HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sp.Water Plant Housing
,-,
I'"
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Richard Grice, Planning Office
Water Plant Housing Project - 8040 Greenline Review
April 3, 1980
At your last meeting, this review was tabled for the purpose of obtaining
additional information regarding the following:
1, An analysis of alternatives for the design of the intersection of
the Water Plant Housing Project, Aspen Valley Hospital and Castle
Creek Road, In particular the Commission desired to see proposals
for a consolidation of access, bus turn-around and a review of the
possibility of acceleration lanes.
2. A rough diagram of the potential realignment of Castle Creek Road
to Highway 82 as it affects the Water Plant Housing Project.
3. The Commission wanted to be sure that the long term management program
would include a prohibition against the storage of boats and mobile
homes and etc. within the Water Plant Housing Project parking lot.
4. The Commission expressed its desire for an increased use of conifers
at critical screening areas, i.e., along the perimeter of the property
adjacent to Castle Creek Road,
The City Engineering Department has reviewed the project with regard to the
first two problems outlined above, Their complete comments are included within
your packet. Engineering has come up with two possible intersection realignments,
one utilizing the Hospital property and the other utilizing entirely Water Plant
property. You will be able to see each of these two possible alignments as well
as the proposed Castle Creek Road realignment at your meeting on Tuesday.
Engineering's conclusion is that the most optimum situation would be to utilize
the Hospital property in order to solve the joint alignment problem. They
will recommend realignment 2 be utilized only in the event the Hospital property
is not available.
In your packet you will find a memorandum from Jim Marka1unas of the Aspen
Water Department to Jim Reents regarding the Water Plant Housing Project.
Basically what Jim says is that they will not allow any storage of vehicles
whatsoever on the premises of the Water Plant property. The Planning Office
recommends that in order to satisfy the Commission's concerns you condition your
approval as follows:
1, The intersection alignment of the Water Plant access and Castle Creek
shall be in accordance with the Engineering Department's design labeled
No.1 if the Aspen Valley Hospital is willing to cooperate, and in the
event the Hospital declines to cooperate, the Engineering Department's
design No.2 should be utilized, and
2. The installation of traffic control devices be limited to stop signs, and
3, The sight distances from the proposed intersection should be 530 feet
in both directions and should not be obscured by landscape features,and
4. The "Long Term Management Program" for the Water Plant Housing Project
shall include a prohibition against the storage of boats and/or mobile
homes, etc, on the Water Plant Housing Project property, and
5. Given space limitations, the landscaping design shall include a
concentration of conifers along the most critical perimeter of the
project, adjacent to the Castle Creek Road.
\
-'t'.
~
,-.
1"""'\
MEMORANDUM
TO:
JIM REENTS, HOUSING DIRECTOR
A-
FROM:
JAY HAMMOND, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER
DATE: MARCH 31, 1980
RE: INTERSECTION AT WATER PLANT AND CASTLE
CREEK ROAD.
The following is a brief analysis of the intersection
onto Castle Creek Road from the proposed Water Plant housing
project in response to the concerns expressed by the Planning
and Zoning Commission.
I have utilized the State of Colorado Division of High-
ways Roadway Design Manual dated JanuarY"1980 for the purpose
of this analysis and recommendations are based on its crite-
ria. The following is a brief synopsis of the pertinent cri-
teria.
Traffic Load - Based on traffic counts taken in 1978 and
1979, Castle Creek shows an average loading of 3,071 Vehicles
per day resulting in a Design Hourly Volume (DHV) of 314. Pro-
posed development of the water plant site plus loading result-
ing from the plant itself results in a daily load of 720 V/day
or 74 DHV. The hospital provides no adequate data however its
DHV should be 74 or less.
Accident Data - Pitkin County Sheriff Department records
for 1979 show a total of 3 accidents at the WP location all
resulting in minor property damage only. The intersection is
not considered hazardous under it present configuration and
loading.
Recommendations: Based on section 400 "Intersections at
Grade," the Engineering Department recommends the following.
I) Whatever the DHV of the various streets involved a
redesign is warranted to eliminate the two intersection sit-
uation we have now. This would eliminate the crossing haz-
ard for vehicles entering the WPH and vehicles leaving the
Hospital. Right angle intersections are recommended since
they provide the shortest crossing distances and the most
favorable condition for drivers to judge the relative posi-
tion and speed of intersecting vehicles.
,,-.
