The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.806 W Hallam St.A065-01 ~ CASE NUMBER PARCEL ID # CASE NAME PROJECT ADDRESS PLANNER CASE TYPE OWNER/APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION ADMIN ACTION BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED BY A065-01 2735-124-28851 Forest Service Site COWOP Application 806 W. Hallam St. Joyce Ohlson COWOP Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority Troy Rayburn WITHDRAW 1/20/04 D DRISCOLL ~ Ar~~ \Ah~~~WA' ~ Housing Office City of Aspen/Pitkin County 530 East Main Street, lower level Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-5050 Fax: (970) 920-5580 www.aspenhousingoffice.com June 8, 2001 Ms. Julie Ann Woods, Director Department of Community Development 130 South Galena City of Aspen, Colorado Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Ms. Woods: Through this letter, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) is requesting consideration for eligibility to the City of Aspen's Convenience and Welfare of the Public (COWOP) land use process for the White River National Forest site located at 806 W. Hallam Street, Aspen, CO. Pursuant to Section 26.500.040 ofthe City of Aspen Land Use Code, APCHA believes that an employee housing project "constitutes an essential public (project), provides essential services to the public, and is in the best interest of the City of Aspen to be completed." Please find attached APCHA's application for COWOP. APCHA has been previously directed by the community's appointed and elected bodies to go through the necessary process steps to ready the site for development. APCHA has received written consent from the forest supervisor of the White River National Forest to undertake the City's land use process. Please find attached Martha Ketelle's letter to APCHA supporting the COWOP land use process. APCHA believes that the City of Aspen's Convenience and Welfare of the Public (COWOP) process is an essential procedural step to increase public involvement and, thus, identify neighborhood and community values as they relate to the project. APCHA further believes that the COWOP process will produce a more complete project by identifying issues and seeking solutions through an appointed task force comprised of balanced community and technical representation. As ofthe date ofthis letter, no proposed conceptual layout, development scenario and change in zoning has been developed or proposed. The only possible exception to the development scenario is the proposed range of 50 to 120 employee housing units noted in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan. APCHA believes that finalizing such procedural steps would be premature and, thus, preempt the goals of the COWOP process. Although APCHA reserves the right to equally contribute to the public dialog it also believes that the COWOP process should address such matters in the course of its work. " r"', COWOP Application Cover Letter June 8, 2001 Page 2 of2 The assigned project manager, Troy Rayburn, will be the Housing Office's primary contact for this project. If Community Development has any questions or issues to be considered and resolved, please contact Troy at 544-3143 or e-mail himattroyr~ci.aspen.co.us. Sincerely, ~~ Mary J. Roberts Executive Director Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Attachments: United States Department of Agriculture '*' Forest Service White River National Forest Supervisor's Office 900 Grand Avenue PO Box 948 Glenwood Spgs CO 81602 (970) 945-2521 TTY (970) 945-3255 FAX (970) 945-3266 File Code: 6440 Date: May 8, 2001 Ms. Mary J. Roberts Executive Director Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority 530 East Main Street, Lower Level Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Ms. Roberts: Per your letter of April 16, the White River National Forest recognizes that the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority wishes to enter into the city's required Convenience andWelfare of the Public (COWOP) development review for the Aspen site of the White River National Forest. It is our understanding that this is a procedural step. Dne that will serve as a vehicle to formally collect the issues of the west end neighbors and idel1tify a development program that addresses :the cOlTIlTllll1ity's values. The White River National Forest recognizes the benefits of such public processes and supports the Housing Office's interest in beginning the COWOP procedure. In addition, although we will notinterfere with your required activities, the Forest Service has not reached a final outcome regarding the relocation of our administrative offices, public educational center, and employee/volunteer housing. Sincerely, /1!~p/ldl; MARTHA J. KETELLE Forest Supervisor cc: Jim Upchurch ~ Caring for the Land and Serving People ~ Printed on Recycled Paper ..., "'" ATTACHMENTS Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Convenience and Welfare of the Public (COWOP) Land use Application June 2001 . City of Aspen Land use Application ~ existing conditions ~ Pre-Application/COWOP Conference Summary ~ Copy of Potential Affordable Housing Sites from 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan . Application - Attachment 2 - Dimensional Requirements Form . Application - Attachment 3 - Submission Contents for COWOP Eligibility Determination * Eligibility Requirement #2 ~ administrative site survey maps indicating legal description including abandoned street and alleys, blocks and lots . Application - Attachment 3 continued - Eligibility Requirement #3 ~ Copy of property deed . Application - Attachment 3 continued - Eligibility Requirement #4 ~ Aspen vicinity map ~ Forest Service Aerial site map ~ Forest Service Property map . Application - Attachment 3 continued - Eligibility Requirements 5 - 9 . Application - Attachment 4 - Edibility Review Standards . Application - Attachment 5 - One Step Commission or Council Development Review Procedure PROJECT: Name: Location: ApPLICANT: Name: Address: Phone #: REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Address: Phone #: ~ ~ ~ THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE ApPLICATION J TYPE OF ApPLICATIQN: (please check all that apply to your COWOP Project): o Conditional Use 0 COl1ceptUalPUD o Special Review 0 Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) o Design Review Appeal 0 Conceptual SPA o GMQS Allotment 0 Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) o GMQS Exemption 0 Subdivision o ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream 0 Subdivision Exemption (includes Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Mountain View Plane o Lot Split o Lot Line Adjustment o Conceptual Historic Devt. o Final Historic Development o Minor Historic Devt. o Historic Demolition o Historic Designation o Small Lodge Conversion! Expansion o Temporary Use o Text/Map Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) I /~ ~ .,e4"~;J~;;,71-- PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) I ry~~~~jf~ ?;~o~1i ,~ ~~ 02~~O ~/f FEESDuE: $ b,,~ J / ~you attached the following? l..!:::r Pt:e-Application Conference Summary G}l(ttachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement ~sponse to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form [31iesponse to Attachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents ~sponse to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents G3-"'Response to Attachment #5, Review Standards for Your Application ~!!