards applicable to multi-family development are limited. The applicant has provided a compliance form which has been verified through a staff level approval. DRC REFERRAL COMMENTS: The application was referred out to other City departments who have requirements that will significantly affect the permit review. The applicant responded to initial feedback from these departments by revising their application to what is being presented to HPC. Following is a summary of topics that may require further study before HPC Final review or as part of the building permit process. All are expected to be resolvable. Engineering: 1. Fire flow calculations will be required if a 4-inch service line is needed. Calculations that show a 2-inch service line fails will also need to be provided. 2. The conceptual drainage report calls out that the alley will be re-designed to accommodate flows to the curb and gutter, this design will need to be included with capacity calculations. 3. The transformer to the east has an existing easement that, according to the conceptual drainage report, is adequately sized for a future relocation. Show the dimensions of the easement (on 1020 E. Cooper and the neighboring property) on the utility plan to confirm the easement meets COA Electric standards for transformer easements. If the dimensions do not comply with COA standards, the easement will need to be adjusted during building permit review. Building: 1. Fire sprinklers are required with five units on the site regardless of the fire area measurement. 2. There cannot be an emergency escape and egress window well in a walkway. 3. Amendments to the IBC require 3% of the parking to be electric vehicle charging stations capable of supporting future EVCS. A 208/240 volt branch circuit or listed raceway to accommodate future installation shall be installed. Service panel or sub panel circuit shall provide capacity for a dedicated 40 amp circuit. 4. Demonstrate compliance with IBC 1107.7.1.1 at least one story containing dwelling units shall be provided with an accessible entrance on an accessible route and shall comply as a Type B unit. 5. Ensure the steel beam between the van accessible spot and the aisle won’t block access from an accessible van’s passenger rear side door as that would normally be how the aisle is utilized from the van. 6. Trash enclosure is required to be on an accessible route. Demonstrate required door maneuvering clearances inside the enclosure. 7. Demonstrate compliant common path of egress travel distances from each unit, measured from the most remote point within each unit to the exit discharge. 8. All new roofs or re-roofed areas are required to be a class A rated roof assembly. 9. Eaves and exterior walls within 5’ of the property line require 1 hour fire rated construction. 10. Snow guards are also required on the historic home, not just the new construction. 11. All guards are required to be 42-inches tall in an IBC building unless you are inside the dwelling unit. 1800338000247 Page 11 of 13 12. Storage closed under the common stair to the upper units requires a compliant dwelling separation for the closet ceiling. 13. Provide compliant approach to the washer dryer. 14. Closet doors need to provide 32” clear opening. Parks: 1. Maintain 10-foot dripline protection for shared tree – Any activity or excavation in this area will require City Forester approval. 2. Planting trees back on this property should be explored and supported. Environmental Health 1. This space is subject to the requirements of a multi-family complex and is required to provide 120 square feet of space to the storage of trash and recycling. The current application exceeds these standards by providing 124 SF. 2. Applicant indicates alley access will be facilitated by the ADA parking access to provide an unobstructed path to the trash area. 3. Applicant has indicated this space will be equipped with bear-proof technology to prevent wildlife access. APCHA 1. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy, a deed restriction must be recorded and must comply with the APCHA Regulations in effect at the time that said deed restriction is approved and recorded. 2. Each bedroom must contain a closet. 3. Each unit shall contain a washer and dryer, along with all other appliances. 4. The units that do not meet the minimum size requirements are acceptable as they are within the 20% reduction limitation and fit the criteria for said reduction acceptance. 5. Upon certificate of occupancy, affordable housing credits can be provided for up to a total of 12.75 FTE’s based on the generation rate established in the Regulations and calculated as follows: 3 2-bedrooms X 2.25/bedroom = 6.75 2 3-bedrooms X 3.00/bedroom = 6.00 TOTAL 12.75 FTE’s RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT: Public comment received prior to packet deadline is attached as Exhibits D and E. Staff will be prepared to respond to questions in more detail at the HPC hearing. To briefly address some topics requiring clarification, a letter submitted on behalf of the HOAs for the condominiums on the east and west sides of the subject lot suggests that the application is proposing unlawful selling of the individual units prior to subdivision. At the conclusion of construction, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the standard practice is for the City to process a condominium application separating ownership, and to work with the applicant and APCHA to record deed restrictions that will ensure the proper occupancy of the units in perpetuity. The sale of the legally condominiumized units does not violate the requirements of affordable 1900339000248 Page 12 of 13 housing deed restrictions for rental properties, so long as the occupant of the rental units meets applicable APCHA requirements. The same letter expresses concern that the project is not complying with ADA requirements and that the ADA parking space on the property is exclusively for the use of a person with a disability. The Building Department has, through a detailed preliminary evaluation, worked with the architect to ensure ADA compliance. The ADA parking space will be associated with the accessible unit, which may or may not be occupied by individuals requiring such accessibility. The presence of the unit and appropriate design features to permit ADA occupancy is sufficient to meet the law. The Building Department and Fire Department have also preliminarily confirmed that the project meets required Fire Codes as proposed. The project must meet required distances and precautions related to its own property lines, not related to the distance of adjacent structures. The units will have fire sprinklers. A question has been raised as to the options for development on this property given that it is smaller than the standard minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. Certain dimensional requirements, as described in Code section 26.710.090(d), apply to the zone district (RMF), including a minimum lot width of 60 ft. Here, the subject parcel is less than 60 ft. wide, and therefore does not meet the applicable zone district’s minimum dimensions. Because there is a historic structure on the lot, the lot itself is considered a historic lot of record, as provided for in section 26.312.050(c): “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 requirements of its zone district to allow the uses that are permitted and conditional uses in the zone district subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26-415.” This code section assumes that, because a lot of record does not meet the minimum lot area for the underlying zone, it will by definition fail to meet one or more other dimensional requirements (i.e. width or length). It explicitly permits development on such lots in recognition of their historic condition. Whether it is due to shortages in lot length or width, failure to meet the dimensional lot area requirements of the underlying zone district is not grounds to prohibit use of the site for multi-family development as historic lot exemptions apply. The proposed use of a multi-family residence is allowed in the zone district (RMF). See section 26.710.90(b). One other important note is that, while it is true that section 26.312.030 states that nonconforming structures may not be extended or enlarged, the section expressly provides that Historic Structures are again cause for exception with regard to dimensional criteria. Historical structures may be extended into the front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, and may also be extended into the minimum distance between buildings on a lot and may be enlarged. RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports the project, and the achievement of community goals through the preservation of a historic resource and development of affordable housing units, a by-right use within an established multi-family neighborhood in the infill area, supported by adopted City regulations and policies. Staff recommends the following motion: 2000340000249 Page 13 of 13 “HPC finds this application to comply with the requirements and limitations of the Land Use Code related to Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Demolition, Growth Management, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, and Transportation and Parking Management approval as well as the dimensional requirements of the Residential Multi-Family (R/MF) zone district and hereby approves the application subject to the conditions listed in Resolution X, Series of 2021.” ATTACHMENTS: Resolution #____, Series of 2021 Exhibit A.1 – Design Guidelines Criteria /Staff Findings Exhibit A.2 – Relocation/Staff Findings Exhibit A.3 – Demolition/Staff Findings Exhibit A.4 – Growth Management/Staff Findings Exhibit A.5 – Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit/Staff Findings Exhibit A.6 – Transportation & Parking Management/Staff Findings Exhibit B – Application Exhibit C – HPC minutes January 13th, 2021 Exhibit D – Public comments provided for February 10th, 2021 HPC meeting Exhibit E – Public comments provided for January 13the, 2021 HPC meeting 2100341000250 HPC Resolution # X, Series of 2021 Page 1 of 4 RESOLUTION # X, SERIES OF 2021 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, RELOCATION, DEMOLITION, GROWTH MANAGEMENT, CERTIFICATE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDITS, AND TRANSPORTATION & PARKING MANAGEMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1020 E. COOPER AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE EAST 13.79’ OF LOT O AND ALL OF LOT P, BLOCK 34, EAST ASPEN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. PARCEL ID: 2737-182-32-006 WHEREAS, the applicant, 1020 Cooper LLC, represented by BendonAdams, has requested HPC approval for Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Demolition, Growth Management, Certificate of Affordable Housing Credits, and Transportation and Parking Management for the property located at 1020 E. Cooper Avenue; and, WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;” and, WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. 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; and, WHEREAS, for approval of Relocation, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.090.C, Relocation of a Designated Property; and, WHEREAS, for approval of Demolition, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.080, Demolition of a Designated Property; and WHEREAS, for approval of Growth Management, the application shall meet the applicable provisions of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.470, Growth Management Quota System (GMQS), including the requirements of Code Section 26.470.050.B, General, and Code Section, 26.470.100.C, Affordable Housing; and, WHEREAS, for approval of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.540, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits; and, 2200342000251 HPC Resolution # X, Series of 2021 Page 2 of 4 WHEREAS, for approval of Transportation and Parking Management, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.515, Transportation and Parking Management; and WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance with applicable review standards and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, the development of affordable housing and preservation of historic structures are supported by numerous City regulatory objectives, as described in the City of Aspen Land Use Code, and policy objectives as described in the Aspen Area Community Plan; and WHEREAS, on January 13, 2021, HPC reviewed the project and voted to continue the application for further restudy; and WHEREAS, on February 10, 2021, HPC considered the application, the staff memo and public comment, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and granted approval with conditions by a vote of X to X (X-X). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Demolition, Growth Management, Certificate of Affordable Housing Credits, and Transportation and Parking Management for 1020 E. Cooper Avenue, as follows: Section 1: Conceptual Development, Relocation and Demolition HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development, Relocation and Demolition as proposed subject to the following conditions: 1. The visual impacts of the lightwells adjacent to the resource, including minimizing curb heights and using protective grates rather than railings, requires clarification for Final review. 2. Continue to work with Referral Agencies to advance the project into Final design and permit review. 3. Provide financial assurance of $30,000 for the relocation of the historic house until the subgrade construction is complete. The financial security is to be provided with the building permit application. Provide a relocation plan detailing how the relocation will proceed and demonstrating the contractor’s qualifications to perform the work. 4. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. 2300343000252 HPC Resolution # X, Series of 2021 Page 3 of 4 Section 2: Growth Management and Certificate of Affordable Housing Credits HPC hereby approves Growth Management, and Certificate of Affordable Housing Credits, subject to the following conditions: 1. A total of five affordable housing units shall be provided on site. The unit types and dimensions are set forth in the tables below: * The 2nd level consists of a storage loft accessed from the ground level REAR ADDITION (Net Livable sq. ft.) Units Beds Basement (sf) 1st Level (sf) 2nd Level (sf) 3rd Level (sf) Total (sf) 3 2 436.5 449.7 X X 886.2 4 3 X X 1,011.8 X 1,011.8 5 2 X X X 786.7 786.7 2. The applicant shall designate the category of each unit and shall provide APCHA with the required documentation prior to Certificate of Occupancy. 3. The category at which credits are generated for each unit shall match the category at which each unit is rented. 4. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy, a deed restriction must be recorded and must comply with the APCHA Regulations in effect at the time that said deed restriction is approved and recorded. Section 3: Transportation and Parking Management HPC hereby approves the Transportation and Parking Management as proposed subject to the following condition: 1. A total of four off-street parking spaces will be provided and one parking unit shall be mitigated via cash-in-lieu. 2. The final Transportation Impact Analysis and accompanying Mobility Measures will be finalized at building permit. Mobility Measures shall not obstruct or occupy any of the off- street parking spaces provided on the property. 3. The TDM measures shall be provided for a minimum of one (1) year. HISTORIC RESOURCE (Net Livable sq. ft.) Units Beds Basement (sf) 1st Level (sf) 2nd Level (sf) Total (sf) 1 2 462.5 450.5 103.9* 1016.8 2 3 482.9 477.6 182.9 1,143 2400344000253 HPC Resolution # X, Series of 2021 Page 4 of 4 Section 4: Material Representations All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department, the Historic Preservation Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Section 5: Existing Litigation This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 6: Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 10th day of February, 2021. Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: ______________________________ ___________________________________ Katharine Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Kara Thompson, Chair ATTEST: ________________________________________________________ Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk 2500345000254 Exhibit A.1 Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Staff Findings Page 1 of 14 2600346000255 Exhibit A.1 Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Staff Findings Page 2 of 14 2700347000256 Exhibit A.1 Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Staff Findings Page 3 of 14 26.415.070.D Major Development. No building, structure or landscape shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or a property located within a Historic District until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted without a development order. 1. Conceptual Development Plan Review b) The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major development projects are as follows: 1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for conceptual or final development plan approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. 2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. 3) 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. 4) A resolution of the HPC action shall be forwarded to the City Council in accordance with Section 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council, and call-up. No applications for Final Development Plan shall be accepted by the City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council takes action as described in said section. Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for Conceptual Review of this application: 1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or district. • Building footprint and location should reinforce the traditional patterns 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. 2800348000257 Exhibit A.1 Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Staff Findings Page 4 of 14 1.2 Preserve the system and character of historic streets, alleys, and ditches. When HPC input is requested, the following bullet points may be applicable. • Retain and preserve the variety and character found in historic alleys, including retaining historic ancillary buildings or constructing new ones. • Retain and preserve the simple character of historic ditches. Do not plant flowers or add landscape. • Abandoning or re-routing a street in a historic area is generally discouraged. • Consider the value of unpaved alleys in residential areas. • Opening a platted right of way which was abandoned or never graded may be encouraged on a case by case basis. 1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces. • Reflect the established progression of public to private spaces from the public sidewalk to a semi-public walkway, to a semi private entry feature, to private spaces. 1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential projects. • Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree or is typical of the period of significance. • Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style and install them in the manner that they would have been used historically. For example on an Aspen Victorian landmark set flagstone pavers in sand, rather than in concrete. Light grey concrete, brick or red sandstone are appropriate private walkway materials for most landmarks. • The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less for residential properties. A wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an AspenModern property. 1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site. • 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. 1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process. • When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can be better integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC review must include at least a preliminary representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed design must be reviewed and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building permit submittal. • Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away from the historic landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment systems of the site, reduce the generation of additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into the ground. Stormwater facilities and conveyances located in front of a landmark should have minimal visual impact when viewed from the public right of way. • Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements. 1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. • Retaining historic planting beds and landscape features is encouraged. • Protect historically significant vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Removal of damaged, aged, or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department. 2900349000258 Exhibit A.1 Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Staff Findings Page 5 of 14 • If a significant tree must be removed, replace it with the same or similar species in coordination with the Parks Department. • The removal of non-historic planting schemes is encouraged. • Consider restoring the original landscape if information is available, including original plant materials. 1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram. • Simplicity and restraint are required. Do not overplant a site, or install a landscape which is overtextured or overly complex in relationship to the historic resource, particularly in Zone A. In Zone A, new planting shall be species that were used historically or species of similar attributes. • In areas immediately adjacent to the landmark, Zone A and Zone B, plants up 42” in height, sod, and low shrubs are often appropriate. • Contemporary planting, walls and other features are not appropriate in Zone A. A more contemporary landscape may surround new development or be located in the rear of the property, in Zone C. • Do not cover areas which were historically unpaved with hard surfaces, except for a limited patio where appropriate. • Where residential structures are being adapted to commercial use, proposals to alter the landscape will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The residential nature of the building must be honored. • In the case of a historic landmark lot split, careful consideration should be given so as not to over plant either property, or remove all evidence of the landscape characteristics from before the property was divided. • Contemporary landscapes that highlight an AspenModern architectural style are encouraged. 3000350000259 Exhibit A.1 Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Staff Findings Page 6 of 14 3100351000260 Exhibit A.1 Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Staff Findings Page 7 of 14 1.23 Re-grading the site in a manner that changes historic grade is generally not allowed and will be reviewed on a case by case basis. 1.26 Preserve the historic circulation system. • Minimize the impact of new vehicular circulation. • Minimize the visual impact of new parking. • Maintain the separation of pedestrian and vehicle which occurred historically. 5.4 If reconstruction is necessary, match the original in form, character and detail. • Match original materials. • When reconstructing an original porch or balcony without historic photographs, use dimensions and characteristics found on comparable buildings. Keep style and form simple with minimal, if any, decorative elements. 5.5 If new steps are to be added, construct them out of the same primary materials used on the original, and design them to be in scale with the porch or balcony • Steps should be located in the original location. • Step width should relate to the scale of entry doors, spacing between posts, depth of deck, etc. • Brick, red sandstone, grey concrete, or wood are appropriate materials for steps. 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. • Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Preserve the orientation and slope of the roof as seen from the street. • Retain and repair original and decorative roof detailing. • Where the original roof form has been altered, consider restoration. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. • Overhangs contribute to the scale and detailing of a historic resource. • AspenModern properties typically have very deep or extremely minimal overhangs that are key character defining features of the architectural style. 8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved. • When treating a historic secondary building, respect its character-defining features. These include its materials, roof form, windows, doors, and architectural details. • If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional. The determination of significance is based on documentation of the construction date of the outbuilding and/or physical inspection. A secondary structure that is related to the period of significance of the primary structure will likely require preservation. 9.2 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. • In general, on-site relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. • In a district, where numerous adjacent historic structures may exist, the way that buildings were placed on the site historically, and the open yards visible from the street are characteristics that should be respected in new development. • Provide a figure ground study of the surrounding parcels to demonstrate the effects of a building relocation. • In some cases, the historic significance of the structure, the context of the site, the construction technique, and the architectural style may make on-site relocation too 3200352000261 Exhibit A.1 Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Staff Findings Page 8 of 14 impactful to be appropriate. It must be demonstrated that on-site relocation is the best preservation alternative in order for approval to be granted. • If relocation would result in the need to reconstruct a substantial area of the original exterior surface of the building above grade, it is not an appropriate preservation option. 9.3 Site a relocated structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. • It must face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. In general, a forward movement, rather than a lateral movement is preferred. HPC will consider setback variations where appropriate. • A primary structure may not be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. • Be aware of potential restrictions against locating buildings too close to mature trees. Consult with the City Forester early in the design process. Do not relocate a building so that it becomes obscured by trees. 9.4 Position a relocated structure at its historic elevation above grade. • Raising the finished floor of the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable if needed to address drainage issues. A substantial change in position relative to grade is inappropriate. • Avoid making design decisions that require code related alterations which could have been avoided. In particular, consider how the relationship to grade could result in non-historic guardrails, etc. 9.6 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells. • The size of any lightwell that faces a street should be minimized. • Lightwells must be placed so that they are not immediately adjacent to character defining features, such as front porches. • Lightwells must be protected with a flat grate, rather than a railing or may not be visible from a street. • Lightwells that face a street must abut the building foundation and generally may not “float” in the landscape except where they are screened, or on an AspenModern site. 9.7 All relocations of designated structures shall be performed by contractors who specialize in moving historic buildings, or can document adequate experience in successfully relocating such buildings. • The specific methodology to be used in relocating the structure must be approved by the HPC. • During the relocation process, panels must be mounted on the exterior of the building to protect existing openings and historic glass. Special care shall be taken to keep from damaging door and window frames and sashes in the process of covering the openings. Significant architectural details may need to be removed and securely stored until restoration. • The structure is expected to be stored on its original site during the construction process. Proposals for temporary storage on a different parcel will be considered on a case by case basis and may require special conditions of approval. • A historic resource may not be relocated outside of the City of Aspen. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. 3300353000262 Exhibit A.1 Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Staff Findings Page 9 of 14 • For Aspen Victorian properties, HPC generally relies on the 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps to determine which portions of a building are historically significant and must be preserved. • HPC may insist on the removal of non-historic construction that is considered to be detrimental to the historic resource in any case when preservation benefits or variations are being approved. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one’s ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. • A new addition must be compatible with the historic character of the primary building. • An addition must be subordinate, deferential, modest, and secondary in comparison to the architectural character of the primary building. • An addition that imitates the primary building’s historic style is not allowed. For example, a new faux Victorian detailed addition is inappropriate on an Aspen Victorian home. • An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. • Proposals on corner lots require particular attention to creating compatibility. 10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the predominant structure as viewed from the street. • The historic resource must be visually dominant on the site and must be distinguishable against the addition. • The total above grade floor area of an addition may be no more than 100% of the above grade floor area of the original historic resource. All other above grade development must be completely detached. HPC may consider exceptions to this policy if two or more of the following are met: o The proposed addition is all one story o The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic resource and the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and proportions of the historic resource o The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is considered to have been particularly detrimental to the historic resource o The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors as existed historically o The project is on a large lot, allowing the addition to have a significant setback from the street o There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to historic conditions that aren’t being changed o The project is proposed as part of a voluntary AspenModern designation, or o The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific constraints such as trees that must be preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review, etc. 10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. • An addition shall be distinguishable from the historic building and still be visually compatible with historic features. • A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material, or a modern interpretation of a historic style are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from historic construction to new construction. • Do not reference historic styles that have no basis in Aspen. 3400354000263 Exhibit A.1 Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Staff Findings Page 10 of 14 • Consider these three aspects of an addition; form, materials, and fenestration. An addition must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response. • Note that on a corner lot, departing from the form of the historic resource may not be allowed. • There is a spectrum of appropriate solutions to distinguishing new from old portions of a development. Some resources of particularly high significance or integrity may not be the right instance for a contrasting addition. 10.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. • An addition that is lower than, or similar to the height of the primary building, is preferred. 10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back substantially from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. • Locating an addition at the front of a primary building is inappropriate. • Additions to the side of a primary building are handled on a case-by-case basis and are approved based on site specific constraints that restrict rear additions. • Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. 10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building. • A simple roof form that does not compete with the historic building is appropriate. • On Aspen Victorian properties, a flat roof may only be used on an addition to a gable roofed structure if the addition is entirely one story in height, or if the flat roofed areas are limited, but the addition is primarily a pitched roof. 10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. • Loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices, and eavelines must be avoided. 11.1 Orient the new building to the street. • Aspen Victorian buildings should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern. • AspenModern alignments shall be handled case-by-case. • Generally, do not set the new structure forward of the historic resource. Alignment of their front setbacks is preferred. An exception may be made on a corner lot or where a recessed siting for the new structure is a better preservation outcome. 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. • The front porch shall be functional, and used as the means of access to the front door. • A new porch must be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale and proportion with the historic buildings on a parcel. • Subdivide larger masses into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. • Reflect the heights and proportions that characterize the historic resource. 11.4 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. 3500355000264 Exhibit A.1 Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Staff Findings Page 11 of 14 11.6 Design a new structure to be recognized as a product of its time. • Consider these three aspects of a new building; form, materials, and fenestration. A project must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response. • When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic resource. • When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site and use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale • When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic resource. 11.7 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. • This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. • Overall, details shall be modest in character. 12.1 Address accessibility compliance requirements while preserving character defining features of historic buildings and districts. • All new construction must comply completely with the International Building Code (IBC) for accessibility. Special provisions for historic buildings exist in the law that allow some flexibility when designing solutions which meet accessibility standards. 12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and trash storage. • Place mechanical equipment on the ground where it can be screened. • Mechanical equipment may only be mounted on a building on an alley façade. • Rooftop mechanical equipment or vents must be grouped together to minimize their visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, it may be appropriate to provide screening with materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. Use the smallest, low profile units available for the purpose. • Window air conditioning units are not allowed. • Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Group them in a discrete location. Use pedestals when possible, rather than mounting on a historic building. • Paint mechanical equipment in a neutral color to minimize their appearance by blending with their backgrounds • In general, mechanical equipment should be vented through the roof, rather than a wall, in a manner that has the least visual impact possible. • Avoid surface mounted conduit on historic structures. Staff Findings: Guidelines applicable to this level of review address Site Planning and Landscape Design, Porches, Roofs, Secondary Structures, Relocation, Additions, New Structures on a Landmark Property, and Accessibility and Service Areas. The proposal to site the historic structure at the front of this property with a detached addition is in keeping with historic preservation goals to minimize alterations made directly to a historic resource. There are only a few examples of miner’s cottages in Aspen that have been preserved 3600356000265 Exhibit A.1 Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Staff Findings Page 12 of 14 as a free-standing structure as this one will be. This is particularly important given the small size of this building type in comparison to the amount of square footage that the property owner has the expectation to expand to under Aspen’s zoning allowances. In addition, the plan to program the historic resource as mandatory occupancy housing will activate the historic resource in a way that HPC has valued in past discussions. No variations are needed for this project and the applicant plans a traditional landscaped setting adjacent to the historic resource with grass and planting beds. A tree that straddles the property line with the neighbor to the east is being preserved in coordination with the requirements of the Parks Department. Parking and infrastructure are all designed to meet City requirements and located at the rear of the site as required. A preliminary stormwater mitigation plan is provided, indicating a drywell will be located within the parking area. This strategy is appropriate and has no impact on the historic resource. The historic resource is to be placed on a new basement. The basement includes the required egress lightwells, which have been located discretely on the sides of the building. The visual impacts of the lightwells, including curb heights and protective grates, needs to be minimized and is a condition of approval. Inspection of the home on this site has revealed that it is two separately constructed Victorian era buildings which, early in their history, were butted against each other in an L form and “stitched” together. This creates some challenging conditions, including differing north-south and east-west ridge heights. This property is outside of the area covered by the turn of the century fire insurance maps that are often relied on for documentation of changes to buildings. No historic photos have been located and exterior materials and windows have been altered over time. Based on the existing information it has not been possible to tell whether or not the house had a front porch. The applicant proposes one, which staff supports. It is designed so as to extend the roofline of the existing shed pitch at the front of the building. Details of the porch are to be reviewed at Final. The overall approach with regard to rehabilitation of this resource is to reflect common characteristics of Aspen’s mining era homes. On-going physical inspection and careful review of any new evidence uncovered during the construction process will be necessary. During review of a previous redevelopment proposal for the site, removal of the 1960s rear lean- to addition on the north side of the resource was promoted by staff and HPC. This was primarily because the applicant intended to use that addition as the required connector between new and old construction, which was found to be unsuccessful because the element did not meet the length and width characteristics typically required for this feature. As an existing addition that has already had impacts on the integrity of the rear façade of the Victorian era construction staff finds that removal of the 60s expansion is not a priority for the current proposal, and HPC cannot insist on it because the project involves no requests for bonuses or variances (see Guideline 10.2). 