Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sp.Water Plant Housing�O SIP — 01 Water Plant Housing Project MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office RE: Water Plant Housing Project - 8040 Greenline Review DATE: 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 Markalunas 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: 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. MEMORANDUM TO: JIM REENTS, HOUSING DIRECTOR 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. 1) 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. 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. (403.10-11) 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. �. IeF - /�24NNIVI MEMORANDUM TO: FRO'd : SUDJECT : IRATE : ASPEN WATER DLPARTX:,'XT JIM REEtiTS-HOUSISG JIM MARKALU3AS WATER PLANT HOUSING MARCH 25, 1980 DIRECTOR PROJECT I notad with interest an article in THE ASPIEN concerning the Water 'Plant Housing Project. I was somewhat ulpset to read the statement to the effect that there was an informal under- stnndin with the `ate" Departncnt that ma woulA allow dyad storage of vehicles in our Idle yard. For the record, I want to mare it quite clear that re do not have the physical roo.a to provide for any such storage— You may have misunderstood y► co:an7©nt that, should Water ,)epart�lent employees be housed at the site, we might consider allowing these employees to store unused items on 9. te^iporary basi:3. '1owever, after secon thought, it will. be any policy not to allow any stora.;e whatsoe on our premises in order to avoid an7 appearance of discrinina tion. We have observed over the past two years that the road situati to the Water Plant is quite ,precarious in the ;winter months, ann at times virtually impassahle without a 4-wheel drive vehicle. We feel certain that our access road to the 7ater Plant will be constantly blocked by stauled and abandoned vehicles once the housing project goes in. Therefore, we have decided to change our access road to the Water Plant to avoid this problem. We expect the housing; authority's full cooperation in this natter. 0 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Grice, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Office DATE: March 18, 1980 RE: 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 greenline. 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 scrub 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 in- cludes planting adjacent to the Castle Creek road to act as a visual 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. 11 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office RE: Water Plant 8040 Greenline Review DATE: 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. . OkV TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Jim Reents, Housing Director DATE: March 4, 1980 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 CITY OF ASPEN 130 south galena street aspen, color a d o,-'81611 MEMORANDUM TO: The Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Jim Reents, Housing Director 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 questionable state and Federal funding. 3. Alternative parking elsewhere on the site cannot be accommodated at this time due to the constraints of financing 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 space/ 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. If you have any questions about the project, don't hesitate to contact me at 925-2020 ext. 203. S/9TT--•fir .. ���fY....�r —. T.� t iVIM �v'.. '^s . r J& • MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Jim Reents, Housing Director RE: The Water Plant SPA Plan 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 review 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 internal and external to the actual dwelling units. L^ terns over the appearance of the project will be addressed thru.,311 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 realignment of Castle Creek Road; additional 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 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. 