- ' ~ -~~ Existing Conditions: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approval, etc.) Total Land - The subject property is an urban site in an existing/historic neighborhood and totals 3.036 acres. It is located at 806 W. Hallam Street betweel1 N.7th aIld N.8t~str~ets ir1tl1eyyest El1d ()f Aspen, CO. Note: the site in question does not include the land that }>oppies Bistro Cafe resides. Zoning - The existing zoning on the subject property is R6-SPA (Medium-Density Residential- Special Planned Area). According to 26.710.040, a "Medium-Density Residential zone district is to provide areas for long term residential purposes with customary accessory uses. ... Lands in the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district are generally limited to the original Aspen Townsite, contain relativ(lly dense settlements of predominantly detached and duplex residences, and are within walking distance of the center of the City." Permitted uses: . detached residential dwelling, . duplex, . two detached residential dwellings on a lot of 9,000 square feet or greater, . farm building and use ..., . home occupations, and . accessory buildings and uses. SPA "permit(s) a variation of the permitted uses in the zone district." Roadways - The subject property is currently accessed on the east side of the site via N. ih Street from the S- Curve at the intersectioll orV{~ HaI1fUl1~tr~~taIl<!N~t~.~TI'e~t~Th~~it~)~lJ()~r4~4.()Bth~'Y~.~t by N. 8th Street with no access. The ~ite is bOarcieci 011 tIiell()l1:l1~ide by VI. Smuggler with no access. Note:W. Francis Street, which ran east and'Yestthrough the center of the site, is abandoned as are the two alleys that also run east and west. Buildings - The subject property is currently developed for use by the White River National Forest. Six structures exist on the site including an administrative office, two single-family residential homes, a crew barracks, and two storage and/or garage facilities. The White River National Forest has articulated to APCHA that these structures are dilapidated and to the best of APCHA's knowledge no significant modifications or improvements are planned. ~ ;. ~ ~ . ""- ,;.-...... ." Forest Service Site Existing Conditions Page 2 of2 Open Space - The subject property has no official open-space designation, but there does exist a sizeable area of undeveloped land. This area runs primarily west to east through the center of the site and contains a raised birm or ditch channeling spring water west to east and crossing W. Smuggler St. from the N.E. comer of the site. Thisareaalsosupports a number of old growth cotton wood trees, other mature vegetation (including one ofthe oldest Honey Suckle bushes in the City according to the neighbors) and contains a small horse corral. Utility Lines - The subject property has both existing electric and water utility lines serving the site. Water utility lines run through the center of the site east-west along vacated W. Francis Street and north-south along the far west side from vacated W. Francis Street along N. 8th Street to W. Smuggler Street. Electrical lines run east-west through the site along the two vacated alleys. r\ _,I ~ Pre-Application/COWOP Conference Summary Aspen Forest Service Site S06 West Hallam Street between N. 7th and N. Sth Wednesday, May 2,2001 Aspen Community Development Aspen City Hall, Second Floor Aspen, Colorado Attendees: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority - · Jay Leavitt, Director of Development and Construction · Troy Rayburn, Project Manager for the Forest SerVice Project · Mary Roberts, Executive Director of Development and Construction Aspen Community Development - · Chris Bendon, Senior Planner · Joyce Ohlson, Assistant Director · Julie Ann Woods, Director of Planning Notes: No agenda. Olhson and Rayburn initiated the pre-app/COWOP meeting in order to achieve consensus among responsible staff. Probability - The first topic of discussion was the White River National Forest's interest in relocating their administrative offices from Aspen. Rayburn noted that comments made by the forest supervisor at the White River National Forest's May 1, 2001 facility planning committee meeting were encouraging. The forest supervisor commented that (1) "opportunities exist" in working with APCHA and (2) "it might be more cost effective to relocate and rebuild due to the dilapidated condition of the existing structures." It was also noted that the Forest Service is aware of APCHA's continued interest through both written and verbal communications and has not indicated to APCHA to discontinue its interest in obtaining the 3.036 acre site. Direction - Roberts made the point that she had been previously directed to implement a model that readied housing projects contained in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan. Please see attachment #1. r", I Pre-Application/COWOP Conference Summary Aspen Forest Service Site May 2, 2001 Page 2 of3 Forest Service Consent - Woods asked APCHA to seek written consent from the Forest Service to implement the City of Aspen's Convenience and Welfare ofthe Public (COWOP) process. Rayburn responded that on April 16 he sent a letter to the Forest Supervisor seeking consent to move forward with the City's land use process. Note: APCHA received the Forest Service's reply on May 8 supporting APCHA's interest in implementing the COWOP process. Notification and Outreach - Rayburn also commented on a series of preliminary efforts to notify and involve the public in the Forest Service project and the public's weariness if everything is classified as preliminary. The purpose ofthese public outreach efforts is two fold: (1) a professional courteously to those citizens/neighbors who stand to be the most affected by an employee housing development, and (2) an opportunity for APCHA to collect citizen issues, etc. before the process becomes official. By July 2001 APCHA will have completed the following: · 20 one-on-one meetings with various West End residents; · a series of four neighborhood block meetings; and · two community-wide forums. COWOP Task Force - Rayburn noted that time has been put into assessing who or what type of organizations should be represented on the COWOP task force. They are as follows: · three neighbors from surrounding points of the Forest Service site · a representative from the Aspen City Council · a representative from the Housing Authority Board · a representative from the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission · an open space and parks advocate · two members of the public at large · a professional transportation and parking officiaVtechnician · a representative from the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Total = 11 member task force not including facilitation and professional/technical staff. . " Pre-Application/COWOP Conference Summary Aspen Forest Service Site May 2, 2001 Page 3 of3 Professional Consultant/Facilitator - The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority is requesting submittals from qualified urban site planning/architectural firms. The purpose of this solicitation is to select a qualified consultant to act on behalf of APCHA to create a Comprehensive Development Program for the site. Miscellaneous - Bendon commented that it would be beneficial to the process to have completed a land/site survey. Woods said that she would appoint Bendon to chair the Task Force. Both Rayburn and Roberts inquired about Community Development's decision-making process or chain of command. Woods responded that she would entrust Bendon with the ability to make decisions affecting the direction of the Task Force's work. Rayburn noted the importance of distinguishing between showhorses and workhorses and his lack of interest in showhorses taking credit for others work. Action Items - · APCHA draft an RFP for a professional urban site designer/architect · APCHA draft a COWOP Application .. <If [gJ Potential Affordable Housing Sites [IJ ",..'