Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Land Use Case.806 W Hallam St.A065-01
-. 9599*Wzat®%_ 7 i la 00 '21 0 8 n CiO r.. 1 I b CASE NUMBER A065-01 PARCEL ID # 2735-124-28851 CASE NAME Forest Service Site COWOP Application PROJECT ADDRESS 806 W. Hallam St. PLANNER Joyce Ohlson CASE TYPE COWOP OWNER/APPLICANT Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority REPRESENTATIVE Troy Rayburn DATE OF FINAL ACTION WITHDRAW CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION ADMIN ACTION BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED 1/20/04 BY D DRISCOLL · 62. ' 4. 8 PARCEL ID:|2735(131228-851 2 bATE REVDE-letol # COPIES:1 CASE NO A065-01 CASE NAME: Forest Service Site COWOP Application ~ PLNR:l /' 7 A AA- A#1&*p... PROJ ADDR:~806 W. Hallam St. ~ CASE TYP:~COWOP STEPSt q +. ..9. ...... OWN/APP: Aspen/Pitkin Housin 1 ADR~530 E. Main St. C/S/Z: ~Aspen/CO/81611 I PHN:~ , REP:]Troy Rayburn ADR:~ C/s/Z:] PHNE____3 FEES DUE:~None FEES RCVD:INone STAT: r-3 REFERRALS~ 4. ..:i 1 REF:| BY DUE: - . 44: k.. 4* MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED 6 53* f , -I ..2-- DATE OF FINAL ACTION: CITY COUNCIL: REMARKS~ _ W 41,cle.wn. PZ: BOA: CLOSED:| - BY: | - j DRAC: PLAT SUBMITD: ~ PLAT (BK,PG):| ADMIN: - i 4 .. t\f¢caton W 0\49,uN\· Housing Office City of Aspen/Pitkin County 530 East Main Street, lower level Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-5050 Fax: (970) 920-5580 ~14 --Aue www.aspenhousingoffice.com June 8, 2001 Ms. Julie Ann Woods, Director Department of Community Development 130 South Galena City of Aspen, Colorado Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Ms. Woods: Through this letter, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) is requesting consideration for eligibility to the City of Aspen's Convenience and Welfare of the Public (COWOP) land use process for the White River National Forest site located at 806 W. Hallam Street, Aspen, CO. Pursuant to Section 26.500.040 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, APCHA believes that an employee housing project "constitutes an essential public (project), provides essential services to the public, and is in the best interest of the City ofAspen to be completed." Please find attached APCHA's application for COWOP. APCHA has been previously directed by the community's appointed and elected bodies to go through the necessary process steps to ready the site for development. APCHA has received written consent from the forest supervisor of the White River National Forest to undertake the City's land use process. Please find attached Martha Ketelle's letter to APCHA supporting the COWOP land use process. APCHA believes that the City of Aspen's Convenience and Welfare ofthe Public (COWOP) process is an essential procedural step to increase public involvement and, thus, identify neighborhood and community values as they relate to the project. APCHA further believes that the COWOP process will produce a more complete project by identifying issues and seeking solutions through an appointed task force comprised of balanced community and technical representation. As o f the date o f this letter, no proposed conceptual layout, development scenario and change in zoning has been developed or proposed. The only possible exception to the development scenario is the proposed range of 50 to 120 employee housing units noted in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan. APCHA believes that finalizing such procedural steps would be premature and, thus, preempt the goals o f the COWOP process. Although APCHA reserves the right to equally contribute to the public dialog it also believes that the COWOP process should address such matters in the course o f its work. .Ual e_f 16 COWOP Application Cover Letter June 8,2001 Page 2 of 2 The assigned project manager, Troy Rayburn, will be the Housing Office's primary contact for this project. If Community Development has any questions or issues to be considered and resolved, please contact Troy at 544-3143 or e-mail him at troyr@ci.aspen.co.us. Sincerely, Mary J. Roberts Executive Director Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Attachments: 4<E20~ United States Forest White River Supervisor's Office gl.LJ?} Department of Service National 900 Grand Avenue Agriculture Forest PO Box 948 Glenwood Spgs CO 81602 (970) 945-2521 TTY (970) 945-3255 FAX (970) 945-3266 File Code: 6440 Date: May 8,2001 Ms. Mary J. Roberts Executive Director Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority 530 East Main Street, Lower Level Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Ms. Roberts: Per your letter of April 16, the White River National Forest recognizes that the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority wishes to enter into the city's required Convenience and Welfare of the Public (COWOP) development review for the Aspen site of the White River National Forest. It is our understanding that this is a procedural step. One that will serve as a vehicle to formally collect the issues of the west end neighbors and identify a development program that addresses the community's values. The White River National Forest recognizes the benefits of such public processes and supports the Housing Office's interest in beginning the COWOP procedure. In addition, although we will not interfere with your required activities, the Forest Service has not reached a final outcome regarding the relocation of our administrative offices, public educational center, and employee/volunteer housing. Sincerely, A/1 MARTHA J. KETELLE Forest Supervisor CC: Jim Upchurch Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper 1~ ATTACHMENTS Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Convenience and Welfare of the Public (COWOP) Land use Application June 2001 • City o f Aspen Land use Application 1 existing conditions > Pre-Application/COWOP Conference Summary 1 Copy of Potential Affordable Housing Sites from 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan • Application - Attachment 2 - Dimensional Requirements Form • Application - Attachment 3 - Submission Contents for COWOP Eligibility Determination * Eligibility Requirement #2 > administrative site survey maps indicating legal description including abandoned street and alleys, blocks and lots • Application - Attachment 3 continued - Eligibility Requirement #3 1 Copy ofproperty deed • Application - Attachment 3 continued - Eligibility Requirement #4 1 Aspen vicinity map > Forest Service Aerial site map 1 Forest Service Property map • Application - Attachment 3 continued - Eligibility Requirements 5-9 • Application - Attachment 4 - Edibility Review Standards • Application - Attachment 5 - One Step Commission or Council Development Review Procedure THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: Name: kspe A mEA - CULIEL- Ajf.4 AF,teAA£ 1,4.~ 4- Uebon-. W O 6, t. 1. /40 t 6 ..a Dt . P .11 a. AA_ &-u_ &4-tr. c k . (Indicate street address, fot & block number, legal description where appropriate) APPLICANT: Name: ~PR ~ P;-114,~ CtivA-lu~ /40,,,5;48 AJ~-1,x,L„ 7-€4 Address: _Cf /3 £6 Al- ple.,rn 44 ., A p.,-A: 02 9/6/1 Phone #: 97-0/92-0- sos o REPRESENTATIVE: 14r.Jay,rd tre-k...k- W-l& AN.G~,u, Addres. ;r f o £,lk-- ~~4.,Yl _24- ., A p* 17 2 (o te ( 6 ) ~ Phone #: 7 7-0 ) s (4 4 - g ) VT O 4 92- 0 -.goro TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply to your COWOP Project): £ Conditional Use U Conceptual PUD U Conceptual Historic Devt. U Special Review U Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) U Final Historic Development El Design Review Appeal 01 Conceptual SPA U Minor Historic Devt. U GMQS Allotment ~1 Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) U Historic Demolition U GMQS Exemption U Subdivision U Historic Designation ~ ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream U Subdivision Exemption (includes U Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane U Lot Split 01 Temporary Use U ADU U Lot Line Adjustment U Text/Map Amendment g Other: COUOP EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) P lea,~u. SQC2 11·U-r_ r k #414*t- PROPOSAL: (description ofproposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) 9.