The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.su.Marolt Ranch.1981-001 / ,1""'\ 1""'\ pitkin county 506 east main street aspen, colorado 81611 March 2, 1~81 Ref: Castlewood Headgate Project Aspen City Council 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Friends: . ASPEN / '0'.,." PLANNiNC OFFiCe The purpose of this letter is to let Council know how we .feel about the proposal for the development of the Marolt property. We want to acknowledge that we are late in making these comments. We should have made' them earlier in the process. The County was given. the opportunity ea,rlier to comment on the details of the proposal. . That is, we were asked to review the proposal giv",n that it would happen in some form. At that time 1'0'''' did make several comments. W", did not howev",r address the appropriateness of the overall development. In general we have been very reluctant .to intercede in matters which are the prerogative of the City; at least because we have b",en fearful of upsetting the relationship between our two entities. However, this proposal is so significant that we feel obligated to spea,k out despite the timing. We understand that Council's d",cision to proceed with the Headgate proj ect has been larg"'ly based upon its' employee hcIusingelements. As you know, the County has long supported employee housing. The obvious question is: how much do we compromis", growth-control and environmental goals in order to fulfill employee housing goals. We feel that, given the fact that the employee housing included in the Headgate pro- , ject is middle income, the benefit is inadequate to justify the growth, cOllullunity and visual impacts of this project, The fact that the project lies on the west side of Castle Creek at the entrance to town exacerbates its impact significantly. We feel that despite the development that exists southwest of the Castle Creek Road, Castle Creek serves well as a natural break between urban and rural developm",nt, particularly in the highway corridor. Another element of this proposal which profoundly disturbs us is that the City was asked to annex this area specifically to avoid County constraints to this project. This seems unnecessary given the similarily of City and County goals. To proceed with annexation on this basis is to set upa competition between the City and the County. Developers to the west will attempt to bargain with both entities, pitting .,. / ,.-.., ''-' It __ --'~ \ Page 2. Letter to Aspen City Council From B.Child & M.Kinsley March 2, 1~8l one against the other, to get the best "deal". Actually, this is happening right now with other major proposals. Should we be making these kinds of deals? How far west will we urbanize to consuIUate these deals? What effect will this project have on the prices of potential open space purchases in the vicinity as those par- cels are revaluated based upon this proj ect? We understand better than anyone in the community how difficult it will be to deny this project .at this late date. We too have been in your position. You Ive worked closely and struggled with these people for months in an attempt to come to some mutual undertstanding which will least damage the community. But as the first significant upzoning in this county in nine years, this project is precedent setting in more ways than one. It must be evaluated annew and we believe, it should be denied. Very truly yours .~.~ Robert W. Child, Chairman , Board of County Commissioners Michael insley Board of County Commissioner MK/BC:pb ~~ ,-., [B REALTOR4ll ASPEN BOARD OF REALTORS POST OFFICE Box 4360 ASPEN. COLORADO 81 61 1 (303) 925-5704 ASPEN March 11, 1981 Carlie Wood Don Ensign Joe Porter Design Workshop, Inc. 415 South Spring Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Carlie, Don and Joe: I want to thank you for taking the time to give the Brokers Forum such a thorough presentation of the proposed Marolt Ranch. The intensive study, cooperative work, and general effort made by your group with the Marolt Family was truely impressive. I feel that all brokers present were impressed by these aspects. The ad hoc committee from the Board of Realtors studying the Marolt Proposal has recommended to the Executive Committee that no specific position in opposition to the proposal be taken by the Board. The committee will continue to study the ramifications of Ordinance 16, employee housing exemptions and rezoning-annexation problems. We shall keep you posted as to our progress in this area. Thanks for the offer to make this same presentation to our monthly General Meeting, however, we already have a complete agenda for that meeting and will recommend that interested brokers attend your presentation at the Benedict Building later that same day. Sincerely, &P~~ Bill Stirling, Brokers Forum Chairperson BS/mls MEMBER NATIONAL AND COLORAOO ASSOCIATIONS OF REALTORS , ." .,,-,,-,,'-"'.- -"",h~"_ ~. -., "\ ASPEN CI.TY COUNCIL DEAR MAYOR EDEL and COUNCIL MEMBERS MICHAEL, PARRY AND VAN NESS: ISAAC, The Pitkin County Parks Association has asked me to surrunarize our objections to the Castlewood Headgate Project. Our objections are both broad-based and site specified. They are enumerated as follows: 1. The Aspen Area Master Plan: Since originally adopted in 1966, all City and County planning has stressed the importance mf maintaining the pastoral openness of the access corridors to Aspen. This attractiveness is an economic asset which has been preserved through strict planned unit development zoning; highly restrictive sign control; an open space acquisition program funded by the sixth penny sales tax; and the wise stewardship of local landowners. The Master Plan does not refer specifically to the Marolt property because the plan did not anticipate relocating Highway 82 through the Marolt property. With the relocation of Highway 82, the scenic aspects of the Marolt property become paramount. The Castlewood project does not conform to required P.U.D. and Master Plan objectives primarily due to its close proximity to the relocated access corridor for Highway 82. While adjacent Pitkin County zoning requires a minimum 200' building setback, this project will be located only 60' from the Highway 82 right of way. The preliminary plat showed the private access road to be contiguous to the Highway 82 right of way, thereby prohibiting screening of the project by appropriate' landscaping and berming. The density of 104 units is extreme considering the linear nature of the site and the two transit corridors proposed to bisect the property. 2. Lodge Use of Free Market Units: Numerous factors indicate that the free market units constitute in fact a short-term rental project: - 1 - "~-"""~--~'-'=""""""""'=-=-=""""''''':;'''':i':r.,"~r.-,;o;..-=.",."<:=...,.:...=.,=~",,,,:w"""';;.,,,,,,<i.?.w;po,"""'''" ="'""'"'~"'...\;;; ., ~ '-', A. The design of the facilities includes an on-site office and extensive on-site amenities. B. The developers have opposed minimum 6-month rental restrictions. C. The project is located close to and in prime view of the relocated Highway 82 corridor, creating high visibility for tourist interest. Lodge use of these units is incompatible with the residential zoning and adjacent residential development. It is also incompatible with local planning, which stresses locating tourist units in conjunction with recreational areas such as the lodge zoning on Aspen Mountain. If this principle is violated all properties along Highway 82 would qualify for such tourist development. 3. Pending Transportation Planning: 'rhe City of Aspen and Pitkin County are in process Of selection of a transporation planning firm to analyze alternate ideas for a busway/alternate Highway 82 alignment into Aspen. The study will cost $75,000. These alternatives could severely change the existing road configurations of Highway 82; Maroon Creek Road and Castle Creek Road. It is possible that due to the high traffic volumes and intersection difficulties, an overpass of Highway 82 at a new Cemetery Lane intersection will be recommended. It is irrational to approve a major project in this vicinity prior to conclusion of the pending transportation study. 4. Employee HOu.sing: It is clear that the only reason this project is being considered at all is for creation of new employee housing units. Yet the Housing Task Force, in an earlier evaluation of potential housing sites in the Aspen area, has listed the west of Aspen area as the least favorable area for housing, due primarily to transportation characteristics, open space, and the surrounding neighborhood. This project appears to present severe planning trade-offs in exchange for a marginal housing site. In addition, the resolution of the Silver King fiasco could provide for significant new housing - 2 - . 1"""\ .-, units. r'm reminded that durins: the summer of 1980 a high vacancy rate existed at Silver King due to the insecurity of the condominiumization action. A planning offic.e ream to the City Council dated August 19, 1980 projected a prospective 376 additional employee housing units to be built in the Aspen area. In addition it listed 502 employee units of "prospective" development. These lists do not include the Snowrnass area housing projects such as Creekside, Club Villas, and Arbeitordorf. Nor do they include projects contemplated after the August, 1980 date. It appears to us that the housing program has numerous opportunities to locate projects other than on prime open space land. 5. Open space: The Open Space Advisory Board, in a memo to the City Council, dated November 29, 1979, recommended purchase of the Marolt property due to its prime open space characteristics. It listed eight reasons for this recommendation. The P.C.P.A. endorses the purchase of this property. Funds could be allocated in 1982 from the sixth penny sales tax for purchase. With housing development and major highway and busway relocation probably occurring on the property, the remaining open space will be insignificant. It will be dissected in such a manner as to be unmanageable, particularly in regard to irrigation and public access. This property is visually critical to the perspective of the entrance to Aspen, and should be preserved as open space. 6. Access to the Free Market Units: The preliminary plat shows the entry road to the Free Market units as parallel and contiguous to the Highway 82 right of way. This does not provide adequate turning space for vehicles makins: left turns from His:hway 82. Mine trucks could block this entry point, causins: backups on His:hway 82. Should an overpass of His:hway 82 be needed for the extended Cemetery Lane, it will be virtually impossible to provide reasonable access to the Castlewood Free Market Units. It is amazing to us that the preliminary plat approved included approval of this access alignment. - 3 - . I'"". .1"'\ . 7. Growth Management Plan: The original purpose of the G.M.P. was to provide a control over the rate of growth in the corrununity in a given year. This control could allow for coordinated public service facility expansion in anticipation of a projected growth rate. There were no exemptions to this plan, Sub- sequent to adoption of the G.M.P. exemptions were first granted for regulated employee projects and then recently for 70/30 mix projects. Proposed exempted units will far exceed in numbers the units approved under G.M.P., and eliminate any ability to predict yearly growth rates. All 70/30 projects are exempt from G.M.P. competitive review, but credit their free market units against allowable G.M.P. quotas. These credits can eliminate all other quota units allowed in a given year. Smaller housing projects dispersed throughout the corrununity will be eliminated due to lack of available quota. The 70/30 projects appear to apply for approvals separately and in an uncoordinated fashion. How, then, do we know thatthe Marolt project is superior to other projects being evaluated for employee housing? Is this the best alternative or simply the only one now pending? In summary, we feel that the above enumerated negative impacts to the corrununity overrule the value of these housing units in a highly questionable location. Therefore, the project should be denied. Thank you for considering these corrunents. Sincerely, THE DIRECTORS OF THE PITKIN COUNTY PARKS ASSOCIATION Fritz Benedict Hal Clark Raymond Auger Francis Whitaker Jon Mulford Beth Fergus Elizabeth Holekamp Gus Hallam Gary Plumley Bayard Hovdesven Ed Zasacky Fred Lane Hank Pedersen Joy Caudill Ben Rawlins ~ ^ .' :::"", .~. TO: FROM: RE: MEMORANDUM Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Sunny Vann, Planning Office Castlewood/Headgate Revised Preliminary PUD/Subdivision Review, Public Hearing DATE: February 4, 1981 Background On November 18, 1980, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the applicants' original preliminary PUD/subdivision submission. As the Planning Office's attached memorandum dated November 13, 1980 indicates, all of the conditions attached by P & Z and Council at the conceptual review stage with respect to design parameters were met by the applicants and were incorporated into their preliminary plat submission. No ,formal action was taken by P & Z in this initial review of the applicants' preliminary submission. A straw vote, however, was taken with respect to the Planning Office's recommendations, the results of whi ch are summari zed in our memorandum dated December 1, 1980, whien we have also attached for your information. The Commission expressed considerable concern over the projected rental rates of the employee housing portion of the project and the application was tabled until December 2, 1980 in order to enable the appl icants to reconsider this aspect of their proposal. The applicants subsequently submitted a revised employee housing proposal, which was reviewed by P & Z at a December 2, 1980 public hearing. While the revised employee rental structure more closely approximated the City's employee housing price guidelines, there was considerable public concern expressed at the public hearing with regard to the size of the project, its density, its location with respect to the entrance to Aspen, and the revised price structure. A second straw vote resulted in a 5 to 1 decision to deny and the application was once again tabled to a date uncertain. On December 8, 1980, an informal work session involving both the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council was held to discuss the Commission's con- cerns and the current status of the Castlewood/Headgate project. After con- siderable discussion, itwas the general consensusofi opinion of both P & Z and Council that the project could be approved if certain parameters were adhered to. Specifically: 1. That the employee housing portion of the project be relocl\ted to the southernmost extremity of the site. 2. That the overall density of the project be reduced to~proximately 100 units. 3. That the Main Street ri.ght-of-Wl\Y be dedicated as the preferred align., ment for a revised entrance to Aspen. 4. That the project be subject to the si.x month miniumum 1 el\se restrtctton of Section 20-22 of the Municipal Code. 5. That all efforts be made to minimize to the extent posstble the projected rental rates of the employee portion of the project. The applicants revised their development proposal to essentially comply with the above directives and resubmitted it to qty Council for conceptual PUD; subdivision review on January 26, 1981. The employee porti6n6f the project was relocated to the south near Castle Creek Road and the overall density Wl\S reduced to 104 units, 73 employe.e and 31 free market. In addition, the Main Street right-of-way was proposed for dedicatl'on and the projected rental rates for the employee portion of the project were reduced through redesign of the units. The applicants, however, conttn~edto request exemptton from the six month mintmum lease restriction of Section 20-22, Council formally approved the applicants' revised conceptual submission subject to the following conditions: .~ Memo: Castlewood/Head~e Revised Preliminary February 4, 1981 ^ Page Two 1. That the overall project density not exceed the proposed 104 units. 2. That the rental rate on the employee housing portion of the project not exceed $,70 per square foot. 3. That the development plan provide for the provision of one parking space per bedroom, provided, however, that two parking spaces per dwelling unit may be provided for the free market portion of the project until such time as additional parking is determined to be required. 4. The dedication of the Main Street right-of-way and the open space areas as depicted on the applicants' revised conceptual submission. 5. The prohibition against short term rental of the free market portion of the proj ect. 6. Access to the development being provided via Highway 82 by the pro- posed Cemetery Lane extension. 7. The relocation of the employee housing portion of the project to the southernmost extremity of the site. As additional background, I have attached the Planning Office's July 18, 1980 memorandum, which addresses the applicants' original conceptual PUD/subdivision submission to P & Z. This memorandum also provides a brief history of the annexation/rezoning of the property and supporting rationale. Planning Office Comments The applicants' revised preliminary submission is consistent with the conditions attached by City Council on January 26, 1981 at the revised conceptual review stage and as outlined above. Such issues as overall density, development envelopes, parking, rights-of~way, access, employee housing costs, and open space and road dedications have essentially been res.olved to Council's and the Planning Office's satisfaction. The applicants'specific design concepts are covered in the original preliminary submission and subsequent addenda which you have received, and both the Planning Office and applicants are prepared to discuss them in greater detail at your Tuesday meeting. The Engineering Department, however, has identified a number of primarily plat-related issues which are summarized in their attached memorandum dated February 3, 1981, and which are incorporated in the Planning Office's recommendation. In addition to preliminary PUDjsubdivision approval, the applicants are con- currently requesting the following: 1) rezoning to R-15A/PUD/Residential Bonus Overlay in order to permit construction in excess of the underlying zone density, 2) exemption from Growth Management under the 70:30 provision for the free market portion of the project, 3) subdivision approval for pur- poses of condominiumization of the free market units, and 4) exception from the six month minimum lease requirements applicable to condominiumization. These additional requests will also require Council review and approval, which will be consolidated with final PUDjsubdivision procedures. The Planning Office's comments with respect to these additional requests for approval have been excerpted from prior memoranda, revised .and summarized below. a. Rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay. To accommodate any density in excess of the approximately 102 units permitted by the underlying zone district, the Marolt property must be rezoned as a Residential Bonus Overlay district. The resulting reduction in the R-15A minimum lot area requirements is sufficient to permit the construction of approximately 136 dwelling units, well in excess of the 104 units requested. Should the P & Z wish to recommend approval of the applicants' request for a limited increase in density, the Planning Office feels that the proposed development plan essentially complies with all rezoning review criteria. The Planning Office is prepared to elaborate on these cri- teria at your Tuesday meeting. Memo: Castlewood/Hea~te Revised Preliminary February 4, 1981 Page Three. r'\ ....... ,.