The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.Marolt Ranch Sub.1981-PD-1MEMO TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney Sunny Vann, Planning Director FROM: Carlyle Wood DATE: June 25, 1981 RE: Marolt Ranch Park Dedication Fee f_.~ ........ __. _.__ _. __ ... ~, ,~ O desig wo~reshop;,na.O~i '= . ^415 s. spring aspen, co 81611 ~' ~ 303-925-8354 .: - __ ...,.... For purposes of completing the Marolt Ranch .Subdivision Agreement, this memo will serve as documentation of 1) land value and 2) fee calculation based on the discussion with City Council at Final Plat approval on June 15, 1981. Land Value Based on research of recent comparables in the Aspen area, the applicant assigned a per unit land 'value of $150,000 to each of the 30 free market units. This yielded a total of $4,500,000. Direct subsidies for the employee. unit construction are calculated to be $500,000, which is then subtracted from the total, leaving a net land value for the project at $4,000,000. Fee Calculation As per the formula in the City Code (Sec. 20-18) (Public Dedications and Easements) the following calculations apply: Current market value of land = $4,000,000 x Percent of total acreage (198) attributable to free market Lot 2 (6.925 ac.) = 760,000 z One percent (1~) = 7,700 x Number of residents attributable to free market portion of subdivision (75)* = 570,000 x Percent of free market lot (Lot 2) consumed by those improvements which are not categorized as open space or recreational amenities, specifically: 30 townhouses @ 1148 SF per unit = 34,440 SF Roadway to service these dwellings = 33,360 SF Total ground coverage = 67,800 SF Total square footage of Lot 2 (6.925 ac.) = 301,653 SF $ of lot coverage = .224 .?.24 x $570,000 Park Dedication Fee $127,680 *Note: Employee housing is classified as "moderate" housing, and is therefore exempted from the fee. community development land planning landscape architecture Al\AvA\r taMch 5 %6 4. set R <6 l. Pb - 1 v- r v r p f l./1, V vtÂ·Ar . J~ f 4 Â« j F (1Â»Â» SCA * lib ' > 4 Z. ~ The Aspen Times* Ca.-S--4.a.<...J--2 0 J / li Ockcljol'' Box E Aspen, Colorado PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO ) Copy of Notice ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, wi 11.5 pm R. DlinalÂ·.'Flv do soleninly suÂ·ear that U C I am the Publisher of THE ASPEN TIMES; ...........=-.- that the same is a weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part, - and published in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and has 14- 3/ Mol a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been pub- 1.2* 2 E C. Ew * M 2-A n -4 4 -2 lished continuously and 1 ginte: ruptedly in said Coiinty of Pitkin, for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior Fs RK ilt l: 4. r 9 52*glf ~t, to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or adve.rtise- 0 2. M 5% . <c 8:'*coof I ment; that said newspaper has been addmitted to the United States 1 ;' â€¢3 0 E d mails as see.ond-class matter under the provisions 'of the Act of March 3,1879, or any amendments. thereof. and that said news- A ' 5 - L o paper is a weekly new:,paper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements with the meaning of the Jpws of the State of Colorado. 3 9 Of, 4 3 That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published 2 ri O C O ..1 CD 0 00 06 2 4 4 01 in the regular and entire issac of every number of said weekly -2 4 â‚¬ It -23. 4143 3 newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive insertions; and 3 068 cohaS U -/ that the first publication of said notice was iIi the issue of said newspaper dated November 13 A.D., 19....82 and that .9. E .39 , *.46 K'18 p :1 -CD "le f.l the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said news- f to 3 # 9 6 E & Ev 8 21 <2 7 MANTAP-.19 r- 4 s:274% =27-' 12 T W > M 6 4 u paper dated A.D., 19 _ 42 Q. r OR 7 0 C . .E CD -5 2 1 MEZ- '-RA '-4 23-4 -ti f/'97 c *A~ $ 21.- Â£ ..4 E Â·' -= 1 E..te Z R t. R CK 11 1% U ./. Â£2 1224=*FAEOB 4,24/4/'>93/ //*2Â«offÂ«itts, I , '22 . , .0 5< F to 01 6 A. C 1 -'1 Oubl/='352=t / 01 NAA 245.Â£03 2* Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public inÂ· and for the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, this ~0~7 day of /0%46/1633,1 A.D.. 19%8 <~; 44 /3~6 5, --4Â¢f~fa 'tht /0554*2/" Notary Public My commission expires 4Â· fA l t< C' 1 -0*U/Â·iON Rotug 3UL Wardq,8 UOR 041 .0 :uoux!.IdA . 0 919 fi535-REWR179 8%- pl. A ,~_ JUN 1- 1981_ :~j JAMES M. MULLIGAN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW 1050 SEVENTEENTH STREET SUITE 360 ASPEN / PI i KiN CO DENVER, COLORADO 80202 (003) 572-0600 FLANNING OFFICE ,JAMES M. MULLIGAN CABLE Â· MULL.AW May 29, 1981 AL .-2- : - Paul Taddune, Esq. Aspen City Attorney 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: The Marolt Ranch PUD and Subdivision Agreement Dear Paul: It was good to meet and further discuss with you the final- ization of the PUD and Subdivision Agreement for the Marolt Ranch Final Plat presentation scheduled for June 8, 1981. Subsequent open work session meeting with City Council was also of assistance in ascertaining the political perspective and feedback as to concerns, approvals, and modifications that may be required or desired for finalization of this agreement and the plat. To recap my understanding of matters covered at the meeting that will require some attention in the current draft of the PUD and Subdivision Agreement, I believe the following apply: 1. Zoning: In the recitation clauses on Page 1 of the Agreement, the zoning should have reflected R-15A PUD SPA, in- stead of just R-15A PUD. 2. City Parcel: The language on Page 3 should be suffi- cient to indicate the intent of the parties with respect to the access easements and restrictions necessary against the Thomas property in order to allow for proper access to the platted property. We had discussed your ascertaining what restric- tions, if any, are currently against the Thomas property or at least that portion of the Thomas property that is affected by the alignment and extension of the Cemetery Lane Roadway across . .. Paul Taddune, Esq. May 29, 1981 Page 2 82 to the newly named "Holden Road". we also discussed the fact that there will need to be some form of easement document drafted that will be placed against the Thomas property creating the easement situation agreed to by the City in this PUD Agreement. 