*fl.,4 41- Aovr:/5 - 5-0-42-0 9.;ti A.u< -0,L- ca-of)0 AL,le i ArK-2 6.0,4,91 un,+1 P lgA Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ EL t A fA< [014e-Application Conference Summary GMGachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement [EMEesponse to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form EFResponse to Attachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents [~}14sponse to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents [2*esponse to Attachment #5, Review Standards for Your Application Existing Conditions: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approval, etc.) Total Land - The subject property is an urban site in an existing/historic neighborhood and totals 3.036 acres. It is located at 806 W. Hallam Street between N. 7th and N. 8th streets in the West End ofAspen, CO. Note: the site in question does not include the land that Poppies Bistro Caf6 resides. Zoning - The existing zoning on the subject property is R6-SPA (Medium-Density Residential - Special Planned Area). According to 26.710.040, a "Medium-Density Residential zone district is to provide areas for long term residential purposes with customary accessory uses. ... Lands in the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district are generally limited to the original Aspen Townsite, contain relatively dense settlements ofpredominantly detached and duplex residences, and are within walking distance of the center o f the City." Permitted uses: • detached residential dwelling, duplex, • two detached residential dwellings on a lot o f 9,000 square feet or greater, • farm building and use..., • home occupations, and • accessory buildings and uses. SPA "permit(s) a variation of the permitted uses in the zone district." Roadways - The subject property is currently accessed on the east side of the site via N. 7th Street from the S- Curve at the intersection of W. Hallam Street and N. 7th Street. The site is boarded on the west by N. 8th Street with no access. The site is boarded on the north side by W. Smuggler with no access. Note: W. Francis Street, which ran east and west through the center of the site, is abandoned as are the two alleys that also run east and west. Buildings - The subject property is currently developed for use by the White River National Forest. Six structures exist on the site including an administrative office, two single-family residential homes, a crew barracks, and two storage and/or garage facilities. The White River National Forest has articulated to APCHA that these structures are dilapidated and to the best of APCHA's knowledge no significant modifications or improvements are planned. Forest Service Site Existing Conditions Page 2 0 f 2 Open Space - The subject property has no official open-space designation, but there does exist a sizeable area ofundeveloped land. This area runs primarily west to east through the center of the site and contains a raised birm or ditch channeling spring water west to east and crossing W. Smuggler St. from the N.E. corner of the site. This area also supports a number of old growth cotton wood trees, other mature vegetation (including one o f the oldest Honey Suckle bushes in the City according to the neighbors) and contains a small horse corral. Utility Lines - The subject property has both existing electric and water utility lines serving the site. Water utility lines run through the center o f the site east-west along vacated W. Francis Street and north-south along the far west side from vacated W. Francis Street along N. 8th Street to W. Smuggler Street. Electrical lines run east-west through the site along the two vacated alleys. Pre-Application/COWOP Conference Summary Aspen Forest Service Site 806 West Hallam Street between N. 7th and N. 8th Wednesday, May 2, 2001 Aspen Community Development Aspen City Hall, Second Floor Aspen, Colorado Attendees: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority - • Jay Leavitt, Director of Development and Construction • Troy Rayburn, Project Manager for the Forest Service Project • Mary Roberts, Executive Director of Development and Construction Aspen Community Development - • Chris Bendon, Senior Planner • Joyce Ohlson, Assistant Director • Julie Ann Woods, Director of Planning Notes: No agenda. Olhson and Rayburn initiated the pre-app/COWOP meeting in order to achieve consensus among responsible staff. Probability - The first topic of discussion was the White River National Forest's interest in relocating their administrative offices from Aspen. Rayburn noted that comments made by the forest supervisor at the White River National Forest's May 1, 2001 facility planning committee meeting were encouraging. The forest supervisor commented that (1) "opportunities exist" in working with APCHA and (2) "it might be more cost effective to relocate and rebuild due to the dilapidated condition of the existing structures." It was also noted that the Forest Service is aware of APCHA's continued interest through both written and verbal communications and has not indicated to APCHA to discontinue its interest in obtaining the 3.036 acre site. Direction - Roberts made the point that she had been previously directed to implement a model that readied housing projects contained in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan. Please see attachment #1. Pre-Application/COWOP Conference Summary Aspen Forest Service Site May 2, 2001 Page 2 of 3 Forest Service Consent - Woods asked APCHA to seek written consent from the Forest Service to implement the City of Aspen's Convenience and Welfare of the Public (COWOP) process. Rayburn responded that on April 16 he sent a letter to the Forest Supervisor seeking consent to move forward with the City's land use process. Note: APCHA received the Forest Service's reply on May 8 supporting APCHA's interest in implementing the COWOP process. Notification and Outreach - Rayburn also commented on a series ofpreliminary efforts to notify and involve the public in the Forest Service project and the public's weariness if everything is classified as preliminary. The purpose o f these public outreach efforts is two fold: (1) a professional courteously to those citizens/neighbors who stand to be the most affected by an employee housing development, and (2) an opportunity for APCHA to collect citizen issues, etc. before the process becomes official. By July 2001 APCHA will have completed the following: • 20 one-on-one meetings with various West End residents; • a series of four neighborhood block meetings; and • two community-wide forums. COWOP Task Force - Rayburn noted that time has been put into assessing who or what type of organizations should be represented on the COWOP task force. They are as follows: • three neighbors from surrounding points of the Forest Service site • a representative from the Aspen City Council • a representative from the Housing Authority Board • a representative from the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission • an open space and parks advocate • two members of the public at large • a professional transportation and parking official/technician • a representative from the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Total = 11 member task force not including facilitation and professional/technical staff. Pre-Application/COWOP Conference Summary Aspen Forest Service Site May 2,2001 Page 3 of 3 Professional Consultant/Facilitator - The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority is requesting submittals from qualified urban site planning/architectural firms. The purpose ofthis solicitation is to select a qualified consultant to act on behalf of APCHA to create a Comprehensive Development Program for the site. Miscellaneous - Bendon commented that it would be beneficial to the process to have completed a land/site survey. Woods said that she would appoint Bendon to chair the Task Force. Both Rayburn and Roberts inquired about Community Development's decision-making process or chain of command. Woods responded that she would entrust Bendon with the ability to make decisions affecting the direction of the Task Force's work. Rayburn noted the importance of distinguishing between showhorses and workhorses and his lack o f interest in showhorses taking credit for others work. Action Items - • APCHA draft an RFP for a professional urban site designer/architect • APCHA draft a COWOP Application 4 .C C Il Housing 1 Criteria 3: "Containable Publicly Owned Affordable ~ Development" compatible w/ neighbor- Housing Sites hood & does not promote sprawl During discussion with the Oversight Com- Criteria A: Contiguous to existing mittee in February of 1999 and with a broader C public facilities and infrastructure group of appointed and elected officials in August of 1999, consensus was established Criteria B: Amenable to transit, bike that the Housing Office be directed to aggres- 2- and pedestrian oriented design (non- sively pursue developing affordable