1""'\
-
Assuming we can obtain land for our right-of-way from
the hospital, design #1 is the optimUm condition. Should
we be unable to obtain such use design #2 results and the
problem remains unchanged. (403.3)
2) Installation of traffic control devices should be
limited to stop signs since more elaborate signals are not
warranted by the DHV. (403.l0-ll)
3) Speed change lanes on Castle Creek Road are also
not warranted due to the low volumes. (405.5A)
4) Recommended sight distance from the proposed inter-
section should be 530 feet in both directions and should
not be obscured by landscape features.
5) The proposed realignment of Castle Creek Road through
the Marolt property is indicated on design #3 as well as a
proposed intersection treatment.
Please feel free to contact me if you feel there are
any other considerations requiring elaboration.
-
-/0 .~ 7e{,/I7f;f~ {(.-fleE - tlh'J1//IIIAi
ASPEN WA'rER ~~'i'
UlOlWWmt
TO:
JIM :REE.NTS.JIDf1$ING Dlm:cTOR
JIM :M'.UUGWNAS
WA'l':lm l!>I,ANT BO!f$!NG :PROJECT
MOCR 25. 191':10
J.'RQll:
S~:
DATE:
Y'?f51
CD~'I
I Qobd nth 1nterut an U'ti.clo in TD .!SiIEN 'n::OSeo.eorning
the Wat(l1" Plant H01l~iQ', P!'o.:1~t. I ftS ~hat ~t to read
'th..stat~l1t to t~~i'Ef(!Jt t..t ture 'wuan1af.JI:ll;iltlud_-
$t~.tQ with 1;h, Water Dep~~. that "'!I'ou14&1-1o'llF dead
s't(iJ'1ll.i'''' .1 V$1\.1<l1_ in .O'ln' pipe.ylirq, 11'01", thet"MOrlj. :i: .at
to l'IIllke U quite 019,1" t~t we ~ .01: .y. the physic.a1 :room
top%'Ov1110 for any llnt.c)} storage. 'fOlt fila" hfl:Vill mi8ucte:l'8tQOd
my COliRent t.1:. ShOUld lra.te1/' D.artmeat~lQyelit$ be Mused
at the sUe. we might M..1cte;oaU<>wlltg t~se Il!IQPloyees to
Store uued 1tl!llU oa. a tl!llllPO!'m J:.;al!I,ts. ~ve1"..a.tter second
t'~ught. it wi12 be .'fJlY poUCy not: toaUow any storage whatsoever
ou our premise. .in ord_ to .awld all,. ap~l"uce of discrillllna-
Uoa.
We .ve ol)8erv$i~.rthe put 11'\11'0 )!'eus that 1>.11. road situation
to the Water Plant isqllttlit pr4leu1olt!i. in tal! 'lIFtntfiU"llIOn.'ths, and
at t.imH ri;'tullY~$abl. wttlloltt a .....wlt..1. drive veh10.1..
We feel certain. 'tha"".~ M~ ~ to tAe 'la.ter Pla.a-t will b$
(l<msf;al'ltly blocked by sta.Ul~. ~d a.bq~Dedv~1elesoaee the
b.ous1~ project gOIllS il1''l'h~'\:~~9X<oo. we..b;~Ye<. deeided to ctipge
our aecElss!'hd tl!> tu Wa1llilil" PIQt tOIl.~~lltbi.proh1em. We
expect the ilousll'1(l: aatilortt.,.'s f':ull~oo-PeraUbh. intMll matte!'.
r-.
!"'"'I
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Richard Grice, Planning Office
Jay Hammond, Engineering Office~
FROM:
DATE:
March 18, 1980
BE:
8040 Greenline review of the Water Plant Housing Site
Having reviewed the above 8040 greenline application and made
a site inspection the Engineering Department recommends the fOllowing:
Due to the nature of this project and the Engineering Department's
role in reviewing and commenting on the proposed site plan, we have
had the opportunity for direct input into the design process.
,We have therefore been able to address many concerns of the 8040
review as the project has developed. What follows is an analysis
of criteria that may not have been met under the intent of the
9reenline.
Whether proposed grading will result in the least disturbance
to the terrain, vegetation, and natural land features. - Due to the
scale of this construction, and the existing condition of the site,
the work will require effective removal of all existing vegetation
(most of which is sc;r-ub oak and aspen with no large trees) and
considerable cut and fill. One of this Department's major concernS
has been to avoid the creation of excessive slopes as .well as con-
struction of adequate retaining walls and soil retention systems.
These concerns have been met on the current site plan however the
disturbance to the site is still significant. The landscape plan
includes revegetation with a variety of deciduous and evergreen trees
not all of which are native to the site. The current site plan iu-
cludesplanting adjacent to the Castle Creek road to act as a v~sual
screen.
In view of the circumstances described above and what we consi-
der to be the original intent of the 8040 ordinance, the Engineering
Department recommends approval of the Water Plant Housing greenline
application.