3. Construction Scheduling: The original Exhibits C and F were speaking to construction scheduling and percentage of completion items, and those have been revised to contemplate the changed construction scheduling discussed. Although you did receive copies of these newly revised Exhibits, I further enclose additional copies for your records. Additionally and with respect to the assumption stated under the construction schedule portion of the agreement (Page 5), you indicated a desire to tie in those assumptions to the intent of the annex- ation agreement, which allows for a time period within which construction must be commenced, subject to delay based on the financial market place. As you are aware, it is to our benefit to pursue construction at the earliest possible time frame in order to cap costs to the extent possible. All of the assump- tions and the tying into the annexation agreement are in place in order to clarify those items that can arise that would cause justifiable deferrals in the construction schedule, and your additional tie into the annexation agreement should not be structured in a manner so as to interfere with the already stated assumptions in the agreement. Further and in connection with our concern to address the completion of the employee units prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy on the free market units, we had discussed the idea of placing temporary certificates of occu- pancy against the free market units until such time as the em- ployee units are completed and ready for occupancy. Although it is the intent of the owner and/or the owners assigns to pursue this development on the basis of completing the employee units first, as is shown by the construction schedule exhibit, I had agreed to Wayne's suggestion of placing a cancellation of the temporary certificates of occupancy in the event the em- ployee units are not completed by a date certain (i.e. April of 1983); provided, however, that such completion date will be subject to extensions based upon events beyond the control of --.----- the developer at the time. Although such extensions should De allowed a normal circumstances, you indicated a concern that this might be utilized as a vehicle to just continually defer the completion of the employee units based on financial prob- lems in the market place, while we complete the free market units. Rather than attempt to put restrictions within 1 . .. Paul Taddune, Esq. May 29, 1981 Page 3 the build out phase as to how many units must be completed in each subproject at any particular time, it may be more appro- priate to just pick a final date at which time the employee units must be completed and only allow extensions at the sole discretion of city council from that date. 4. Park Dedication Fees: It is my understanding that the exemption from the park dedication fees as applied to the em- ployee portion of the project still applies, but the City Council does want the park dedication fee as applied to the free market portion of the project to apply. With respect to that fee amount, the utilization of the base formula derived from Wayne Chapman's concept arrives at a dedication fee for the free market portion of the projectÂ·of $16,666.66. Discussions with Wayne indicated that this is the formula that most likely would be applied to other smaller projects for which the provision was originally drafted. In order to prevent concerns with respect to equal protection, his formula should be applied to the Marolt Ranch as well. For clarifi- cation purposes, you may want to secure the details of the formula as interpreted by Wayne from him, in order to just place same within that same Article IV on Page 8 of the agree- ment. I know that the formula is based on an assumption of a $4 million value to the full tract, applying one sixth of that value to the free market portion, and then utilizing the code drafted formula as applicable to other projects to arrive at the above park fee figure. I would expect that this fee and its calculation will be included within Paragraph B of Article IV on Page 8 of the agreement, and delete the necessity for an additional Exhibit "G" as was originally anticipated in that paragraph. 5. Open Space Preservation Management and Maintenance: There was some discussion earlier in the day with respect to the concern of active versus passive open space, since concept of land in lieu of park dedication fee was being pursued at that time. Since council is requiring a park dedication fee as above referenced, there is no more concern with respect to the "active versus passive" issue, and the requirements and re- strictions placed upon the open space to be dedicated shall remain. With respect to your concern about remedies accruing to Marolt Associates or their assigns in the event the City violates such open space restrictions, I would expect those to remain, unless you can find other remedies with sufficient en- forcement powers attached that will allow the proper safeguards to the owners of the property. .. Paul Taddune, Esq. May 29, 1981 Page 4 6. Neil Beck (Lot 3): You indicated during the Council work session that you did not understand the concept of "leasing right of first refusal". That right was given to Neil Beck in the event the City desired to utilize the property for leasing purposes to outside parties. It is my understanding from the work session that Council would not want to use the property at all for any other leasing purposes but would allow Neil Beck to remain on the property unless or until such time as the City desires to take over the use of the property for its own purposes. To my understanding, there is currently no written lease in effect, and there may need to be some form of signed letter of clarification either between Opal and Neil Beck or between the City and Neil Beck to further clarify the rights of both parties initially addressed in this PUD and Subdivision Agreement. The basic intent of the provision is to allow Neil Beck the right to remain on the property unless and until such time as City desires to utilize the property for its own purposes. In the event you do not feel a leasing right of first refusal is inappropriate here, then I would expect that this paragraph will include further restrictions upon the City leasing the property through any other party outside of Neil Beck, along with proper protections to the City that Neil Beck does not have any rights to assign his interest in his use of the property. For reference purposes, this matter was brought up on Page 11 of the agreement. 