housing on automotive) sites already publicly owned. The Committee ~_ determined that we should focus our energy on Criteria C: Visual compatibility with developing affordable housing on these sites, surrounding area and other sites that meet the Interim Aspen C Area Citizen Housing Plan Criteria, as they Criteria D: Optimize the site's become available. These sites are not ordered r- development potential by rank. This list is not exhaustive. Other r- opportunities may emerge over time. Criteria E: Contribute to the Aspen/ Pitkin County Housing Goals • 7th and Main ~ • Stillwater Criteria F: Quality of life: range of • Truscott Expansion income groups, mixed uses, access to • National Forest Service Site, 7th & Hallam open space • Burlingame Parcel D (Next to US West at AABC and possibly including US West) Criteria G: Quality of design and • Aspen Mass construction- • Burlingame Village (pending agreement with Zoline Family) Criteria H: Utilize and conserve • Bass Park natural features In addition, we can not underestimate the Criteria I: Fiscal impact of site importance of the preservation of existing units compared to other sites and efforts should be made to preserve free Please see the Interim Aspen Area Citizen Housing Plan market units as affordable units by any means for more detail (Addendum B). possible, including buy-downs to help contribute to our affordable housing stock. The private sector is encouraged to come forward with affordable housing proposals of their own. Public-private partnerships are encouraged as well as private affordable housing ventures. 28 C Ll LL LL Ll Ll Ll Ll 1 . 1 Potential Affordable Housing Sites LEE] During discussion with the Oversight Committee in February of 1999, consensus was established on a number of potential affordable housing sites. The Committee determined that we should focus our energy on developing affordable housing on these sites, and other sites that meet the Housing Guideline Criteria, as they become available. These sites are nQI ordered by rank and unit counts are estimates based on property size and types of units expected. Priority Sites Type of Low Unit High Unit Project Estimate Estimate AABC Partnership 20 50 Core and in-town Infill Partnership 45 100 MAA Seasonal Housing (in progress) Partnership 100 100 Private Property (7th and Hopkins) Private 20 40 ~ Moore Property Private O 30 | Buttermilk Base Housing Private Mitigation 0 88 7th and Main Street (in progress) Public 11 11 Stillwater - Lot 1 Public 12 15 Truscott Expansion (new units) Public 100 150 ~ US Forest Service Site Public 50 120 ~ North 40 (in progress) Private 72 72 I Hines/Highlands (in progress) Private Mitigation 112 112 Moore PUD (in progress) Private Mitigation 31 31 Aspen Country Inn (completed) Public 40 40 Snyder (completed) Public 15 - 15 SUBTOTAL 628 974 In addition, we can not underestimate the the Plan also calls for the community to continue importance of the preservation of existing units. to discuss the following potential affordable However, these do not count against our total housing sites: because they are not new construction. Examples • Bass Parcel of "buy-downs" that have recently been • Burlingame Ranch completed: • Moore Open Space • City Golf Course through changes in layout Martinson-Nostdahl Condominiums 10 units • Aspen Mass (in conjunction with USFS Site Woody Creek Mobile Home Park 54 units and Transit Oriented Development) • Cozy Point (up to 5 units) It is understood that the approximate numbers of units and bedrooms on available sites may vary These sites may become more important if the with community planning processes, land use community is unable to meet affordable housing constraints and financial constraints. Therefore, needs at the agreed upon locations. 29 THE CITY OF ASPEN ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: Applicant: Location: Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) NOTE: RAYBURN MET WITH JOYCE OHLSON ON Commercial net Existing:- leasable: JUNE 7, 2001. ATTACHMENT 2 IS NOT Number of residential Existing:- units: APPLICABLE FOR COWOP. Number of bedrooms: Existing: Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: Principal bldg. Existing: height: Access. bldg. Existing: height: On-Site parking: Existing: %· Site coverage: Existing: % Open Space: Existing: Front Setback: Existing: Rear Setback: Existing: Combined F/R: Existing: Side Setback: Existing: Side Setback: Existing: Combined Sides: Existing:- Existing non-conformities or encroachments: Variations requested: The City of Aspen Attachment 3 Submission Contents for COWOP Eligibility Determination Eligibility Requirement #2: Street Address and Legal Description - The subject property is located at 806 W. Hallam Street on the northwest corner ofNorth Seventh and Hallam streets. It is legally described as follows: City and Townsite of Aspen Block 9, Lots A-I, K-S, Block 10, Lots A-I, M-S Vacated Alley between Block 9, Vacated Francis Street between Blocks 9 and 10 Vacated Alley of Block 10 between lots C-I and M-S, Pitkin County Please see attachments: .AL . i. I -0 ADMINISTRATIVE S'ITE SURVEY BLOCKS 9 and 10, ASPEN TOWNSITE, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO l 270.33' - ALLEY St» 4Nke,2 St(ABA 't€b/:Q' .. --- 29.9.' 1 . · ALLEY fABANOrs" 44: - 0-. 4.. -- 6-0/ .. 4 - M . .- 4 Not,SE 3 9/b w I •4 11 4. . 6~-G#FICE~ t~ 9 lI• 1.12 S P..46, 23.4 I 270.20. \\ M 0~23'27~11 35.88' ECORDER CERTIFICATION JMAFR SCALE· 6 30' SATE - ) 50 0 PAGE 0070. Mo09'58'W , 414.60' S '5. 3.6.,09..1 N il I . West Smuggler Street . A 8 8 OCK 9 CD UP GHI Alley (Abandoned) K L Af N OP 9 RS Francis Street (Abandoned) BL CK ABCDEF 10 GH I Alley (Abandoned W L U N OP Q R S \7 West Hallam St. (Hwy. 821 Ge 6 ¢.0% USDA FOREST SERVICE ADMINISTRATIVE SITE City of Aspen, Colorado. Block 9: Lots A-I & K-S. Block 10: Lots A-I & M-S. 3.03 acres. Scale: 1 inch = 100 feet. ght St. , North Ei *ls 41UaAGS 41/ON H.LION SCALE, 6 1000' 1 e 251 / + 1/ *00 000 0 10„ *»»-4 4,~ 09*03*l r--+ ciku UO WL ~ ---*Pln~···--v fh ~ Aspen Vicinity Map ~ MN 14 !40 I LEGEND ~ FOUND 3/4' IRON PIPE WITH f STEEL CAP. 1 FOUND NA 5 REBAR WITH RED PLASTIC CAP FOR L.S. 3547 BASIS of BEARING THE RECORD BEARING OF- N I405d 49"E FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BLOCK tO TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BLOCK 9 WAS ASSUMED CORRECT AND WAS TRANSFERRED BY DIRECT ANGLES. METHOD of SURVEY A •NU T-2 THEODOLITE AND A HEWLETT-PACKARD 3805-A DISTANCE METER WERE USED TO TIE CONTROLLING CORNERS N A CLOSED TRAVERSE WITH SIOESHOTS. ALL ANGULAR MEASUREMENTS WERE TURNED DIRECT ANO REVERSE DISWICE MEASUREMENTS WERE DOUBLED TO BACKSITES AND FORESITES FROM ALTERNATE INSTRUMENT STATIONS. LEGAL DESCRIPTION ALL LOTS OF BLOCK 9 AND ALL LOTS, EXCEPT LOTS K AND L OF'BLOCK,10 OF THE TOWNSITE AND CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY. COLORADO; TOGETHER WITH A8ANOONED ALLEYS AND STREETS ADJACENT ™ERETO, AS DESCRIBED IN THE QUIT- CLAIM DEEO RECORDED IN BOOK 157, PAGE 633, MTKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY 1, DAVID L. BRANHAM, REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR NO. IO373, STATE OF COLORADO, 00 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PUT CORRECTU REPRESENTS A SURVEY MADE F ME OR UNDER MY DIRECDON IN CONFORMANCE WITH TIE US. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE LAWS OF THE STATE Of COLORADO AND ACCEPTED METHODS FOREST SERVICE AND PROCEDURES OF SURVEYING, AT THE REQUEST OF THE REGION 2 WHITE RIVER NAT10NAL FORE5T US. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FOREST SERVICE ADMINISTRATIVE SITE SURVEY ..<€gig,A?x ASPEN RANGER DISTRICT 0~GISTE.4.091\ WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST 50 100 150 SURVEYED BY .u«.. S.fr. !*TE.£!222, DRAWN _EL- *yw:*9 FOREST APPRO\164%0, £*.ULL OATE**22 peKED- APPROWn I.Im'., FEE' 1-• 1 The City of Aspen Attachment 3 Submission Contents for COWOP Eligibility Determination Eligibility Requirement #3: Ownership * Sales History and Present Owner of Record - There has been no transaction involving the subject property in the past 51 years. It is currently not listed for sale, nor has it been listed during the last year. The property last transferred ownership in May 1940 (Deed Book 157, page 633) from Mr. Charles Garlington to the present owner the United States ofAmerica. Please see attachment. ~ I gk I rl 89 63-3 f + Ir. f-,2 UU< =F 7 6 793 QUIT-CLAIM DEED.-The i . F. liweeket Blad Book & litho. Co., Denver, Colo, 49332 'll. P Ebis ID¢eb, ~fude liti' . 