>k;""....."""J',."...',"'.,, ,,'...,.,""'...':..,'_,/.,:....._~..,""_.(.."""'^,"'" During discussion with the Oversight Committee in February of 1999, consensus was established on a number of potential affordable housing sites. The Committee detennined that we should focus pur energy on develOping affordable housing on these sites, and other sites that meet the Housing Guideline Criteria, as they become available. These sites are not ordered by rank and unit counts are estimates based on property size and types of units expected. .. ... .. .. Priority Sites Type of Low Unit High Unit Project Estimate Estimate AABC Partnership 20 50 Core and in-town Infill Partnership 45 100 MAA Seasonal Housing (in progress) Partnership 100 100 Private Property (7th and Hopkins) Private 20 40 .. . . Moore Property Private 0 30 Buttennilk Base Housing Private Mitigation 0 88 7th and Main Street (in progress) ., Public 11 II Stillwater - Lot I Public 12 15 Truscott Expansion (new units) Public 100 150 US Forest Service Site Public 50 120 North 40 (in progress) Private 72 72 Hines/Highlands (in progress) Private Mitigation 112 112 Moore PUD (in progress) Private Mitigation 31 31 Aspen Country Inn (completed) Public 40 40 Snyder (completed) Public 15 - .15 SUBTOTAL 628 974 In addition, we can not underestimate the importance of the preservation of existing units. However, these do not count against our total because they are not new construction. Examples of "buy-downs" that have recently been completed: Martinson:N()~!c;IM1L~~mc;I9mir!igm~ 10 units Woody Creek Mobile Home Park 54 units It is understood that the approximate numbers of units and bedrooms on available sites may vary with community planning processes, land use constraints and financial constraints. Therefore, the Plan also calls for the community to continue to discuss the following potential affordable 'housing sites: · Bass Parcel · Burlingame Ranch · Moore Open Space City Golf Course through changes in layout · Aspen Mass (in conjunction with USFS Site and Transit Oriented Development) · Cozy Point (up to 5 units) These sites may become more important if the community is unable to meet affordable housing needs at the agreed upon locations. 29 [g] -<y:,,':>.:-:<:.::;-;,' HOl!slng . [IJ j -" [ ~ ~ [ ~ r '" ~ r r ~ ~ r r- ~ r- ~ r:- 12- r: ~ ~ C i;'I;,y<S;",~~:<,\::oj> :.;;\\",;-.,:-< ;"';'9:<<,,:<<:(/<t:<::::;-";:;'~'i, ,""'~'/',?;'i Criteria 3: "Containable Development" compatible wi neighbor- hood & does not promote sprawl Criteria A: Contiguous to existing. public facilities and infrastructure Criteria B: Amenable to transit, bike and pedestrian oriented design (non- automotive) Criteria C: Visual compatibility with surrounding area Criteria D: Optimize the site's development potential Criteria E: Contribute to the Aspen! Pitkin County Housing Goals Criteria F: Quality of life: range of income groups, mixed uses, access to open space Criteria G: Quality of design and construction- Criteria H: Utilize and conserve . natural features Criteria I: Fiscal impact of site compared to other sites Please see the Interim Aspen Area Citizen Housing; Plan for more detail (Addendum B). ';;'is_f':':'>?'ff-: Publicly Owned Affordable Housing Sites During discussion with the Oversight Com- mittee in February of 1999 and with a broader group of appointed and elected officials in August of 1999, consensus was established that. the Housing Office be directed to aggres- sively pursue ~eveloping affordable housing on sites already publicly owned. The Committee determined that we should focus our energy on developing affordable housing on these sites, and other sites that meet the Interim Aspen Area Citizen Housing Plan Criteria, as they become available. These sites are not ordered by rank. This list is not exhaustive. Other opportunities may emerge over time. · 7th and Main · Stillwater · Truscott Expansion · National Forest Service Site, 7th & Hallam · Burlingame Parcel D (Next to US West at AABC and possibly including US West) · Aspen Mass _ · Burlingame Village (pending agreement with Zoline Family) · Bass Park In addition, we can not underestimate the importance of the preservation of existing units and efforts should be made to preserve free market units as affordable units by any means possible, including buy-downs to help contribute to our affordable housing stock. The private sector is encouraged to come forward with affordable housing proposals of their own. PllbIic-private partnerships are encouraged as well as private affordable housing ventures. 28 ~ ~ ~ THE CITY OF ASPEN ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: Applicant: Location: Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: (for the purposes ofca.lcula.tirigFloorArea., Lot Area. may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Number of residential units: Number of bedrooms: Existing: - NOTE: RAYBURN MET WITI130YCE,()HLSON ON JUNE 7, 2001. ATTACHMENT 2 IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR COWOP. Existing: - Existing: Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only) : DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: Principal bldg. Existing: height: Access. bldg. Existing: height: On-Site parking: Existing: % Site coverage: Existing: % Open Space: Existing: Front Setback: Existing: Rear Setback: Existing: combined FIR: Existing: Side Setback: Existing: Side Setback: Existing: Combined Sides: Existing:- Existing non-conformities or encroachments: Variations requested: ~ The City of Aspen Attachment 3 Submission Contents for COWOP Eligibility Determination Eligibility Requirement #2: Street Address and Legal Description - The subject property is located at S06 W. Hallam Street on the northwest comer of North Seventh and Hallam streets. It is legally described as follows: City and Townsite of Aspen Block 9, Lots A-I, K-S, Block 10, Lots A-I, M-S Vacated Alley between Block 9, Vacated Francis Street between Blocks 9 and 10 Vacated Alley of Block 10 between lots C-I and M-S, Pitkin County Please see attachments: fI", '~I~~~fH~;~#lnH.t+t:''''; ',.t.{:,.,t:~-.',..; - .ADMINISTRATIVE ~ ~ ': S'ITE SURVEY BLOCKS 9 and 10, ASPEN TOWNSITE, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO ECORDER CERTIFICATION -.... -.... -- -- -- 4(.(.~ __ " ............ 4e4~.a............. . \.~. -- __ !:Web; ~: .. ...~:. ,r..-.... -::::: : .... :..~:.::'='<-- ........ ~.. -.... - -.... -- ........ -- ........ ........ ........ '">>4/y0. -.... -- <5' .sr. 484, ........ -.... ~/yco; -.... -.... -- -.... ........ -- -- -- .-. -- \ ~J .1::0:-.. : r-'" -- . ~.., : 4(.(. -.... :::;~.;.., -- ey t'48.~-"" ;.,. -- -.... -.... l!'"o; __ -.... - -- '9,.... .,. N D"Z:1'z,." J" 88' JMBER D4TE SCALE: ,": so' _!'ME P""""'""<! 50 0 '" ~~#,'.. '1:' .. West Sl1l'l.lggler Street . -I.J CI.) 'S 1-1 ~ . -I.J CI.) ti ~ ~ (/) CI.) 'S 1-1 ;g West }[all~... -'I St . Ci:Ir.r.. . -'J 821 USDA FOREST SERVICE ADMINISTRATIVE SITE City of Aspen, Colorado. Block 9: Lots A-I & K-S. Block 10: Lots A-I & M-S. 3.03 acres. Scale: 1 inch = 100 feet. ::r::t t \l o .. z . ...f (l' " 'f't'o..