7. Water Rights and Availability: The work session seemed to make clear the position of the City that no PIF fees will be waived and are expected to be paid. There was an in- dication of the City for us to pursue with them a request for a deferral of the PIF fees for some predetermined period of time, which deferral and payment terms could be evidenced in this subdivision agreement itself. I will be attempting to contact my clients to ascertain, from a cash flow standpoint, what deferral plan might work best. Otherwise, I do understand that the position of the City is not to waive any of the PIF fees or tap fees in the project. The City does desire to receive suf- ficient irrigation rights to take care of a portion of the open space that requires irrigation, and I will be contacting our water counsel with respect to the amount of such rights that may be necessary. The remainder of the water rights accruing to that ranch currently that will not be conveyed to the City, will be retained by Marolt Associates and possibly ultimately conveyed to third parties, as there is some value to those rights. 0 0 Paul Taddune, Esq. May 29, 1981 Page 5 8. Employee Developemnt-Title: Under Article VIII on Page 17 of the agreement, language was inserted to attempt to indicate to the City those circumstances under which the owner may want the City to hold title to the property, along with sufficient protection language to the City to make it clear to them they will not be liable for any concerns connected there- with. Council indicated some concern that language be put in there requiring further approval, at a later date, in the event the employee units should be switched from rental to sale as the event relates to the City taking title for property tax purposes. This might be somewhat cumbersome to include, and I am not sure that all parties understood the issue accurately. The whole concept requiring the City to take title to the land as that requirement applies to the property tax relief, is only for the purpose of passing on that cost relief to the employee who is renting or buying that unit. I am at a loss as to why the concern was there, and possible clarifications by dis- cussion might eliminate this concern, as a drafting of same not only appears contrary to the City's goals with respect to the cost of employee housing but also appeared quite cumbersome to be able to properly place within the confines of the agreement as desired. 9. Landscaping Assurances: As indicated, we will be inserting into the agreement additional language with respect to the landscaping assurances, to the extent necessary to meet the provisions of the code requirements. You may want to draft same yourself, but I will plan to have some provisions ready when we meet next concerning this item. In summary, the above appeared to be those items of dis- cussion that occured requiring further attention to the PUD and Subdivision Agreement in terms of redrafting, amending, de- leting, or changing. The above comments indicate the elim- ination of Exhibit "G", which would result in a relettering of those subsequent Exhibits. The Exhibit with respect to addi- tional parking is available from Carly Wood at Design Workshop, and the Exhibit with respect to the sewer tap figure is en- closed herewith (letter from the Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District). I trust the above covers the concerns, and I will look forward to seeing you in the immediate future at which time we may finalize the language of the agreement and move on to final plat. 4 0 0 Paul Taddune, Esq. May 29, 1981 Page 6 Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your attention. Very truly yours, JAMES M. MULLIGAN, A Professional Corporation AF) <11-4/>f- lÂ¥ 1/1/3 Jam54 M. Mulligan JMM:lap Enclosures CC: Bob Edmondson, 44-14 /Sunny Vann Cary Clark Marolt Family James W. Buchanan, III Al Brandt Jim Otis Carly Wood 1 " // 10!-r-'"Â»RT?Fogr- 5 l.,3 Â·24 2 4% .9 2 21 1 ~ MEMO TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney ---.-.-4.-./ LU Sunny Vann, Planning Director t~@PEA-->~AiRIN CO, FROM: Carlyle Wood design wAMUN! ING. OFFICE DATE: June 25, 1981 415 s. spring RE: Marolt Ranch Park Dedication Fee , aspen, co 81611 t; ' 303-925-8354... -..., - ./ - +I For purposes of completing the Marolt Ranch Subdivision Agreement, this memo will serve as documentation of 1) land value and 2) fee calculation based on the discussion with City Council at Final Plat approval on June 15, 1981. Land Value Based on research of recent comparables in the Aspen area, the applicant assigned a per unit land value of $150,000 to each of the 30 free market units. This yielded a total of $4,500,000. Direct subsidies for the employee unit construction are calculated to be $500,000, which is then subtracted from the total, leaving a net land value for the project at $4,000,000. Fee Calculation As per the formula in the City Code (Sec. 20-18) (Public Dedications and Easements) the following calculations apply: Current market value of land = $4,000,000 x Percent of total acreage (19%) attributable to free market Lot 2 (6.925 ac.) = 760,000 x One percent (1%) = 7,700 x Number of residents attributable to free market portion of subdivision (75)* = 570,000 x Percent of free market lot (Lot 2) consumed by those improvements which are not categorized as open space or recreational amenities, specifically: 30 townhouses @ 1148 SF per unit = 34,440 SF Roadway to service these dwellings = 33,360 SF Total ground coverage = 67,800 SF Total square footage of Lot 2 (6.925 ac.) = 301,653 SF % of lot coverage = .224 .224 x $570,000 Park Dedication Fee $127,680 *Note: Employee housing is classified as "moderate" housing, and is therefore exempted from the fee. community development land planning landscape architecture M-mal .. . CC: City Council i :LOEI j. -2-D 11 1 71 . 