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 Writer 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 Greenline Review and a recommendation for subdivision exemption. The 8040 Greenline Review is designed to provide a transition of dev to men rom urban and foLes ry uses and to in ure at all de-yelopment is com atible with prevailing slopes, natural land features --and to 2uarantee the availability of utilities and a equa e proposal calls for a cluster4townhouse development with extensive open space intended to be compati e wi the inten ions of the 8040 Greenline 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 ural chaLaLtpr of the County. While this proposal does involve construction within t e 0 foot setback, there will be no buildings within 50 feet of the County Road and that is a greater setback than is required anywhere in the City o es. in addition, the buildings will be substantially hidden from view through the use of berming and-1-andscat)inci We have checked the CSU maus 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 is oun y 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 a in excess of ° Pli ina_ed from consideration for development at this time. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this 8040 Greenline 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: Approval for the SPA plan on 6 acres with R/MF density, area and bulk requirements; 2. Approval of special review as deed restricted employee housing, therefore, exempt from Growth Management competition; . • Memo to Aspen CC Re: Water 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. TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Jim Reents, Housing Director DATE: January 14, 1980 SUBJECT: Water Plant Housing Project The 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. There 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 this goal. we uan reduce both the size and qi1P_.lity._of_ Finish withi ^-4-ro ;,_; 4- 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 encs up costing the same or perha,?Fs 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. The 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 e 2 _ January 14, 1980 With the goal of the project being a groundbreaking 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 TV7ayne 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. LiK:as I Ar rlcan Land Tltia Association Cornmitm� "4d 10/73 [[t[�'��()� }�S. .-f 4•D ^�.. t trl :1. .-,`.. .�. !�•. •f ttJ •y..�J fJ L•J COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE ISSUED BY '1` �J'VA i , ,r rr I'1` IJ E GUARANTY COMPANY r e 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 he 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." l�: 'SLEcc, GUARANTY C0bf1, y i>�N•� 19 0 8 :�o� 82528 Chairman of the Board President 406000 SCHEDULE B — Section 2 Exceptions Order Number: 8814 Commitment Number: CC 82528 The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. A. Any lion, or right to it lien, for services, labor or material theretofore of hereafter 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 date hereof but Prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for 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 tot. 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. 10-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. 0 Exceptions numbered are hereby omitted. 1654 Page `tiT):«'ART TIT1,E, G U A R A N T Y COMPANY SCHEDULE B — Section 1 Order Number: 8814 Requirements The following are the requirements to be complied with: Commitment Number: CC 8252E Item (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. Item (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to he insured must be executed and duly filed for record , to wit. a (c) Deed from Zona G. Beck and Michael W. rBeck 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. 406003 Page STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY 'y SCHEDULE A i Order Number: 8814 1. Effective date: JUNE 8, 1979 AT 8:00 A.M. 2. Policy or Policies to be issued. A ALTA Owner's Policy CHRIS BLAIR, DAVID BLAIR, GREG Proposed Insured. SHERWIN AND MERLE DULIEN Commitment Number: CC 82528 B. ALTA Loan Policy EMPIRE SAVINGS, BUILDING AND LOAN Proposed Insurvd: ASSOCIATION AND/OR ASSIGNS e Amount of Insurance $ 208,000.00 $ 164,000.00 Premium $526.00 $ 20.00 C. $ Endorsement 100 $ 10.00 Endorsement 100.29 $ 44.90 Tax Certificate $ 5.00 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this commitment and covered herein is fee sirnple and title thereto is at the effective date hereof vested in: ZONA G. BECK AND MICHAEL W. BECK 4. The land referred to in this commitment is described as 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 11, 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 71°10'07" West 1060.41 feet, more