Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20170404 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION April 04, 2017 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA I. Aspen Housing Partnership Public Outreach Results P1 Page 1 of 6 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager THRU: Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager DATE OF MEMO: March 31, 2017 MEETING DATE: April 4, 2017 RE: Aspen Housing Partners (AHP) Community Outreach Update #2 REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff and AHP team are reporting findings of March 2017 community outreach (check-in #2) for potential development of affordable rental housing at 802 West Main Street, 517 Park Circle, and 488 Castle Creek Road. The team intends to report and discuss the March outreach findings in this April 4 work session, and after discussion and input from Council, the team proposes to come back in a subsequent April 25 work session to present the final proposed development application contents. BACKGROUND: In January 2015, Council directed staff to seek community input on future affordable housing development alternatives. In September 2015, staff reported results of community outreach which suggested a need for affordable rental housing. In November 2015 staff was directed to release an RFP to seek proposals for development of affordable rental housing. In November and December of 2016, Council verified the selection of AHP and directed the team to perform a community outreach process which included today’s check-in with City Council. Council check-in #1 was February 14, 2017 and established action items for further community outreach in March 2017. DISCUSSION: March Open Houses: Based on discussion with Council in a work session on February 14, the AHP team updated the open house display materials and shared those in two open house events held on March 2 and March 8 at the Limelight Hotel. The updated display materials are shown in Exhibit A. The March open houses were attended by about 175 people. The display materials were grouped into the following topic areas: General Project Information: Updated March outreach objectives based on Feb 14 work session: 1. Provide background on 2015 public outreach that established these projects as rentals 2. Explain low income housing tax credit financing and the benefits to the community 3. Describe the ability to use ADA accessibility design standards to provide access for seniors 4. Work with City and APCHA staff to identify demand details and ensure units propos ed are most appropriate for the community need Summary of feedback received: Many comments were received supporting rental units, and a few comments suggested that additional ownership units are also needed. We answered many questions on the PPP arrangeme nt, tax credit financing and the overall proposed program and income levels to be served, but no additional written comments were received. P2 I. Page 2 of 6 802 West Main Street : Updated March outreach objectives based on Feb 14 work session: 1. Further consider program, unit types, sizes, bedrooms, bathrooms, storage and layout. 2. Continue to conduct neighborhood meetings to further understand the day-to-day complications with traffic and access in the block west of the s-curves 3. Commission a thorough traffic and access impact analysis and work with neighborhood stakeholders and City regulators to consider appropriate parking and traffic solutions 4. Further consider the architectural style as well as density, mass, scale and height in context with conditions in the neighborhood 5. Further assess open space opportunities against density, building footprint and parking Summary of feedback received: The AHP team updated the unit plans to include more storage, and the unit layouts were displayed in a much larger format than previously done. Feedback on the units was generally positive, and it was additionally suggested that north- and east-facing balconies should be avoided due to lack of sun and exposure to traffic on 7 th Street. An updated rendering of the architectural style was included by AHP, and the comments received mostly suggested that further work is needed to integrate with nearby architectural precedent. Numerous comments suggested that third story massing is too tall, and some suggested to keep t he third story mass only at the corner and step down as it goes away from the corner. To better understand parking and traffic concerns, the AHP team created four alternate site layout options, each with modified parking and traffic circulation options. T he four alternative layouts can be seen in the Main Street section of Exhibit A and are briefly described below: Option 1: Maintained 10 on-site parking spaces in the alley and aligned those with existing Bavarian alley parking to the West; clarified 20-foot alley width; increased on site courtyard adjacent to Bavarian; density TBD 11-13 units with 2- and 3-story building elements; any parking deficit to be made up by improved ROW parking on West Main. This option received some support and was cited by one person as “the best of the worst”. Option 2: Included 12 on-site parking spaces by wrapping alley parking around and onto the western side of the site; clarified 20-foot alley width; eliminated all courtyard/green space; density TBD 11 - 13 units with 2- and 3-story building elements; any parking deficit to be made up by improved ROW parking on Main. This option received virtually no support because it does not help the alley condition and eliminates all green space. Option 3: Curb cut added on West Main Street to access 11 on-site parking spaces on the west side of the site; clarified 20-foot alley width; eliminated all courtyard/green space; density TBD 11 -13 units with 3-story building elements; any parking deficit to be made up by improved ROW parking on Main. This option received no support and would also not be recommended by City Engineering. Option 4: Placed 13 head-in parking spaces in the ROW on West Main Street and converted alley parking area to green space; increased on site courtyard adjacent to Bavarian; density 13 units with 2- and 3-story building elements. This option received the most support because it alleviates alley congestion, but City Engineering would not recommend ROW parking on West Main. P3 I. Page 3 of 6 Options 1-4 do not include fully-designed architecture and thus suggested 11-13 units due to unknowns. There were roughly equal comments both for and against density of 11-13 units, although we have heard on numerous occasions that residents in the neighborhood do not support 13 units. The AHP team also suggested other alternatives such as closing the alley, speed bumps in the alley and car-to-go, with no clear consensus, but two suggestions which received significant support were re- designation of this block to its own residential parking zone and improvements to the ROW parking on West Main Street. More meetings were also conducted with some neighborhood residents, and traffic circulation was cited as a primary concern – both in the existing condition and given any development which may make things worse. One highly cited concern is the difficulty making a left turn from Bleeker Street onto 7th Street heading in the down-valley direction, particularly during peak traffic conditions. AHP has engaged a traffic engineer to perform a comprehensive study of traffic in this area, but it is not clear what improvements, if any, could alleviate this difficulty. 517 Park Circle: Updated March outreach objectives based on Feb 14 work session: 1. Further consider program, unit types, sizes, bedro oms, bathrooms, storage and layout 2. Commission a thorough traffic and access impact analysis and work with neighborhood stakeholders and City regulators to consider appropriate parking and traffic solutions 3. Further consider density against constraints and e xisting conditions through studies and stakeholder interviews 4. Further assess open space against density, building footprint, parking and surroundings Summary of feedback received: The AHP team updated the unit plans to include more storage, and the unit layouts were displayed in a much larger format than previously done. Feedback on the units as redesigned was positive, although comments about the importance of storage persist, and there were some comments suggesting that 3-bedroom rentals should be replaced with smaller units. Feedback on the proposed density of 11 units with 1:1 on-site parking was balanced, with roughly equal suggestions for more or less o f both, and with some suggestions of massing reductions, particularly on the east side facing the adjacent single family home. An updated rendering of the architectural style was included by AHP, and although not a lot of comments were received, some mentioned that more ‘mounta in vernacular’ elements are needed and that attention to snow shed from roofs is needed. Some concerns were also noted about lack of visitor parking and parking area lights potentially flooding in the direction facing southwest. And albeit with a sample size of only twelve comments, t he pro-dogs comments outweighed the no -dogs comments by about a factor of two. AHP has engaged a traffic engineer to perform a comprehensive study of traffic in this area, and results of that study are pending. 