- b. Exemption from Growth Management. The applicants are requesting special review approval for exemption of the free market portion of the project 'from growth management. Such exemptions are applicable to projects in which at least 70% of the total dwelling units are deed restricted as employee housing and are subject to Council approval upon the recommenda- tion of P & Z. The applicants' proposed development program can be sum- marized as follows: Employee: 36 2-bedroom, 2 bath @ 845 sq.ft. 19 I-bedroom, 1 bath @ 637 sq.ft. 18 studios, 1 bath @ 484 sq.ft. = 73 units in total Free Market: 31 3-bedroom, 4 bath @ 2,400 sq. ft. = 31 units in total To ensure eligibility, applicants for exemption are encouraged to submit proposals which maintain an average of 1.5 to two bedrooms per unit within the employee portion of the project and where at least 50% of the total residential floor area is devoted to deed restricted units. The Castlewood/Headgate submission proposes a bedroom per unit average of 1.5 and approximately 41% of the project's total floor area is devoted to employee housing. While one of these indicators is well below the minimum size requirements, their mix is acceptable, and the free market units are not overly excessive in size, In the absence of any specific objections from the Housing Office, the Planning Office has no objection to the proposed development program. Rental rates for the employee units are $.70 per square foo~which falls between the City's moderate and middle income guidelines. c. Condominiumization . The applicants are requesting approval to condominium- ize the multi-family free market portion of the project. As these units are new construction, and therefore no employee displacement will occur, the Planning Office has no problem with this proposal. Final condominium documents will have to be submitted as required by the Engineering Depart- ment, and the applicants are subject to the provision of Section 20-22 of the Municipal Code. d. Six Month Minimum Lease. In conjunction with their request for condomin- iumization, the applicants are also requesting exemption from the six month minimum lease requirements of Section 20-22. The applicants' argu- ments and the Planning Office's position with respect to this issue have been discussed in detail at the conceptual level and in conjunction with their original preliminary submission. In addition, Council precluded short-term utilization at the revised conceptual stage and P & Z has con- sistently denied the applicants' request. Our arguments are summarized in the attached memorandum dated July 18, 1980. Recommendation In summary, the Planning Office recommends approval of the applicants' revised Preliminary PUD/Subdivision application as submitted subject to the following: 1. The Engineering Department's conditions outl i ned in thei r attached [memoran- dum dated February 3, 1981. 2. The completion of all outstanding final PUD/Subdivision submission require- ments prior to City Council review. 3. Incorporation of a prohibition against short-term utilization of the free market portion of the project in the PUD/Subdivision agreement. The Planning Office further recommends that the applicants' request for rezoning be approved; that their requests for growth management exemption and condomin- iumization be approved subject to the deed restriction of the employee units to $.70 a square foot and compliance with the six month minimum lease pro- visions of Section 20-22; and that their request for exception from lease restrictions be denied. ~~ TO U R S 300 south spring street, aspen, colorado 81611 z . 00 ~ {(fj ~ 4U~ \J~W ~. ~~ TOURS ~ . JASMINE TYGRE ~ (303) 925-7066 {(fj ~ ~0V{- Cw0\& ~ V~ ~<; ~<\u \ ') C-Q?0V\cM , '~~I 300 south spring street, aspen, colorado 81611 " j TO, Sunny Vann FROM, Jasmine Tygre RE, Castlewood/ Headgate The three p&Z members who opposed approval of this project have informally agreed to convey their reasons for doing so to City Council, especially since the vote was so close. Below are my personal comments, Castlewood/Headgate project drawbacks 1. Too big 104 unit projects have become typical of the "sprawl" developments most Aspenites find so objectionable in places like Vail. 2. Too dense Members of the public have pointed out the history of this land parcel, and the much lower allowable density when it was under county jurisdiction. Other developers may seek annexation to the city in order to be up zoned for high-density projects like C/H. 3. Spoils the greenway approach to Aspen 4. Tremendous impact on transportation into Aspen from the west We haven't even seen the effect of the additional traffic generated'by the Water Plant project on an already busy intersection. The Cemetery lane extension will not solve the problem at the Castle Creek Bridge, and the new Main Street has yet to be resolved 5. The employee housing is too expensive. At $338 per studio, $450 per IBR, and $591 per 2BR, these units are outside the range of the average low- salaried service employees so essential to a tourist economy - e.g. dishwashers, maids, desk clerks, etc. The high prices may lead to even greater density, as employees overcrowd units in.. order to be able to afford them. We have seen this situation at Silverking, which has lots of vacancies in May and June, and 6-8 people per 2 bedroom apartment in the height of the winter. /"' ,- ,.- The applicant has maintained that providing "low" cost housing makes ths project financially unfeasible. In my opinion, affordable employee housing should mean affordable to the employee, not the developer. With approval to build 31 free market units at $660,000 each the developer should gross $20,460,000. Even at a building cost of $100 a foot (generous considering the land has been owned for so long), it shouldn't cost more than $12,563,jOO ( 125,635 sq ft includes both employee and free market units) - $7,879,00 "left over". Can't the city make a better deal with this applicant? ,.- ,-.. ~ / 6. Exemption from GMP - 70/30 GMP supposedly establishes acceptable rate of growth. In 1981 a total of 47 units was available to applicants competing for GMP allocations (21 plus 18 carried over, plus a 20% bonus). Exempting C/H allows an additional 31 free market units, almost double the amount considered reasonable. This does not take into account the 73 so~called employee units. C/H has requested and received exemption from GMP competition on the basis of providing 70% employee housing. However, in my opinion, the employee housing in this project is one of its weakest points. This would become more apparent if this project were viewed in direct competition with theGMP applicants. After all, in order to score high enough to be considered for a GMP allocation, the applicants must provide sufficient employee housing to meet the 45point minimum for competition. (Of the 75 total points allowabletbreachthe "mimJimum", 40 are devoted to employee housing, which gives significant weighting to this factor.) /' " The concept behind competition for building allocations should result in selection of the "best" projects; to exempt a project from such competition does not seem to be in the best interests of the community, unless the project is of unquestionably exceptional merit. In my opinion, this is not the case with Castlewood/Headgate. r r r r--. ~ JAMES M. MULLIGAN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW 13~O SEVENTEENTH STREET . SUITE 360 DENVER, COLORADO 80202 (303) 1512-0600 dAMES M. MULLIGAN February 12, 19 81 ",,~C",," CABLE. MULLAW O)~"'i0'~j, ri" 7 Y:~s1:~\.;'"',; ~':'-"~ ';', I'''11 . r;;_7~9g; . J . ASPEN / PiTKIN "'.' "'l>'''J''''lt'Kl. ~( f'~-..i"ll.'I;;,,~~..... Mr. Sonny Vann Planning Office City of Aspen 130 S. Galena street Aspen, Colorado Re: Marolt Associates/The Marolt Ranch Dear Sonny: Just a brief note to express, on behalf of Marolt Associ- ates and myself, our sincere appreciation for the long and tireless efforts that have been put in by your office and your- self in attempting to work with this office's client in the creation of a viable development that will benefit the City, the prospective residents, and our client. Now that preliminary plat approval has been ascertained, and pursuant to our discussions, the somewhat complicated and organizational efforts must be focused to allow for the docu- mentation necessary to result in the final plat approval. Based on past experience with your office, we all look forward to continued co-operation and positive efforts in securing final plat, and the ultimate issuance of building permits within the near future. Again, thank you for your efforts and co-operation in this endeavor, and I remain, Respectfully yours, J . MULLIGAN, If Profe sional Corporation I - JMM:cdw cc: Cary D. Clark Design Workshop, Inc Otis Associates Marolt Family James W. Buchanan, III, Esq. ~ ,1""'\ JVJ3 reasons for op,tJosinbthe jvjarol t proj ect. It does not satisfy the essential basic intent of the 70-30 ordinance. The adverse e:t'1'ects on traffic, congestion, pollution are too great a price to pay for the minimal benefits in employee housing. .l:he housine:; provided is too expensive to be considered real employee housing of the ....ind needed, and the size of the project is li....ely to create a need for more new employees than the housinb provided would accomodate. a project of this size is contrary to and subverts the established policy On limiting the rate of e:;rowth expressed in th~ Growth iliai.lagement Plan. any project of this size in the open space western approach to .,spen will set a danberous precedent for ,",ossible additional such projects. I 1"""'\ 1""'\ ~ , (i MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: Sunny Vann, City of Aspen Planning Department Carlyle Wood February 3, 1981 design workshop, inc. 415 s. spring aspen, co 81611 303-925-8354 This memo serves as an addendum to the Castlewood/Headgate Preliminary Plat Submission, which is to be reviewed by Planning and Zoning on February 10, 1981. Two items need to be amended: 1. Road alignment alternative #1 and the associated utilities(shown on Sheet C, Site Plan, Proposed Utilities, and Utility Relocation and Drainage) , should be omitted from the submission. Based on the joint P & Z and City Council meeting of January 15 to discuss road alignments in the vicinity, as well as conceptual approval by City Council on January 26, the concensus has directed us to provide a single access to both development parcels at the Cemetery Lane Extension/Highway 82 intersection. Future connection to Castle Creek Road is part of the City's long range plan. 2. The applicant would like to amend the following on page 4: Division of Responsibilities Ownership: City of Aspen Developer Lot 3 Open Space 1 & 2 Cemetery Lane ROW Main St. ROW Lots 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 " The change shown is the removal of Lot 1 (Employee Housing parcel) from City ownership. This is necessary because of uncertainties in the ultimate structure of financing on these units. The applicant wishes to maintain the flexibility to transfer the land to the City of Aspen only if and when the financing arrange- ments dictate such. r community development land planning landscape architecture .-" -> ~ r--- 1""'\ ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Department DATE: February 3, 1981 RE: Castlewood/Headgate Revised Preliminary Submission ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Having reviewed the above revised preliminary submission and having made a previous site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: Plat The revised preliminary plat submitted with the application comprises four sheets in the beginning of the map set. Pursuant to the conceptual approval granted by Council on January 26, 1981, it would be our understanding that all preliminary maps pertaining to an employee unit access onto Castle Creek are now omitted from the application. Prior to preparation of a final plat, the following comments should be noted: 1. The plat as submitted is not in agreement with either the written description on the plat itself or the description contained in the submission. Preparation of the final plat by a surveyor should serve to clarify these discrepancies. 2. The final plat will need to show the existing right-of-way along Highway 82 including the Cemetery Lane right-of-way to at least 100 fe.et north of the intersection (on file in this office). This information will be necessary to adequately describe the proposed Cemetery Lane extension through the Thomas property, The final plat shall include a complete description of the Cemetery Lane extension as well as the lot created in the Thomas property and shall describe the proposed Main Street extension including a tie-in to the existing Main Street right-of-way. That plat shall also indicate how all adjacent properties tie in to the Marolt tract. 3. All existing easements as well as proposed easements for existing facilities shall be shown. These include the expanded water line easements, the easements for the gas facilities and approximate locations of easements for new main extension to be more specific- ally defined following construction. 4. The private access easement on the Thomas property south of the Main Street extension shall be shifted as far south as possible. While Section 20.17a(8) requires 125 feet between parallel street centerlines, in view of the potential nature of both Cemetery Lane/Castle Creek and Main Street, we would prefer to see the access as far from the intersection as possible. 5. The triangular portion of Open Space 1, southwest of the Castle Y-"I"""o" ~, ~ Castlewood/Headgate rtevised Preliminary Submission PAGE TWO - Creek alignment should be included in the proposed right-of-way for simplicity and to allow some flexibility in the alignment. 6. Preparation of a condominium plat for all. units included in the condominiumization request shall be required following construc- tion and prior to sale. This plat should include whatever par- cels contain the sale units, individual units, common areas, etc. as required by State statute. Circulation, Rights-of-way 1. The applicant should clarify the extent of snow removal and street maintenance to be undertaken by the development. The submission is mildly confusing. regarding the extent of these responsibilities. 2. The applicant shall comply with the State Department of Highway's letter dated November 6, 1980, from R.A. Prosence regarding channelization and signalization of the new Cemetery Lane extension intersection with Highway 82. In addition, the developer shall regrade the property adjacent to the intersection to create adequate sight lines in both direction onto Highway 82 and shall relocate the irrigation ditch and bike path as necessary to maintain their use. 3. The development shall provide a minimum 30-foot paved width on the access road to the free market turn-off. The accesS shall have curb and gutter and sidewalk along its eastern edge to accommodate pedestrian use aling what will ultimately be a major through street. The crown of the paved access shall be off-set to the west to allow easy expansion to a greater paved width should Castle Creek be brought down the alignment. Planting but no berming will be permitted in the right-of-way. 4. Pavement width at the intersection shall be a full 40 feet to accommodate two lanes of traffic in each direction. This would permit a turning lane for traffic turning east and two lanes for vehicles accessing the property from east or west. The 40-foot width should extend 100 feet from the intersection to allow a merging area. 5. We would require that both the Cemetery Lane and Main Street right-of-ways be dedicated to the City at this time. This would secure these alignments should the Main Street access be chosen for improvement (which appears almost certain) and would save the City from preparing a costly 4(f) statement at such time as federal assistance is sought. This request is appropriate in light of a letter received from E.N. Haase of the State Division of Highways dated September 8,1980 suggesting the City. proceed with dedication of an adequate right-of-way across the adjacent Thomas property. We will be proceeding with a dedication derl s~gned to tie-in with the Marolt dedication as quickly as possible. . -- 1""'\ Castlewood/Headgatevised Preliminary Submission PAGE THREE 1""'\ Drainage 1. All irrigation water being relocated and ponded on the site must run in lined ditches anddetension areas per the recommendation of Nick Lampiris. 2. Locations of all on-site drywell installations shall be subject to written comment and approval by Lincoln-DeVore. Utilities 1. Applicant shall agree to provide as-built mapping and appropriate easements for all utility construction and relocation. 2. The development shall accommodate all recommendations of Jim Markalunas' memorandum of October 29, 1980 requesting upgrade of existing five foot easements to 20 feet, easements for in-place valves, and effective replacement of the full 25 pair phone cable. We feel that most of the items listed above can easily be worked out prior to submission of any final plat. The Engineering Department would be willing to work with the applicant toward correcting the above items. 1"""'\ ,-. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission . FROM: Kathleen McCormick, Planning Office RE: Castlewood/Headgate Preliminary Subdivision - Revised Submission DATE: January 15, 1981 The Planning Office requests that the Castlewood/Headgate public hearing be tabled and continued in order that their conceptual review be heard before Council prior to a Planning and Zoning Commission decision. We ask that the hearing date be postponed to a special meeting on February 10, since the first meeting in February has been reserved for 1981 Residential Growth Management applications. "'-...'.... ,J> ,-" ~ TO: McArthur, DObie, v~ -:LW>,J/d o.rfrwo.fe- yo-.. (!~-h" C\dJ.,'~, ":ld.4rel-~~ .4s4p (",~ ~vftt<>><ta"+'Il) . ~/c..s.. I FROM: Jay Hammond DATE: January 7, 1981 RE: Circulation in the Castle/Maroon cre.eK'irea "-::. Clarification appears to be in order regar1ing the City/County Engineering Department's desire to have all tr~ffic generated by i theCastlewood/Headgate project enter Highway 82 at Cemetery ! Lane. The amended preliminary SUbmission has included an alter- nate access for the employee housing on to Castle Creek Road opposite the Water Plant/Hospital intersection !which would result in an increase of approximately 850 vehicle tr~ps per day to Castle Creek. It is our feeling that this inc1:Ieased load would ! serve to aggravate the situation at the existing Castle/Maroon/82 I , intersection and, additionally, that the alternate alignment north to Cemetery Lane provides the opportunit~ to begin construc- tion on a rerouting of the entire Castle Creek !traffic load. It is fairly ~~f ,that the Castle/Maroqn Creek intersection i is inadequate for the loads it is now subjecte~ to. Its problems ! can be quani tified in terms of sight distances,1 angles of incidence, . i 1 and the distance between Castle/Maroon and Maro!on/82. Potential remedies include realignment, signalization, an!d considerable . d 'd ' 2 grad~ng an w~ en~ng. While the County is cu~rently contemplating ! , such improvements, they would serve at best to accommodate , , existing loads3 and offer little to relieve the! congestion that ! . i will be created upon the completion of the Water Plant Housing Project (80 units), the County's Housing (possiple 80 units) and - the .fv,..ther (including build-out of both the Castle and Maroon Creek corridors '4 Meadowood, Marolt, and theHighlands~ . TheState Division of Highways recognizes the need for si~nalization of the intersection of Maroon and 82 and will probably! proceed with the addition of a light in 1981 if the County so re~uests. The , t .. I , the Castle/Maroon situat;i.on, however, ! . falls further improvement of within local jurisdiction and is not the respon~ibility of the , , I State. , '- Circulation in thc""'"':astle/MaroonCreex Area ~ PAGE.TWO The problems at the Castle/Maroon intersecFion, potential for , , increased loading on.both arteries, and the un~ecessarily cir- cuitous route to such facilities as the Hospit~l from town, create a need for some alternative arrangement that would reduce con- i , gestion and provide the potential to tie-in with the Highway 82- Main Street Extension. Much of this configuration is tied , directly to the form that any upgrading of 82 takes. Alterantive I , solutions could include frontage roads, one vetsus two inter- , sections, at.rr~~~ versus full overpass/diamon4 interchange, and I exclusive mass transit lanes. A thumbnail ana~ysis of these alternatives for the Castle/Maroon area follows: 1. Frontage road/single intersection: Th~ use of frontage roads in this area would be directly tied to an attempt ! I to accommodate all Castle/Maroon/Cemet~ry Lane traffic wishing .access to 82 with a single inte!rchange. Advantages: This design would minimiz~ conflict with the highway and could serve to upgrade the ientire road west i i 5 . of Castle Creek bridge to a category t~o h~ghway. , Disadvantages: The design ~ould requirel an extensive commitment of land in the open space ar~as adjacent to , the Highway corridor. Considerable rigpt-of-way would , be needed to accommodate the frontage rpad and a fully channelized "diamond" type intersection!. -Even with a fully channelized intersec~ion, loads from i Castle/Maroon/Cemetery Lane may prove large enough to , create a bottleneck. I -The efficiency of this design would en~ourage drivers to maintain high,speeds right into the downtown district. , 2. Two intersection: A. two intersection d~sign would result from realigning Castle Creek Road throu<!Jh the Marolt/ Thomas properti~s 'to a four:-way interseftion at Cemetery Maroon Creek (possibly subject to some realignment) I Lane. would then "T" into 82 at its own disti~ctive location. ! The design would not involve frontage r~ads. ~ . Circulation in th~stle/Maroon Creek Area ~, PAGE THREE Advantages: Two intersections would serve to disperse side traffic loads entering 82. -The design would permit location of two timed control signals that would serve to slow traffic entering town from the west making drivers. aware that they were entering a developed area. In terms of the State Highway Access Code this would create a category three buffer between the category four downtown area and the category two highway west of Maroon Creek Road. -Less land would be required and more open space maintained. Disadvantages: Two intersections with signal control would not encourage maximum speeds and therefore the most efficient utilization. -Conflicts between side traffic and highway traffic would be increased. 