~'~"1::""~,7-':<"" "'~""~"':""~' .,.~.'J'.~:',"' "'f.r;.."7Y\':',~ '-~~.'1"" .~.."..~.. 'h":,,,_'''''''i'. ,'" '.-..
1"".
,......"
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Richard Grice, Planning Office
RE:
DATE:
Water Plant 8040 Greenline Review
March 13, 1980
You will recall that the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this
application under the 8040 Greenline criteria in August of 1979 and chose
to table the review pending receipt of a landscaping plan as well as an
alternative parking plan.
In the attached memorandum Jim Reents indicates that alternative parking
cannot be accommodated by formal commitment 'at this time but that an informal
arrangement is possible. The current parking proposal meets the City Code
requirements for residential construction.
The landscaping plan has been completed, It includes shade trees, evergreen
trees, ornamental trees, shrubs and general ground cover mix. It will be available
for your review next Tuesday night. The Planning Office is of the opinion that
the landscape plan if followed through as proposed should be quite adequate,
-
.......\'.. ,. ."",,: "l.~;.Il.; ...' .~.:......,,",-,:;..~v1l'-' r:l& ':'::-,;,~ ,. ~--"" -;;;-
'.U,a,
"'..,"'~.'=""
"'"..,'......-
-
.-..,
A
~~
/
DATE:
Aspen city Council
Jim Reents, Housing Direct~~
March 4, 1980
TO:
. -FROM:
SUBJECT: Water Plant Housing Schedule
This memo is to update you on the status of the Water Plant
Housing Project:
March 10 Public hearing and second reading-
Water Plant SPA
March 18 8040 Greenline Review - Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission
Week of March 24 Final pricing information for final
construction cost.
April 15 Construction contract
April 30 Ground Breaking
October 15 First building occupancy
February 15 Final building occupancy
Because of the current bond market, Wayne and I are meeting with
Don Dionis this Wednesday, March 6 to discuss a strategy and time
table for the issue.
If you have any questions about the project, or want to suggest
an alternative name, please contact me.
.JR: ds
.
"'\
f'" :\
ct~r, OF '''ASPEN
130 sO,u thga len:a~ treet
, :,~
aspen', colorad()/81611
< '~., ""'iiI~,;::,.,~i;;~~~
,~
"-',
MEMORANDUM
TO:
The Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
Jim Reents, aousing Director
FROM:
RE:
Water Plant 8040 Greenline Review
DATE:
February 29, 1980
In your review of the Water Plant project in August,
the Planning & Zoning Commission delayed action on the 8040
greenline review to resolve the following items:
1. Landscape plan. A detailed landscape plan has been
submitted to the planning office and is available in the housing
office. The landscaping plan represents an expenditure of $1,000
to $1500/unit.
2. The realignment of Castle Creek road to connect
with Cemetery Lane will have preliminary design engineering
work completed by August of this year. Beyond that date, it
is difficult to predict a time-table for completion because of
ques~ionable state and Federal funding.
3. Alternative parking elsewhere on the site cannot be
accommodated at this time due to the constraints of financin~ the
project. An informal arrangement with the water department to
allow some long term very limited access storage in the pipe storage
yard might be possible. The current on-site parking meets the
current code requirements for residential construction (1 spacel
bedroom) .
4. ThE! bus service to the site will be accommodated at
the entrance to the project and Castle Creek road where, according
to our engineering department, there is just adequate space .to
provide for bus turn-around and waiting space. At the current
time, it is anticipated that the project will be served only by
the city transportation department with the swing into .the
hospital still on a call-only basis.
I
.1
If you have any questions about the project, don't hesitate
to contact me at 925-2020 ext. 203.
r"". "lr~-Td' m~'7~,~.~., 7.~~-\,
lii":"':,~'J";" : ,",''-': '~'~";".i,'::,;,,,.; :~~: ~\.>:} ~K~~j\!' ~:~:::-'\\', ,,~jt .', ,:-"};
- ." .'.' '. . .. "') 'f",iI"" ,.'
::- ""., ;". .<:. "":~~i ':'~"::':):;J';.'tt;:, ; ,'l~":, P"/,,-,:,)..-, '.
. "_' ~ .' " .,.. .. ' . ~ c. .
i.;.-'" ;'" 1~' ,. ...< :~:,~'_' > ;': ," ~t'i:;:'_ .,~::::i.:._... ",,;~-::'~::
~ ;....'...~~"."7'~: "~,\",,,,,",,.~,",,-.,,~.