~\O\ t") J - - . . SCALI>('. 1000' . ... ...,- 7 4- ~ LEGEND . FCUND 3/4- IRON PIPE WITH (' STEEl. CAP. . FCUND No. II REBAR WITH RED PLASTIC CAP FOR 1..5. 5547.' BASIS d BEARING" THE ~CORD BEARING ~ II 14"!SO' 49- E FROII THE SOUl'1lEAST CORNEROf' .8t.OC1C I() 10 .flltNORTHEAST CORNERllF>lliJ)dCi WAS ASSUMED CORRECT AND WAS TRAHlIFERRED .fIt DIRECT ANGL.ES. METHOD of SURVEY A WILD T-2 THEOOOI.ITE AND A HEWI.ETT-PllCIWlD nOS-A DISTANCE METEIl WERE USED TO 'I1f:eoNT1IOt..I.ING CORNERS ... A CLOSED TRAVERSE WITH SlDESHo'l'S. All. ANGULAR MEASUREMENfS WERE TURNED DIRECT AWlllltVtRSt.:DiSTANCE MEASIJIlEMEHTSWEl!t DOOtlI.ED TO BACICSITES AND FoRESlTES FRDM AI.TERNATE INSTRUMENT STATIONs. ;~~~ ,;j: ::-,', .. LEGAL DESCRIPTION ~:. " ..... '" ',..' , Au:. .Lcm' 0, '8LOCl( 9 AND ALL LOTS, EXCEPT LOTS IC ANIlI. ~ '8LOC1c IO..OF 1?tE TOWNSITE AND cm OF ASPElI, PITKIN . , ,......>>. 01: .J ..~ ~.' '_ COUNTY, 'CoI.oAAooi TOGETH.ER. ~I'f'!l A8~~NEo, ,.. ~~ STREETS AOolACEHT.:tHERETO, ASDESCRI8ED', IN TIt~.QUtT- CLAIM ~EE~ lIE~IlOED IN 8OOt( 157, NE as, PITKIN CQJNTY, COLORADO. ' . . CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY I, DAVIO L, BRANHAM. REGISTElIED LAND SURYElOR NO, m.n. STATE OF COI.OIlADO,DO HERE8'r. CEltTIFY THAT THIS PLAT COIlRECTl.Y REPflESENTS A SIlRYEY MA~ IT ME OR UNDER MY DIRECnor. IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE LAWS OF 'nlE STATE OFC<>LDRAOOANDAcc€l>rt!l IItTHOOs AHD PROCEDURES OF SURVEYING, AT 'nlE AtOUEST OF lllE u.s. DEPAM'MENT OF AGRICULTURE. .I'OREST SERVICl!. us. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUI.TURE FOREST SERVICE "talON 2 WHITE RIVER NAT1CNAL FOREST ;=:l ~ lOll I ISO ADMINISTRATIVE ~ SURVEY ASPEN RAN~E'R OISrRICr WHlrE RIVER NArlONAL F'ORESr SUllVE.YED 8'1: FOREST APPROIII .. II,." .. APPROvtD 97.Y'~_ ./~ .iIt'I!~....~, t Ufl't "'''...,.....'''.. SHEET.!."!. f"'" The City of Aspen Attachment 3 Submission Contents for COWOP Eligibility Determination Eligibility Requirement #3: Ownership * Sales History and Present Owner of Record - There has been no transaction involving the subject property in the past 51 years. It is currently not listed for sale, nor has it been listed during the last year. The property last transferred ownership in May 1940 (Deed Book 157, page 633) from Mr. Charles Garlington to the present owner the United States of Atn~ric~.. Plea.se see attachmellt &{ fJk /.') '7 ~ ~:].5 Jfq d lCf/J Qt7U'-CLAIM DEED.-Th. ,'. F.IJ_kcllJlank.!look <\ Lith.. Co, D"",or, Colo., 49332 VI JI 1/ Ii .1 I' il o{-th6 C'VUd<<U UJ.... . jlJ} .r /// r~- . h d L d h d ... . .' ,I 'itty UJ.. / (.. , . ......... . __ ..~n t e year OJ our or 0118 t ou.,an nine '} .... ...."'-"":...... t.JJ~.!{~~:::1 . Ii ~~~~:/;m.:1~m::;.;~ II I I I I I I I I ~ ....... Q,"/ ~/'l'4 e,f C'ele'l'.Qrl4",of the second part, ~.~~~~ "~ i; (~/;~~"~'~lt;,tYOf-.-{,llvtl~ ..........h............. ....hUh__... TO HA VE AND TO HOLD THE SAME, 'l'ogether with aU and singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto 1i.elonging or in any- """ """"". ""''''''ng, .... '" '" "'ok, "',", "'I<, i"",,,, .... claim."""""":; of '" C......'I '" frO """', ...~ in law << ""ily, " '" ""'" "'""" "", ~.... """'I of '" ~u1_jt...of '" """'" po",...~...:: "'""x/~. IN WITNESS WHEROOF, 1'1>, """ -'d.. ..0[ '" "", po" ,...tL.I.._ "'. ...........""".... ..""" ""'.........the day and year first above Written. C' . /7) /J f7 . Sigmd, Swkd =d D.i.....r i. I""- of) ~..$.&~~........I-J II ~ 7%JttlJ,~~CC~-if /(:) I . . I ~~~~~I au ~(J/ I r') The City of Aspen Attachment 3 Submission Contents for COWOP Eligibility Determination Eligibility Requirement #4: Vicinity Map locating the subject parcel and adjoining properties and roads - Please see attachments: z~ d 3j'" ~~ S{l :!~ ~8'i -0 .",,-M. >< Z -< p.. z ~ .... 0 g '" ~ CJ .... ~ Q '" z it: CA -< " . 0 10 ~ Ul ~ ~ ... ... t: -< " .;; o. Q u t -<G 8 ~ ';} -- co ~ 1 ""'"' e Ii ~I 1 .... i1 III W a: a: w c ~j :> 11. e- o; ..J < ~"" w z i:a .... c :;: ;:: :: < z ;Ji .= ~ J .J '1 ') N Water Utility Line City Zoning Forest Service Property W*E Electric Utility Line [] 0 ~ R30 PD This mapJdrawing Is a graphical representation [] Structures of the leatures depicted and Is not a legal 1:600 ~ R6 representetlon. The accuracy may change Driveways D R6SA depending on the enlargement or reduction. 50 100 Feet ~ 2000 City of Aspen 0 Roads [J R/MF PD , 0 Parcel Boundary 0 R6 PD o Water Utility Line City Zoning Service Forest Property N Electric Utility Line 0 0 W*E . . [] Structu res ~ R30 PD ~ R6 this mapldrawlng Is a graphical representation Driveways of the faatures depicted end is not elegai 0 R6SA representation. The accuracy may change 1:600 depending on the enlargement or reduction. Roads CJ RIMF PD iIlJ 2000 City of Aspen 0 .. 0 50 100 Feet Parcel Boundary LJ R6PD , ..... The City of Aspen Attachment 3 Submission Contents for COWOP Eligibility Determination Eligibility Requirement #5: Proposed Conceptual Layout"- No proposed conceptual layout has been developed or proposed. APCHA believes that finalizing such a procedural step would be premature and, thus, preempt the goals of the COWOP process. APCHA believes that the COWOP process should address such matters in the course of its work. Eligibility Requirement # 6: Development Scenario - No development scenario has been developed or proposed. The only possible exception is the proposed range of 50 to 120 employee housing units noted in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan. APCHA believes that finalizing such procedural steps would be premature and, thus, preempt the goals of the COWOP process. APCHA believes that the COWOPprocess should address such matters in the course of its work. Eligibility Requirement # 7: Section 26.500.040 ofthe City of Aspen Land Use Code - Pursuant to Section 26.500.040 ofthe City of Aspen Land Use Code, APCHA believes that an employee housing project "constitutes an essential public (project), provides essential services to the public, and is in the best interest of the City of Aspen to be completed." The Forest Service site has been identified for employee housing (range 5- -120 units) and could include a neighborhood public park and transportation modifications or improvements. All of which constitute "public facilities" (projects). The employee housing project for the Forest Service site, thus, meets the provisions of eligibility contained in 26.500.040. In addition, APCHA believes that the City of Aspen's Convenience and Welfare of the Public (COWOP) process is an essential procedural step to increase public involvement and, thus, identify neighborhood and community values as they relate to the project. Eligibility Requirement #8: Zoning - #f The existing zoning ofthe subject property is R6-SPA (Medium-Density Residential- Special Planned Area). According to 26.710.040, a "Medium-Density Residential Zone district is to provide area for long term residential purposes with customary access uses. ... Lands in the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district are generally limited to the original Aspen Townsite, contain relatively dense settlement of predominantly detached and duplex residences, and are within walking distance to the center ofthe City." Permitted uses include: . Detached residential dwelling, . Duplex, · Two detached residential dwellings on a lot of9,000 square feet or greater, . Farm building and use, . Home occupations, and . Accessory buildings and uses. SPA "permits(s) a variation of the permitted uses in the zone district." No change in zoning has been developed or proposed. APCHA believes that finalizing such a procedural step would be premature and, thus, preempt the goals of the COWOP process. APCHA believes that the COWOP process should address such matters in the course of its work. Eligibility Requirement #9: Property Boundaries Map, Surveyor General Site Map of Subject Property- Please see attachment: "*' The City of Aspen Attachment 4 Submission Contents for COWOP Eligibility Determination Eligibility Review Standards: Please see Eligibility Requirement #7 on page one of Attachment 3, Submission Contents for COWOP Eligibility Determination. ~ Attachment 5 One Step Commission or Council Development Review procedure 1. Attend pre-application conference. During this one-.on-one meeting, staffwill determine the review process which applies to your development proposal and will identify the materials necessary to review your application. / 2. Submit Development Application. Based on your pre-application meeting, you should respond to the application package and submit the requested number of copies of the complete application and the appropriate processing fee to the Community Development Department. Depending upon the complexity of the development proposed, Staffmay suggest submitting only one c9r'y. This way any corrections that may be necessary can be accomplished before making additional copies vi' 3. Determination ofCQlllpleteness. Within five working days of the date of your submission, staffwill review the application, and will notify you in writing whether the application is complete or if additional materials are required. Please be aware that the purpose of the completeness review is to determine whether or not the information you have submitted is adequate to review the request, and not whether the information is sufficient to obtain approval. 4. Staff Review of Development Application. Once your application is determined to be complete, a date for the Commission or Council review will be set. Applications are scheduled for review on the fIrst availCLble agenda given the requirements for public notice. During the staff review stage, the application will be referred to other agencies for comments. The Planner assigned to your case or the agency may contact you if additional information is needed or if problems are identified. The Planner Will prepare a review memo which llddres~es the proposal's compliance with the Land Use Code and incorporates the referral comments, Tbe planner will recommend approval, denial or tabling of the application and recommend appropriate conditions to this action. You will.be called to pick up a copy of the memo and the agenda at the end of the week before your hearing, or we can mail it to you if you so request. During the period of staff review, it is essential that public notice be given, when required for your development application. The requirements for notice of your application are provided in Attachment 7. Commission or Council Review of Development Application. Your project will be presented to the Commission or Council at a regularly scheduled meeting. The typical meeting includes a presentation by staff, a presentation by you or your representative, questions and comments by the review body and the public, and an action on the staff recommendation, unless additional information is requested by thefeview body. ~ West End Neighborhood Block Meeting # 1 Meeting Notes Re: Existing Forest Service Site Tuesday, March 13, 2001 First Baptist Church 5:00 p.m. -7:30 p.m. Attendance: Neighborhood Residents - 1. Heinz Coordes 2. Karen Coordes 3. Amy Gutherie 4. David Gutherie 5. Dyle Hower 6. Kim Keilin 7. Connie Madsen 8. George Madsen 9. Carol Rance 10. John Schuhmacher 11. Lizzy Talenfield Staff - Troy Rayburn, AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority Nick LeLack, Aspen Community Development Dept. Nan Sundeen, Facilitator Janice Vos, Scribe NOTE: 42 west end residents/representatives and/or businesses were invited to the first block meeting. 11 came and participated. One part time resident called from his primary home in Florida in response to the invitation. This equals a 29% response or participation rate. Question #1: What do you like about your Neighborhood? . "the West End atmosphere" - ./ dead end streets ./ narrow streets ./ cozy feeling ./ children able to play on Forest Service site ./ center or proximity to various activities ~, ,/'"'''-, West End Neighborhood Block Meeting #1 March 13,2001 Page 2 of 4 ./ its openness ./ quiet ./ mature trees ./ family housing ./ pedestrian friendly ./ historic atmosphere ./ existing or low density Question #2: What would you change about your neighborhood? . need for more open space/parks . unrealistic standards for parking . traffic turning offofW. Hallam onto N. sth Street . stronger/greater enforcement of safety standards to protect pedestrians crossing from N. sth and W. Hallam Street . restrict construction companies from using N. 8th St. as a parking lot . need for better enforcement of parking times (two hours) on N. sth St . cut off access from N. sth St. to Meadows Road Question #3: What is your perception or fears about employee housing in your neighborhood? . that the city will not take our concerns seriously . that the city will not complying with its own 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan language that calls for "appropriately scaled" housing in existing neighborhoods . increased density - not recognizing that the Forest Service site is in an existing, established neighborhood . increased traffic . increased on-street parking . fear of poor design or lack of aesthetic value . increased number of street lights (too bright) . poor construction quality . not enough "green" (open space or parks) . not enough storage space so people use balconies and patios for storage ,. ~ West End Neighborhood Block Meeting #1 March 13,2001 Page 3 of4 Question #4: What important qualities are needed to make employee housing work in your neighborhood? · ability as a neighborhood to genuinely participate in the development · match current density in neighborhood · could take a little more (density) based on character of development · owner occupied, not rentals · keep character of the neighborhood ./ houses face the street ./ preserve the community feel · do not overlook the importance of open space and neighborhood parks · realistic parking - one parking space per bedroom · need for underground parking on the housing site · good architectural design on all four sides · conserve the mature trees and creek ditch · no alleys or cut through streets (don't open W. Francis Street) · contain traffic circulation (limit entrance and exit to site to W. 7th Street) · maintain integrity of the neighborhood · a good design or architectural product · adequate storage · target professional families · pet mitigation - need for bag dispensers, walking areas, etc · need for timely and adequate snow removal Question #5: What did you like about this meeting? · thank you for doing the block meeting - it sends a badly needed message to the community that you want neighborhood involvement Question 6: What should we do differently? · need some type of preliminary design to work from - short on baseline information · need to bring other projects or designs to compare or use as a model · determine some parameters about capacity · details on procedures or process with elected officials · after all four block meetings have been completed have one large community/pubic meeting .