4 dc.u 4 - . ttltout ~ -in the year of our Lord one thouaand nine $< hundredand- .,~48¥-Lit· .Delitten .. n, ; 9 of the Colotty of..Li...,Vt¢Myla ..and State of Colorado, of the first part, and... ......... ... - n 0 A 1 1.4.1--LIN- of-thE-thnurtu--51- .-€6'1d State of- Cele,ada..,of the second part, WITNESSETH, That 1 he said wrt. 46- .of the first part, fin· andrin conaideration 05 th.m~=*_0~ ~~~~~ 120, #d£A,,4{Lvt 1 & 4/ ...jAMU=E*21 to the said part.. *. . of the jint part in hand Vaid by Me said pa?·1 40.of the second part, tA e receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged, ha,P~.remised, released, sold, conveyed and QUIT-CLAIjll'~1), and by these presents do..247 .remise, release, sell, convey and QUIT'-CLAIM l,nio the said part..4+---of the second part,....,·l/t<J .6*sics#+ assign, forevr·, all the righlutitle, inlerest, claim and del'z~*5hieD,lbe,aid part-90..... of the ..lir~ part ha..,5........ Lavt*-3 4 <9 rin ' in and to the following described-/Lt<JU- 1~274*Q,hlli .. situate, 4/ing and being in 111~ounly Of-- .,. .....1.<.=,F+·'L--"6?.., .- .....,........... and39*9% Colowdgto-wit: AL-.l.LX of IL- A Ci-, 8 2.*16,6, 3,#,·k/« 71 >te;,9, 8.ts, 40EUT, 4 -4*14 (1, 11-1 0-* ht,(4)it A.,3 cuU --7007(U> fi) 9,(t.s, · ank @44 *ifts k. h..« «0.-*.7. 5-i-~2 447417 f~*-4-449ta*~ G.,ka«Uu.ik GUol autlai210, 15*285/4-v - -- A, .xn 0£02¥l ailijl 82©ktkti a.£.M -.·4i t'z · · 14 &*63-4*Vy. :*Atittz I - 6,\ · 1 * - fKKil - k.-,-,r-44.-,1.-4 --nr F .4 . rh 93 0, 214), i~? CL - (j. )4.-mi<tr~• L f v (,ljol,14~~~£77[r~ ,- 0 1,1.f _3* LUVU}-1-j- LA''~23 1 * I %432%&*/.it'rilliE#'CE~--'-F:2 Eij«n»YA 1-.-1;62601 --irzific;32:-11 -// 3 -12Etrt.1/.le'Ji ' a-400.2- DZLE-9-.4.WaF, TO HAVE AND TO HOLD THE SAME, Together with all anci singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto belonging or in any- ~ wise thereunto apperlaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest and claim whalsnevej of the Raid part.Lu......of the first parl, either in law or equity, C to the onty proper use, beneit and behoof of the said part...ly --of the second part,-- _.*2~.... ~10ee:~el· aasigna~forever. IN IFITNESS H'HEREOF, The said part- 24 4?~f the jirst part h,6,11·hereunto sct. . -0U-4/ ..hand.. ..and seal.. ..the day and year L-- fiTs/ above written. A U 1 Signed, Sealed and Delivered in Presence qf [SEAL] -· STATE,OF COLORADO, 24- A 2 88. 04164 County of........·- Quolft··€IC,2/ .... ...) 14 ..................EYii-mtd-fe~ee~4 .e--14. 4- 11.0 R'.1. .f ..n- A rerefmaHy-frmE-Eliw-to be the -person...„....whose ·nume ...... - -*obso*bad-la#lhe-lox£446'9-AFFi,7,pfeare-K5~~ ?m,-44·M duy "t j •0•-, r,"d n,·L·,lnli,1„ilned Ad ' u.y...drweated und deUve, ed the auill 4/64/ U//66/d uf U/, UAu .10 .........71:gran fobr,tmr~e+F-U#·4*86#·~4~u,tpeN,e,-~ere£,r=e~fortk' *Hemr...,L „.3 ;tuid u:mt=.... ..=mt,-mts-r..... U~omf,AaMrer»Es=.... ..~ ..~ 11-*aoi,b-Ifie,6-s~zi~ P - 0 -*4 1-%5 1$1 A On M ty'l' 22 F. 29/17/'llf/«PZ~ U . 1~»f N.b~-·- -«0·*w ~A, o€ /944 -4L ~420„9- 34 1 --7 4«1 976 414„Aln r~ A 1 129&3-*26 11 ' Filed for record the. u *«7€--plat.£~a€ .Recorder. l BU. . Deputy. j , 1 The City of Aspen Attachment 3 Submission Contents for COWOP Eligibility Determination Eligibility Requirement #4: Vicinity Map locating the subject parcel and adjoining properties and roads - Please see attachments: 1 6 9. - 3 4 % ASPEN 4 3 Star Mesa Starwood White Star S. St@40-4 Ranch 2 4,09 4/3 ....... White Hors, 4 44 4 WHITE RIVER 4- 4 _ SpOngs %,0 4, on Din'Ie' ¢ DI k .1 / BJ*ADAMS AND COMPANY Epply /· NATIONAL F0RE5T Rcal Estate On Hi#bir Ground . / .7,1 ' 0,~ HeRY STEN PARK - Rio Er'rile : 1/.-8 Ta-, 44 -- 'h<.1-'-t <th \_R.24_lEI--- 44 Cent - . Ridis . W Mesa Ridge 01 Red Mountain 4 +4, Aspen Airport Red Butte ; Bl,ck ... 4 44 4 Rd. p. BUS Iness Cental *e"on H.*10' Rd . Or 90*rnai, v,20, 21 4, 1 1 Birch 5 4 Ranch .SK 4 40,44%)0,1 2 09 . ---. h.cal .5 4 + 44 9 1 Pitkin 4%. , ben 4,64 0% C j Rene,ve . 4 Red 1 1 04 2 w i /turt# f 0 k Sardy Field 1 ..00 4 + : 3 2 0.* i 91 Maroon 1 e.'*09 2 1 4 82 , -Creek Club e f V W : '1:1 4/ OW C.22. Ranch I 4 + : ** 4 4 - 0 4 3 4 . 1 5* 9 Pe. , Trail 4/t s, i w. Buttermil~44 W 0 4 S S r. 8 Iftef)" 6 . I 6,0 0 \ t)t. © a· c Carse pu # Oklahoma 4 j r C. 1 1,61 (02 Flats € i •,09 • 1 1 1 .1. FM t 4. /Smuggh 00/ ,- 2 S8 e ,~- Eagle Pine, Aspen Tennis aub . St Of Hotel R .,1 4. .,6 4, H•4 Jerome ° 40/ i 1 5 4 91\ 8, SL / t ·, ~ E. Bleel,ei 4 "0' SL Sm•99/„ Mountain Rd Pill#T- # J . h~ K# st- ~ 4- 0 1994 SU Adams & Co. Main S * k---- f m *,1 (Map 15 not 0 scale) , Ski Ara, Z 6 A. 4 , ?1.. y. 4· r S. ·,~in Ct. I F * 5 21 2 Ge Masco,4 I %1 St' 01 #go . Tob .. 4,1 ./. S Aspen . * I 200 : 4 0§ M si :2 5/- O 0% 8 : 3 4 PA- / 5 0.1 A... D.le / V ; D ~ 4~' Grove 44 00 nloo ~ Meadowood v PARK / urant /2 1= 10 5 0 £ 2 an SI .1< 7111 fi .> 4% 4. ¢ 4 .m• pe * ONA G• *....t g: 'ben % 0 0/ Water. 3.82 Mountain Valley . Donttle Li 1-Riverside ~: en (Gto•, Rd Knold . Ritz Gle,Rymd.,t>, 40, u Carlton St~nit k U loskIR&. Calder-d ; 'Unt Ct· Westwiew Di * 0.4 C **fA F ./ 00 4 lark,pul LA Ve. 1 1 144 15 a. 1 k:&. C ...:IE 11% .Air #. ke R d Clail ct. * i -'"8440& . anspi~4 F. Aspen aub 6 i + 4 im=- V..41 A.jl , 9 4 ~ b A.,in mghland, 9 i I % SWAI- 9- i River f Map reproduced with permisgion - Copyrights / 4 If BJ Adams and Company ;&9 . P.qi¢,9 ·· ·/I'lla: .er*R. t:-F:,/ » i \ i ' 1 j!/»711 / 3% 1 '. 1 1 2 l; 9 - 1 1 122 9,, of LA 4, 9 , 1 .' N 11 4, ' 1 F i 4.-1 1 -1- f 1 1 1, 1 / 19/:/ u.i 1 / . Im 1 /4 /9 1/ /0,49 - ' / 7 1 -I *9. I 3 A , / // /<4 . 1 .... \ 1 '' . 11. L . 1 ../.*i- : ~.7» I , ·t . ~ I 9 .: 9/. 2 , 11 ' i .1 1 1- 7 -34, 21 JL /fiff. 4 .t 4. fr. - :t. 794 If £ ./ 4.1 ... I. ' k I , 1 - 2 -1-t , ' I :' £ /' I' 2h.\ I. . ... . I , , 1 ,«44 ; / I li //li/l". : .9 . 7 1.2 ' 44 .... j \ 1 ji P / 95 41 .' I . l t ' 04 1... 1 111,1 / 1 j l.,1 '' , 1/ 1 1 ,;.1/,1 1 . 11 7, 1 *1 1 .)1 11 1 . - 6 7 / . 1 11 1 I '. ,/i,% \ I. I. ff/ i 1 11 / 3 '32 1 0// r- -- «fF , uk .1.~,A. ,~n.4 %39' , 4 4 1 r / i L_. 74:1 /' ~ d i , i 1 n- 1,1 C ' 2 1 , - --J 4 , f // ' 1 , e., k ' I'll . - 1 / \ ROSA , .. 1 1 7 A . I I & -V d 'lj *- f>* A- 7 ff--f ~\ 1 1 / i! 1 4 *t'' ; 7.A 4..L- '. . 2/ at../ 2 / t/ /I v /f / / - ft , I / // X. 'I , ...5.. / / '1 4 4 1 i l- . - k. 1 - f -- a i' , :1 . ' 6 1 If ' . 4 r 1 / 1 1 11 4 4 -1' 1 , 11; .'18 / ' ' 11# .Pr«=.0 d j i 1 :1, , f. r. I 111 11 1 1 i i , /1.' 4 ,*.- . t. ' I 5, 1 1 -' N..·{ {1 :. N ' .' - // 1-,} B='* ' r ' 7-4 ' ff - R 7 , t .7 L•..k_ 1 ; I | 1 -7 1 .1 ...1 - j 5.a-1-ti . 4-l j--4 -1'i 6 411 /3//, *. 11 1 /ol // 1, ' 1 1 £ i.- 7; i _ ---17 1 4, f : I / ~ht- 4- - r 4. '7// 7 Ri ; f / 1 ' ' 4 -' / / 1 Il /2/,4 7 - -4 .L -- --- 1 --- ·· /k f : 7 I 1 .- / /, ././ /,/3 iII / '/£ k 9 .1 1 1, \11,7 ' /4 , l Ill // « r'.14: ?A , ·· t , I 9-» E- 1, ·T-4 . 977 , 1..1 11 . .3 & r. -,/4 ./ 30. 3.- t} i -1 1 . ~ '~kj litifiL .... 7/A -- ~ -+ - 7 F ...' -f '' ./4 ' 9/, n 14 r 1 Ph / , t 1 . 1 / ' *.I. . I /,im "; L lili:!1 / 1 1411111. L ./ 1 41U l....: 4-1 1 1/ 1, I I 11 'Jih44 f 1 i,' t , , . '9/ I . i 9. »» R/MF PD 9 2444- ·--~ · -:--i . , 2 -· A 3-41 i. 12<-----.- I j I F01-LL- 'f. 1 ...'/19 *. '' , l 141 1 P 1 1 ~ - j E i_*i --0-Itf<12~ ~~ i P ~»»h * full,p.,1,41. 4-\12-« + 12, ~ ;1i'J 4.-3 & 1 14 f 1 h \~ 1%//h// / h n- 1 6; <»-1-32-~ i r.-.~ El ,-1 ' ! h Trg -=¢0»821--14 1 4/fy/// / ' I-1 :f,ji A If· 9. i. f -~ 4#b fl h i.·i j / .~' .4-- Z-ZTTJ Nj lid/Wl 'l'l.li~ji '1 , L· I ..2- I j fl i r. 74- 1, i 4 .whvdmm////h .knul// 7%14Ul. i,-4 - ti , f,J f /- , · n.. v: Ndit Nl* 'ill /7ttitilt, ~ ff ---1.- 1-6 4--. A---*---- . . 94 /6 ..4- Ill . e a .4/y 11, 1 , 114 /4/'.,14 L.ily .1., j L 1 IM · - 'I.L.- 1 1 , f..ru 1 ji--# .*#I-· -- 31 1 111, i 111 1 ~-21-.1 F-.-... i-: J. 1 1 , If , -- I f Water Utility Line City Zoning N Electric Utility Line n 0 Forest Service Property 1.--„1 R30 PD W.~r E Structures 1.·-= S RS This map/drawing is a graphical representation orthe features depicted and is not a legal Driveways 5,2~ representation. The accuracy may change Re SA 1:600 ~, depending crl the enlargement or reduction. - Roads ;U,Mpl R/MF PD © 2000 City of Aspen 0 50 100 Feet Parcel Boundary LE Re PD 6 f, V, A r 9 2 1 - . 1 € * . 4 * ./ I , I 4 ' 4 9 '11 lap.1 * 1,14.4 I AL 1 11342 t.6 1 I . I .1 £4.; <·~,~~-I...... -/.I/- .726 4¢44' 'tf.. *44-14 *; I I ..A l ' l?$ I. 9.n v. I *: ./ , 4 ...,4, . L~11 1 ' * ... ././.- /:1 4/4,04"24*hj. 7 1, 4.12# ./ ¥ >, 4, a e I :r 40,48#A J#.~4. *P I. 1 4 /4. t + 1 0 4 Me .../t # 0,057 4 , I : 4 1 . . 1.CE~ 7410>.-.-4 *-* ..6 + $ d.... : ' t. U. 1 '4 :'.44.5 JA, 1611: - 4 .1.,F -Illillk -f I &' t»4, c..z:r & 4 ' I I . 0 m. 4 .9- 5 9 P 1,11>4 6 : : 4 Q'Ye «* - 4 $ 1/r .4 t. - f 2,-,4 .. , jA F , - .04% *14 4,11«:4* 44-t.4" . N. .