~'f:?~': ,;_1:~ .,-':~tT.,~{,I.: :~:'" . l~ >:""'J':':2::;~Xil!':: ", })~,'}:},~_.,;:.~:'~t$'r':"":"~:"""'~ft;; ,'",:
Oft: t;:<'<'l\~~:"-',r\r: ;~i't;"~r .: ;'~ J
I:i }'> ""'" -,!:~:~~L '.
'~.'J .- :.l.:'t';'.""':~I;';'IS .' 1-,: "; "'2,i.:,J.~::I?"
'':If.:t.-:(:: "." .:t;;';'; """,
~,,'. ~ '-.
:;X~~;:':>.
.--:;-;,'
;~,,!. " \f~
t:;::.J,. ~\li It
;, ..~.
;.}", ~. f"
, , ij !,~"l:t '
~. .~~. ~
~_;,t,.', ' ,__"' "",",~" ,,' .~" ,~: __?, , , '_ :.':':. ",; ,..','.~.'.
~~t:;;i~~~"':'f5:7:~~!i;-:'Y- . ~~~'!...
~1:~~:!'~~~,",~i;':~~(~~'~~."~. :~\'L . :'
. t
,. ~:!
,.:y.
.\,*; :
".\'"
. .::",1
'f'.
I
. ",":j;i'':::'~ Ii
~..f''''''', -' ." __,- .... ,~,
Ij ':';'<:~<:,:' _,' '>.::';;~ ':~:
., . .~:;l:
,-"-~,j, .~
. ','
_, ._,,:,,~._....,-;i'
~,.:--~~':~.~-.,,:,.,,," ,
.... -;~r" .
- - ,.' ""~"r '-.'
'" ',' "",,-- "" "", '
. ' ' " .
i ','
, .' "'"
~
..
I
/'"'.
.0
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen City Council
FROM: Jim Reents, Housing Director
RE: The Water Pl ant SPA Pl an
DATE: January 23, 1980
The SPA Plan has been approved by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
in August of 1979. It is before you at this date, for your revievl of
final design and siting of the project.
Within the conceptual design phase, the architects have tried to address
many of the concerns of the community. It was realized early on that there
were some conflicts not only with the developed Meadowwood area, but also
the community's goal of preservation of open space. For these reasons, the
decision was made to keep the buildings low in profile and to break the
roof lines so that they read as smaller structures. Quality of finish~
the pitch of the roof lines, as well as the broken roof lines, were all
intended to accentuate the impression that the structures read as clus-
tered townhouses. In addition, the structures have been situated well
below the initial ridge line on the Water Plant property. To the extent
that budget constraints would allow, I feel we have addressed the con-
cerns of the community and have developed a project compatible with its
surrounding area. In addition, the densities on the site are offset by
surrounding open space both across Castle Creek Road on the Thomas pro-
perty as well as the remainder of the Water Plant site.
To address the concerns of the Council, as well as the community, that the
project, after construction, not become cluttered nor run-down, additional
storage was designed into the project at a preliminary phase. This storage
-;,; :;vt:-, internal and external to the actual dwelling units. L('~::-':~~m ':M_
cerns over the appearance of the project wi 11 be addressed thr-uu;j;' L;,c
management program and contracts on the site.
The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission expressed concern about the impact
of additional traffic on the Castle Creek Road and especially its impact on
the Castle/Maroon Creek/Highway 82 section. This project in itself could
not carry the costs of real i gnment of Castl,eCreek Road; addi ti ona 1 devel-
opment within the area could provide this impetus. Since the earliest
phase of discussions with the representatives for Opal Marolt, a realign-
ment of Castle Creek has been discussed.
The approval of the SPA Plan clears the way for the development of this
80 unit rental housing project.
In addition, exemption from the subdivision requirements has been requested
for this project with the condition that if, at any later date, this pro-
ject would come in for condominiumization, that it be required to meet full
subdivision requirements. Under the City Code, any multi-family project
falls under the definition of subdivision, and it is because of this that
this exemption is requested. The Engineering Department of the City has
been, and will continue to be, involved with the development of this
project and all City standards ~and requirements will be met.
There is no request for a decrease within the parking requirements for this
project. The 80 unit project meets, or exceeds, the requirement of one
space per bedroom.
The City's active participation in the development of this 80 unit rental
project has two distinct advantages.
1. The City, through its bonding capabilities, has access to lower
interest rate financing due to its tax-exempt status with which
to construct and finance long-term this project.
2. Because the project would be constructed on City property, and
y
,1"'\
""
Water Plant SPA Memo
1/23/80 - Reents
Page 2
would be retained under City ownership, there would be no need
for rental increases over the life of the project due to a
sale and refinancing. The initial costs of construction and
financing would be fixed in 1980 dollars, and this would account
for between 75% and 85% of the total rental rate necessary to
both retire the bond as well as to operate the project.