-~ West End Neighborhood Block Meeting #1 March 13, 2001 Page 3 of4 Note: The first half of the block meeting consisted ofthe neighbors articulating their fears about development on the Forest Service site and their perception of employee housing. The turning point came when one of the neighbors pointed out the difference between the private sector developing the site versus the Housing Office. If the Housing Office develops the site the neighbors have a much greater chance of participating in a process to shape the final product. f"'.. West End Neighborhood Block Meeting # 2 Meeting Notes Re: Existing Forest Service Site Monday, April 9, 2001 ~ First Baptist Church . 5:00 - 6:15 p.m. Attendance: Neighborhood Residents - 1. 2. 3. Vincent Galluccio Jeff Gorsuch ~ John Morris ~ ?,;(:s ?"Y -",,~ A,/,4 .. A:.,'7 h" f",,"AJ' ,,'~ ~ ~.&./ ~~ ",1"v---t.. t>-~~ 41'~ .J,v~J~~ t?'-"'/lA.-- ~~~V'1.. h€I" j ~ -p/ t../~ A ~ ;t1?j ~ t-/td /;'J~~. Staff - Troy Rayburn, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority ~l Chris Bendon, Aspen Community Development Nan Sundeen, Facilitator ."k. /Je~,l ~ NOTE: 25 west end residents and/or homeowners or representatives were invited to the second block meeting. Three came and participated. No one else called or e-mailed any questions or concerns into APCHA. This equals a 12% response or participation rate. Comments: Staffwaived the original focus group or meeting format that was used for the first block meeting due to the need for more participants. We spent an hour and fifteen minutes in an informal conversation with the three neighborhood participants answering questions and addressing their Issues. Rayburn summarized the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's conversations with the U.S. Forest Service and the talking points from the first neighborhood block meeting. The questions posed at the first block meeting were copied and handed out to the three participants who will e- mail their answers back to Rayburn. The three participants focused primarily on two issues: density and conserving neighborhood character. Rayburn and Bendon directed their attention to a visual aide that depicted the current allowed development on the forest service site under existing zoning and Accessory Dwelling Unit codes. ~ West End Neighborhood Block Meeting # 2 April 9, 2001 Page 2 of2 Rayburn commented, "It does not matter whether its private developers Bob and Mary Smith or the City of Aspen. By right, under current law, the site could be developed with a minimum of 53 units (roughly 17 units per acre)." There was no adverse reaction to this number on the part of the three neighborhood participants. There was also a brief comment that any developer could apply for a waiver or rezone to increase the number of units. Staff also answered questions about conserving neighborhood character by pointing out some recent research that was communicated via a visual aide. Staff went into the west end and scouted out a home that exemplifies what they have learned from the neighbors. Staff photographed a "new Victorian" and created a computer simulated photograph of how the site might look if developed with the "new Victorian" architecture and in a condo or row house format. The neighbors liked what they saw. The conversation and visual aide helped alleviate the neighbors concern that APCHA would build a three story, large rectangle box. Note: This visual aide only represents what staff has learned from the neighbors when they (the neighbors) talk about the "west end character." Staff commented that the neighbors should not walk away thinking all units would resemble the new Victorian and that any development might resemble a mixed- use design. The three l1eighborhood participants will e-mail their answers to the original focus group questions. (Note: Mr. Galluccio has informed staff that due to family issues he would have to follow up at a later date. As of May 10, no other neighbors have written back.) ... ~ West End Neighborhood Block Meeting # 3 Meeting Notes Re: Existing Forest Service Site ~onday,}\pril 16,2001 First Baptist Church , 5:00 - 7:30 p.m. Attendance: Neighborhood Residents - ~ichael Flynn Gail Hughes Michael Latouser / ' Doug ~cPherson =?:>..;?"" ~"f ~ A.A.4 .e: 4~ J ~.v.(_J~ Susan McPherson ,,_ ~ "..r // .~ /' / John (peter)?? -727/729 W. Hallam St. ~ rA4. <:: ~"j /,,'~ 'T"vr--L- J 1/ Bob Ritchie r/'1~J' ~ #>lA. .t,~-lut""t A'~. A/s tJ e(';/l~ ,.ck. /iI: A - [ ,,;-vi . M~d.- .A6r ,., ~~ Troy Rayburn Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Nan Sundeen, Facilitator L 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Staff - NOTE: 38 neighbors or representatives were invited to attend. Seven attended and participated and two called in to inquire about the project. This is a 23% response or participation rate. Question # 1: What is your perception or fear about employee housing in your neighborhood? · city or APCHA not held to same standards as private developers who wouldn't be able to build this dense · A "build it and they will come" mentality · impact on school system · public taxes being used to subsidize · produces increased taxes · would like to see less feeling of entitlement · current employee housing doesn't encourage/enforce "pride in ownership" · designs are not realistic considering the life style here - no adequate storage, people want and have dogs and no fence is put in, dense developments need garages (prevents additional on-street parking) ,.~ West End Block Meeting # 3 April 16,2001 Page 2 of2 Question # 2: What do you like about your neighborhood? . the Forest Service is a recognized institution in Aspen - a land mark . single family homes . homes with adequate storage and garages to keep automobiles off the street . it's a real neighborhood . the West End is quiet Question # 3: What would you change about your neighborhood? . cut through traffic . unrealistic e.?fpectations regarding automobile use . entrance to Aspen has to be moved first . poor exit out of town forces drivers into West End . parking - too much on street parking . employee housing will amplify the parking problem . city needs to adhere to the same rules as the private sector . need for bike lanes - kids can not ride their bakes in neighborhood any more . historical designation ofthe Forest Service site by the HPC Question # 4: What qualities are needed to make employee housing work in your neighborhood? . zoning has to equal or be the same for both the private developer and the city . city needs to follow the same rules as everyone else . there needs to be a better exit out oftown and then this project could work . straight shot needs to be in place before ground is broken . needs to be single family homes . it should be family oriented . appropriate scale and space for storage, parking/garage, yards/fences . pets should be allowed but controlled - fenced back yards . needs to be integrated, so you don't walk across the street and get a different feel . realistic expectations and action to address increased parking and traffic - need for one parking space per bedroom . quality of construction - how will these units hold up to time . appropriate architecture . employee residents have to qualify - no abuse ofthe system - people getting affordable housing and don't qualify . target professional or category 4 ~ West End Neighborhood Block Meeting # 4 Meeting