%,~ - 4 - =. R 71<1 4, 0 .2.1, N •V< . IN·- 7< 41•%4»1 tv;~1~ - :r.6* /A i# ..N=*34 2 F ~ I 141 '4 --~ 1 3 -Er,4 7/„/Il/VXJ„1- %~<1 J,~,1~ -:' i I 4* 9... Vwl '9 W Y -= i 44&4 - y~f~t ANULA.4 *Wi, ~ 41, 9 & -W , i '. »i. i *Al.. i~©, I -,.44,3 44 ' 2*#~ I , 'figip , 1 14 - :f# 1. + d ki 9 ./ 1 2040 + 6. - I 4,~i/=L~M~ , ~"*a 4 4 :ws r.00$4.1 41* -1.--m + - ar- 1-1 - 4 A' - '16 l.......? 4 *'Trs/Fichill - 1 01 ... ti/*6119/11/91:*C' 1/ki-Ir L * 44 I . I WIL ..Men-4. 4 I.....P . + lk/31/1 9 ...'.-Ii./.- . I k I - 9 .4 '. h *=.43 *... ' .i i 1 ¢ . ''llpal'Wi.20 4 4 1 -- . 7 I 0 4,4 ' ... 1 + a ~ h - 14 . * 972 1 1 - . 0 - /4 < w 1 l 44 *w -3/.i : i' 02- ./174 1 47 1 J. .Kal. 4 - . ,"r~.4 ¥9 VVI ' - ' 'll - - -Il- 4 -V...ajazill'll- -I# 42,-'I ......p......._- . ' .. .,>.=98- . -Ah.7.. 9/ . ' I ... 1 0 - / 4/. *r'll - 4. L . 2 + . - 2,--fic . „24 ' , el, .*71~~ 43. r. D ?2 ..14 4 3 -f- 7 , 47 i * ' /.- 1 .70 , - "-- P -....- I 4=f= a . 1 41 1 -1 1 1 ir , 41 1 I . '.' ' 1* p# . , V 0. r . i '1 3 M 1.- . ~ & 7' 4 ' I 74 +A 4 t f. I k i 6 4 915-4- .ir./ 1 . -ae ~ - 77 .4 1 4 4 4 7. . I- -I. f./b - -- a .*r .... lilli . . 1 ./A f 4. , ----r , . . *1¢ 1 I * -Ir 14... - ¥ 44 *v~-** -.4 p -0. ht , 4 9, : 2 - -1 I. 1 ¥ f . I ~ ~ 1 .417.4142 3 4 ..iT & 4.,LJW, 6 4 2* 4 4*,F..FU -~32" 4 * A i .i - 1.. 4... .,4 1/4 -1 . r. 7 ¥ 1//I'Tjibi ,A'"6* - 22** .Nk? . , =./-/ r /£,f,1- 11.l- T 9 - 11 . W 4 ¥ .. V.. , t...... * I 0. f 2.44 'i - 1/ 444 . p , ~496 ' i ,* L ./ 2% . 4 ff *41~- - A 4 r . I . - ' ¥i I. ep. 1, ; -,- 4 .0 . IF 4 . i % 4 k : . 1. ./. " . 'r 4 - ¥ r. i I . - P 74 1, 4.1... $ .Ilij . * 1 I ../L .4 . 2. rit~%£* V . - 2 & A 02 : . ~ 1% S . /1/.1.-flw<~L . f,1 Kt /7 ....Fi " 21 -' -,1 34 4 + lili 4 4 ..1 4 4 - W flip * 11* f 1 ' A Y b , 4 1 , I .. A-,1 4 , , h. 1 0 .. 0- - -'00- .4 ... . . . . ..1 . .. 0 0 - .... ..... The City of Aspen Attachment 3 Submission Contents for COWOP Eligibility Determination Eligibility Requirement #5: Proposed Conceptual Layout - No proposed conceptual layout has been developed or proposed. APCHA believes that finalizing such a procedural step would be premature and, thus, preempt the goals of the COWOP process. APCHA believes that the COWOP process should address such matters in the course of its work. Eligibility Requirement # 6: Development Scenario - No development scenario has been developed or proposed. The only possible exception is the proposed range of 50 to 120 employee housing units noted in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan. APCHA believes that finalizing such procedural steps would be premature and, thus, preempt the goals o f the COWOP process. APCHA believes that the COWOP process should address such matters in the course of its work. Eligibility Requirement # 7: Section 26.500.040 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code - Pursuant to Section 26.500.040 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, APCHA believes that an employee housing project "constitutes an essential public (project), provides essential services to the public, and is in the best interest of the City of Aspen to be completed." The Forest Service site has been identified for employee housing (range 5- -120 units) and could include a neighborhood public park and transportation modifications or improvements. All of which constitute "public facilities" (projects). The employee housing project for the Forest Service site, thus, meets the provisions o f eligibility contained in 26.500.040. In addition, APCHA believes that the City of Aspen's Convenience and Welfare of the Public (COWOP) process is an essential procedural step to increase public involvement and, thus, identify neighborhood and community values as they relate to the proj ect. Eligibility Requirement #8: Zoning - The existing zoning of the subject property is R6-SPA (Medium-Density Residential - Special Planned Area). According to 26.710.040, a "Medium-Density Residential Zone district is to provide area for long term residential purposes with customary access uses. ... Lands in the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district are generally limited to the original Aspen Townsite, contain relatively dense settlement ofpredominantly detached and duplex residences, and are within walking distance to the center of the City." Permitted uses include: • Detached residential dwelling, Duplex, • Two detached residential dwellings on a lot of 9,000 square feet or greater, • Farm building and use, • Home occupations, and • Accessory buildings and uses. SPA "permits(s) a variation of the permitted uses in the zone district." No change in zoning has been developed or proposed. APCHA believes that finalizing such a procedural step would be premature and, thus, preempt the goals of the COWOP process. APCHA believes that the COWOP process should address such matters in the course o f its work. Eligibility Requirement #9: Property Boundaries Map, Survey or General Site Map of Subject Property - Please see attachment: The City of Aspen Attachment 4 Submission Contents for COWOP Eligibility Determination Eligibility Review Standards: Please see Eligibility Requirement #7 on page one of Attachment 3, Submission Contents for COWOP Eligibility Determination. Attachment 5 One Step Commission or Council Development Review Procedure 1. Attend pre-application conference. During this one-on-one meeting, staff will determine the review process which 5Pplies to your development proposal and will identify the materials necessary to review your application. / 2. Submit Development Application. Based on your pre-application meeting, you should respond to the application package and submit the requested number of copies of the complete application and the appropriate processing fee to the Community Development Department. Depending upon the complexity ofthe development proposed, Staff may suggest submitting only one copy. This way any corrections that may be necessary can be accomplished before making additional copies 1 3. Determination of Completeness. Within five working days of the date of your submission, staff will review the application, and will notify you in writing whether the application is complete or if additional materials are required. Please be aware that the purpose ofthe completeness review is to determine whether or not the information you have submitted is adequate to review the request, and not whether the information is sufficient to obtain approval. 4. Staff Review of Development Application. Once your application is determined to be complete, a date for the Commission or Council review will be set. Applications are scheduled for review on the first available agenda given the requirements for public notice. During the staff review stage, the application will be referred to other agencies for comments. The Planner assigned to your case or the agency may contact you if additional information is needed or if problems are identified. The Planner will prepare a review memo which addresses the proposal's compliance with the Land Use Code and incorporates the referral comments. The planner will recommend approval, denial or tabling of the application and recommend appropriate conditions to this action. You will be called to pick up a copy ofthe memo and the agenda at the end of the week before your hearing, or we can mail it to you if you so request. During the period of staff review, it is essential that public notice be given, when required for your development application. The requirements for notice of your application are provided in Attachment 7. Commission or Council Review of Development Application. Your project will be presented to the Commission or Council at a regularly scheduled meeting. The typical meeting includes a presentation by staff, a presentation by you or your representative, questions and comments by the review body and the public, and an action on the staff recommendation, unless additional information is requested by the review body. West End Neighborhood Block Meeting # 1 Meeting Notes Re: Existing Forest Service Site Tuesday, March 13, 2001 First Baptist Church 5:00 p.m. - 7:30 p.m. Attendance: Neighborhood Residents - 1. Heinz Coordes 2. Karen Coordes 3. Amy Gutherie 4. David Gutherie 5. Dyle Hower 6. Kim Keilin 7. Connie Madsen 8. George Madsen 9. Carol Ranee 10. John Schuhmacher 11. Lizzy Talenfield Staff- Troy Rayburn, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Nick LeLack, Aspen Community Development Dept. Nan Sundeen, Facilitator Janice Vos, Scribe NOTE: 42 west end residents/representatives and/or businesses were invited to the first block meeting. 