"
r""'.
,......"
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office
RE: Water Plant Housing Project - SPA Plan
DATE: January 17, 1980
As you know this proposal is for the development of an employee housing
project at the Wdter Plant site owned by the City of Aspen. The proposal is
to construct 80 dwelling units on approximately 47 acres of land zoned SPA,
Development proposals for land zoned SPA require that a detailed site plan for
the entire area be submitted, The entire Water Plant property is approximately
63 acres of which only 6 acres would be used for the proposed moderate income
housing project. The water treatment facilities currently occupy approximately
15 acres of the total site and it is envisioned that this land use would remain
unchanged, The proposal would leave the balance of the property undeveloped and
any additional development of this vacant land would require additional review
and an amendment to the SPA plan currently being requested for approval,
In addition to the SPA review, this application requires special review
approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission, 8040 Green1ine Review and
a recommendation for subdivision exemption, The 8040 Green1ine Review is
designed to provide a transition of ev 10 men om urb .
and r e at a 0 men lS com atib1e wi revai1ing
slo es, natural land featur nd to uarantee the aval all 0 utilities an
a equa e ",,"',. proposa 1 ca s or a c us er wn ouse eve 0 ment Wl th
extensive open space intended to be compatl e Wl e 1n en 10ns 0 t e 8040
Green1ine requirements and the specific area, The County Land Use Code requires
a 100 foot setback along Castle Creek Road. This setback was established for
artery collection roads for the purpose of maintaining the rural character of the
County, While this proposal does involve construction within the 100 foot setback,
there wi 11 be no bui 1 dinas wjthi n 50 feet of the County Road and that is a greater
setback than is required anywhere in the City Codes, 1n addition, the buildings
will be substantially hidden from view through the use of permina and 1andscaoina,
We have checked the CSU ma~s for visual vulnerability of the property and dis-
covered that the 10% to 30, slopes are designated low to moderately visually
vulnerable. The proposed berming and landscaping lS cUII~I~Gent Wltn ~ounty
procedures relating to land designated low to moderately visually vulnerable.
Jim's review indicates that the highly visual upper portion of the building site
will remain untouched, In fact aJl ~~e~s in excess of ?n'L <lnnp~ hAIIP hPPQ
eliminAted from consideration for development at this time, The Planning and
Zoning Commission reviewed this 8040 Green1ine request in August of 1979 and
tabled their review pending receipt of landscaping plan as well as an alternative
parking plan. Each of these two items are nearing completion and we expect to be
completing review by the Planning and Zoning Commission in the near future.
The Colorado Geologic Survey conducted a site inspection of the property
in anticipation of this application, They have indicated that their observation
revealed no obvious adverse problems,
According to the Briscoe-Maphis report, the Castle Creek Road has a design
capacity of 3750 cars per 24 hour period. Traffic counts taken in the spring of
1978 by the City Engineering Department totaled 3000 cars per 24 hour period.
This indicates that the Castle Creek Road is rapidly approaching its design
capacity. Eighty dwelling units can be expected to generate 560 trips per 24
hour period. Therefore, while the Water Plant Housing Project would certainly
have an impact along Castle Creek Road, it does not appear that the approval of
this project would expand that impact beyond the tolerable level, Especially
in consideration of the extension of bus service to the site which can be expected
to reduce trips generated by 10%....- ,
In August of 1979 the Planning and Zoning Commission also reviewed the
application and recommended the following approvals:
1. Approval for the SPA plan an 6 acres with R/MF density, area and
bulk requirements;
2, Approval of spe~ial review as deed restricted employee housing,
therefore, exempt from Growth Management competition;
(";
,"""",
Memo to Aspen cc
Re; ~ater Plant SPA
January 17, 1980
Page Two
3, Approval of the subdivision exemption request as the project is
without the intents and purposes of subdivision regulations,
The Planning Office recommends you ratify the Planning and Zoning Commission's
recommendations.
.
,
,--.
^.
'1'0:
Aspen City Council
FROM:
Jim Reents, Housing Director
DATE:
January 14, 1980
SUBJECT: Water Plant Housing Project
'1'he decision was made in September by Council for the City to
retain ownership of the Water Plant Project and seek a general
obligation bond to finance the project. At that time,' Council
authorized additional funds to get a better handle on the site
work and to continue to the working drawing phase with the pre-
liminary design. .
'1'here has been considerable discussion from all quarters as to
ways to reduce the rental rates required. We have examined proposed
alternatives and at this time feel we should move ahead with the
design as previously approved.