3700357000266 Exhibit A.1 Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Staff Findings Page 13 of 14 The application does include very modest expansions to the historic structure in the form of a westward extension of the lean-to and a new dormer on the roof to add living space. Staff finds that the lean-to, including an entry porch for the rear unit in the house, is appropriate and has no impact on historic fabric. The work also helps to distinguish the rear construction as of a different era. The detailing and materiality that can be used to subtly reinforce this will be discussed at Final. Staff supports the proposed new dormer because, similarly, it adds living space to the front structure without affecting historic fabric. The dormer is Regarding the proposed new structure, it is in fact notably larger than the historic resource, but the resource is particularly small in footprint and diminutive in height, making it difficult to express the development rights allowed on the site in a similar form. The fact that the expansion is detached very significantly reduces its historic preservation impact. The applicable guidelines for new construction as expressed in Chapter 11 are primarily written to anticipate a new structure being proposed directly next to a historic resource, for instance in a historic landmark lot split where the new and old structures would be side by side. The impact of the height of the rear building on the historic resource will be reduced because of its placement some distance behind it. Staff supports the proposed new structure as the appropriate gestures towards the historic resource have been made. The context of the property, and the fact that it is a mid-block lot, allow for the addition to appear as a backdrop. It is unnecessary for the new building to have a front porch, as suggested by guideline 11.2, because 3800358000267 Exhibit A.1 Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Staff Findings Page 14 of 14 there would be no visibility from the street. The architect has creating a relationship to the historic structure by using roof forms and material references as required by guideline 11.6. The plate height on the upper floor is low at building corners, with dormers used to balance massing and livability considerations. Based on HPC feedback at the last hearing, the applicant reduced mass on the upper floor and created a break in the vertical plane of the south façade so that the new structure steps down in height adjacent to the resource. Height and mass have also been reduced to the benefit of the neighbors on the east and west, and the alley, as depicted on the previous page, and below. Staff finds the design guidelines to be met for Conceptual approval. Additional details of the front porch design, and minimization of the impact of the curb height and grates on the lightwells serving the historic home’s basement will be needed in the next step of the review process. 3900359000268 Exhibit A.2 Relocation Staff Findings Page 1 of 2 26.415.090.C. Standards for the relocation of designated properties. Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 4000360000269 Exhibit A.2 Relocation Staff Findings Page 2 of 2 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. Staff Findings: The applicant proposes relocation of the existing structure approximately 11’ towards the front lot line and 2’ away from the east lot line. No variations are requested. Based on HPC comments at the last hearing, the resource is to be 6’6” from the front lot line, rather than 5.’ The applicant has demonstrated that this is consistent with the approved setback in other HPC approved projects in the core of town and it offers adequate area to provide a landscaped foreground to the structure. There are two other Victorian era homes on this blockface, though a non-historic apartment building sits between 1020 and those other resources, disrupting any strong relationship between them. Based on the 1896 Willit’s map seen at right, and the current aerial image below, buildings on this blockface have historically lacked a consistent front setback. (Please note that the map at right also demonstrates that the existing outbuildings were not present in the Victorian era.) Staff finds that the proposed on-site relocation of this home is an appropriate preservation outcome because it will provide separation between the historic resource and the new construction, and will improve the visibility of the historic structure. It will not disrupt the integrity of the relationship between this historic resource and any others. The applicant has provided a structural engineer’s preliminary finding that the historic resource can be safely relocated. Standard conditions of approval regarding appropriate relocation techniques, and a security to be held by the City during construction are included in the resolution. Staff finds that the relocation criteria highlighted above are met and recommends HPC grant approval. 4100361000270 Exhibit A.3 Demolition Staff Findings Page 1 of 2 26.415.080. Demolition of designated historic properties or properties within a historic district. It is the intent of this Chapter to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have demonstrated significance to the community. Consequently, no demolition of properties designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures or properties within a Historic District will be allowed unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section. 4. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: 4200362000271 Exhibit A.3 Demolition Staff Findings Page 2 of 2 a) The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b) The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c) The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or d) No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a) The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District in which it is located and b) The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c) Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Staff Findings: Two outbuildings at the rear of the property are proposed for demolition. The construction date of these buildings is unknown. Neither appear on historic maps from the Victorian era, demonstrating that they were not built concurrent with the primary home. The buildings are not seen in 1920s era photos of the site available from the Aspen Historical Society. They are in place in a 1974 aerial photo of the site. The property was designated as a representation of the 19th century development of Aspen, therefore staff finds that removal of these structures meets the criteria highlighted above and recommends HPC approval. 4300363000272 Exhibit A.4 Growth Management Review Staff Findings Page 1 of 2 26.470.080, General Review Standards All development applications for growth management review shall comply with the following standards:MET NOT MET DOES NOT APPLY Sufficient Allotments. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.040(b). Applications for multi-year development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.110(a) shall be required to meet this standard for the growth management years from which the allotments are requested. MET Development Conformance. The proposed development conforms to the requirements and limitations of this Title, of the zone district or a site specific development plan, any adopted regulatory master plan, as well as any previous approvals, including the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Planned Development - Project Review approval, as applicable. MET NOT MET Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed development shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole costs of the developer. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services. MET Affordable Housing Mitigation. (1) For commercial development, sixty-five percent (65%) of the employees generated by the additional commercial net leasable space, according to Section 26.470.050(b), Employee generation rates, shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing.(2) For lodge development, sixty-five percent (65%) of the employees generated by the additional lodge pillows, according to Section 26.470.050(b), Employee generation rates, shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. For the redevelopment or expansion of existing lodge uses, see section 26.470.100(h).(3) For the redevelopment of existing commercial net leasable space that did not previously mitigate (see Section 26.470.070(e)), the mitigation requirements for affordable housing shall be phased at fifteen percent (15%) beginning in 2017, and by three percent (3%) each year thereafter until sixty-five percent (65%) is reached. N/A Unless otherwise exempted in this Chapter, when a change in use between development categories is proposed, the employee mitigation shall be based on the use the development is converting to. For instance, if a commercial space is being converted to lodge units, the mitigation shall be based on the requirements for lodge space. N/A For free-market residential development, affordable housing net livable area shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable area.N/A For essential public facility development, mitigation shall be determined based on Section 26.470.110(d).N/A Review Criteria for 1020 E. Cooper The HPC may approve, approve with conditions or deny and application for Growth Management Review based on the review criteria applicable to the specific type of development. 4400364000273 Page 2 of 2 This application requests five affordable housing allotments. According to Land Use Code Section 26.470.030.D, no annual growth limit applies to affordable housing. This is in recognition of the high priority placed on the development of affordable housing to meet community needs. The property is in the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zone district, which is intended for intensive long-term residential purposes. The zone district anticipates dense multi-family development, as seen in adjacent structures to the development site. The proposed affordable housing units are consistent with the residential uses in the eastern area of town and the permitted uses of the zone district. As depicted in Figure 1, many of the surrounding properties contain residential multi-family dwellings, including the adjacent properties to the east and west. Before Certificate of Occupancy is granted for the project, the applicant will work with APCHA to deed restrict each unit at the category deemed appropriate. Staff finds that the review criteria for Growth Management are met. All development applications for growth management review shall comply with the following standards:MET NOT MET DOES NOT APPLY Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied (RO).MET For all affordable housing units that are being provided as mitigation pursuant to this Chapter or for the creation of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540, or for any other reason: a.The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. b.Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of methods outlined in this Chapter, including newly built units, buy down units, certificates of affordable housing credit, or cash-in-lieu. c.Affordable housing that is in the form of newly built units or buy-down units shall be located on the same parcel as the proposed development or located off-site within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to Section 26.470.110(b). When off-site units within City limits are proposed, all requisite approvals shall be obtained prior to approval of the growth management application. d.Affordable housing mitigation in the form of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, shall be extinguished pursuant to Section 26.540.120, Extinguishment and Re-Issuance of a Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.050(f), Employee/Square Footage Conversion.e.If the total mitigation requirement for a project is less than .25 FTEs, a cash-in-lieu payment may be made by right. If the total mitigation requirement for a project is .25 or more FTEs, a cash-in-lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Section 26.470.110(c).f.Affordable housing units shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.100(d), Affordable housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation.g.Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430. MET Review Criteria for 1020 E. CooperThe HPC may approve, approve with conditions or deny and application for Growth Management Review based on the review criteria applicable to the specific type of development. Residential Multi-Family Figure 1: Residential Multi-Family Development Surrounding 1020 E. Cooper 4500365000274 Exhibit A.5 Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits Staff Findings Page 1 of 1 26.540.070, Review Criteria for establishing an affordable housing credit. Staff Findings: The minimum size requirements are met by two of the five units. Three of the units are slightly below the minimum size requirements prescribed by APCHA guidelines but are well within the 20 percent buffer that can be administratively approved and has been accepted by APCHA. Given the amenities provided to the units, including private balconies and porches, outside common space, as well as extra storage for each residence, staff finds that a slight reduction in unit size is appropriate. Additionally, at least 50 percent of the Net Livable area associated with each unit is above finished or natural grade- whichever is more restrictive. Staff finds that granting 12.75 FTEs to this project is appropriate. An Affordable Housing Credit may be established by the HPC if all of the following criteria are met. The proposed units do not need to be constructed prior to this review. MET NOT MET DOES NOT APPLY The proposed affordable housing unit(s) comply with the review standards of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d).MET The affordable housing unit(s) are not an obligation of a Development Order and are not otherwise required by this Title to mitigate the impacts of development. MET NOT MET PROPOSED CERTIFICATES Two-bedroom 3 Units x 2.25 FTEs =6.75 FTEs Three-bedroom 2 Units X 3.00 FTEs =6 FTEs Total Proposed 12.75FTEs APCHA Standards Unit Type Occupancy Standard One bedroom 1.75 FTEs/Unit Two-bedroom 2.25 FTEs/Unit Three-bedroom 3.00 FTEs/Unit 4600366000275 Page 1 of 2 Exhibit A.6 Transportation & Parking Management Staff Findings 26.515.060.C, Transportation & Parking Management Staff Findings: Pursuant to the Land Use Code, one parking unit is required for each affordable housing (AH) unit; in this case, five parking units for five AH units. The Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zone district allows 100 percent of parking mitigation to be met via cash-in-lieu or via a combination of cash-in-lieu and on-site parking. Four onsite parking spaces are proposed, including one ADA- accessible space. These spaces are accessed from the rear alley and located beneath a covered area associated with the rear addition. Remaining parking mitigation will be met with cash-in-lieu. Staff supports the parking mitigation as proposed. Providing on-site parking is generally preferred to cash-in-lieu as it reduces transportation impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. In this case, 80 percent 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. Given the residential use of the surrounding neighborhood, plenty of on-street parking exists throughout the immediate area. Lastly, the proximity of this property to the commercial core and public transportation facilities will further reduce vehicle use for tenants. Again, it should be emphasized that 100 percent of parking mitigation may be met via cash-in-lieu. The applicant plans to provide 80 percent of required parking mitigation on-site, which staff considers a benefit to tenants and the surrounding neighborhood. In addition to the on-site parking, the applicant has completed the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project and plans to provide a range of Mobility Measures to satisfy the requirements of the Engineering and Parking Departments. At this point, the applicant has indicated that All development and redevelopment projects are required to submit a Mobility Plan, which shall include and describe a project’s mitigations for TIA and Parking Requirements. The Engineering, Transportation, and Community Development Department staff shall determine whether the project conforms to this Chapter requirements using the following standards: MET NOT MET DOES NOT APPLY Project TIA and the resulting mitigation program meets requirements for exempt, minor or major project categories as outlined in the TIA Guidelines.MET Project provides full mitigation for the Parking Requirements pursuant to Section 26.515.050.MET NOT MET The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district.MET If existing development is expanded, additional Parking Requirements shall be provided for that increment of the expansion.N/A If existing development is redeveloped, on-site parking deficits may not be maintained unless all parking, or at least 20 spaces are provided as Public Parking. N/A Review Criteria for 1020 E. Cooper 26.515.060.C - Transportation & Parking Management Review Criteria 4700367000276 Page 2 of 2 subscriptions to car-sharing and bike sharing services will be made available to tenants for one year. Staff finds that providing a TDM for one year meets the applicability of this project. Additionally, bicycle parking will be provided on-site, and other infrastructure improvements will be made to encourage alternative transportation choices. The TIA is subject to change and will be assessed at building permit. Staff included a condition in the Resolution prohibiting Mobility Measures from occupying any of the off-street parking spaces on the property. Staff finds that this application meets the minimum parking and TIA requirements for the property. 4800368000277 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission c/o Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street, 3rd floor Aspen, CO 81611 January 27, 2021 Re: 1020 East Cooper Project Restudy Dear Historic Preservation Commission and Community Development, Thank you for the constructive feedback during the January 13, 2021 HPC hearing. We have restudied the project to incorporate your comments, bring forth a Land Use Code compliant project, and maintain much needed local workforce housing. This is a consolidated application as permitted in the Land Use Code to streamline the review process. As such, HPC is asked to balance not just the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines but other important aspects of the Land Use Code including Growth Management and Affordable Housing Credit Certificates to name a few. The restudy is summarized below and addressed in the attached Exhibits. Mass + Scale The mass, scale and height of the detached rear building has been reduced to better relate to the historic resource. Floor area has been reduced by 484sf. The three bedroom unit proposed on the third floor has been relocated to the rear unit in the landmark and replaced with a two bedroom unit. Dormers are proposed on the non-historic roof to add a full height bedroom within the existing landmark footprint. The dormers are pulled in from the sides of the landmark, do not conflict with the cross gable roof form, and are hidden from street view in compliance with Guideline 7.6. The third floor massing is significantly stepped back from the south elevation to read as a two story building (Guidelines 11.3, 11.4, 11.6, 11.7). A large deck faces Aspen Mountain to provide private outdoor space for the two bedroom unit and to accommodate for a unit size reduction within APCHA parameters. The gable roof is brought down to the second level and dormers are added to further reduce mass and scale of the third story (Guideline 11.3, 11.4, 11.6, 11.7). Exterior storage for the second and third levels (Units 201 and 301) is removed to reduce mass and scale. Page 1 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 4900369000278 Page 2 of 9 1020 East Cooper Project January 27, 2021 Revision Height has been reduced 2 feet on the east/west ridge and 1 foot on the north/south ridge. Reducing height strengthens the relationship between the landmark and the detached alley building and conforms to Guidelines 11.3, 11.4 and 11.6. Front Setback + Distance between buildings As directed by Commissioners Moyer and Kendrick, the front setback is increased 1 foot to be 6’6” to the front of the gable end and 11’6” to the front wall off the entry porch. The 10’ distance between buildings cannot be reduced due to Building Code requirements. The length of the parking stalls cannot be reduced any further without major operational impacts. The 3’ wide walkway beneath the carport is the Building Code minimum and cannot be reduced. After exploring all of these options, the only way to increase the size of the front yard setback beyond the Code required 5’ is to reduce the size of the rear housing unit by roughly 22sf. Figure 1: West Elevation, January 13, 2021. Figure 2: West Elevation revised, January 27, 2021. Height of alley building is reduced, the third floor mass is reduced and setback from the south, east, and north elevations. Exhibit B- Application 5000370000279 Page 3 of 9 1020 East Cooper Project January 27, 2021 Revision The 1896 Willits Map of the neighborhood shows a range of front setbacks from generous front setbacks to zero front yard development. This pattern of varying front yards is still evident in the neighborhood and is preserved in the proposed project (Guideline 1.1). A large spruce tree is preserved in the middle of the site that visually represents a feeling of openness between the buildings and creates the opportunity to consolidate open space for a communal gathering area for residents (Guideline 1.7). In addition to the community area, meaningful open space is privatized for each unit in the form of a porch or deck (Guideline 1.7). This property is located on Cooper Street/ Highway 82 and has heavy traffic, especially in the summer. Consolidating open space between the buildings shields the residents from the noise and dust coming off the Highway. A similar approach was taken at 210 West Main Street, Ted Guy’s new affordable housing project that has a central courtyard area between the two buildings, and is also found at the affordable housing project on the corner of 7th & Main. Guideline 1.5 recognizes the importance of a progression from public to private space, through a singular walkway to a front porch with private spaces behind the landmark. From Cooper Avenue there is a 6’6” front setback to the gable end and 10’6” to the entrance (Guideline 1.7). 5’ side setbacks are proposed for the east and west elevations which brings the east side yard into conformance with the Code (the building currently sits 2’5” from the property line and a 4’ wood fence sits between the landmark and the east property line). Right of way improvements are proposed as part of this project including replacing the 5’ sidewalk and existing curb and gutter. The addition of street trees is still under consideration by the City and will be finalized during building permit review. The proposed open space around the landmark and the open front porch are similar to other successful HPC projects with even smaller front setbacks: Figure 3: Willits map of neighborhood. Page 3 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 5100371000280 Page 4 of 9 1020 East Cooper Project January 27, 2021 Revision From top to bottom: 201 E Hyman – 5’ front setback with 2 story side addition; 205 S. Spring – 3’ front setback with two story alley building; 623 E. Hopkins – 4’ front setback with three story alley building. Page 4 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 5200372000281 Page 5 of 9 1020 East Cooper Project January 27, 2021 Revision The project is fully compliant with the Residential Multi-family Zone District and is well below the allowable floor area as demonstrated in Table 1. Calculations and floor plans were reviewed with the City Zoning Officer and Building Department for Code compliance. Table 1: RMF Zone District RMF Zone District Dimensional Requirement 1020 East Cooper Project Lot Size No lot size minimum for historic properties 4,379sf Floor Area 1:25:1 and 5,474sf 0.84:1 and 3,678 sf Density Allowances • Less than 1 unit/1,500 sf of lot area = .75:1 FAR • Equal to or greater than 1 unit/1,500sf of lot area = 1.25:1 FAR • Equal to or greater than 1 unit/750sf of lot area = 1.5:1 FAR 5 units on 4,379sf lot = 1 unit/ 875.8 sf of lot area or 1.71 units/1,500sf of lot area 1.25:1 FAR allowed Max. height 32 ft South elevation 27ft 6in North elevation 26ft 8.5 in Front Setback 5 ft 6 ft 6in Side Setbacks 5 ft 5 ft Rear Setbacks 5 ft 5 ft Parking Mitigation for 5 parking spaces - ability to pay cash in lieu payment for all 5 spaces 4 onsite spaces provided, cash in lieu payment for 1 space Min Trash and Recycle Area size 120 sf 124.72 sf Affordable Housing The 1020 Project is a voluntary 100% affordable housing project that requests affordable housing credits in exchange for creating voluntary deed restricting units. Five housing units are proposed – three 2-bedroom units and two 3-bedroom units. A breakdown of the unit sizes and locations is provided in Table 2. A total of 12.75 full time equivalents (FTEs) are generated by the 1020 Project. The units are proposed to be rentals that are sold to Pitkin County employers to rent to APCHA qualified employees. According to the Land Use Code and APCHA Standards, category designation will be finalized at the time of deed restriction by the owner but will be at Category 4 or less. Page 5 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 5300373000282 Page 6 of 9 1020 East Cooper Project January 27, 2021 Revision Table 2: Affordable Housing Unit Breakdown Unit Bed- room Basement Net Livable Area (sf) Ground Level Net Livable Area (sf) Second Level Net Livable Area (sf) Third Level Net Livable Area (sf) Total Size (sf) without storage Exterior Storage landmark 101 2 462.5 450.5 103.9* x 1,016.9 X landmark 102 3 482.9 477.6 182.9 x 1,143.4 x 103 2 436.5 449.7 x x 886.2 6.1 201 3 x x 1,011.8 x 1,011.8 28 301 2 x x x 786.7 786.7 28 TOTAL Net Livable Area (sf) 4,845 *Unit 101 has a storage loft accessed from the ground level. Density Concerns about the impact of the proposed density on the neighborhood were raised by neighbors and a few Commissioners. 1020 East Cooper is located in the Residential Multi-family Zone District which is designated by the City as the appropriate location for high density long term residential uses due to its proximity to downtown and existing development patterns. This neighborhood was zoned for Tourist Accommodations in the 1960s and was designated Residential Multi-family over 40 years ago in 1975. There is no question that the proposed 5 units at 1020 East Cooper comply with the permitted uses in the Residential Multi-family Zone District. There was some confusion during the January HPC hearing based on neighbor comments that the project would house 26 occupants. APCHA regulations specify the priority for occupancy of deed restricted rental units per household. Household is defined as “a) All persons who will be occupying a unit regardless of legal or marital status, b) a married couple, whether both will be living in the unit or not...” The APCHA priority is one qualified person per bedroom. This means that 2 qualified people is the preferred occupancy of a 2-bedroom unit. Tenants are requalified every two years. The 1020 project proposes 12 bedrooms, which according to the APCHA Guidelines noted below, means a preference of 12 people. APCHA Regulations, [underline and bold added for emphasis] “3. Verification of Qualified Household Size The total number of persons in a household, including qualified adults and dependents (See Definitions), are counted in determining the unit size for which an APCHA applicant may qualify. The priority is one qualified person per bedroom. Proof of legal dependency and custody is required. A dependent subject to a custody order must live in the household a minimum of 100 days per year as demonstrated by court documents or a notarized custody affidavit in order to qualify as a member of the household. TWO ADULTS THAT SHARE CUSTODY OF CHILDREN ARE ALLOWED IN TOTAL THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS OF INDIVIDUALS PLUS ONE. FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE ARE TWO CHILDREN, THE HOUSEHOLD WOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE AT MOST FIVE BEDROOMS COMBINED. If at the time of application, a household is expecting the birth of a child, such child will be counted as a member of the household upon APCHA’s receipt of a Page 6 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 5400374000283 Page 7 of 9 1020 East Cooper Project January 27, 2021 Revision letter from a doctor stating the due date and receipt of a custody order agreement if applicable. In establishing household size, all individuals who will be occupying a unit regardless of legal or marital status shall be parties to or named in the application and must submit all verification documents.” Commissioner Halferty suggested placing more units below grade to reduce above grade mass. We have a basement level proposed for the three stacked units – 101, 102, and 103 to maximize below grade square footage. The Land Use Code discourages subgrade affordable housing units by requiring that at least 50% of net livable area is located above grade. We have designed all three stacked units to comply with this Code requirement. Creative storage solutions are found throughout the 1020 project. Communal bike storage and ski/snowboard storage is proposed on the non-historic building. Each unit has private assigned storage and ample closets. Hanging storage, that can fit a kayak or storage bins, is proposed above the parking spaces in the carport. All of these creative storage solutions provide organized landing zones that help reduce visible clutter. Parking The current single family residence does not have any onsite parking. The 1020 Project is required to mitigate for five parking spaces – one “space” per unit. Mitigation can be 100% cash in lieu with no onsite parking spaces, or a mix of onsite and cash in lieu. Recognizing the importance of a percentage of onsite parking, four onsite spaces, including an ADA compliant space, are proposed in the carport accessed off the alley. Carshare memberships will be offered to each unit for their first year to discourage car ownership, in addition to Wecycle memberships, and onsite bike racks. A welcome packet with alternative forms of transportation, bike and walking trail maps, and bus schedules will be provided to tenants. All of these measures discourage car ownership and encourage Aspen’s robust alternative transportation options. The 1020 Project is conveniently located a few blocks from downtown, bus stops, and trails. Historic Preservation 1020 East Cooper has been heavily altered over time - upon physical inspection it appears that two, simple 19th century miner’s cabins were stitched together in an “L” footprint at some point in time. Historic framing, gable roof form, and historic siding are evident inside the building but raise more questions than answers. A lot of old lumber is found with mechanical cuts and new nails which confuses any clear preservation plan. The 1020 Project restores window openings, clapboard siding, and a typical open front porch. Historic structures are found throughout the neighborhood - the restoration of the cabin contributes to the character and pedestrian friendly experience along Cooper. Historic Preservation Design Guidelines are addressed in Exhibit 1. Requests to relocate the landmark to the revised 6’6” front setback in accordance with the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and to demolish the non-historic and encroaching sheds are included in Exhibit 1. A rear dormer is proposed that is not visible from Cooper Avenue and is located in the non-historic, Page 7 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 5500375000284 Page 8 of 9 1020 East Cooper Project January 27, 2021 Revision over-framed portion of the landmark. The proposed dormer results from the reduction of the third floor massing from a three bedroom unit to a two bedroom unit. Residential Design Standards Residential Design Standards (RDS) are required for multi-family residential projects that are not listed on the historic inventory. The new building is subject to RDS and meets all requirements as demonstrated in Exhibit 6. Tree The large spruce tree located within the property boundaries between the rear of the house and the non-historic sheds has been previously approved for removal by the Parks Department. The spruce tree that straddles the east property line is not proposed for removal and mitigation unless consent is received from the Riverside Condominiums because it sits on the shared property line with roots extending to both properties. A 10’ radius drip line was determined by the City Forester on July 14, 2020 and is accommodated in the application. Outreach Neighborhood engagement is central to the 1020 Project. A project website, www.1020eastcooperproject.com, was launched in mid-October to serve as a landing site for information about the project and upcoming outreach events. Before the land use application was completed, the Applicant mailed project introduction postcards to property owners within 300’ with information about the website, the project team and the upcoming project. The Applicant also e-mailed this information to neighboring HOAs and other parties who had made comments on a prior application in earlier hearings. Two online meetings were held between the project team and neighbors on October 26, 2020 and October 28, 2020 to introduce the project team and to provide an overview of the project. An online outreach meeting was held on December 1, 2020 with neighbors to review the land use application after it was deemed complete by the City of Aspen. Another online meeting to review the redesign is proposed on February 4, 2021 prior to the next HPC hearing. Neighborhood engagement is planned throughout the land use review process and the website will be frequently updated through final Certificate of Occupancy. Thank you for the opportunity to present this important project that balances many community goals including affordable housing and historic preservation. Together, as a community, we can address the lack of housing with thoughtful projects throughout town. As stated in the 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan “the creation of affordable housing is the responsibility of our entire community, not just government.” Preserving a historic resource as part of an affordable housing plan is a welcome challenge that results in an authentic project with genuine character, adaptive reuse of a historic asset, and lights on vitality. Page 8 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 5600376000285 Page 9 of 9 1020 East Cooper Project January 27, 2021 Revision Sincerely, Sara Adams, AICP BendonAdams LLC Exhibits 1 – Historic Preservation Reviews revised 1.a Conceptual HP Design Review 1.b Demolition of Non-Historic Sheds 1.c Relocation 2 – Relocation Letter [no change] 3 – Growth Management and Establishment of Housing Credits revised 4 – Parking and Transportation [no change] 5 – Transportation Impact Analysis [no change] 6 – Residential Design Standards for non-historic new building [no change] 7 - Pre-application summary [no change] 8 - Land Use Application 9 – Proof of Ownership [no change] 10 – Letter regarding lot size [no change] 11 - Authorization to Represent [no change] 12 - Agreement to Pay [no change] 13 - Vicinity Map [no change] 14 – Mailing List [no change] 15 – HOA letter [no change] 16 - Survey, Proposed drawing set, Renderings, and Preliminary Civil Drawings and Drainage letter [provided for January 13, 2021 hearing] 17 – Streetscape [no change] 18 - Response to Development Review Committee comments (provided January 4, 2021) [no change] 19- Drawing set dated February 10, 2021 revised Page 9 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 5700377000286 Exhibit 1 HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021) 1020 East Cooper Project Exhibit 1 Historic Preservation Reviews 26.415.070. Development involving designated historic property or property within a historic district. No building, structure or landscape shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or a property located within a Historic District until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted without a development order. b) The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major development projects are as follows: (1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for conceptual or final development plan approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. (2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Response: Applicable Design Guidelines are addressed below: Streetscape 1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or district. • Building footprint and location should reinforce the traditional patterns 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. Response – The proposed project reinforces the traditional street grid with both buildings perpendicular to Cooper Street. Open space is provided between the two buildings and surrounding both buildings. Visible open space surrounds the historic building, and an existing spruce tree will be visible directly behind the landmark. 1.2 Preserve the system and character of historic streets, alleys, and ditches. When HPC input is requested, the following bullet points may be applicable. Page 10 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 5800378000287 Exhibit 1 HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021) 1020 East Cooper Project • Retain and preserve the variety and character found in historic alleys, including retaining historic ancillary buildings or constructing new ones. • Retain and preserve the simple character of historic ditches. Do not plant flowers or add landscape. • Abandoning or re-routing a street in a historic area is generally discouraged. • Consider the value of unpaved alleys in residential areas. • Opening a platted right of way which was abandoned or never graded may be encouraged on a case by case basis. Response – No changes are proposed in the right of way unless required by Engineering and Parks Departments. Sidewalk, curb and gutter replacements are proposed in the civil drawing set. Street trees are under consideration by the Parks Department. Two non-historic sheds sit in the alley and are proposed to be demolished. 1.3 Remove driveways or parking areas accessed directly from the street if they were not part of the original development of the site. • Do not introduce new curb cuts on streets. • Non-historic driveways accessed from the street should be removed if they can be relocated to the alley. Response – n/a. 1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. • If an alley exists at the site, the new driveway must be located off it. • Tracks, gravel, light grey concrete with minimal seams, or similar materials are appropriate for driveways on Aspen Victorian properties. Response – All vehicular access is proposed off the alley. 1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces. • Reflect the established progression of public to private spaces from the public sidewalk to a semi- public walkway, to a semi private entry feature, to private spaces. Response – A simple straight walkway is proposed from the sidewalk to the front porch of the historic buildings. A low fence is contemplated across the front of the property. Access to the rear building is proposed from the alley. 1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential projects. • Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree or is typical of the period of significance. • Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style and install them in the manner that they would have been used historically. For example on an Aspen Page 11 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 5900379000288 Exhibit 1 HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021) 1020 East Cooper Project Victorian landmark set flagstone pavers in sand, rather than in concrete. Light grey concrete, brick or red sandstone are appropriate private walkway materials for most landmarks. • The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less for residential properties. A wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an AspenModern property. Response – A simple walkway perpendicular from the street to the front porch is proposed off the sidewalk. 1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site. • 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. Response – Open space is preserved around the historic building in compliance with the required setbacks in the RMF zone district. The front yard has been increased by a foot. Communal open space is provided between the buildings and beneath the preserved spruce tree in the east yard. Decks are proposed to support and completement the historic building by reducing mass through building setbacks. A side porch is proposed on the landmark to relate to the front porch. Side porches are typical building characteristics found on 19th century miner’s cabins. 1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process. • When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can be better integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC review must include at least a preliminary representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed design must be reviewed and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building permit submittal. • Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away from the historic landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment systems of the site, reduce the generation of additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into the ground. Stormwater facilities and conveyances located in front of a landmark should have minimal visual impact when viewed from the public right of way. • Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements. Response – Storm water design is considered as part of the design and a preliminary plan was included in the drawing set submitted for the January 13, 2021 hearing. 