3. At~grade intersections versus overpass/underpass diamond interchanges: Most concerns have already been discussed in some form: -Commitment of land/open space. -Desirability of signal control. -Speeds. -Efficiency of highway. -Bottleneck effect. 4. Exclusive bus lanes: Various schemes have been dis- cussed regarding provision of exclusive lanes for mass transit. None of the above proposals preclude such special lanes and while their use would involve some intersection and enforcement problems, the four-lane plan in general would allow the freedom to designate or remove such lanes at will. Analysis of the above concerns would lead us to a specific cOnclusion: Traffic in the Castle/Maroon/Cemetery Lane area of Highway 82 should be accommodated by two signalized at-grade intersectiQns, "- 1"". ~ Circulation in the ;astle/Maroon Creek Area . PAGE FOUR Maroon Creek being a three-way and Castle Creek/Cemetery Lane a four-way, involving no frontage roads, overpasses, nor diamond interchanges. City and County Engineering both feel this design is advantages in terms of land use, open space, speeds, loading, and the avoidance of bottleneck effects. NOTES: 1. Roadway Design Manual, State of Colorado Department of Highways, E.N. Haase Chief Engineer, January 1980, Section 400, "Intersections at Grade", figure 406-1: "Sight Dis- tance at Intersections". 2. A Policy on Geometric Design of Rural Highways, American Association of State Highway Officials, M.L. Shadburn, President, 1966, pp. 110-116, "Capacity at Intersections." 3. For the purposes of this discussion the following data were used: Maroon Creek ROAD AVERAGE DAILY TOTAL DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME 5,200 vehicles 624 vehicles Castl,e Creek 1,450 174 Highway 82 18,000 2,160 4. Based on vehicle counts made by the County Engineer's office in identifiable residential areas near Aspen in 1980, a volume of 12 vehicle trips/day can be expected per dwelling unit of housing. 5. State Highway Access Code, Colorado State Department of Highways, January 1980. The Highway Access Code defines state highways in terms of speed and intersection frequency as follows: CATEGORY SPEED INTERSECTIONS One 55 MPH 1 mile spacing, normal freeway access control. Two 45-55 MPH J.,-l mile spacing of crosstreets. No direct private access, frontage roads in urban areas. Three Urban Rural 30-45 MPH 45-5S MPH J., mile spacing of crosstreets. Direct private access when no other reasonable alternatives. Some frontage roads in developed areas. / l,r mile spacing ,of crosstreets. Direct private access. Four 25-30 MPH r-- -, PEN M E M 0 TO: SUNNY VANN, PLANNING OFFICE FROM: JIM HOLLAND, DIRECTOR OF PARKS~ RE: CASTLEWOOD/HEADGATE SUBDIVISION - COMMENTS JANUARY 6, 1981 The Red Butte Cemetery Association's 6-inch I.D. steel irrigation supply line is not shown on the plans. It's 1 (one) C.F.S. head_ gate is on the Marolt Ditch, approximately 100 feet North of Opal Marolt's house. From that point it goes Northward, underground all the way to the Cemetery itself. Not only is it not shown, it appears the irrigation easement has been relocated in that area (lot 2). Concerning the dedicated open space areas, since I am not aware of what the "Specific Management Guidlines" are, I cannot agree or dis- agree with them. I would definitely have reservations about accepting land which has future use restrictions tied to it. If the land is to be accepted as "open space dedication," then the future use or development of that land should be determined by citizen input, City Staff recommendations, then Council decision. yd. ~ ~ 1"""'\ December 31, 1980 James M. Mulligan, Esq. Suite 360 Market Center 1350 Seventeenth Street Denver, CO 80202 Dear Jim: . As you requested, the following impacts of the Castlewood/Headgate project on transportation can be expected. The calculation sheets showing assumptions, etc. are attached. l!'otal Trips: A total of 550 trips per day Could be expected, 400 of which would be generated by the PMH's and 150 by the FMU's. This figure is for all traffic entering and, leaving. Peak Hour:. The peak hour/volume would be about 50 vehicles per hour in the heavier direction of flow. That is, 50 leave in the morning and 50 return in the afternoon. Total Travel: Because of the acute shortage of employee housing in Aspen, it is fair to assume that the PMH's will result in a commute reduction from down the valley; therefore, total travel would be broken down as follows: PMH's: Local travel- 300,000 vehiCle-miles per year Commute II' 1,200,000 II II II II saved FMU's: All travel- 126,000 774,000 II II II II Total travel" vehicle~miles per year reducfion. Potential Savings to Employees: As the result of a shorter commute, the employees could expect to save about $200,000 annually. " VI / .~ -- /- I 1 I t""'-. "...." _.,J. -, Accidents: Also because of an average reduction expected. the reduced vehicle-miles trq.velled, of 1.8 accidents per year would be Air Pollution: A reduction of 27 Tons per year of CO, HC's, and NOx's would result due to the reduced travel. The intersection with route 82 should be at the same location as Cemetery Lane. The affect of this project on peak hour traffic at the intersectioTIwould be minimal. It is interesting to note that an average of less than one vehicle each minute from the development would appear at the intersection during the peak hour. A also noticed in the Aspen Times where stated that the Silver King development generates 12 trips per day. This is grossly high and is probably due to either an error in the study method or an exceptionally high. number of residents per unit. A figure of 5 trips per unit is ~ore realistic. If you need additional information or have any questions, plea;>e let me know. ..--.- "// / Sincerely, ..~~ 4':;?~~c~ ~ffh~. Marolt, PE 108 Liberty St. San Francisco, CA 94110 work phone: (415) 557-3165 home phone: (415) 826-7872 Attch. cc: Opal Marolt V. Judy Tesitor Peggy Eldridge Vicki Buchanan Cary Clark ....;.....'" .-," '''':., .. .":~~''', ,''', ' ~:: '."fl< ,~;:,; ;~: ~~.~""' ~~" ~i,;<>";';:s:;;"~:'lf'';,~';,~Gr';~?~:;':>!jS//~:;!.j.'/::;'':iJ:':r~'J<<d:ii.:~!,:"; ,<~j::;?;T:;i.+:\2#&:g];;jS;;;';";;::;:;!:;:~:'ft9~~Wi\1ii;'~~~~ - 1"""-. ~ .-.. CASTLEWOOD/HEADGATE Conceptual or Amended Preliminary Plat Submission ~ December 29, 1980 This package contains replacement pages to be inserted in the original Preliminary Plat Submission notebook~ 1"""-. - t~, ^ December 29, 1980 .""'"" INTRODUCTION RE: CONCEPTUAL OR AMENDED PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMISSION FOR CASTLEWOODjHEADGATE P.U.D. NOTE: This package of revised text is to serve as either a concep- tual or amended Preliminary Plat Submission for the Castlewood/Headgate PUD plan. The page numbers are the same as those in the original Preliminary Submission, and therefore can be inserted in the 3-ring binder to replace the previous submission pages. ""'"" Parts of the original text will not be updated, since the amended site plan will not differ significantly in overall intent. For example, Section III (Design Considera- tions) discusses land use, open space, landscape architecture and circulation issues. These issues have been the primary focus of debate by City Officials and have ultimately determined the several configurations of the amended plan. The employee housing architecture has changed, however, to 3-story structures in response to the City's expressed wishes to reduce the unit sizes and building footprints. New floor plans and a rendering will be included in this package. All free market units will remain the same. The accompanying map package includes a revised plat, revised site plan with two access alternatives to the em- ployee cluster, revised utilities and utility relocation sheets. lnformation which has been omitted (slopes, floodplain, landscape concept) in the revised map package can either be found in the original preliminary submission or in the revised text. The applicant has decided to submit two alternatives for driveway access ~o the employee units (Sheet C) in order to allow for discussion as to the most acceptable alignment. The unit locations and parking layout do not change between alternatives 1 and 2. r-. - (""\ ,"'" REVISED December 29, 1980 I. INTRODUCTION ~ A. SUBMISSION REQUEST The applicant, Marolt Associates; hereby submits formal request before the City of Aspen Pl~nning Commission for con~ ceptual or amended preliminary P.U.D. and subdivision approval, dependent on resolution via the City Attorney and counsel for the applicant, consistent with the following: 1. Zoning ~ Approval for zoning category of R-15A util- izing the P.U.D. process in conjunction with the residential bonus overlay approved through City of Aspen Ordinance 16 _ Series 1980, as amended, and accompanied by a "special review" for the 70-30 unit mix approval; and 2. Exemptions - The' above rezoning request dictates the necessary and simultaneous approval by the Planning CommisSion of the following exemptions: a. Exemption from the Growth Management Plan in accordance with recent City ordinances that allow for certain limited exemptions where at least 70 percent of the units contained in the project are properly deed or covenant restricted as required therein; , ~ b. A condominium exemptiOn that.would. be necessary from the subdivision process; and c. A partiab,exemption from the parking requirements; d. An exemption from the six month minimum lease requirements applicable to condominium development. The remainder of this submission will be devoted to further detailing of the above rezoning request and simultaneous exemp- tion approval, in addition to the standard requirements for preliminary P.U.D. and subdivision plat approval. The above rezoning and exemption requests are made in pur- suance of basic agreement arrived at under annexation agreement previously approved as of January 28, 1980, which agreement was finally executed as at June 9, 1980. t- - 1 - - !'"'\ ~ REVISED December 29, 1980 r'-\ which cannot be deta.iled at the conceptual level of design. Therefore, it was agreed to defer decision on the exact number of units to Preliminary P.U.D. and Subdivision review. 2. 6 Months Minimum Lease Law Council agreed to allow the applicant to pursue the exemption request and indicated it would be willing,to consider amending the regulation if it posed undue hardships. 3. Cemetery Lane Extension Alignment The amended alignment of Cemetery Lane Extension has been reviewed by City Planning and Engineering Staff. C. PROGRAM SUMMARY The applicant's proposal at Preliminary PUD and Subdivision Review includes a request for the fOllowing program elements: - Density of 104 units; 73 employee, 31 free market. - Division of the property into 10 parcels: Lots 1-6 Open Space 1 & 2 Cemetery Lane B.O.W. Main Street R.O.W. 'r" There is a full description of these parCels in the "Project Elements" section of the.~application. r'- - 3 - . 1""'\. ^ REVISED December 29, 1980 Division of Responsibilities Ownership: City of ASpen Lots 1 & 3 Open Space 1 & 2 Cemetery Lane R.O,W. Main St. R.O.W. Developer Lots 2, 4, 5, 6, r-.. Financing: .city of Aspen Developer Lots 1, 2 Construction & Ongoing Management: S:ity of Aspen Open Space 1 & 2 Lo_t 3 Developer All Development There is a full description of division of responsibilities under "Development Framework" immediately following this summary. r-.. r-.. - 4 - . r'\ r'\ 1"'"". December 29, 1980 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM I"'"" r-. - 1""'\ 1""'\ REVISED December 29, 1980 II. PROGRAM r-. A. DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK The development of the project herewith submitted is being pursued within the framework of a pUblic/private, partnership between the City of Aspen and the applicant/developer whose intended goal is to provide a substantial number of additional "employee units" to be added to the City of Aspen housing stock, while at the same time justifying such additional con- struction by the limited allowance of free market units sufficient to give the applicant/developer a development incen- tive. This innovative approach to such a development process required many and varied work sessions between the applicant's agents and those of the City of Aspen in order to emerge with a program that would fall within the stated framework and still justify concerns with respect to the integrity of the project, as well as maintain sufficient incentive for the applicant/ developer to move forward. The various components that resulted in a workable development framework include the fol- lowing: r-- 1. Structure of Proposed Ownership - As with the bifur- cated nature of the distinct projects being developed herein, the ownership initially divides itself at the development stage between the emplo~ee housing development and the free market unit development as follows: a. Employee Housing Development (Headgate) _ It is antiCipated that the City of Aspen will accept the respective amount of land,for the purpose of acreage making up the emplaye'e housing development, as otherwise herein referenced. It is anticipated that the City will be the ini,tiating owner of this development, contracting the actual development, manage- ment, and eventual resale, if desired, of the units therein contained. It is further anticipated that the structure of the ownership itself within the employee development could be organized through the use of "cooperative ownership" by the formation of a housing cooperative. A housing cooperative would allow for blanket mortgage financing, while at the same time giving the City sOme control over the extent to which it would desire to place the employee units into the ownership market versus retaining some or all of said units into the rental market as the needs and dictates of the.City for such employee housing progress. It provides an option for the City to decide whether it is appropriate to place all of the units on the for sale market initially, or to stage same over a period of time that may be reflective of the actual demand for ownership employee units. Cooperative form of ownership is a unique vehicle that is suited to such an ownership structure and convenient financ- ing as hereinafter indicated. r-. - 5 - - 1""'\ ~ REVISED December 29, 1980 ,...." 2. Proposed Land Use (See Development Parcel Map) The fOllowing 10 parcels of land are necessary to allow sep- ar.ate ownership and/or use and maintenance of the property, as described below: Lot 1 (4.34 ac.) - Development parcel to be dedicated to the City of Aspen for 73 employee units and 109 parking spaces. Lot 2 (7.1 ac.) - Development parcel for 33 free market ljnits, 66 parking spaces, management office, pool and tennis court. Lot 3 ( .6 ac.) - Parcel to be dedicated to the City of Aspen for future expansion of m~intenance operation, lease to current user, or extension of open space. Lots 4-6 (total 2.21 ac.) - Land across river for restricted sale to 3 adjacent property owners. ,...... Open Space 1 (9.7 ac.) - Parcel to be dedicated to the City of Aspen for Open Space in perpetuity, with specific manage- ment guidelines to maintain high quality meadowland. Open Space 2 (7.71 ac.) - Parcel to be dedicated to the City of Aspen for Open Space in perpetuity, with specific management guidelines to maintain high quality river corridor conservation land. Cemetery Lane Extension (2.52 ac.) - 100' R.O.W. to be dedicated to the City of Aspen for future road alignment between Highway 82 and Castle Creek Road. Main Street Extension (2.14 ac.) - 150' R.O.W. to be dedic~ted to the City of Aspen for future State Highway alignment. 3. Density Calculations Total Acreage Slope Reduction Formula Slopes of + 40% = 5.7 ac. x " " 31-40% = 1.5 ac. x " " 21-30% = 2.3 ac. x " " 0-20% = 25.9 ac. x 35.4 ac. 35.40 Ac. 0% Credit 25% Credit 50% Credit 100% " or 0 AC. or .38 Ac. or 1.15 Ac. or 25.9 Ac. 27.43 Ac. = 7.97 Ac. Subtotal 27.43 Ac. ,- - 11 - - ,-, --- (, r-. r-. ,---' '\ .~1 ,:'" .~- / ~-'~'-". ._~-'" g",.1 ,-.....- . f\,l._... ,/_.__n~_'__ , ,,/ ',; : . /' / / ; - a 1 / .... --" /// I.' . 0 MainiStre~t R.O.W." ".------.. ~< ::9i5en S . I 1.. . . ", ,.' /_.. ; " / 4 Lot 5 Lot 1 Lt6 .(to centerline of river) . Open S ace 1 " "\ r-. CASTLEWOOD/ HEADGATE DEVELOPMENT PARCELS ( C1+n~Prdt.Htifl~ ) ASPEN COLORADO I I o 200 400 ~ NORTH . 1"""\ .r"\ REVISED December 29, 1980 Other Subtractions r", River Floodplain Easements: 5' Water (610 L.F.) 20' Water (3615 L.F.) 15' Trail (200 L.F.) 20' Gas (30 L.F.) 1. 9 Ac. .36 .07 1.65 .06 .oi 4.05 Ac. - 4.05 Ac. TOTAL ACREAGE for Density Allowance: \ 23.38 Ac. Under the R-15A/Residential Bonus Overlay provisionuof Ordinance 16, requiring a 70-30 split of employee units to free market units, the allowable density is as follows: 23.38 acres x 43,560 S.F. = 135.5 Units . 7,500 S. F . /Unit The applicant requests a density of 104 units, or 73 em- ployee and 31 free market units. '1""""\ 4. Open Space Disposition Open Space 1 is a parcel of 9.7 acres of open meadowland divided between the northernmost portion and mid-section of the Marolt tract. This dedicated parcel of open space will add to the existing City Open Space (Thomas property) for recrea tionalor. "visual" use at the e~t~:;mce to- Aspen. Open Space 2 is a parcel of 7.71 acres which includes the steep slopes, riparian vegetation and river bottpm. The applicant has distinguished Open Space 1 (meadowland)- from Open Space 2 (river corridor) to impose specific maintenance guidelines appropriate to each type of Open Space land. These proposed guidelines can be found in the Subdivision Agreement in the Appendix. 