Ultimately, the goal of this project is to provide' long term
affordable housing to employees within the community. There are
certain trade-offs inherent within thi~ goal.
rv", "cUI reduce b.Qt,h the_size ,and <;Ina 1 itYfl,f F'i nish, withj~h"",";"'c' '
to-initially reduce the rental rate. (Construction and Financing
accounts for approximately 75% of the rental cost). However, over
the life of the project (30 year bond term), this savings is
off-set by higher maintenance costs and higher vacancy rates.
Ultimately, the project ene,s up costing the same or perha'?f> more.
There are two local -examples of this type of approach, Silverking
and Arbeiterdorf in Snowmass. In both cases, minimum quality was
used initially, along with minimal maintenance. Today, approximately
ten years after construction, the Arbeiterdorf faces a renovation
cost to bring it up to code equal to twice the initial investment.
Silverking, until recently, has been the stop-over and escape valve
for the employees of the community until they found better housing.
'1'he Water Plant Project, as currently designed, will not fall into
this category. The amenity package offered will make it a desirable
place to live for the ,life of the bonds. The desirability of the
units long term guarantees the retirement of the bonds without any
additional subsidy by the City. In addition, the quality of finish
represents a cost savings in replacement costs over the life of the
project.
What I propose to Council is approval to proceed with the original
design and take it through a value engineering review. This will
achieve the most cost effective project and at the same time, produce
a project which can stay on schedule and budget. The people we have
. lined up to do this have a very fine example of ,their abilities in
creek Side 'at Snowmass.
/--'\
..-
Aspen City Council
- 2 -
January 14, 1980
with the goal of the project being a ground breaking on 5/1/80,
I feel we should proceed with the value engineering and lining
up of subcontractors over the next few months (see enclosed chart).
I must stress that you can never develop a perfect project. We
can change, or fine tune this project with perfection as a goal,
but it doesn't get the housing built. We are at a point where
hesitancy costs money in terms of construction delays and inflation.
A secondary decision which Council should be aware of is the
management of the project. I have solicited proposals locally
from project management groups that Wayne and I are evaluating.
I feel at this point the cost savings will be significant. I need
Council's reaction as to whether they want to be involved with that
selection or whether it should be left to Wayne and myself.
.
iJ.K:as
-z' . (Ion L.ntJ Tltl. AuoclDtlol1 COfTllnitrtlr, . "'leV 10173 "~
~' " ,<"
~ . , \:
, . _.
. '(J)' ..,........ .~..! '!.....JI '"..... ~ ~t._....,.. '\-...... ~....... '\........ -;.....:. ~....... ,~....t~....... ~.".~ .................. ...... ,\-.,. ....., ~ ~ .........:. ..
.~ 'fI '
',1' f
..-' (,
. ,II ~ .~
(.
:"
,
:.'
.
d
"
~~ ' 1
" ,
"
,
,
'~
:~:,
" '
~\.t
''o:~
"
.
"
?'i '
'Ji
-,(..\'
'J-
"~\ .
'.~(;J.' ,
.
." ;
','.,
,
.~ I I
" il(
.
1"' l
"
, ,
i
"
.: , -j
1
<{. + I
"
'... 1
"
,
,
, ,
,
.'
.; , 1
.
"
, ,
,
.....
'.....
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
ISSUED BY
STEWAI~'l~ rrITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
~
4
STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, A Texas Corporation, herein called the Company, for
valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in
Schedule A, in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate
or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the
premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions
and Stipulations hereof,
This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount
of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company,
either at the time of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsement.
This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or pOlicies of title insurance and all
liability and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six months after the effective date hereof
or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the
failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company, This Commitment shall not be
valid or binding until countersigned by an authorized officer or agent,
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Commitment to bl:\ signed and sealed, to
become valid when countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company, all in accordance,
with its By- Laws. This Commitment is effective as of the date shown in Schedule A as "Effective Date,"
~f!If~E~"
l-<.\........U41t.~
1':;...... ..... ....~:!t..
~ <Q': v()IlP(l.f....~ '.:A.
!~:~ -*- ~:..(~
\~\ t908 /.;;;:
'\ ......... ....~ !
~..:/
STEW'AH.T TITLE
GUARA.NTY COMPANY
\';,,'. I
-b~ h-c~
Chairman of the Board
e/~$~
President
~ ..""."' _.~ ...~.....
Serial No. CC
82528
,:"~ M.~ i.~
"
40GOOO
~
..,..,,'
.,-,
.,.,
SCHEDULE B - Section 2
E xceptlons
Order Number: 8814
Commitment Number: CC 825
The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the
satisfaction of tile Company:
1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown hy the puhlic records.