488 Castle Creek Road: Updated March outreach objectives based on Feb 14 work session: 1. Further consider program, unit types, sizes, bedrooms, bathrooms, storage and layout 2. Commission a thorough traffic and access impact analysis and work with neighborhood stakeholders and City regulators to consider appropriate parking and traffic solutions 3. Further consider the architectural style in context with conditions in the neighborhood P4 I. Page 4 of 6 4. Further consider density against constraints and existing conditions through studies and stakeholder interviews 5. Work closely with City of Aspen and Pitkin County Open Space and Trails departments on outreach and planning for trail connections. Summary of feedback received: In response to January comments suggesting increased density at this site, the AHP team increased the density at this site from 24 units to 32 units. The increase was accomplished not by making the buildings taller but instead by pushing the buildings east toward the slope and adding a lower walk-out level facing Marolt. While this doesn’t make the buildings any taller, it does increase the height of the exposed façade which faces east, and thus may require a height variance to accommodate this option. Comments related to the increased number of units were mostly concerns about maxing out the on-site parking at 1:1 and instead suggested a need for visitor parking. These parking concerns might also be interpreted to mean that we may have overdone the density increase to some degree. We have also received some general opposition e mails from numerous Pitkin County residents further up Castle Creek Road, and an increase from 24 to 32 units is likely not welcomed by those residents as well. The site plan was updated to include the currently-planned Castle Creek trail alignment. Open Space & Trails will be commencing a separate community outreach process regarding the trail later this spring. There were some comments suggesting concerns about traffic safety related to vehicular access to the site. AHP has engaged a traffic engineer to perform a comprehensive study of traffic in this area. Results are pending, but the team expects that the traffic study will provide a high level of detail about appropriate measures which can be taken to alleviate this concern. Some comments hinted that there is misunderstanding of Bauhaus style, but some comments were also positive and with some detailed suggestions. Many comments about the unit layouts were similar to the other sites – the unit layouts are mostly the same – although some very-detailed suggestions were also received. Numerous comments were received about a need for senior housing and access to services at this site, and a few pro -dogs comments were also received. Neighborhood Stakeholder Meetings: In addition to the March open houses, the project team also conducted numerous breakout meetings with stakeholders in the area of each of the project sites. The stakeholder groups involved were either neighbors identified by the project team as stakeholders and/or neighbors/neighborhood groups (such as HOAs) that participated in the open houses or sent emails accepting the invitation to meet and further discuss the material with the project team. These meetings took place in more intimate sett ings in order to discuss detailed concerns of each stakeholder groups. The project team has made a commitment to continue an ongoing dialogue as the projects continue to evolve. A summary of those meetings for each o the properties are as follows: 802 West Main Street : The project team has met with at least once if not multiple times with four (4) separate neighborhood stakeholders or stakeholder groups in the 800 blocks of West Main and Bleeker Streets. These individuals/groups each had similar concerns, but also some amount of competing priorities wit h regard to those concerns. These neighbors/neighborhood groups are as follows: 1. Representatives from the West Bleeker Place Condo Association 2. HOA President of the Bavarian Inn Condo Association P5 I. Page 5 of 6 3. HOA President of the Villas of Aspen Condo Association 4. Multifamily Residential members of the Shadow Mtn. View Townhomes Condo Association Summary of Discussion Items: Similar to the results of the open houses, the neighborhood stakeholders are primarily concerned with the impact of additional density on the parking, traffic and alley use of the subject block. With no clear order of consensual priority throughout the neighborhood, each group has a slightly varying order of these concerns. The project team presented the various options and other solutions some of which were better received by certain groups than others. In assessing the primary concern of each stakehold er group identified above as it relates to the impact of new added density, the project team has concluded the following: West Bleeker Place residents are most concerned with the added traffic impact in the neighborhood; The Bavarian residents are most co ncerned with the impact that more vehicle traffic in the alley will have on them and the area where their children play; the Villas residents are most concerned with the impact on off-site (on-street) parking that will result; and the Shadow Mtn. View residents are most concerned with added impact to the alley and vehicular/pedestrian conflicts that could result. As a result, and separate from strict consideration of density, each stakeholder group had a slightly different perspective of which of the four site plan options and parking scenarios satisfied their concerns to the greatest degree as follows: West Bleeker Place residents weren’t receptive to taking over the alley and closing the alley, but were more interested in improving the overall traffic flow in and out of the neighborhood; The Bavarian residents were most receptive to Option 4, which closes the alley and locates the project parking in the west Main right-of-way; the Villas residents identified Option 1 with parking off the alley as the “best of the worst” to keep any additional parking demand on-site and not utilizing on- street parking ; and the Shadow Mtn. View residents preferred Option 3, which relocates all vehicle ingress and egress to the property to a curb cut off of West Main Street . 517 Park Circle: The adjacent property owner at 515 Park Circle is most concerned with all aspects of impact that a new multifamily complex will have on their wellbeing, including size and scale, traffic, parking, and general presence of tenants of 11 new units next door. They felt strongly the creating a project that allowed for a high quality of life would encourage content residents and help ensure good neighborliness. The project team has committed to seeing this last consideration through and will continue to engage the neighbor for their input accordingly. Another stakeholder adjacent to this site is the Smuggler Racquet Club. Their primary concerns are density, bedroom counts and the massing which faces the racquet club as well as adequate on-site parking and a preference for ownership units or longer term rentals. Other concerns include sufficient storage, site screening, landscaping, lighting and sound impacts and the potential for dogs on their property. 488 Castle Creek: The project team has met outside the open house settings with one (1) stakeholder associated with this property, a neighbor further up Castle Creek Road and in Pitkin County. This was the only neighbor prior to the March open houses that responded to an open request to meet. This neighbor was primarily concerned with ensuring that the new Castle Creek Road trail alignment is considered into the site planning, and proposed an alternative alignment of the trail in proximity to the subject property to that which was previously contemplated in its prior iteration. The neighboring stakeholder also emphasized the danger of the curve in the road that fronts the property, and proposed a potential land swap with some of the Marolt open space P6 I. Page 6 of 6 further down castle creek and adjacent to the Marolt seasonal housing entrance to avoid developing on the curve. Government Technical Stakeholder Meetings: Throughout the duration of the public outreach period, the project team has had multiple meetings with key City and County governmental stakeholder meetings including, City Community Development, City Engineering, City Open Space and Trails and County Open Space and Trails. Meetings with staff from Community Development and Engineering have occurred before and after both the January and the March open houses. The primary topics were exploring options – both code standard and non-standard – to alleviate some of the primary concerns of the neighbors and stakeholders surrounding the project sites. Most critical to their review and comments thus far primarily relate to the various options that have been generated for the 802 Main Street property. Those comments are attached as Exhibit B, and key personnel from those departments have been requested to attend the April 4 Work Session for further discussion. A joint meeting with City and County Open Space and Trails was held following the January open houses and the meeting with the Castle Creek stakeholder. These departments were not able to provide substantive input on the new trail alignment until they further progressed with their planning and public outreach process. The alternative alignment that was proposed by the neighbor was suggested to not be an ideal location for the new trail alignment. Both Open Space and Trails Departments and the project team committed to a continued dialogue and coordination effort as the trail planning process commences later this spring. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The project is on schedule and on budget given the scope thus far, although more finalized budgets and project timeline will be developed as the project moves forward. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that Council consider the additional feedback heard and provide direction on as many of these topics as Council can comfortably provide. The AHP team will take Council’s direction and return on April 25 with our final recommendations for the development applications for these three sites. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: March 2017 Community Outreach Feedback Received Exhibit B: Government technical stakeholder comments P7 I. BACKGROUND Category Comment Income Levels Why nothing for category 5? Category 5 ownerships seem to also be in demand due to  high number of bidders General We are looking for more ownership, so yes we agree that creating more units fir  purchase is needed (in response to 79 additional ownership condos at Burlingame) Affordable Rental Housing Density Neighborhood Community Household Types Zoning Process Exhibit A: March 2017 Community Outreach Feedback Received Exhibit A - Page 1 of 31 P8 I. 802 MAIN STREET Category Comment General Too dense for more housing. Please put a park there. Must have rental units: storage, parking, 1 BA/BEDROOM Build all three‐ need more rentals in town I'm all for it All rental units, Great! I'm against project until current affordable housing is maintained and airbnb rentsal of  AH units. The project should only be approved if its assured that the quality of construction is  better than the Bavarian. WE need all renatsl possible. Limit Parking as some do not need cars. Neighborhood Zoning I would prefer to see R‐15 receive a zone change to permit AH as a conditional use as  opposed to the city spot zone their real estate on their own end. Mass, Scale & Height Building to high; greaty impacts people already living there.  Step back 3rd story Building is too high for the neighborhood. Eliminate third floor It all starts with mass and scale. All proposals are too large. This leads to parking and  traffic issues. Building is out of place because of 3 story height. Villas of Aspen are two story: same as  other houses. What about building the highest point on the corner of West Main/HWY 82 then step it  down as it moves back. Think about the better view. Ok with 3rd floor story Transit & Mobility Westbound thru movement's safety at 7th and Main. This will create a traffic light. More, it is already congested corner where you can not  cross the street safely. Cannot close any part of the alley Neighborhood Integration Where will children play? Outdoor Space Add trees along HWY 82 This will severely diminish quality of life for the children who already live here and no  place to play. Please create a park on this land.  More trees! Too much CO2 Parking Parking!!! On‐site parking 1/unit. Clearly needed (community vote). Redesigning the block is  important but will not be adequate. Parking is an issue‐not enough Traffic issues will be magnified with this project. Please build a park and save lives. Parking preferred 1 spot per unit. Is there additional unit storage? Where? (subterrain) If developers are being asked to provide underground package, then this project should  too! Even if not cars, then major storage for tires, bikes, kayaks, motorcycles. You need underground parking.  More parking Exhibit A: March 2017 Community Outreach Feedback Received Exhibit A - Page 2 of 31 P9 I. 802 MAIN STREET Category Comment Eliminate all parking Balancing Priorities ‐ Architectural Style NO architecture Design is most unattractive. Looks like shoeboxes stacked on each other. I still feel that the architecture represents the historic "vernacular" Main street has lots  more Victorian precedent. Can you atleast integrate pitched roofs. Doesn't go with aspen architecture Need a better design. Density Density is good at 13. 11 is not enough. Unit size is good. Too bad you can't have a 4th  floor. What about a park? And a smaller # of units? This is far too dense for the neighborhood where children already have only the alley as  a playground‐ this should be a park! Any chance we could eliminate 3rd floor? No parking on premise. Tenants must take care of their own parking problem.  Building & Floor Plans Number of units, too large! More units on this site! Keep decks on southside. Northside is cold, please provide ventilation in all units. Storage The area identified as storage on the januray site plan should be housing. Screw bike and  ski storage, keep the stuff in their apartments. Storage in unit and outside unit important Unit Plans Unit layouts are great Livability ‐ Exhibit A: March 2017 Community Outreach Feedback Received Exhibit A - Page 3 of 31 P10 I. 802 MAIN STREET Site Plan Studies Option YES NO COMMENTS Option 1 4 4 No this would hugely impact those of us who live at Bavarian Parking off of alley This is the best of the worst   Option 2 1 6 No this would hugely impact those of us who live at Bavarian Parking off alley and internal to  site Only about 25% in agreement on site parking defecit to be accomodated  by increased and improved ROW parking on West Main. Don't like any of  the plans in total. Must have one parking space per unit. Must have  some green space. Option 3 5 Parking internal to site and  accessed via curb cut on Main  Street Option 4 13 0 This is the best option for parking. I love the idea of the courtyard. This  would hugely impact the children in a positive way. All parking in ROW What about taking out the parallel parking in front of the existing  Bavarian Units and making it head in parking? All the rooms in those  units are upstairs. Exhibit A: March 2017 Community Outreach Feedback Received Exhibit A - Page 4 of 31 P11 I. 802 MAIN STREET Parking + Traffic Options Category YES NO COMMENTS alley closure 7 4 Non starter; need to have service vehicles circulate into and out of alley.  i.e garbage trucks Maybe parents need to monitor their children   speed tables/ bumps 3 7 Especially no speed bumps and no drive through On‐site circulation through site 2 8 Car to go location 3 5 Redesignation of this block to  its own residential parking  zone 14 0 But not to accommodate needs for this project West Main Parking  reconfiguration 12 0 Consider one way on West Main Street Exhibit A: March 2017 Community Outreach Feedback Received Exhibit A - Page 5 of 31 P12 I. 517 PARK CIRCLE Category Comment General Senior housing Rent? Concern about lighting in parking area Absolutely love this project. A‐ok! Too dense, too close to street should be owner occupied stuff on patios? This location lends itself to sales At this time we need rentals! Concerned about lights I am an immediate Neighbor‐do not want any rental unts‐ owner occupied only! Much  too much mass‐ reduce to 3‐4 owner occupied units! I am also a neighbor…to hell with Nimbyism I am also an immediate neighbor. Matches density of Centennial. You got to have employees, this town is not going to run wothout them. Matchless homeowners. Do they know? Affordable housing does not seem to be working. Getting to be a slum. Area is already too crowded Neighborhood Zoning Allow home based businesses in the units Out of character Mass, Scale & Height ‐ Transit & Mobility Where is the bus stop for people? Need formal bus stop. Bike storage for summer and winter Neighborhood Integration Appropriate for neighborhood Possibly break up massing/orientation.  Deference to : neighbor single family; mountain vernacular Outdoor Space Tall tree buffer Tall trees, vegetation to creen cars. Concerned about car lights etc. Exterior 'yards don't give much value' improve parking Decks large enough for BBQ and 2 chairs plus coffee table for drinks Parking Underground parking; cars hidden. One parking per unit is appropriate rentals are so important. Keep parking limited and charge to discourage extra vehicles.  