5. Pa thways The pathway system has been developed to encourage pedestrian circulation within each cluster and to connect with mass transportation links. This pedestrian network also connects with and allows for expansion of the existing County trail system. The expressed desire of City and County officials has been to separate pedestrian and vehicular circulation and to provide pedestrians and bicyclists with a visually attractive and safe alternative to roadways. .r-., - 12 - . ~ ~. REVISED December 29, 1980 r-- 6. Roads and R.O.W.'s Roads -Access to the site has been-limited to an expanded tnter- section with Highway 82 and Cemetery Lane at the request of . the City Engineering Department. The 30' -access road follows the same alignment intended for a future 60' arterial road- way connection between Castle Creek Road and Highway 82 up to the entrance to the free market cluster. The road then may continue to the employee units, or terminate at the free market cluster if the employee units are accessed off Castle Creek Road. The State Highway Department,has requested the inclusion of acceleration and deceleration lanes at the Cemetery Lane intersection and the possible relocation of a traffic light. We will work with the Highway Department and City engineers to satisfy this requirement at the final plat submission. Access to each of the development parcels (Lots 1 & 2) is via 24' paved roads, with cul-de-sacs and bay parking, and in the case of the free market units, covered parking. R.O.W. 's ,.." Cemetery Lane Extension The plan provides for 1190' ,of dedicated R.O.W. to accommodate the future extension of Cemetery Lane to Castle Creek Road beyond the access drive to Lots 1 and 2. r-- '" 13 - - 1""'\ i~, REVISED December 29, 1980 7. Site Data Tabulation. (By Parcel) .~ Total Acreage: 35.4 Acres Lot 1 Acreage: No. of Units: Size & Type: . 4.34 73 Employee 36 - 2 bedroom 2 bath @ ~45 S.F. 19 - 1 bedroom 1 bath @ 637 S.F. 18 - Studios, 1 bath @ 484 S.F. 109 spaces (1 per bedroom) 16.8 DU/Acre Units 2 bedrooms - 10,956 S.F. 1 bedroom studios - 7,398 S.F. Parking 109 spaces @ 180 S.F. = 19,620 S.F. Road 725 L.F. @ 24' width = 900 L.F. @ 24' width = 400 L.F. @ 4' width = 400 L.F. @ 10' width = TOTAL COVERAGE/LOT 1 17,400 21,600 1,600 4,000 56,974 63,574 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. (Alt. (Alt. (Alt. (Alt. (Alt. (Alt. Parking: Parcel Density: Ground Coverage: ~. Projected Monthly Rental Rates * 2 bedroom $591jmonth (70~/S.F.) 1 bedroom $446/month i Studio $338/month *See current recommendations of HousrngDirector vis a vis rental rates. Lot 2 Acreage: No. of Units: Size & Type: Amenities: 6.84 Acres 31 Free Market 31 - 3 bedroom, 4 bath @ 2400 S.F. The Granary - storage Marolt Homestead - Management Office Landscape plaza and pool @ 1500 S.F. Tennis Court @ 7200 S.F. 66 Covered (2 per unit) 4.5 DU/Acre Parking: Parcel Density: ~ - 15 - . 1""'. Ground Coverage: r"', Projected Sales Price: Lot 3 Acreage: Existing Use Future Use: Lot 4 (Across River) r'" Acreage: Existing Use: Intended Use: Projected Sale Price: Lot 5 (Across River) Acreage: Existing Use: Intended Use: Projected Sale Price r'" 1""'\ REVISED December 29, 1980 Units 3 bedrooms - 35,588 S.F. Granary & Homestead - 4,850 S.F. Pool Plaza 1,500 S.F. Tennis Court - 7,200 S.F. ~~ Parking - 12,060 S.F. Road - 1390 L.F. @'25' width 33,360 S.F. Paths - 1150 L.F. @ width 11 ,500 S.F. TOTAL COVERAGE/LOT 2 106,058 S.F. 3 bedroom @ $660,000 ($275 S.F. ) .58 Acre Storage yard for maintenance vehicles To be determined by City. .33 Acre River Corridor/Open Space Sale to adjacent landowners with development l'~l;ltrict.iQns. Market value 'as' appraised with restriction. .54 Acre River Corridor/Open Space See Lot 4 See Lot 4 - 16 - ,~ Lot 6 (Across River) .--. Acreage: Existing Use: Intended Use: Projected Sales Price: Open Space 1 (Open Meadows Use) Acreage: Intended Use: Open Space 2 (River Corridor Use) Acreage: Intended Use: Cemetery Lane Extension Acreage: Intended Use: ;--. Main Street Extension Acreage: . Intended Use: i l .--. ,-" REVISED December 29, 1980 1.34 Acres River Corridor/Open Space See Lot 4 See Lot 4 9.7 Acres City Open Space Property 7.71 Acres City Open Space property 2.52 Acres Dedicated, to City of Aspen for .future road alignment. 2.14 Acres Dedicated to City of Aspen for future road alignment. - 17 - . -... December 29, 1980 -.. r-- DEVELOPMENT PLAN NOTE: This section will not be updated for the co~ceptual or amended Preliminary Submission. Many of the concepts for design considerations remain the same, while the actual unit locations are circulation system change. The Planning Office felt it was unnecessary to revise the text in this section to reflect the plan revisions. We have provided the revised architecture which follows this note. These plans are the same as those submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission addressing their concerns of unit size and cost. They have been designed as 3 story structures with individual entries to each unit off a central circulation area. Each building contains 12 units with one containing 13. There are 6 bUildings shown on the revised site plan. r-- r-- ,~ r"'" ,-, ~ .1""'\ ...-:-,," { {- {If " ~ , ) :':~.;"1-" -'P ,,' --,-i- 'r,' .<' ),',.1 ,; , ! " ~_.; ~ ' .... ';:'1 . .j \"1 i )/t ,~,t ,l~~f I \; "~ f - I':. .! i I i " , ~~i t' ,..;, ,. ~ :.' ~ . .....,'> '"{. " " " '1 ;,~,,:;,:' "'. ,. ,; .. :.:.' ! , I .) , i I 'I , I , ',. ' . ~,-..~ : 0';~ ~",,, ":< .. ...... ~'~~5 4~ ,", ,;';-' , \ \ 1 /""".. .....--- " u_.__'_ ,..- - , , , --II -=---1 r _-=-i! ---I r--. ,,-. 1"'""\ ~ f'IDI i -'-- 1 iD1r-,. . . , i J'i , i , L: !:>,.J,Jc:. 'TC..J II L' "p"', LoI..t ~~ L.-I,,,J c., '&E.O....OO""' .., " l:>EC,1c. ."-'" ! 1=.", I ~- Il.-... CJ cJD Dc) I" we') if, CJ #.1..14\: (- ;" Ji ; H '".-" L.i Ii -1-- ,'ATJ .I,'~' . \J ""It. 1:)....00'""... 2.. CAS1l-EvJOOD/~!;;:A~ ~_'BE.12_~ 0 o~L1 N '1= 845 SF r". ~. ~ 1""'-, 1""'\ , if I , 1:1c . fT1C 'f I :,' :01 ' I - I ' 1\._: __-:-\ (). I .(" C IL.-]_ C:__J: "",,..),...! c. I'~!~ 'Tc.ta:riJ - '..',' II ) I . Ii , \" , "''''T...l ! "La, /, == -- c:.L~. .-'~- . ? H ;.\ "'.' L , -/' oJ c.. ~ ~ 1:. R. 0: 0",\ t:>I!: G IC.. AS pE~ c.oLa RAPe> .J:) r-J ~ po, i=' r-:, R ("") c> 1V\--1.J~4 c;. 3 7 S F OT' '=> ASSOC IA-TE.S . . ~. ,-, ~. , ,t;S2_C-_Bl\=jl ~ CC. ~ , ' .. - JI 1 1 I I I " //1 I, ~ I ! I r- ,"'" '- '-, ~~D Or . - -He.CTL.- .JL._.__ <t J,..'Tco.lE..J , -i L...II.J Co r'\ ". "...I I ,.j S o , ..."'c:>c. (" A<;'TII=' vJOOD/HJ;;ADG~ 5'-"TIJDllO UN..t..:r 4<94- SF sc::.~LIL - 1.,." = 1'- 0" I"'" . ~ ~ December 29, 1980 r~ APPENDIX NOTE: Parts of this section have not been updated due to ongoing negotiations between the City Attorney and Counsel to the applicant. Specifically, this affects the Subdivision Agreement and the Engineer's report on Utilities. In dis- cussions with the Planning and Engineering Staff, the applicant has agreed to work with the City at Final PUD to satisfy all engineering standards the City requires. Phasing will be as shown (all employee units in Phase I) with the exception of the construction of Cemetery Lane. This cannot be determined until a decision has been made by the City as to the access alternative for the employee units. r""'" .~. TO: FROM: RE: DATE: 1""-. -., Aspen/Pitk. 130 so aspen ning Office tree t 1611 MEMORANDUM City Attorney Dan McArthur, City Engineer Jim Markalunas, City Water Department Jim Holland, City. Parks Department Steve Crockett, Fire Marshall Holy Cross Electric Association Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Mountain Bell Aspen Metro Sanitation Colorado State Highway Department Jim Reents, Housing Director Tom Dunlop, Environmental Health Officer Sunny Vann, Planning Office Castlewood/Headgate Revised Preliminary subdivision Submission December 29, 1980 The attached materials are the most recent revision to the Castlewood/Headgate Subdivision preliminary submission. The text contains pages that are to be inserted into your original copy, bringing the submission up to date. This amended preliminary submission is scheduled for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on January 20; if you wish to amend your comments or submit any further ones, please get them to me no later than January 9, 1980. /"""I. . ,t;l /"""I Aspen/Pitkin <PI'anning Office '\", 130 sO,uth g.alena.$Jreet aspen; color ado., ,,81611 "- . ',,:!> ''"',,~'' ".'"...,7 ')0" -'''''"'':';'"'\';'-2;'Il''''';;:-'~''<~)!.Y'' MEMORANDUM 5~ v:~ / / ,/ TO: City Attorney Dan McArthur, City Engineer Jim Markalunas, City Water Department Jim Holland, City Parks Department Steve Crockett, Fire Marshall Holy Cross Electric A,ssociation Rocky Mountain. Natural Gas Mountain Bell (Aspen Metro Sanitation ~ , Colorado state Highway Department Jim Reents, Housing Director Tom Dunlop, Environmental Health Officer FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office RE: Castlewood/Headgate Revised Preliminary Subdivision Submission DATE: December 29, 1980 The attached materials are the most recent revision to the Castlewood/Headgate Subdivision preliminary submission. The text contains pages that are to be inserted into your original copy, bringing the submission up to date. This amended preliminary submission is scheduled for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission On January 20; if you wish to amend your comments or submit any further ones, please get them to me no later than January 9, 1980. -r;-Ilf ,Sr.-!:>OIV'SIO- elf-- srI.... I!>e: S'~"'..../c.;::t:> r.y /"1.1'''- /1etl~'.4-/T"4- ~A'--'''n\T/.- t:>I.S"'A-/c,T f>tfo..,.,(),,,,,,,-#f,a C6ZjLr;1,- c:::,e;t,,~ t?tIZ{/".....'7.. fil-O ~/~e.. e'k'7GI-S'.~~ Aae: "-O#'CI~G'I"> o",-r. ~ ,Id'~ 'cfJ~-C...f' /Y'--r-- ~~.~!:?--- .. TO: FROM: RE: DA,TE: 1""\. , , I J!~l Aspen/PitkinPl"arinlng .. Office 130 south galena s,tree't aspen; colorado "81611 "'. ' , ... '"... , " . , . 'W"''',:'' .., ',...','.."- "':~,.:"\;.~,;::,i~',::.,"Ji:",J;.,'if MEMORANDUM City Attorney Dan McArthur, City Engineer Jim Markalunas, City Water Depar~~ent Jim Holland, City Parks Department Steve Crockett, Fire Marshall Holy Cross E.lectric Associat~on Rocky Mountain Natural Gas~ Mountain Bell Aspen Metro Sanitation Colorado State Highway Department Jim Reents, Housing Director Tom Dunlop, Environmental Health Officer Sunny Vann, Planning Office Castlewood/Headgate Revised Preliminary Subdivision Su~mission 'December 29, 1980 The attached materials are the most recent rev~s~on to the Castlewood/Headgate Subdivision preliminary submission. The text contains pages that'are to be inserted into your original copy, bringing the submission up to date. This amended preliminary submission is scheduled for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on January 20; if you wish to alJlend your comments or submit any further ones, please get them to me no later than January 9, 1980. e;1~ ~R~ ?7l~~ Ch1 ~~4 ~~/uJ~Y1J: gCUJ: ~~ J~~-71' uJ~ ~ ~r" U ^----- TO: . FROM: RE: DATE: r-.. ,-" , ,l, Aspen/Pitkin;hlD,nin.g Office 130so;uth galena'5;,treet aspen' co.lorad.o 81611 MEMORANDUM City Attorney Dan McArthur, City Engineer Jim Markaluna$, City Water Department Jim Holland, City Parks Department Steve Crockett, Fire Marshall Holy Cross Electric Association Rocky Mountain. Natural Gas Mountain Bell Aspen Metro Sanitation Colorado State Highway Department Jim Reents, HouslngDirector Tom Dunlop, Environmental Health Officer J Sunny Vann, Planning Office Castlewood/Headgate Revised Preliminary Subdivision Submission December 29, 1980 The attached materials are the most recent rev~s~on to the castlewood/Headgate Subdivision preliminary submission. The text contains pages that are to be inserted into your original copy, bringing the submission up to c'late. Cl.'his amended preliminary submission .is scheduled fOr review ,by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on January 20; if you wish to amend your comments or submit any further ones, please get them to me no later than January 9, 1980. N/)~.!h~ 7?fM f]~ 1/1/0/ 1 1"'. ^ Cable MULLAW James M. Mulligan A Professional Corporation Attorneys and Counselors at Law Suite 860 Market Center 1350 Seventeenth Street Denver, Colorado 80202 q~1 (p,~ \~ ~^'" ~te- 0 Telephone (808) 572-0600 December 24, 1980 Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office Ci ty of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 ATTENTION: Sonny Vann, Planning Director Re: Castlewood/Headgate Section 20-19 Exception Request Dear Planning Commission Members: As you are aware this office has been retained by Marolt Associates, the Applicant under the PUD subdivision submission in connection with the referenced property. Please allow this letter to constitute the Applicant's request for certain excep- tions to the strict compliance of the provisions of Chapter 20 of the Aspen City Code, such request for exceptions to strict compliance being made pursuant to the provisions of Section 20-19 of said City Code. This request for exception emanates from the recent contin- ued tabling of the public hearing before your Commission in connection with the PUD subdivision preliminary plat submission for the referenced property. As you are aware, the property has already been submitted and approved by yourselves and City Council at the conceptual stage, which conceptual stage approved certain items and left certain other items open for further definition and approval at the preliminary plat stage. Among the items that were approved, however, at the conceptual stage was the specific location of the building envelopes for the employee project and for the free market project included within the submission. As you are further aware, the continued tabling of the public hearing, and the work sessions connected therewith, have indicated that the prime issue of concern to the Planning Commi?sion and the City Council (informally) has been the relocation of the employee housing project envelope from the Highway 82a,I':Ei!il back to the south side of the property 1"""'\ ,1""'\ Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office December 24, 1980 Page 2 near Castle Creek Road. This position represents a reversal of a prior approval given by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. This reversal causes some degree of frustration and wonderment as to what direction the Applicant might take, and whether that direction might once again be reversed. As you are aware, the Applicant originally submitted a plan at the conceptual stage that anticipated the employee project being located on the south side of the property near Castle Creek Road, and it was only at the specific recommendation of the Planning Office, the Engineering Office, the Open Space Coun- cil, and a majority of the Planning Commission and Council members that the Applicant changed the employee housing enve- lope to show it near Highway 82, following which the conceptual approvals were given. After expending much time and extensive consulting fees to present the original concept in line with previous meetings with the Planning staff and Council members, the Applicant further expended time and fees to cause the relocation of the employee envelope to the north side of the property and to change all other related data, specifications, engineering plans, etc. to conform to the desires of Planning Commission and Council. Despite this, Council and Planning Commission have recommended that we, once again, relocate the envelopes back to the south side of the property, which reloca- tion will involve further effort, work, and fees, only to once again face potentially negative comments from the Engineering and Planning Office with respect to such relocation, particu- larly the traffic patterns connected therewith. Further, and in order to comply with City Council's concern for procedural matters, we have been requested to take the project back to the conceptual stage to receive City Council input on this new change in a formal manner, despite prior informal work sessions with Council to garner their perspective on the change. This original position taking, reversal, and now, re-reversal, have approached the point of grave concern on the part of the Appli- cant as to whether any reasonable use of his land will be approved, and whether the enjoyment of a substantial property right of the Applicant has been or will continue to be inter- fered with. In consideration of these concerns, it is felt that the Applicant's request for exception of the normal chapter procedure falls within the guidelines of Section 20-19, specifically subsections (a) (1) and (2) of same. Additionally, it is felt that the granting of such an exception will not be at all detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other 1""\ ~. Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office December 24, 1980 Page 3 property in the area, since the exceptiQn requested will only deal with an expeditious manner of attempting to put the pro- cess back within the time sequence originally anticipated under the annexation contract and pursuant to the procedures followed by the Applicant, which time sequence has only been interfered with as a result of the reversal of positions with respect to the project envelope. Accordingly, the Applicant submits to you a request for certain exceptions to Chapter 20 procedures with respect to the project submission, which exceptions include the following: 1. Joint Planning Commission/City Council Review: In order to give some sense of clarity and uniformity to direction that the Applicant might take to conform to the desires of the appropriate City bodies, we hereby request a joint session consisting of both the Planning Commission members and the members of City Council, which session will be convened for the purpose of reviewing the property's submission for a revised conceptual and preliminary approval. Since the procedures of Chapter 20 do not specifically require the conceptual and pre- liminary stage approvals to be held at separate sessions, the spirit of the Chapter is still being met, while intending to give some form of expeditious treatment to the timing process of the Applicant in order to allow it some reasonable expect- ancy, if approvals are met, to begin construction during the 1981 building season. It would be requested that this joint session be held on January 19 or January 20, 1981, which is substantially in line with the current projected dates set for the reconvening of the public hearing at the P&Z level for preliminary stage approval. 2. Interim Staff Instruction: To give immediate and forthwith instructions to the Planning, Engineering and City Attorney offices, as well as other related offices within the City to put full efforts into working with the Applicant to compile a package for submission at the January meeting that is reasonably consistent with the desires and apparent concensus of the Planning Commission and Council that has been garnered to date and may be garnered via internal work sessions among the City offices, Planning Commission and Council, as well as external work sessions which may include the Applicant and ,1""'\ 1""'\ Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office December 24, 1980 Page 4 other publicly-interested parties. The intent of this instruc- tion would be to give some immediate authority and responsibil- ity to the various staff offices within the City to concentrate their efforts and time to attempt to meet the above-requested expedited review process. In connection with such expedited package preparation and review process, the time frame within which an early submitted information would be done in finally packaged form should be shortened to ten days prior to the joint session meeting, at which time the Planning Office would immediately submit the newly-packaged material to both the Planning Commission members and the City Council members, along with submission out to the necessary referral agencies, who could report back prior to the actual meeting date any concerns that they may have. 3. Approval Process: Since Chapter 20 allows the prelim- inary approval to include approval subject to modifications, any last minute details that may be of concern to any referral agencies, the Planning Commission members, or the Council, can be voiced at the conceptual portion of the joint session, and included within the preliminary plat approval section of the joint session, which preliminary plat approval could reflect modifications consistent with concerns expressed at the joint session and by the referral agencies. 