1981- V VII TO: Paul Taddune CITY .AFTON,",77*.3 OFFICE FROM: Wayne Chapman DATE: June 4, 1981 SUBJECT: Park Dedication Fees - Marolt Project After reviewing our history of Park Dedication fee collections it is evident that the Marolt Project is the first of its kind. Park Dedication fees are based on 1% of the land value and multiplied by a factor based on the number of bedrooms. It appears that there are two ways to figure the Park Dedication fees on this project based on the following data: , 36.26 1. The entire land area is -3-5-rt acres valued at $4,000,000. 24.0 2. -Sovontccn ac=es will be deeded over to the City for Open 4 /022/ Space so no fees are assessed on that area. 4.026 3. SweD,;a-and one half acres will be used for employee housing so no fees are accessed on that area. 4. There will be thirty free market units each with three bedrooms built on six acres. 61.925 If the developer is going to pay the Park Dedication fee, I would calculate the fee as follows: 1. Value of Land = value/acre $4,000,000 = 41-12, 994/arre Total Acreage / /t, 47 S 36.26 2. Value/acre X free market acreage = Land value of free market units //5 47â‚¬ 4- .92 6 444~444 1-fr = $99-rser- 785,8/ 4 3. 1% x Land value of free market units = base fee before bedroom Multiplier . 01 X -6-7 7,96* = 44 7 70.04 7862 4. 3 bedroom multiplier X base tee = Park Dedication Fee ~5 X $6,71 9.64Â·- = $16,949 * ZW ~ pa C â‚¬~9~gâ‚¬23 - 0 0 . If each individual unit owner were paying the fee, it would be calculated slightly differently. Steps 1 and 2 would remain the same as if the developer were paying the fee. The rest of the method would be as follows: 3. Land Value of Free Market Units = Land value per unit number of free market units *6,94 -677,9:64 = 422,-5311 274 /el;Â£ 30 4. 1% X land value per unit = base fee per unit before bedroom multiplier 20 /9 + . 01 x *dr59-8 = -e~97-98 /5/ 9,0 5. Base fee x Bedroom multiplier = park dedication fee per unit -+225=Â·98 X 2.5 = 4-564.95 Â· 20/.9 + .- 444.99 6. Park dedication fee per unit X number of units = park dedication fee _544.95 x 30 = 16,949 464.86 . C /9,646 sc Since the fee is essentially the same under either method I would use the figure 16,949 as the Park Dedication fee. 4,tic-e- *halpon n n-A -GRAA,LAA WC:ds 1-~M 4 +f~ lÂ· fl V.9 0-F-*0Â«9 1-2*14 Velut 30-Â£76:5 1 - n * 0-0/ X -2.1 Fhrse*,p X 1W)<Â£31 .025(lp.,4 Unjuâ‚¬) D1-3 - /2.U. m /9 Ltâ‚¬ r>1> . T.. li'' b APR 3 0 -1981_ kjj ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT --*.......*- MEMORANDUM ~ASPEN / ts,t-t-KIN CO. 9*AANNANG OFFICE / TO: PAUL TADDUNE-CITY ATTORNEY , FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS SUBJECT: MAROLT RANCH PUD AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT DATE: APRIL 29, 1981 I have reviewed the PUD and Subdivision Agreement for the Marolt Ranch and wish to advise your office that we have never been consulted in regatds to any waiver of PIF fees for PMH units and/or exchanges of the same for water rights. It is my understanding that present City policy is that any proposed development is required to dedicate those consumptive uses that would be associated with the development project. And further, that any irrigation water needed for open space associated with the project would be dedicated and reserved for this purpose. Therefore, it seems to me that the developer is attempting, in this instance, to trade off or exchange what he would normally be required to dedicate. Secondly, the developer is given, by Muni Code, an in-city rate on his PIF fees for bonifide PMH units. This property was recently annexed to the City and, in effect, accomplishes the same thing. Therefore, the developer has already been given a 50% credit on both PMH units and free market units by virtue of this annexation. He has, in effect, saved $134,000. This $134,000 is money that the Water Department will not realise for much needed improvements to the system. Since the water rights in question are not useable by the Water Department, but could be of use, perhaps, on the Golf Course or the Thomas property, it seems appropriate that, should there be a consideration given for the water rights, that the money for the acquisitions of said water rights come from Open Space funds rather than Water Department funds. In closing, it is my recommendation that prior to any further approvals of the proposed PUD and 'Subdivision Agreement that further negotiations and discussions be held in regards to this matter. I would appreciate having some input. cc. ' Sunny Vann - Planning Wayne Chapman - City Manager John Musick - Musick, Williamson, Schwartz, Leavenworth and Cope, P.E. Box 4579 Boulder, CO 80306 Lruldl e;,r â‚¬ C P . . 64+C n . (le< u~Â·1~'hia n .unut<Juin J di,Â«Â·{ 565 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE # 925-2537 May 26, 1981 Carlie Wood Design Work Shop 415 S. Spring Aspen, Co 81611 To Whom it May Concern: The estimated tap fee for the Marolt project based on 31 free market units and 73 employee units plus a swimming pool and amenity building is $86,453. These are current tap figures and can be subject to change in the future. Sincerely Al= 4- Heiko Kuhn, Manager Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District 0, . r C.=1 FL; i ~ralle Imill CITY~EPASPEÂ® NAY *m Uj 130 scul-th galeita.street %3-Â·- --r- -*.4., -**my MinÂ®mlca aspenrcoloradiF 81611 + AINNING-ICE * MEMO TO: SUNNY VANN, PLANNING May 4, 1981 FROM: JIM HOLLAND, DIRECTOR OF PARKS U RE: MAROLT RANCH P.U.D. & SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT The following comments are regarding Section V - Open Space And Common Area Management, Maintenance and Use. I am still opposed to the permanent use restrictions that they keep including on OPEN SPACE CATEGORY 1 (page 8)- ;'Shall be expressly limited to an Open Space designation that requires said parcels to retain their natural growth and vegetation, with no recreational or other activity allowed that would inter- fere with or cause damage to the natural growth and vegetation contained thereon .... I am aware that the purpose of Aspen Code ,! Article VIII - P.U.D. is to preserve open space and natural features as development occurs, but in this case I don't believe PERMANENT use restriction is in the best interest of the public or future City Councils. On page 10, C.1. - OPEN SPACE, RIGHTS OF WAY AND LOT 3, I'm not quite clear on the intent of the statement "at all times such management and supervision shall be subject to proper easements for access, ingress and egress over, across, and through such categories of property to the benefit of the owners and occupants of the units...'i My only other concern at this time is in regard to the irrigation ditch steel culvert on the Holden Ditch. The 350 L.F. run from the south property line northward under the parking lot is too long a solid run without a manhole for a cleanout, especially since it has angles in it. In my opinion, there should be one just before it goes under the parking lot. F.C. Clu7 a.