More covered parking Need one parking spot per unit. Not parking on street. No parking on street. You have to have guest parking Who cares about parking? This local is so public transit friendly More parking needed Parking should equal bedrooms. Greenspace is not useful as designed so make more  parking and storage. Covered parking. Not enough parking to support development; they will use Hunter Creek to park. More parking needed Parking on street side Exhibit A: March 2017 Community Outreach Feedback Received Exhibit A - Page 6 of 31 P13 I. 517 PARK CIRCLE Category Comment Less parking, more unitd, more units please! Balancing Priorities ‐ Architectural Style Interesting and great colors and a good feel. Are there more contemporary roof ideas that will deal with snow better? Snow fail design for roof design. Fail safe for heat tape. Density Reduce density Increase density More density, less parking More density, less parking Density is appropriate Building & Floor Plans Relocate trash closer to entrance More demand for studios Can we squeeze more units here? We don't need 3 bedroom rentals. We need places for young professionals to turn into a  home Storage HOA guidelines for storage More storage, storage, storage, storage Worried about people's stuff and seeing it; proper storage Unit Plans More demand for studio Floor plans are perfect, great storage and use of space Livability Orient all living spaces to the west and not on Park Circle Dogs No pets! Ditto on "no pets" especially not dogs No dog but a guinea pig (as a pet) Dogs please! Dogs please! Dogs Consider Pets in the Design Service Pets; how are you addressing the pet thing? Allow dogs and cats Allow dogs Dogs Exhibit A: March 2017 Community Outreach Feedback Received Exhibit A - Page 7 of 31 P14 I. 488 CASTLE CREEK Category Comment General Senior aspenites need affordable rentals even if we never worked in town Think about space for seniors Affordable prices for $40,000 per year This area should be developed into a senior center with senior living. This will free up  existing senior center to have more assisted living units Many of us seniors moved here as retirees, did not work here and will neeed to down  grade housing! We like to own.  Best use : sell the parcel free market single unit. Then use money to buy another lot. Love this project! Yes, I like. Neighborhood Zoning ‐ Mass, Scale & Height ‐ Transit & Mobility Pedestrian circulation to bus stop. Can bus stop be pull out on same side of street as  complex. Great location and bus friendly. Keep all as rental and limit parking.  No need to limit parking. Cars are here to stay. Have a shuttle run every 10 minutes like the Galena shuttle for HC Worried about traffic. Have a really good transportation plan. People tend to drive if  they can.  Outdoor Space Outdoor space‐ decks and patios are good and important. Parking Parking‐ Big problem ingress/egress worst problem. NO to existing plan. Sell lot and use  money elsewhere One parking unit per space is adequate but due to location it needs some limited guest  parking If units need to park more cars what are the options. It looks as though you could use  some non‐functional green space for needed parking Twin ridge equals 2 spaces per unit. Need additional, maybe offsite parking. Plowing in winter? Access. Covered parking. Decrease density with guest parking; parking issue. Balancing Priorities ‐ Architectural Style Architecture looks like it lacks permanence; use of concrete and more 'heavy' material  helped the bauhaus look more substantial The architecture seems very show box. Couldn't it reflect something more mountain and  uses 80's contemporary. Colors too vibrant Can architecture be less boxy? Less like Burlingame. Consider the "look" of Marolt with final exterior design Density More units. This is a great location. All rental great. Good density on new plan. Parking is ok, but add cover. Building & Floor Plans 3 Bedrooms for purchase! Category 4/5 NO 3 Bedrooms= Not ideally family friendly. DITTO at this location Exhibit A: March 2017 Community Outreach Feedback Received Exhibit A - Page 8 of 31 P15 I. 488 CASTLE CREEK Category Comment 2 bedrooms and 2 full baths important. RFTA places 2 employees together in housing  and there are always problems.  Storage ‐ Unit Plans Love the floor plans and size. Think 2 bedroom and bath is important! Charge for parking  like Burlingame seasonal. Super susan in lower kitchen corners Looks great! Like the mudrooms. Why such large units? Pull out pantry. Coat Closet. Living area in 2 bedroom smaller than 1 bedroom. In 2 Bedroom pantry in laundry; 3 bedrooms better for families; maybe more parking Did additionas compromise bed space? Maximize beds! Livability Add radon mitigation to design Dogs Dogs please! Exhibit A: March 2017 Community Outreach Feedback Received Exhibit A - Page 9 of 31 P16 I. 1 Christopher Everson From:Torre <aspentorre@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 28, 2017 12:54 PM To:Christopher Everson Subject:SRC input Thank you Chris,   Please include these comments in your memo, and we will see you on the 4th.      Smuggler Racquet Club appreciates the opportunity to record our input on the proposed 517 Park Circle Housing  Project. These comments are compiled from the 100+ members of the club, and are submitted as an adjacent neighbor. 1. Overall density for the sight. We question if the 11 units and the bedroom counts are appropriate on this size/shaped  site.  2. Rental vs. Ownership units. We feel that ownership units would be preferred to rental. Perhaps a mix of units or  longer term rental conditions could be applied.  3. Parking. Unless units were restricted to one car, it seems underparked. It is on a great busline, maybe try an auto free  incentivized project. As well, there is no guest parking for visitors or maintenance, etc.  4. Storage. In this recreational mecca, everyone has some gear. There does not seem to be enough storage per unit.  5. Massing and architecture. The south facing side, what we would see, is the business end of a three story building.  More could be done to break up the massing, rooflines and facade on the south side.  6. Screening, landscaping and adjacent properties. We are definitely looking for utmost screening, appropriate  landscaping and good property line treatment.  Other concerns ranged from trash collection area, to path making through our property, location of parking lot, and  neighborhood design compatibility, lighting, and sound reflection.    Torre  Aspentorre@gmail.com  970‐948‐2023  Exhibit A: March 2017 Community Outreach Feedback Received Exhibit A - Page 10 of 31 P17 I. 1 Christopher Everson From:Torre Torre <aspentorre@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 28, 2017 6:34 PM To:Christopher Everson Subject:An addition to comments Chris,   I was asked to include the strong concern about allowing pets on such a small parcel.    Thank you,  Torre    Sent from my iPhone  Exhibit A: March 2017 Community Outreach Feedback Received Exhibit A - Page 11 of 31 P18 I. 1 Christopher Everson To:Jim True Subject:RE: AHP Aspen Affordable Housing Open House Reminder From: dick butera [mailto:dickbutera@sopris.net]   Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 6:25 PM  To: joseph wells <joewells@me.com>  Subject: Re: AHP Aspen Affordable Housing Open House Reminder  I attended the recent open house on the Castle Creek road property designated for affordable housing. At first I thought the whole thing was fictional until I saw some serious people attending (Bert Myrin for example) For the last 50 years I have been developing and planning real estate projects. This might be the worst project I have ever seen. Here are just some of my observations: 1. The property is about 3/4 of an acre and the prior owner had to place fill on the lot so he could build his home. The flat area is about 8 feet below Castle Creek rd. we are not sure how much fill, but it was allot. 2. The City paid $5.4 million for the lot 8 years ago. Maybe worth $2 million today on a stretch 3. The lot is presently zoned for 2 small duplexes…4 homes 4. The City’s plan is to build a project of 24 individual housing units with about 30 parking spaces. 5. This would be one of the highest density projects in all of Aspen, greatly exceeding the present zoning. 6. I pointed out to the City representative that there are 2 speed bumps just prior to the site, he was surprised and hadn’t given that any thought. I said to him, “when large trucks, snow plows and other large vehicles approach a speed bump, they down shift their gears and then pulling away from the bumps they up-shift their gears.” The is a very noisy process about 60 feet from the bedrooms of these units. 7. Then asked if he was concerned about all that sacred CO2 pouring down on the cribs of the babies in those bedrooms. 8. I was then sent over to the traffic expert. I asked her several obvious questions about the site lines etc. She said I haven’t studies it yet, BUT probably there will have to be deceleration lanes and turning lanes built on Castle Creek Rd. (“haven’t studied yet”….what was she doing there???) 