4. Six Month Minimum Lease Exemption: Section 20-22 of Chapter 20 of the Code, specifically Subsection (b) thereof, requires that: "All units shall be restricted to six (6) month minimum leases with no more than two (2) shorter tenancies per year". .. As indicated elsewhere in our submission informa- tion to date, this restriction was drafted, passed, and included within Chapter 20 to address the problem with respect to tenant displacement and infringing upon the number of employee housing units existing within the City limits. This submission falls totally outside of the scope or intent of that original ordinance as passed, particularly in light of the fact that the submission anticipates adding substantial numbers of employee units to the City's housing stock. Additionally, strict compliance with the six month minimum lease provision would work an undue hardship upon the applicant, in light of the fact that such restriction would substantially and materi- ally interfere with the ability to finance the construction of ,~ 1""'\ Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office December 24, 1980 Page 5 the free market units and further to secure any permanent financing upon the sale of such free market units. It is important to recognize, at this point, that although those units may not be used for short term rentals, the availability of such short term rentals provides the flexibility necessary to allow for a loan submission package sufficient to secure the financing necessary to build and sell those units. Without this exemption, the free market portion of the project becomes subject to such undue hardship as to interfere with the reason- able use of that land as anticipated at the time of annexation contract and conceptual approval; and, further, this exception is necessary in order to preserve the substantial property rights of the applicant anticipated during the annexation and conceptual process. This particular exception request does not interfere with any of the existing zoning regulations with respect to the zone classification of the subject property under the annexation agreement, and therefore, is not attempt- ing to provide for a variance of the basic zone classification, only an exception to the Chapter 20 provisions. The intent and nature of the above-requested exceptions would not interfere with the spirit of the subdivision approval process, would give the Applicant some measure of direction in a reasonably consistent manner, would afford interaction amongst all parties at a co-ordinated joint session, and would avoid interfering with the Applicant's reasonable land use and property rights that might otherwise present a grave concern resulting from time delays caused by interim reversals. It would be anticipated, utilizing the above exceptions to the normal process, that the modifications could be made subsequent to the joint session meeting, and properly forwarded for final plat with necessary signatures within a reasonable time thereafter. It is felt that this application contains no request for exceptions that interfere with the spirit of the subdivision process or would in any way be injurious to the public welfare. In fact, it is felt that the application affords an avenue to avoid what otherwise might be negative issue resolution processes, while still allowing for the process to flow within the system affordable by Chapter 20, only modified by the allowed provisions of Section 20-19 thereof. , . -., r"\ Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office December 24, 1980 Page 6 Finally, you should be advised that this application is being submitted to attempt to resolve what otherwise might be deadlocked issues, and should not be considered to be any form of waiver or modification of the Applicant's position with respect to prior approvals given by the Planning Commission or City Council and actions taken by the Applicant in respect or reliance thereof. Accordingly, enclosed herewith please find draft resolution submitted for your passage in connection with this application, which resolution is intended to approve the contents of this application and allow for the exceptions herein requested to be approved and implemented immediately. Your attention and co-operation in this matter is greatly appreciated. Respectfully yours, JMM:cdw Ene losure cc: Aspen Planning cc: Aspen City Att cc: Aspen Engineer cc: Cary D. Clark ES M. MULLIGAN, A P ofes~al Corporation , . ' -, -, CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION CONCERNING CASTLEWOOD/HEADGATE SUBMISSIONS WHEREAS, currently pending before the Planning Commission, pursuant to continued and tabled public hearing, is the PUD and subdivision preliminary plat submission for the Castlewood/Headgate property which is submitted by Marolt Associates, the landowner; and WHEREAS, the continued tabling of said submission has been due in part to concern with respect to the location of the employee housing building parcel within the submission property; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted an application for certain exceptions to Chapter 20 of the City of Aspen Code, concerning subdivisions, which application is submitted pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 20-19 thereof; and WHEREAS, such application is being submitted as a manner in which to resolve issues with respect to protecting the Applicant's property rights while at the same time falling within accepted procedures allowed for within the said Chapter 20, including the exception procedures thereof; and WHEREAS, Section 20-19 requires that such exceptions may be granted by the Planning Commission following receipt of an application therefor submitted in writing; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's written application has been submitted and is attached to this Resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that after due discussion and consideration of the written application submitted by the Applicant to this Commission, the Planning Commission has moved, seconded and authorized the exceptions requested within the written application of the Applicant, which written application is attached to this Resolution; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the necessary staff support persons within the Planning Office, Engineering Office and City Attorney's Office are hereby instructed to implement the provisions of the written application request in order to afford the Applicant the proper resolution of the exceptions therein contained, including the scheduling of the joint session requested thereunder. ~ ,- lO'fJV I??JXf f(UL,~'6), y~) L/Ly ,Ct. v/I/vwi.,/ U~f /LCC./1.?(1 i lL'lf-;t,~ vi MEMORANDUM TO: Members of Aspen P & Z Commission and City Council FROM: Ed Zasacky RE: Marolt Proposals DATE: 12/10/80 Please consider these points in any future consideration of density and rental rates on the Marolt property. The developer has no land cost in this situation and most of the underlying value of the land has been created by annexation to the city because of the enticement of the 70-30 solution to employee housing. To offset the harm to the public that this large project will create, i.e., dust from construction riding on prevailing winds throughout town, additional fireplace smoke, traffic problems, impacts on sewer and water, visual impacts, growth outside the GMP and on and on, it seems to me that the city should receive rental rates that are substantially below market rates and a less dense project to mitigate the above. The developer professes high ethics and the noble ideal of helping the city. If this is true, it seems to me that they can offer us some benefits and put a little less money in their pockets that probably will not be spent in Aspen and not help Aspen's economy anyway since none of them, with the exception of Opal, live here. ----- On this extremely sens1t1ve location, if we are to accept the negative, please give the city something positive and really use the Robin Hood theory behind the 70-30 concept. You may create as much of a problem as you solve by this kind of growth. As people (employees) become dissatisfied with the Aspen experience because of growth and its negative aspects, they decide to cash in the chips and leave. This takes however many employees a family may contain that were self-supporting because they bought years ago at lower prices and replaces them with a second homeowner who is the only person able to afford today's prices. The net effect is not only a loss of employees who don't need public subsidy but increased need for more employees because the old ones weren't replaced by employees but by tourists. When you consider that an employee should make 3-4 times his rent in income and, knowing what incomes are and will be, make the rental rates fit for the good of us all'.md pleilse lower the density by more than a token amount. Thank you. " A~' ('e5-(-b, QJC, 9/ 199-d , 0 [1,~ ~:.Q~ =t ~c~ r~~.~~ ~ Jl~ ~;'L.cLcQ. "U~d~ --U:v<-<- .~,~ ~~~~JL-o{~~'~' - ~Ov~~G ~~ Y -tLC<-k A--o ~~:1 ~-LL ~~ ~ :I." 'ct~ "~~ .U~cQ'~ ~~ ~ ~ /J..u~. ." Uet.-C ~\ CZA-~ '1~~J'~~Q&~'~ C~~~~ .~-t~~~~,-. ~~ ~L, ~ ~~ vl~~ ~- G . L.Ge ~ ~Vl/lJ-V"t.<-~~ ~. ~~ X~_A_~~ ~ ~ cCrrzVvz-<-CU__~ ~tL,~ ~ ~ ~ ~__ ~~~~JjJ - , .~/Vv~~L~~ ~~ . . o1\~-.Q..~c\( ~ ~~ ~ J:..~ ~ ~o' ~0 Wa~ ~ /9/l6J 1--{+ rwCL-<." J L.. ~~~ ~ ..Q~ ~...tA- ~~ /Vvu2D.~ . f-k. ~~~ ~ ~ '-a-~~ .~~ ~~~-~~ . oJ~~~~. 'G:; /l~ ~oW~~' .,._. ._.' 1)~ c~ ~ L.--u~ 1""'\ . , I / ~~ /VvL~ .~ 19:;l.") -.. ,-'".. ,_.. ._;.~-- ,," . """. @f~~-.~~t5~ 8; ~~j;; . ~ . w (!)IUJ~rr~ -z;, )Je+~~ ~ :It < 9~ . i ! I , ! I } I I " ) I I I \ ,')) -~-'--'~ - ~__~'-~c"- .(~~'Zt:L~ "~'T,",~C{t-(L....._CQ '8.oL--cL 'p-e-,"-:_ lf~__ -'- ~XCO. ~1 QLfkzc C"'--<-~. \2Q~c 'i ti~~_ 1'--~\~ .,--.~ l~'~ Q~+<-~ --\f) o-U c~~\l'<J~ /~: k )930 ~ ~., -~WG" ~ h\~~~-Lo\:_ ~~~.~ ,,~.\}-t-~).^ L0~ C4-c:- .~~ M~ ~ ~-tQ-CL L1-A/U---L~~ 'Lc~~QL\~~Q' ~~ k~ j ~ c{LU-ZX-P~~,/~~ /~1~ . I '~Q. '.',-, L~L-- /\'v~ .,z.~ ~ -<---" /\L.~ ~. ~t Lv'-eLL C~~~b.L CL._~~ - .-t c.cc:. ~ ..LL~ ~ ~"--~<-- ~ oi~r ,,--,~/~VL~. <~CL.L~)"L. oL'~J t~ ~Ct..w.--t;c /LCL-v<:cL act '~~~O-<>D ~~~ ,~ <1~ ,kw~ A_~~ .~ ~ ~ ~t-~~&l~...rR cL~ '---?7/f/~./ .:?s" I - "/ "\,~c(~~~) .~~ .t~^---' ~~I . ~ L~ ~ ~,~t-L~ ~~C4CLLC t-' ~~ ~.- /9' L((J "l~W';::J, (~ '{- ~ dF&.. ~LcQ ~ I ^ · ~ .f-IL n ~ lJ J t/~~~ \J L^J'-'---, tr'IA-L.cC'eCL-'-'<( .....~~. I C~~~ )~11J;Lz;:,Q. ~&2 ~ . A.L~ ~ ~Q~~~ Lb~&~:J ~-'" ..-& ~, ~~J2 ..t~~c~r-~ ~<-L-~ c-~~~\- ~c~ ~ ~LJ:::, ~~ LAf-~-4- '~-~ vlu...1....00 ~ ~~'~ ~ .3. ~-~~~ ~~~~ " - _ . -~ ~~ --+- ~(1jL.-{.~C~~ LJ . ~ ,,,-~~ LcL~ 0:-~ / td-(~' -+ ~~. ~ ~~ ~~~ -'L~.A.-~ ! t ~ ~CU-L'-<"'- ~ ~Q ~ jl ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~-A.-',~..b j . cH (l~ iAJ-.L ~.cQ I ~~~~~~"" I --to tl~ ccct:1-lL ~ ~. LuL ~J 1~6L-tQ ~ 11 t~ ~ O--t-u- ~cx~f I ~ ~Qh~/~~ .- ~ I q,5"":L ~ ~ ~ ~cH.k-.A-<J' ) ~ \~ . \ rVtA.\-<..A..) 'l1x..eo~~ t7= LA, ~ ('l _ 1M ~ =-.l 'U.uu~ ~ ~ ~ct~~~ ~c.~ ~. ~~~ ~CVv---<- 0<- I Q ---tL.cJ::;-~ . ~dt... ~ c.", ./\.~ _ K~ '~Lu.~ -JlJf~~ .-LI'\.- ~ ~ ~'--.. ~ ~ OL-LL~ v~~~~~~,.. ~~ ~dL ~ /LCL-v<.~ Q.Ct ~~o ~~.. .,.. ~.'Q~olD J~ I ~~~-u ~ \?Q..n.J....~~~ I .J ~tt-~ ~..~_Ct 'il. i /laa/~.c~ 0...- ~o. ! ~~~.~~~ f ~lq't:z~~~~~u~ ~~~~~~~ - , -- - -~ ~-- ------- --"--- -- .-' -- - _ -"_". M _~~ ___ _ ____ __.__ ""'__ ___~~_ ~_ '-I. . ~ <:' C' /LJ. \~ - -'{"'-<-"-.. 'L' i '. _. ~1.-'L.,~.z-<...~",-(,-" , 1-' ... r-\ t: r\, ' '.', ~ ............,""---'- L-L-. ~ ...z...~ c~ -~ S'--<...'--<,-~~' "tJ.'.A ~ ,C' A C. \ ... ~ ..... .~.. '-, -.--- -~. -;l--- "'L " ;. -- ....~ . ,-'_,,> ~ / .k---C c-': /.~....1 -,-,C.'" I c(' '., .' c, . i. ( ,- V'-..-. ',~ ~ ~_. _--...~ ) v"-^............~.(- ...lC..K.--<-...... ..y.y J (\ v:1 "_ .' er-- _~.. __~, 'L.'. c,^---<- ....I, t _ ,() 'I i ~. _ '---<.__..<....~ ~~ . \L-'-'~ O-LcQ.... t:e::~ <.'1 Q/~f/"'-- oG:ct ...-LA........L,AtIJL..<-c- ~ ~~ t:G al.vL-u....~O-~ ...-c-t cx.-t..,-c~ ~ C'U-~--L 0-. SL~ dd ~c~~ t~~... ~ i~ /MJ,Q-<-,. ~.v~~' &t ~ .ltaot .~ ~b'~~ ~dL ,~ ~ LA....."-....{..ot..--L ....e..~c<.--~ '-1(..tW . TO ~-\~ ~ c-<.J--~ ..:\v,.t.d-0U A-k, ~c- ~,~. ~"- 1 C1 J~ lA.-~ ,/L.-cL€cQ. i"'-'-~~'~ t;o ~'-yLCv<-cS( ~"">'V'-CL--c.. . '~"'-' Uv......-..e-l..L ~ ~~J( ~L-z. ~ ~~e:-CJ.JL .~ AXOL-.-cU. I ~ tkL. t,o.U....<...A;!- J ~ _ .' . (j . n . 0 _t~ \) A..--L (.4.....Q _-II--.....--L...... I ~ I .. 1\ L-{.. : ~~ ~ () n_"':' (J....Jl...l .. L~ TI.t:.. ". .--C-<- ~(l(. 'b- ~ ~ ~~~-LC-\ 'ttv-~Af~ ~~ ~ ~ rVt.-<..1-<....V <3....<...<rvL~ .~~~-~~~' ./ -lG-<-~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ I '~cCJC:" ~ ~cQ ~ /9(07, ~ ~ ~. ~~...L.C4.-- ~ i , . I . :5- (i .,. C:, '~'J.~~. , . dG=~~i;~~'~'- ~ . ~ i'.' ~:-:~) ~ I q ll( ~- <b Qu-~ ~SL~~'j ~ .b ('~ ~ ~ ~D-<-~~~ i . 1 ~~4' ) ~ ~~ _O~~('~~ ~ I ~~~~~CJ~ \ ~ F~~Lv-L~~ I A---f;)~ ~ ~, - ,~ ~\' ~ ~ /"'VtA..~ . . ~~~~~ ~1!~'~~~ ~-to C~~~ ~ -k~,\.-.-1<>d. ~ ~ ~Q~ ~,~cIL~ ~~~~Th~ . /U.~,'d'~: L - d ~ L '~. ;;:-~~~~M ~~~~~~~ ~,,-~' ." , ~ I /' 0-t CLQ CW~, ~L-Lt- ^~_...._-- ~'---------..._-,-- "- ...~_.._---- -- -_....~--".,...,-,-- . ,~.._....,,--"'_.....;. , . A -, MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office RE: Castlewood/Headgate Prelimina~y PUD/Subdivision Review Public Hearing, continued DATE: December 1, 1980 On November 18, 1980, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the applicant's prelimary PUD/subdivision submission. No formal action was taken at that time and the public hearing was continued to December 2, 1980. The Commission, however, did take a straw vote with respect to the Planning Office's recommendations, the results of which are summarized below: 1, The Commission concurred with the Engineering Department~s conditions outlined in their memorandum dated November 14, 1980. 2,. P & Z did not concur with the deletion of the Marolt single family residence and lot from the PUD plan. 3. P & Z concurred that a minimum of one parking space per bed- room should be provided for all residential development on the property. The Commission, however, agreed to allow the applicant to provide only two spaces per unit for the free market",portion of the project provided, however, that suf- ficient parking to meet the one space per bedroom'eequirement be aesd.gnated on the final, plat. '., 4. P & Z did not concur with our recommendation that the Midland Right-of-Way be retained as undeveloped open space until such time as final disposition of the Highway 82 Corridor tssue occurs. ~ 5. P & Z did not concur with our recommendation that an appro- priate trails easement be provided across Lot 2 parallel to Castle Creek in the event one is required. 6. The Commission concurred with our recommendation that the Matn Street extension right-of,-way be dedicated. 7. P & Z also concurred with our recommendation that the free market units should not be exempted from the six month minimum lease restriction of Section 20-2,2. In reviewing the applicant's submission, the Commission expressed considerable concern with regard to. the proposed size and cost of the employee housing units. The Commission directed the applicant to pursue a possible reduction in unit size with an ensuing reduction in unit cost. The attached material outlines the new unit sizes, their floor plans and the proposed rental rates. The site plan of the employee housing portion of the project, however, has not been revised to reflect the new unit mix. The applicants are prepared to discuss their proposed revisions to the employee housing portion of the project at your December 2 meeting. Inasmuch as the employee site plan has not been revised to reflect the new units, no formal disposition of the applicant's preliminary PUD/subdivision submission can be made at this time. Should P & Z concur with the new employee housing proposal, it will be necessary for the applicants to revise their preliminary sub- mission and for the Planning Office to re-refer the application to the appropriate review agencies. The Planning Office is prepared to discuss the applicant's pro- posed revisions in detail at your Tuesday meeting. \ (i ~ November 28, 1980 design workshop, inc. 415 s, spring aspen, co 81611 303-925-8354 MEMO TO: Sunny Vann, City of Aspen Planning Dept. From: Carlie Wood Attached are: 1) Prints with zipatone cross-hatch pattern indicating the additional parking spaces necessary to full- fill parking ratio requirements of the zoning code. As was requested by the planning office and P&Z, we have shown 5 additional spaces in the Employee area which will be provided, and 31 additional spaces in the Free Market area which will not be built immediately but provided at a later date if deemed necessary either from a traffic or marketing point of view. 2) Revised architecture for employee studio, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom units. The new unit mix and sizes are as follows: 36 - 2 bedroom 24 - 1 bedroom 20 - Studios @ 845 @ 637 @ 484 SF SF SF each each each Below is a comparative chart ,showing rental rates in Plan 1 (as submitted in preliminary Plat submission of October 15, 1980) and Plan 2 with the revised architecture: Plan 1 Plan 2 % reduction Studio 361. 00 317.00 bS 12% " 1 bedroom 518.00 445.00,,/" . 14% 2 bedroom 651. 00 591. 00 ./c 9% The building configurations have changed in order to maximize efficiency of construction and thereby lower rental rates as much as Possible. 2 bedroom buildings (see rendering) There are six units per building in a 2t-3 story structure. A central stair for circulation divides the building in two and provides private entries for each unit. The site plan would accomodate three of these 2 bedroom buildings easily. 1 bedroom/Studio units These four buildings each contaifi. six - 1 bedroom units and 5 studio units (utility and storage areas account for one studio in each bUilding). community development land planning landscape architecture - ~-..- ~ OLD BUSINESS Castlewood/ ,Headgate Pre- liminary - Public Hearing -~ ".-.,. ,-, .. Olof said this question has been foremost in the P&Z Commission's minds for some time. Karen said the idea of a meeting is a good one, and Planning is anticipating having,the entire city surveyed for historic sites, within a month. Sunny Vann, Planning office, introduced the Marolt application. This is a public hearing representing the second stage of the P.U.D./ Subdivision process. In addition to preliminary plat ap.proval, t'he applicant's are concurrently requesting, 1. rezoning to R-15A/P.U.D. /Residential Bonus in order to permit construction in excess ,of the underlying zone density, 2. exemption from Growth Management under the 70:30 provision for the free market portion of the project, 3. subdivision approval for purposes of condominiumization of the free market units, 4. partial exemption from the City's parking requirements, 5., exemption from the six-month minimum lease requirements applicable to condominiumization. ' These additional requests will also require Council review and approval, which will be consolidated with Final P.U.D./Subdivision procedures. I ! ! , I f I I i I , , i , , , , i l I , i ! , i , ~ In respect to the applicant's site plan, all of the conditions that were specifically outlined at conceptual submission have been, met. In fact, the submissi~n is to be complimented, the developer has been very cooperative and has attempted to meet the various stipulations that were attached to this application. Essentially, what the applicant's are now proposing is to subdivide the 35 acre site into 11 (eleven) discrete parcels. Parcel or lot 111 totals 4.76 acres and is earmarked for 80 employee units, a gross density of approximately 16.8 dwelling units per acre. Lot #2 will ccontain 33 free market units and totals 7.1 acres, a gross density of approximately 4.6 dwelling units per acre. A third parcel designated as lot #4 totals approximately one aCre and is the site of the, relocated and renovated Marolt residence. The remainder of the parcels are designated as dedicated open space and rights-of-way or are scheduled for restricted sale to adjacent property owners. In general, the site plan and buildings 'are well designed and are consistent with P.D.D. objectives and design approaches. The Engin- eering Dept., however, has identified a number of primarily plat related issues which are summarized in their memorandum of 11-14-80, and incorporated into the Planning office's recommendation. A number of additional issues were identified by the Planning office P&Z and Council which were deferred to the Preliminary P.U.D./ Subdivision stage. These issues include overall density, parking requirements, the Midland right-Of-way and open space, trails and road dedications. The Planning office's comments with respect to each of these issues can be found in their memorandum dated 11-13-80. i , ! , !,' I , I , , t , , I ! I In summary, the Planning office recommends approval of the applicant's Preliminary P.U.D./Subdivision submission subject to the follm,ing: 1) The Engineering Department's conditions outlined in their memorandum dated 11-14-80, 2) The deletion of the Marolt single-family residence and lot from the PUD plan. Should the applicants require the additional dwelling unit, the Planning office would not object to its incorporation into the free market units, multi-family portion of the project" the spe- cific location to be reviewed and approved by the Engineering and Planning offices. 