-414LT .A. CITY.Q~#ASPEN 130 s o~T gple;7~treet aspenf8010eAS- 81611 MEMORANDUM DATE; April 28, 1981 TO: Sunny Vann FROM: Bob Edmondson RE. Marolt Ranch PUD and Final Plat Subdivision Submission 1. There is reference to moderate and middle income housing (last paragraph, p. 3). Marolt Ranch, I believe, is to be deed restricted to entirely moderate income. 2. Cost allocation, first full paragraph, p. 4. Has the alloca- tion been agreed to by the City? 3. Please note paragraphs A and B, Article IV - Other Dedica- tions. This paragraph means the Marolt Project is excepted from Park Dedication Fees. Has this been agreed to? 4. Please note the last paragraph of p. 10 - paragraph V(C)(2). This paragraph should contain language that if the units were ever to be soid in Lot i that the individual dwelling units would be price restricted along PMH guidelines. It would also be necessary that they be price restricted along the above-mentioned guidelines by aeed restriction. 5. There is no language as to 6-month rental restrictions. The Council intended the rree market units not to be short-term rental and considered the 6-month rental restrictions necessary. 6. Please note Article VCD)(3)(a). Was this paragraph concern- ing roadway improvements agreed to? 7. The free market portion of the project is not condominiumized at this time. Wnen condominimization takes place it must be in full compliance with all the condominiumization provisions of the code inciuding 6-month rental restrictions, etc. 8. Article VI - Water Rights. Please have a comment from the appropriate municipal division (Markalunas?). Is th is a sut f i- cient number of taps? Is the City desirous of obtaining the water rights? Has there been agreement as to the vaiue of the rights as set forth in this Article? 9. Please note also, the applicant must submit ail deed restric- tions, covenants, easements, etc. prior to recording the final plat. RBE:mc .. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office RE: Marolt Final Plat Submission 11 DATE: June 2, 1981 APPROVED AS TO FORM: /Â£9*29,4 1,44 A Â·Â·Â·'.4.Â·LL ,/1 71 i The applicant and City Attorney are currently revising the finil PUD/Subdivision Agreement. The Planning Office will try to make this Agreemerit as well as/the Planning Office's comments available to you prior to your June 8 meeting. It may be necessary, however, to table this item in the event staff is unable to complete its review. DFAr f>Lbo /9-31*3 46,1~ag--lektI-- I * .. 41-Â·49 JANES M. MULLIC:AN 3-/O -31 PROVESS1O-,AL. CORPOPARON ATTORNTEYS AND CEO.INSEL.3.ONA AT LAW 1050 SEVENTEENi I{ 91'IkEET Â· SITITIC 360 DENVER, COLORADO 80202 {:103) 5713-0(300 JAMES M. MULL]GAN CABLE Â· MULLAW March 7, 1981 Bob Edmondson, Esq. Grueter & Edmondson Attorneys at Law 430 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado Re: The Marolt Ranch ~ P.U.D. and Subdivision Agreement :~ Dear Bob: t Pursuant to earlier discussions, enclosed herewith please 4 find draft of final "P.U.D. and Subdivision Agreement" for The :4 Marolt Ranch final plat submission. As indicated earlier, I will be out of town from March 9 tlirough March 20, and would appreciate your review and referral of the enclosed in order to allow for commentary unon my return so that we may have a final draft completed prior to the end of March. You will note that there are certain Schedules which have not been attached to the Agreement as of yet, as these Sched- ules are currently being compiled by the approoriate members of the develooment consulting team, Marolt Associates. As these Schedules are completed and confirmed, they will be submitted as attachments to the Agreement. The absence of these Schedules also dictates certain blanks within the Agreement i itself, which blanks will be filled in upon determination from the completed Schedules. Â· Should you have any ouestions, concerns or comments that require additional input, please do not hesitate to contact either Don Ensign or Carlie Wood at Design Workshop, Inc. .. Rob Edmondson, Esq. March 7, 1981 Page 2 either directly or through Sonny Vann so that we may immediate- ly begin pursuit of any refinements. Otherwise, I will look forward to hearing from You upon my return from out of town. Thank you for your attention. Very truly yours, JAMÂ·ES,* M. MULLIGAN, /A Prorecsional Corporation \ p j;Â£ ,kA IIi 'ilj : 14, 9/ l' /lllÂ·,l 4 JMM:cdw Enclosures J~ M" 1-1 ull i.9.8~*--- ce: Cary D. Clark i ~ Otis Associates 1 Eldorado Engineering The Marolt Family .. P.U.D. AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR THE MAROLT RANCH City of Aspen State of Colorado 5 .. P.U.D. AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR THE MAROLT RANCH TABLE OF CONTENTS Paoe Section I. General Development Plan 2 Section II. Construction of Improvements 4 Section III. Easements, Rights of Way, and Relocations 4 5 Section IV. Dedications Section V. Open Space and Common Area Management, Maintenance and Use 6 Section VI. Water Rights and Availability 12 Section VII. Sewer Availability 13 Section VIII. Financial Assurances 13 Section IX. Miscellaneous 14 Exhibit A Legal Description Exhibit B Table of Site Data Tabulation Exhibit C Construction and Development Schedule j Exhibit D Improvement Resmonsibility Schedule Exhibit E Relative Water Rights and Fee Values Exhibit F Improvement Completion Percentage Schedule .. P . U . D . AND SURDI V 1.S-ION AGREEMENT FOR THE MAROLT RANCH This P.U.D. and Subdivision Agreement is made and entered into this day of , 1981 by and between THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, a Municjpal Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and MAROLT ASSOCIATES, a Colorado general partnership (hereinafter referred to as "the Owner"). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the Owner has submitted to the City for approval, execution and recordation, the final plat and development plan of a tract of land situate within the City of Aspen, Colorado. legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and designated as "The Marolt Ranch Subdivision" ("The Plat"); and WHEREAS, the City has caused the rezoning of the real prop- erty covered by said Plat so as to result in a zoning of R-15A PUD, such zoning in conjunction with the utilization of the residential bonus overlay approved under 0-rdinance 16 Series 1980, and providing for certain exemptions and special review processes; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered said Plat, the pro- posed development and the improvement of the land therein, and the burdens to be imposed upon other adjoining or neighboring properties by reason of the proposed development and improve- ment of land included in the Plat; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to apDrove, execute, and accept for recordation that Plat upon agreement of the Owner to the matters hereinafter described, and subject to all of the requirements, terms and conditions of the City of Aspen PUD and ~ subdivision regulations now in effect and other laws, rules and regulations as are applicable; and WHEREAS, the City has imposed certain conditions and requirements in connection with its approval, exebution and recordation of the Plat, and such matters are necessary to protect, promote, and enhance the public welfare; and WHEREAS, under the authority of Section 20-16 (C) and 24-8.6 of the Municipal Code of the City, the City is entitled to assurance that the matters hereinafter agreed to will be faithfully performed by the Owner: NOW. THEREFORE, .. IN CONSIDERATION OF THE PREMISES, the mutual covenants herein contained, and the approval, execution and acceptance of the Plat for recordation by the City, it is mutually agreed as follows: I. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN The Marolt Ranch development as shown on the attached Plat is composed of various elements comprising the total platted area, and those elements include the following: A. Lot 1 - Shall constitute the "employee housing" or "deed restricted" development as is further referenced herein- after, which parcel may at Ownerts option, be transferred to the City in conjunction with a long term lease-back to the Owner of the ground for improvement and development, the details of which shall be set forth in a separate sale and lease back agreement; B. Lot 7 - Shall constitute the "free market development" as further referenced hereinafter, and shall be owned, improved, marketed and sold by the Owner; C. Lot 3 - This Darcel, as shown on the Plat, is antici- pated to be dedicated to the City for their use, which use includes the possibility of leasing said parcel to the current user by way of a leasing right of first refusal; provided, how- ever, that certain use, maintenance and management standards are mutuallv agreed to between the City and the Owner as further set forth herein; D. Lots 5-7 - Shall be subject to restricted sale by the Owner to the three adjacent property owners, such restricted sale to include the prohibition of any building improvements on such lands: E. Open Snace 1 - Shall be dedicated to the City for open space in perpetuity, with specific management, maintenance and use guidelines satifactory to the Owner as further set forth herein; F. Onon Space 2 - Constitutes the river corridor and shall provide for dedication to the City for open space in perpetuity with specific management, maintenance, and use guidelines with- in the context of maintainine river corridor conservation lands, as further set forth herein; G. Cemetery Lane R.O.W. - Shall constitute the Cemetery Lane extension providing for 100' right of way dedicated to the City for a future roadway alignment between State Highway No. 82 and Castle Creek Road as further shown on the Plat; H. Main Street R.O.W. - Shall constitute the Main Street extension equalling a 150' right of way dedicated to the City -1- - .. of Aspen for future road alignment of such possible Main Street extension, as is further shown on the attached Plat. I. City Parcel - The currently owned City parcel, as designated contiguous to the subject property on the plat, shall be prooerly dedicated or restricted, as reoujred, to allow for its use for the extension of Cemetery Lane as cur- rently anticipated by the attached plat, future expansion of such extension to provide for the later connection of State Highway 82 with Castle Creek Road, as further shown on the plat, the necessary reservation of the Main Street right-of-way extension as shown on the attached plat, and the additional open space designation with appropriate restrictions that apply to Open Space Number 1 hereinabove referenced. For further and more specific alloce<-ion of the uses anti- cipated within the various parcels indicated above, reference is hereby made to the "Table of Site Data Tabulations" attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference. The submitted Plat anticipates, in major part, the improve- ment of the lands by the construction of two distinct develop- ments, one of which shall be deed or covenant restrictive in accordance with the provisions of Section 24-11.4(b)(3) of the Municipal Code as those provisions apply to moderate and middle income housing, and to the extent those provisions allow for exceptions from the growth management quota system pursuant to Section 24-11.2(i) of the Municipal Coae, and the second por- tion of said development shall be improved as an unrestricted or "free market" development. It is further acknowledged that although the ownership of the land beneath the two developments may be distinct as referenced, the construction and ownership of the improvements for both