1.9 Landscape development on AspenModern landmarks shall be addressed on a case by case basis. Response – n/a. 1.10 Built-in furnishings, such as water features, fire pits, grills, and hot tubs, that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. • Site furnishings that are added to the historic property should not be intrusive or degrade the integrity of the neighborhood patterns, site, or existing historic landscape. • Consolidating and screening these elements is preferred. Response – A grill is potentially proposed between the two buildings. This location does not impact the historic building. Page 12 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 6000380000289 Exhibit 1 HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021) 1020 East Cooper Project 1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. • Retaining historic planting beds and landscape features is encouraged. • Protect historically significant vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Removal of damaged, aged, or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department. • If a significant tree must be removed, replace it with the same or similar species in coordination with the Parks Department. • The removal of non-historic planting schemes is encouraged. • Consider restoring the original landscape if information is available, including original plant materials. Response – The spruce tree in the east side yard is proposed to remain based on neighbor comments. 1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram. • Simplicity and restraint are required. Do not overplant a site, or install a landscape which is overtextured or overly complex in relationship to the historic resource, particularly in Zone A. In Zone A, new planting shall be species that were used historically or species of similar attributes. • In areas immediately adjacent to the landmark, Zone A and Zone B, plants up 42” in height, sod, and low shrubs are often appropriate. • Contemporary planting, walls and other features are not appropriate in Zone A. A more contemporary landscape may surround new development or be located in the rear of the property, in Zone C. • Do not cover areas which were historically unpaved with hard surfaces, except for a limited patio where appropriate. • Where residential structures are being adapted to commercial use, proposals to alter the landscape will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The residential nature of the building must be honored. • In the case of a historic landmark lot split, careful consideration should be given so as not to over plant either property, or remove all evidence of the landscape characteristics from before the property was divided. • Contemporary landscapes that highlight an AspenModern architectural style are encouraged. Response – Simple landscaping is proposed around the historic structure and will be more developed for Final Review. 1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. • Low plantings and ground covers are preferred. • Do not place trees, shrubs, or hedgerows in locations that will obscure, damage, or block significant architectural features or views to the building. Hedgerows are not allowed as fences. Page 13 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 6100381000290 Exhibit 1 HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021) 1020 East Cooper Project • Consider mature canopy size when planting new trees adjacent to historic resources. Planting trees too close to a landmark may result in building deteriorate or blocked views and is inappropriate. • Climbing vines can damage historic structures and are not allowed. Response – Sod and low plants are contemplated around the landmark to not obscure historic characteristics and to avoid accelerating deterioration of historic material. 1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of landscape lighting. • Landscape and pathway lighting is not permitted in Zone A (refer to diagram) on Aspen Victorian properties unless an exception is approved by HPC based on safety considerations. • Landscape, driveway, and pathway lighting on AspenModern properties is addressed on a case- by-case basis. • Landscape light fixtures should be carefully selected so that they are compatible with the building, yet recognizable as a product of their own time. • Driveway lighting is not permitted on Aspen Victorian properties. • Landscape uplighting is not allowed. Response – Landscape lighting is not proposed at this time. 1.15 Preserve original fences. • Fences which are considered part of the historic significance of a site should not be moved, removed, or inappropriately altered. • Replace only those portions of a historic fence that are deteriorated beyond repair. • Replacement elements must match the existing. Response – The existing fence is not original and is proposed to be removed and possibly replaced. 1.16 When possible, replicate a missing historic fence based on photographic evidence. Response – n/a. 1.17 No fence in the front yard is often the most appropriate solution. • Reserve fences for back yards and behind street facing façades, as the best way to preserve the character of a property. Response – A low picket fence is contemplated in the front yard to define the property and frame the historic building. 1.18 When building an entirely new fence, use materials that are appropriate to the building type and style. • The new fence should use materials that were used on similar properties during the period of significance. • A wood fence is the appropriate solution in most locations. Page 14 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 6200382000291 Exhibit 1 HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021) 1020 East Cooper Project • Ornate fences, including wrought iron, may create a false history are not appropriate for Aspen Victorian landmarks unless there is evidence that a decorative fence historically existed on the site. • A modest wire fence was common locally in the early 1900s and is appropriate for Aspen Victorian properties. This fence type has many desirable characteristics including transparency, a low height, and a simple design. When this material is used, posts should be simply detailed and not oversized. Response – Side yard fencing is not proposed at this time; however, the applicant is in discussions with the neighboring properties to understand their preference for fencing along the shared lot lines. 1.19 A new fence should have a transparent quality, allowing views into the yard from the street. • A fence that defines a front yard must be low in height and transparent in nature. • For a picket fence, spacing between the pickets must be a minimum of 1/2 the width of the picket. • For Post-WWII properties where a more solid type of fence may be historically appropriate, proposals will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. • Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment. Response – The low picket fence along the front of the property meets these requirements and is transparent as defined above. 1.20 Any fence taller than 42” should be designed so that it avoids blocking public views of important features of a designated building. • A privacy fence should incorporate transparent elements to minimize the possible visual impacts. Consider staggering the fence boards on either side of the fence rail. This will give the appearance of a solid plank fence when seen head on. Also consider using lattice, or other transparent detailing on the upper portions of the fence. • A privacy fence should allow the building corners and any important architectural features that are visible from the street to continue to be viewed. • All hedgerows (trees, shrub bushes, etc.) are prohibited in Zones A and B. Response – The fence along the front of the property is less than 42” in height. 1.21 Preserve original retaining walls • Replace only those portions that are deteriorated beyond repair. Any replacement materials should match the original in color, texture, size and finish. • Painting or covering a historic masonry retaining wall or covering is not allowed. • Increasing the height of a retaining wall is inappropriate. Response – n/a. 1.22 When a new retaining wall is necessary, its height and visibility should be minimized. • All wall materials, including veneer and mortar, will be reviewed on a case by case basis and should be compatible with the palette used on the historic structure. Response – n/a. Page 15 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 6300383000292 Exhibit 1 HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021) 1020 East Cooper Project 1.23 Re-grading the site in a manner that changes historic grade is generally not allowed and will be reviewed on a case by case basis. Response – Minor grading of the site is proposed to ensure proper drainage away from the buildings. Significant regrading is not proposed. 1.24 Preserve historically significant landscapes with few or no alterations. • An analysis of the historic landscape and an assessment of the current condition of the landscape should be done before the beginning of any project. • The key features of the historic landscape and its overall design intent must be preserved. Response – n/a. This property does not have a recognized historically significant landscape. 1.25 New development on these sites should respect the historic design of the landscape and its built features. • Do not add features that damage the integrity of the historic landscape. • Maintain the existing pattern of setbacks and siting of structures. • Maintain the historic relationship of the built landscape to natural features on the site. • All additions to these landscapes must be clearly identifiable as recent work. • New artwork must be subordinate to the designed landscape in terms of placement, height, material, and overall appearance. Place new art away from significant landscape features. • Avoid installing utility trenches in cultural landscapes if possible. Response – n/a. This property does not have a recognized historically significant landscape. 1.26 Preserve the historic circulation system. • Minimize the impact of new vehicular circulation. • Minimize the visual impact of new parking. • Maintain the separation of pedestrian and vehicle which occurred historically. Response – Parking is located off the alley. 1.27 Preserve and maintain significant landscaping on site. • Protect established vegetation during any construction. • If any tree or shrub needs to be removed, replace it with the same or similar species. • New planting should be of a species used historically or a similar species. • Maintain and preserve any gardens and/or ornamental planting on the site. • Maintain and preserve any historic landscape elements. Response – The preserved spruce tree in the east yard will be protected during construction in accordance with the City of Aspen Parks Department regulations. Page 16 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 6400384000293 Exhibit 1 HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021) 1020 East Cooper Project Restoration Materials 2.1 Preserve original building materials. • Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place. • Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved. • Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired in place. Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity. • Original AspenModern materials may be replaced in kind if it has been determined that the weathering detracts from the original design intent or philosophy. 2.2 The finish of materials should be as it would have existed historically. • Masonry naturally has a water-protective layer to protect it from the elements. Brick or stone that was not historically painted shall not be painted. • If masonry that was not painted historically was given a coat of paint at some more recent time, consider removing it, using appropriate methods. • Wood should be painted, stained or natural, as appropriate to the style and history of the building. 2.3 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. • If the original material is wood clapboard for example, then the replacement material must be wood as well. It should match the original in size, and the amount of exposed lap and finish. • Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those should be replaced, not the entire wall. For AspenModern buildings, sometimes the replacement of a larger area is required to preserve the integrity of the design intent. 2.4 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for original building materials. • Original building materials such as wood siding and brick should not be replaced with synthetic materials. 2.5 Covering original building materials with new materials is inappropriate. • Regardless of their character, new materials obscure the original, historically significant material. • Any material that covers historic materials may also trap moisture between the two layers. This will cause accelerated deterioration to the historic material which may go unnoticed. 2.6 Remove layers that cover the original material. Page 17 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 6500385000294 Exhibit 1 HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021) 1020 East Cooper Project • Once the non-historic siding is removed, repair the original, underlying material. Response – Existing conditions beneath the vinyl siding do not show historic siding. Historic siding is found in the interior of the building where the two historic buildings were stitched together. This siding will be used to dimension new siding for the exterior of the historic building for discussion during Final Review. Windows 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. • Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operations, and groupings of windows. • Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them. • Preserve the original glass. If original Victorian era glass is broken, consider using restoration glass for the repair. 3.2 Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. • Enclosing a historic window is inappropriate. • Do not change the size of an original window opening. 3.3 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. • If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window must also be double-hung. If the sash have divided lights, match that characteristic as well. 3.4 When replacing an original window, use materials that are the same as the original. 3.5 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. • Changing the window opening is not permitted. • Consider restoring an original window opening that was enclosed in the past. 3.6 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original window. • A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window’s casing, the sash steps back to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, which individually only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are important details. They distinguish the actual window from the surrounding plane of the wall. • The historic profile on AspenModern properties is typically minimal. 3.7 Adding new openings on a historic structure is generally not allowed. • Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear or secondary walls. • New windows should be similar in scale to the historic openings on the building, but should in some way be distinguishable as new, through the use of somewhat different detailing, etc. • Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a façade. Page 18 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 6600386000295 Exhibit 1 HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021) 1020 East Cooper Project • Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character defining façade will negatively affect the integrity of a structure. 3.8 Use a storm window to enhance energy conservation rather than replace a historic window. • Install a storm window on the interior, when feasible. This will allow the character of the original window to be seen from the public way. • If a storm window is to be installed on the exterior, match the sash design and material of the original window. It should fit tightly within the window opening without the need for sub-frames or panning around the perimeter. A storm window should not include muntins unless necessary for structure. Any muntin should be placed to match horizontal or vertical divisions of the historic window. Response – No original or historic windows exist. Traditional double hung windows are proposed in the historic building. Framing within the historic building does not clearly demonstrate original openings, but provides some insight that informs the proposed window locations. Doors 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. • Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These include the door, door frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms and flanking sidelights. • Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances. • If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so that the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic position. • Previously enclosed original doors should be reopened when possible. 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. • Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height. 4.3 When a historic door or screen door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic appearance. 4.4 When replacing a door or screen door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the building. • A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement. • A historic door or screen door from a similar building also may be considered. • Simple paneled doors were typical for Aspen Victorian properties. • Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic evidence can support their use. 4.5 Adding new doors on a historic building is generally not allowed. Page 19 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 6700387000296 Exhibit 1 HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021) 1020 East Cooper Project • Place new doors in any proposed addition rather than altering the historic resource. • Greater flexibility in installing a door in a new location may be considered on rear or secondary walls. • A new door in a new location should be similar in scale and style to historic openings on the building and should be a product of its own time. • Preserve the historic ratio of openings to solid wall on a façade. Significantly increasing the openings on a character defining façade negatively affects the integrity of a structure. 4.6 If energy conservation and heat loss are concerns, use a storm door instead of replacing a historic entry door. • Match the material, frame design, character, and color of the primary door. • Simple features that do not detract from the historic entry door are appropriate for a new storm door. • New screen doors should be in character with the primary door. 4.7 Preserve historic hardware. • When new hardware is needed, it must be in scale with the door and appropriate to the style of the building. • On Aspen Victorian properties, conceal any modern elements such as entry key pads. Response – There are no historic doors on this property. A simple front door is proposed facing Cooper Avenue. Porch 5.1 Preserve an original porch or balcony. • Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions, material and spacing of balusters. • Expanding the size of a historic porch or balcony is inappropriate. 5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details. • Removing an original balustrade, for example, is inappropriate. 5.3 Enclosing a porch or balcony is not appropriate. • Reopening an enclosed porch or balcony is appropriate. 5.4 If reconstruction is necessary, match the original in form, character and detail. • Match original materials. • When reconstructing an original porch or balcony without historic photographs, use dimensions and characteristics found on comparable buildings. Keep style and form simple with minimal, if any, decorative elements. Page 20 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 6800388000297 Exhibit 1 HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021) 1020 East Cooper Project 5.5 If new steps are to be added, construct them out of the same primary materials used on the original, and design them to be in scale with the porch or balcony • Steps should be located in the original location. • Step width should relate to the scale of entry doors, spacing between posts, depth of deck, etc. • Brick, red sandstone, grey concrete, or wood are appropriate materials for steps. 5.6 Avoid adding handrails or guardrails where they did not exist historically, particularly where visible from the street. • If handrails or guardrails are needed according to building code, keep their design simple in character and different from the historic detailing on the porch or balcony. Response – A simple traditional open front porch with one step is proposed facing Cooper Avenue. Framing within the historic building is unclear as to whether the front entry was an open porch or enclosed. An open porch is proposed at this time since it was a traditional characteristic of 19th century miner’s cabins, and an open porch aligns with the 1896 Willits map L shaped footprint. A side porch is proposed along the west elevation in the non-historic portion of the landmark to provide a private covered entry to the rear housing unit. Architectural Details 6.1 Preserve significant architectural features. • Repair only those features that are deteriorated. • Patch, piece-in, splice, or consolidate to repair the existing materials, using recognized preservation methods whenever possible. • On AspenModern properties, repair is preferred, however, it may be more important to preserve the integrity of the original design intent, such as crisp edges, rather than to retain heavily deteriorated material. 6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods that minimize damage to the original material. • Document its location so it may be repositioned accurately. Always devise methods of replacing the disassembled material in its original configuration. 6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced. • Match the original in composition, scale, and finish when replacing materials or features. • If the original detail was made of wood, for example, then the replacement material should be wood, when feasible. It should match the original in size and finish. Page 21 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 6900389000298 Exhibit 1 HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021) 1020 East Cooper Project 6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features are required to be based on original designs. • The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a misrepresentation of the building’s heritage. • When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical evidence, develop a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and maintains similar scale, proportion and material. 6.5 Do not guess at “historic” designs for replacement parts. • Where scars on the exterior suggest that architectural features existed, but there is no other physical or photographic evidence, then new features may be designed that are similar in character to related buildings. • Using ornate materials on a building or adding new conjectural detailing for which there is no documentation is inappropriate. Response – Original architectural details are lost with the exception of the gable end inside the interior of the historic building. Any relevant historic details on the gable end will be used on the historic building for review during Final Design. All other details will be simple, traditional, and similar to features found on other 19th century miner’s cabins. Roof 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. • Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Preserve the orientation and slope of the roof as seen from the street. • Retain and repair original and decorative roof detailing. • Where the original roof form has been altered, consider restoration. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. • Overhangs contribute to the scale and detailing of a historic resource. • AspenModern properties typically have very deep or extremely minimal overhangs that are key character defining features of the architectural style. 7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. • Skylights and solar panels are generally not allowed on a historic structure. These elements may be appropriate on an addition. 7.4 New vents should be minimized, carefully placed, and painted a dark color. • Direct vents for fireplaces are generally not permitted to be added on historic structures. • Locate vents on non-street facing facades. • Use historic chimneys as chases for new flues when possible. Page 22 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 7000390000299 Exhibit 1 HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021) 1020 East Cooper Project 7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional. • Reconstruct a missing chimney when documentation exists. 7.6 A new dormer should remain subordinate to the historic roof in scale and character. • A new dormer is not appropriate on a primary, character defining façade. • A new dormer should fit within the existing wall plane. It should be lower than the ridgeline and set in from the eave. It should also be in proportion with the building. • The mass and scale of a dormer addition must be subordinate to the scale of the historic building. • While dormers improve the livability of upper floor spaces where low plate heights exist, they also complicate the roof and may not be appropriate on very simple structures. • Dormers are not generally not permitted on AspenModern properties since they are not characteristics of these building styles. 7.7 Preserve original roof materials. • Avoid removing historic roofing material that is in good condition. When replacement is necessary, use a material that is similar to the original in both style as well as physical qualities and use a color that is similar to that seen historically. 7.8 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to the original. • If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and have a matte, non-reflective finish. • Flashing should be in scale with the roof material. • Flashing should be tin, lead coated copper, galvanized or painted metal and have a matte, non- reflective finish. • Design flashing, such as drip edges, so that architectural details are not obscured. • A metal roof is inappropriate for an Aspen Victorian primary home but may be appropriate for a secondary structure from that time period. • A metal roof material should have a matte, non-reflective finish and match the original seaming. 7.9 Avoid using conjectural features on a roof. • Adding ornamental cresting, for example, where there is no evidence that it existed, creates a false impression of the building’s original appearance, and is inappropriate. 7.10 Design gutters so that their visibility on the structure is minimized to the extent possible. • Downspouts should be placed in locations that are not visible from the street if possible, or in locations that do not obscure architectural detailing on the building. • The material used for the gutters should be in character with the style of the building. Page 23 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 7100391000300 Exhibit 1 HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021) 1020 East Cooper Project New Building Response – The existing roof form is proposed to remain as is. Composite shingles that are low maintenance and similar in style to wood shingles are proposed to replace the existing asphalt roof. Gutters, downspouts, and roof penetrations will be presented at Final Design Review. A dormer is proposed on the rear of the historic building, below the ridge. The dormer is proposed in the overframed portion of the landmark and non-historic addition. The dormer meets Guideline 7.6 in the location on the rear non-historic portion of the landmark and the small footprint. The mass and scale of the dormer is subordinate to the landmark and does not conflict with the simple cross gable roof. Building Placement 11.1 Orient the new building to the street. • AspenVictorian buildings should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern. • AspenModern alignments shall be handled case by case. • Generally, do not set the new structure forward of the historic resource. Alignment of their front setbacks is preferred. An exception may be made on a corner lot or where a recessed siting for the new structure is a better preservation outcome. Response – The new building is located behind the landmark and along the alley. It is parallel to the lot lines which is consistent with the traditional grid pattern. Setback variances are not requested for the new building. Mass and Scale 11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by using a front porch. • The front porch shall be functional, and used as the means of access to the front door. • A new porch must be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally. Response – The entrance to the new building is defined by a front porch at the street facing ground level unit. The small size and one story nature of the proposed porch is similar to traditional front porches. A small porch is proposed on the west elevation attached to an existing non-historic addition to the landmark. This small porch provides a sheltered entrance and access to the rear unit in the historic building. 11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale and proportion with the historic buildings on a parcel. • Subdivide larger masses into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to the historic buildings on the original site. • Reflect the heights and proportions that characterize the historic resource. Page 24 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 7200392000301 Exhibit 1 HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021) 1020 East Cooper Project Response – The proposed L shaped footprint of the new building directly references the historic building’s footprint. The prominent gable roof form has a similar pitch to the historic building. Material changes and facade setbacks between the second level and third level breaks up the massing into smaller modules that relate to the historic building. The third floor unit has been significantly reduced by almost 300sf and is setback from the north, east and south facades to reduce mass and scale. The height of the north- south ridge has been reduced by ~1 foot and the height of the east-west ridge has been reduced by ~2 feet. Sliding wood shutters and windows of a similar proportion to the landmark are proposed to add interest and to break up the façade of the building. Vertical wood board and batten on the upper level of the alley building adds depth and dimension to the front façade. Galvanized metal siding is proposed for the first level and as accents on the upper levels to add interest to the east and west facades that face the neighboring multi-family buildings. See also response to 11.4 below. A bump out is proposed at the southwest corner of the landmark, in a non-historic location, to allow a small accessible bathroom at grade which makes this unit visitable under ADA standards. Two small exterior storage units are proposed on the west elevation of the landmark to provide additional storage. 11.4 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. Response – The primary plane of the new building is 20’ 5” (measured to the third floor deck) which is similar scale to the 16’ 6” one story historic building, especially in consideration of the 10 feet separation. The 10 feet distance between new and historic construction pushes the new building toward the alley and reduced the perception of height as viewed from Cooper. The new building contextually sits between three story buildings to the east and west of the 1020 property, and successfully completes the streetscape in this high density residential neighborhood while preserving a one story historic cabin at the front of the property. Decks and open stairs are proposed behind the landmark to break up the mass and to provide relief to the Riverside Condominiums. Exterior storage units on the second and third floor have been removed to further reduce the south and east facades as shown below. Page 25 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 7300393000302 Exhibit 1 HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021) 1020 East Cooper Project The preservation of the spruce tree on the shared lot line between 1020 Project and Riverside provides a natural buffer between the properties; however, it also limits the ability to spread out and step up massing behind the landmark. 11.5 The intent of the historic landmark lot split is to remove most of the development potential from the historic resource and place it in the new structure. • This should be kept in mind when determining how floor area will be allocated between structures proposed as part of a lot split. Response – A historic lot split is not proposed on this property; however, a new detached building is proposed that removes development pressure from the landmark into the new construction. 11.6 Design a new structure to be recognized as a product of its own time. • Consider these three aspects of a new building; form, materials, and fenestration. A project must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response. • When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic resource. • When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site and use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale. • When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic resource. Response – The new building relates to building form and material application. Windows are rectangular but are contemporary along the front (south) elevation. Building form relates to the landmark in footprint, roof form, and roof pitch. Wood is proposed as the primary material to relate to the landmark. The style and application of wood siding recalls historic woodsheds along Aspen’s alleys and is similar to Figures 1 &2: Comparison of January 13, 2021 south elevation to February 10, 2021 revised elevation. Page 26 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 7400394000303 Exhibit 1 HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021) 1020 East Cooper Project the some of the historic wood found within the walls of the 1020 landmark. Durability and low maintenance are a primary consideration in the selection of weathered wood and galvanized metal on the rear building. 11.7 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. • This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. • Overall, details shall be modest in character. Response – The new building is clearly a product of its own time while simultaneously supporting and highlighting the historic landmark. Details are subtle in nature and materials are durable to limit capital expenses for the affordable housing residents. 26.415.080. Demolition of designated historic properties or properties within a historic district. It is the intent of this Chapter to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have demonstrated significance to the community. Consequently no demolition of properties designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures or properties within a Historic District will be allowed unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section. 4. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a) The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b) The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c) The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or d) No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a) The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District in which it is located and b) The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c) Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Response – Two non-historic sheds are located partly on the 1020 property and partly within the alley. The sheds are not shown on the Willits Map or any other 19th century aerial photographs. As such, the two sheds are not related to the period of significance of the miner’s cabin and are requested to be demolished. Page 27 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 7500395000304 Exhibit 1 HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021) 1020 East Cooper Project 26.415.090. Relocation of designated historic properties. The intent of this Chapter is to preserve designated historic properties in their original locations as much of their significance is embodied in their setting and physical relationship to their surroundings as well as their association with events and people with ties to particular site. However, it is recognized that occasionally the relocation of a property may be appropriate as it provides an alternative to demolition or because it only has a limited impact on the attributes that make it significant. C. Standards for the relocation of designated properties. Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. Response – The historic landmark is proposed to be stabilized and moved to the 6’6” front setback toward Cooper Avenue. The landmark is not part of a historic district and its relocation forward provides better visibility of the restored miner’s cabin along Cooper Avenue. The context and setting of the landmark have significantly changed over time with three story large condominium buildings to the east and west of the property. Pulling the landmark forward gives it street presence and positively contributes to the streetscape. The standard $30,000 letter of credit or similar form of financial assurance is acceptable to the owner to ensure safe relocation of the landmark. Design guidelines are addressed below: 9.1 Developing a basement by underpinning and excavating while the historic structure remains in place may help to preserve the historic fabric. • This activity will require the same level of documentation, structural assessment, and posting of financial assurances as a building relocation. Page 28 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 7600396000305 Exhibit 1 HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021) 1020 East Cooper Project Response – n/a. The historic building is proposed to be relocated on the site. 9.2 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. • In general, on-site relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. • In a district, where numerous adjacent historic structures may exist, the way that buildings were placed on the site historically, and the open yards visible from the street are characteristics that should be respected in new development. • Provide a figure ground study of the surrounding parcels to demonstrate the effects of a building relocation. • In some cases, the historic significance of the structure, the context of the site, the construction technique, and the architectural style may make on-site relocation too impactful to be appropriate. It must be demonstrated that on-site relocation is the best preservation alternative in order for approval to be granted. • If relocation would result in the need to reconstruct a substantial area of the original exterior surface of the building above grade, it is not an appropriate preservation option. Response – Relocating the house forward on the lot brings the landmark into closer relationship to buildings along the block to the east, many of which have a zero foot front setback. A 6’6” front yard setback creates an appropriate transition from the zero foot setbacks to the west and the more generous front yard setbacks to the west. A more prominent location on the property highlights the landmark in a high density neighborhood. Figure 3: Birds eye view showing the original 5’ front setback. An updated bird’s eye view to illustrate the revised 6’6” front setback is pending and will be presented to HPC at the February 10th hearing. Page 29 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 7700397000306 Exhibit 1 HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021) 1020 East Cooper Project 9.3 Site a relocated structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. • It must face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. In general, a forward movement, rather than a lateral movement is preferred. HPC will consider setback variations where appropriate. • A primary structure may not be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. • Be aware of potential restrictions against locating buildings too close to mature trees. Consult with the City Forester early in the design process. Do not relocate a building so that it becomes obscured by trees. Response – The structure is proposed to be moved to comply with the 5 feet side setbacks and to exceed the 5 feet front yard setback. The perpendicular orientation of the building to Cooper Avenue is maintained which reinforces the traditional street grid and traditional siting of historic buildings. 