3) The provisitn of one parking space per 'bedroom for all residential development on the property. rO~11 e.F.1I0ECI([L8.B.I!oL."t:O. f"""\ ,1""'\ , ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 1980 ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 4} The retention of the Midland Right-of-way as undeveloped open space until such time as final disposition of the Highway 82 corridor issue occurs. 5) The provision of an appropriate, trails easement across lot #2 parallel to Castle Creek in the. event one is formed. 6) The dedication of the Main Stre.et exten sion right~of-way. The Planning office further recommends that the applicant request for rezoning be approved subject to the deletion of the Marolt residence and lot; that their requests for growth management exemption and condominiumization be approved subject to the deed restriction of. the employee units within moderate income ,guidelines and compliance with the six-month minimum lease provisions of Section 20-22; and that their requests for exemption from parking requirements and lease restrictions be denied. Olof asked the Conunission for conunents. Roger asked the Engineering Dept. if it is planned that the inter- section is going, to be a four-way? Sunny said that no formal disposition has occured, but he thought it would be a grade. Secondly, Roger said it is his opinion at this point (re: Midland Right-of-way) that the Main St. Extension is the way to go through this propertY, and it doesn't seem necessary to hold the Midland Right-of-way. Also, that it is time for Council to act to. release. that. Right-of-way from this property. Perry said that he too feels that something should be done about the Thomas property and the right-of-way. Secondly, Perry said he doesn't understand the rationale behind the 6 month minimum lease restriction. He said it has been shown over and over in town that the ,primary purchaser of such expensive property(luxury units) is a person that uses the unit in sununer and/or in winter. Therefore, the 6 month minimum lease requirement becomes such an inhibition that the units would end up empty. Also, if the 6 month lease were ef- fective, it would make a much. greater traffic and parking impact. Lee stated he feels Perry's question concerning the 6 month lease restriction is a very relevant one. That the major concern is the precedent that owu1d be broken if a project of this size and nature had the 6 month restriction waived.. However, if the Commission looks at this from a different perspective, as a, 70: 30 proj ect, Lee thinks the Code change could be justified from a legal standpoint, with the exception being part of the special review procedure. Olof opened the public hearing. Sunny Vann stated he wishes the Planning office memorandum. of Aug. 6, July 18, July 24 and November 13 as well as the Engineering Dept. memorandum of November 14, be included in the minutes of this meeting. At this point the applicant introduced a model of the project for public viewing. King Woodward said his concern is the Growth management exemption because .of employee housing. He added that with all of the other employee housing projects around town, he is concerned about the entire valley altd the highway and the excess of employee housing exemptions. ' Jim Mulligan, Attorney for the developer. To clear up some points; First,' in rega\d to the six-month minimum lease restriction, leg- islation was introduced to put the restriction in this .zone category and it was denied. Secondly, although the condominium process does require the 6 ,month minimum lease, the discussion centered around the need to provide and preserve employee housing. Lastly, the attempt should be to go through the 70:30 review process or bonus process, so there is discretion. in the particular process. ,I"', ~ -- ""', --- . Ed Gustafsen, area employee, was interested in knowing the reason for separating the employee units from,the free market units? Remo Lavagnino, stated his concern for the Castle Creek corridor and was happy to see the developments had been placed on the top side. Also, concerning the 6 month lease, Remo implored the Commission not to rationalize on the exemption from the 6 month lease re- quirement,'unless there is an amendment to the 70:30 provision. Otherwise adhere to the existing code requirement uniformly through- out'the district. Ann Runyon, wildlife advocate, said she' feels the. term "employee units" is most misleading beca.use she knows of no employee that can afford to live in them. Further, that she feels such a project would be a gross infringement on the wildlife of the area. Nick Coates, further supported Lee and Perry on the 6 month lease requirement. Furthermore the 6 month restriction doesn't work. It ,isn't enforced uniformly across the community. Jerry Fells responded to Nick saying on that basis certainly all of the laws could be thrown out if they are not successfully enforced and prosecuted. On the subject of density, he and his neighbors were appalled at the amount that is planned to go into this area. They felt it is a bea'!tiful green area and should be preserved. Also, that there will be an additional impact on the sewer system from this project and there isn't enough capacity to handle it. Ed Suzaki said his major concern was the overall size of the project. Since large complexes., like Silverking seem less desireable to employees than small projects. Most people don't come to Aspen to live in a large housing complex. Also, by allowing exemption from GNP, the City seems to be becoming a developer. Jim Breasted, Open Space Advisory Board, stated that there was an unanimous recommendati.on at the early stages of this discussion, that this,property be purchased for open space. Secondly, if it couldn't be purchased for open space that it be annexed to the City with the lowest possible density in the City zoning Code. Speaking as a concerned citizen, he feels ghettoization is wrong and the purpose of government is to preserve the mix. Dick Meeker, stated his philosophical objections to the project. He said he has worked very hard for the GMP, and now'it is being used at the expense of the employee. There will be an impact on the sewer system and on Hwy. 82 from the yet to be inhabited Water Plant Housing project. This impact is yet to be seen. Hans Gramiger, stated that he concurs with the plan in general. It would provide an opportunity to, address the Main'Street right- of-way issues. Gideon Kaufman asked if the employee units are separated from the free market units, how will the poor men meet the wealthy women? Lee Pardee said he had five points, as follows; 1) rights-of-way 2) 6 month, less traffic if P&Z would relieve 3) ,any and all needed parking in writing 4) trail - ask applicant to comply 5) approve moving of Opal Marolt house with no renovations Jim Reents noted that the house, must, however; come up to Code. t ...-.-..'~- ,-., MEMORANDUM .- TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Department ~. DATE: November 14, 1980 RE: Castlewood/Headgate Preliminary Subdivision Application Having reviewed the above preliminary application, and following our site inspection of November 11, 1980, the Engineering Department has the following comments: PLAT: The preliminary plat submitted with the application comprises three sheets in the beginning of the map set. Prior to preparation of the final plat, the following should be noted: 1. The plat as submitted is not in agreement with either the written description on the plat itself or the description contained in the submission. Preparation of the final plat by a surveyor should serve to clarify these discrepancies. 2. The final plat will need to show the existing right-of-way along Highway 82 including the Cemetery Lane right-of-way to at least 100 feet north of the intersection (on file in this office). This information will be necessary to adequately describe the proposed Cemetery Lane extension through the Thomas property. The final plat shall include a complete description of the Cemetery Lane extension as well as the lot created on the Thomas property and shall describe the proposed Main Street extension including a tie-in to the existing Main Street right-of"way. The plat shall also indicate how all adjacent properties tie in to the Marolt tract. 3. All existing easements as well as proposed easements for existing facilities shall be shown. These include the expanded water line easements, the eaSements for the gas facilities and approximate locations of easements for new main extension to be more specific- ally defined following construction. 4. The private access easement on the Thomas property south of the Main Street extension shall be shifted as far south as possible. While Section 20.17a(8) requires 125 feet between parallel street centerlines, in view of the potential nature of both Cemetery Lane/Castle Creek and Main Street, we would prefer to see thee access as far from the intersection as possible. 5. The triangular portion of Open Space 1, southwest of the Castle Creek alignment should be included in the proposed right-of-way for simplicity and to allow some flexibility in the alignment. 6. Preparation of a condominium plat for all units included in the condominiumization request shall be required following construc- tion and prior to sale. This plat should include whatever parcels contain the sale units, individual units, common areas, etc. as required by state statute. CIRCULATION, RIGHTS-OF-WAY: 1. The applicant should clarify the extent of snow removal and street maintenance to be undertaken by the development. The submission ismi~ly confusing regarding the extent of these responsibilities. 2. The applicant shall comply with the letter dated November 6, 1980, from channelization and signalization of sion intersection with Highway 82. shall regrade the property adjacent State Department of Highway's R.A. Prosence regarding the new Cemetery Lane exten- In addition, the developer to the intersection to M _'r-: Castlewood/Headgat~reliminary Subdivision APPlica~n PAGE TWO create adequate sight lines in both directions onto Highway 82 and shall relocated the irrigation ditch and bike path as necessary to maintain their use. 3. The development shall provide a mlnlmum 30 foot paved width on the access road to the free-market turnoff. The access shall have curb and 'gutter and sidewalk along its eastern edge to accommodate pedestrian use along what will ultimately be a major through street. The crown of the paved access shall be offset to the west to allow easy expansion to a greater paved width should Castle Creek be brought down the alignment. Planting but no berming will be permitted in the right-of-way. 4. Pavement width at the intersection shall be a full 40 feet to accommodate two lanes of traffic in each direction. This would permit a turning lane for traffic turning east and two lanes for vehicles accessing the property from east or west. The 40 foot width should extend 100 feet from the intersection to allow a merging area. 5. We would require that both the Cemetery Lane and Main Street right-of-ways be dedicated to the City at this time. This would secure these alignments should the Main Street access be chosen for improvement (which appears almost certain) and would save the City from preparing a costly 4(f) statement at such time as federal assistance is sought. This request is appropriate in light of a letter received from E.N. Haase of the State D.O.H. dated September 8, 1980 suggesting the City proceed with dedication of an adequate right-of-way across the adjacent Thomas property. We will be proceeding with a dedication designed to tie-in with the Marolt dedication as quickly as possible. 6. Employee parking is inadequate and should be 120 spaces. 7. P.U.D. considerations would permit parking reductions, however, it is our feeling that 66 spaces for a development of 97 bedrooms is inadequate. In view of the applicant's desire to exempt the units from minimum lease requirements to permit tourist type uses it would seem that diverse groups renting units on an occasional basis would have widely varying parking needs that would not be satisfied by a 30% reduction in parking. DRAINAGE: 1. All irrigation water being relocated and ponded on the site must run in lined ditches and detension areas per the recommendation of Nick Lampiris. 2. Locations of all on-site drywell installations shall be subject to written comment and approval by Lincoln-DeVore. UTILITIES: 1. Applicant shall agree to provide as-built mapping and appropriate easements for all utility construction and relocation. 2. The development shall accommodate all recommendations of Jim Markalunas memorandum of October 29, 1980 requesting upgrade of existing five foot easements to 20 feet, easements for in- place valves, and effective replacement of the full 25 pair phone cable. We feel that most of the items listed above can easily be worked out prior to submission of any final plat. The Engineering Department would be willing to work with the applicant toward correcting the above items and recommends preliminary approval at this time. ... .- ,J '. , 1"""'\ r--, MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Sunny Vann, Planning Office Cast1ewood/Headgate Preliminary P.U.D./Subdivision Review - Public Hearing November 13, 1980 Background On August 11, 1980, City Council formally approved the Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual P.U.D./Subdivision application. Council concurred with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations with, the additional stipulations that the proposed Cemetery Lane/Castle Creek connection be located so as to minimize intrusion into the adjacent Thomas property and that the proposed right-of-way be approved by the Engineering and Planning Departments. The specific conditions recommended by P&Z and approved by Council are sum- marized in the attached Planning Office file memorandum dated July 24, 1980. The app 1 i cati on, which you received earl i er thi s week) represents the second stage of the P.U.D./Subdivision process. In addition to~preliminary plat approval, the applicants are concurrently requesting 1) rezoning to.R-15A/P.U.D./ Residential Bonus in order to permit construction in excess of the underlying zone density, 2) exemption from Growth Management under the 70:30 provision for the free market portion of the project, 3) subdivision approval for purposes of condominiumization of the free market units, 4) partial exemption from the City's parking requirements, and 5) exemption from the six-month minimum lease requirements applicable to condominiumization. These additional requests will also require Council review and approval, which will be consolidated with Final P.U.D./Subdivision procedures. As additional background, I have also attached the Planning Office's, July 18, 1980 memorandum which addressed the applicant's Conceptual P.U.D./Subdivision submission. This memorandum also provides a brief history of the original annexation/rezoning and supporting rationale. Proposed Development Plan All of the conditions attached by P&Z and Council at the Conceptual review stage with respect to site design parameters have been met by the applicants' and are incorporated in their Preliminary Plat submission. The applicants propose to subdivide the approximately 35 acre site into eleven discrete parcels. Parcel or lot #1 totals 4.76 acres and is earmarked for 80 employee units, a gross density of approximately 16.8 dwelling units per acre. Lot #2 will contain 33 free market units and totals 7.1 acres, a gross density of approximately 4.6 dwelling units per acre. A third parcel designated as lot #4 totals approximately one acre and is the site of the relocated and renovated Marolt residence. The remainder of the parcels are designated as dedicated open space and rights- of-way or are scheduled for restricted sale to adjacent property owners. The Planning Office will not attempt to summarize the architectural and site desig~ characteristics of the proposed development plan in this memo. In general, the site plan and buildings are well designed and are consistent with P.U.D. objectives and design approaches. The applicants' specific design concepts are well covered in the application you received,and both the Planning Office and the applicants are prepared to discuss them in greater detail at your Tuesday meeting. The Engineering Department, however, has identified a number of primarily plat related issues which are summarized in their attached memorandum dated November 14, 1980, and are incorporated in the Planning Office's recommendation. '" Castlewood/Headgat~el iminary P .U.D./Subdivi son ~ Review - Public Heanng November 13, 1980 2. Planning Office Comments A number of additional issues were identified by the Planning Office, P&Z and Council which were deferred to the Preliminary P.U.D./Subdivision stage. These issues incl ude overall density, parking requi rements, the Mi dl and ri ght- of-way and open space, trails and road dedications. The Planning Office's comments with respect to each of these issues are summarized below. The applicants' requests for concurrent development approvals are also addressed. Density - The application of Mandatory P.U.D. density reduction criteria to the Marolt property results in a net developable land area of approxi- mately 23.5 acres. Under R-15A zoning, approximately 102 dwelling units could be constructed, a density which the Planning Office has generally felt to be appropriate for this site. The applicants have reduced their requested density from 125 multi-family units to 113 multi-family units and one,single family residence.' They have also indicated that any further reduction would significantly reduce the economic viability of the project. Given the obvious visibility of any multi-family development on the two parcels in question, both from Highway 82 and the Main Street extension, a reduction in requested density from 113 multi-family units to 102 units would have little apparent visual effect. The applicants' development plan is sensitive to site constraints and further lessening of visual impact would necessitate either a substantial reduction in density or a relocation of the development envelopes. In view of the design parameters imposed by P&Z and Council at the Conceptual review stage, the Planning Office is of the opinion that no substantial benefit would accrue from a reduction in density of only eleven units. With respect to the proposed single-family residence and its approximately one acre lot, it should be noted that no reference to a relocated Marolt homestead appeared in the Conceptual submission. The proposed residence was not