2. E;,lscnwnts, or cl<1irns of e<lS(~ments, not shown by the puhlic records.
3, Discrep,:ll1cies, conllicts in boundary lines, shortage ill area, encroachments, and ,Jny facts which a correct
survey and inspection 01 the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records.
4. Any lien, or right 10 ,I lien, for services, I,JI)()r Of rll,ltfJl' la/ theretofore of herelJfter furnished, imposed by law
and not shown by the public records. ~
5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public
records or attaching subsequent to the effective di1te hereof but ~rior to the date the rroposed insured acquires
of record fOf value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment.
6.Any and all unpaid taxes and assessments and any and all tax sales which
have not been properly redeemed or cancelled. 'Treasurer's Certificate of
taxes due has been ordered,
7,The right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore
therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises,
as reserved in United States Patent recorded in Book 198 at page 342.
8.Any tax, assessment, fees or charges by reason of the inclusion of subject
property in 11t. Sopris Soil Conservation District, Basalt and Rural Fire
Protection District and the Aspen Valley Hospital District.
9.Easement for road over the Easterly portion of said property as shown by
Survey of Scarrow and Walker, Inc., dated September 3, 1975.
lO.Easement for Natural Gas Pipeline over the Southerly portion of said property
as shown by Survey of Scarrow and Walker, Inc., dated September 3, 1975.
o
E XCCP! ions l1uJ1111el cd
are hereby omilfcd.
P"ge4
STJ';~VAnT TITLE
GUARANTY CONPANY
1654
:;:i.:" " ,'''~'l'mrt..[;
406003
~
~.
,~
'~:
'':''
SCHEDULE B - Section 1
Order Number: 8814
Commitment Number; CC 82;
Requirernents
The following ilre the requirements to lJe complied with:
Item (al Payment to or (or the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full cons.ideration for the estate or interest
to be insured.
Item (ll)
to-wit:
Proper instrwmenr1s) creating the estate or interest to be insLlred mu~t be executed and duly filed for record,
o
I
(c)
Deed from Zona G. Beck and Michael W. ,Beck to Chris Blair, David Blair,
Greg Sherwin and Merle Dulien. ~
(d)
Deed of Trust from Chris Blair, David Blair, Greg Sherwin and Merle
Dulien to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, for the use of Empire
Savings, Building and Loan Association and/or assigns to secure $164,000,00.
(e) Good and sufficient survey of subject property delivered to and approved
by Stewart Title Guaranty Company.
(f) Properly executed and notarized final affidavit and agreement by the
general contractor and/or owner and the purchasers delivered to and approved
by Stewart Title Guaranty Company.
NOTE: It is not necessary that the instruments called for under Require-
ment(s) (e) and (f) above be placed of record. However, the original
must be delivered for the files of Stewart Title Guaranty Company.
Page 3
, STEWAR'r TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
r-.
.~
-\.,.;.
SCHEDULE A
Order Number: 8814
Commitment Number: CC 82528
1. Effective date:
JUNE 8, 1979 AT 8:00 A.M.
2. Policy or Policies to b~ issued:
CHRIS BLAIR, DAVID BLAIR,
SHERWIN AND MERLE DULIEN
Amount of Insurance
Premiu
A A L T A Owner's PO/ICY
rropOSfld Insured:
GREG
$
208,000.00
$526.0'
8. AlTA loan PoliCY
PrOflosed Irlsurcd:
EMPIRE SAVINGS, BUILDING AND LO,\N
ASSOCIATION AND/OR ASSIGNS 6
$
164,000.00
$ 20.0(
$ Endorsement 100 $
Endorsement 100.29 $
Tax Certificate $
3. The estale or interest in the land described or referred to in this commitment and covered herein is fee simple ,md title thereto
is at the eflective date neraol vested in;
c,
~
10,OC
44.9C
5.00
ZONA G. BECK AND MICHAEL W, BECK
4. The land referred to in this commitment is described 8S follows:
That part of Lot 7, Section 6, Township 9 South, Range 85 West of the Sixth
Principal Meridian, according to resurvey of said Township and Range approved
December II, 1917, described as follows:
Beginning at a point of the Westerly right of way line of the D and RGW Railroad,
from whence an iron pipe with a brass cap set in place and properly marked for
the Northwest corner of said Section bears North 71010'07" West 1060.41 feet, more
or less;
thence South 66038'30" West 157.83 feet, more or less, to the center of the Roaring
Fork River;
thence along the center of said River North 03027'00" West 96.68 feet and North 060
43' 00" Wes t 101. 85 feet, more or less, to the Northerly line of said Lot 7;
thence South 89055'00" East, along said Northerly line, 92.38 feet, more or less,
to said Westerly right of way line;
thence South 27030'36" East 152,13 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning,
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado,
NOTE: Upon payment of an additional premium of $54.90, Endorsement(s) 100 and
100.29 will be added to the mortgage policy to be issued hereunder.