9.4 Position a relocated structure at its historic elevation above grade. • Raising the finished floor of the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable if needed to address drainage issues. A substantial change in position relative to grade is inappropriate. • Avoid making design decisions that require code related alterations which could have been avoided. In particular, consider how the relationship to grade could result in non-historic guardrails, etc. Response – There are challenging grades on the property, as noted on the improvement survey. A slight increase in height is proposed for the landmark to accommodate a single step to the front porch and to promote positive drainage away from the historic resource. 9.5 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. • On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a miner’s cottage where there is no evidence that one existed historically is out of character and is not allowed. • Exposed concrete or painted metal flashing are generally appropriate. • Where a stone or brick foundation existed historically, it must be replicated, ideally using stone salvaged from the original foundation as a veneer. The replacement must be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. • New AspenModern foundations shall be handled on a case by case basis to ensure preservation of the design intent. Response – The new foundation will be exposed concrete or painted metal flashing. 9.6 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells. • The size of any lightwell that faces a street should be minimized. • Lightwells must be placed so that they are not immediately adjacent to character defining features, such as front porches. Page 30 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 7800398000307 Exhibit 1 HP Reviews (Jan. 27, 2021) 1020 East Cooper Project • Lightwells must be protected with a flat grate, rather than a railing or may not be visible from a street. • Lightwells that face a street must abut the building foundation and generally may not “float” in the landscape except where they are screened, or on an AspenModern site. Response – Lightwells are the minimum 3 x 3 size for egress, and are minimized to the greatest extent possible while still providing natural light to below grade bedrooms. 9.7 All relocations of designated structures shall be performed by contractors who specialize in moving historic buildings, or can document adequate experience in successfully relocating such buildings. • The specific methodology to be used in relocating the structure must be approved by the HPC. • During the relocation process, panels must be mounted on the exterior of the building to protect existing openings and historic glass. Special care shall be taken to keep from damaging door and window frames and sashes in the process of covering the openings. Significant architectural details may need to be removed and securely stored until restoration. • The structure is expected to be stored on its original site during the construction process. Proposals for temporary storage on a different parcel will be considered on a case by case basis and may require special conditions of approval. • A historic resource may not be relocated outside of the City of Aspen. Response – A letter from a licensed engineer is included as Exhibit 2. A house mover has inspected the historic building and proposed relocation and is confident in a successful relocation. 9.8 Proposals to relocate a building to a new site are highly discouraged. • Permanently relocating a structure from where it was built to a new site is only allowed for special circumstances, where it is demonstrated to be the only preservation alternative. Response – n/a. Page 31 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 7900399000308 MIKE THELE, P.E. S t r u c t u r a I E n g i n e e r i n g S e r v i c e s, I n c. 0296 Seven Oaks Road : Carbondale, Colorado 81623 (970) 963-3181 : Toll Free (888) 845-3911 : Fax (970) 963-3182 mike@mikethelepe.com October 27, 2020 Collin Frank, AIA DJ Architects 119 South Spring St. Ste. 203 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 1020 East Cooper Project Aspen, Colorado Dear Collin, This is in regards to proposed improvements to the existing residence at 1020 East Cooper Street in Aspen. Current plans by your office indicate that the existing building is to be moved on the site to facilitate construction of a full basement and building additions placed to the north. On May 30, 2019 I visited the project site to observe and review the existing residence in regards to its soundness, ability to withstand the physical move and its rehabilitation needs after the move. The existing residence is a single story wood framed structure with gable roofs and a framed floor over a shallow crawl space. I understand that the south portion of the residence including the living room and two bedrooms is the original construction and is considered historic. The north portion including the kitchen, dining and an additional bedroom are a subsequent addition to the original. The addition appears to have a concrete foundation. The crawlspace below the original construction was not accessible. Portions of the building may have experienced some settlement considering the limited function of some doors and windows. Based on observations the existing building structure appears to be basically sound and should be able to withstand the physical move. I understand that the Covered Patio along the north side of the building is to be demolished prior to the move. The physical move of the building should be conducted by a qualified building mover with appropriate experience in stabilizing and moving similar structures. Rehabilitation needs will include a full review and analysis of the existing building structure to determine if the structure meets current building code requirements and to coordinate with the proposed new construction plans. The existing roof structure will likely need improvements to meet current roof snow load demands. The existing floor structure may need to be replaced or modified to Page 32 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 80 exhibit 2 00400000309 1020 East Cooper Project October 27, 2020 Page two coordinate with the new basement plans. Complete construction documents would be required for the proposed remodel and additions. The conclusions of this review are based on visual observations only. No finish materials were removed to observe concealed conditions and no measurements or analyses were provided. Regards, Page 33 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 8100401000310 Exhibit 3 Growth Management Review + Affordable Housing Credits (Jan. 27, 2020) 1020 East Cooper Project Exhibit 3 Growth Management Establishment of Housing Credits Growth Management 26.470.050.B General Requirements: All development applications for growth management review shall comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve, approve with conditions or deny and application for growth management review based on the following generally applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific type of development: 1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi-year allotments, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet this standard. Response – Five affordable housing allotments are requested. According to Land Use Code Section 26.470.030.D, no annual limit applies to affordable housing. 2. The proposed development is compatible with land uses in the surrounding area, as well as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan. Response - The high density residential neighborhood is multi-family residential buildings with some single family buildings. The proposed affordable housing units are consistent with the residential uses in this neighborhood and the intent of the Residential Multi-Family Zone District. 3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district. Response - The development conforms to the Residential Multi-Family Zone District. 4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Planned Development – Project Review approval, as applicable. Response - Conceptual HPC review is requested as part of this application. 5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection 26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate. Response - Not applicable. Page 34 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 8200402000311 Exhibit 3 Growth Management Review + Affordable Housing Credits (Jan. 27, 2020) 1020 East Cooper Project 6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100 Employee/Square Footage Conversion. Response - Not applicable. 7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services. Response - The property is already developed. Additional public infrastructure will be upgraded as needed by the applicant. 26.470.070.4 Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. Response - The proposed units comply with the APCHA Guidelines as shown below: Page 35 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 8300403000312 Exhibit 3 Growth Management Review + Affordable Housing Credits (Jan. 27, 2020) 1020 East Cooper Project Table 1: Affordable Housing Unit Breakdown Unit Bed- room Basement Net Livable Area (sf) Ground Level Net Livable Area (sf) Second Level Net Livable Area (sf) Third Level Net Livable Area (sf) Extra Storage Total Size (sf) Excluding storage Size range(sf) Private Deck Stacked Unit landmark 101 2 462.52 450.47 103.9* x x 1,016.9 900 -720 y y landmark 102 3 482.85 477.6 182.9 x x 1,143.4 1200- 960 y y 103 2 436.51 449.7 x x 6.1 886.2 900-720 y y 201 3 x x 1,011.8 X 28 1,011.8 1200- 960 y n 301 3 x x x 786.7 28 786.7 900-720 y n TOTAL Net Livable Area (sf) 4,845 *Units 101 and 102 have lofted interior storage. A total of 12.75 FTEs are proposed. Each unit has assigned storage, private outdoor space, and interior washer/dryers. A bike rack, locking ski/snowboard storage, and hanging storage in the carport are proposed on the property. The revised project was required to reduce mass and scale which now results in four units that are slightly smaller than the minimum size listed in the APCHA Affordable Housing Development Policy. All units are within the 20% reduction allowance by APCHA. Criteria to grant a reduction to the minimum net livable square footage is addressed below. Permitted Adjustments to Net Minimum Livable Square Footage The approval of the city or county of Net Minimum Livable square footage of affordable housing units for construction or conversion must be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit. Any adjustment is subject to the approval of the city or county. 1. Permitted Reduction of Square Footage Net Minimum Livable Square Footage may be reduced by the city or county based on the specific criteria identified below, and if the permit applicant sufficiently demonstrates that construction requires accommodation for physical conditions of the property or in consideration of design for livability, common storage, amenities, location and site design, including but not limited to provisions for the following: • Significant storage space located outside the unit; Page 36 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 8400404000313 Exhibit 3 Growth Management Review + Affordable Housing Credits (Jan. 27, 2020) 1020 East Cooper Project Response – Extra storage units are provided for all of the units. Additional storage above parking spaces within the carport, locking ski storage, and bike storage is provided. • Above average natural light, i.e. more windows than required by code; Response – All units have above average natural light. • Efficient, flexible layout with limited hall and staircase space; Response – The units have limited hallways and staircases. • Availability of site amenities, such as pool or proximity to park or open space; Response – The project is located within close walking distance to downtown, the local grocery store, the Roaring Fork River, and multiple bike and walking trails. Open space is provided onsite in the side yards and between the buildings. The project is near a RFTA bus stop on Cooper. The landmark unit 102 has a private side porch; and the third floor two-bedroom unit 301 has large decks and views of Aspen Mountain. • Unit location within the development, i.e. above ground location versus ground level or below ground; and/or Response – Units 201 and 301 are entire above grade with private decks. Units 102 and 103 are mostly above grade with bedrooms in the basement level. • Possibility that project can achieve higher density of deed restricted units with a reduction variance. Response – The project is able to achieve a higher density of units with a reduction in unit size. b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a fee-in-lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation requirement is one (1) or more units, a fee-in-lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be used to satisfy mitigation requirements by approval of the Community Development Department Director, pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of the Certificate. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. Response - The proposed deed restricted units are not required for mitigation purposes. Page 37 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 8500405000314 Exhibit 3 Growth Management Review + Affordable Housing Credits (Jan. 27, 2020) 1020 East Cooper Project c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430. Response – All units comply with the 50% requirement as shown on the drawing set. d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County or other similar governmental or quasi- municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory "for sale" provision. Response - The applicant proposes a 100% rental project with the intention of selling the units to employers to rent to qualified employees. The owner respectfully requests to designate category at the time of deed restriction with the understanding that units will be Category 4 or lower. e. Non-Mitigation Affordable Housing. Affordable housing units that are not required for mitigation, but meet the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d). The owner of such non-mitigation affordable housing is eligible to receive a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540. Response - The affordable housing units are all voluntary units which are eligible for affordable housing credits. Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit The project proposes 5 deed restricted rental units, which equals 12.75 affordable housing credit certificate as calculated in Table 1 above. 26.540.070 Review criteria for establishing an affordable housing credit. An Affordable Housing Credit may be established by the Planning and Zoning Commission if all of the following criteria are met. The proposed units do not need to be constructed prior to this review. A. The proposed affordable housing unit(s) comply with the review standards of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d). Response –These standards are addressed above. B. The affordable housing unit(s) are not an obligation of a Development Order and are not otherwise required by this Title to mitigate the impacts of development. Page 38 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 8600406000315 Exhibit 3 Growth Management Review + Affordable Housing Credits (Jan. 27, 2020) 1020 East Cooper Project Response – The proposed units are not affected by a Development Order and are not committed to satisfy mitigation requirements for any other development. Page 39 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 8700407000316 Exhibit 4 Parking/Transportation 1020 East Cooper Project Exhibit 4 Transportation Transportation and Parking Management 26.515.060.C. Review Criteria. All development and redevelopment projects are required to submit a Mobility Plan, which shall include and describe a project’s mitigations for TIA and Parking Requirements. The Engineering, Transportation, and Community Development Department staff shall determine whether the project conforms to this Chapter requirements using the following standards: 1. Project TIA and the resulting mitigation program meets requirements for exempt, minor or major project categories as outlined in the TIA Guidelines. Response – A completed TIA is attached. 2. Project provides full mitigation for the Parking Requirements pursuant to Section 26.515.050. Response –The Residential Multi-family Zone District allows 100% of the parking mitigation be provided through cash in lieu. Four parking spaces are provided, including an ADA compliant space for the five affordable housing units. A mix of onsite and cash in lieu is proposed to promote alternative forms of transportation and to address the need for onsite parking. Four onsite spaces and cash in lieu for one parking space mitigates for the 5 parking spaces in accordance with Code. 3. If existing development is expanded, additional Parking Requirements shall be provided for that increment of the expansion. Response – n/a. 4. If existing development is redeveloped, on-site parking deficits may not be maintained unless all parking, or at least 20 spaces are provided as Public Parking. Response – n/a. Page 40 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 8800408000317 DRAWING ISSUE DRAWN BY: PROJECT No:1907 CPF HPC APPLICATION 10/28/2020 BIMcloud: BIMServer - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 24/1020 Cooper_ Wednesday, October 28, 2020 12:35 PM | ASPEN CO1020 E. COOPER PROJECT119 South Spring St. | Suite 203 Aspen, CO 81611 T 970-925-3444 www.djarchitects.com A1.03 SITE PLAN | TIA | 3/16" All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing areowned by and are the property of David Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use and in conjunction with the specified project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans shall be used by or disclosed for anypurpose whatsoever without the written authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC. Sheet No.10'-0"19'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"2'-2"4'-103/4"EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN-10' DRIPLINE BIKE AREA ACCESS POINT PROPERTY LINESETBACKSETBACK SETBACKPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 3 0 ' CROW FLIE S DISTAN C E 40' WALKING DISTANCE UP 9'-0"8'-1115/16"9'-01/16"8'-0"8'-11/2"67/16" 5'-0"SETBACK SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 TIA SITE PLAN 0 4'8'12' N Page 41 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 8900409000318 DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION: NAME, COMPANY, ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL Peak Hour Max Trips Generated MMLOS TDM Total Trips Mitigated PM 3.6 8 0.02 8.02 0.00 A bike rack is proposed on the property. A bear proof trash can is proposed for the Mountain Valley RFTA bus stop as suggested by the Transportation Department. TDM Provide details in the space provided for the proposed carshare participation. Carshare programs have been linked to increased use of alternative transportation modes and reduced SOV trips. The successful project will provide access to Aspen’s CAR TO GO carshare program. Trip reduction potential will depend on the level to which the development participates. Car share memberships can be provided to all employees or residents of new developments. A year membership will be provided to all initial and eligible tenants in the project. A year membership promotes use of the carshare program and discourages car ownership. Project Description In the space below provide a description of the proposed project. A single family home is proposed to be converted into a 5-unit affordable housing project. Four onsite parking spaces are proposed. A bike rack is provided for residents and a year membership to the City's car-to-go program is proposed for each unit to promote alternative forms of transportation and to discourage car ownership. MMLOS Include any additional information that pertains to the MMLOS plan in the space provided below. Sara Adams BendonAdams 300 S. Spring St. #202, Aspen CO 81621 970-925-2855 sara@bendonadams.com Summary and Narrative: Narrative: 10/30/2020 1020 East Cooper Project 1020 East Cooper Avenue Trip Generation SUMMARY Trip Mitigation NET TRIPS TO BE MITIGATED Click on the "Generate Narrative" Button to the right. Respond to each of the prompts in the space provided. Each response should cover the following: 1. Explain the selected measure. 2. Call out where the measure is located. 3. Demonstrate how the selected measure is appropriate to enhance the project site and reduce traffic impacts. 4. Explain the Enforcement and Financing Plan for the selected measure. 5. Explain the scheduling and implementation responsibility of the mitigation measure. 6. Attach any additional information and a site map to the narrative report. Page 42 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 90 exhibit 5 00410000319 Provide an overview of the Enforcement and Financing plan for the proposed transportation mitigation measures. Transportation measures will be implemented at the time of unit occupation. Monitoring and Reporting Provide a monitoring and reporting plan. Refer to page 17 in the Transportation Analysis Guidelines for a list of monitoring plan requirements. Components of a Monitoring and Reporting Plan should include (1) Assessment of compliance with guidelines, (2) Results and effectiveness of implemented measures, (3) Identification of additional strategies, and (4) Surveys and other supporting data. The TIA can be audited by the City of Aspen or APCHA to confirm compliance. Enforcement and Financing Enforcement is the responsibility of the City and APCHA. Financing for the carshare program will be through the employers that own the unit. Scheduling and Implementation Responsibility of Mitigation MeasuresProvide an overview of the scheduling and implementation responsibility for the proposed transportation mitigation measures. Slopes Between Back of Curb and Sidewalk 2% Slope at Pedestrian Driveway Crossings Pedestrian Directness Factor (See callout number 9 on the MMLOS sheet for an example) Bicycle Parking Bus Stop Trash Recepticle Alternative forms of transporation, RFTA schedules and information, bike/trail maps, and information about Wecycle will be included in a welcome package for new renters. Include any additional information that pertains to the TDM plan in the space provided below. We are open to other options for a 100% residential project. MMLOS Site Plan RequirementsInclude the following on a site plan. Clearly call out and label each measure. Attach the site plan to the TIA submittal. Explain the proposed trip reduction marketing/incentive program in the space provided. A trip reduction marketing programs should include a number of the following strategies: orientation to trip reduction programs and benefits; orientation to specific alternative transportation modes such as bus service information, bike/walk route maps, etc.; publishing of web or traditional informational materials; events and contests such as commuter fairs, new employee orientations, bike to work days, etc.; educational opportunities such bicycle commute/repair classes; web or traditional materials aimed at guests/customers such as bike/walk maps, free transit day passes, etc.; incentive programs such as prizes, rewards or discounts for alternative commuting. Page 43 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 91 00411000320 = input= calculation DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION: NAME, COMPANY, ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL Minor Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting Total Commercial (sf)0.0 sf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Free-Market Housing (Units)-1 Units -0.19 -0.48 -0.67 -0.46 -0.36 -0.82 Affordable Housing (Units)5 Units 1.80 1.95 3.75 2.45 2.00 4.45 Lodging (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Essential Public Facility (sf)0.0 sf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.61 1.47 3.08 1.99 1.64 3.63 Land Use Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Commercial 2.27 0.69 0.31 4.14 0.4 0.6 Free-Market Housing 0.67 0.29 0.71 0.82 0.56 0.44 Affordable Housing 0.75 0.48 0.52 0.89 0.55 0.45 Lodging 0.25 0.57 0.43 0.31 0.52 0.48 Essential Public Facility 0.86 0.62 0.38 1.66 0.4 0.6 Sara Adams BendonAdams 300 S. Spring St. #202, Aspen CO 81621 970-925-2855 sara@bendonadams.com Trip Generation 10/30/2020 AM Peak Average PM Peak Average Trips Generated AM Peak-Hour PM Peak-Hour TOTAL NEW TRIPS ASSUMPTIONS ASPEN TRIP GENERATION Is this a major or minor project? 1020 East Cooper Avenue 1020 East Cooper Project Net New Units/Square Feet of the Proposed ProjectProposed Land Use *For mixed-use (at least two of the established land uses) sites, a 4% reduction for AM Peak-Hour and a 14% reduction for PM Peak-Hour is applied to the trip generation. Instructions: IMPORTANT: Turnon Macros: In order for code to run correctly the security settings need to be altered. Click "File" and then click "Excel Options." In the "Trust Center"category, click"Trust Center Settings", and then click the "Macro Settings"category. Beneath "Macro Settings" select "Enable all Macros." Sheet 1. Trip Generation: Enter the project's square footage and/or unit counts under Proposed Land Use. The numbers should reflect the net change in land use between existing and proposed conditions. If a landuse is to be reduced put a negative number of units or square feet. Sheet 2. MMLOS: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable under each of the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections.Points are only awarded for proposed (not existing) and confirmed aspects of the project. Sheet 3. TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. Sheet 4. Summary and Narrative: Review the summary of the project's mitigated trips and provide a narrative which explains the measures selected for the project. Click on "Generate Narrative" and individually explain each measure that was chosen and how it enhances the site or mitigates vehicle traffic. Ensure each selected measure make sense for Minor Development -Inside the Roundabout Major Development -Outside the Roundabout Helpful Hints: 1. Refer to the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for information on the use of this tool.2. Refer to TIA Frequently Asked Questions for a quick overview. 2. Hover over red corner tags for additional information on individual measures. 3. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will not receive credit for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the context of project location and future use. Transportation Impact Analysis TIA Frequently Asked Questions Page 44 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 92 00412000321 = input= calculation 8 Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 1 Does the project propose a detached sidewalk where an attached sidewalk currently exists? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard minimum widths? No 0 2 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width greater than the standard minimum width?No 0 3 Does the project propose a landscape buffer greater than the standard minimum width?No 0 0 4 Does the project propose a detached sidewalk on an adjacent block? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard minimum widths? No 0 5 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width on an adjacent block greater than the standard minimum width?No 0 6 Is the proposed landscape buffer on an adjacent block greater than the standard minimum width?No 0 0 7 Are slopes between back of curb and sidewalk equal to or less than 5%?Yes 0 8 Are curbs equal to (or less than) 6 inches?Yes 0 9 Is new large-scale landscaping proposed that improves the pedestrian experience? Properties within the Core do not have ample area to provide the level of landscaping required to receive credit in this category. No 0 10 Does the project propose an improved crosswalk? This measure must get City approval before receiving credit. No 0 0 11 Are existing driveways removed from the street?No 0 12 Is pedestrian and/or vehicle visibility unchanged by new structure or column?Yes 0 13 Is the grade (where pedestrians cross) on cross-slope of driveway 2% or less?Yes 0 14 Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian access points from the ROW? This includes improvements to ADA ramps or creating new access points which prevent pedestrians from crossing a street. No 0 15 Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian or bicyclist interaction with vehicles at driveway areas?No 0 0 16 Is the project's pedestrian directness factor less than 1.5?Yes 0 17 Does the project propose new improvements which reduce the pedestrian directness factor to less than 1.2? A site which has an existing pedestrian directness factor less than 1.2 cannot receive credit in this category. No 0 18 Is the project proposing an off site improvement that results in a pedestrian directness factor below 1.2?* No 0 19 Are traffic calming features proposed that are part of an approved plan (speed humps, rapid flash)?*No 0 MMLOS Input Page Subtotal SubtotalSidewalk Condition on Adjacent BlocksSidewalk Condition on Project FrontageSubtotal Instructions: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable to each measure under the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections. Subtotal PedestriansTOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS MITIGATED:Pedestrian RoutesTraffic Calming and Pedestrian NetworkDriveways, Parking, and Access ConsiderationsPage 45 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 93 00413000322 0 20 Are additional minor improvements proposed which benefit the pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff? No 0 21 Are additional major improvements proposed which benefit the pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff? No 0 0 0 Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 22 Is a new bicycle path being implemented with City approved design?No 0 23 Do new bike paths allow access without crossing a street or driveway?No 0 24 Is there proposed landscaping, striping, or signage improvements to an existing bicycle path?No 0 25 Does the project propose additional minor bicycle improvements which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 0 26 Does the project propose additional major bicycle improvements which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 0 0 Bicycle Parking27 Is the project providing bicycle parking?Yes 5 5 5 Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 28 Is seating/bench proposed?No 0 29 Is a trash receptacle proposed?Yes 3 30 Is transit system information (signage) proposed?NA 0 31 Is shelter/shade proposed?No 0 32 Is enhanced pedestrian-scale lighting proposed?No 0 33 Is real-time transit information proposed?No 0 34 Is bicycle parking/storage proposed specifically for bus stop use?No 0 35 Are ADA improvements proposed?No 0 3 36 Is a bus pull-out proposed at an existing stop?No 0 37 Is relocation of a bus stop to improve transit accessibility or roadway operations proposed?No 0 38 Is a new bus stop proposed (with minimum of two basic amenities)?No 0 0 3 Pedestrian Total* Bicycles Total* Transit Total*BicyclesModifications to Existing Bicycle PathsTransitBasic AmenitiesSubtotal Subtotal Subtotal Enhanced AmenitiesSubtotal Subtotal SubtotalAdditional Proposed ImprovementsPage 46 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 94 00414000323 Category Measure Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions Will an onsite ammenities strategy be implemented?No Which onsite ammenities will be implemented? Will a shared shuttle service strategy be implemented?NAWhat is the degree of implementation?What is the company size?What percentage of customers are eligible? 3 Nonmotorized Zones Will a nonmotorized zones strategy be implemented?NA 0.00% 0.00% Category Measure Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT ReductionsWill a network expansion stragtegy be implemented?NAWhat is the percentage increase of transit network coverage?What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips? Will a service frequency/speed strategy be implemented?NA What is the percentage reduction in headways (increase in frequency)? What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips? What is the level of implementation? Will a transit access improvement strategy be implemented?NAWhat is the extent of access improvements? 7 Intercept Lot Will an intercept lot strategy be implemented?NA 0.00% 0.00% Category Measure Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions Will there be participation in TOP?NoWhat percentage of employees are eligible?100% Is a transit fare subsidy strategy implemented?NAWhat percentage of employees are eligible?What is the amount of transit subsidy per passenger (daily equivalent)? Is an employee parking cash-out strategy being implemented?NA What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a workplace parking pricing strategy implemented?NA What is the daily parking charge? What percentage of employees are subject to priced parking? Is a compressed work weeks strategy implemented?NAWhat percentage of employees are participating?What is the workweek schedule? Is an employer sponsered shuttle program implemented?NA What is the employer size? What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a carpool matching strategy implemented?NA What percentage of employees are eligble? Is carshare participation being implemented?YesHow many employee memberships have been purchased?<100What percentage of employees are eligble?100% Is participation in the bikeshare program WE-cycle being implemented?NAHow many memberships have been purchased?<100 What percentage of employees/guests are eligble?100% Is an end of trip facilities strategy being implemented?NA What is the degree of implementation? What is the employer size? Is a self-funded emergency ride home strategy being implemented?NAWhat percentage of employees are eligible? Is a carpool/vanpool priority parking strategy being implemented?NAWhat is the employer size? What number of parking spots are available for the program? Is a private employer shuttle strategy being implemented?NA What is the employer size? What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a trip reduction marketing/incentive program implemented?YesWhat percentage of employees/guests are eligible? 0.44% 0.00% 0.44% 1. 22% work trips represents a mixed-used site (SF Bay Area Travel Survey). See Assumptions Tab for more detail. Maximum Reduction Allowed in CategoryTransit System Improvements Strategies1 2 4 5 6 8 9 10 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.00% Bikeshare Program 0.00% TDM Input Page 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Commute Trip Reduction Programs StrategiesOnsite Servicing Shared Shuttle Service Neighborhood/Site Enhancements Strategies0.00% 0.00% Network Expansion Service Frequency/Speed Transit Access Improvement Participation in TOP Transit Fare Subsidy Employee Parking Cash-Out Workplace Parking Pricing Compressed Work Weeks Employer Sponsored Vanpool Carpool Matching Carshare Program Self-funded Emergency Ride Home Carpool/Vanpool Priority Parking Private Employer Shuttle Trip Reduction Marketing/Incentive Program End of Trip Facilities Cross Category Maximum Reduction, Neighborhood and Transit Global Maximum VMT Reductions 11 12 13 14 15 21 16 17 18 19 20 InstructionsTDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will not receive credit for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the context of project location and future use. Page 47 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 95 00415000324 Residential Design Standards Administrative Compliance Review Applicant Checklist - Multi-family Development Standard Complies Alternative Compliance N/A Sheet #(s)/Notes B.1.Building Orientation (Flexible) B.2.Garage Access (Non-flexible) B.3.Garage Placement (Non-flexible) B.4.Entry Connection (Non-flexible) B.5Principle Window (Flexible) Instructions: Please fill out the checklist below, marking whether the proposed design complies with the applicable standard as written or is requesting Alternative Compliance (only permitted for Flexible standards). Also include the sheet #(s) demonstrating the applicable standard. If a standard does not apply, please mark N/A and include in the Notes section why it does not apply. If Alternative Compliance is requested for a Flexible standard, include in the Notes section how the proposed design meets the intent of the standard(s). Additional sheets/graphics may be attached. Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review. Address: Parcel ID: Zone District/PD: Representative: Email: Phone: Page 1 of 1 exhibit 6 Page 48 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 96 1020 East Cooper Avenue Sara Adams, BendonAdams 2737-182-32-006 sara@bendonadams.com RMF 970-925-2855 x2 Sheet A1.024 4 Sheet A1.02, access from alley to carport 4 Sheet A1.02 4 Sheet A1.08 4 Sheet A2.01 Note: RDS only applies to the detached rear structure. The landmark is exempt from RDS. 00416000325 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Amy Simon, amy.simon@cityofaspen.com DATE: August 27, 2019 PROJECT LOCATION: 1020 E. Cooper Avenue REQUEST: Major Development, Demolition, Relocation, Growth Management, Affordable Housing Credits REPRESENTATIVE: Sara Adams, sara@bendonadams.com DESCRIPTION: 1020 E. Cooper is a landmark designated property which contains a heavily altered Victorian era single family home. Two outbuildings, date of construction unknown, sit at the rear of the site. The lot is 4,379 square feet in size and is located in the RMF zone district. Because the minimum lot area for the zone district is 6,000 square feet, 1020 E. Cooper is considered to be a non-conforming lot of record. Landmark designation permits the site to be developed with any of the allowed RMF uses, according to Section 26.312 of the Municipal Code. A potential purchaser in interested in creating multi-family housing and affordable housing credits. This will require review by the Historic Preservation Commission which is likely to include a proposal to demolish the sheds at the rear of the site, to demolish non-historic additions to the miner’s cottage, to re-position the miner’s cottage and to expand above and below grade. Setback variations may be requested. A tree that straddles the east property line is to be protected and retained in the redevelopment. Please refer to the RMF zone district for guidance on dimensional requirements. The parking requirement is 1 parking unit per dwelling unit which may be provided as a mix of on-site parking, TIA measures and cash- in-lieu. At least one on-site space would likely need to be accessible and approximately twice the width of a standard parking space. In addition, the alley frontage will need to include adequate trash and recycling storage and utilities. Prior to the preparation of a recommendation to HPC, staff will refer the application to other City Departments for comments and proposed conditions of approval. The applicant will be required to prepare a Transportation Impact Analysis for Engineering Review. The first review step will be Conceptual design, Demolition, Relocation, Variations, Growth Management, and Affordable Housing Credits. Following Conceptual approval, staff will inform Council of HPC’s decision, allowing them the opportunity to “call up” any aspects of the approval that they find require additional discussion. This is standard practice for all significant reviews before HPC. The last step is Final design review. RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS: Section Number Section Title 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.304.035 Neighborhood Outreach Page 49 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 97 exhibit 7 00417000326 26.312.050 Nonconforming Lots of Record 26.415.070.D Major Development 26.415.080 Demolition 26.415.090 Relocation 26.415.110.C Historic Preservation Variations, Benefits 26.470.080 General Review Standards: Affordable Housing 26.470.100.C Planning and Zoning Commission Applications, Affordable Housing 26.515 Transportation and Parking Management 26.540.070 Review Criteria for Establishing an Affordable Housing Credit 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements 26.600 Impact Fees 26.620 School Land Dedication 26.710.090 Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Zone District 12.10.050 Trash Storage Space Required for Multi-Family Developments For your convenience – links to the Land Use Application and Land Use Code are below: Land Use Application Land Use Code Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Review by: Staff for completeness and recommendations HPC for determinations Public Hearing: Yes Neighborhood Outreach: Yes Referrals: Yes, Engineering, Parks, APCHA, Environmental Health Fees: Conceptual- $3,250 for 10 billable hours of planning staff time plus referral fees in the amount of $325 deposit for 1 hour of Engineering Review, a $975 flat fee for Parks, a $975 flat fee for APCHA and a $975 flat fee for Environmental Health for a total of $6,500. (Additional/ lesser deposit hours will be billed/ refunded at a rate of $325 per hour) Final- $1,950 for 6 billable hours of planning staff time. (Additional/ lesser deposit hours will be billed/ refunded at a rate of $325 per hour) APPLICATION CHECKLIST: Below is a list of submittal requirements. Please email the application as one pdf to amy.simon@cityofaspen.com for an initial determination of completeness.  