11 came and participated. One part time resident called from his primary home in Florida in response to the invitation. This equals a 29% response or participation rate. Question #1: What do you like about your Neighborhood? • "the West End atmosphere" - dead end streets narrow streets cozy feeling children able to play on Forest Service site center or proximity to various activities West End Neighborhood Block Meeting #1 March 13, 2001 Page 2 of 4 its openness 4 quiet mature trees 4 family housing 4 pedestrian friendly 4 historic atmosphere 4 existing or low density Question #2: What would you change about your neighborhood? • need for more open space/parks • unrealistic standards for parking • traffic turning off of W. Hallam onto N. 8th Street • stronger/greater enforcement of safety standards to protect pedestrians crossing from N. gth and W. Hallam Street • restnct construction companies from using N. 8th St. as a parking lot • need for better enforcement of parking times (two hours) on N. 8th St • cut off access from N. 8th St. to Meadows Road Question #3: What is your perception or fears about employee housing in your neighborhood? • that the city will not take our concerns seriously • that the city will not complying with its own 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan language that calls for "appropriately scaled" housing in existing neighborhoods • increased density - not recognizing that the Forest Service site is in an existing, established neighborhood • increased traffic • increased on-street parking • fear o f poor design or lack of aesthetic value • increased number o f street lights (too bright) • poor construction quality • not enough "green" (open space or parks) • not enough storage space so people use balconies and patios for storage West End Neighborhood Block Meeting #1 March 13, 2001 Page 3 of 4 Question #4: What important qualities are needed to make employee housing work in your neighborhood? • ability as a neighborhood to genuinely participate in the development • match current density in neighborhood • could take a little more (density) based on character o f development • owner occupied, not rentals • keep character of the neighborhood houses face the street 4 preserve the community feel • do not overlook the importance of open space and neighborhood parks • realistic parking - one parking space per bedroom • need for underground parking on the housing site • good architectural design on all four sides • conserve the mature trees and creek ditch • no alleys or cut through streets (don't open W. Francis Street) • contain traffic circulation (limit entrance and exit to site to W. 7th Street) • maintain integrity o f the neighborhood • a good design or architectural product • adequate storage • target professional families • pet mitigation - need for bag dispensers, walking areas, etc • need for timely and adequate snow removal Question #5: What did you like about this meeting? • thank you for doing the block meeting - it sends a badly needed message to the community that you want neighborhood involvement Question 6: What should we do differently? • need some type ofpreliminary design to work from - short on baseline information • need to bring other projects or designs to compare or use as a model • determine some parameters about capacity • details on procedures or process with elected officials • after all four block meetings have been completed have one large community/pubic meeting West End Neighborhood Block Meeting #1 March 13, 2001 Page 3 of 4 Note: The first half of the block meeting consisted ofthe neighbors articulating their fears about development on the Forest Service site and their perception of employee housing. The turning point came when one ofthe neighbors pointed out the difference between the private sector developing the site versus the Housing Office. Ifthe Housing Office develops the site the neighbors have a much greater chance of participating in a process to shape the final product. West End Neighborhood Block Meeting # 2 Meeting Notes Re: Existing Forest Service Site Monday, April 9,2001 First Baptist Church 5:00 - 6:15 p.m. Attendance: Neighborhood Residents - 1. Vincent Galluccio 2. Jeff Gorsuch 3. John Morris ~~t> -rks 999 4,0 A.,4 40, k 0~ .. _,- /7 Staff- 09+4* lot .1 641,0.a- ovi tvW-* px-1 p_c*- . Troy Rayburn, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority / p L %•.A 4.4 W UA O· Chris Bendon, Aspen Community Development Nan Sundeen, Facilitator ./ L. nt,1A - p·*16 * 6· it/l S~,0 yk..4 . NOTE: 25 west end residents and/or homeowners or representatives were invited to the second block meeting. Three came and participated. No one else called or e-mailed any questions or concerns into APCHA. This equals a 12% response or participation rate. Comments: Staff waived the original focus group or meeting format that was used for the first block meeting due to the need for more participants. We spent an hour and fifteen minutes in an informal conversation with the three neighborhood participants answering questions and addressing their issues. Raybum summarized the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's conversations with the U.S. Forest Service and the talking points from the first neighborhood block meeting. The questions posed at the first block meeting were copied and handed out to the three participants who will e- mail their answers back to Rayburn. The three participants focused primarily on two issues: density and conserving neighborhood character. Rayburn and Bendon directed their attention to a visual aide that depicted the current allowed development on the forest service site under existing zoning and Accessory Dwelling Unit codes. West End Neighborhood Block Meeting # 2 April 9,2001 Page 2 of 2 Rayburn commented, "It does not matter whether its private developers Bob and Mary Smith or the City o f Aspen. By right, under current law, the site could be developed with a minimum of 53 units (roughly 17 units per acre)." There was no adverse reaction to this number on the part of the three neighborhood participants. There was also a brief comment that any developer could apply for a waiver or rezone to increase the number o f units. Staff also answered questions about conserving neighborhood character by pointing out some recent research that was communicated via a visual aide. Staff went into the west end and scouted out a home that exemplifies what they have learned from the neighbors. Staff photographed a "new Victorian" and created a computer simulated photograph of how the site might look i f developed with the "new Victorian" architecture and in a condo or row house format. The neighbors liked what they saw. The conversation and visual aide helped alleviate the neighbors concern that APCHA would build a three story, large rectangle box. Note: This visual aide only represents what staffhas learned from the neighbors when they (the neighbors) talk about the "west end character." Staff commented that the neighbors should not walk away thinking all units would resemble the new Victorian and that any development might resemble a mixed- use design. The three neighborhood participants will e-mail their answers to the original focus group questions. (Note: Mr. Galluccio has informed staffthat due to family issues he would have to follow up at a later date. As ofMay 10, no other neighbors have written back.) West End Neighborhood Block Meeting # 3 Meeting Notes Re: Existing Forest Service Site Monday, April 16,2001 First Baptist Church 5:00 - 7:30 p.m. Attendance: Neighborhood Residents - 1. Michael Flynn 2. Gail Hughes 3. Michael Latouser 4. Doug McPherson --~ -I A.uk LA#* A. . /0 c J .4 vi,l...., . 6. Jolin(]~~~ ??~7727/729 W. Hallam St. -09 '.r ;,00*~~ ~ Lp /'., A,,r--L- 4// 7. Bob Ritchie ,/4JLY:fc .0,4. 