9. Of course ALL of the trees will have to be cut down, but folks this just the beginning…….the County is planning to build a $6 million dollar trail (to nowhere)from this project to the Aspen Country Day school. They plan to cut down 100% of the trees for the next 3300 feet to the school. Then build their $6 million(by their estimates) 8 foot wide concrete trail. (think Cemetery Lane!) (More on the trail from me later) So neighbors…..our 2 local governments who have been so concerned for so many years about preserving the environment and the nature of the Castle Creek valley, are now about to turn one of the most beautiful valleys in all of Colorado into an architectural nightmare and piles of concrete. What now seems like an entrance to heaven will be……well you picture it! We have to be a little crazy if we don’t stick together on this issue…Dick Butera Exhibit A: March 2017 Community Outreach Feedback Received Exhibit A - Page 12 of 31 P19 I. 1 Christopher Everson To:Jim True Subject:RE: Three Rental Projects ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: joseph wells [mailto:joewells@me.com]   Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 10:03 AM  To: Jim True <jim.true@cityofaspen.com>  Subject: Three Rental Projects    Jim, I am writing about the group that the City has retained to serve as the liaison for the three affordable housing rental  projects. I assume that this is a collection of firms that have been providing design services and construction services  prior to this. Is that correct? Will this partnership be building these three projects? Will they be managing the projects  once built? How are they being compensated? Is the City’s agreement with them a matter of public record?    Thanks,  Joe Wells   Exhibit A: March 2017 Community Outreach Feedback Received Exhibit A - Page 13 of 31 P20 I. 1 Christopher Everson To:Jason Bradshaw Subject:RE: Housing Proposal for Castle Creek Road   From: joseph wells <joewells@me.com> Date: March 8, 2017 at 9:42:13 AM PST To: Jason Bradshaw <jebradshaw@mac.com> Subject: Re: Housing Proposal for Castle Creek Road Jason, Thanks for that information. I have some additional questions initially regarding the Castle Creek site: 1. Obviously, the site is entirely fill. Have you conducted a soils analysis to determine the suitability of the fill material for both its suitability for conventional construction and to determine whether there is any mine waste in the material which may be toxic and pose risks if disturbed? If not, what firm are you planning on using for such a study and when would the study be undertaken? 2. Have you undertaken a traffic study that considers the impacts on Castle Creek Road, including impacts on emergency egress to and from the hospital? If not, what firm are you planning on using for such a study and when would the study be undertaken? 3. Have you prepared a topographic study of the full site and is that availablele for review? If not, what firm are you planning on using for such a study and when would the study be undertaken? 4. Have you undertaken a tree survey of existing vegetation on the site, as well as any existing vegetation off-site which may be threatened by required improvements? 5. Could I obtain a copy of the report that you provided to the Aspen City Council which you mentioned that you submitted in connection with the February 14 work session? Thanks, Joe Wells On Mar 7, 2017, at 3:27 PM, Jason Bradshaw <jebradshaw@mac.com> wrote: Joe- I have a background in developing affordable housing utilizing the federal affordable housing tax credit program. I responded to an RFP issued by the City Exhibit A: March 2017 Community Outreach Feedback Received Exhibit A - Page 14 of 31 P21 I. 2 of Aspen in December 2016 to develop all three sites. I moved to Aspen with my family last year to pursue this project. My role is as the lead developer and operator of the project. In this capacity, I will lead the three projects through he entitlement process, oversee all design and planning, oversee a TBD general contractor in constructing improvements on each site and operate the projects, which will include oversight of a property management function, for a minimum period of 15 years. In addition, I will arrange both equity and debt financing and provide any and all financing guarantees related to debt and tax credit equity. My company’s compensation is comprised of a development fee that is governed by the federal affordable housing tax credit program plus any excess cash flow from the developments. The City of Aspen will be providing the land at each site on a long term ground lease basis as well as a TBD financial contribution from the City’s affordable housing fund. My team consists of the following: Aspen Housing Partners, LLC - Jason Bradshaw (lead developer) David Johnston and Associates - Architect Method Planning + Development - Land planning consultant Connect One - Landscape planning Roaring Fork Engineering - Civil Engineering Again, I am happy to sit down with you to discuss in more detail. If you are able to attend one of the sessions tomorrow, please flag me down. Thanks Jason Bradshaw Aspen Housing Partnership 214-683-0571 On Mar 7, 2017, at 2:52 PM, joseph wells <joewells@me.com> wrote: Jason, I have attended a session during both open houses. Can you tell me more about your relationship with the City—what you are under contract to do, what disciplines are on the team, is the team made up of existing local firms who came together to submit a proposal for these three projects and how you are being compensated, for example. Is it anticipated that the Aspen Housing Partnership will design, build and operate the rental units on one or all of these sites or are you just under contract to conduct these open houses? I am attaching a copy of an e-mail that I sent to the Castle Creek Caucus members after attending one of the original sessions. Exhibit A: March 2017 Community Outreach Feedback Received Exhibit A - Page 15 of 31 P22 I. 3 Begin forwarded message: From: joseph wells <joewells@me.com> Subject: Housing Proposal for Castle Creek Road Date: January 15, 2017 at 2:28:20 PM MST To: Bob & Gaby Rafelson <curly@aspennights.com>, Joe Wells <joewells@me.com>, Carrie Wells <carrie@carriewells.com>, "Michael (Mike) Tanguay" <mtanguay@aspenconstructors.com>, Simon Pinniger <simon@usagri.com>, Linda Sandrich <linda205@mac.com>, Julia Rowland <juliaarowland@gmail.com>, "Nate (Nathan) Rowland" <nathanrowland@gmail.com>, Alice Davis <adavis@rof.net>, Glenn Horn <ghorn@rof.net>, Christopher Shearer Cooper <chris@sc3.net>, Chris Shearer Cooper <chris@sc3.net>, Marcella Larsen <marcellalarsen@me.com>, George Zachar <george@greensward.com>, Cliff Weiss <Cliffweiss49@gmail.com>, Tony Battaglia <anthonydbattaglia@gmail.com>, Michael Lipkin <mlipkin@lipkinwarner.com>, Ed Zasacky <EdZasacky@usa.net>, Pete Stouffer <hpstouffer@sopris.net>, Graeme Means <gdmarchitect@gmail.com>, Tom Barron <tabarron@tabarron.com>, Joachim Diedrich <jsd@the1backoffice.com>, Sue Diedrich <sued@the1backoffice.com>, "Tom Kurt, MD" <tomkurtmd@comcast.net>, Gary Wright <gaw@wrightlasalle.com>, Ron Morehead <rmorehead@aspensnowmass.com>, Andy & Lisa Poole <Andy@ptaspen.com>, Randy Gold <randygaspen@gmail.com>, Katie Schwoerer <kschwoerer@aspennature.org>, Karen Ryman <kryman@msn.com>, Marisa Silverman <marisa@silvermanmuseum.com>, John Doyle <johndoylesculpture@gmail.com>, Catherine Anne Provine <catherineanne@aspenchapel.org>, Chris Lacy <clacy@rof.net>, Sandra Eskin <sandreskin@aol.com>, Lois Harlamert-Teegarten <hapsmtnmama@aol.com>, Alan Hassenflu <ahassenflu@frpltd.com>, Dennis Vaughn <vaughndennis58@gmail.com>, D Stone Davis <dstoned@comcast.net>, Sue Smalley <Sue@suesmalley.com>, Kevin Wall <Kwall@controlroom.com>, Trent Palmer <trent@wtp-law.com>, Steve Busky Exhibit A: March 2017 Community Outreach Feedback Received Exhibit A - Page 16 of 31 P23 I. 4 <smbusky@gmail.com>, John Duficy <dome@sopris.net>, Elaine Pagels <epagels@princeton.edu>, Dawn Shepard <dawn@dawnshepard.com>, Terri Sharp <tlsharp@sopris.net>, Jordan Greengrass <jhg3787@gmail.com>, Dan Bunta <victor@sopris.net>, Christie Addison <likesartsupplies55@gmail.com>, Chuck Frias <chuck@friasproperties.com>, Bruce Gordon <bsgordon@earthlink.net>, Aspen <scotthicks@aspencountryday.net>, Hawk & Shelley Greenway <hawkgreenway@gmail.com>, Mac Coffey <maccoffey@comcast.net>, Bruce Coffey <bcoffey3@earthlink.net>, Annie Katz <anniekatz@me.com>, Jim True <Jim.True@cityofaspen.com>, Todd & Nikola Freemen <freemans5@sbcglobal.net>, Joe & Sue Diedrich <Jsd@the1backoffice.com>, Dick Butera <dickbutera@sopris.net>, Michael Katz <mdk@katzbarron.com>, Gregg Lowe <gregglowe@me.com>, Sebastian Wanatowicz <swmidnightmine@gmail.com>, Polly & Murry Bowden <pbowden@hanoverco.com>, Patti and Mike Morgan <pattim@morgangroup.com>, John Walla <john@jwalla.com>, Tripp Adams <tripp@truenorthmanagement.net>, John Perko <johnptruenorth@gmail.com>, Marshall Hall <marshall@wildernet.com>, Alfred LaFave <alfred.lafave@gmail.com> To Castle Creek Caucus Members: I attended one of the Open Houses recently held by the City of Aspen and the Aspen Housing Partnership to present the concepts for three rental housing projects on separate City-owned sites. The project of most concern to me is the proposal to build 24 units with 30 parking spots on the triangular site at 488 Castle Creek Road. The site is on the east side of Castle Creek Road, across from the hospital bus stop. Many of you will recall that the site was previously a single-family home site. At some