Completed Land Use Application and signed Fee Agreement.  Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).  Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all Page 50 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 9800418000327 owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application.  Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.  HOA Compliance form  List of adjacent property owners for both properties within 300’ for public hearing.  An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.  Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado.  A written description of the proposal and an explanation of how the proposed development complies with the relevant review standards and design guidelines (please note that landmarks are except from the Residential Design Standards.)  Scaled site plan and drawings of all proposed structures or additions.  A written report from a licensed engineer or architect regarding the soundness of the miner’s cottage to be relocated.  Evidence of the financial ability to undertake the safe relocation, preservation and repair of the miner’s cottage through the posting of bonds or other financial measures deemed appropriate.  Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated historic property including photographs and other exhibits, as needed, to accurately depict location and extent of proposed work.  The net livable square footage of each residential unit in the development.  If applicable, the conditions under which reductions from net minimum livable square footage requirements are requested according to APCHA guidelines.  Proposed Category Designation of sale or rental restriction for each unit in the development.  Proposed employees housed by the affordable housing unit in increments of no less than one one- hundredth (0.01) according to Section 26.470.100.2- Employees Housed.  A mobility plan meeting the requirements of Chapter 26.515 of the Aspen Municipal Code.  For Conceptual the following items will need to be submitted in addition to the items listed above: • Graphics identifying preliminary selection of primary exterior building materials. • A preliminary stormwater design. Page 51 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 9900419000328  For Final the following items will need to be submitted in addition to the items listed above: • Drawings of the street facing facades must be provided at ¼” scale. • Final selection of all exterior materials and sample or clearly illustrated photographs. • A lighting plan and landscape plan, including any visible stormwater mitigation features. Once the copy is deemed complete by staff, the application fee will be requested. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. Page 52 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 10000420000329 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Complete only if required by the PreApplication checklist Project and Location Applicant: Zone District: Gross Lot Area: Net Lot Area: **Please refer to section 26.575.020 for information on how to calculate Net Lot Area Please fill out all relevant dimensions Single Family and Duplex Residential 1) Floor Area (square feet) 2) Maximum Height 3) Front Setback 4) Rear Setback 5) Side Setbacks 6) Combined Side Setbacks 7) % Site Coverage Existing Allowed Proposed Multi-family Residential 1) Number of Units 2) Parcel Density (see 26.710.090.C.10) 3) FAR (Floor Area Ratio) 4) Floor Area (square feet) 4) Maximum Height 5) Front Setback 6) Rear Setback Existing Allowed Proposed 8) Minimum distance between buildings Proposed % of demolition 7) Side Setbacks Proposed % of demolition Commercial Proposed Use(s) Existing Allowed Proposed 1) FAR (Floor Area Ratio) 2) Floor Area (square feet) 3) Maximum Height 4) Off-Street Parking Spaces 5) Second Tier (square feet) 6) Pedestrian Amenity (square feet) Proposed % of demolition Existing non-conformities or encroachments: Variations requested: Lodge Additional Use(s) 1) FAR (Floor Area Ratio) 2) Floor Area (square feet) 3) Maximum Height 4) Free Market Residential(square feet) 4) Front setback 5) Rear setback 6) Side setbacks 7) Off-Street Parking Spaces 8) Pedestrian Amenity (square feet) Proposed % of demolition Existing Allowed Proposed Page 53 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 101 1020 East Cooper Avenue 1020 Cooper LLC, represented by BendonAdams RMF 4,379sf 4,379sf Please refer to Table 1 in the cover letter for allowed and proposed dimensions. Sheds encroach into alley, east side yard setback encroachment, no onsite parking. NONE. 1,075sf 14'8.75" 17.3' 0' E- 2.5' W- 10'11" 13'5" n/a varies n/a exhibit 8 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020 LAND USE APPLICATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTIVATIVE: Description: Existing and Proposed Conditions Review: Administrative or Board Review Required Land Use Review(s): Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) required fields: Net Leasable square footage Lodge Pillows Free Market dwelling units Affordable Housing dwelling units Essential Public Facility square footage Have you included the following? FEES DUE: $ Pre-Application Conference Summary Signed Fee Agreement HOA Compliance form All items listed in checklist on PreApplication Conference Summary Name: Address: Phone#: email: Address: Phone #: email: Name: Project Name and Address: Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) Page 54 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 102 1020 East Cooper Project; 1020 East Cooper Avenue 2737-182-32-006 1020 Cooper LLC jeanncoulter@gmail.com BendonAdams 300 S. Spring Street, #202, Aspen CO 81611 970-925-2855 x2 sara@bendonadams.com Currently the property contains a single family residence that is designated a historic landmark. The 1020 East Cooper Project proposes to restore the historic landmark and to construct a detached building at the rear of the property. The property is proposed to be converted into a 100% affordable housing project with a total of 5 housing units - 2 in the landmark and 3 in the new detached building. A basement is proposed beneath the landmark after it is relocated forward on the lot toward Cooper Avenue. Affordable housing credits are requested for the voluntary deed restricted units. HP Major Development (conceptual); GMQS, Parking and Transportation, Relocation, Demolition, Establishment of Housing Credits n/a n/a 0 5 n/a 6500 x x x x PO Box 12393, Aspen, CO 81612 303-882-0702 exhibit 8 00422000331 Holland & Hart LLP Attorneys at Law Phone (970) 925-3476 Fax (970) 925-9367 www.hollandhart.com 600 East Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, CO 81611-1991 Aspen Billings Boise Boulder Carson City Cheyenne Colorado Springs Denver Denver Tech Center Jackson Hole Las Vegas Reno Salt Lake City Santa Fe Washington, D.C. Thomas J. Todd Phone (970) 925-3476 Fax (970) 925-9367 ttodd@hollandhart.com November 20, 2020 Ms. Amy Simon Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Proof of Ownership in Support of Development Application for the East 13.79’ of Lot O and all of Lot P, Block 34, East Aspen Addition to the City of Aspen, also known as 1020 East Cooper Avenue, Aspen Colorado 81611 Dear Amy: Holland & Hart represents 1020 Cooper LLC, a Colorado limited liability company. The undersigned has been requested by our client to provide you with proof of ownership of the above referenced real property (the “Property”). The undersigned, an attorney licensed in the State of Colorado, hereby informs you that the record owner of the Property is 1020 Cooper LLC, a Colorado limited liability company. 1020 Cooper LLC has full right, power and authority to apply for this Development Application. The complete legal description of the Property is as follows: The East 13.79’ of Lot O and all of Lot P, Block 34, East Aspen Addition to the City of Aspen County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. The Property is subject to the liens, encumbrances, easements, and restrictions listed on Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Thomas J. Todd of Holland & Hart LLP TJT/sm Attachment cc: 1020 Cooper LLC Ms. Sara Adams, BendonAdams Page 55 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 103 exhibit 9 00423000332 2 EXHIBIT “A” List of Liens, Encumbrances, Easements and Restrictions (Note: All recording information is based on the Pitkin County, State of Colorado real property records.) 1. Taxes and assessments for the year 2020 and subsequent years only, a lien not yet due or payable. 2. Reservations and exceptions contained in the U. S. Patent recorded October 21, 1955 in Book 180 at Page 454. 3. Reservations and exceptions contained in U. S. Patent recorded August 29, 1958 in Book 185 at Page 69. 4. Easements, conditions, covenants, restrictions, reservations and notes on the Plat of East Aspen Addition to the City of Aspen recorded August 24, 1959 in Plat Book 2A at Page 252 5. Easements, conditions, covenants, restrictions, reservations and notes on the Plat of 1020 E Cooper Lot Line Adjustment/Subdivision Exemption Recorded October 8, 2019 in Plat Book 126 at Page 7. 6. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Resolution No. 21, Series of 2019 recorded December 26, 2019 at Reception No. 661468. 15614683_v3 Page 56 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 10400424000333 T 970.925.3476 F 970.925.9367 600 East Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, CO 81611-1991 www.hollandhart.com Alaska Colorado Idaho Montana Nevada New Mexico Utah Washington, D.C. Wyoming Thomas J. Todd Phone (970) 925-3476 Fax (970) 925-9367 ttodd@hollandhart.com October 30, 2020 Via E-Mail Ms. Amy Simon Historic Preservation Officer Community Development Office City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 James R. True, Esq. City Attorney City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Pending Historic Preservation Commission Application for 1020 E. Cooper Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 8161, aka the East 13.79’ of Lot O and all of Lot P, East Aspen Addition to City of Aspen Dear Amy and Jim: Holland & Hart LLP represents 1020 Cooper LLC, the owner of the above referenced property (the “Subject Property”). This letter is in response to the comments contained in the September 8, 2020 letter submitted by counsel for Cooper Avenue Victorian Condominium unit owner Bukk Carleton relative to the Lot Line Adjustment/Subdivision Exemption Plat for the Subject Property, recorded on October 8, 2019 at Plat Book 126 at Page 7 under Reception No. 659373 of the Pitkin County real property records (the “Boundary Adjustment Plat”). By way of background, the prior owner of the Subject Property, longtime Aspen journalist Su Lum, acquired the Subject Property in 1972 and owned it until her death in 2017. The 3.79’ wide strip of land that serves as the western portion of the Subject Property (the “Strip of Land”) was the subject of a quiet title action brought by Ms. Lum against the Cooper Avenue Victorian Condominiums which settled in 2006, resulting in the owners of all five condominium units within the Cooper Avenue Victorian Condominiums and Cooper Avenue Victorian Condominium Association, Inc. quit claiming their interests in the Strip of land to Ms. Lum. As part of the disposition of the Subject Property from the Estate of Su Lum, 1020 Cooper LLC processed with the City of Aspen the Boundary Adjustment Plat to confirm the Page 57 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 105 exhibit 10 00425000334 Ms. Amy Simon Historic Preservation Officer October 30, 2020 Page 2 www.hollandhart.com Alaska Colorado Idaho Montana Nevada New Mexico Utah Washington, D.C. Wyoming inclusion of the Strip of Land together with the eastern 10’ of Lot O within the historically recognized boundaries of the Subject Property. The Boundary Adjustment Plat process was specifically prescribed by Community Development office staff and an application for a Boundary Adjustment under the Administrative Subdivision procedures in Section 26.480.050(c) of the Municipal Code was submitted and duly processed, resulting in the City-approved and recorded Boundary Adjustment Plat referenced above. Thus, no application for a Major Subdivision Approval was applicable or required. It is also worth noting that Cooper Avenue Victorian Condominium Association, Inc. caused to be recorded a First Amended Condominium Map on December 13, 2011 in Plat Book 98 at Page 93 under Reception No. 585047 (also administratively approved by the City of Aspen) which expressly recognized the Strip of Land as being excluded from the Cooper Avenue Victorian Condominiums General Common Elements, noting the 2006 quit claim conveyances of the Strip of Land described above. Any time period for challenging the processing and approval of the Boundary Adjustment Plat has long passed and the Cooper Avenue Victorian Condominium Association and the individual unit owners therein have absolutely no claim or interest in the Strip of Land, and they have no basis for challenging the composition or description of the Subject Property as set forth in the Boundary Adjustment Plat. Accordingly, we view the neighbor’s objections to the inclusion of this westerly portion of the Subject Property with the pending HPC application to be unsupported and wholly without merit. Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions or desire additional information. Sincerely, Thomas J. Todd for Holland & Hart LLP TJT cc: 1020 Cooper LLC Sara Adams, BendonAdams 15605911_v1 Page 58 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 10600426000335 Page 59 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 107 exhibit 11 00427000336 Page 60 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 108 exhibit 12 00428000337 10221014 1039 1039 1039 1039 1039 1039 1039 1039 1039 1039 1039 1039 1039 1039 1039 1039 1039 1039 1039 1101 1034 1024 1020 1034 1034 1024 1034 1034 1031 1022 1024 1015 1034 1034 1010 1015 1024 1034 1034 1024 1034 1015 1034 1016 1034 1024 1034 1020 1024 1034 10341033 1034 1024 1015 1024 1034 1034 1018 1024 1015 203 1039 1004 950 1039 1001 1039 1020 1020 960 1039 960 1020 1039 1020 1004 1039 1039 1020 960 1039 1001 1039 1004 1039 1039 1039 1020 1020 1039 960 1039 950 926 900 926926 926 926 923 926926900 950 947 1001 943 1001 917 1001 1012 943 1001 933 1012 1012 1001 927 1012 1001 1012 1006 945 909 922 901 901 909 1007 1007 928 901 901 1007 1007 909 901 926 909 909 1007 1006 1006 1001 909 901 941 901 1007 1001 935 901 909 901 1007 909 1000 939 914 909 901 901 909 909 1020 909 910 900 934 901 901 909 901 949 924 909 1007 909 PD PD PD R-15 R/MF E COO P E R A V E E DU R A N T A V ECLEVELAND STE COO P E R A V ECLEVELAND STE CO O P E R A V E E HYM A N A V E E HY M A N A V E Date: 10/1/2020 Geographic Information Systems This map/drawing/image is a graphicalrepresentation of the features depicted and is not a legal representation.The accuracy may changedepending on the enlargement or reduction.Copyright 2020 City of Aspen GIS 0 0.01 0.020.01 mi When printed at 8.5"x11" 4 Legend Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Emissions Inventory Boundary(EIB) City of Aspen Greenline 8040 Stream Margin Hallam Bluff ESA Historic Sites Historic Districts Parcels Zone Overlay DRAINAGE LP PD DRAIN/TRANS GCS PD L PD LP PD Zoning R-3 High Density Residential AH Affordable Housing R/MF Residential/Multi-Family R/MFA Residential/Multi-Family R-6 Medium Density Residential R-15 Moderate DensityResidential R-15-A Moderate DensityResidential R-15B Moderate DensityResidential R-30 Low Density Residential RR Rural Residential L Lodge CL Commercial Lodge CC Commercial Core C-1 Commercial SCI Service CommercialIndustrial NC Neighborhood Commercial MU Mixed Use SKI Ski Area Base C Conservation OS Open Space P Park Scale: 1:1,349 1020 E Cooper Vicinity Map Page 61 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 109 1020 East Cooper exhibit 13 00429000338 Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this website as a service to the public. Every effort has been made toensure that the information and data contained in this electronicsystem is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineralestate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin Countydoes not maintain a database of mineral estate owners. Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerningthe completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at thissite or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy andreliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of theuser. The user understands he or she is solely responsible andliable for use, modification, or distribution of any information ordata obtained on this web site. This document contains a Mailing List formatted to beprinted on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit topage" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate themargins such that they no longer line up on the labelssheet. Print actual size. From Parcel: 273718232006 on 10/29/2020 Instructions: Disclaimer: http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com Page 62 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 110 exhibit 14 00430000339 TROUSDALE JEAN VICK LVG TRUST ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9983 WEISS BERNIE ASPEN, CO 81611 625 E MAIN ST 102B #211 ASPEN VILLAGER LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 1001 E COOPER AVE # 6 BALDWIN MELINDA LLC WINNETKA, IL 60093 835 ASH ST MEAD GEORGE WISCONSIN RAPIDS, WI 54404 550 THIRD ST SO VINCENTI CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 1015 E HYMAN AVE PARGITER SALLY J ASPEN, CO 81611 943 E COOPER #C PHARR MARK R TIGER III & ALLYSON LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 101 BONNER DR SCHULTZ BRIAN & ELIZABETH DALLAS, TX 75220 9301 MEADOWBROOK DR UTE 202 LLC TAMARAC, FL 33321 7457 GRANVILLE DR #301 PRESUTTI DANA ASPEN, CO 816112119 1001 E COOPER AVE #4 HYMAN AVENUE VICTORIAN CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 990 E HYMAN AVE CHILES JAMES T & JENNIFER ALBRECHT DALLAS, TX 75202 901 MAIN #2600 SUNRISE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 1007 E HYMAN AVE HORWITZ LEONARD REV TRUST KANSAS CITY, MO 641113413 720 W 44TH ST #2006 BLUE SKYE DAISY BROOKE PARTNERSHIP LLLP ASPEN, CO 81611 1024 E HOPKINS #17 EHRMAN HOPE J LAKE FOREST, IL 60045 170 MARION AVE MEYERSTEIN FAMILY TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 115 BOOMERANG RD #5103 PALMERO KEN CARBONDALE , CO 81623 11 OLD ORCHARD RD MONTGOMERY JOHN MEMPHIS, TN 38103 41 UNION AVE #200 MAYOTTE MONICA & TERRY BOCA RATON, FL 33486 860 SW 21ST ST MATHIESON MICHAEL DENVER, CO 80206 155 STEELE ST #617 BOUSTEAD DOUGLAS ADIRONDACK, NY 12808 PO BOX 186 1039 E COOPER LLC COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80906 2003 PINE GROVE AVE ASPEN RIVERSIDE LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 1039 E COOPER AVE #15A POLICARO FRANCO G ASPEN, CO 81611 1004 E DURANT AVE #2 LITZENBERGER JOHN ASHEVILLE, NC 28804 125 HOWLAND RD PORTER FRANK H JR CHAGRIN FALLS, OH 44022 33970 MEADOW LN HOLSTEIN MATTHEW & KATE ASPEN, CO 81611 947 E COOPER AVE COOPER AVE VICTORIAN CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 1012 E COOPER AVE Page 63 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 11100431000340 WISE PEGGY S QPRT WINNETKA, IL 60093 1401 TOWER RD NORTHROCK HOLDINGS LLC WARWICK WK 06 BERMUDA, UNIT 22 MIZZENTOP MIZZENTOP DR BAYLEY LORI A MALDEN, MA 02148 2 BOWER ST LUMEN LLC SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 455 MARKET ST 23RD FLOOR KANIPE J STEPHEN & PATRICIA ASPEN, CO 81611 1015 E HYMAN AVE #3 TACHE MARK C ASPEN, CO 81611 1001 E HYMAN SILVER GLEN TOWNHOUSES CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA E HYMAN AVE 26 EAU CLAIRE LLC NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 600 PORT OF NEW ORLEANS PL #9F PACK R MICHAEL SAN DIEGO, CA 92108 5005 TEXAS ST STE 305 BERNI SHAEL MORGAN GREENWICH, CT 06830 660 STEAMBOAT RD 4TH FL NARK WILSON JANIS A ASPEN, CO 81611-4117 1039 E COOPER #5 KESSLER CONDOS ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 950/960 E DURANT AVE ROARING FORK 70 LLC MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140 3103 N BAY RD JACOBSON DAVID & ANDREA LYNN BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48302 5255 PONVALLEY RD WUSLICH DIANE S ASPEN, CO 81611 1007 E HYMAN AVE #8 ARKIN JONATHAN ASPEN, CO 816111935 625 E MAIN ST #102B EUBANK CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 1022 E HYMAN AVE RANGER LIVING TRUST CHESTERFIELD, MO 63017 445 WHITESTONE FARM DR RK PARTNERS LLC SHORT HILLS, NJ 07078 31 WASHINGTON AVE PETITIE ROCHE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 926 E COOPER AVE TWO PANTHER LLC DENVER, CO 80209 1020 S GILPIN ST NAGER DEBBIE TRUST LEAWOOD, KS 66209 4803 W 120TH PL TENG NANCY H TRUST ELMHURST, IL 60126 1050 S EUCLID AVE #5108 MCGAFFEY FAMILY & CO NO C LLC SEATTLE, WA 98109 2465 NOB HILL AVE NORTH ASPEN VALLEY LAND TRUST CARBONDALE, CO 81623 320 MAIN ST #204 LERNER JAY R & BOBETTE S OMAHA, NE 68154 10855 W DODGE RD #270 SMILIOS PENNY WHITE ASPEN, CO 81611 1007 E HYMAN AVE #2 306 ASSOCIATES LLC BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48302 PO BOX 7067 GERBER-MCMANUS SUE EL CAJON, CA 92020 1111 CRYSTAL LN ALLEN JENNIFER C AUSTIN, TX 78746 6613 WHITEMARSH VALLEY WALK Page 64 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 11200432000341 CHATEAU EAU CLAIRE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 1034 E COOPER ST GERDA HOLDINGS LLC LIGHTHOUSE POINT, FL 33074 PO BOX 50424 BARBERA IVANA CHATTANOOGA, TN 37405 345 FRAZIER AVE #206 CHATEAU ROARING FORK LLC NEW ALBANY, OH 43054 8000 WALTON PKWY #100 THOMPSON ARTHUR JR & HASSELINE TUSCALOOSA, AL 35406 7200 COMMODORE DR PLATINUM IRREV TRUST SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 5482 COMPLEX ST # 113 ASPENEYES LLC HOUSTON, TX 77079 13410 TAYLORCREST RD IRREVOCABLE TRUST WEST LEBANON, NH 03784 21 TECHNOLOGY DR #6 LIB LLC PALO ALTO , CA 94301 314 LYTTON AVE #200 1016 EAST HYMAN HOLDINGS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 730 E DURANT AVE #200 NOORI ABDUL RASOL & MANDANA CARBONDALE, CO 81623 330 MILBURN COLETTA CAROL MEMPHIS, TN 38103 41 UNION AVE #200 CRF TOWNHOUSE LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 4450 BELSHER ELIZABETH S TRUST PHOENIX, AZ 85018 4919 E GRANDVIEW LN VILLAGER TOWNHOUSE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 1001 E COOPER AVE HANDZUS MICHAL HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 123 29TH ST LASHER KELLY G ASPEN, CO 816121127 PO BOX 1127 PORTNOY GERALD A REV TRUST MINNEAPOLIS, MN 554145138 222 2ND ST SE #701 PBIA & CO PALM SPRINGS, FL 33461 1732 S CONGRESS AVE #323 CHATEAU EAU CLAIRE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 1034 E COOPER ST KARASIK CHARLES SIOUX FALLS, SD 57186 BOX 00794325 PARADIGM PARTNERS DENVER, CO 80202 1543 WAZEE ST #400 INDEPENDENCE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 1104 DALE AVE VAN DEUSEN CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 1006 E HYMAN AVE PINE GLEN TOWNHOUSE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA MOLNY CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 1020 E HYMAN AVE PETERS JULIE ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 1643 JOHNSON SALLYANNE C ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 5050 DI LORENZO MICHAEL OAKWOOD, OH 45419 609 GARDEN RD CHATEAU ROARING FORK CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 1039 E COOPER AVE Page 65 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 11300433000342 211 ASHLEY PROJECT LLC CHARLESTON, SC 29413 PO BOX 22424 FISHER JAMES B JAMESTOWN , NC 27282 2709 ST ANDREWS CT ZOE FUTURES LLC DALLAS, TX 75205 4144 SAN CARLOS DERBY INVESTMENT INC WICHITA, KS 672181032 4601 E DOUGLAS AVE #111 HANDELIN MARY M LIVING TRUST FORT BRAGG, CA 95437 16299 PEARSON LN ILLMER NANCY & RICHARD DALLAS, TX 75201 1918 N OLIVE ST #1003 BGC III IRREVOCABLE TRUST WEST LEBANON, NH 03784 21 TECHNOLOGY DR #6 LEAL FAMILY INVESTMENTS LLC COCOA, FL 32926 3224 FAIRFAX LN BERENS MARILYN REV TRUST MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140 4925 COLLINS AVE #6A SUSI MARILEE E REV TRUST BOCA RATON, FL 33496 7806 CHARNEY LN CITY OF ASPEN ASPEN, CO 81611 130 S GALENA ST MURACO JULIE DECLARATION TRUST NEW YORK , NY 10023 41 CENTRAL PARK W #10E ADAMS GILBERT C III MALDEN, MA 02148 2 BOWER ST WOOD JEFFREY R & SHANA B HOUSTON, TX 77056 4900 WOODWAY DR #880 IPMD 2018 PROPERTY TRUST TORONTO ONTARIO CANADA M9P1R5, 10 WESTMOUNT PARK RD GRANTHAM CHARLES EDWARD RALEIGH, NC 27617 5849 LEASE LN 926 DURANT LLC WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401 915 S DIXIE HWY TEN SIXTEEN EAST HYMAN SPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 1016 E HYMAN AVE EXETER 20454 WY LLC CHEYENNE, WY 82009 205 STOREY BLVD #200 GML ASPEN PROPERTY LLC FT WORTH, TX 76107 3815 LISBON ST #203 LEVY MITCHELL & ELISSA SANTA MONICA, CA 90402 201 OCEAN AVE #1203P PEARLSTONE RICHARD ASPEN, CO 81611 1001 E COOPER AVE #2 TRT OF COLORADO LLC TUSCALOOSA, AL 35406 7200 COMMODORE DR STEEL JOAN E TRUST CHICAGO, IL 60611-6690 161 E CHICAGO AVE #60N4 HENRY CASADY M ASPEN, CO 81611 525 W HALLAM ST OLSON PETER W & CANDICE C ASPEN , CO 81611 1022 E HYMAN AVE UNIT 1 BARASH JAMES ROBERT & BETTEANNE COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80906 50 W CHEYENNE MTN BLVD TYE MARK M TRUST ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8992 THREE BEES LLC BAY SHORE, NY 11706 103 HARBOUR LN SCHULTZ BRIAN & ELIZABETH DALLAS, TX 75220 9301 MEADOWBROOK DR Page 66 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 11400434000343 FISHER WINSTON & JESSICA NEW YORK, NY 10171 299 PARK AVE 42ND FL BMB 1 LLC DALLAS, TX 75248 6923 SPANKY BRANCH CT CHATEAU ROARING FORK CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 1039 E COOPER AVE OZIER FAMILY COLORADO LP WICHITA FALLS, TX 76310 2896 WRANGLERS RETREAT YPSI ANN ASSOCIATES BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304 39577 WOODWARD AVE #300 ASPEN PAD LLC MIAMI BEACH, FL 33119 PO BOX 190754 WEIL LORNE NEW YORK , NY 10107 250 WEST 57TH STREET #2223 SEID MELVIN C REV TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 1104 DALE AVE STOVER RAYMOND J H JR & MARY L ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 1941 VGCT VENTURES LLC ATLANTA, GA 30305 8 CHEROKEE RD NW HICKS LESLIE ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8225 MAXON PATRICIA ANNE TRUST TELLURIDE, CO 81435 240 S MAHONEY DR #1 COHEN SYDNEY G MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140 2401 COLLINS AVE #1601 ARKIN ERIC ASPEN, CO 816111935 625 E MAIN ST #102B GOLDSTEIN BARRY J DENVER, CO 80246 950 S CHERRY #320 SILVERSTREAM TOWNHOMES CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 49 PIERCE ANITA M DAVENPORT, IA 52801 102 S HARRISON ST #200 SANDELL LINDA JO SAINT LOUIS, MO 63108 4624 PERSHING PL MURPHY RICHARD P & MARY K OMAHA, NE 68132 6720 DAVENPORT ST WW-WPB LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 570 S RIVERSIDE AVE ABELMAN STEPHEN C & HELENE P SAINT PETERSBURG, FL 33703 400 BAY LAUREL CT NE LITTLE JEWEL CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 1004 E DURANT AVE GREGORY-CONZELMAN GWEN TRUST LAKE FOREST, IL 60045 410 LEXINGTON MCPHEE SHARON S 1985 TRUST HONOLULU, HI 968211173 4389 MALIA ST #463 OLSON PETER W & CANDICE C ASPEN , CO 81611 1022 E HYMAN AVE UNIT 1 AC ONE LLC LITTLE ROCK, AR 72203 PO BOX 3417 SCHONWALD ALEXANDER REV TRUST SAINT LOUIS, MO 63124 828 CELLA RD POLICARO DOMINIC FRANK ASPEN, CO 81611 1004 E DURANT #3 CHATEAU ROARING FORK CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 1039 E COOPER AVE MCDONOUGH JOELLE ASPEN, CO 81611 1007 E HYMAN AVE #7 Page 67 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 11500435000344 MORK HALBERT L FAMILY TRUST ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 77 ASPEN WY KANTOR MITCHELL A TRUST BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48301 5595 SHADOW LN CHATEAU ROARING FORK CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 1039 E COOPER AVE WILMERDING PATSY R REV TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 203 S CLEVELAND SEGUIN WILLIAM L REV TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 1001 E COOPER AVE #7 DORNEMANN MICHAEL GREENWICH, CT 06830 390 LAKE AVE TAT TRUST ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 7813 3 PEAKS LLC SUNFISH LAKE, MN 55118 260 SALEM CHURCH RD GUTNICK ERIC I LIVING TRUST FORT BRAGG, CA 95437 16299 PEARSON LN WEAVER WENDY WILLMANN ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 2477 EAST COOPER COURT CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 2021 BARBERA LAURA CHATTANOOGA, TN 37405 345 FRAZIER AVE #206 GLEASON FAMILY LLC SIDNEY, OH 45365 235 OVERLAND DR JPS NEVADA TRUST HENDERSON, NV 890745991 1701 N GREEN VALLEY PKWY #9C PURINS ANSIS ASPEN, CO 81611 1001 E COOPER AVE #4 NORMAN JEFFREY L & ANNA M ASPEN, CO 81611 730 E DURANT AVE THOMPSON MARGARET M REV LVG TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 1020 E DURANT AVE # 103 FISHER ELIZABETH B CHAPEL HILL, NC 275178502 23120 UMSTEAD GILLIAM KRISTI ASPEN, CO 81611 1024 E COOPER #8 KANTOR MITCHELL A TRUST BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48301 5595 SHADOW LN KANTOR NANCY L TRUST BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48302 5595 SHADOW LN HUCKELBUTT HOUSE LLC DALLAS, TX 75225 3924 SOUTHWESTERN BLVD SILVERSTREAM TOWNHOMES CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 49 CARSON YOST EXEMPT LIFETIME TRUST FORT WORTH, TX 76107 116 RIVERCREST DR ABELMAN STEPHEN C & HELENE P SAINT PETERSBURG, FL 33703 400 BAY LAUREL CT NE LEAL FAMILY PARTNERS LTD COCOA , FL 32926 3224 FAIRFAX LANE OGBURN TOM & CAROLYN WESTLAKE, TX 762624804 2000 BRAZOS CT DORAN MICHAEL H ASP TEST TRST NORCROSS, GA 30092 4280 GUNNIN RD WEISS LYNN ASPEN, CO 816111935 625 E MAIN ST #102B COOPER TACHE CHRISTEN ASPEN, CO 81611 1001 E HYMAN Page 68 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 11600436000345 SYLVESTER JAMES W POUGHKEEPSIE, NY 12603 758 FREEDOM PLAINS RD SCHRAGER TERRI L OMAHA, NE 68127 3217 S 101ST ST THOMPSON BRAD H REV LVG TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 1020 E DURANT AVE # 103 RIVERSIDE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 1024 E COOPER AVE SMITH MICHAEL B & TIFFANY S HOUSTON, TX 77057 6134 WILLERS WAY TCDC HOLDINGS INC KANSAS CITY, MO 64108 2345 GRAND BLVD #2400 VANHEES JOANNE G & ARNOLD NEW YORK, NY 10014 95 HORATIO ST #9K MCCORMICK MURIEL E ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 3515 SCHROY BRIAN BOULDER, CO 803025824 441 ARAPAHOE AVE TYE MARK M TRUST ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8992 UTE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 1020 E DURANT AVE WHITE JALEH REV TRUST ASPEN, CO 816112053 960 E DURANT AVE #7 ERNEMANN MICHAEL FREDERICH LONDON EC #2A 4LX ENGLAND, LONDON FLAT 4 GALAXY HOUSE 32 LEONARD ST INDEPENDENCE GATE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 922 E COOPER AVE 26 EAU CLAIRE LLC NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 550 BIENVILLE ST CAULFIELD JENNIFER & JOHN ASPEN, CO 81611 1020 E DURANT AVE #101 SHAPIRO GANT LLC MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55436 5704 DEVILLE DR MJB GST TRUST SHAWNEE MISSION, KS 66208 5651 OAKWOOD RD 913 NEVADA TRUST LAS VEGAS , NV 89148 9589 COMISKY CT COLETTA BRANDY MEMPHIS, TN 38103 41 UNION AVE #200 CHADVALE REALTY INC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 11976 SEGUIN MARILYN A REV TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 1001 E COOPER AVE #7 KANTOR NANCY L TRUST BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48302 5595 SHADOW LN MCDONALD SCOTT PARK CITY, UT 84098 4666 MCKINNEY CT WICKAM BRENTON M SAN MATEO, CA 944012509 215 CHESTERTON PL VILLAGER 3 LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 625 E HYMAN #201 DOLGINOW SCOTT TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 203 S CLEVELAND HANN SANG E DR & ANN K LAKE FOREST, IL 60045 555 MAYFLOWER RD LITZENBERGER DREW & VIRGINIA ASHEVILLE, NC 28804 125 HOWLAND RD KOFFRON ROBERT & PAULETTE FARMINGTON HILLS, MI 48331 28009 HICKORY DR Page 69 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 11700437000346 PORTER FRANCES H CHAGRIN FALLS, OH 440222778 305 FALLS WALK WAY PULLEN CLAUDIA CHATTANOOGA, TN 37405 345 FRAZIER AVE #206 SEID MELVIN C REV TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 1104 DALE AVE FREEMAN HEATH ASPEN, CO 81611 1039 E COOPER AVE #17A HINMAN JACQUELINE C REV TRUST ENGLEWOOD, CO 80113 15 CHERRY HILLS FARM DR COATES NELIGH C JR REV TRUST SAN ANTONIO, TX 782303045 2702 CEMBALO BLVD #308 L & E PROPERTIES LTD DENVER, CO 80237 3701 S NARCISSUS WAY PONDROM CYRENA N & LEE G MADISON, WI 53705 210 PRINCETON AVE ELLSWEIG DAVID ASPEN, CO 81611 1020 E DURANT AVE #102 MARTIN MONICA A NEW YORK, NY 10021 301 E 79TH ST #35P Page 70 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 11800438000347 Page 71 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 119 exhibit 15 00439000348 XGAS X G A S XGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XU T XUT XUT XUT XUT XWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXELXELXELXELXELXELXEL XEL XEL XELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELxxxxxxxxxxxxx x x x x x x XGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA TELTELTEL TEL TVTVTVTVTV TV svc sa svc sa svc sa svc sa svc sa svc sa svcUELU E L UEL UEL UEL UEL WLSVC>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>SUBJECT PROPERTY PARCEL #273718232006 1020 E COOPER AVE RIVERSIDE CONDO ASSOC PARCEL #273718127801 1024 E COOPER AVE (NOT PART OF PROJECT) COOPER AVE VICTORIAN CONDO ASSOC PARCEL #273718232802 1012 E COOPER AVE (NOT PART OF PROJECT) PROJECT BENCHMARK FOUND #5 REBAR & RED PLASTIC CAP PLS 33638 0.2' ABOVE GRADE ELEV=7946.3 20.00' ALLEY 73.70' RIGHT OF WAY ME: 42.8'±ME: 43 .3 '±ME: 42.9 '±ME: 42 .9 '± ME: 44.8'±ME: 44.7'±ME: 44.9'± ME: 45.2'± ME: 45.2'± ME: 44.8'± ME: 44.5'± ME: 44.9'± ME: 44.1'±ME: 44.1'± EX: 43.8'± EX: 45.3'±EX: 45.8'±EX: 45.8'± EX: 44.0'± EX: 43.3'± EX: 42.9'±EX: 42.8'±EX: 42.4'±1.0%4.0% FG: 43.53 FG: 43.26 FG: 43.71 2.0%1.8% 2.0%1.8%4.2%4.2%1.4% 0.7%4.2%4.2% 2.0% FG: 43.16 FG: 43.78 FG: 43.92 FG: 44.21 2.4% FG: 43.79 FG: 44.25 FG: 43.63FG: 43.25 FG: 43.66 FG: 43.72 FG: 43.22 FG: 43.28 FFE:7943.28' FG: 44.00 FG: 43.96 FG: 43.95 FG: 43.78 FG: 44.51 FG: 44.61 FG: 45.68 FG: 44.57 FG: 44.66 FG: 45.68 FG: 45.78 FG: 45.04 FG: 45.68 3.9% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%2.0%1.4%1.5%2.0% 2.0% 1.7% 0.9% 2.0%8.0%FG: 43.92 0.8%0.8%3.8% 5.1% 3.8% 4.0% 1.0% 1.2% 0.9% 1.1% TC: 44.18 TBC: 44.93 FL: 44.50 TC: 44.72 ME: 44.9'± TC: 44.49 TBC: 45.08 FL: 44.71 TC: 44.91 ME: 45.1'± PROPOSED DRY WELL RIM: 43.06 SEWER CLEANOUT RIM: 43.42 SEWER EJECTOR VAULT RIM: 43.36 INLET RIM: 42.83 REPLACE 50 L.F. EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER TO MATCH EXISTING SIZE AND GRADES. PROTECT EXISTING TREE DURING CONSTRUCTION REPLACE EXISTING ASPHALT IN KIND PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED 2" ASPHALT OVERLAY (12" MIN WIDTH) PROPOSED FULL DEPTH SAWCUT E. COOPER AVE.2 STEPS (UP) 6" RISE 794579437944FG: 43.72 FG: 43.85 FG: 44.42 FG: 43.28 FG: 44.47 FG: 43.79 LP/RIM: 43.60 LP/RIM: 44.37 FFE:7944.00' FFE:7945.78' EX: 44.3'± FG: 43.82 FG: 43.58 FG: 43.85 2.3%1.5%1.0%EX: 44.6'± STAIRS DOWN DOWN2.0%FG: 44.22 FG: 44.12 EX: 44.1'± EX: 43.5'± EX: 43.6'± EX: 44.1'±1.0%2.0%1.0%1.0% INLET RIM: 44.97 TRENCH DRAIN RIM: 44.57 TRENCH DRAIN RIM: 44.53 TRENCH DRAIN RIM: 44.26 TRENCH DRAIN RIM: 44.23 LP/RIM: 43.67 LP/RIM: 44.00 10.0%10.0%FG: 45.78 FG: 44.82 1.6% 2.0%1.9%FG: 44.36 3.3%7.3% 2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%3.9% 2.0%1.5%TBC: 44.08 TBC: 44.28 1.5%1.6%1.7%2.0%4.8%1.5% 1.5%5.0% 6" CURB ALONG EDGE OF WALKWAY. TBC: 43.66 TBC: 43.43 TBC: 42.93 FG: 42.93 TBC: 44.42 TBC: 44.29 TBC: 44.22 TBC: 44.82 TBC: 44.20 FG: 44.32 EXTERIOR CLOSET TO AVOID IMPACTS TO EXISTING TREE STORM PIPE SHALL BE ROUTED ROUTED BELOW SLAB ON GRADE PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL STORM PIPE LAYOUT. MATERIAL, SIZE, SLOPE & ALIGNMENT TO BE FINALIZED IN SUPPORT OF FUTURE BUILDING PERMIT (TYP)10.6' TO PROPERTY LINE 13.1' TO PROPOSED BUILDING 10.1' BETWEEN STRUCTURES 3-FT WIDE CONCRETE DRAIN PAN REPLACED ELECTRIC VAULT & TRANSFORMER. VAULT LID SET 6" ABOVE FINAL/EXISTING GRADES REPLACE EXISTING SIDEWALK ADJOINING SUBJECT PROPERTY REPLACE EXISTING CURB & GUTTER IN FRONT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY AREA DRAIN OR SLOT DRAIN AT ENTRANCE & ROUTED THROUGH STRUCTURE TO DRY WELL (AREA LOCATED ABOVE STRUCTURE) PROPOSED AREA INLET. SIZE & LOCATION TO BE FINALIZED IN SUPPORT OF FUTURE BUILDING PERMIT (TYP) OPRIS ESNGINEERING, LLC. CIVIL CONSULTANTS JOB NO. DATE: 502 MAIN STREET CARBONDALE, CO 81623 (970) 704-0311 FAX: (970)-704-0313 DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY CHECKED BY DATE REVISION C-1.0 DRAWING NO. TITLE G:\2020\30111\CIVIL\CIVIL DWGS\PLOT\30111-G&D PLAN.DWG - Oct 14, 2020 - 2:37pmDRAINAGE DIRECTION/SLOPE SPOT ELEVATION EXAMPLE: TOP OF CONCRETE @ 7945.00' = BOW = BOTTOM OF WALL EOA = EDGE OF ASPHALT EX = EXISTING GRADE FFE = FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION FG = FINISHED GRADE FL = FLOW LINE HP = HIGH POINT LP = LOW POINT MATCH EX = MATCH EXISTING RIM = RIM ELEVATION TBC = TOP BACK OF CURB TOC = TOP OF CONCRETE CONCEPTUAL GRADING & DRAINAGE PLANBASIS OF ELEVATION: THE 1998 CITY OF ASPEN DREXEL BARREL CONTROL DATUM, WHICH IS BASED ON AN ELEVATION OF 7720.88' (NAVD 1998) ON THE NGS STATION "S-159". THIS ESTABLISHED A SITE BENCHMARK LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST PROPERTY CORNER. LS# 33638, ELEV: 7946.3' PER SURVEY PREPARED BY SOPRIS ENGINEERING INC. SPOT ELEVATION LEGEND SITE BENCHMARK MEMBER UTILITIES FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUNDBEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE CALL 2-BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE Know what's below. before you dig.Call RNORTH1 inch = ft. ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE 05 5 10 5 202.5 PROPOSED DRAINAGE DRY-WELL PROPOSED SEWER MANHOLE PROPOSED WATER VALVE PROPOSED CURB STOP PROPOSED GAS METER/VALVE PROPOSED ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER PROPOSED SEWER CLEANOUT PROPOSED STORM INLET PROPOSED 8" WATER MAIN8'' WL PROPOSED 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN PROPOSED TELEPHONE PROPOSED UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC PROPOSED CABLE PROPOSED STORM SEWER TEL TEL UE TV TV 8'' SA EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING WATER VALVE EXISTING CURB STOP EXISTING GAS METER EXISTING ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL EXISTING CATV PEDESTAL EXISTING SEWER CLEANOUT EXISTING 8" WATER MAINXWLXWL EXISTING 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN EXISTING GAS EXISTING TELEPHONE XGAS XGAS EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC EXISTING CABLE XUT XUT XEL XEL XTV XTV EXISTING IRRIGATION PIPEXIRRXIRR XSA XSA 30111 10-15-20 CJB 10/01/20 CJB 10/01/20 JKS 10/14/20 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN1020 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, COLORADOCONCEPTUAL HPC APPROVALPROPOSED SAWCUT PROPOSED FULL DEPTH ASPHALT PROPOSED 2" ASPHALT OVERLAY PROPOSED CONCRETE PROPOSED LEGEND UTILITY LEGEND VICINITY MAP SITE SCALE: 1" = 2,000'NORTHXX: XX.XX 2.0% FG: 45.00 NOTE: THESE PLANS ARE CONCEPTUAL OR ILLUSTRATIVE IN NATURE. PRECISE INFORMATION SHALL BE PROVIDED AS PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION, AND IN SITUATIONS WHERE THE FINAL HPC APPROVAL PLANS AND APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT DIFFER, THE APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT SHALL RULE. PROPOSED GRAVEL PROPOSED PORCH PROPOSED PLANTING BED PROPOSED LAWN AREA Page 72 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 12000440000349 XGAS X G A S XGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XU T XUT XUT XUT XUT XWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXEL XEL XEL XEL XELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELxxxxxxxxxxxxx x x x x x xXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGAS XGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA TELTELTEL TEL TVTVTVTVTV TV sa svc sa svc sa svc sa svc sa svc sa svc sa svcUELUELUELUELUEL UEL WLSVCINSTALL (2) 4" PVC CONDUITS TO BUILDING FOR TELEPHONE AND CABLE SERVICE. INSTALL & EXTEND NEW WATER SERVICE PER COA WATER DEPARTMENT STANDARDS TO PROPOSED WATER ENTRY ROOM EXISTING 14" WATER MAIN LOCATION AND SIZE OF WATER TAP TO BE CONFIRMED PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT. (NOTE: ALL UTILITY WORK WITHIN CDOT'S ROW SHALL BE PERFORMED UNDER AN APPROVED CDOT SPECIAL USE PERMIT) REPLACE 50 L.F. EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER TO MATCH EXISTING SIZE AND GRADES. SEE G&D SHEET C1.0 PROTECT EXISTING TREE DURING CONSTRUCTIONCONTRACTOR TO ABANDON EXISTING UTILITY LINES SERVING THE SUBJECT PROPERT (1020 E COOPER AVENUE) CONTRACTOR TO SAWCUT AND PATCH PER TRENCH DETAIL ON THIS SHEET REPLACE EXISTING ASPHALT IN KIND. PROPOSED LOCATION OF ELECTRIC METERS & DISTRIBUTION PANEL PROPOSED UTILITIES TO BE INSTALLED WITH 2' MINIMUM VERTICAL SEPARATION FROM STORM DRAIN. INSTALL UTILITY LOCATE TAPE ABOVE CONDUIT. FINAL DESIGN TO BE PROVIDED IN SUPPORT OF FUTURE BUILDING PERMIT PROPOSED 33 L.F. GRAVITY SDR 26 SEWER SERVICE AT 2% MINIMUM SLOPE (SIZE TO BE DETERMINED PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT) INVERT AT CLEANOUT=7939.0± INSTALL 2-WAY CLEANOUT W/ FRAME & GRATE EXISTING TRANSFORMER TO BE PROTECTED THROUGH ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION EX. TRANSFORMER TO BE REPLACED PROPERTY (TYP) NEW SECONDARY ELECTRIC SERVICE (ESTIMATE: 600 AMP SERVICE. ACTUAL ELECTRIC DEMAND TO BE CONFIRMED PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT) EXISTING WATER SERVICE TO BE ABANDONED AT THE MAIN PER COA WATER DEPARTMENT STANDARDS. CONTRACTOR TO UTILIZE A MANHOLE TRENCH BOX FOR ABANDONMENT TO LIMIT OVERALL DISTURBANCE. ALL UTILITY WORK WITHIN CDOT'S ROW SHALL BE PERFORMED UNDER AN APPROVED CDOT SPECIAL USE PERMIT NEW CABLE SERVICE LINE EXTENDED FROM EXISTING CABLE PEDESTAL PER COMCAST STANDARDS EXISTING CABLE PEDESTAL EXISTING BOLLARDS (TO BE REMOVED) NEW TELEPHONE SERVICE PULLED FROM EXISTING PEDESTAL PER CENTURY LINK STANDARDS PROPOSED 2" ASPHALT OVERLAY (12" MIN WIDTH) PROPOSED FULL DEPTH SAWCUT NEW BOLLARDS @ EACH CORNER OF VAULT E. COOPER AVE.