discussed in the text nor did it appear on the Conceptual plans. In the opinion of the Planning Office, the provision of a luxury ($700,000) single-family homesite is inconsistent with the P.U.D. objectives established for the development of the Marolt property. The proposed lot is completely separated from the project's multi-family development, intrudes into those southern portions of the property which were intended for passive open space, and negates the possibility of utilizing the Midland right-of-way. The applicants have indicated that this residence is being preserved solely at the request of its owner, Mrs. Marolt. Parkin~ Re9uirements - The applicants are requesting a partial exemption from t e Clty'S parking requirement of one space per bedroom in the resi- dential zone districts. Two spaces per dwelling units are proposed for the project's 33 multi-family free market units, 31 spaces short of the 77 spaces required by the Municipal Code. The applicants contend that "excess paving and parking structures would detract: from the attractiveness of the area "and that comparable projects have routinely provided a maximum of two spaces per unit. . In vi ew of the Ci ty' s experi ence wi th vari ous condominium' proje.cts in the City, one space per bedroom is a demonstrable minimum: However, should P&Z concur with the applicants' arguments, the Planning Office would recommend that sufficient areas be designated on the Final Plat to allow for expansion to the required number of spaces in the event additional parking is required, and that specific conditions be incorporated into the subdivision agreement to ensure this provision. . . Castlewood/Headgat~'eliminary P.U.D./Subdivision ~ RevIew - Public Hear1ng November 13, 1980 3. Midland Right-of-Way - It should be pointed out that the free market units as depicted in the applicants' proposed site plan intrude into the historical Midland right~of-way. While it appears that a con census of opinion prefers the proposed Main Street extension, to date no formal disposition or recom- mendation by either the State DOT or City Council has occurred. Consistent with our position at both P&Z and Council Conceptual review, the Planning Office is of the opinion that this right-of-way should be reserved until the issue is formally resolved. Open Space, Trails and Road Dedications - The applicants propose to dedi- cate two substantdail open space areas to the City ,the bul k of the Castle Creek corridor and the undeveloped areas south of the free market portion of the project. As virtually all of the Castle Creek corridor would be in public ownership, numerous alternatives exist for trail alignments. However, the multi-family free market parcel, lot #2, fronts directly on the Creek and therefore, precludes any public access. At a minimum, a trail easement across this parcel paralleli.ng the Creek should be provided toaHowa continuous trail alignment from Highway 82 to Castle Creek Road. While the applicants propose to dedicate that portion of the Cemetery Lane/ Castle Creek connector which lies within the Marolt property, the Main Street extension right-of-way is simply reserved. To avoid future federal impact/justification analysis requirements and to ensure availability, this right-of-way should also be dedicated. Rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay - To accommodate any density in excess of the approximately 102 units permitted by the underlying zone district, the Marolt property must be rezoned as a Residential Bonus Overlay district. The resulting reduction in the R-15A minimum lot area requirement is suf- ficient to permit the construction of approximately 136 dwelling units, well in excess of the 114 units requested. Should the P&Z wish to recommend approval of the applicants' request for a limited increase in density, the Planning Office feels that the proposed development plan, with the exception of the Marolt residence and lot, essentially complies with all rezoning review criteria. The Planning Office is prepared to elaborate on these criteria at your Tuesday meeting. Exemption from Growth Managment - The applicants are requesting special review approval for exemption of the free market portion of the project from growth manag.ement. Such exemptions are applicable to projects in which at least 70% of the total dwelling units are deed restricted as employee housing and are subject to Council approval upon recom~ mendation of P&Z. The applicants' proposed development program can be summarized as follows:' Employee: 40 - 2~bedroom, 2 bath @ 930 sq. ft. 20 - I-bedroom, 1 bath @ 740 sq. ft. 20 - Studios, 1 bath @ 516 sq. ft. = 80 Units in total' Free Market: 31 - 3-bedroom, 4 bath @ 2,400 sq. ft. 2 - 2-bedroom, 2 bath @ 1,900 sq. ft. 1 - Detached single-family = 34 Units in total (renovated Marolt Residence) To ensure eligibility, applicants for exemption are encouraged to submit . proposals which maintain an average of 1.5 to two bedrooms.per unit within the employee portion of the project and where at least 50% of the total residential floor area is devoted to deed restricted units. The Castlewood/Headgate submission proposes a bedroom per unit average of 1.4 and approximately 44% of the project's total floor area is devoted to employee housing. While both of these indicators are well below the established guidelines, it should be noted that the employee units exceed minimum size requirements,; their mix is acceptable, and that the free market units are not overly excessive. In the absence of any specific objections from the Housing Office, the Planning Office has no objection at this time. Rental rates for the employee units currently fall between the City's moderate and middle income guidelines. " . Castlewood/Headgat~eliminary P.U.D. Subdivision ,~ Revi ew - Public Hear Ing November 13, 1980 4. ... Condominiumization - The applicants are requesting approval to condominiumize the multi-family free market portion of the project. As these units are new construction, and therefore no employee displacement will occur, the Planning Office has no problem with this proposal. Final condominium documents will have to be submitted as required by the Engineering Depart- ment,and the applicants are subject to the provision of Section 20-22 of the Municipal Code. Six-Month Minimum Lease - In conjunction with this request for condominiumi- zation, the applicants are also requesting exemption from the six-month minimum lease requirements of Section 20-22. The applicantS'arguments and the Planning Office's position with respect to this issue were discussed in detail at Conceptual review and were summarized in our attached memorandum dated July 18, 1980. In the interest of brevity we will not reexamine this issue here, but are prepared to address your questions on Tuesday. Planning Office Recommendations In summary, the Planning Office recommends approval of the applicants Preliminary P.U.D./Subdivision submission subject to the following: 1) The Engineering Department's conditions outlined in their attached memorandum dated November 14, 1980, 2) The deletion of the Marolt single-family residence and lot from the P.U.D. plan. Should the applicants require the additional dwelling unit, the Planning Office would not object to its incorporation into the free market, multi-family portion of the project, the specific location to be reviewed and approved by the Engineering and Planning Offices. 3) The provision of one parking space per bedroom for all residential development on the property, 4) The retention of the Midland right-of-way as undeveloped open space until such time as final disposition of the Highway 82 corridor issue occurs. 5) The provision of an appropriate trails easement ac~oss lot #2 parallel to Castle Creek in the event one is required, 6) The dedication of the Main Street extension right-of-way. The Planning Office further recommends that the applicant request for rezoning be approved subject to the deletion of the Marolt residence and lot; that their requests for growth management exemption and condominiumization be approved subject to the deed restriction of the employee :units within moderate income guidelines and compliance with the six-month minimum lease provisions of Section 20-22; and that their requests for exemption ftrom parking require- ments and lease restrictions be denied. ill .1"""\ 1"""\ ~ (i November 13, 1980 design workshop, inc, 415 s, spring aspen, c081611 303-925-8354 Memorandum To: Sunny Vann/Karen Smith City of Aspen Planning Department From: Carlie Wood Re: Density Calculations for Castlewood/Headgate Preliminary Plat Submission Based on the code regulations for density calculations, the order by which acreage is subtracted is important. Onpage.s 11 and 12 of the preliminary plat submission, easements, floodplain and river acreage is subtracted after slope reduction. This should be reversed so as to read in the following manner: Total Acreage Base Subtractions: River Floodplain Easements 5' water (610 LF) 20' water (3,615 LF) 15' trail (200 LF) 20' gas (30 LF in structure) 35.4 ac Total subtractions 1.9 ac .36 .07 1.65 .06 .01 4.05 35.40 -4.05 31. 35 Slope Reduction Formula " Slopes of +40%= '5.6 ac x 0%= 0 ac Slopes of 31-40%= 1.46 ac x 25%= 0.365 ac Slopes of 21-30%= 2.25 ac x 50%= 1.125 ac Slopes of 0-20%=22.04 ac x100%=22.040 ac (-7.82 ac) Total Acreage for Density Allowance = 23.53 ac Under the R-15A Zoning category, lots are calculated at 10,000 S.F. Therefore, 23.53 ac x 43,560 S.F. = 102 units 10,000 S.F./unit Under the R-15A/Residential Bonus Overlay provision of Ordinance 16, requiring a 70-30 split of employee units to free market units, the allowable density is: 23.53 ac x 43,560 S.F. = 136 units 7,500 S.F. community development land planning landscape architecture ,-., -., MEMORANDUM TO: Sunny Vann FROM: Robert B. Edmondson, Acting City Attorney RE: Castlewood Headgate DATE: November 13, 1980 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Comment: 1. Park Dedication Pee : must be resolved as the applicant speaks of a dedication of land under part IV Dedication. 2. Page 3 last paragraph of the agreement calls for a pro-rata cost allocation according to the number of units of the two developments. This should be examined for there is a great difference in value of the restricted units and the Free Market units. The paragraphs refer to an Exhibit "C", I find no exhibit in my information booklet. 3. Growth rental restriction must be examined. as to the free market 4. The Thomas property question remains as to whether there can be a transfer or even a lease-back. This we are researching at this time. There are questions as to restrictions because of 6th and 7th penny situation and because of the restriction on conveyances of City land. If the land is put into a situation where there may be a default for a certain lease period, it may call for a referendum. 5. Financing: The applicant has yet to formulate a financing program. We now know for a G.O. or municipal bond a referendum is necessary. Other comment by this office will have to wait until a program is formulated. There are other provisions necessary which are referred to in paragraph IX Miscellaneous, there have not been presented, but will be part of the final agreement. /', ,,,,,", ~~ 1I(r,{fl? PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Castlewood/Headgate Subdivision Preliminary Plat NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, November 18, 1980 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, to consider the preliminary subdivision application submitted by Marolt Associates for the Castlewood/Headgate development on the Marolt property located west of Castle Creek and south of Highway 82. The application requests approval for 80 "employee" units and 34 "free market" units, to be located on a 35.4 acre parcel. For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 226. s/Olof Hedstrom Chairman, Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Published on November 13, 1980 City of Aspen account. I ;i' ,,-, ^ CASTLEWOOD/HEADGATE PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Visuals Scale 1. Plat & Vicinity Map, 24" x 36" 1 "=100' ("Preliminary Plat") 2. Boundaries, 2' contours, location 1"=50' & dimensions of existing features. (Combined with "Site Plan") ~/"7//1'n! -"'!J'f'&-fS ) ;?C.% 3, Location & dimension of proposed 1"=50' streets, alleys, easements, drainage improvements, utilities, lot lines, areas or structures reserved for public use. 4. Location, size & type of existing vegetation and proposed limits of excavation and grading. (Combined with "Site Plan") 1"=50' 5. Designation of natural hazard zones. 1"=400' 6. Location of all dwelling units, 1"=50' parking areas, areas for common use, principal landscape features. ("Site Plan") 7. Phasing (if necessary) 1"=400' -------------------------------------------------------------------------- x 8. Architectural & elevations, plans, & dimensions for each type of employee & free market unit. /'8"\Sn:<::7?v'E" Text 1/8'=1' (or appli- cable) 1, Preliminary information describing proposed utility systems, drainage plans, surface improvements & other construction, 2. Site Data Tabulation Acreages Number, type, typical size of lots. Number, types, typical size of struc- tures & density per type, residential & commercial. Number of bedrooms & baths per unit, i~, DWI DWI DWI Otis ED DWI Otis ~au~ ~ - U/~J By Text Appendix ED x (1 sheet DWI/, ED x (0) ED x (3) DWI x (0) x x (3) x ,......., O Ar7d'-"" 5 '/;:'1J)...{bJ-l, ' C;).:=; <</b~fi//" G' Construction methods Projected sale prices or monthly rental. Ground coverage of units & parking, streets, sidewalks. Open space acreage, public & private. 3. Development Schedule: Date of construction start Phasing Sequence of construction of PUD Sequence of construction of public improvements, park, common areas. 4. Rezoning application, & residential bonus calculations, changes to existing zoning boundaries. 5. Names & addresses of adjacent property owners. Name & previous experience of the proposed developer. t. fc/L$ 6Vf<,V8y /)/?'~ - ,=,;=c &78Vc'7<.1'7;?C),A./ J /,,~J87c"i? /"X-1 , o uWC-/.7Y ce'/',./ /,1177-1 C::-I-I '7 ~ C. . \ {/ I- ,,/ . C""': /> F I':'> r"Y ~ By Otis DWI DWI r-- ~ COLORADO STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS November 6, 1980 Mr. Sunny Vann Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dea r Sunny, The Division of Highways District Office has reviewed the Castlewood/Headgate Preliminary Subdivision application and have the following comments: We would request that the developer align his access to S.H. 82 so that it directly connects with Cemetery Lane to the north. We also request that full channelization and signalization (some signal relocation) at this major intersection with S.H. 82 be included as part of this development's approval package, as noted on Page 13 of the Preliminary Plat Submission of October 15, 1980. Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please contact this office. Very truly yours, R. A. PROSENCE DISTRICT ENGINEER By ~'''-~R,~.. Laurence R. Abbott District Environmental Manager LRA/ jme cc: Prosence-Sturm Camp be 11 File P,O, Box 2107 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81502 (303) 242-2862 ~ ~ TO: Sunny Vann FROM: Jim Reents, Housing DATE: October 30, 1980 SUBJECT: Marolt Association Application with regard to the Marolt Application I am limiting my comments only to the issue of the rental/sale rates for the project and the issue of financing. The applicant has projected rental rates above our current guide- lines. In discussion with the applicant, I have stated that the City is willing to negotiate the level of rents when we have more concrete data on costs for 1981. At the present time I am recommending the middle income housing restriction only for purposes of financing. ---- At this time, the type of financing has yet to be determined. An election question on November 4th is whether the City can, in fact, issue municipal revenue bonds. In either case, municipal or industrial development bond financing requires a degree of participa- tion by the underwriters prior to setting any firm rental rates. Because of this and the need for bond financing to develop the pro- ject, my recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission is to approve the middle income restriction and to re-evaluate it after the financing has been put together. JR:ds .' """" """" ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Planning Jim Markalunas Cast1ewood Headgate (Marolt) October 29, 1980 I have reviewed the Castlewood Headgate preliminary plat submission dated October 5, 1980 regarding the water system. My letter of October 8, 1980 baSically states our position. However, the Planning Department should take note of the following conditions. Page 12 refers to 5' x 610' water line easement. This is the easement 'that contains the 20" ductile iron (Marolt) water line on the exact pipeline a11ignment of the old 1892 10" steel line. Mrs. Marolt insisted at the time of this replacement upon confining us to a 5' easement. Prior to any connection to the water system, the Water Department will insist upon a conveyance of a 20' easement for the maintenance of this in-place pipeline. I also request, at time of connection, the necessary easements for the inter- connect referred to in the application and an easement from an in-place valve westerly to the Thomas property, which is approximately a distance of 80', located on the northerly position of the proposed development. On the second page of the utilities information sheet submitted by Eldorado Engineer- ing, reference is made to telephone control lines owned and operated by the City of Aspen, but maintained by the telephone company. These telephone lines are for the purposes of telemetry and the control of valves throughout the water system. The Water Department has reserved a 25-pair cable from the phone company for this purpose. We understand that it is porposed that this overhead cable will be relocated and/or removed when the power line is relocated. It has been stated that the phone company will provide alternate service through other existing lines. However, since the Water Department has reserved these 25 pairs for its purposes, I insist that this proposed development make arrangements with the phone company to provide and maintain the reserved 25 pairs for our use, i.e. I will not accept only existing, operational pairs. I must reserve additional pairs for future needs. Most importantly, nothing must be done in the way of site development that will interfere with the operation and maintenance of the existing 20" concrete line supplying water from the Plant to the distribution network in town. I am attaching for your review a copy of a letter dated October 13th from Rea, Cassens and Associates pertinent to this line. I will not allow any berms, roadways or landscaping work upon this pipeline that will jeopardize the line. The applicant is requested to submit all utility drawings, including site profiles for our approval prior to the placement of any utilities on the site. cc. Eldorado Engineering Design Workshop Mt. Bell Rich, Cassens and Associates """" ,1""'\ G (l ~ October 27, 1980 design workshop, inc, 415 s, spring aspen, co 81611 303-925'8354 MEMORANDUM To: Sunny Vann/Karen Smith City of Aspen Planning Department From: Carlie Wood Design Workshop, Inc. Re: Castlewood Headgate Preliminary Plat Submission Text Errors and Revisions Please note these changes in your submission book and map package: 1. Table of Contents III. Plan A-3 Landscaping Delete "landscape Concept Map" at 1" = 400' in text. Se'e 1" = 50' scale map in package for information. V. Map Add 3. Package and Index on Map Set sheet "C" to the following: Site Plan and Landscape Concept Sheets A, B, and C Proposed Utilities Sheets A, B, and C Utility Relocation and Drainage Plan Sheets A, B, and C 4. 5. Appendix Table of Contents C. Letters of Utility Commitments C.