point in the past, the site which was previously part of the topography of the Marolt Ranch was filled in to create a flat bench more or less at the same elevation of Castle Creek Road. Access to the single-family home was off of Castle Creek Road, in a location with poor sight lines. I would prefer to see some of the fill removed from the site, so that development can be integrated with Exhibit A: March 2017 Community Outreach Feedback Received Exhibit A - Page 17 of 31 P24 I. 5 the existing rental housing project on the Marolt Ranch property. Parking and access to the parking should be from below, in my opinion, and not in such a dangerous location off of Castle Creek Road, as proposed. The link to more information about the three projects is http://www.aspenhousingpartnership.com/castle- creek/. I don’t know if you will have the same problem with this link that I do, but my computer freezes when I open this, so I would suggest that you close out of everything else before you open it. You should be able to make comments about all of the projects on this webpage, provided that you don’t encounter the same problem that I have had. Let me know if you have questions/concerns. Sincerely, Joe Wells Exhibit A: March 2017 Community Outreach Feedback Received Exhibit A - Page 18 of 31 P25 I. 1 Christopher Everson To:Jim True Subject:RE: 488 Castle Creek Road From: joseph wells [mailto:joewells@me.com]   Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 1:07 PM  To: Marshall Hall <marshall@wildernet.com>    Subject: Re: 488 Castle Creek Road  Marshall, as you know you and I were on the same page regarding relocating the housing to a site on adjacent City-owned land. I have been researching past City actions and have discovered that the Marolt Ranch property is subject to very specific approval language dating back to the early 1980’s that appears to complicate such a discussion.I am still trying to determine how the City gained possession of property that was designated as a site for thirty free-market residential units to the north of the existing affordable rental project. I will keep looking into this. Joe Wells On Mar 13, 2017, at 11:10 AM, Marshall Hall <marshall@wildernet.com> wrote: I also attended the open house and as already mentioned met with the developer.  He is very approachable  and seems amenable to moving the project to a better location off of Marolt Place if he can get the city  bureaucracy to go along.  The city bureaucracy is of the opinion that moving the entitlements would be a  “nightmare”. Not sure why this would be as they own all the property involved.    I am worried that simply opposing this project and pointing out its flaws will not work in the end.  This is a  city project and the caucus is in the county.  There is overwhelming support for employee housing in the city  and they will not care very much about inconvenience to us caucus members or the destruction of a  relatively small amount of local vegetation.  Instead I think our best bet is to propose a better solution to the  problem.  I believe that the project should be moved across the bike path and accessed from Marolt Place.    We also need to present a clear vision of what we do want to see happen at the site.  The existing 2 lots can  be sold at fair market value to help offset the cost of the project and they might be able to make a profit off  of their $5.4 million investment.  Alternatively we could advocate turning it into a park but I think that  alternative is highly unlikely to prevail.    Finally, I think we need to strongly oppose the acceleration and deceleration lanes.  If they are not needed for  the much larger Marolt Place then they are not needed for this project.    Hope this helps move the conversation along.    Marshall Hall    From: joseph wells <joewells@me.com>  Date: Monday, March 13, 2017 at 9:27 AM  To: Bob & Gaby Rafelson <curly@aspennights.com>, Joe Wells <joewells@me.com>, Carrie Wells  <carrie@carriewells.com>, "Michael (Mike) Tanguay" <mtanguay@aspenconstructors.com>, Simon  Pinniger <simon@usagri.com>, Linda Sandrich <linda205@mac.com>, Julia Rowland  Exhibit A: March 2017 Community Outreach Feedback Received Exhibit A - Page 19 of 31 P26 I. 2 <juliaarowland@gmail.com>, "Nate (Nathan) Rowland" <nathanrowland@gmail.com>, Alice Davis  <adavis@rof.net>, Glenn Horn <ghorn@rof.net>, Christopher Shearer Cooper <chris@sc3.net>, Chris  Shearer Cooper <chris@sc3.net>, Marcella Larsen <marcellalarsen@me.com>, George Zachar  <george@greensward.com>, Cliff Weiss <Cliffweiss49@gmail.com>, Tony Battaglia  <anthonydbattaglia@gmail.com>, Michael Lipkin <mlipkin@lipkinwarner.com>, Ed Zasacky  <EdZasacky@usa.net>, Pete Stouffer <hpstouffer@sopris.net>, Graeme Means  <gdmarchitect@gmail.com>, Tom Barron <tabarron@tabarron.com>, Joachim Diedrich  <jsd@the1backoffice.com>, Sue Diedrich <sued@the1backoffice.com>, "Tom Kurt, MD"  <tomkurtmd@comcast.net>, Gary Wright <gaw@wrightlasalle.com>, Ron Morehead  <rmorehead@aspensnowmass.com>, Andy & Lisa Poole <Andy@ptaspen.com>, Randy Gold  <randygaspen@gmail.com>, Katie Schwoerer <kschwoerer@aspennature.org>, Karen Ryman  <kryman@msn.com>, Marisa Silverman <marisa@silvermanmuseum.com>, John Doyle  <johndoylesculpture@gmail.com>, Catherine Anne Provine <catherineanne@aspenchapel.org>, Chris  Lacy <clacy@rof.net>, Sandra Eskin <sandreskin@aol.com>, Lois Harlamert‐Teegarten  <hapsmtnmama@aol.com>, Alan Hassenflu <ahassenflu@frpltd.com>, Dennis Vaughn  <vaughndennis58@gmail.com>, D Stone Davis <dstoned@comcast.net>, Sue Smalley  <Sue@suesmalley.com>, Kevin Wall <Kwall@controlroom.com>, Trent Palmer <trent@wtp‐law.com>,  Steve Busky <smbusky@gmail.com>, John Duficy <dome@sopris.net>, Elaine Pagels  <epagels@princeton.edu>, Dawn Shepard <dawn@dawnshepard.com>, Terri Sharp  <tlsharp@sopris.net>, Jordan Greengrass <jhg3787@gmail.com>, Dan Bunta <victor@sopris.net>,  Christie Addison <likesartsupplies55@gmail.com>, Chuck Frias <chuck@friasproperties.com>, Bruce  Gordon <bsgordon@earthlink.net>, Aspen <scotthicks@aspencountryday.net>, Hawk & Shelley  Greenway <hawkgreenway@gmail.com>, Mac Coffey <maccoffey@comcast.net>, Bruce Coffey  <bcoffey3@earthlink.net>, Annie Katz <anniekatz@me.com>, Jim True <Jim.True@cityofaspen.com>,  Todd & Nikola Freemen <freemans5@sbcglobal.net>, Joe & Sue Diedrich <Jsd@the1backoffice.com>,  Dick Butera <dickbutera@sopris.net>, Michael Katz <mdk@katzbarron.com>, Gregg Lowe  <gregglowe@me.com>, Sebastian Wanatowicz <swmidnightmine@gmail.com>, Polly & Murry Bowden  <pbowden@hanoverco.com>, Patti and Mike Morgan <pattim@morgangroup.com>, John Walla  <john@jwalla.com>, Tripp Adams <tripp@truenorthmanagement.net>, John Perko  <johnptruenorth@gmail.com>, Marshall Hall <marshall@wildernet.com>, Alfred LaFave  <alfred.lafave@gmail.com>, Karen & Brian Boyd <boyd@btcappartners.com>  Subject: 488 Castle Creek Road    I am in the process of gathering facts about other properties in the area, and will report back, but many of you will recall that for many years, the property at 488 Castle Creek Road was the site of a single- family residence occupied by a family member of one of the old-time Aspen families (Marolt?).    By 2006, the property had been acquired by Steel Partners Ltd. Steel Partners Ltd submitted an application to the City for Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval and for Subdivision Exemption for a lot split. The City Council granted approval to the PUD and Lot Split under Ordinance No 5, Series of 2006. Lot 1 of the Lot Split is 11,225 sq ft and Lot 2 is 24,600 sq ft.     The following limitations were established for the development of the two lots:    Both Lots:  A maximum height of 25 feet  Minimum parking was the lesser of one space per bedroom or 2 spaces per unit.  Exhibit A: March 2017 Community Outreach Feedback Received Exhibit A - Page 20 of 31 P27 I. 3   Lot 1:  Maximum building square footage of 3,344 sq. ft.    Lot 2:  Maximum building square footage of 5,015 sq. ft., of which 2,000 sq. ft. of net livable area must be developed as a Category 7 deed- restricted unit.    On October 6, 2006, a Warranty Deed was recorded transferring ownership from Steel Partners Ltd to WF Castle Creek LLC. The property was purchased by WF Castle Creek LLC for $3,400,000. I don’t recall the circumstances regarding WF’s brief ownership of the property---for instance, they may have been seeking to modify the prior approvals granted to Steel.    In any case, on June 29, 2007, a Warranty Deed was recorded transferring ownership of the two lots from WF to the City of Aspen. The property was purchased by the City for $5,400,000.    More soon.    Joe Wells  Exhibit A: March 2017 Community Outreach Feedback Received Exhibit A - Page 21 of 31 P28 I. 1 Christopher Everson From:Jason Bradshaw <jebradshaw@mac.