(STATE HIGHWAY 82)20.00' ALLEY EXISTING 3.5'X8' ELEC. EASEMENT PROPOSED 4' DIA. VAULT W/ 5'X5' LID CENTERED OVER EXISTING TRANSFORMER. INSTALL NEW TRANSFORMER HATCHED AREA REFLECTS REQUIRED SEPARATION/EASEMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY PARCEL #273718232006 1020 E COOPER AVE RIVERSIDE CONDO ASSOC PARCEL #273718127801 1024 E COOPER AVE (NOT PART OF PROJECT) COOPER AVE VICTORIAN CONDO ASSOC PARCEL #273718232802 1012 E COOPER AVE (NOT PART OF PROJECT) PROPOSED SEWER EJECTOR PIT DESIGNED BY MEP IN SUPPORT OF FUTURE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL CONTRACTOR TO INSPECT EXISTING SEWER TAP & COORDINATE WITH ASPEN CONSOLIDATED SANITATION DISTRICT & ENGINEER OF RECORD ON WHETHER A NEW TAP WILL BE REQUIRED. EXTEND NEW SDR 26 SHARED SEWER SERVICE (SIZE TBD) TO PROJECT AND REMOVE/ABANDON EXISTING 4" VCP SHARED SERVICE AGREEMENT TO BE REQUESTED PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION INV OF MAIN LINE=7937.3± INVERT OF SEWER SERVICE=7938.3± CONNECT FORCE MAIN TO MAINLINE GRAVITY SEWER SERVICE PROPOSED GRAVITY SEWER SERVICE TO EJECTOR PUMP ENTRY PORCH W/ WATER ENTRY ROOMLOCATED BELOW W/IN CRAWLSPACEACCESS HATCH TO CRAWLSPACE & WATER ENTRY ROOM 8.0' 3.5' 8.0' ADA PARKING STALL 8.0' ACCESS AISLE PROPOSED DRY WELL PROPOSED AREA INLET 5' WIDE SIDEWALK TO BE REPLACED IN KIND EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENT (10'x9.4') PER BK 98 PG 93 EXISTING ELEC. EASEMENT (2'x8') PER BK 126 PG 7 CONCEPTUAL STORM DRAIN LAYOUT. FINAL SIZE, SLOPE & ALIGNMENT TO BE DETERMINED IN SUPPORT OF FUTURE BUILDING PERMIT (TYP) PROPOSED DRAINAGE DRY-WELL PROPOSED SEWER MANHOLE PROPOSED WATER VALVE PROPOSED ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER PROPOSED SEWER CLEANOUT PROPOSED STORM INLET PROPOSED 8" WATER MAIN8'' WL PROPOSED 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN PROPOSED TELEPHONE PROPOSED UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC PROPOSED CABLE PROPOSED STORM SEWER TEL TEL UE TV TV 8'' SA EXISTING WATER VALVE EXISTING ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL EXISTING CATV PEDESTAL EXISTING WATER MAINXWLXWL EXISTING 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN EXISTING GAS EXISTING TELEPHONE XGAS XGAS EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC EXISTING CABLE XUT XUT XEL XEL XTV XTV EXISTING IRRIGATION PIPEXIRRXIRR XSA XSA OPRIS ESNGINEERING, LLC. CIVIL CONSULTANTS 30111JOB NO. DATE:10-15-20 502 MAIN STREET CARBONDALE, CO 81623 (970) 704-0311 FAX: (970)-704-0313 DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY CHECKED BY CJB 10/01/20 CJB 10/01/20 JKS 10/14/20 DATE REVISION C-2.0 DRAWING NO. TITLE G:\2020\30111\CIVIL\CIVIL DWGS\PLOT\30111-UTIL PLAN.DWG - Oct 14, 2020 - 2:55pmNORTHCONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLANCONCEPTUAL DESIGN1020 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, COLORADOHPC CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL1 inch = ft. ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE 05 5 10 5 202.5 UTILITY PLAN LEGEND MEMBER UTILITIES FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUNDBEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE CALL 2-BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE Know what's below. before you dig.Call R 1. ALL MINIMUM DEPTHS, SEPARATION DISTANCES, MATERIALS AND/OR USE OF CONDUIT SHALL BE CONFIRMED AND COORDINATED WITH THE UTILITY PROVIDER PER UTILITY AGREEMENTS. 2. ALL UTILITY LINES AND/OR CONDUITS TO BE BACKFILLED WITH SUITABLE MATERIAL FREE OF ROCKS >1 1/2" Ø. USE CLASS 6 AGGREGATE BASE MATERIAL FOR BEDDING, AND/OR SUITABLE ONSITE MATERIAL. INSTALL PER UTILITY PROVIDER SPECIFICATIONS. BACKFILL TRENCHES WITH SUITABLE ONSITE MATERIALS. MINIMUM COMPACTION 95% IN PAVED AREAS. 3. GAS AND ELECTRIC TO BE INSTALLED IN SEPARATE TRENCHES. SEWER SERVICES TO BE INSTALLED A MINIMUM 10' FROM WATER SERVICES AS FEASIBLE. COMMUNICATIONS MAY BE INSTALLED IN COMBINED TRENCHES PER CONSTRUCTION FEASIBILITY AS LONG AS MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCES AND DEPTHS OF BURY ARE MAINTAINED. INSTALL WARNING TAPE OVER ALL UTILITY LINES. UTILITY SERVICE MINIMUM DEPTH WATER--------------------------------7.0' SEWER--------------------------------5.0' ELECTRIC----------------------------3.0' CABLE TV----------------------------3.0' PHONE--------------------------------3.0' GAS----------------------------------- 2.0' 1. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE ABANDONMENT, RELOCATION, AND BURIAL OF THE EXISTING UTILITIES WITH THE UTILITY PROVIDERS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTAIN HIS CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT OPERATE OUTSIDE THIS AREA WITHOUT THE PRIOR CONSENT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER(S) INVOLVED. 3. THE LOCATIONS OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES HAVE BEEN PLOTTED BASED ON UTILITY MAPS, LOCATES OR OTHER INFORMATION PROVIDED BY UTILITY COMPANIES AND ACTUAL FIELD LOCATIONS IN SOME INSTANCES. THESE UTILITIES, AS SHOWN MAY NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO CONTACT ALL UTILITY COMPANIES FOR FIELD LOCATION OF UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 4. ALL UTILITIES, BOTH UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD, SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN CONTINUOUS SERVICE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE AND LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES TO, OR INTERRUPTION OF, SERVICES CAUSED BY THE CONSTRUCTION. 5. ALL SITE AND UTILITY WORK SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF ASPEN RULES & REGULATIONS. A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. 6. EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY PROVIDED BY SOPRIS ENGINEERING, LLC. 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL EXISTING TREES THAT ARE TO REMAIN. A TREE PROTECTION PLAN MUST BE APPROVED BY CITY PARKS DEPARTMENT AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION. 8. ALL UTILITY METER LOCATIONS SHOWN FOR REFERENCE. REFER TO MEP PLANS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION GENERAL UTILITY NOTES: SHALLOW UTILITY NOTES: NOTE: THESE PLANS ARE CONCEPTUAL OR ILLUSTRATIVE IN NATURE. PRECISE INFORMATION SHALL BE PROVIDED AS PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION, AND IN SITUATIONS WHERE THE FINAL HPC APPROVAL PLANS AND APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT DIFFER, THE APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT SHALL RULE. PROPOSED SAWCUT PROPOSED FULL DEPTH ASPHALT PROPOSED 2" ASPHALT OVERLAY PROPOSED LEGEND PROPOSED GRAVEL PROPOSED PLANTING BED PROPOSED LAWN AREA Page 73 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 12100441000350 xxxxxxxx>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>RIVERSIDE CONDO ASSOCPARCEL #2737181278011024 E COOPER AVE (NOT PART OF PROJECT) COOPER AVE VICTORIAN CONDO ASSOC PARCEL #273718232802 1012 E COOPER AVE (NOT PART OF PROJECT) E. COOPER AVE. 7945 7943 7944 APPROXIMATE LIMITSOF ROOF OVERHANG PROPOSED AFFORDABLE HOUSINGDEVELOPMENT TOTAL PROPOSED IMPERVIOUSAREA: 3,720 SF TOTAL SITE IMPERVIOUS: 85% APPROXIMATE LOCATION OFWATER QUALITY DRYWELL.NOTE: DRYWELL TO BE LOCATED 10' FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY LINEAND STRUCTURES PROPOSED BURIED STORMWATERCONVEYANCE PIPE, TYP. PROPOSED BURIED STORMWATER CONVEYANCE PIPE, TYP. PROPOSED BURIED STORMWATER CONVEYANCE PIPE, TYP. PROPOSED CONCRETE WALKWAY. PROPOSED VALLEY INLET.ADDITIONALLY SERVES AS DRYWELL OVERFLOW POINT PROPOSED CONCRETE DRAIN PAN. PROPOSED TRENCH DRAIN CONCRETE PATIO PROPOSED AREA INLET PROPOSED AREA INLET PROPOSED AREA INLET PROPOSED AREA INLET PROPOSED AREA INLETxxEXISTING SINGLE STORY RESIDENCE TOTAL EXISTING SITE IMPERVIOUSAREA: 1,945 SF ± EXISTING SITE IMPERVIOUS: 45% OS-1 OS-2 OS-3 RIVERSIDE CONDO ASSOCCOOPER AVE VICTORIAN CONDO ASSOC CHATEAU EAU CLAIRE OS-4 EXISTING INLETAT LOW POINT EXISTING INLETAT LOW POINT EAST COOPER STREET OPRIS ESNGINEERING, LLC. CIVIL CONSULTANTS JOB NO. DATE: 502 MAIN STREET CARBONDALE, CO 81623 (970) 704-0311 FAX: (970)-704-0313 DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY CHECKED BY DATE REVISION C-3.0 DRAWING NO. TITLE G:\2020\30111\CIVIL\CIVIL DWGS\PLOT\30111-DRN PLAN.DWG - Oct 15, 2020 - 8:24amCONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE MITIGATION PLAN MEMBER UTILITIES FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE CALL 2-BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE Know what's below. before you dig.Call RNORTH 1 inch = ft. ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE 020 20 40 20 8010 30111.02 10-15-20 NEK 10/01/20 NEK 10/01/20 JKS 00/00/00 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN1020 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, COLORADOCONCEPTUAL HPC APPROVALNOTE: THESE PLANS ARE CONCEPTUAL OR ILLUSTRATIVE IN NATURE. PRECISE INFORMATION SHALL BE PROVIDED AS PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION, AND IN SITUATIONS WHERE THE FINAL HPC APPROVAL PLANS AND APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT DIFFER, THE APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT SHALL RULE.NORTH1 inch = ft. ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE 05 5 10 5 202.5 EXISTING CONDITIONS POST DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS POST DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE BASIN LEGEND EXISTING DRAINAGE BASIN DRAINAGE FLOW ARROW EXISTING CONTOUR EXISTING CONTOUR INTERVAL7900 PROPOSED CONTOUR PROPOSED CONTOUR INTERVAL7900 EXISTING GIS CONTOUR Page 74 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 12200442000351 1020 E Cooper Street- Engineering Letter HPC Application October 15, 2020 502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970)704-0311• Fax (970)704-0313 S OPRI S E NGIN EERING • LLC civil consultants Bendon Adams c/o Sara Adams 300 S. Spring Street, Ste 202 Aspen, CO 81611 sara@bendonadams.com RE: 1020 E Cooper Street-Conceptual Engineering Report Sopris Engineering, LLC Job No. 30111.02 Dear Sara, Sopris Engineering, LLC (SE) has prepared this letter to summarize the Civil Engineering requirements and recommendations in support of the potential redevelopment of 1020 E. Cooper Street located in Aspen, CO. It is our understanding that the project is seeking approval from HPC in support of an affordable housing project on the subject property. This letter is specific to utility extensions, conceptual site grading and stormwater mitigation options for the project team to further evaluate as the design progresses towards Building Permit Application. Conceptual Grading & Drainage, Utility and Drainage Mitigation Plans have been provided as an attachment for illustrative support of this document. Background & Existing Conditions The subject property is located at 1020 E. Cooper Street in Aspen, CO (Parcel ID#273718232006) and according to Pitkin County Assessor’s webpage the existing building was constructed in 1888 with an effective year built of 1964 and was originally constructed as a single family residence. Based on our review of the existing conditions survey and site visits the property consists of an existing single story wood frame house with a building footprint at ground elevation of approximately 1,100 sf. Existing ground cover includes various concrete walkways and intermittent lawn area/vegetation. Two detached shed structures front the alley to the north. The total existing onsite impervious area has been estimated at 1,945+/- sf which includes the existing residence, out structures and concrete pathways. Surface grades and existing drainage patterns generally slope from the southeast to the northwest across the site with relatively flat landscape grades around the residence. Existing gutters and a downspout appear to discharge directly to the adjacent ground. As such, tributary roof drainage appears to be conveyed over the existing ground towards the alley north of the subject property. No other onsite stormwater improvements were observed during our site visit or indicated on the existing conditions survey. It should be noted that the site does lies slightly below E. Cooper Street. The design of the improvements considered raising the sidewalk to coincide with the top back of curb but since this approach would require improvements on the neighboring property to the east it was not pursued. Instead, offsite basins associated E. Cooper Street were evaluated to determine whether there were any drainage concerns given this existing condition. Our findings related to this are further discussed below within the Existing Offsite Basins section. According to Figure 3.1 of the City’s Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP) the underlying soils likely consist of Type B Soils which have moderate infiltration rates. This will be confirmed once geotechnical exploration work has been performed. The subject property falls within Zone X as identified on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel #08097C0366E, effective date August 15, 2019. Zone X includes areas determined to be outside the 500-year flood plain. Page 75 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 12300443000352 1020 E Cooper Street- Engineering Letter HPC Application October 15, 2020 Page 2 502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970)704-0311• Fax (970)704-0313 S OPRI S E NGIN EERING • LLC civil consultants The subject property falls within Drainage System 1, Basin 12 as described within the City’s Surface Drainage Master Plan (SDMP), dated November 2001 prepared by WRC Engineering, Inc. Drainage System 1 currently consists of street curb and gutter, roadside ditches and a network of storm sewer pipes. According to the SDMP there is an existing 18” HDPE storm sewer beneath E. Cooper Street, directly south of the subject property. Preliminary investigation of this existing storm sewer collection system revealed the shallow depths prohibitive for direct connection of the development’s anticipated stormwater mitigation infrastructure. An existing electric and communications utility easement (Rec. # 659373) is located at the northeast corner of the property and accommodates portions of an existing 4’x4’ transformer vault as well as the COA Electric clearance requirements. Further discussion of the existing easement as it relates to this and future development can be found in the Site Utilities section of this letter. There is also a 2’x8’ electric easement at the northwest corner of the site that accommodates an existing transformer located on the neighboring property. Lastly, according to Figure 7.1a of the City’s URMP the subject property falls outside Aspen Mountain’s mudflow zone, however it should be noted that the City is in the process of updating mudflow studies and regulations which may influence any potential mudflow requirements for the subject property. Existing Offsite Basins As mentioned above the subject property lies slightly below the flowline elevation of E. Cooper Street and therefore corresponding offsite drainage basins were evaluated to assess the risk of offsite stormwater runoff entering the subject property. Based on site visits and our review of the City’s SDMP, Basin 12 was subdivided into several sub- basins to estimate peak runoff rates and corresponding conveyance capacities. These drainage basins are further described below and supporting calculations are provided as an attachment to this letter. Basin OS-1 is an existing basin within E. Cooper Street directly south and east of the subject property. An existing at grade access to the Chateau Eu Claire and the associated northern edge of the E Cooper Street attached site walk serves as the northern boundary for the basin. An existing low point and associated inlet was observed just west of the E Cooper Street bridge crossing of the Roaring Fork River. As such, the eastern limits of the basin were established by the breakline tributary to this inlet. The southern extent of the basin was established at the crown of E Cooper Street. Overall imperviousness is estimated to be 100% based on existing ground cover. Runoff generated within the basin is collected within a 4’ concrete drain pan directly south of the Riverside Townhomes. Surface runoff collected within this drain pan continues west within the concrete flowline into a formal curb and gutter system in front of the subject property (Basin OS-2). The drain pan was field measured to have an approximate 0.2’ available flow depth and approximately 1.5% longitudinal slope. Based on this information, runoff generated from a 100 year storm event is estimated to be fully contained within the drain pan at an approximate 0.14’ flow depth. This analysis concludes that no existing offsite runoff will be tributary to the site from the north side of the E. Cooper Street right of way east of the subject property. Basin OS-2 is an existing basin within E. Cooper Street directly south of the subject property. The northern limit of the basin was established to be the top of curb on the north side of E. Copper Street. The basin is bound by Basin OS-1 to the east and the projected subject property line to the west. The southern extent of the basin was established at the crown of E. Cooper Street. Overall imperviousness is estimated to be 100% based on existing ground cover. Page 76 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 12400444000353 1020 E Cooper Street- Engineering Letter HPC Application October 15, 2020 Page 3 502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970)704-0311• Fax (970)704-0313 S OPRI S E NGIN EERING • LLC civil consultants Runoff generated within the basin is collected within an existing curb and gutter system on the north side of E. Cooper Street. Surface runoff then continues west within the gutter flowline to a curb inlet west of the subject property, near the intersection with S. Cleveland Street. Portions of the existing curb will be replaced with COA compliant curb & gutter with this project, however the existing curb height was measured for conservative analysis. The curb height was field measured to have an approximate 4.5” height, 2” gutter drop and average 1.5% longitudinal slope. Based on this information, the 100 year storm event is estimated to be fully contained within existing parking lane at an approximate 0.13’ flow depth. This analysis concludes that runoff from the basin will not overtop the curb and no existing offsite runoff will be tributary to the site from the north side of E. Cooper Street in front of the subject property. Basin OS-3 is an existing basin within E. Cooper Street detached sidewalk directly south of the subject property. The northern limit of the basin was established to be the northern edge of the sidewalk adjacent to the development. The basin is bound by Basin OS-1 to the east and the projected subject property line to the west. The southern extent of the basin was established at top back of curb on the north side of E Cooper Street. A small portion of existing sidewalk from the adjacent Riverside Condo property to the east was additionally included within the basin limits. Overall imperviousness is estimated to be 75% based on existing ground cover. Runoff generated within this small basin runs along the southern edge of sidewalk towards the west and likely evaporates and/or percolates into the adjacent landscape area. Drainage conveyance calculations indicate that this existing conveyance has adequate capacity and the runoff from this small basin does not enter the subject property. Basin OS-4 is an existing basin comprised of the various properties south of E. Cooper Street that contribute surface runoff to the south side of E. Cooper Street in front of the subject property. This basin was evaluated to determine whether or not tributary flows would overtop the crown of the road. Overall imperviousness is estimated to be 85% based on existing ground cover. In addition, a conservative 5-minute time of concentration was used to estimate peak runoff rates for this larger basin. Runoff generated within this basin is ultimately collected within the existing curb and gutter system on the south side of E. Cooper Street. Surface runoff then continues west within the gutter flowline to a curb inlet west of the subject property. The existing curb height was field measured to have an approximate 5.5” height, 2” gutter drop and 1.5% longitudinal slope. Based on this information, the 100 year storm event is estimated to be fully contained within the existing parking lane at an approximate 0.41’ flow depth. This analysis concludes that runoff from the basin will not overtop the crown of E. Cooper Street and no existing offsite runoff will be tributary to the site from the south side of E Cooper Street. To conclude, based on the offsite drainage analysis associated with E. Cooper Street, it has been determined that offsite flows do not adversely impact the subject property and that the existing condition is found to be acceptable for redevelopment. Estimated offsite peak runoff rates are summarized within Table 1. In addition, supporting calculations and a drainage basin delineation plan are included as attachments to this letter. Table 1 – Existing Peak Runoff Values 10-yr 100-yr 10-yr 100-yr 10-yr 100-yr OS-1 0.076 100% 0.86 0.89 5.0 3.72 6.32 0.24 0.43 OS-2 0.032 100% 0.86 0.89 5.0 3.72 6.32 0.10 0.18 OS-3 0.013 75% 0.66 0.77 5.0 3.72 6.32 0.03 0.06 OS-4 0.984 85% 0.74 0.82 5.0 3.72 6.32 2.71 5.10 Subcatchment Name Area (ac) Percent Impervious ness Runoff Coefficient, C Selected tc (min) Rainfall Intensity,I(in/hr) Peak Flow, Q (cfs) Page 77 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 12500445000354 1020 E Cooper Street- Engineering Letter HPC Application October 15, 2020 Page 4 502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970)704-0311• Fax (970)704-0313 S OPRI S E NGIN EERING • LLC civil consultants Proposed Development, Stormwater Requirements and Stormwater Mitigation It is our understanding that the project will include a remodel and relocation of the existing residence and an expansion to accommodate multiple affordable housing units. Additional improvements include off-alley parking along the north side of the property, various walkways, bicycle racks, trash enclosure, landscaping, stormwater mitigation infrastructure and utility service extensions. Based on the proposed improvements the project will be classified as a “Major Project” as identified within the City’s URMP. Based on the location of the subject property the stormwater mitigation requirements will include water quality treatment for all exposed impervious areas. Onsite stormwater detention is not required for the proposed improvements as conveyance to the City’s street gutter system will be provided via an improved alley way. Surface runoff will then sheet flow west down the gravel alley consistent with the analysis provided in the City’s SDMP prepared by WRC Engineering. Water Quality Treatment: Based on the estimated total impervious area, the resulting required water quality treatment volume will be approximately 59 cf. Preliminary investigation for integrating permeable pavers, green roofs and/or bioretention basins has proven challenging given the nature of the affordable housing development. The gable type roofs and historic nature of the project prevents utilizing green roofs and the density of the site would place permeable pavers and bioretention gardens very close to the proposed structures which will require impermeable liners and underdrain piping that come at an additional cost and these underdrains would end up in the dry well regardless given the inability to connect directly to the City’s storm drain system. Based on these constraints a dry well is being proposed for water quality treatment. Dry Wells are a stormwater mitigation BMP that incorporates manhole structures with perforated barrels at the deeper depths. Washed screened rock is installed around the exterior of the perforated sections. When sub-soils are capable of moderate to high infiltration rates, dry wells are considered to be a viable BMP. They dramatically reduce the increased runoff and volume of stormwater generated from surrounding impervious areas and promote infiltration; thereby improving the water quality of stormwater runoff. The required water quality capture volume for a dry well shall be 150% of the design water quality capture volume as outlined within Chapter 8 of the City’s URMP. Per the City’s URMP dry wells shall not be located within 10-ft of any structure or 10-ft from a private property line. Based on these criteria there is only one potential location for a dry well as illustrated on the attached conceptual civil drawings; unless a variance request is pursued. The resulting anticipated water quality capture volume based on the anticipated proposed impervious areas and a 1.5 factor of safety is estimated to be 89 cf. Given the minimum depths required to meet Section 8.5.4.2 of the City’s URMP there will be an additional 60 cf of capacity within the dry well which will provide additional detention and attenuation of stormwater runoff. Conceptual civil plans are included as an attachment for illustrative support of the proposed site plan and stormwater mitigation design. Site Utilities Coordination with the various utility providers has taken place to verify layouts, routing, and feasibility of serving the proposed improvements. This section describes our findings. Preliminary utility plans have been included within the attached civil drawings for illustrative support. Additional details and finalized design will be submitted when a Building Permit Application is pursued. Water Service & Fire Flow Analysis The City of Aspen Water Department is the provider of potable water for the subject property. Currently the site is served off the existing 14 inch DIP main that runs down E. Cooper Avenue. The existing service size is unknown but Page 78 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 12600446000355 1020 E Cooper Street- Engineering Letter HPC Application October 15, 2020 Page 5 502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970)704-0311• Fax (970)704-0313 S OPRI S E NGIN EERING • LLC civil consultants the service is to be capped and abandoned if determined to be inadequate to support the proposed improvements. A new service tap meeting the fire and domestic demands will be provided per COA Water Department Standards. The water service is anticipated to be routed to a water entry room near the southeast corner of the historic landmark building, beneath a proposed porch. The master meter will be located within a tempered space and entrance will be provided through an access hatch integrated within the porch in compliance with Section 5.8 of the Water Distribution Standards. A common service line agreement may be pursued by the development to facilitate separate service feeds to the various units. This will be determined in support of a future building permit application if necessary. Final size of the service line will be coordinated with the Water Department staff based on anticipated building program demands and fire sprinkler suppression requirements. Final fixture counts and resulting consumptive demands will be determined by the Mechanical Engineer and coordinated with City staff prior to pursuing a Building Permit Application. Sanitary Sewer Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) is the supplier of sanitary sewer service to the subject property and surrounding area. An existing 8” collector line exists in the alley to the north of the proposed building. There is an existing service from this line to the existing residence. A shared sewer service will likely be provided for the proposed development and a new tap and service line is anticipated. The final size of the service line will be determined by the project MEP in support of building permit design. A small ejector vault and pump system will be required in order to lift below grade spaces up to the District’s system within the alley. The ejector system is anticipated to be located exterior of the structure(s) and located on the north side of the development. The design of the system will be provided in support of any future building permit application. Shallow Utilities The shallow utilities proposed to serve 1020 E. Cooper Avenue include electric, cable, and telephone. An existing gas main does run along the alley however natural gas service is not being proposed at this time. The information provided within this section includes utility locates obtained during the improvement survey as well as discussions with the individual utility providers. City of Aspen Electric currently serves the subject property via a transformer located within an existing dedicated easement (Rec. # 659373) near the northeast corner of the subject property. The existing transformer and vault is primarily located on the adjacent property to the east, however a small portion of the transformer and vault lie within the City’s Right of Way. The size and location of the existing transformer was discussed and coordinated with City Engineering Staff. Relocating the existing transformer would require an additional splice vault within the alley. City Staff decided additional infrastructure was not desirable and determined a new 4-ft diameter vault is to be centered beneath the existing transformer. A new 5’x5’ transformer lid and upgraded transformer will be placed atop the vault and portions of the upgraded infrastructure will remain within the alley. However, City Engineering did request an easement on the subject property be provided to accommodate shifting the transformer to the south and out of the right-of-way should the City pursue this in the future. After further review of this option it has been determined that the existing onsite electric easement at the northeast corner is adequate to comply with the separation requirements if/when the transformer is ever moved further to the south. Comcast Cable service is currently provided via a pedestal located within an existing easement on the property directly adjacent to the west. The upgraded service is proposed to come from this same pedestal and will follow Page 79 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 12700447000356 1020 E Cooper Street- Engineering Letter HPC Application October 15, 2020 Page 6 502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970)704-0311• Fax (970)704-0313 S OPRI S E NGIN EERING • LLC civil consultants a similar alignment to the existing line. Cable service is anticipated to be routed below grade directly to the north building and routed internal to the building to serve the various units. Century Link service is currently provided via an existing pedestal located near the northwest corner of the property. New service to meet the development’s needs is anticipated to originate from this existing pedestal. A Conceptual Utility Plan has been included as an attachment (C-2.0) for illustrative support. A final Utility Plan will be submitted in support of any future building permit. Conclusion Based on our evaluation of the existing site conditions and proposed development the project has a viable option for providing water quality mitigation that complies with City standards and offsite drainage basins will not have any adverse impacts to the proposed development. In addition, utilities necessary to serve the project are available. The design of all onsite stormwater mitigation infrastructure, water quality treatment facilities, and utility service extensions, to include size and location, will be further analyzed as the project design progresses. Final designs will be provided with any future building permit application. If you have any questions or need any additional information please don’t hesitate contacting our office. Sincerely, SOPRIS ENGINEERING, LLC Jesse K Swann, PE Project Manager Encl: C-1.0- Conceptual Grading & Drainage Plan, C-2.0- Conceptual Utility Plan, C-3.0- Conceptual Drainage Mitigation Plan, Hyraflow Calculations Page 80 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 12800448000357 XGAS XG A S XGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUT XUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXELXELXELXELXELXELXEL XEL XEL XELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELxxxxxxxxxxxxx x x x x x x XGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA TELTELTEL TEL TVTVTVTVTV TV svc sa svc sa svc sa svc sa svc sa svc sa svcUELUE L UEL UEL UEL UEL WLSVC>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>SUBJECT PROPERTYPARCEL #273718232006 1020 E COOPER AVE RIVERSIDE CONDO ASSOC PARCEL #273718127801 1024 E COOPER AVE (NOT PART OF PROJECT) COOPER AVE VICTORIAN CONDO ASSOC PARCEL #273718232802 1012 E COOPER AVE (NOT PART OF PROJECT) PROJECT BENCHMARK FOUND #5 REBAR & RED PLASTIC CAP PLS 336380.2' ABOVE GRADEELEV=7946.3 20.00'ALLEY 73.70'RIGHT OF WAY ME: 42.8'±ME: 43 .3 '±ME: 42 .9 '±ME: 42 .9 '± ME: 44.8'±ME: 44.7'±ME: 44.9'± ME: 45.2'± ME: 45.2'± ME: 44.8'± ME: 44.5'± ME: 44.9'± ME: 44.1'±ME: 44.1'± EX: 43.8'± EX: 45.3'±EX: 45.8'±EX: 45.8'± EX: 44.0'± EX: 43.3'± EX: 42.9'±EX: 42.8'±EX: 42.4'±1.0%4.0% FG: 43.53 FG: 43.26 FG: 43.71 2.0%1.8% 2.0%1.8%4.2%4.2%1.4% 0.7%4.2%4.2% 2.0% FG: 43.16 FG: 43.78 FG: 43.92 FG: 44.21 2.4% FG: 43.79 FG: 44.25 FG: 43.63FG: 43.25 FG: 43.66 FG: 43.72 FG: 43.22 FG: 43.28 FFE:7943.28' FG: 44.00 FG: 43.96 FG: 43.95 FG: 43.78 FG: 44.51 FG: 44.61 FG: 45.68 FG: 44.57 FG: 44.66FG: 45.68 FG: 45.78 FG: 45.04 FG: 45.68 3.9% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%2.0%1.4%1.5%2.0% 2.0% 1.7% 0.9% 2.0%8.0%FG: 43.92 0.8%0.8%3.8% 5.1% 3.8% 4.0% 1.0% 1.2% 0.9% 1.1% TC: 44.18 TBC: 44.93 FL: 44.50 TC: 44.72 ME: 44.9'± TC: 44.49 TBC: 45.08 FL: 44.71 TC: 44.91 ME: 45.1'± PROPOSED DRY WELLRIM: 43.06 SEWERCLEANOUTRIM: 43.42 SEWER EJECTORVAULT RIM: 43.36 INLET RIM: 42.83 REPLACE 50 L.F.EXISTING CURB ANDGUTTER TO MATCH EXISTING SIZE ANDGRADES. PROTECT EXISTING TREEDURING CONSTRUCTION REPLACE EXISTING ASPHALT IN KIND PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED 2"ASPHALT OVERLAY(12" MIN WIDTH) PROPOSED FULLDEPTH SAWCUT E. COOPER AVE.2 STEPS (UP)6" RISE 794579437944FG: 43.72 FG: 43.85 FG: 44.42 FG: 43.28 FG: 44.47 FG: 43.79 LP/RIM: 43.60 LP/RIM: 44.37 FFE:7944.00' FFE:7945.78' EX: 44.3'± FG: 43.82 FG: 43.58 FG: 43.85 2.3%1.5%1.0%EX: 44.6'± STAIRSDOWNDOWN2.0%FG: 44.22 FG: 44.12 EX: 44.1'± EX: 43.5'± EX: 43.6'± EX: 44.1'±1.0%2.0%1.0%1.0% INLET RIM: 44.97 TRENCH DRAINRIM: 44.57 TRENCH DRAINRIM: 44.53 TRENCH DRAINRIM: 44.26 TRENCH DRAINRIM: 44.23 LP/RIM: 43.67 LP/RIM: 44.00 10.0%10.0%FG: 45.78 FG: 44.82 1.6% 2.0%1.9%FG: 44.36 3.3%7.3% 2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%3.9% 2.0%1.5%TBC: 44.08 TBC: 44.28 1.5%1.6%1.7%2.0%4.8%1.5% 1.5%5.0% 6" CURB ALONG EDGE OF WALKWAY. TBC: 43.66 TBC: 43.43 TBC: 42.93 FG: 42.93 TBC: 44.42 TBC: 44.29 TBC: 44.22 TBC: 44.82 TBC: 44.20 FG: 44.32 EXTERIOR CLOSET TO AVOID IMPACTS TO EXISTING TREESTORM PIPE SHALL BE ROUTEDROUTED BELOW SLAB ON GRADE PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL STORMPIPE LAYOUT. MATERIAL, SIZE, SLOPE & ALIGNMENT TO BEFINALIZED IN SUPPORT OF FUTURE BUILDING PERMIT (TYP)10.6' TO PROPERTY LINE 13.1' TO PROPOSED BUILDING 10.1' BETWEEN STRUCTURES 3-FT WIDE CONCRETE DRAIN PAN REPLACED ELECTRICVAULT & TRANSFORMER.VAULT LID SET 6" ABOVEFINAL/EXISTING GRADES REPLACE EXISTINGSIDEWALK ADJOININGSUBJECT PROPERTY REPLACE EXISTING CURB & GUTTER IN FRONT OFSUBJECT PROPERTY AREA DRAIN OR SLOT DRAIN ATENTRANCE & ROUTED THROUGH STRUCTURE TO DRY WELL (AREALOCATED ABOVE STRUCTURE) PROPOSED AREA INLET. SIZE & LOCATION TO BE FINALIZED IN SUPPORTOF FUTURE BUILDING PERMIT (TYP) OPRIS ESNGINEERING, LLC. CIVIL CONSULTANTS JOB NO. DATE: 502 MAIN STREETCARBONDALE, CO 81623(970) 704-0311FAX: (970)-704-0313 DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY CHECKED BY DATE REVISION C-1.0 DRAWING NO. TITLE G:\2020\30111\CIVIL\CIVIL DWGS\PLOT\30111-G&D PLAN.DWG - Oct 14, 2020 - 2:57pmDRAINAGE DIRECTION/SLOPE SPOT ELEVATION EXAMPLE: TOP OF CONCRETE @ 7945.00' = BOW = BOTTOM OF WALL EOA = EDGE OF ASPHALTEX = EXISTING GRADEFFE = FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION FG = FINISHED GRADEFL = FLOW LINEHP = HIGH POINT LP = LOW POINTMATCH EX = MATCH EXISTINGRIM = RIM ELEVATION TBC = TOP BACK OF CURBTOC = TOP OF CONCRETE CONCEPTUAL GRADING & DRAINAGE PLANBASIS OF ELEVATION: THE 1998 CITY OF ASPEN DREXEL BARREL CONTROL DATUM, WHICH IS BASED ON AN ELEVATION OF 7720.88' (NAVD 1998) ON THE NGS STATION "S-159". THIS ESTABLISHED A SITE BENCHMARK LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST PROPERTY CORNER. LS# 33638, ELEV: 7946.3' PER SURVEY PREPARED BY SOPRIS ENGINEERING INC. SPOT ELEVATION LEGEND SITE BENCHMARK MEMBER UTILITIESFOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUNDBEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATECALL 2-BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call RNORTH1 inch = ft.( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE 05 5 10 5 202.5 PROPOSED DRAINAGE DRY-WELL PROPOSED SEWER MANHOLE PROPOSED WATER VALVE PROPOSED CURB STOP PROPOSED GAS METER/VALVE PROPOSED ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER PROPOSED SEWER CLEANOUT PROPOSED STORM INLET PROPOSED 8" WATER MAIN8'' WL PROPOSED 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN PROPOSED TELEPHONE PROPOSED UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC PROPOSED CABLE PROPOSED STORM SEWER TEL TEL UE TV TV 8'' SA EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING WATER VALVE EXISTING CURB STOP EXISTING GAS METER EXISTING ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL EXISTING CATV PEDESTAL EXISTING SEWER CLEANOUT EXISTING 8" WATER MAINXWLXWL EXISTING 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN EXISTING GAS EXISTING TELEPHONE XGAS XGAS EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC EXISTING CABLE XUT XUT XEL XEL XTV XTV EXISTING IRRIGATION PIPEXIRRXIRR XSA XSA 30111 10-15-20 CJB 10/01/20 CJB 10/01/20 JKS 10/14/20 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN1020 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, COLORADOCONCEPTUAL HPC APPROVALPROPOSED SAWCUT PROPOSED FULL DEPTH ASPHALT PROPOSED 2" ASPHALT OVERLAY PROPOSED CONCRETE PROPOSED LEGEND UTILITY LEGEND VICINITY MAP SITE SCALE: 1" = 2,000'NORTHXX: XX.XX 2.0% FG: 45.00 NOTE: THESE PLANS ARE CONCEPTUAL OR ILLUSTRATIVE IN NATURE. PRECISE INFORMATION SHALL BE PROVIDED AS PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION, AND IN SITUATIONS WHERE THE FINAL HPC APPROVAL PLANSAND APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT DIFFER, THE APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT SHALL RULE. PROPOSED GRAVEL PROPOSED PORCH PROPOSED PLANTING BED PROPOSED LAWN AREA REDUCED FORATTACHMENT TO REPORT Page 81 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 12900449000358 XGAS XG A S XGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTV XTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXEL XEL XEL XEL XELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELxxxxxxxxxxxxx x x x x x xXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGAS XGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA TELTELTEL TEL TVTVTVTVTV TV sa svc sa svc sa svc sa svc sa svc sa svc sa svcUELUEL UEL UEL UEL UEL WLSVCINSTALL (2) 4" PVC CONDUITS TO BUILDING FOR TELEPHONEAND CABLE SERVICE. INSTALL & EXTEND NEW WATERSERVICE PER COA WATERDEPARTMENT STANDARDS TOPROPOSED WATER ENTRY ROOM EXISTING 14" WATER MAINLOCATION AND SIZE OF WATER TAP TO BE CONFIRMED PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT.(NOTE: ALL UTILITY WORK WITHIN CDOT'S ROW SHALL BE PERFORMED UNDER AN APPROVED CDOTSPECIAL USE PERMIT) REPLACE 50 L.F. EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER TO MATCH EXISTING SIZEAND GRADES. SEE G&D SHEET C1.0 PROTECT EXISTING TREE DURING CONSTRUCTIONCONTRACTOR TO ABANDON EXISTINGUTILITY LINES SERVING THE SUBJECTPROPERT (1020 E COOPER AVENUE) CONTRACTOR TO SAWCUT ANDPATCH PER TRENCH DETAIL ONTHIS SHEET REPLACE EXISTING ASPHALT IN KIND. PROPOSED LOCATION OF ELECTRICMETERS & DISTRIBUTION PANEL PROPOSED UTILITIES TO BE INSTALLED WITH 2' MINIMUMVERTICAL SEPARATION FROM STORM DRAIN. INSTALL UTILITY LOCATE TAPE ABOVE CONDUIT. FINAL DESIGN TOBE PROVIDED IN SUPPORT OF FUTURE BUILDING PERMIT PROPOSED 33 L.F. GRAVITY SDR 26 SEWER SERVICEAT 2% MINIMUM SLOPE (SIZE TO BE DETERMINED PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT)INVERT AT CLEANOUT=7939.0± INSTALL 2-WAY CLEANOUT W/ FRAME & GRATE EXISTING TRANSFORMER TO BEPROTECTED THROUGH ALL PHASES OFCONSTRUCTION EX. TRANSFORMERTO BE REPLACED PROPERTY (TYP) NEW SECONDARY ELECTRIC SERVICE(ESTIMATE: 600 AMP SERVICE. ACTUAL ELECTRIC DEMAND TO BE CONFIRMEDPRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT) EXISTING WATER SERVICE TO BE ABANDONED AT THEMAIN PER COA WATER DEPARTMENT STANDARDS.CONTRACTOR TO UTILIZE A MANHOLE TRENCH BOXFOR ABANDONMENT TO LIMIT OVERALLDISTURBANCE. ALL UTILITY WORK WITHIN CDOT'SROW SHALL BE PERFORMED UNDER AN APPROVEDCDOT SPECIAL USE PERMIT NEW CABLE SERVICE LINEEXTENDED FROM EXISTINGCABLE PEDESTAL PER COMCAST STANDARDS EXISTING CABLEPEDESTAL EXISTING BOLLARDS(TO BE REMOVED) NEW TELEPHONE SERVICE PULLEDFROM EXISTING PEDESTAL PER CENTURY LINK STANDARDS PROPOSED 2" ASPHALT OVERLAY(12" MIN WIDTH) PROPOSED FULL DEPTH SAWCUT NEW BOLLARDS @ EACHCORNER OF VAULT E. COOPER AVE.(STATE HIGHWAY 82)20.00' ALLEY EXISTING 3.5'X8'ELEC. EASEMENT PROPOSED 4' DIA. VAULT W/5'X5' LID CENTERED OVER EXISTING TRANSFORMER.INSTALL NEW TRANSFORMER HATCHED AREA REFLECTSREQUIRED SEPARATION/EASEMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY PARCEL #273718232006 1020 E COOPER AVE RIVERSIDE CONDO ASSOC PARCEL #273718127801 1024 E COOPER AVE (NOT PART OF PROJECT) COOPER AVE VICTORIAN CONDO ASSOC PARCEL #273718232802 1012 E COOPER AVE (NOT PART OF PROJECT) PROPOSED SEWER EJECTOR PITDESIGNED BY MEP IN SUPPORTOF FUTURE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION EXISTING TELEPHONEPEDESTAL CONTRACTOR TO INSPECT EXISTING SEWER TAP &COORDINATE WITH ASPEN CONSOLIDATED SANITATION DISTRICT & ENGINEER OF RECORD ON WHETHER A NEWTAP WILL BE REQUIRED.EXTEND NEW SDR 26 SHARED SEWER SERVICE (SIZE TBD) TO PROJECT AND REMOVE/ABANDON EXISTING 4" VCPSHARED SERVICE AGREEMENT TO BE REQUESTED PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONINV OF MAIN LINE=7937.3±INVERT OF SEWER SERVICE=7938.3± CONNECT FORCE MAIN TO MAINLINE GRAVITY SEWERSERVICE PROPOSED GRAVITY SEWERSERVICE TO EJECTOR PUMP ENTRY PORCH W/ WATER ENTRY ROOMLOCATED BELOW W/IN CRAWLSPACEACCESS HATCH TO CRAWLSPACE & WATERENTRY ROOM 8.0'3.5' 8.0'ADA PARKINGSTALL 8.0'ACCESS AISLE PROPOSED DRY WELL PROPOSEDAREA INLET 5' WIDE SIDEWALKTO BE REPLACED INKIND EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENT(10'x9.4') PER BK 98 PG 93 EXISTING ELEC. EASEMENT(2'x8') PER BK 126 PG 7 CONCEPTUAL STORM DRAIN LAYOUT.FINAL SIZE, SLOPE & ALIGNMENT TO BE DETERMINED IN SUPPORT OF FUTUREBUILDING PERMIT (TYP) PROPOSED DRAINAGE DRY-WELL PROPOSED SEWER MANHOLE PROPOSED WATER VALVE PROPOSED ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER PROPOSED SEWER CLEANOUT PROPOSED STORM INLET PROPOSED 8" WATER MAIN8'' WL PROPOSED 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN PROPOSED TELEPHONE PROPOSED UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC PROPOSED CABLE PROPOSED STORM SEWER TEL TEL UE TV TV 8'' SA EXISTING WATER VALVE EXISTING ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL EXISTING CATV PEDESTAL EXISTING WATER MAINXWLXWL EXISTING 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN EXISTING GAS EXISTING TELEPHONE XGAS XGAS EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC EXISTING CABLE XUT XUT XEL XEL XTV XTV EXISTING IRRIGATION PIPEXIRRXIRR XSA XSA OPRIS ESNGINEERING, LLC. CIVIL CONSULTANTS 30111JOB NO. DATE:10-15-20 502 MAIN STREETCARBONDALE, CO 81623(970) 704-0311FAX: (970)-704-0313 DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY CHECKED BY CJB 10/01/20 CJB 10/01/20 JKS 10/14/20 DATE REVISION C-2.0 DRAWING NO. TITLE G:\2020\30111\CIVIL\CIVIL DWGS\PLOT\30111-UTIL PLAN.DWG - Oct 14, 2020 - 2:56pmNORTHCONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLANCONCEPTUAL DESIGN1020 E. COOPER AVENUEASPEN, COLORADOHPC CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL1 inch = ft.( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE 05 5 10 5 202.5 UTILITY PLAN LEGEND MEMBER UTILITIESFOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUNDBEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATECALL 2-BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call R 1. ALL MINIMUM DEPTHS, SEPARATION DISTANCES, MATERIALS AND/OR USE OF CONDUIT SHALL BE CONFIRMED AND COORDINATED WITH THE UTILITY PROVIDER PER UTILITY AGREEMENTS. 2. ALL UTILITY LINES AND/OR CONDUITS TO BE BACKFILLED WITH SUITABLE MATERIAL FREE OF ROCKS >1 1/2" Ø. USE CLASS 6 AGGREGATE BASE MATERIAL FOR BEDDING, AND/OR SUITABLE ONSITE MATERIAL. INSTALL PER UTILITY PROVIDER SPECIFICATIONS. BACKFILL TRENCHESWITH SUITABLE ONSITE MATERIALS. MINIMUM COMPACTION 95% IN PAVED AREAS. 3. GAS AND ELECTRIC TO BE INSTALLED IN SEPARATE TRENCHES. SEWER SERVICES TO BEINSTALLED A MINIMUM 10' FROM WATER SERVICES AS FEASIBLE. COMMUNICATIONS MAY BE INSTALLED IN COMBINED TRENCHES PER CONSTRUCTION FEASIBILITY AS LONG AS MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCES AND DEPTHS OF BURY ARE MAINTAINED. INSTALL WARNING TAPEOVER ALL UTILITY LINES. UTILITY SERVICE MINIMUM DEPTHWATER--------------------------------7.0' SEWER--------------------------------5.0' ELECTRIC----------------------------3.0'CABLE TV----------------------------3.0' PHONE--------------------------------3.0' GAS----------------------------------- 2.0' 1. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE ABANDONMENT, RELOCATION, AND BURIAL OF THE EXISTING UTILITIES WITH THE UTILITY PROVIDERS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTAIN HIS CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT OPERATE OUTSIDE THIS AREA WITHOUT THE PRIOR CONSENT OF THE PROPERTYOWNER(S) INVOLVED. 3. THE LOCATIONS OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES HAVE BEEN PLOTTED BASED ON UTILITY MAPS, LOCATES OROTHER INFORMATION PROVIDED BY UTILITY COMPANIES AND ACTUAL FIELD LOCATIONS IN SOME INSTANCES. THESE UTILITIES, AS SHOWN MAY NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO CONTACT ALL UTILITY COMPANIES FOR FIELD LOCATION OF UTILITIES PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION. 4. ALL UTILITIES, BOTH UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD, SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN CONTINUOUS SERVICETHROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE AND LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES TO, OR INTERRUPTION OF, SERVICES CAUSED BY THE CONSTRUCTION. 5. ALL SITE AND UTILITY WORK SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF ASPEN RULES & REGULATIONS. A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. 6. EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY PROVIDED BY SOPRIS ENGINEERING, LLC. 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL EXISTING TREES THAT ARE TO REMAIN. A TREE PROTECTION PLAN MUST BEAPPROVED BY CITY PARKS DEPARTMENT AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION. 8. ALL UTILITY METER LOCATIONS SHOWN FOR REFERENCE. REFER TO MEP PLANS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION GENERAL UTILITY NOTES: SHALLOW UTILITY NOTES: NOTE: THESE PLANS ARE CONCEPTUAL OR ILLUSTRATIVE IN NATURE. PRECISE INFORMATION SHALL BE PROVIDED ASPART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION, AND IN SITUATIONS WHERE THE FINAL HPC APPROVAL PLANS AND APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT DIFFER, THE APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT SHALL RULE. PROPOSED SAWCUT PROPOSED FULL DEPTH ASPHALT PROPOSED 2" ASPHALT OVERLAY PROPOSED LEGEND PROPOSED GRAVEL PROPOSED PLANTING BED PROPOSED LAWN AREA REDUCED FOR ATTACHMENT TO REPORT Page 82 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 13000450000359 x x x x x xxx>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>RIVERSIDE CONDO ASSOCPARCEL #2737181278011024 E COOPER AVE(NOT PART OF PROJECT)COOPER AVE VICTORIAN CONDO ASSOCPARCEL #2737182328021012 E COOPER AVE(NOT PART OF PROJECT)E. COOPER AVE.794579437944 APPROXIMATE LIMITSOF ROOF OVERHANGPROPOSED AFFORDABLE HOUSINGDEVELOPMENTTOTAL PROPOSED IMPERVIOUSAREA: 3,720 SFTOTAL SITE IMPERVIOUS: 85%APPROXIMATE LOCATION OFWATER QUALITY DRYWELL.NOTE: DRYWELL TO BE LOCATED10' FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY LINEAND STRUCTURESPROPOSED BURIED STORMWATERCONVEYANCE PIPE, TYP.PROPOSED BURIED STORMWATERCONVEYANCE PIPE, TYP.PROPOSED BURIED STORMWATERCONVEYANCE PIPE, TYP.PROPOSED CONCRETE WALKWAY.PROPOSED VALLEY INLET.ADDITIONALLY SERVES ASDRYWELL OVERFLOW POINTPROPOSED CONCRETE DRAIN PAN.PROPOSED TRENCH DRAINCONCRETE PATIOPROPOSED AREA INLETPROPOSED AREA INLETPROPOSED AREA INLETPROPOSED AREA INLETPROPOSED AREA INLETx x EXISTING SINGLE STORY RESIDENCETOTAL EXISTING SITE IMPERVIOUSAREA: 1,945 SF ±EXISTING SITE IMPERVIOUS: 45%OS-1OS-2OS-3RIVERSIDE CONDO ASSOCCOOPER AVE VICTORIANCONDO ASSOCCHATEAU EAU CLAIREOS-4EXISTING INLETAT LOW POINTEXISTING INLETAT LOW POINTEAST COOPER STREETOPRISESNGINEERING, LLC.CIVIL CONSULTANTSJOB NO.DATE:502 MAIN STREETCARBONDALE, CO 81623(970) 704-0311FAX: (970)-704-0313DESIGNED BYDRAWN BYCHECKED BYDATEREVISIONC-3.0DRAWING NO.TITLEG:\2020\30111\CIVIL\CIVIL DWGS\PLOT\30111-DRN PLAN.DWG - Oct 15, 2020 - 8:28am CONCEPTUALDRAINAGEMITIGATION PLANMEMBER UTILITIESFOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUNDBEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATECALL 2-BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCEKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRNORTH1 inch = ft.( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALE020204020801030111.0210-15-20NEK10/01/20NEK10/01/20JKS00/00/00CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 1020 E. COOPER AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO CONCEPTUAL HPC APPROVALNOTE:THESE PLANS ARE CONCEPTUAL OR ILLUSTRATIVE IN NATURE. PRECISE INFORMATION SHALL BE PROVIDED ASPART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION, AND IN SITUATIONS WHERE THE FINAL HPC APPROVAL PLANSAND APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT DIFFER, THE APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT SHALL RULE.NORTH1 inch = ft.( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALE055105202.5EXISTING CONDITIONSPOST DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONSPOST DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE BASINLEGENDEXISTING DRAINAGE BASINDRAINAGE FLOW ARROWEXISTING CONTOUREXISTING CONTOUR INTERVAL7900PROPOSED CONTOURPROPOSED CONTOUR INTERVAL7900EXISTING GIS CONTOURPage 83 of 96Exhibit B- Application13100451000360 Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, Oct 14 2020 OS-1 4' PAN, 100yr Triangular Side Slopes (z:1) = 10.00, 10.00 Total Depth (ft) = 0.20 Invert Elev (ft) = 100.00 Slope (%)= 1.50 N-Value = 0.013 Calculations Compute by:Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 0.43 Highlighted Depth (ft)= 0.14 Q (cfs)= 0.430 Area (sqft)= 0.20 Velocity (ft/s)= 2.19 Wetted Perim (ft) = 2.81 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.17 Top Width (ft)= 2.80 EGL (ft)= 0.21 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section 99.75 -0.25 100.00 0.00 100.25 0.25 100.50 0.50 100.75 0.75 101.00 1.00 Reach (ft) Page 84 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 13200452000361 Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, Oct 14 2020 OS-1 4' PAN Triangular Side Slopes (z:1) = 10.00, 10.00 Total Depth (ft) = 0.20 Invert Elev (ft) = 100.00 Slope (%)= 1.50 N-Value = 0.013 Calculations Compute by:Q vs Depth No. Increments = 10 Highlighted Depth (ft)= 0.02 Q (cfs)= 0.003 Area (sqft)= 0.00 Velocity (ft/s)= 0.65 Wetted Perim (ft) = 0.40 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.03 Top Width (ft)= 0.40 EGL (ft)= 0.03 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section 99.75 -0.25 100.00 0.00 100.25 0.25 100.50 0.50 100.75 0.75 101.00 1.00 Reach (ft) Page 85 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 13300453000362 Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, Oct 14 2020 OS-3 5' SIDEWALK, 100yr User-defined Invert Elev (ft) = 100.00 Slope (%)= 1.50 N-Value = 0.013 Calculations Compute by:Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 0.06 (Sta, El, n)-(Sta, El, n)... ( 0.00, 100.10)-(5.00, 100.05, 0.013) Highlighted Depth (ft)= 0.04 Q (cfs)= 0.060 Area (sqft)= 0.08 Velocity (ft/s)= 0.75 Wetted Perim (ft) = 4.04 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.04 Top Width (ft)= 4.00 EGL (ft)= 0.05 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section 99.75 -0.25 100.00 0.00 100.25 0.25 100.50 0.50 100.75 0.75 101.00 1.00 Sta (ft) Page 86 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 13400454000363 Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, Oct 14 2020 OS-3 5' SIDEWALK User-defined Invert Elev (ft) = 100.00 Slope (%)= 1.50 N-Value = Composite Calculations Compute by:Q vs Depth No. Increments = 10 (Sta, El, n)-(Sta, El, n)... ( 0.00, 100.10)-(5.00, 100.05, 0.013) Highlighted Depth (ft)= 0.05 Q (cfs)= 0.149 Area (sqft)= 0.13 Velocity (ft/s)= 1.19 Wetted Perim (ft) = 5.05 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.06 Top Width (ft)= 5.00 EGL (ft)= 0.07 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section 99.75 -0.25 100.00 0.00 100.25 0.25 100.50 0.50 100.75 0.75 101.00 1.00 Sta (ft) Page 87 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 13500455000364 Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, Oct 14 2020 OS-2 COOPER STREET NORTH, 100yr User-defined Invert Elev (ft) = 100.00 Slope (%)= 1.50 N-Value = 0.013 Calculations Compute by:Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 0.18 (Sta, El, n)-(Sta, El, n)... ( -20.00, 100.89)-(0.50, 100.38, 0.013) Highlighted Depth (ft)= 0.13 Q (cfs)= 0.180 Area (sqft)= 0.10 Velocity (ft/s)= 1.81 Wetted Perim (ft) = 1.66 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.15 Top Width (ft)= 1.53 EGL (ft)= 0.18 -5 0 5 10 Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section 99.75 -0.25 100.00 0.00 100.25 0.25 100.50 0.50 100.75 0.75 101.00 1.00 Sta (ft) Page 88 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 13600456000365 Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, Oct 14 2020 OS-2 COOPER STREET NORTH, MAX User-defined Invert Elev (ft) = 100.00 Slope (%)= 1.50 N-Value = 0.013 Calculations Compute by:Known Depth Known Depth (ft) = 0.38 (Sta, El, n)-(Sta, El, n)... ( -20.00, 100.89)-(0.50, 100.38, 0.013) Highlighted Depth (ft)= 0.38 Q (cfs)= 4.320 Area (sqft)= 1.11 Velocity (ft/s)= 3.91 Wetted Perim (ft) = 7.51 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.46 Top Width (ft)= 7.13 EGL (ft)= 0.61 -5 0 5 10 Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section 99.75 -0.25 100.00 0.00 100.25 0.25 100.50 0.50 100.75 0.75 101.00 1.00 Sta (ft) Page 89 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 13700457000366 Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, Oct 14 2020 OS-4 COOPER STREET SOUTH, MAX User-defined Invert Elev (ft) = 100.00 Slope (%)= 1.50 N-Value = 0.013 Calculations Compute by:Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 5.10 (Sta, El, n)-(Sta, El, n)... ( -0.50, 100.46)-(2.00, 100.17, 0.013)-(10.00, 100.53, 0.013)-(23.00, 100.79, 0.013) Highlighted Depth (ft)= 0.41 Q (cfs)= 5.100 Area (sqft)= 1.29 Velocity (ft/s)= 3.95 Wetted Perim (ft) = 7.76 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.50 Top Width (ft)= 7.33 EGL (ft)= 0.65 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section 99.75 -0.25 100.00 0.00 100.25 0.25 100.50 0.50 100.75 0.75 101.00 1.00 Sta (ft) Page 90 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 13800458000367 Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, Oct 14 2020 OS-4 COOPER STREET SOUTH, MAX User-defined Invert Elev (ft) = 100.00 Slope (%)= 1.50 N-Value = 0.013 Calculations Compute by:Known Depth Known Depth (ft) = 0.46 (Sta, El, n)-(Sta, El, n)... ( -0.50, 100.46)-(2.00, 100.17, 0.013)-(10.00, 100.53, 0.013)-(23.00, 100.79, 0.013) Highlighted Depth (ft)= 0.46 Q (cfs)= 7.688 Area (sqft)= 1.67 Velocity (ft/s)= 4.60 Wetted Perim (ft) = 8.88 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.58 Top Width (ft)= 8.41 EGL (ft)= 0.79 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section 99.75 -0.25 100.00 0.00 100.25 0.25 100.50 0.50 100.75 0.75 101.00 1.00 Sta (ft) Page 91 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 13900459000368 COOPERN33° 3 2' 0 3" W 6 87. 12' TI E EAST COOPER AVENUEEAST HYMAN AVENUECLEVELA N D S T R E E T ALLEY (20.20') 13.79'LOT KLOT LLOT MLOT NLOT OLOT PLOT QLOT RLOT ALOT BLOT CLOT DLOT ELOT FLOT GLOT HCOOPER A V E V I C T O R I A N C O N D O A S S O C PARCEL # 2 7 3 7 1 8 2 3 2 8 0 2 1012 E C O O P E R A V E ASPEN, C O 8 1 6 1 1 STOVER R A Y M O N D J H J R & M A R Y L PARCEL # 2 7 3 7 1 8 2 3 2 0 0 4 1006 E C O O P E R A V E ASPEN, C O 8 1 6 1 1 MCDONA L D S C O T T PARCEL # 2 7 3 7 1 8 2 3 2 0 0 3 1000 E C O O P E R A V E ASPEN, C O 8 1 6 1 1 RIVERSID E C O N D O A S S O C PARCEL # 2 7 3 7 1 8 1 2 7 8 0 1 1024 E CO O P E R A V E ASPEN, C O 8 1 6 1 1 SILVER GL E N T O W N H O U S E S C O N D O A S S O C PARCEL # 2 7 3 7 1 8 1 1 2 8 0 0 E HYMAN A V E ASPEN, C O 8 1 6 1 1 VINCENTI C O N D O A S S O C PARCEL # 2 7 3 7 1 8 1 1 2 8 0 0 E HYMAN A V E ASPEN, C O 8 1 6 1 1 SUNRISE C O N D O A S S O C PARCEL # 2 7 3 7 1 8 2 3 2 8 0 1 1007 E H Y M A N A V E ASPEN, C O 8 1 6 1 1 COOPER T A C H E C H R I S T E N PARCEL # 2 7 3 7 1 8 2 3 2 0 0 1 1001 E H Y M A N A V E ASPEN, C O 8 1 6 1 1 RIGHT-OF-WAY (73.70') SUBJECT P R O P E R T Y PARCEL # 2 7 3 7 1 8 2 3 2 0 0 6 1020 E C O O P E R A V E ASPEN, C O 8 1 6 1 1 4,379 SQ. F T . ± O R 0 . 1 0 1 A C R E S ±S73° 21' 03"W 617.26' TIEFOUND #4 REBAR & YELLOW PLASTIC CAP PLS 25947 0.2' BELOW GRADE ELEV=7942.5 FOUND #5 REBAR & RED PLASTIC CAP PLS 33638 0.2' ABOVE GRADE ELEV=7946.3 FOUND #5 REBAR 0.3' BELOW GRADE FOUND #5 REBAR & YELLOW PLASTIC CAP PLS 19598 0.1' ABOVE GRADE FOUND #5 REBAR & YELLOW PLASTIC CAP PLS 2376 0.2' BELOW GRADE FOUND #5 REBAR & YELLOW PLASTIC CAP ILLEGIBLE 0.3' ABOVE GRADE FOUND 1" IRON PIPE FOUND #5 REBAR & YELLOW PLASTIC CAP ILLEGIBLE 0.1' BELOW GRADE FOUND #5 REBAR & YELLOW PLASTIC CAP ILLEGIBLE 0.3 ABOVE GRADE FOUND #5 REBAR 0.2' ABOVE GRADE FOUND #5 REBAR & YELLOW PLASTIC CAP PLS 19598 FLUSH WITH GRADE FOUND #4REBAR & RED PLASTIC CAP PLS 24303 0.1' BELOW GRADE SET #5 REBAR & ORANGE PLASTIC CAP PLS 28643 FLUSH WITH GRADE NEAREST INTERSECTION OFCOOPER AVE & CLEAVLAND ST(177.9')N15° 46' 0 3 " E 8 7 8 . 9 5 ' ASPEN G P S - 4 WEST EN D & HOPKINS ASPEN G P S - 1 WEST EN D & DURANT SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I, Mark S. Beckler, hereby certify to: 1020 Cooper LLC, a Colorado limited liability company and Land Title Guarantee Company That this is an "Improvement Survey Plat" as defined by C.R.S. § 38-51-102(9) and that it is a monumented Land Survey showing the location of all setbacks, structures, visible utilities, fences, or walls situated on the described parcel and within five feet of all boundaries of such parcel, any conflicting boundary evidence or visible encroachments, utilities marked by client and all depicted easements described in Land Title Guarantee Company's, commitment for title insurance file no. Q62010331.1, or other sources as specified on the improvement survey plat. The error of closure for this plat is less than 1/15,000. _____________________________________ Mark S. Beckler L.S. #28643 2020-08-07 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Easterly 13.79 feet of Lot O and all of Lot P, Block 34, East Aspen Addition to the City of Aspen According to the Lot Line Adjustment/Subdivision Exemption Plat of 1020 E. Copper, recorded October 8, 2019 as reception no. 659373. County of Pitkin State of Colorado NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON. SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC CIVIL CONSULTANTS 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3 CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 (970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM 8/7/2020 - 30111 - G:\2020\30111\SURVEY\Survey DWGs\Survey Plots and Exhibits\30111_ISP.dwg VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1" = 2000' GENERAL UTILITY NOTES: The locations of underground utilities have been plotted based on utility maps, construction/design plans, other information provided by utility companies and actual field locations in some instances. These utilities, as shown, may not represent actual field conditions. It is the responsibility of the contractor to contact all utility companies for field location of utilities prior to construction. IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT 1020 E COOPER AVE THE EASTERLY 13.79 FEET OF LOT 0 AND ALL OF LOT P, BLOCK 34, EAST ASPEN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN PITKIN COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO. SHEET 1 OF 2 SOURCE DOCUMENTS: ·the Improvement Survey Map certified June 4, 2019 prepared by Tuttle Surveying Services, Job #19053 (not of the Pitkin County, Colorado Records) ·the Plat of East Aspen Addition, recorded August 24, 1959 in Book 2 at Page 252 ·Lot Line Adjustment/Subdivision Exemption Plat, recorded October 8, 2019 as Reception No. 659373. ·Historic Preservation Resolution #21, Series of 2019, recorded December 26, 2019 as Reception No. 661468 ALL OF THE PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO RECORDS-UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. NOTES 1) Date of Survey: July 2020. 2) Date of Preparation: July - August 2020. 3) Linear Units: The linear unit used in the preparation of this plat is the U.S. Survey Foot as defined by the United States Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology. 4) Basis of Bearing: Bearings are based on the 2009 Marcin Engineering-City of Aspen Control Map, yielding a site bearing of N 74°18'31" W from the SE Corner of Lot L, Block 34, East Aspen Addition, a found #5 rebar and yellow plastic cap illegible, and the South East Corner of said BLock 34, a found #5 rebar and yellow plastic cap PLS 19598. 5) This survey does not constitute a title search by Sopris Engineering, LLC (SE) to determine ownership or easements of record. For all information regarding easements, rights of way and/or title of record, SE relied upon a title commitment prepared by Land Title Guarantee Company, Order Number Q62010331.1, Effective Date, July 2, 2020 and documents and plats of record as shown in the Source Documents, hereon. 6) Basis of elevation: The 1998 City of Aspen Drexel Barrel control datum, which is based on an elevation of 7720.88' (NAVD 1988) on the NGS station "S-159". This established two site benchmarks, shown on page 1. 7) The FIRM flood map for this property is number 08097C0366E, effective on 08/15/2019, property is in area of minimal flood hazard, zone X. 8) Slope - 0 - 10% per "Percent Slope within Aspen". City of Aspen - June 1, 2009 and per field work all natural slopes 0 - 10% this survey. 9) Geological Hazards - None per "Potential Geological Hazards Area". City of Aspen Master Drainage Plan. WRC Engineering Inc. - 2001 10) Mud Flow None per "Maximum Flow Depth, 100-Year Event". City of Aspen Master Drainage Plan. WRC Engineering Inc. - 2001 nor per "Aspen Mountain Mud Flow Zones". City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan Fig. 7.1 - 2010 11) Wetlands - None per "U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Map" 12) Contour Interval: One (1) foot. 13) Tree measurements were performed to City of Aspen standards (Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 13 Sec. 13.20.020). 14) Address: 1020 E COOPER AVE 15) Pitkin County Parcel No.--273-718-23-2006 SITE 1 inch = ft. ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE 020 20 40 20 8010 Page 92 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 14000460000369 XGAS XG A S X G A S XGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUT XUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XU T XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXEL XEL XEL XEL XELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x x x x x x x xXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGAS XGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGAS5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 5'STBK 10'STBK10'STBK10'STBK10'STBK10'STBK10'STBK10'STBK15'STBK15'STBK15'STBK15'STBK15'STBK15'STBK15'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK10'STBK10'STBK10'STBK10'STBK10'STBK10'STBK10'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBK5'STBKXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAEAST COOPER AVENUEALLEY (20.20')LOT OLOT ELOT FLOT GRIGHT-OF-W A Y (73.70') 10' SETBACK 10' SETBACK 5' SETBACK 5' SETBACK RAISED WOODEN PLANTER RAISED WOODEN PLANTER GATE EX:7944.5'±EX:7944.5'±EX:7944.6'±EX:7944.5 '±EX:7944 .5 '±EX:7944.5 '±EX:7944.5 '±EX:7944.0 '±EX:7944.2 '±EX:7944.1'±EX:7943.9 '±EX:7943.9 '±EX:7944.1 '±EX:7944.0 '±EX:7944.1 '±EX:7943.6 '±EX:7943.3 '±EX:7942.9 '±EX:7942.8 '±EX:7942.9 '±EX:7942 .9 '±EX:7942.9 '± EX:7942.9'±EX:7943.0 '±EX:7942.9 '±EX:7943 .0 '±EX:7942.9 '±EX:7942.9'±EX:7943.5 '±EX:7943 .5 '±EX:7943.4 '±EX:7943.4 '±EX:7943.0 '± EX:7943.1'±EX:7943.0 '±EX:7943.0 '±794579457944 7943 7944 7943 7943 7943 794379437943 7943 7943 79 4 4 7944 79457945794412.2'5.0'17.5'35.0'29.7'40.0' 7.3'29.7'7.5'14.1'10.3'14.1'10.3'20.2'12.1'20.1'12.1' MAILBOX CONCRETE CONCRETE SIDEWALKCONCRETE GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL CONCRETE P O R C H WITH ROOF O V E R H A N G ASPHALTTOP BACK OF CURB FLOWLINE OF CURB CURB STOP CABLE BOX BUSH BUSH BUSH BUSH 4 TREES DECIDUOUS 2.8"X6' TREE DECIDUOUS 1.5"X3' TREE CONIFEROU S 14.1"X28' FINISHED FLOOR 7944.8'± FINISHED FLOOR 7943.3'± FINISHED FLOOR 7943.2'± FINISHED FLOOR 7944.8'± BALLARD CONCRETE PAD TRANSFORMER & PAD GAS METER TELEPHONE PEDESTAL TELEPHONE CONNECTION ELECTRIC METER TELEPHONE PEDESTAL ROCK RETAINING WALL ROCK RETAINING WALL LOG DECORATIVE BORDER 4' WIRE FENCE 2.5' WOOD FENCE4' WOOD FENCE 3' WOOD FENCE2.5' METAL FENCE1 STORY SIN G L E F A M I L Y WOOD FRAM E STRUCTURE 1020 E COO P E R A V E , ASPEN, CO 8 1 6 1 1 CONCRETE PORCH WITH ROOF OVERHANG SHED SHED RAIL ROAD TIE RETAINING WALL EX:7945.3 '±EX:7944.8 '±EX:7944.5 '±EX:7944.5 '±EX:7944 .3 '±EX:7944.3 '±EX:7944.1 '±EX:7944 .0 '±EX:7944.3 '±EX:7944.5 '±EX:7944.7 '±EX:7944.8 '±EX:7944 .8 '±EX:7944.9 '±S74° 18' 31"E 43.79'S15° 41' 29"W 100.00'N74° 18' 31"W 43.79'N15° 41' 29"E 100.00' TREE CONIFEROU S 10.8"X21'N74° 18' 31"W 239.94'(BASIS OF BEARING)2.2' 4.4' 3.7' 0.9' 2.4' 22.7'EX:7945.0 '±EX:7944.7 '±EX:7944.3 '±EX:7944 .3 '±EX:7943.8'±EX:7942.7 '±EX:7944.0 '±EX:7942.5'± EX:7942.7'±EX:7942.5 '±EX:7942.8'±EX:7943.0 '±EX:7943.3'±EX:7943.3'±EX:7943 .3 '±EX:7943.4'±EX:7943.1 '±EX:7943.2 '±EX:7943 .0 '±EX:7943.1 '±EX:7943 .0 '±EX:7942 .8 '±EX:7944.1 '±PRINCIPLE BUILDING SETBACKACCESSORY BUILDING SETBACK15' SETBACK PRINCIPLE BUILDING SETBACKACCESSORY BUILDING SETBACK5' SETBACK METAL STAIRS FREE STANDING TRANSFORMER & PAD 2.09' 8' 2' 2'X8' ELECTRIC EASEMENT (BOOK 126 PAGE 7) 8' 3.5' 3.5'X8' ELECTRIC EASEMENT (BOOK 126 PAGE 7)XSATEE XSASAN SEWER RIM = 7944.47 IN EAST 4" PVC = 7939.37 OUT WEST 4" PVC = 7938.45 SAN SEWER RIM = 7938.68 IN EAST 8" PVC = 7931.98 OUT WEST 8" PVC = 7931.99 NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON. SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC CIVIL CONSULTANTS 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3 CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 (970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM 8/7/2020 - 30111 - G:\2020\30111\SURVEY\Survey DWGs\Survey Plots and Exhibits\30111_ISP.dwg GENERAL UTILITY NOTES: The locations of underground utilities have been plotted based on utility maps, construction/design plans, other information provided by utility companies and actual field locations in some instances. These utilities, as shown, may not represent actual field conditions. It is the responsibility of the contractor to contact all utility companies for field location of utilities prior to construction. IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT THE EASTERLY 13.79 FEET OF LOT 0 AND ALL OF LOT P, BLOCK 34, EAST ASPEN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN PITKIN COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO. SHEET 2 OF 2 1 inch = ft. ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE 04 4 8 4 162 EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE EXISTING CURB STOP EXISTING GAS METER EXISTING ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER EXISTING ELECTRIC METER EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL EXISTING STORM SEWERXSDXSD EXISTING 8" WATER MAINXWLXWL EXISTING 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN EXISTING GAS EXISTING TELEPHONE XGAS XGAS XGAS EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC EXISTING CABLE XUT XUT XUT XEL XEL XEL XTV XTV XTV XSA XSA EXISTING LEGEND 1020 E COOPER AVE 52.0' 303.7' Page 93 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 14100461000370 Neighborhood Context 1 - 1000 East Cooper, single family home, AspenVictorian 2 - 1006 East Cooper, single family home, AspenVictorian 3 - 1012 East Cooper, 5 unit multifamily building “Cooper Ave Victorians” 4 - 1024 East Cooper, 10 unit multifamily building “Riverside Condos” 5 - 1034 East Cooper, ~25 unit multifamily building “Chateau Eau Claire” 6 - 1039 East Cooper, ~47 unit multifamily building “Chateau Roaring Fork” 7 - 1001 East Cooper, 8 unit multifamily building “Villager Townhouse” 8 - 949 East Cooper, 5 unit property “East Cooper Court”, AspenVictorian 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 44 5 6 78 6 Proposed 1020 East Cooper Project Page 94 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 142 exhibit 17 00462000371 Exhibit 18 DRC Review Comment Response January 4, 2021 1020 East Cooper Project Exhibit 18 Response to DRC Review Comments Building Department Comment 1: Will be addressed at building permit. Comment 2: The egress well has been removed from the revised plan. Comment 3: Will be addressed at building permit. Comment 4: Unit 103 has been redesigned to be Type B accessible unit. Comment 5: The clear dimensions of the column work with the door/ramp access of a typical minivan. Comment 6: Trash is on accessible route as confirmed by Building Department. Clearances will be included in building permit. Comments 7 – 14: Will be addressed at building permit. Engineering Department I reviewed the conceptual drainage report Jesse sent over last week and it addresses all of my comments for DRC. I spoke to the Electric Department and it is acceptable to have the 2’x8’ easement in the proposed parking space since it is to the side and not in front of the doors. A few things to note for building permit submittal 1. Fire flow calcs will be required if a 4” service line is needed. Calcs that show a 2” service line fails will also need to be provided. 2. The conceptual drainage report calls out that the alley will be re-designed to accommodate flows to the curb and gutter, this design will need to be included with capacity calculations. 3. The transformer to the east has an existing easement that according to the conceptual drainage report, is adequately sized for a future relocation. Show the dimensions of the easement (on 1020 E Cooper and the neighboring property) on the utility plan to confirm the easement meets COA Electric standards for transformer easements. If the dimensions do not comply with COA standards, the easement will need to be adjusted during building permit review. Response – these items will be included in the building permit application. An electric easement drawing demonstrating the proposed location for the upgraded vault/transformer was submitted to the City of Aspen Engineering Department on December 21, 2020 for review. Environmental Health Department 1020 E. Cooper Ave. – Space Allotment for Trash and Recycling Storage Liz Chapman – Environmental Health and Sustainability 1. This space is subject to the requirements of a multi-family complex and is required to provide 120 square feet of space to the storage of trash and recycling. The current application exceeds these standards by providing 124 SF. a. Applicant indicates alley access will be facilitated by the use of the handicap parking access to provide an unobstructed path to the trash area. Page 95 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 14300463000372 Exhibit 18 DRC Review Comment Response January 4, 2021 1020 East Cooper Project b. Applicant has indicated this space will be equipped with bear-proof technology to prevent wildlife access. 2. These proposals meet with approval by Environmental Health. Response: No comment necessary. Parks Department 1. Maintain 10 foot dripline protection for shared tree – Any activity or excavation in this area will require City Forester approval. 2. Planting trees back on this property should be explored and supported. Response: The dripline will be maintained as noted. A complete landscape plan will be submitted as part of the Final Design application for HPC review. Planting trees at the rear of the property will be explored when the landscape plan is developed. Page 96 of 96 Exhibit B- Application 14400464000373 DRAWING ISSUE DRAWN BY: PROJECT No:1907 CPF HPC APPLICATION 1/28/2021 BIMcloud: BIMServer - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 24/1020 Cooper_ Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:37 AM | ASPEN CO1020 E. COOPER PROJECT119 South Spring St. | Suite 203 Aspen, CO 81611 T 970-925-3444 www.djarchitects.com Z1.01 FAR PROPOSED All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are owned by and are the property of David Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use and in conjunction with the specified project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose whatsoever without the written authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC. Sheet No. 30.01 sq ft 30.01 sq ft 25.51 sq ft 9'-6"9'-6" 8'-6" 10'-0"9'-6"8'-6" 10'-0"10'-0"202.01 sq ft 253.10 sq ft 202.01 sq ft 85.02 sq ft 199.91 sq ft 170.72 sq ft 199.91 sq ft 295.27 sq ft 65.09 sq ft 39.67 sq ft 84.91 sq ft 170.60 sq ft 1968.21 SF TOTAL BELOW GRADE WALL AREA -85.53 SF TOTAL EXPOSED BELOW GRADE WALL AREA 1882.68 SF TOTAL BURIED BELOW GRADE WALL AREA 95.7% BURIED 4.3% EXPOSEDCRAWLSPACE/MECH.CRAWLSPACE/MECH./WATERCRAWLSPACE/MECH.EGRESS 49.17 sq ft 2 BED AH UNIT #103 527.06 sq ft 2 BED AH UNIT #102 551.75 sq ft 2 BED AH UNIT #101 542.70 sq ft STORAGE 36.52 sq ft STORAGE 36.52 sq ft MECHANICAL 90.95 sq ft DECK 41.82 sq ft 3'-101/4"3'-11/2"CAR PORT 506.59 sq ft STORAGE 10.93 sq ft DECK 122.13 sq ft UP 3 BED AH UNIT #102 572.12 sq ft 2 BED AH UNIT #101 558.18 sq ft 2 BED AH UNIT #103 545.79 sq ft TRASH AREA 124.72 sq ft SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"-1 LOWER LEVEL AREA PLAN PROPOSED 0 4'8'12' SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL AREA PLAN PROPOSED 0 4'8'12' Exhibit B- Application 14500465000374 DRAWING ISSUE DRAWN BY: PROJECT No:1907 CPF HPC APPLICATION 1/28/2021 BIMcloud: BIMServer - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 24/1020 Cooper_ Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:37 AM | ASPEN CO1020 E. COOPER PROJECT119 South Spring St. | Suite 203 Aspen, CO 81611 T 970-925-3444 www.djarchitects.com Z1.02 FAR PROPOSED All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are owned by and are the property of David Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use and in conjunction with the specified project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose whatsoever without the written authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC. Sheet No. 3 BED AH UNIT #201 1,086.19 sq ft DECK 170.44 sq ft UNIT #101 STORAGE 113.75 sq ft UNIT #102 BEDROOM 204.47 sq ft 2 BED AH UNIT #301 826.25 sq ft DECK 212.37 sq ft CA:0.21 sq ft DECK 69.45 sq ft CA:0.07 sq ft LEVEL USE TOTAL AREA FLOOR AREA 2 BED AH UNIT #101 542.7 0 2 BED AH UNIT #102 551.75 0 2 BED AH UNIT #103 527.06 0 EGRESS 49.17 0 MECHANICAL 90.95 0 STORAGE 73.04 0 TOTAL (4.3% exposed)1834.67 78.89 2 BED AH UNIT #101 558.18 558.18 2 BED AH UNIT #102 572.12 572.12 2 BED AH UNIT #103 545.79 545.79 STORAGE 10.93 10.93 3 BED AH UNIT #201 1086.19 1086.19 3 BED AH UNIT #301 826.25 826.25 DECK 12.53 0 DECK 41.82 0 DECK 122.13 0 DECK 170.44 0 DECK 281.82 0 TOTAL DECKS (821.06sf exempt)628.74 0 CAR PORT 506.59 0 6,798.31 sq ft 3678.35 DECKS CARPORT F.A.R. SCHEDULE LOWER LEVEL MAIN LEVEL SECOND LEVEL THIRD LEVEL SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"2 SECOND LEVEL AREA PLAN PROPOSED 0 4'8'12'SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"3 THIRD LEVEL AREA PLAN PROPOSED 0 4'8'12' Exhibit B- Application 14600466000375 DRAWING ISSUE DRAWN BY: PROJECT No:1907 CPF HPC APPLICATION 1/28/2021 BIMcloud: BIMServer - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 24/1020 Cooper_ Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:37 AM | ASPEN CO1020 E. COOPER PROJECT119 South Spring St. | Suite 203 Aspen, CO 81611 T 970-925-3444 www.djarchitects.com Z1.03 NLA PROPOSED All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are owned by and are the property of David Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use and in conjunction with the specified project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose whatsoever without the written authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC. Sheet No.CRAWLSPACE/MECH.CRAWLSPACE/MECH./WATERCRAWLSPACESTORAGE #301 27.95 sq ft STORAGE #201 27.95 sq ft 2 BED AH UNIT #102 482.85 sq ft 2 BED AH UNIT #101 462.52 sq ft 2 BED AH UNIT #103 436.51 sq ft DWDWRG RG RGSTORAGE #103 6.07 sq ft REF REF REF DW UP 3 BED AH UNIT #102 477.60 sq ft 2 BED AH UNIT #101 450.47 sq ft 2 BED AH UNIT #103 449.70 sq ft SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"-1 LOWER LEVEL NLA PLAN PROPOSED 0 4'8'12'SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL NLA PLAN PROPOSED 0 4'8'12' Exhibit B- Application 14700467000376 DRAWING ISSUE DRAWN BY: PROJECT No:1907 CPF HPC APPLICATION 1/28/2021 BIMcloud: BIMServer - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 24/1020 Cooper_ Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:37 AM | ASPEN CO1020 E. COOPER PROJECT119 South Spring St. | Suite 203 Aspen, CO 81611 T 970-925-3444 www.djarchitects.com Z1.04 NLA PROPOSED All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are owned by and are the property of David Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use and in conjunction with the specified project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose whatsoever without the written authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC. Sheet No. DW RGREF 3 BED AH UNIT #201 1,011.79 sq ft UNIT #101 STORAGE 104.27 sq ft UNIT #102 BEDROOM 182.89 sq ftDWRG REF 2 BED AH UNIT #301 789.52 sq ft NET LIVABLE SCHEDULE FLOOR LOWER LEVEL MAIN LEVEL SECOND LEVEL THIRD LEVEL 2 BED AH UNIT #101 2 BED AH UNIT #102 2 BED AH UNIT #103 STORAGE #201 STORAGE #301 2 BED AH UNIT #101 2 BED AH UNIT #103 3 BED AH UNIT #102 STORAGE #103 3 BED AH UNIT #201 UNIT #101 STORAGE UNIT #102 BEDROOM 2 BED AH UNIT #301 AREA 462.52 482.85 436.51 27.95 27.95 450.47 449.70 477.60 6.07 1,011.79 104.27 182.89 789.52 4,910.09 sq ft SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"2 SECOND LEVEL NLA PLAN PROPOSED 0 4'8'12'SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"3 THIRD LEVEL NLA PLAN PROPOSED 0 4'8'12' Exhibit B- Application 14800468000377 DRAWING ISSUE DRAWN BY: PROJECT No:1907 CPF HPC APPLICATION 1/28/2021 BIMcloud: BIMServer - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 24/1020 Cooper_ Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:37 AM | ASPEN CO1020 E. COOPER PROJECT119 South Spring St. | Suite 203 Aspen, CO 81611 T 970-925-3444 www.djarchitects.com A1.01 SITE PLAN | EXISTING | 3/16" All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are owned by and are the property of David Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use and in conjunction with the specified project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose whatsoever without the written authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC. Sheet No.10'-0"SETBACK2'-51/16"2'-07/8"3'-9"3'-73/16"EXISTINGTRANSFORMER METAL STAIRS RAIL ROAD TIE RETAINING WALL 4 DECIDUOUS TREES 2.8" X 6' DECIDUOUS TREE 1.5"X3' TOP BACK OF CURB FLOWLINE OF CURB ROCK RET.WALLROCK RET.WALL2.5' WOODFENCE FOUND #5 REBAR .3' BELOW GRADE FIN. FLR.7944.8'+/- FIN. FLR. 7944.8'+/- FOUND #5 REBAR & RED PLASTIC CAP PLS 336380.2' ABOVE GRADEELEV=7946.3 SET #5 REBAR & ORANGE PLASTIC CAP PLS 28643FLUSH WITH GRADE TELEPHONE PEDSTAL ELECTRICMETER FOUND #4 REBAR & YELLOW PLASTIC CAP PLS 259470.2' BELOW GRADEELEV=7942.5 TELEPHONECONNECTION 3.5'X8' ELECTRIC EASEMENT(BOOK 126 PAGE 7) GATE MAILBOX TELEPHONEPEDESTAL A L L E Y (20' WIDTH) EAST COOPER AVENUE LOT O LOT P LOT Q CONCRETECONCRETE SIDEWALKCONCRETECONCRETE PORCHW/ ROOF OVERHANG ASPHALT CABLEBOX BUSH BUSH BUSH BUSHLOG DECORATIVE BORDER4' WIRE FENCE4' WOOD FENCE3' WOOD FENCE 2.5' METAL FENCE 1 STORY SINGLE FAMILYWOOD FRAME STRUCTURE1020 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611 SHED(TO BE DEMOLISHED) FIN. FLR.7943.3'± FINISHED FLOOR 7943.2'± CONCRETEPAD CONIFEROUSTREE14.1" X 28'(TO BE REMOVED) COOPER AVE. VICTORIANCONDO ASSOC.PARCEL #2737182328021012 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611 RIVERSIDECONDO ASSOC.PARCEL #2737181278011024 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611 CONCRETE PORCHW/ ROOF OVERHANG RAISEDWOODENPLANTER RAISEDWOODENPLANTER 7943 7944 7943 7945 7945 SHED(TO BE DEMOLISHED)PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE HOUSE TO BE RELOCATED(SEE A1.02) EXISTINGTRANSFORMER 4,379 SQ.FT.