6,,forn /'.AA- . A'lio Staff - C +LA-.1 +U- ) d . ce,.4. k~~- *25' 04 6%,9 Troy Rayburn Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Nan Sundeen, Facilitator NOTE: 38 neighbors or representatives were invited to attend. Seven attended and participated and two called in to inquire about the project. This is a 23% response or participation rate. Question # 1: What is your perception or fear about employee housing in your neighborhood? • city or APCHA not held to same standards as private developers who wouldn't be able to build this dense • A "build it and they will come" mentality • impact on school system • public taxes being used to subsidize • produces increased taxes • would like to see less feeling of entitlement • current employee housing doesn't encourage/enforce "pride in ownership" • designs are not realistic considering the life style here - no adequate storage, people want and have dogs and no fence is put in, dense developments need garages (prevents additional on-street parking) West End Block Meeting # 3 April 16, 2001 Page 2 0 f 2 Question # 2: What do you like about your neighborhood? • the Forest Service is a recognized institution in Aspen - a land mark • single family homes • homes with adequate storage and garages to keep automobiles off the street • it's a real neighborhood • the West End is quiet Question # 3: What would you change about your neighborhood? • cut through traffic • unrealistic expectations regarding automobile use • entrance to AsDen has to be moved first • poor exit out o f town forces drivers into West End • parking - too much on street parking • employee housing will amplify the parking problem • city needs to adhere to the same rules as the private sector • need for bike lanes - kids can not ride their bakes in neighborhood any more • historical designation of the Forest Service site by the HPC Question # 4: What qualities are needed to make employee housing work in your neighborhood? • zoning has to equal or be the same for both the private developer and the city • city needs to follow the same rules as everyone else • there needs to be a better exit out of town and then this project could work • straight shot needs to be in place before ground is broken • needs to be single family homes • it should be family oriented • appropriate scale and space for storage, parking/garage, yards/fences • pets should be allowed but controlled - fenced back yards • needs to be integrated, so you don't walk across the street and get a different feel • realistic expectations and action to address increased parking and traffic - need for one parking space per bedroom • quality of construction - how will these units hold up to time • appropriate architecture • employee residents have to qualify - no abuse of the system - people getting affordable housing and don't qualify • target professional or category 4 West End Neighborhood Block Meeting # 4 Meeting Notes Re: Existing Forest Service Site Monday, April 30,2001 First Baptist Church 5:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. Attendance: Neighborhood Residents - 1. Kirk Gregory 2. Gail Hughes 3. CliffWeiss Staff- Troy Raybum, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Chris Bendon, Aspen Department of Community Development Nan Sundeen, Scribe Janice Vos, Facilitator Note: 94 neighbors/residents or representatives were invited to forth and last neighborhood block meeting. Three came and participated. There were no calls or e-mails. This equals a 3.1% response or participation rate. Question #1: What are your perceptions or fears about employee housing in your neighborhood? • city is becoming a big developer • city not considering those that already live here and affected by their developments • rate of affordable housing doesn't allow for assimilation • city too focused on those that don't live and vote here • trends are changing - community does not support all affordable housing projects • many people or affordable housing residents abuse the current system • city not realistic regarding needed appropriate facilitates (storage, parking, garages, etc.) • APCHA does not enforce rules West End Neighborhood Meeting # 4 April 30,2001 Page 2 of 3 Question # 2: What do you like about your neighborhood? quiet • wildlife • messy vitality • individuality ofhomes - different type or style of houses • safe • pride o f ownership by home owners • full time residents Question # 3: What would you change about your neighborhood? • traffic is horrendous • all o f the on street parking • pedestrian crossing on W. Hallam • snow removal and street cleaning is obsessive • kids can't play in the street any more • loss of trees close to or right next to houses • don't want Entrance to Aspen - won't change anything Question # 4: What important qualities are needed to make employee housing work in your neighborhood? • let the professionals do the planning - not the politicians! • don't imitate Victorian structures • no dyed to match row or townhouses • make employee housing tasteful • one parking space per bedroom • neighborhood covenants must be enforced • fenced yards for dogs • leash laws enforced • varied sloped roofs • use Aspen Glen as an example o f a good project design - can not tell the di fference between large single family home and duplex • no overnight parking on street - no additional on street parking • stay away from studios and one bedrooms • focus on families - two and three bedroom units West End Neighborhood Meeting # 4 April 30,2001 Page 2 of 3 • need open space or neighborhood park • provide doggy poop posts for clean up • no rentals - only home owners • no convenience store • reasonable density • present a good, viable plan - not one that has to be widdled-down • 120 units is not characteristic of community/neighborhood character • want good, permanent neighbors • city needs to genuinely include citizen ideas and input - no dog and pony show! • factor in varied roof lines/height Forest Service Infill Project - Aspen, CO Process To Date June 2001 Aspen Specific: Introduction - The goals of both the neighborhood and community-wide public outreach will hopefully accomplish three primary objectives: (1) early awareness about the City of Aspen and the Housing Office's interest in the Forest Service site; (2) seek genuine public involvement in the Forest Service site as an infill housing project with the goals possibly being (2a) a partial solution to the community's concerns about urban sprawl and Gb) addressing the continued demand from hard working Aspenites about providing housing at a reasonable cost; and (3) to collect both neighborhood and community values to assist the community and appointed bodies in addressing this project. Timeline and Process To Date: 4 1 • January/February 2001 - A series of one-on-one introductions with the West End neighbors to collect preliminary thoughts and reaction to the proj ect > Update: the APCHA Board 4 the Aspen City Council • March/May 2001 - 1 Four neighborhood block meetings (meetings took place during the official ski season) 4 Block meetings will serve to: (1) further broaden neighborhood awareness and involvement; (2) further define the technical issues of the project as they relate to neighborhood concerns; (3) collect information to be included in the City's Convenience and Welfare ofthe Public (COWOP) land use process; and (4) used to identify possible COWOP task force members. 1 Work session with the APCHA Housing Board 4 Update on March through May findings • June 2001 - > Two community-wide public forums (June 14 and 28th) Transition form strictly a neighborhood focus to community-wide issues or values > Submit COWOP land use application to Aspen Community Development 1 Develop Request for Proposals (RFP) for a lead conceptual land use consultant > Advertise RFP -- over -- • July/August - > Community Development will present the COWOP application to City Council for approval P Goals of the COWOP process Appoint a community task force comprised ofbalanced community and technical representation to address the numerous aspects relating to the Forest Service Infill Project 4 The task force will assist APCHA and the Community o f Aspen in: (1) incorporating neighborhood issues and values into a official public document to be used as the guidelines for future development; (2) incorporating community issues and values into a official public document to be used as the guidelines for future development; and (3) producing a short set of draft, conceptual site sketches. August/September - > With the City Council's approval, convene the COWOP Task Force Work with the White River Forest Service - The Housing Office has been working in an on-going manner with the White River National Forest since October 2000. More importantly, the Forest Service is aware of our continued interests in the site located here in Aspen. These interests have been expressed both verbally and in writing. To date, the housing office has received no indication from the Forest Service that it wishes to discontinue negotiations. As a result, the Housing Office's progress with the Forest Service is encouraging. Although the Housing Office can not speak for the Forest Service, APCHA is hearing terms from personnel like "opportunities exits in working with" the APCHA. The Housing Office has