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 28, 2017 1:30 PM To:Christopher Everson Subject:Fwd: Aspen Affordable Housing - 802 Main Street Attachments:neighborhood Photos - alley play.pdf; PastedGraphic-2.tiff Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Herb Klein <hsk@kceclaw.com> Date: January 31, 2017 at 1:01:33 PM PST To: Adam Roy <adam@methodpd.com> Cc: Bill Guth <bill@wnggroup.com>, Jason Bradshaw <jebradshaw@mac.com>, Chris Everson <chris.everson@cityofaspen.com>, "lisaguth15@gmail.com" <lisaguth15@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Aspen Affordable Housing - 802 Main Street Hi Adam, I live at 831 W. Bleeker St., which is a condo that adjoins Bill's unit. I used to own and live in Bill's unit before redeveloping the property and adding the unit I presently live in. I share Bill's concerns about the 802 W. Main project. I am presently out of town, returning to Aspen March 4th. I would like to be included in your neighborhood outreach efforts and can personally attend events once I get back to town. In the meantime, please note my concerns: 1. What rezoning do you propose? The density of the project is not consistent with the R-15 zoning. 2. The proposed density of 15 bedrooms in 13 units overcrowds the site and the neighborhood. It is my impression that 6-9 units, depending upon the design and site plan, is the maximum density that could be considered. 3. Parking in the neighborhood is a challenge. A primary issue that guided the development of the Bavarian Project and resulted in its initial density being reduced by almost half of what was originally proposed, was to restrict the density to no more units than could be parked onsite. I was involved as an objecting neighbor at the time and worked with the developer to fashion density and design elements that eventually won a consensus in the neighborhood Even with this parking limitation, many of the residents have multiple cars and commercial vehicles and trailers that take up all available street parking. Adding units without sufficient on-site parking will be a big problem and evoke much opposition. The proposed 10 on-site and 3 on-street spaces do not satisfy this criteria. Exhibit A: March 2017 Community Outreach Feedback Received Exhibit A - Page 22 of 31 P29 I. 2 4. Height. Another design criteria of the Bavarian project was to require the buildings to have heights lower than allowed and use flat roofs to minimize the appearance of their mass. This pattern should be maintained for the new development. 5. Use of alley for access. There is a playground for the children residing in the Bavarian Housing project that is directly on the alley near its intersection with N. 8th Street and the children play in the playground area as well as in the alley. Any additional vehicular traffic in the alley raises safety issues and contradicts the goal of minimizing pedestrian-vehicular conflicts. The alley is fairly constrained. In fact, cars backing out of existing parking stalls serving the Bavarian units often hit the fence that is along the rear property line of Bill's house, necessitating the installation of a bumper along the backyard fence. Putting many more vehicle trips in the alley will exacerbate the existing safety issue and should not be allowed. Access ought to be directly of off W. Main St. This issue was of such significance to the PZ and Council that when they approved my redevelopment they gave me a variance to access my garage for the new unit on my property from W. Bleeker Street instead of from the alley. A photo of typical play activities is attached. I appreciate the opportunity to provide input and hope that these concerns will be taken into account. Best regards, Herb On Jan 31, 2017, at 6:15 AM, Adam Roy <adam@methodpd.com> wrote: Great. Let’s plan on Wednesday. Can you do 10:30 coffee? Venue of your choice or I can propose something.    Thanks,    Adam  ‐‐ Adam C. Roy Method Planning + Development adam@methodpd.com 970.274.0890   From: Bill Guth <bill@wnggroup.com>  Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 7:49 AM  To: Adam Roy <adam@methodpd.com>  Cc: Jason Bradshaw <jebradshaw@mac.com>, Chris Everson <chris.everson@cityofaspen.com>,  "lisaguth15@gmail.com" <lisaguth15@gmail.com>, Herb Klein <hsk@kceclaw.com>  Subject: Re: Aspen Affordable Housing ‐ 802 Main Street    Monday and Wednesday are best.    — Bill Guth 970‐300‐2120 Bill@wnggroup.com   Exhibit A: March 2017 Community Outreach Feedback Received Exhibit A - Page 23 of 31 P30 I. 3   From: Adam Roy <adam@methodpd.com>  Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 7:47 AM  To: Bill Guth <bill@wnggroup.com>  Cc: Jason Bradshaw <jebradshaw@mac.com>, Chris Everson <chris.everson@cityofaspen.com>,  "lisaguth15@gmail.com" <lisaguth15@gmail.com>, Herb Klein <hsk@kceclaw.com>  Subject: Re: Aspen Affordable Housing ‐ 802 Main Street Thank you, Bill. Do you have time, perhaps next week, to get together and further discuss in advance of having roundtable/small group meetings? Thanks again, Adam ‐‐ Adam C. Roy Method Planning + Development adam@methodpd.com 970.274.0890 From: Bill Guth <bill@wnggroup.com>  Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 7:42 AM  To: Adam Roy <adam@methodpd.com>  Cc: Jason Bradshaw <jebradshaw@mac.com>, Chris Everson <chris.everson@cityofaspen.com>,  "lisaguth15@gmail.com" <lisaguth15@gmail.com>, Herb Klein <hsk@kceclaw.com>  Subject: Re: Aspen Affordable Housing ‐ 802 Main Street Hi Adam:   Thanks for keeping us in the loop and involving us in the feedback process for this project.  Re your questions: what are your expectations in terms of an outreach process with you and your neighbors; Continue  doing what you’ve been doing – it is much appreciative and a good, early start.  what is your realistic and expected outcome of the effort; We expect that the PPP understands there are  some critical issues affecting this neighborhood and the project site, and that the PPP does their best to  work around these issues.  and what form and venue would be most productive to more intimately meet with neighbors and  discuss concerns and questions? Roundtable small group meetings, by invite only?    Thanks again for involving us.    Bill      — Bill Guth 970‐300‐2120 Bill@wnggroup.com     Exhibit A: March 2017 Community Outreach Feedback Received Exhibit A - Page 24 of 31 P31 I. 4 From: Adam Roy <adam@methodpd.com>  Date: Monday, January 30, 2017 at 4:19 PM  To: Bill Guth <bill@wnggroup.com>  Cc: Jason Bradshaw <jebradshaw@mac.com>, Chris Everson <chris.everson@cityofaspen.com>  Subject: Aspen Affordable Housing ‐ 802 Main Street Hi Bill: Thank you again for attending the open house for the Aspen affordable housing partnership projects. Your participation and constructive input was very much appreciated and valuable to our role and responsibility in brining these projects to reality for the Aspen community. As we discussed at the open house, we are now focusing our efforts on meetings and discussions with key neighbors and stakeholders surrounding each of the respective properties. As a critical neighbor to the 802 Main Street property, as well as your engagement at the open house, we would like to meet with you as an initial point of contact in your complex and the surrounding block. Our intention is to establish a more direct dialogue and to work with you to help facilitate a process for addressing those concerns and questions raised by residents the broader neighborhood. If you are interested and available, we would like to propose an initial meeting over coffee in the next week or so. Topics to consider in advance are: what are your expectations in terms of an outreach process with you and your neighbors; what is your realistic and expected outcome of the effort; and what form and venue would be most productive to more intimately meet with neighbors and discuss concerns and questions? Please let us know your level of interest in participating in this manner and you time and availability to meet and further discuss. Thanks you for your time and consideration in advance. Best, Adam ‐‐ Adam C. Roy Method Planning + Development adam@methodpd.com 970.274.0890 _________________________________ Please note our new physical address and new email address and update your records accordingly. Thank you. Herbert S. Klein, Esq.