± OR 0.101 ACRES± SUBJECT PROPERTYPARCEL #2737182320061020 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611 8'-0"2'-23/8"2'-0"8'-0"3.5'X8' ELECTRIC EASEMENT (BOOK 126 PAGE 7) 2'X8' ELECTRIC EASEMENT (BOOK 126 PAGE 7) SETBACK SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 SITE PLAN | EXISTING | 3/16" 0 4'8'12' N Exhibit B- Application 14900469000378 DRAWING ISSUE DRAWN BY: PROJECT No:1907 CPF HPC APPLICATION 1/28/2021 BIMcloud: BIMServer - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 24/1020 Cooper_ Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:37 AM | ASPEN CO1020 E. COOPER PROJECT119 South Spring St. | Suite 203 Aspen, CO 81611 T 970-925-3444 www.djarchitects.com A1.02 SITE PLAN | PROPOSED | 3/16" All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are owned by and are the property of David Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use and in conjunction with the specified project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose whatsoever without the written authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC. Sheet No.5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"1'-6"5'-01/2"3'-0"19'-0"ENTRY PORCH ENTRY PORCH EGRESS EGRESS EGRESS BIKES HISTORIC STRUCTURE/ ADDITION FOOTPRINT PROPOSED NEW APARTMENT FOOTPRINT PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE FOOTPRINT STORAGE CL. PLANTING BED PLANTING BEDPLANTING BED PLANTING BED EXISTINGTRANSFORMER LAWN TOP BACK OF CURB FLOWLINE OF CURB FOUND #5 REBAR .3' BELOW GRADE FOUND #5 REBAR & RED PLASTIC CAP PLS 336380.2' ABOVE GRADEELEV=7946.3 SET #5 REBAR & ORANGE PLASTIC CAP PLS 28643FLUSH WITH GRADEFOUND #4 REBAR & YELLOW PLASTIC CAP PLS 259470.2' BELOW GRADEELEV=7942.5 3.5'X8' ELECTRIC EASEMENT(BOOK 126 PAGE 7) NEW FENCEGATENEW FENCEGATE NEW WOOD FENCE CRAWL ACCESS DN UPPLANTING BEDDN UTILITY METERS LAWN LAWN PLANTING BEDPLANTING BED LILAC BUSHES LILAC BUSHES PLANTINGBED PLANTING BEDPROPERTY LINEA L L E Y (20' WIDTH) SETBACKSETBACK SETBACKE A S T C O O P E R A V E . EAST COOPER AVENUE CONCRETE SIDEWALK ASPHALT 2.5' METAL FENCE CONIFEROUSTREE10.8" X 21' COOPER AVE. VICTORIANCONDO ASSOC.PARCEL #2737182328021012 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611 RIVERSIDECONDO ASSOC.PARCEL #2737181278011024 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 4,379 SQ.FT.± OR 0.101 ACRES± SUBJECT PROPERTYPARCEL #2737182320061020 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611 UP 5'-0"10'-0"ENTRY PORCH BBQ NEW TRANSFORMER 3.5'X8' ELECTRIC EASEMENT (BOOK 126 PAGE 7) 2'X8' ELECTRIC EASEMENT (BOOK 126 PAGE 7) NEW BOLLARDS NEW BOLLARDS SETBACK SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 SITE PLAN | PROPOSED | 1/4" 0 4'8'12' SITE 7945.78' = ARCH 100'-0"N Exhibit B- Application 15000470000379 DRAWING ISSUE DRAWN BY: PROJECT No:1907 CPF HPC APPLICATION 1/28/2021 BIMcloud: BIMServer - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 24/1020 Cooper_ Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:37 AM | ASPEN CO1020 E. COOPER PROJECT119 South Spring St. | Suite 203 Aspen, CO 81611 T 970-925-3444 www.djarchitects.com A1.03 SITE PLAN | TIA | 3/16" All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are owned by and are the property of David Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use and in conjunction with the specified project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose whatsoever without the written authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC. Sheet No.5'-01/2"35'-01/8"29'-61/4" 29'-61/4"40'-05/8"10'-0"19'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"2'-2"4'-103/4"EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN-10' DRIPLINE BIKE AREA ACCESS POINT PROPERTY LINESETBACKSETBACK SETBACKPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 3 0 ' CROW F LI E S DISTAN C E 40' WALKING DISTANCE DRW UP 9'-0"8'-1115/16"9'-01/16"8'-0"8'-11/2"67/16" 5'-0"SETBACK SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 TIA SITE PLAN 0 4'8'12' N Exhibit B- Application 15100471000380 DRAWING ISSUE DRAWN BY: PROJECT No:1907 CPF HPC APPLICATION 1/28/2021 BIMcloud: BIMServer - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 24/1020 Cooper_ Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:37 AM | ASPEN CO1020 E. COOPER PROJECT119 South Spring St. | Suite 203 Aspen, CO 81611 T 970-925-3444 www.djarchitects.com A1.04 SITE PLAN | LANSCAPE PROPOSED | 3/16" All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are owned by and are the property of David Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use and in conjunction with the specified project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose whatsoever without the written authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC. Sheet No.10'-0"SETBACK5'-0"SETBACK5'-0"SETBACK 5'-0"SETBACK5'-0"3'-0" 3'-0"2'-07/8"3'-9"3'-73/16"7943'-33/8" 7944'-0" 7945'-93/8" ENTRY PORCH ENTRY PORCH EGRESS EGRESS EGRESS BIKES HISTORIC STRUCTURE/ ADDITION FOOTPRINT PROPOSED NEW APARTMENT FOOTPRINT PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE FOOTPRINT STORAGE CL. PLANTING BED PLANTING BEDPLANTING BED PLANTING BED EXISTINGTRANSFORMER LAWN TOP BACK OF CURB FLOWLINE OF CURB FOUND #5 REBAR .3' BELOW GRADE FOUND #5 REBAR & RED PLASTIC CAP PLS 336380.2' ABOVE GRADEELEV=7946.3 SET #5 REBAR & ORANGE PLASTIC CAP PLS 28643FLUSH WITH GRADEFOUND #4 REBAR & YELLOW PLASTIC CAP PLS 259470.2' BELOW GRADEELEV=7942.5 3.5'X8' ELECTRIC EASEMENT(BOOK 126 PAGE 7) NEW FENCEGATENEW FENCEGATE NEW WOOD FENCE CRAWL ACCESS DN UPPLANTING BEDDN UTILITY METERS LAWN LAWN PLANTING BEDPLANTING BED LILAC BUSHES LILAC BUSHES PLANTINGBED PLANTING BEDPROPERTY LINESETBACKSETBACK SETBACKE A S T C O O P E R A V E . EAST COOPER AVENUE CONCRETE SIDEWALK ASPHALT 2.5' METAL FENCE CONIFEROUSTREE10.8" X 21' COOPER AVE. VICTORIANCONDO ASSOC.PARCEL #2737182328021012 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611 RIVERSIDECONDO ASSOC.PARCEL #2737181278011024 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 4,379 SQ.FT.± OR 0.101 ACRES± SUBJECT PROPERTYPARCEL #2737182320061020 E. COOPER AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611 UP 9'-0"9'-0"9'-0"8'-0"8'-0"115/16"6"10'-0"19'-0"5'-0"5'-0" 5'-0"8'-0"2'-23/8"2'-0"8'-0"6"4'-6"3'-0"5'-0"3'-0"3'-0"5'-0"3'-0" 5'-0" ENTRY PORCH BBQ NEW TRANSFORMER 3.5'X8' ELECTRIC EASEMENT (BOOK 126 PAGE 7) 2'X8' ELECTRIC EASEMENT (BOOK 126 PAGE 7) NEW BOLLARDS SETBACK SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 LANDSCAPE PLAN | PROPOSED | 3/16" 0 4'8'12' N Exhibit B- Application 15200472000381 DRAWING ISSUE DRAWN BY: PROJECT No:1907 CPF HPC APPLICATION 1/28/2021 BIMcloud: BIMServer - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 24/1020 Cooper_ Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:37 AM | ASPEN CO1020 E. COOPER PROJECT119 South Spring St. | Suite 203 Aspen, CO 81611 T 970-925-3444 www.djarchitects.com A1.06 EXISTING MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN | DEMOLITION All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are owned by and are the property of David Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use and in conjunction with the specified project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose whatsoever without the written authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC. Sheet No.5'-01/2"35'-0"29'-61/4" 29'-61/4"40'-03/4"4A2.01 EXTERIOR WALL TO BE REMOVED WALLS TO BE REMOVED REAR PORCH TO BE REMOVED 1A2.01 1A2.022A2.02 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL DEMOLITION 0 4'8'12'SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"2 ROOF EXISTING PLAN 0 4'8'12' Exhibit B- Application 15300473000382 DRAWING ISSUE DRAWN BY: PROJECT No:1907 CPF HPC APPLICATION 1/28/2021 BIMcloud: BIMServer - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 24/1020 Cooper_ Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:37 AM | ASPEN CO1020 E. COOPER PROJECT119 South Spring St. | Suite 203 Aspen, CO 81611 T 970-925-3444 www.djarchitects.com A1.08 LOWER/MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN | PROPOSED All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are owned by and are the property of David Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use and in conjunction with the specified project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose whatsoever without the written authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC. Sheet No.WW3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN-10' DRIPLINE SEWER EJECTOR DRYWELL CRAWLSPACE/MECH.CRAWLSPACE/MECH./WATERCRAWLSPACE2A2.02 4A2.01 DRDRLAUNDRY CL. CL. BEDROOM BEDROOM BATHBATH BEDROOM BATH CL. BEDROOM BEDROOM BATH BATH CL. CL.LAUNDRY CL. EGRESS WELL EGRESS WELL MECHANICAL UNIT #201 STORAGE UNIT #301 STORAGE EGRESS WELL STORAGE UP UP 1A2.01 1A2.02 2A2.01 3A2.01 DWDWRG RG RG5'-01/2"35'-0"29'-61/4" 29'-61/4"40'-03/4"10'-0"19'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"2A2.02 4A2.01 EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN-10' DRIPLINE PROPERTY LINESETBACKSETBACK SETBACKPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE STORAGE CLS. 103 DR REF REF REF DW W UP 9'-0"9'-0"9'-0"8'-0"8'-11/2"61/2" 5'-0" 1A2.01 1A2.02 2A2.01 3A2.01 SETBACK LIVING KITCHEN BATH CL. KITCHEN DININGPOWDER KITCHEN DINING POWDER LIVING LIVING CL. CL. ENTRY PORCH ENTRY PORCH STORAGE CL.BEDROOM CL. DINING LAUNDRY UP DN DN DN TRASH AREA 104 STAIR 105 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"-1 LOWER LEVEL PROPOSED 0 4'8'12'SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL PROPOSED 0 4'8'12' Exhibit B- Application 15400474000383 DRAWING ISSUE DRAWN BY: PROJECT No:1907 CPF HPC APPLICATION 1/28/2021 BIMcloud: BIMServer - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 24/1020 Cooper_ Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:37 AM | ASPEN CO1020 E. COOPER PROJECT119 South Spring St. | Suite 203 Aspen, CO 81611 T 970-925-3444 www.djarchitects.com A1.09 SECOND/THIRD LEVEL FLOOR PLAN | PROPOSED All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are owned by and are the property of David Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use and in conjunction with the specified project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose whatsoever without the written authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC. Sheet No. DW RG2A2.02 4A2.015'-0"5'-0"5'-0"PROPERTY LINESETBACKSETBACK SETBACKPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE STAIR 200 DRW REF 1A2.01 1A2.02 2A2.01 3A2.01 5'-0" SETBACK LAUNDRY BEDROOM BATHCL. CL. CL. BEDROOM KITCHEN LIVING DINING CL. BEDROOM BATH BATH DN OPEN TO BELOW CL. BEDROOM STORAGE LOFT DWRG 2A2.02 4A2.015'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"PROPERTY LINESETBACKSETBACK SETBACKPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE DRW REF 1A2.01 1A2.02 2A2.01 3A2.01 5'-0" SETBACK LAUNDRY BEDROOM CL. KITCHEN LIVING DINING BATH CL. BEDROOM CL. POWDER DECK DECK SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"2 SECOND LEVEL PROPOSED 0 4'8'12'SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"3 THIRD LEVEL PROPOSED 0 4'8'12' Exhibit B- Application 15500475000384 DRAWING ISSUE DRAWN BY: PROJECT No:1907 CPF HPC APPLICATION 1/28/2021 BIMcloud: BIMServer - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 24/1020 Cooper_ Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:37 AM | ASPEN CO1020 E. COOPER PROJECT119 South Spring St. | Suite 203 Aspen, CO 81611 T 970-925-3444 www.djarchitects.com A1.10 ROOF PLAN All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are owned by and are the property of David Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use and in conjunction with the specified project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose whatsoever without the written authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC. Sheet No. 2A2.02 4A2.01 SNOW FENCE STANDING SEAM STANDING SEAM STANDING SEAM ASPHALT SHINGLE SNOW FENCE 1A2.01 1A2.02 2A2.01 3A2.01 CEDAR SHINGLE ROOF TO BE REPLACED AS REQ. STANDING SEAM 10 : 1210 : 1210 : 1210 : 12 3 : 12 3 : 123 : 123 : 12 EXISTING ROOF BELOW 10 : 12 NEW SHED DORMER NEW SHED ROOF SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 ROOF PLAN 0 4'8'12' Exhibit B- Application 15600476000385 DRAWING ISSUE DRAWN BY: PROJECT No:1907 CPF HPC APPLICATION 1/28/2021 BIMcloud: BIMServer - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 24/1020 Cooper_ Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:38 AM | ASPEN CO1020 E. COOPER PROJECT119 South Spring St. | Suite 203 Aspen, CO 81611 T 970-925-3444 www.djarchitects.com A2.01 ELEVATIONS All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are owned by and are the property of David Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use and in conjunction with the specified project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose whatsoever without the written authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC. Sheet No. MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" SECOND LEVEL 108'-0" THIRD LEVEL 118'-6"20'-93/4"3'-03/4"22'-03/4"ASPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN METAL STANDING SEAM SNOW FENCE SHUTTER SYSTEM GALV. GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT RECLAIMED SIDING W/ 3X BATTONS GALV. W FLANGE BEAM GALV. W FLANGE COLUMN GALV. METAL SIDING NEW BOLLARDS NEW TRANSFORMER 6' FENCE- TRASH AREA UTILITIES/ METERS MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" SECOND LEVEL 108'-0" THIRD LEVEL 118'-6"15'-63/4"SEE ELEVATION 3/A2.01 METAL ROOFING- STANDING SEAM NEW PROFILED WOOD COLUMNS NEW WOOD PICKET FENCE FRONT YARD ONLY WOOD SOFFIT BOARDS @ PORCH COMPOSITE SHAKE ROOFING WOOD FASCIA BOARD COLOR PENDING APPROVED MOCK-UP BY HPC. EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN RESHINGLE WITH COMPOSITE SHAKE ROOF EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN REROOF WITH METAL-STANDING SEAM EXISTING NON-HISTORIC WINDOWS AND DOORS TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE RECLAD IN ORIGINAL 6" HORIZONTAL CEDAR LAP SIDING MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" SECOND LEVEL 108'-0" SECOND LEVEL 108'-0" THIRD LEVEL 118'-6" THIRD LEVEL 118'-6"27'-6"27'-4"SNOW FENCE STANDING SEAM SNOW FENCE ASHPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN GALV. GUARDRAIL GALV. GUTTERS & DOWNSPOUTS GALV. METAL SIDNG RECLAIMED SIDING W/ 3X BATTONS GALV. W FLANGE BEAM 6' FENCE- TRASH AREA GALV. W FLANGE COLUMN BBQ BIKE RACK MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" SECOND LEVEL 108'-0" SECOND LEVEL 108'-0" THIRD LEVEL 118'-6" THIRD LEVEL 118'-6" METAL ROOFING- STANDING SEAM COMPOSITE SHAKE ROOFING WOOD FASCIA BOARD COLOR PENDING APPROVED MOCK-UP BY HPC. NEW SHED DORMER ROOF WITH METAL-STANDING SEAM NEW WINDOWS EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE RECLAD IN ORIGINAL 6" HORIZONTAL CEDAR LAP SIDING SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 NORTH ELEVATION 0 2'4'8' SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 SOUTH ELEVATION 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3 AUX. SOUTH ELEVATION 0 2'4'8' SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"4 AUX. NORTH ELEVATION 0 2'4'8' Exhibit B- Application 15700477000386 DRAWING ISSUE DRAWN BY: PROJECT No:1907 CPF HPC APPLICATION 1/28/2021 BIMcloud: BIMServer - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 24/1020 Cooper_ Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:39 AM | ASPEN CO1020 E. COOPER PROJECT119 South Spring St. | Suite 203 Aspen, CO 81611 T 970-925-3444 www.djarchitects.com A2.02 ELEVATIONS All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are owned by and are the property of David Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use and in conjunction with the specified project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose whatsoever without the written authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC. Sheet No. MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" SECOND LEVEL 108'-0" SECOND LEVEL 108'-0" THIRD LEVEL 118'-6" THIRD LEVEL 118'-6"26'-81/2"16'-11/2"29'-81/2"STANDING SEAM NEW PROFILED WOOD COLUMNS WOOD BOARD SIDING. COLOR PENDING APPROVED MOCK-UP BY HPC. COMPOSITE SHAKE ROOFING WOOD FASCIA BOARD COLOR PENDING APPROVED MOCK-UP BY HPC. ASHPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN GALV. GUARDRAIL GALV. METAL SIDNG GALV. METAL SIDING RECLAIMED SIDING W/ 3X BATTONS GALV. W FLANGE BEAM NEW TRANSFORMER6' FENCE- TRASH AREA GALV. W FLANGE COLUMN 0" MAIN LEVEL 0" MAIN LEVEL 8'-0" SECOND LEVEL 8'-0" SECOND LEVEL 18'-6" THIRD LEVEL 18'-6" THIRD LEVEL 26'-95/16"16'-47/8"10'-01/4"29'-17/16"NEW PROFILED WOOD COLUMNS WOOD BOARD SIDING. COLOR PENDING APPROVED MOCK-UP BY HPC. COMPOSITE SHAKE ROOFING WOOD FASCIA BOARD COLOR PENDING APPROVED MOCK-UP BY HPC. ASPHALT SHINGLE METAL STANDING SEAM SNOW FENCE SHUTTER SYSTEM RECLAIMED SIDING W/ 3X BATTONS GALV. W FLANGE BEAM GALV. W FLANGE COLUMN GALV. METAL SIDING GALV. METAL SIDING SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION 0 2'4'8' SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 WEST ELEVATION 0 2'4'8' Exhibit B- Application 15800478000387 DRAWING ISSUE DRAWN BY: PROJECT No:1907 CPF HPC APPLICATION 1/28/2021 BIMcloud: BIMServer - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 24/1020 Cooper_ Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:39 AM | ASPEN CO1020 E. COOPER PROJECT119 South Spring St. | Suite 203 Aspen, CO 81611 T 970-925-3444 www.djarchitects.com A2.03 PROPOSED MATERIALS All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are owned by and are the property of David Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use and in conjunction with the specified project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose whatsoever without the written authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC. Sheet No. GALVANIZED METAL SIDING (VINTAGE COLOR) RECLAIMED WOOD BATTONS W/ GALVANIZED BOLTS RECLAIMED WOOD SIDING w/ BATTONS GALVANIZED SLIDER HARDWARE FOR SHUTTERS GALVANIZED RAILINGS AND STRUCTURE FOR STAIRS GALVANIZED METAL SIDING (RUNNING BOND LAYUP) GALVANIZED METAL SIDING (CORNER DETAIL) GALVANIZED METAL ROOFING (15" STANDING SEAM) ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING (DARK GREY) Exhibit B- Application 15900479000388 DRAWING ISSUE DRAWN BY: PROJECT No:1907 CPF HPC APPLICATION 1/28/2021 BIMcloud: BIMServer - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 24/1020 Cooper_ Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:39 AM | ASPEN CO1020 E. COOPER PROJECT119 South Spring St. | Suite 203 Aspen, CO 81611 T 970-925-3444 www.djarchitects.com HP-1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION ELEVATIONS All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are owned by and are the property of David Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use and in conjunction with the specified project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose whatsoever without the written authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC. Sheet No. MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" SECOND LEVEL 108'-0" THIRD LEVEL 118'-6"EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN RESHINGLE WITH COMPOSITE SHAKE ROOF EXISTING PORCH ROOF STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE RECLAD IN ORIGINAL 6" HORIZONTAL CEDAR LAP SIDING EXISTING NON-HISTORIC WINDOWS AND DOORS TO BE REMOVED EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN RESHINGLE WITH COMPOSITE SHAKE ROOF EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN REROOF WITH METAL-STANDING SEAM EXISTING NON-HISTORIC WINDOWS AND DOORS TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE RECLAD IN ORIGINAL 6" HORIZONTAL CEDAR LAP SIDING EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN RESHINGLE WITH COMPOSITE SHAKE ROOF EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE RECLAD IN ORIGINAL 6" HORIZONTAL CEDAR LAP SIDING EXISTING REAR PORCH TO BE REMOVED EXISTING NON-HISTORIC WINDOWS TO BE REMOVED EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN RESHINGLE WITH COMPOSITE SHAKE ROOF EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE RECLAD IN ORIGINAL 6" HORIZONTAL CEDAR LAP SIDING EXISTING REAR PORCH TO BE REMOVED EXISTING NON-HISTORIC WINDOWS TO BE REMOVED SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 NORTH ELEVATION: HP PLAN 0 2'4'8' SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 SOUTH ELEVATION: HP PLAN 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION: HP PLAN 0 2'4'8' SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 WEST ELEVATION: HP PLAN 0 2'4'8' Exhibit B- Application 16000480000389 DRAWING ISSUE DRAWN BY: PROJECT No:1907 CPF HPC APPLICATION 2/2/2021 BIMcloud: BIMServer - BIMcloud Basic for ARCHICAD 24/1020 Cooper_ Tuesday, February 2, 2021 8:39 PM | ASPEN CO1020 E. COOPER PROJECT119 South Spring St. | Suite 203 Aspen, CO 81611 T 970-925-3444 www.djarchitects.com A2.02 ELEVATIONS All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are owned by and are the property of David Johnston Architects, PC and developed for use and in conjunction with the specified project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose whatsoever without the written authorization of David Johnston Architects, PC. Sheet No. MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" SECOND LEVEL 108'-0" SECOND LEVEL 108'-0" THIRD LEVEL 118'-6" THIRD LEVEL 118'-6"26'-81/2"16'-11/2"29'-81/2"STANDING SEAM NEW PROFILED WOOD COLUMNS WOOD BOARD SIDING. COLOR PENDING APPROVED MOCK-UP BY HPC. COMPOSITE SHAKE ROOFING WOOD FASCIA BOARD COLOR PENDING APPROVED MOCK-UP BY HPC. ASHPHALT SHINGLE EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN GALV. GUARDRAIL GALV. METAL SIDNG NEW SHED DORMER GALV. METAL SIDING RECLAIMED SIDING W/ 3X BATTONS GALV. W FLANGE BEAM NEW TRANSFORMER6' FENCE- TRASH AREA GALV. W FLANGE COLUMN 0" MAIN LEVEL 0" MAIN LEVEL 8'-0" SECOND LEVEL 8'-0" SECOND LEVEL 18'-6" THIRD LEVEL 18'-6" THIRD LEVEL 26'-95/16"16'-47/8"10'-01/4"29'-17/16"NEW PROFILED WOOD COLUMNS WOOD BOARD SIDING. COLOR PENDING APPROVED MOCK-UP BY HPC. COMPOSITE SHAKE ROOFING WOOD FASCIA BOARD COLOR PENDING APPROVED MOCK-UP BY HPC. NEW SHED DORMER ASPHALT SHINGLE METAL STANDING SEAM SNOW FENCE SHUTTER SYSTEM RECLAIMED SIDING W/ 3X BATTONS GALV. W FLANGE BEAM GALV. W FLANGE COLUMN GALV. METAL SIDING GALV. METAL SIDING SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION 0 2'4'8' SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 WEST ELEVATION 0 2'4'8' Exhibit B- Application 16100481000390 Exhibit B- Application 16200482000391 Exhibit B- Application 16300483000392 Exhibit B- Application 16400484000393 Exhibit C- January 13 HPC Minutes 16500485000394 Exhibit C- January 13 HPC Minutes 16600486000395 Exhibit C- January 13 HPC Minutes 16700487000396 Exhibit C- January 13 HPC Minutes 16800488000397 Exhibit C- January 13 HPC Minutes 16900489000398 Exhibit C- January 13 HPC Minutes 17000490000399 Exhibit C- January 13 HPC Minutes 17100491000400 From:Karen Watson To:ann.mullins@cityofaspen.co; rachel.richards@cityofaspen.co; Skippy Mesirow; Torre; Ward Hauenstein; KevinRayes; 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 Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments 17200492000401 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 City of Aspen Community Development City of Aspen Community Development Re: 1020 East Cooper 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 Aspen 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 single building with a studio and a 2-bedroom unit plus a small attached garage and has managed them to Aspen 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 administered thoughtfully and to high standards. Most important, the 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 contribute 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 operates a system of 36 backcountry huts in the central Rocky Mountains of Colorado. Its main administrative offices are located in the Benedict Building at 1280 Ute Avenue. Sincerely, Ben Dodge Executive Director Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments 17300493000402 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 culminatedafter a staff review – it was and is my understanding that it is the staff’s job to obtainfacts with regard to how well a project complies with HPC’s guidelines and then pass thosefacts 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 heardwas an endorsement for approval of the proposed plan without the objective facts beingdisseminated 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 beincreased beyond 100% of what is presently existing. If the staff was making a distinctionbetween that guideline which mentions a building attached to the existing building and abuilding that is separated from the existing building, then I am wondering why they wouldthink the existing guidelines should not apply. A separate building would call for even morespace needs due to the need for access and meeting fire codes. In like manner, if the staff were Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments 17400494000403 driving a 11’ high truck and came upon a tunnel entrance indicating that the top of the tunnelwas 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 topoint 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 toolarge in mass and scale for the property. 2) The developer’s design calls for relocating the existing structure to the front of the lot. Theguidelines call for setbacks emulating contemporary setbacks with neighboring historic structures which are set back and have a front lawn. All neighboring properties have frontlawns. 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 theexisting 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’. Thisshould 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 orthinking, 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 orare not being met in the design. This would include an analysis based on summer and winterweather when snow becomes an impediment B) Determine what is the maximum number of occupants that can be put into a proposedstructure on this lot as designed. APCHA guidelines provide minimum occupancy to meetrequirements, but that will not prevent a landlord from allowing significantly Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments 17500495000404 higher occupancy, which diminishes livability and quality of life for all residents, and ofcourse 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 12individuals 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 beprovided 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 isnot 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, havingeliminated 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 eliminatedboth 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 oftheir 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 occupantsexperience 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 belowwhat 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 Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments 17600496000405 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 unitwith a 2 bedroom size? Certainly, this design does not result in a lifestyle that the developers would wish uponthemselves. 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 plannedbuilding, 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 andwhether, 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 andregulations (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 aredependent 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 Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments 17700497000406 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; MeganTackett; 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 19step process to drop their project; then to recoup some of their losses sold their property to employee housing developers for future sale tomeet the housing mitigation needs of proposed large scale commercial development. Who can say that this was not the outcome that communitydevelopment wanted? This, considering the ease that this persuasion can be accomplished with a motivated staff and the current code. It iscommon 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 theirproject considering community development’s staff history of addressing subjective minutia, protracted reviews, bias, fraudulentrepresentation of self- validation, and the significant costs associated with an onerous process that generates 160 pages of mostly rhetoricalbusywork that everyone in government knows exists but no one does anything about. This gross overreach of discretionary authority has been allowed by asuccession 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 atcost, 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 communitydevelopment 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’srecipients, they would not condone themselves? This is a question that should be answered. Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments 17800498000407 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 criteriadifferences. Clearly the impact and the scale of the proposed employee housing development will have deleterious effects on the neighborhood that asingle-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 fortenants 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 developmentwill 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 surroundingneighborhood, 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, unitemployee housing apartment is unrealistic considering there could be one car owned for each of the possible 8-18, tenants of the 5apartment units. Everyone who lives in this neighborhood will attest that there is a dearth of parking spaces available in season. Cash in lieu for parkingspace 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 inrequired parking typifies a shortsighted and cash hungry government that does not give a hoot for the quality of life of the property ownersin 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 employeehousing 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 rationalizedby Amy, is an egregious example of municipal overreach of discretionary authority by Community Development as exemplified bytheir duplicity in review standards. Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments 17900499000408 All large scale developments should have employee housing on site. Why should the never ending corporate greed for more profits result inan environmental, density and living standard penalty to stable neighborhoods? APCHA specified subsistence wage, tranche housinghas been made to order for higher corporate profits and market dominance by wage limit mandates. Is APCHA a blessing to Aspenemployees or a low wage purgatory trap? Greed, largesse and social capital has always been the name of the game in Aspen, where we trulyhave 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 Aspengovernment to protect property rights for the free market homeowner and there has never been any city compunction to rectify thisdeficiency. This biased governance is fundamentally un-American and reprehensible. If you pay significant taxes you should have some say innot being regulatorily taken to the cleaners. The City Staff of Barwick's Ghost are still here. Scott and Caroline McDonald Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments 18000500000409 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 Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments 18100501000410 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, Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments 18200502000411 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 Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments 18300503000412 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. Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments 18400504000413 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 Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments 18500505000414 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 situationsrecently. 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 viewlisting(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 init! 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? Willthis 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 HPCand 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, NOMATTER WHO GETS PAID OR WHO WILL BE LIVING THERE! Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments 18600506000415 Thanks so much Kristi Gilliam 1024 East Cooper #8 970-948-0153 Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments 18700507000416 From:Baron ConcorsTo:Kristi; Kevin RayesSubject:Re: 1015 East HymanDate: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 parkingsituation - 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 . Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments 18800508000417 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 designatedparking 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 - thosetenants 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 spreadof 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 staffand 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 Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments 18900509000418 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 opinionsand 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 PMTo: ggreenwood@ggaaspen.com; Amy Simon <amy.simon@cityofaspen.com>; KevinRayes <kevin.rayes@cityofaspen.com>Subject: 1020 Cooper Project Hello, Please see my attached letter for the HPC regarding the proposed development at1020 Cooper Avenue. We live directly behind the property. Thank you Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments 19000510000419 Lorne Leil Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments 19100511000420 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 Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments 19200512000421 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 Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments 19300513000422 that upset the livability conditions of a neighborhood. Again, thank you for your service to the Aspen community. All the best, Tiffany Smith Exhibit D- February 10th Public Comments 19400514000423 From: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 anold building and the addition of a new building along the alley for affordable housing is exactly whatour 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 newbuilding works well. Four parking spaces seems reasonable for five units considering the closeproximity to downtown, transit, and trails. Overall we support this housing project. Lincoln Manuel 409 Park Circle #2 Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments 19500515000424 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 19600516000425 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 19700517000426 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. Wehave 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 asingle 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 againbeing 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 tolot 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 ADAdesignated 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 ourfire 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 tothe 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 projectwhich 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 Abelman1012 East Cooper Avenue Unit 4 and Unit 5 Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments 19800518000427 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.com970.948.4534 Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments 19900519000428 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 20000520000429 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 20100521000430 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 meetingtomorrow 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 20200522000431 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 20300523000432 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 theexisting 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 20400524000433 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 variousregulations. 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 20500525000434 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 20600526000435 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 20700527000436 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 20800528000437 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 20900529000438 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 21000530000439 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 21100531000440 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 21200532000441 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 21300533000442 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 asingle-family home were dissuaded by community development’s 19 step process to drop their project; then to recoup some of their lossessold their property to employee housing developers for future sale to meet the housing mitigation needs of proposed large scale commercialdevelopment. Who can say that this was not the outcome that community development wanted? This, considering the ease that this persuasioncan be accomplished with a motivated staff and the current code. It is common knowledge that the city is hell-bent in obtaining as muchemployee 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 ofaddressing subjective minutia, protracted reviews, bias, fraudulent representation of self- validation, and the significant costs associatedwith an onerous process that generates 160 pages of mostly rhetorical busywork that everyone in government knows exists but no one doesanything about. This gross overreach of discretionary authority has been allowed by a succession of city councils because of the significant revenue streamand self serving staff recommendations. Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments 21400534000443 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 communitydevelopment 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’srecipients, they would not condone themselves? This is a question that should be answered. Comparing the two packages submitted for HPC review, the Australian’ssingle-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 criteriadifferences. Clearly the impact and the scale of the proposed employee housing development will have deleterious effects on the neighborhood that asingle-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 fortenants 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 developmentwill 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 surroundingneighborhood, 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, unitemployee housing apartment is unrealistic considering there could be one car owned for each of the possible 8-18, tenants of the 5apartment units. Everyone who lives in this neighborhood will attest that there is a dearth of parking spaces available in season. Cash in lieu for parkingspace 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 inrequired parking typifies a shortsighted and cash hungry government Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments 21500535000444 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 employeehousing 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 rationalizedby Amy, is an egregious example of municipal overreach of discretionary authority by Community Development as exemplified bytheir 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 inan environmental, density and living standard penalty to stable neighborhoods? APCHA specified subsistence wage, tranche housinghas been made to order for higher corporate profits and market dominance by wage limit mandates. Is APCHA a blessing to Aspenemployees or a low wage purgatory trap? Greed, largesse and social capital has always been the name of the game in Aspen, where we trulyhave 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 Aspengovernment to protect property rights for the free market homeowner and there has never been any city compunction to rectify thisdeficiency. This biased governance is fundamentally un-American and reprehensible. If you pay significant taxes you should have some say innot 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 21600536000445 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 21700537000446 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 21800538000447 Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments 21900539000448 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 22000540000449 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 corporatemarketing 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 crowdeddead 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 Stover1006 E. Cooper Aspen Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments 22100541000450 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 isowned 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 #4Aspen, CO 81611 Exhibit E- January 13th Public Comments 22200542000451 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 22300543000452