') /
'., /
. / I
/ i ?' /
~ ,f&ky !--L~fL(
A\.!lhoT,'Rd Co<ifl1er~- /
( , ,. ('
Page 2
STBWART '['{'I'LB
GU.4RANTl'COHPAN"Y
1652
"'...""'n~
-""V"...,
-t:j;J~ tift
September 17,,1979
Mayor and City Council
City Hall
Aspen, Colorado
.
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
The annual meeting of the Meadowood Homeowners Association met Tuesqay,
September II, 1979. Employee Housing at the Water Plant was discussed at
great length. There seems to be three different faction groups among the
homeowners.
The first group is opposed to any employee housing in the vicinity as it is
proposed now. They feel it will bring down the property value in the
Meadowood subdivision. Actually, they would not like to see any housing
there whatsoever. They are greatly concerned with the number of units, the
number of people that will be housed, traffic problems and damage to the
wildlife in the area.
The second group feel that since the housing project is a city sponsored
program, the housing should be within the city limits. 'This would allow
employees renting or buying housing units, tc' utilize the public transportci.-
tion system or walk to their place of employment without having to have
additional automobiles. For this reason they are opposed to the present
location for the housing project.
The third group is not that vehemently oppos.d to the location. They feel
it will not be 'seen by the homeowners in Meatowoodand since the project hILS
progressed this far, the proj ect will probably not be cancelled. They are
concerned with a few things they would like t.o have put into the record with
regards to controls. Their main concerns an' traffic created by the housiug
units between its location and the downtown area. The number of residents
occupying a single unit and trespassing on M.'adowoodproperty. Due to the
location, this group feels that there should be some restrictions on the number
of automobiles per unit and very tight controls should be administered as to
the number of people occupying units, Animaj;s, both cat and dog, should b"
on a very limited basis or none at all, due to the elk. herd migration in
the area. Naturally, all the homeowners in the Meadowood subdivision are
concerned about animals and people trespassiIlg through the hospital area or
their property. .
We hope the council will take into consideration the request of the third
group in regards to the restrictions set forth.
I would be most happy to appear in person or send other members of the
Association to appear before the council if there are any questions.
Sincerely yours,
~4;;~
. King R, Woodward
-,~... .
_.,.,.~.
.,..
,-~. -'~--- ,."^.~
-,-,"",.~:_,-~-~,~--'^...,+- +.-
?'"
.;-..
MEMORANDUM
TO:
RICHARD GRICE, PLANNING OFFICE
JAY HAMMOND, ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT _~
August 10, 1979
t> /lP IP.qp,a; P,d f3
1'385
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Water Plant Housing SPA Review
I have been asked to submit comments from the engineering depart-
ment regarding an SPA review of the Water Plant Housing Project.
The project at this point defies a proper evaluation from an engi-
neering standpoint. There are no survey documents as yet (although
they are being prepared in-house) and a precise plan is non-existent
in terms of specific building locations, road descriptions, existing
easements, existing and proposed utility plans, total projected
storm runoff, etc. Lacking this information, it is difficult to
evaluate the plan.
In terms of the design as presented thus far, I would have several
concerns:
I) Traffic plan indicates a parking density considerably below the
code norm. It also fails to address drainage of the roadway
itself nor does it propose any apparent use of curb and gutter
to channel water to a drainage system.
2) In several areas, notably behind buildings "c" and "F," the neces-
sary cut and fill to accomodate the site slope has created slopes
in excess of 35%. This would indicate a potential problem with
revegetation and erosion. Rip-rap or some type of cribbing and
planting program may be called for.
3) As the plan currently exists, the site drainage more or less
"disappears" from the northwest corner of the plan. I am inclined
to feel that a catch basin and culvert may be necessary to channel
this runoff across Castle Creek Road to a detention pond on the
Thomas property. Since the City owns the Thomas property such
construction should create little problem.
The plan seems to address questions regarding site lighting, trash
pick-up, height and mass considerations, and City setback requirements.
We also have an advantage in the area of necessary easements due to
City ownership.
In closing, let me say that the engineering department's concerns are
by no means limited to the few specific comments I have expressed.
Much detailed information is still needed to fully evaluate the plan,
and I would reserve any final approval for that time. The site is not
a difficult one and suffers no apparent major problems such as flood-
ing or other natural hazards. ~1any of the engineering questions such
as parking are dep~ndent on decisions regarding what is adequate in
this case.
jk