(*) Klein Coté Edwards Citron, LLC 101 S. Mill St., Suite 200 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tel: 970.925.8700 Fax: 970.925.3977 Exhibit A: March 2017 Community Outreach Feedback Received Exhibit A - Page 25 of 31 P32 I. Exhibit A: March 2017 Community Outreach Feedback Received Exhibit A - Page 26 of 31 P33 I. Exhibit A: March 2017 Community Outreach Feedback Received Exhibit A - Page 27 of 31 P34 I. 1 Christopher Everson To:Jason Bradshaw Subject:RE: Aspen Housing Partnership "West Main" From: Aspen Housing Partnership <info@aspenhousingpartnership.com> Date: March 24, 2017 at 11:56:17 AM PDT To: "jebradshaw@mac.com" <jebradshaw@mac.com> Subject: FW: Aspen Housing Partnership "West Main" ________________________________________ From: [Aspen Housing Partnership] Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 12:56:10 PM (UTC-07:00) Mountain Time (US & Canada) To: Aspen Housing Partnership Subject: Aspen Housing Partnership "West Main" From: Max Twarjan <mtwarjan@gmail.com> Phone: 6035916916 Message Body: I think that a three story building at this location does not fit in with the surrounding employee housing buildings and other buildings in the neighborhood. Decreasing the height of the building, which would eliminated a few units would also decrease concerns of flooding the area with too many seasonal inhabitants, whose might not care for the area. I think any options with more green space is important, so i'd endorse Option 1 at this point. I've heard of a 4th option but it's not here on the website, is there somewhere to view it? I'm aware affordable housing is an issue of major concern in the city but I believe that when the city adds units it needs to be in an appropriate manner that helps Aspen keep it's character and keeps long time employee and citizens in the forefront and doesnt't put up as much housing as possible at the cost of the fore mentioned. -- This e-mail was sent from a contact form on Aspen Housing Partnership (http://www.aspenhousingpartnership.com) Exhibit A: March 2017 Community Outreach Feedback Received Exhibit A - Page 28 of 31 P35 I. 1 Christopher Everson To:Jason Bradshaw Subject:RE: proposed development 802 W. Main   From: Aspen Housing Partnership <info@aspenhousingpartnership.com> Date: March 8, 2017 at 4:54:41 PM PST To: "jebradshaw@mac.com" <jebradshaw@mac.com> Subject: FW: proposed development 802 W. Main From: Neil Siegel Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2017 5:54:39 PM (UTC-07:00) Mountain Time (US & Canada) To: Aspen Housing Partnership Subject: proposed development 802 W. Main These comments are submitted on behalf of the Villas of Aspen. We appreciate the informal meeting with the leadership team as well as the effort expended in the second round of open houses to present design options. None of current design alternatives address the fundamental issues, mass, scale, density and the problems flowing from a 13 unit proposal. Rather, the alternatives pick around the edges of the problem and in some cases exacerbate existing known problems. The prior comments of January11th remain viable. Let me illustrate with two examples. [1] Option 4 - all 13 parking places are located on W. Main Street. This results in all of those cars having to circulate clockwise to 8th and then Bleeker to make a left hand turn on the 7th Street. Existing traffic concerns would be amplified. Additionally, this proposal would eliminate some undetermined number of on-street parking places which are already at a premium. [2] All options - Closure of the alley in whole or in part. The alley is used for garbage trucks and delivery vehicles, which generally come west to east. It is used as access for off street parking. Those service vehicles would have to double park on the street. The existing off-street parking would be unusable. Closure is unworkable. The current design options are objectionable as was the original. Flawed attempts to patch up serious problems created by an oversized and inappropriate building demonstrate that in the first instance serious consideration should have been given to substantially reduce the mass, scale and density of the project. It is hoped that going forward a realistic assessment will be made of the appropriate size building for the lot and the neighborhood. As stressed in the past, the land use code does not give special consideration to affordable housing projects. Compatibility with the neighborhood, traffic and safety are critical considerations. Any attempt to up-zone this property would be inappropriate until these considerations are fully resolved. Neil B. Siegel President Villas of Aspen Homeowners Association Exhibit A: March 2017 Community Outreach Feedback Received Exhibit A - Page 29 of 31 P36 I. 1 Christopher Everson To:Jason Bradshaw Subject:RE: 7th & Main From: Tess Strokes <tess@tessjweaver.com> Date: March 10, 2017 at 2:04:01 PM MST To: Steve.Skadron@cityofaspen.com Subject: 7th & Main Hi Steve, I am writing regarding the proposed Affordable Housing project on the corner of 7th and Main Street. I reside in the Bavarian affordable housing complex immediately adjacent to the subject property. As a recipient of the affordable housing system, I support more affordable housing in Aspen, but the proposed high density building contains far too many units for the parcel size. Please consider building a park on the small property to serve the existing Affordable Housing in the area (Bavarian, 7th & Main and the West Hopkins AH complexes) that lacks a safe place for children to play. The only open space in the complex for my three-year-old son to play is in the parking lot, alley and the small strips of grass that are overloaded with snow in the winter. Bordered by the private Aspen Villas and the crowded "S curves", the parking lot and alleyways of the complex are the only place where the complex's many children can ride bikes, play ball, etc. With blind entrances, it's a risky endeavor that requires parent supervision at all times. Yesterday, we rode Strider bikes through the put holes on West Main and played with a remote control car in the ally and parking lot for hours. To access a park with play equipment, we have to cross Hallam, 7th or Main Street (non of which offers a convenient cross walk) and walk more than a half-mile to the Yellow Brick School. According to the American Planning Association's Planning & Urban design Standards, a healthy community should be situated optimally within one-quarter (¼) and no further than one-half (½) mile from a Neighborhood Park. Needless to say, the Bavarian and other AH projects in the vicinity do not meet this standard. The proposed project at 7th and Main would only compound the need for a park and other amenities on the far west side of town. Without a park, children will continue playing in our alleyway albeit dangerous because of traffic and deteriorating infrastructure. With the increased traffic from the proposed project, an already dangerous situation will worsen. The Bavarian Housing Complex has 19 units containing mostly 2 and 3 bedrooms each. Adjacent to the Bavarian are the 7th & Main unites. A vast majority of these units have children (as is necessary to qualify for multi-bedroom through APCHA). It’s worth mentioning that the adjacent Aspen Villa Townhouses located on Bleeker and 8th Street have an increasing child population as well. I foresee a really dangerous situation with traffic in our poorly planned block. I urge you to please open the dialogue and fully evaluate this issue with the residents of our already dense block. Thank you, -- -------------------------------------- Tess Weaver Strokes tess@tesswstrokes.com 541.206.3083 http://tesswstrokes.com Exhibit A: March 2017 Community Outreach Feedback Received Exhibit A - Page 30 of 31 P37 I. 1 Christopher Everson From:Jason Bradshaw <jebradshaw@mac.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 28, 2017 1:30 PM To:Christopher Everson Subject:Fwd: Question about the meeting tomorrow at limelight Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Aspen Housing Partnership <info@aspenhousingpartnership.com> Date: March 1, 2017 at 1:57:40 PM PST To: "jebradshaw@mac.com" <jebradshaw@mac.com> Subject: FW: Question about the meeting tomorrow at limelight ________________________________________ From: John Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 2:57:36 PM (UTC-07:00) Mountain Time (US & Canada) To: Aspen Housing Partnership Subject: Question about the meeting tomorrow at limelight I was curious as to if this includes seasonal rental market as well or if it is more specifically for home buyers? Thanks and keep up the good work! John Burger Exhibit A: March 2017 Community Outreach Feedback Received Exhibit A - Page 31 of 31 P38 I. 1 Christopher Everson To:Adam Roy Subject:RE: Affordable Housing Update   From: PJ Murray <pj.murray@cityofaspen.com>  Date: Friday, March 24, 2017 at 2:00 PM  To: Adam Roy <adam@methodpd.com>, Trish Aragon <Trish.Aragon@cityofaspen.com>  Cc: Jennifer Phelan <jennifer.phelan@cityofaspen.com>  Subject: RE: Affordable Housing Update    Hi Adam,    Below is what we discussed on Wednesday.     Planning and Engineering do not support the curb cut on W Main St.   Alley parking is supported  A compliant sight triangle is required at Main St and 7th, adjacent to the subject parcel  A sidewalk is required along the property frontage  Parallel parking can be added along the north side of Main St, but will not be privatized for this development  Angled parking can be added along the south side of Main St, but will not be privatized for this development  Traffic calming techniques can be discussed for the alley o speed tables are effective in areas with speeds over 25mph, not typically effective in alleys o alternative paving materials such as pervioius pavers can be used so the alley appears more pedestrian  oriented o a narrower alley width could be considered to slow traffic (would probably make the alley one‐way) o closing off the end of the alley would require the alley to be wider for two‐way traffic but could be  considered   Let me know if you have any questions.   Thanks,    PJ Murray City of Aspen Engineering Department 201 N Mill St Aspen, CO 81611 970-920-5056 pj.murray@cityofaspen.com      Exhibit B Government technical stakeholder comments Exhibit B - Page 1 of 1 P39 I.