developments will be under the auspices of the Owner. In consideration of the dual nature of the two developments which constitute a major portion of the improvements antici- pated on the enclosed plat, cost allocations for the projects will need to be made for the improvements and resulting costs indicated under this P.U.D. and Subdivision Aareement. The parties hereto acknowledoe that a general guideline for cost allocation and Droration shall follow the relationship of each development's number of units to the total number of units approved for develonment upon the Plat. In connection here- with, it is currently understood and agreed that the deed or covenant restricted development shall constitute units equaling 70 percent of the total number of units apDroved on the Plat, and the free market development shall constitute 30 percent of the total number of units approved on the Plat. For purposes of specificity, the cost allocations for the improvements required hereunder are further set forth on Exhibit "D" attached hereto and incorporated herein hy this reference, and the parties hereto mutually accept such allocations. -3- .. II. CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS A. Nature and Estimated Costs of Improvements: - Owner hereby agrees to be responsible for the making and installation of the improvements to be contained within the developments indicated on the attached plat, to the extent required by Section 20-16(A) of the Municipal Code, the nature, extent and estimated cost of such improvements (along with their alloca- tion between the two developments contained on the attached plat) being more specificallv set forth on Exhibit 11 D " entitled "Improvement Responsibility Schedule", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. B. Construction Schedule - The development and construe- tion schedule required by Section 20-16(C)(1), and Section 24-8.9(B) of the Municipal Code are more specifically set forth under Exhibit "C", entitled "Construction and Development Schedule", which schedule also includes the anticipated con- struction dates for the beginning and completion of the improvements, the sequence of construction and phasing, includ- ing the phasing of the construction of public improvements, recreational, park, and common space areas. III. EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY, AND RELOCATIONS The attached Plat sets forth certain easement, rights of way, and anticipated relocations that will be necessary to cause the improvements anticipated thereon, which easements, rights of way and relocations include the following: A. Main Street Rioht Of Wav - As indicated under Section I hereinabove, and as shown on the attached Plat, the Owner here- by dedicates to the City a 150' right of way for the potential future extension of Main Street. The exact location and legal description of such right of way are as further set forth on the Plat attached hereto. B. Cemetery Lane Extension, Easements and Relocation - The Owner agrees to cause the relocation of the intersection of Cemetery Lane with State Highway No. 82 in the manner shown on the attached Plat, and to further provide a dedication to the City (in conjunction with the City's re-dedication of the por- tion of such extension included within its property as shown) of a 100' right of way for the proposed future extension of Cemetery Lane Deginnino from the referenced intersection with Highway No. 82 over the portions of the extension owned by the City through and across the olatted pronerty and ending with its intersection with Castle Creek Road, all as further shown on the attached Plat. --4- .. C. Gas Comnany Ruildinn and Gas Line Easement - The City and the Owner hereby agree to an easement for the continued existence of the Gas Company Building currently locat.ed on the property covered by the Plat, together with an easement for the maintenance of a gas line, both the easement for the building and the gas line as further specifically referenced and located on the attached Plat. D. Cross Easements - The City and the Owner hereby specif- ically agree to provide any and all necessary cross easements for access over and across parcels to he resoectively owned, and such cross easements shall be deemed to include those shown on the referenced Plat with the intent that the nature of such easements shall be to afford necessary access to and from the public highways to the respective parcels. E. Bitch Relocations and Ponding - The City hereby allows the relocation and ponding of the water contained in those certain ditches currently located on the lands covered by the attached Plat, such relocation and ponding of the water con- tained in such ditches to be as more specifically set forth on the Plat attached hereto. F. Utilities and Drainage - There is hereby established and agreed between the City and the Owner necessary easements for the relocation, installation and maintenance of utilities and the establishment and maintenance of drainaae, as such easements are specifically set forth on the utility sheets, the utility relocation sheets, and the drainage sheets as appended to the attached Plat. b. Miscellanous - All easements, rights of way and reloca- tions as are further shown on the attached Plat but not specif- ically referenced hereinabove are hereby established, author- ized and approved by the City and agreed to by the Owner. IV. - OTHER DEDICATIONS In accordance with Section 20-18 of the Municipal Code, the following dedications and/or exemptions apply: A. Exemption - The "employee housing" or "deed restricted" housing development contained within Lot 1 of the general development plan, as referenced under Article I hereinabove, and shown on the attached plat, constitutes a bona fide moderate income housing development, and the Owner and City hereby agree to the exemption of same from the application of Section 20-18 of the Municipal Code. B. Land Dedication - With respect to the dwelling units contaj ned within the "free market deve lopment" referenced as Lot 2 under Article I hereinabove, and as further shown on the -5- .. attached nlat, the Owner elects to Drovide and City hereby accepts, land Medications, by way of open space and right- of-way transfers