-l Letters from State Highway Department concerning Cemetery Lane intersection and Midland R.O.W. PUD & SuLdivision Agreement Table of Contents Exhibit A - "Table of Site Data Tabulation". See #7, page 15 under "Program". community development land planning landscape architecture r-- ~. October 27, 1980 MEMORANDUM: Sunny Vann/Karen Smith Page: 2 Exhibit B - "Construction Schedule". See Item G in Appendix "Construction Phasing". Exhibit C - "Estimated Costs and Fund Source". No exhibit for preliminary submission will be included in Final Plat. CW/hb cc: James Mulligan lIim Otis John Fotsch Cary Clark ~, ,""""" Aspen!Pitk · 130 so aspen ning Office treet 1611 MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney Dan McArthur, City Engineer Jim Markalunas, City Water Department Jim Holland, City Parks Department Fred Crowl ey, ~City /County Fi re Marshall Holy Ctoss Electric Association Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Mountain Bell Aspen School District RE-1 Aspen Metro Sanitation Colorado State Highway Department Jim Reents, City Housing Director FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office RE: Castlewood/Headgate Preliminary Subdivision Appl ication DATE: October 20, 1980 The attached application and accompanying map package comprise the Castlewood/ Headgate Preliminary Subdivision subrnission for the property known as the Marolt Annexation, located immediately west of Castle Creek and south of Highway 82. This item is scheduled for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on November 18, 1980; therefore, may I have your written comments concerning this application no later than November 7, 1980? Thank you. TO: (fROM: RE: DATE: .1""'\ ~ AspenlPitkinPlanning Office 130 ,. , S 0 'I~ ," \J")'" ," ') .4( it ,tj,\ :t"~..... ~ <l..' :..1l. f._ s t re e t 81611 aspen MEMORANDUM City Attorney Dan McArthur, City Engineer Jim Marka 1 unas, City Water Department Jim Holland, City Parks Department Fred Crowl ey ,City /County Fire Marshall Holy Cross Electric Association Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Mountain Bell Aspen School District RE-1 Aspen Metro Sanitation~ Colorado State Highway Department Jim Reents, City Housing Director ~nny Vann, Planning Offi~ Castlewood/Headgate Prel iminary Subdivision Application October 20, 1980 The attached application and accompanying map package comprise the Castlewood/ Headgate Preliminary Subdivision submission for the property known as the Marolt Annexation, located immediately west of Castle Creek and south of Highway 82. This item is scheduled for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on November 18, 1980; therefore, may I have your written comments concerning this application no later than November 7, 19801 Thank you. Note: Maps will be mailed under separate cover. ,H/{ rrllot'ose-~ $t,;e.I::,j""fI~..... ChI- Be $f'ne.v"'-"'~ f3y PIS"J<-'<-" 7/fetW! c.."VL..t-, he: S o,..,e. Ast>et.- M~'tk&f1Ct.-t'nt,~ -S1\-';I.,..o~:J"7rre"'- c..12.-A"'~ f'it---l'>'-q..""s ''''-1'> 1'1-rf;.- PIl-o:rracec C-"~<-'" c:."'~L.. F6",- A- .L-I.-e Fl-'f r-e.--IoJ'S '0- ~# ,Ii- r--t .. 1), /'7~. ~ -, r' ~ ,-,. Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 13 0 SOU tie n a s, t re e t aspen coloradQc..81611 :;:j> , o ","",I'j",-~' MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney Dan McArthur, Ci~y Engineer Jim Markalunas, City Water Department Jim Holland, City Parks Department Fred Crowl ey ,City /County Fire Marshall Holy Cross Electric Association Rocky Mountain Natural Gasvl Mountai n Be 11 Aspen School District RE-1 Aspen Metro Sanitation Colorado State Highway Department Jim Reents, City Housing Director FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office RE: Castlewood/Headgate Preliminary Subdivision Application DATE: October 20, 1980 The attached application and accompanying map package comprise the Castlewoodl Headgate Preliminary Subdivision submission for the property known as the Marolt Annexation, located immediately west of Castle Creek and south of Highway 82. This item is scheduled for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on November 18, 1980; therefore, may I have your written comments concerning this application no later than November 7, 1980?; Thank you. Note: Maps will be mailed under separate cover. (,j, _k ~A d!O<J/LdJ, zT~ ;lcUl~ ~~.~~~.~ aria, U44!I?~ 0(J~;?;;&Mt7~V ~~':J!d/J~ " ,~ ""'" ,-, to ~pJ~ - , JRea, ea~~en~ ani .YJ4:1oc1ale~J(..!Jnc. CQlUufting Cngint",.~ Civil, Sanitary, Water Supply, Municipal Engineers v SUITE 200 3900 SOUTH FEDERAL BLVD, ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 80 II 0 (303)789-4428 October 13, 1980 Mr. James Markalunas, Director Water Treatment and Supply City of Aspen City Hall 130 S.GalenaSt. Aspen. Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Markal unas: As requested. we would providE! the following information concerning the 20" high ,pressure concrete and 20" ductile iron water transmisSionrnains of the City of Aspen. The information is ,provided primarily in regard to theCi tyho usi n 9 project and the 'proposedMaro It -f)eve 1 opment. The 20" hi gh pressure concrete (steel .cyl inderpipe) installed in 1965 was specified to have a cover not tocexceed5feet. The 20" Class 52 Ductile Iron pipe in laying condition Type I should have a maximum cover of 16 feet per ASTMA746-'77. CITY HOUSING PROJECT: We have'beeninforrned that there are some instances where the 20"ductile iron pipe has 17 'feet of cover and there may be cases where the 20" concrete pipe has inexcessof5feet of cover, The 20" ductile iron p;pe,having ] foot of extra cover causes us some Contern in regard to possible 'future leaks because of future differential settlement. Of greate,r concern is the problem which will be encountered in the event the 20" ductile iron pipe must pe dug up for repair. ThE!.gravel type material which exists in the area ,of the project will hopefUlly stand. on a 1:1 side slope. Therefore, tb,e,top trench width to repair a leak with 10 feet of cover would be. (lQ-f;2) 2+3=27 feet. A visual inspection of the area cauSes us concern as to whether there is sufficient room between buildings to allow for a trench 27 feet in width and an additional 20-30 feet in which to stockpile the excavated material. I .r i I ;, ! . ! I .,", """'':''''''';~"'~-,~ ,._":^~-.,, ,,,,,.., ~'..~-,." '.. ','-".,,~ '"""'~"-,,.,...,., '-'-.'-, ''''-'~''''''''':''-''''--''". ! v.; -", '," /""".. ./""".. "',.' 3. A plan view of the project showing building locations, drive areas and parking areas 'should be prepared. The pipeline should be shown on thepJan vtew.with the stations as referenced to the ,profile drawing shown. . . 3. ' Items 1 and 2 above, should also be prepared for the 20" concrete pipeline. Of additional.importance.on the concrete pipeline, is the location and cover at locations of streets. . drivewaysand.parkingareas. These drawings should .be reviewed by your office to.identify areas of parti- cular concern. We are availahle to assist in this review at your request. W\ROLT PROJECT: The items outlined under 1.2and3for the City Housing Project should be accomplished in conjunction wi,ththe initial building layouts and grading plans for the MaroH project and in fact'any future projects near these main transmission pipelines. These <lrawings shauldbe providedtothewatet departmentfor-revi'Elw and cOllnentintheinitial stages and in subsequent revisions as the planning proceeds. We can envision the necessity for construction of some me!lnsfor distribution of loads over the 20" concrete pipeline in !Ireaswith traffic loadings crossing the pipeline, WewO(jldtecommend that the concrete pipeUne easement NOT be incorporated in a street right-of-way. Rathet, we would suggest that the pipeline easement be an area. .of open space with minimum . . changes to the existing ground..surface and a strict prohibitive to the planting of trees or shrubs in the easement. . . "->--, ,.~- - .-." I"'-. " ~, It may be possible to anow .the construction of a street oVer the 20" ductne iron transmission main provided that the normal pipeline cover of a minimum 5 feet and maximum of 7' be maintained. Upon preparation of the above referenced drawings. we. would provide our connents Upon request. lffurther information is required. please advise. Sincerely yours. Rea. Cassens and Associates. Inc. /Zvkc-.} 7r?~ RHC/ere; Richard H. Cassens. President 4 I , I I I I ._..~.^..,,,.,,,._--" "--- .....'---,,-,,- .'....'..--...,,','''. - -....- ^ 1"""'\ !C~&\ om I1\! ,COLORADO STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS , { , September~, 1980 Mr. Curt Stewart Pitkin County Manager 506 F..ast Main Street Aspen, <Xl 81611 Dear Curt; ~ I am writing this in response to your August 19th letter which dis- cUssed alternative entrances for the proposed busway into l'spen fran the west. I agree that the Main Street extension is more logical especially froro the standpoint of convertabili ty to two lanes of highway, spould an exclusive busway prove not to be feasible. " I~ ,,,, The Midland RCm' has the fOll<wing disadvantages; 1. Enters Aspel1 along a ==idor where right of way would be excessively expensive. The taking of high. cost :inprovements could only be. avoifled by, right angle turn~ us~g Se\e!l:n S-creet and .Ma:,m i:j-aeet rJ.ght of ways. Th~s kllld of al~gn- ment has serious operatjf)nal disadvantages. 2. Convertibility, a test the busway feasibility stuCly must meet, =uld be difficult, if not illpractical due to spread- ing of highway co=idors which would leav"e an island of land in the middle having very poor access. "", :'.! r r i i f I f In Il\Y view, ther"fore l.;Lsee.n0'value-in...holdifi~:oi:rt:p-ffiEt'M:i:QJ..and RCm' . " ~,.'-'.-" ~ .""" -------.., =:1dor. -;-___~ I ve mentioned in the past the bnportance of having the City ~d::::~~ a p lic FI!:Jt/ across thei.c property west of the Marolt land. Unless thi~l is , one prior to the initiation,of a fe~erally assisted :inprovement, a =~ y'} 4 (f) statement would be, regu:ired. W~thout c:anplete support fran the CJ, y the Maip Street extension may not 'be attainabl€l. /// N 0;::> ------- \ V If I can offer other assistance, Please~~ ' -' ._._-......--:'~"-- Very truly yours, i II RAP; lmw E. N. HAASE CHIEF ENGINEER I' I BY /t!u:~ I ! R. A. PROSENCE P,O" Bo!< 21.q7.~R~N9, ,JUNCTldf~r~I881~3rlh03} 242-2862 "...., ;""'" .-;;; ~ .-J pitkin county 506 east main street aspen, colorado 81611 Augjlst 19, 1980 Mr. R. A. Prosence District Engineer Colorado State Department of Highways P. O. Box 2107 Grand Junction, Colorado 81502 Dear Dick: As you know, there have been ongoing discussions in this community about various alternative transporation routes in and out of the Aspen area that could be used for a busway that would .also have the versitility to be converted to highway use should thebusway not prove' viable. To date, these discussions have focused on the Midland ROWand the Main Street "extension,'" with the anticipation that the issu~ would be resolved with the completion of.the busway feasibility work. At this time, however, it is our feeling that the Main Street extension is the alternative that is supportable by the CDOH for busway or highway purposes over the Midland ROW. We would essentially agree with this finding with the only significant reservation over the Main Street exten- sion being the potential cost and acquisition problems that may Occur if we have to purchase some of the Aspen Villas' property due to adverse _i~pac~s of the project. We, unfortunately, have a timing probl~ whereby pending site development of the Marolt Property west of Castle Creek and south of State Highway 82, would benefit from your views on this .issue and an indication of which of the alignments is preferable to the department. The site as currently proposed would eliminate the Midland ROW for busway or highway use. Since your input would be used to help us with site planning, I would also welcome your views on the advisability of w~iting on the results of ~he busway work before eliminating the Midland ROW as an al~ernative. ,Thank you for your assistance. Regards, UMi Curt Stewart Pitkin County Manager cc: Don Ensign, Design Workshop Dan MacArthur, City of Aspen Karen Smith, Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Departmentu/' ~ ^ August 11, 1980 City Council City of Aspen 130 South Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Members: We feel that ~ letter of introduction is necessary to apprise the Board of the events which have affected the Conceptual PUD and Subdivision submission for the Castle- wood/Headgate project. On April 16, 1979, we, as a family, decided to reject a 'land purchase contract offered on our 35.4 acres in order to pursue the potential for development of the property. At that time, much discussion among City and County officials focused on the need to develop sites, or provide incentives for the private sector to develop sites for employee housing. We felt this to be an appropriate direction for our property, and hired a team of consultants to study development feasibility on our land within the existing zoning and land use regulations. During the early stages of project feasibility studies, the City sponsored a work session in December of 1979 to form a Housing Task Force, comprised of members of both the public and private sector, to prepare a report iden- tifying the following: (1) Aspen's particular housing problems; (2) its actual shortfall in numbers of units; and (3) possible solutions and development incentives. Since the report confirmed the City's suspicions, and since parcels of land which are both large enough and desirable for development for the purpose of providing employee housing are a limited resource in the area, it was generally agreed at the time of our request for annexa- tion that our tract offered the City an opportunity to make up some of that shortfall. On December 3, a memo comparing the advantages anddis- advantages of our property with six other proposals for employee hOusing was prepared by the City Planning Staff for the benefit of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The memo stated: "...The Planning Office has concluded that there will never be found the 'best site' for employee housing which is free from all constraints and problems. In accordance with recommended guidelines within the housing overlay proposal and in view of the documented need for employee housing, we should be searching for those sites which offer Oppor- I I"""> I"""> City Council August 11, 1980 Page Two tunitiesto design the development to fit a site's unique features and by clustering, create open space buffers thereby minimizing the impact on surrounding areas...We think this site offers opportunities to strike a balance among diverse community goals and that, with conditions, this site and proposal can achieve a sound balance." It was with annexation approval (January, 1980) that the City gave tacit and verbal support, with conditions, to the development location, as well as to the effort to fill a significant portion of the recognized need for restricted housing units. At that time, the applicant.agreed to a density cap of 125 units, a reduction of 79 units from the calculated allowable total. Initial economic models had shown that a density of 125 offered the family reasonable incentive to embark on a series of historically formidable and risky steps to approval. As well as the density concession at annexation, the design process has essentially amounted to design-by-constraint. Our planning team and legal counsel have together spent hundreds of hours meeting with the Planning Staff, City Engineering Office, Open SpaceAdvisorYBoa~d, the Housing Director ,County Transportation Director., COunty Trails Director, State Highway Department, City Council, Planning and Zoning Commission, attorneys repreSenting neighbors and attorneys representing Aspen .and Pitkin County'S open space concerns. Site inspections have been conducted twice with P &Z, once with the Open Space Advisory Board and once with the Planning Director. Future potential alignments for the County bikeway system were walked with County Com- missioner Joe Edwards. .The reason for this investment of ,time was clearly to hear out and attempt to satisfy "diverse community goals" and to synthesize these goals with an economically viable and politically supportable project. Reasonable incentive, however, does not suggest overwhelming profit. At 125 units the project falls within a delicate margin of return-on-investment, leaving little room for unforeseen construction costs (Lone Pine unplanned extra PMH subsidy of $450,000, for example), and less room for density reductions or approval delays by the City. Alternatives 1 and 2 in your submission books represent the last of a long series of plan alternatives, each of which, theoretically evolved as an improvement on the last in solv- ing a greater number of important problems. Although the - I"'"'" ,-., Ci ty Council August 11, 1980 Page Three Planning Office is not recommending in total either of these alternatives, (recommending no development whatsoever to the west of the Cemetery Lane extension), the applicant feels that both plans are defensible and sound answers to the network of conflicting constraints placed on the site planning effort. Therefore, the applicant cannot accept any further reductions of building envelopes, without serioUSly jeopardizing the decision to proceed with this project. City Council must weigh;:the importance of what we feel are minor objections against its stated commitment to providing housing to the community. Because of already tight scheduling limitations in prOjecting a Spring, 1981 con- struction start, it is important to the applicant to have a'clear directive from your Board to proceed into the preliminary stages of detailing. With the above points in mind, we are specifically request- ing decisions on the following issues: 1. No effective reductions of building envelopes from either Alternative 1 or 2, and selection of one plan for Conceptual Approval. 2.. Agreement for usage of portions of the property currently owned by the City to develop the employee units, in conjunction with an agreement for extension and alignment of Cemetery Lane. 3. Exemption from the Section 20-22 6-month minimum lease law as would be applied to the free market condominiums. This law has the effect of discouraging lenders and thereby jeopardizing the driving entity of the whole project. Sincerely, .~~~, 'l..1A~ Imp r-- i"". TO: Sunny Vann , FROM: Jim Reents~~ _ DATE: July 17, 1980 SUBJECT: Castlewood/Headgate After our discussions this morning regarding the Marolt project, I have the following observations. I am in agreement with the Planning Office position that the Rights of Way and open space considerations should determine the carrying capacity of the site. To this end, I realize this might ultimately reduce the number of employee units. It has been my position that the City's housing program is focused on regaining a balance within the community representing all elements of the work force. To this end, I have tried to avoid as much as possible any solution which "forces" employee housing on any neighbor- hood. To the greatest extent possible, I feel we have modified pro- posals to accommodate neighborhood as well as community desires. I feel I cannot support a position of "housing at any cost" and think the position of the Planning Office in trying to incorporate the issues of concern to the neighborhood and community into the review process and to let those concerns along with other site constraints determine the density on the site is altogether appropriate. The issue of six month minimum leases I am in disagreement with. The concept of a 70/30 project is one where the free market units subsidize to some extent the employee units. Because of this intent, I have a concern about attaching restrictions to the free market units which would limit their marketability as well as affect their financing. I can speculate the impacts of these units would be very little different with or without the six month restriction. If there is a real concern on the part of your office or p&Z, I would support a restriction on conference facilities being incorporated into the management facility. JR:ds