Notes Re: Existing Forest Service Site Monday, April :30,10'bI ,OM First Baptist Church 5:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. Attendance: Neighborhood Residents - 1. Kirk Gregory 2. Gail Hughes 3. Cliff Weiss Staff - Troy Rayburn, AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority Chris Bendon, Aspen Department of Community Development Nan Sundeen, Scribe Janice Vos, Facilitator Note: 94 neighbors/residents or representatives were invited to forth and last neighborhood block meeting. Three came and participated. There were no calls or e-mails.This equals a 3.1 % response or participation rate. Question # 1: What are your perceptions or fears about employee housing in your neighborhood? · city is becoming a big developer · city not considering those that already live here and affected by their developments · rate of affordable housing doesn't allow for assimilation · city too focused on those that don't live and vote here · trends are changing - community does not support all affordable housing projects · many people or affordable housing residents abuse the current system · city not realistic regarding needed appropriate facilitates (storage, parking, garages, etc.) · APCHA does not enforce rules West End Neighborhood Meeting # 4 April 30, 2001 Page 2 of3 Question # 2: What do you like about your neighborhood? . quiet . wildlife . messy vitality . individuality of homes - different type or style of houses . safe . pride of ownership by home owners . full time residents Question # 3: What would you change about your neighborhood? . traffic is horrendous . all of the on street parking . pedestrian crossing on W. Hallam . snow removal and street cleaning is obsessive . kids can't play in the street any more . loss of trees close to or right next to houses . don't want Entrance to Aspen - won't change anything Question # 4: What important qualities are needed to make employee housing work in your neighborhood? . let the professionals do the planning - not the politicians! . don't imitate Victorian structures . no dyed to match row or townhouses . make employee housing tasteful . one parking space per bedroom . neighborhood covenants must be enforced . fenced yards for dogs . leash laws enforced . varied sloped roofs . use Aspen Glen as an example of a good project design - can not tell the difference between large single family home and duplex . no overnight parking on street - no additional on street parking . stay away from studios and one bedrooms . focus on families - two and three bedroom units r'\ West End Neighborhood Meeting # 4 April 30,2001 Page 2 of3 · need open space or neighborhood park · provide doggy poop posts for clean up · no rentals - only home owners · no convenience store · reasonable density · present a good, viable plan - not one that has to be widdled-down · 120 units is not characteristic of community/neighborhood character · want good, permanent neighbors · city needs to genuinely include citizen ideas and input - no dog and pony show! · factor in varied roof lines/height ,-.., Forest Service Infill Project -Aspen, CO .. Process To Date.. . June 2001 Aspen Specific: Introduction - The goals of both the neighborhood and community-wide public outreach will hopefully accomplish three primary objectives: (1) early awareness aboutthe City of Aspen and the Housing Office's interest in the Forest Service site; (2) seek genuine public involvement in the Forest Service site as an infill housing project with the goals possiblyheing (2a.) apartia.l. solution to the community's concerns about urban sprawl and (2b) addressing the continued . demand from hard working Aspenites about providing ~o~singata reasonablefost; and (3) to collect both neighborhood and community values to assist the community and appointed bodies in addressing this project. Timeline and Process To Date: · January/February 2001- ~ A series of one-on-one introductions with the West End neighbors to collect preliminary thoughts and reaction to the proj ect ~ Update: V' the APCHA Board V' the Aspen City Council . MarchIMay 2001 - . >- Four neighborhood block meetings (meetings took place during the officia.l ski j season) V' B lock meetings will serve to: (1) further broaden neighborhood awaren~ss and involvement; (2) further define the techtlical issues ofthe project as they relate to neighborhood concerns; (3) collect information to be included in the CitY's Convenience and Welfare of the Public (COWOP) land use process; and (4) used to identify possible COWOPtaSk force members. >- Work session with the APCHA Housing Board V' Update on March through May findings . June 2001 - >- Two community-wide public forums (June 14 and 28th) V' Transition form strictly a neighborhood focus to community-wide issues or values >- Submit COWOP land use application to Aspen Community Development >- Develop Request for Proposals (RFP) for a lead conceptual land use consultant >- Advertise RFP -- over -- _",...v .~ ~ . July/August- ~ Community Development will present the COWOP application to City Council for approval ~ Goals ofthe COWOP process ../ Appoint a community task force comprised of balanced community and technical representation to address the numerous aspects relating to the Forest Service Infill Project if The task force will assist APCHA and the Community of Aspen in: (1) incorporating neighborhood issues and values into a official public document to be used as the guidelines for future development; (2) incorporating community issues and values into a official public document to be used as the guidelines for future development; and (3) producing a short set of draft,' conceptual site sketches. , . August/September - ~ With the City Council's approval, convene the COWOP Task Force Work with the White River Forest Service - The Housing Office has been working in an o;n-going manner with the White River National Forest since October 2000. More importantly, the Forest Service is aware of our continued interests in the site located here in Aspen. These interests have been expressed both verbally and in writing. To date, the housing office has received no indication from the Forest Service that it wishes to discontinue negotiations. As a result, the Housing Office's progress with the Forest Service is encouraging. Although the Housing Office can not speak for the Forest Service, APCHA is hearing terms from personnel like "opportunities exits in working with" the APCHA. The Housing Office has also received support from the Forest Service to begin the City of Aspen's Convenience and Welfare of the Public (COWOP) land use process for the site. The Housing Office has also had substantial conversations about its interests with U.S. Senator Wayne Allard and Congressman Scott McInnis's staff. The White River National Forest was represented by its Aspen district ranger at both of these meetings. The Forest Service is currently developing an assessment process to evaluate all of its facilities. This "assessment will identify facilities the Forest Service could trade or sell, in order to upgrade other facilities, and note possible sites for a new district office." (Aspen Times, May 18, 2001) ~ United States Department of Agriculture White River National Forest ~ Supervisor's Office 900 Grand A venue PO Box 948 Glenwood Spgs CO 81602 (970) 945-2521 TTY (970) 945-3255 FAX (970) 945-3266 Forest ~,... Service COpy File Code: 6440 Date: May 8, 2001 Ms. Mary J. Roberts Executive Director Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority 530 East Main Street, Lower Level Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Ms. Roberts: Per your letter of April 16, the White River National Forest recognizes that the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority wishes to enter into the city's required Convenience and Welfare of the Public (COWOP) development review for the Aspen site of the White River National Forest. It is our understanding that this is a procedural step. Dne that will serve as a vehicle to formally collect the issues of the west end neighbors and identify a development program that addresses the community's values. The White River National Forest recognizes the benefits of such public ~processes and supports the Housing Office's interest in beginning the COWOP procedure. In addition, although we will not interfere with your required activities, the Forest Service has not reached a final outcome regarding the relocation of our administrative offices, public educational center, and employee/volunteer housing. Sincerely, /1!w~ /!t;Ii- MARTHA J. KETELLE Forest Supervisor cc: Jim Upchurch Caring for the Land and Serving People ~ Printed on Recycled Paper .., Briefing Report To: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Board Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen Mayor and City Council Copy: Steve Barwick, City Manager Date: RE: Troy Rayburn, Project Manager Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) February 14,2001 Existing Forest Service Site - West End Neighborhood Outreach Findings From: Staffhas sought the opinions of neighbors to the in town Forest Service site regarding their thoughts on developing the site for affordable housing purposes. The neighbors were chosen randomly and consist primarily of single-family homeowners that surround the site. The conversations took place throughout late January and early February. The primary purpose of the community outreach is three fold: (1) to introduce the project manager; (2) to listen to the neighbors' issues; and (3) to convey that APCHA wants their involvement in the project. . Process - ~ collected names of neighbors from the Aspen Community Relations Office for those west end residents who had atten.<i~d previous community meetings ~ collected names from G.I.S. for those neighbors who live within four hundred feet of the existing Forest Service site ~ collected names from the west end neighbors ~ cross referenced the lists for those who live in cl()se proximity to the site ~ called some 25 residents and communicated APCHA's interest in meeting and discussing the Forest Service site ~ of the calls made, APCHA received feed back from 60% ~ met one-on-one in the homes of the neighbors . 15 west end neighbors have been interviewed to date- ~ Kathleen Albert ~ Carl and Catherine Bergman ~ Heinz and Karen Coordes ~ John Doremus ~ Vincent Galluccio ~ George and Cornelia Madsen ~ Jim and Romona Markalunas ~ Doug McPherson ~ John Morris ~ Mary Elizabeth Wilson ~ Garry Snook Existing Forest Service SiteiWest End Briefing Report February 14,2001 Page 2 of3 The findings from these conversations are broken down into twO tiers. Tier 1 is reflective of the most consistently mentioned and, thns, important issues to the west eud neighbors. Tier 11 are those issues that surfaced occasionally among various neighbors. Following these segments are concluding comments. . Tier 1- Maintain West End NeighbOrhoOd Integrity Density - 'y support for "appropriate" and "reasonable" density 'y support for avoiding 60 to 80 units (too mucb") 'y support for 40 units or 60 to 70 bedrooms (more reasonable") 'y support for Aspen Mass, Burlingame, and Truscott being used for higher density developments, not the west end neighborhood Architectural Design - ". support for aesthetic value ". support for pitched roofs 'y SUI'I'ort for Varying roof line height 'y SUI'I'ort for avoiding boX)', bunk house look 'y SUI'port for avoiding traditional aI'artrnent design (that 1970' s look") 'y suWort for avoiding inaWroI'riaie designs thai would devalue neighboring property 'y SUI'I'ort for reI'licatlng the Snyder I'roject in the west end 'y SUI'I'ort for bungaloWS or townbome units 'y concern that balconies become storage sI'ace for bikes, firewood, etc. ". support for providing storage space parking and Traffic Circulation - 'y avoid creating additional on-street I'arking 'y sUI'port for an underground I'arking facility on site 'y sUI'port for one I'arking sI'ace per bedroom 'y concern that extending the existing grid would diminish I'arking space 'y concern that extending the existing grid would I'rodnce additional cut through traffic 'y sUI'port for traffic floW off and onto N. 7th Street 'y avoid multiI'le entrance and exit I'oints to and from the develol"lleut 'y contmue to educate, encourage and I'rovide resources for mass transit use but understand that the majority of residents want and have their own autom~bile Maintain and Work with Natural Amenities - 'y SUI'I'ort for retaining or selective I'runing of the old cotton woods ~ sUI'I'ort for retaining as many mature treeS and shrubs as I'ossible sUI'I'ort for extenslVe use ohegetation buffering along streets and corners _.~._----- Existing Forest Service Site/West End Briefing Report February 14,2001 Page 3 of3 . Tier II - Support for some form of a private/public partnership - ~ free market sale of lots along W. Smuggler to off set the cost of developing the site ~ "why would the city want to put a $200,000 house on a $2 million lot?" ~ support for sale units over rentals Neighborhood Covenant- ~ pet mitigation (limit number of pets per unit or one building solely for pet owners) ~ support for noise mitigation ~ support for an on site asset or property manager ~ owners can not leave town and rent units out ~ support for rules regarding storage . Conclusion - The majority of the west end neighbors that APCHA contacted andl,or met with were: open to meeting with APCHA, appreciated being asked, philosophically support affordable housing, and conveyed an understanding that the existing Forest Service site will eventually be developed. The previously noted support does not dismiss the west end residents' reservations about density, visual aesthetics (architectural design), parking and traffic circulation, cost to the tax payer, and artificial process steps for "an already pre-determined outcome.." The majority of the west end neighbors made the distinction between the community's need for larger, mixed use housing developments versus development in an existing neighborhood. There is consensus that Aspen Mass, Burlingame, and Truscott are appropriate for larger development due to their location. In additism, there is consensus that an existing neighborhood is an established area with its own unique character and integrity. . Next Steps - To move from one-on-oneIIley~ings to block meetings among the west end neighbors. One aspect of these block meetings will be to identify five potential neighborhood representatives for a task force. This task force will assist APCHA mid its chosen architect or site planner in developing a set of preliminary, draft site plans or visual preferences. It should be noted that APCHA would also like to include a representative from ComJ;llUIlity Development and one member from the Housing Board, Planning and Zoning Commission, and City Council. This brings the task force's composition to nine, not inclUdin~S~ /.;;tf- 1;- 'f ;ft~1 -AA-~r~ ~ - fit. ~.~~~ ".".....~.~J_-