also received support from the Forest Service to begin the City ofAspen's Convenience and Welfare of the Public (COWOP) land use process for the site. The Housing Office has also had substantial conversations about its interests with U.S. Senator Wayne Allard and Congressman Scott McInnis's staff. The White River National Forest was represented by its Aspen district ranger at both o f these meetings. The Forest Service is currently developing an assessment process to evaluate all of its facilities. This "assessment will identify facilities the Forest Service could trade or sell, in order to upgrade other facilities, and note possible sites for a new district office." (Aspen Times, May 18, 2001) T.im'. United States Forest White River Supervisor's Office (:~7) Department of Service National 900 Grand Avenue 95257 Agriculture Forest PO Box 948 Glenwood Spgs CO 81602 COPY TTY (970) 945-3255 (970) 945-2521 FAX (970) 945-3266 File Code: 6440 Date: May 8,2001 Ms. Mary J. Roberts Executive Director Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority 530 East Main Street, Lower Level Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Ms. Roberts: Per your letter of April 16, the White River National Forest recognizes that the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority wishes to enter into the city's required Convenience and Welfare of the Public (COWOP) development review for the Aspen site of the White River National Forest. It is our understanding that this is a procedural step. One that will serve as a vehicle to formally collect the issues of the west end neighbors and identify a development program that addresses the community's values. The White River National Forest recognizes the benefits of such public processes and supports the Housing Office's interest in beginning the COWOP procedure. In addition, although we will not interfere with your required activities, the Forest Service has not reached a final outcome regarding the relocation of our administrative offices, public educational center, and employee/volunteer housing. Sincerely, .(-0 11 j-/ A ) A h f 1 V 940*w, K331* MARTHA J. KETELLE Forest Supervisor CC: Jim Upchurch Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper 1~ Briefing Report To: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Board Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen Mayor and City Council Copy: Steve Barwick, City Manager Frorn: Troy Rayburn, Project Manager Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) Date: February 14,2001 RE: Existing Forest Service Site - West End Neighborhood Outreach Findings Staff has sought the opinions of neighbors to the in town Forest Service site regarding their thoughts on developing the site for affordable housing purposes. The neighbors were chosen randomly and consist primarily of single-family homeowners that surround the site. The conversations took place throughout late January and early February. The primary purpose of the community outreach is three fold: (1) to introduce the project manager; (2) to listen to the neighbors' issues; and (3) to convey that APCHA wants their involvement in the project. • Process - 1 collected names of neighbors from the Aspen Community Relations Office for those west end residents who had attended previous community meetings 1 collected names from G.I.S. for those neighbors who live within four hundred feet of the existing Forest Service site collected names from the west end neighbors 1 cross referenced the lists for those who live in close proximity to the site > called some 25 residents and communicated APCHA's interest in meeting and discussing the Forest Service site of the calls made, APCHA received feed back from 60% > met one-on-one in the homes of the neighbors • 15 west end neighbors have been interviewed to date - Kathleen Albert Carl and Catherine Bergman Heinz and Karen Coordes John Doremus Vincent Galluccio George and Cornelia Madsen Jim and Romona Markalunas Doug MePherson John Morris Mary Elizabeth Wilson Garry Snook ¥V¥¥¥¥V¥¥VV Existing Forest Service Site/West End Briefing Report February 14,2001 Page 2 of 3 The findings from these conversations are broken down into two tiers. Tier I is reflective of the most consistently mentioned and, thus, important issues to the west end neighbors. Tier II are those issues that surfaced occasionally among various neighbors. Following these segments are concluding comments. • Tier I - Maintain West End Neighborhood Integrity Density - 1 support for appropriate" and "reasonable" density ,, 1 support for avoiding 60 to 80 units ("too much") 1 support for 40 units or 60 to 70 bedrooms ("more reasonable") 1 support for Aspen Mass, Burlingame, and Truscott being used for higher density developments, not the west end neighborhood Architectural Design - 1 support for aesthetic value 1 support for pitched roofs 1 support for varying roof line height 1 support for avoiding boxy, bunk house look 1 support for avoiding traditional apartment design ("that 1970's look") 1 support for avoiding inappropriate designs that would devalue neighboring property > support for replicating the Snyder project in the west end k support for bungalows or townhome units > concern that balconies become storage space for bikes, firewood, etc. 1 support for providing storage space Parking and Traffic Circulation - k avoid creating additional on-street parking > support for an underground parking facility on site > support for one parking space per bedroom k concern that extending the existing grid would diminish parking space k concern that extending the existing grid would produce additional cut through traffic > support for traffic flow off and onto N. 7th Street 1 avoid multiple entrance and exit points to and from the development 1 continue to educate, encourage and provide resources for mass transit use, but understand that the majority of residents want and have their own automobile Maintain and Work with Natural Amenities - 1 support for retaining or selective pruning of the old cotton woods ~ support for retaining as many mature trees and shrubs as possible > support for extensive use of vegetation buffering along streets and corners Existing Forest Service Site/West End Briefing Report February 14,2001 Page 3 of 3 • Tier II - Support for some form of a private/public partnership - 1 free market sale of lots along W. Smuggler to off set the cost o f developing the site 1 "why would the city want to put a $200,000 house on a $2 million lot?" 1 support for sale units over rentals Neighborhood Covenant - 1 pet mitigation (limit number of pets per unit or one building solely for pet owners) 1 support for noise mitigation support for an on site asset or property manager > owners can not leave town and rent units out 1 support for rules regarding storage • Conclusion - The majority of the west end neighbors that APCHA contacted and/or met with were: open to meeting with APCHA, appreciated being asked, philosophically support affordable housing, and conveyed an understanding that the existing Forest Service site will eventually be developed. The previously noted support does not dismiss the west end residents' reservations about density, visual aesthetics (architectural design), parking and traffic circulation, cost to the tax payer, and artificial process steps for "an already pre-determined outcome." The majority ofthe west end neighbors made the distinction between the community's need for larger, mixed use housing developments versus development in an existing neighborhood. There is consensus that Aspen Mass, Burlingame, and Truscott are appropriate for larger development due to their location. In addition, there is consensus that an existing neighborhood is an established area with its own unique character and integrity. • Next Steps - To move from one-on-one meetings to block meetings among the west end neighbors. One aspect of these block meetings will be to identify five potential neighborhood representatives for a task force. This task force will assist APCHA and its chosen architect or site planner in developing a set of preliminary, draft site plans or visual preferences. It should be noted that APCHA would also like to include a representative from Community Development and one member from the Housing Board, Planning and Zoning Commission, and City Council. This brings the task force's composition to nine, not including staff. * ~»~34 ~~4-92 - 4 A. 61•-9 4447 Al. L l /1,/ s P U 04/ ~0 A 4 G/3.-5~~.e 'UJ Afl 4 . 6,1; 04.9 Ol o ?01:,1/5/ A A i b i I ve/1 Al 41# k .r,MA 46 COAJOP 06 b 543 04 / 1,04 0557