or less; thence South 66°38'30" West 157.83 feet, more or less, to the center of the Roaring Fork River; thence along the center of said River North 03°27'00" West 96.68 feet and North 06' 43'00" West 101.85 feet, more or less, to the Northerly line of said Lot 7; thence South 89°55'00" East, along said Northerly line, 92.38 feet, more or less, to said Westerly right of way line; thence South 27°30'36" 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. Allihn(Iled ClJ-1(rjrlteF,-gn tpe---// ( Page 2 1652 STEWARrl' '11I'1'1,1; AQARANTT coMPANy 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 Tuesday, September 11, 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 transporta- 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 opposed to the location. They feel it will not be :peen by the homeowners in Meadowood and since the project hz:s progressed this far, the project will probably not be cancelled. They are concerned with a few things they would like to have put into the record with regards to controls. Their main concerns are traffic created by the housing units between its location and the downtown area. The number of residents occupying a single unit and trespassing on Meadowood property. 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. Anima:_s, both cat and dog, should bE: 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 trespassing 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, i King It. Woodward i ! M E M O R A N D U M TO: RICHARD GRICE, PLANNING OFFICE ORO��'.9s�►CF �n.lfi FROM: JAY HAMMOND, ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT A � J8� DATE: August 10, 1979 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: 1) 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. many of the engineering questions such as parking are dependent on decisions regarding what is adequate in this case. jk �, r :•..•�• �• �`"--•r.•.�„ _ � _ �_ ► .. r - ..... +.,.`rnllYd..• tiff' � QU � 1 J _� �.: :. %tom•• � __. _. ,„ ' "� 1� .� �;.t, .I P.:1 {r`i.. . .1'.i%., . v.., {'w • v1� - 1)-\{v-. .i v o• .. o'Y'r �'J`� v .rry .. _ r - .AIL w uw ozl_e�4,t-e J-cz�el�t Ce-G—, cr-7 0— y 6. 0 111 mum tm 16 to $1 10 A >C > A 40 . CI < in l 'A IZO M + 0 0- tA In . ........ U) —Nickelson m i on, 0 0 4 C rf) Cr 'P 'en Cie$ er 4 Set C) tv —J 0 Al 516 7 \61\11 Gm Ate, Arbaney + Ufa t:w, — mp v 0 -ie tl ' ,' ` 9 ' 4 nj W *ram, 1933 \19 go r 0 w N ds. -- '0 m lj% "At 0 '/- �c) �,/�a ' _° " � i 1 %I .7,s It 0 0 it kg 'OFi' OF 4j lt z C, Ir 0. 0 ',tiller k Mileages going DownVulley from Aspen nlon� Ilfghway 82 Distance: 'FROM: Hotel Jerome (ASPEN) 0 TO: Castle Creek Bridge .9 Highlands Turnoff .4 Buttermilk 1.4 Snowmass Turnoff 3.3 Woody Creek Turnoff .8 City Dump 2.5 Aspen Village Trailer Ct. .7 Lower Woody Creek Rd. .3 Watson Divide Rd. .3 A. R. V. Ranch 2.2 Old Snowmass 1.8 Lazy Glen 1.2 Wingo Junction .4 Holland Bills .6 BASALT 1.6 El Jebel (Sopris Village) 4.0 Catherine Store 3.4 Ranch at Roaring Fork 1.0 CARBONDALE turnoff 2.8 GAReo-1041-f 5 �SPf ni�E f C .9T47eJ Cumulative Distance: 0 .9 1.3 2.7 6.0 6.8 9.3 10.0 10.3 10.6 12.8 14.6 (turn-off for Gateway, Little Elk Creek, Shiel, 15.8 16.2 16.8 18.4 (turn off for Emma. Orchard East & West Sopris C 22.4 (turn off for Aspen Mesa, Red Table Acres) 25.8 (turn right for Missouri 1 left for back road to C'( 26.8 29.6 MBA 0Lp IS iT%c �c/c GPeF� NO �f SSE Al LX111j'L'L 11, Atz'tachc!O and Made a Fartllo eof ' /4 % y 1 I W re 0 . •yam 't '�:l -, �• .y�`a-` ,' . 1 �\� ` � yam; � 'la \. I \` \.�� `• `( 1• I > I I I 11I..1' on I11. ')Iltl (I.Iy oI I),•.:111)tsf'IO�)J, IIM Q V1,1:i i) :.urvr•y modu by '.�t:AId\Z(A'. ANO 1:".1.KI R, I:"f:. , O1 1 .1-, i hl, r. )v :monfif; uo o of l.1nd ;I'Iu,lr' •,I i., Lol- ' of :Wci iOrt I., It).,.r• !lit) 9 '� ouIt:; 16n,•:,! fly 1rJ(,51' c)f tho :',Ixlh Prill.-li)')I lI-rirli.ul I, t•,xtlin-1 I ) 111'! ,&ii;-; -!d imip and dw*,(,rirll-ion Of r.1.fy I, I(:Gd. %-,v 1(mr! i1I I'„ lt,): y h-i ()I_) -o I firalnffi--ru�fion with Cul CI'.•'ll! 1OI nd'.1I, ;I .lilt! J!111:••I!!) riy,l`A'.) II 1',.,'1i•',I Hit- l o--a-f i Ull :IJ l: r CP,' I: I .: l: ") i �)' I 1111 I I O i II "., I IliI)f'UVr11(:''I; rf sofllr•.n t'. and r I t�.l t o f -way'i I ,1 ('V i (.i :',I't' ( fir {v O;I,,', 1 u tll•.' f 110 , I I(: J'1411. hlfl;;il f 1)y -)r (Ill I hl IltumiSt::; .Ir'l: .)_�.trr.lit'Iy ::hOt��l• I I I I I � • I I •�LI-wb;';1;1I) :,I'l;',itic;;, c�1.1,,;;,hl� I I 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 ,