elsewhere herein referenced of value suffi- cient to at least meet the requirements of Section 20-18 of the Municipal Code concernina the requirement of the dedications therein referenced. V. OPEN SPACE AND COMMON AREA MANAGEMENT, MAINTENANCE AND USE A. General - As referenced under Article I hereinabove, the plat herein referenced consists of certain parcels which include open space dedicated to the City, dedicated rights of way for future alignment and current extension of roadwavs, and two interior developments which will contain common areas and cross-easements for access, ingress, and egress. It is the intent of this Article to address respective responsibilities, limitations, covenants, and mutual agreements with respect to the management, maintenance and use of the open space, rights of way, and common area parcels contained within the plat as indicated. B. ODen Space And Rinht-of-Way Use Limitations - With respect to the open space and right-of-way parcels referenced under Article I hereinabove and further set forth on the attached plat, the Ownerls public dedication thereof to the City is expressly conditioned upon and made subject to the City's use of such open space and right-of-way parcels being subject to certain specified use limitations, as follows: 1. Open Space 1 Catenory: Those portions of the attached plat which are designated as "Open Space 1" further referenced under Article I hereinabove, shall be expressly limited to an omen space designation that requires said parcels to retain their natural growth and vegetation, with no recrea- tional or other activity allowed that would interfere with or cause damage to the natural arowth and vegetation contained thereon. It is the intent of this limitation that no disrup- tion of the natural growth and vegetation contained within the open space parcel shall he allowed, and that said marcel shall be retained in its natural state, with no improvements, activ- ity. or other action taken by the City or its designee that would allow for any interruption of such natural state. With the sole exception of any necessary easements for the installa- tion of trails within the planned trail system, underground utilities, telephone or other such underground servicing improvements as may be necessary to complete the improvements anticipated by the attached plat and the herein agreement. 2. Open Space 2 Category: That Dortion of the attached Dlat designated as "Open Space 2" further referenced under Article I hereinabove, shall be limited in use to the -6- .. extent necessary to retain its natural state as a river corri- dor, with no uses, improvements, activity, or other action allowed that will cause any interruption or interference with such natural river corridor state which currently exists; provided, however, that the City shall be allowed limited clearing and improvement within this open space 2 category sufficient to allow for the completion of any minimal trails and trail easements necessary and anticipated to allow for the inter-connection of the trails system anticipated by the attached plat, and provided further, that there shall be allowed such easements for underground service facilities and systems necessary to cause the completion of the improvements and developments anticipated by the attached plat and the here- in agreement. 3. Main Street Right-Of-Way: That portion of the attached plat designated as "Main Street R.O.W." as further referenced under Article I hereinabove, shall be reserved solely for use as an extension of the Main Street corridor, in the event such corridor is actually approved and constructed. At all other times during which such Main Street corridor shall not be in existence, the property contained within the parcel known as the "Main Street R.O.W." shall be preserved and its use limited by the provisions of sub-subparagraph 1 and sub-subporagraph 2 hereinabove, those Dortions of such Darcel which would normally be contained within the category known as Open Space 1 being limited by the uses anticipated for such .category, and those portions of the Main Street R.O.W. parcel that would otherwise be contained within Open Space 2 being limited by such respective uses. 4. Cemetery Lane R.O.W.: That portion of the attached plat cat egori ze d as "Cemetery Lane R.O.W." as furÂ·ther referenced under Article I hereinabove, shall be limited in use solely to imorovements in the nature of extending Cemetery Lane from its intersection with State Highway 82 through and includ- ing its connection with Castle Creek Road, along with any necessary lighting, signage, easements, paving, curb and gutter, and other necessary improvements to allow for the roadway extension's compliance with necessary state, county, and municinal codes, as well as compliance with the provisions of the attached plat and the herein agreement. At all times during which the Cemetery Lane extension improvements are not required or necessary, the land contained within the "Cemetery Lane R.O.W." parcel shall he limited in its use to those uses consistent with the allowances provided under the Open Space 1 category hereinabove referenced. In the event the City, following the dedication and reservation anticinated by the attached alat and the herein agreement with respect to the above-referenced categories, should allow, encourage. or participate in any action which would result in a breach of the above-referenced use limita- tions as to any specific parcel category, then and in such -7 - .. event, the Owner or the Owner's successors or assigns, shall have a right to re-enter unon the resnective parcel and cause an abatement of such breach by any legal process allowable, including injunctjve relief, and the costs for such abatement, including court costs and reasonable attorney's fees, shall ho borne by the City. In the event such abatement is impractical or impossible by reason of the nature and extent of the action taken by the City in breach of the above limitations, then the Owner, or its successors or assigns, shall be entitled tc re-enter the property, evict the City or its designee from occupation or possession thereof, and receive a re-conveyance of title to such parcel upon which the breach of use has occurred. B. Lot 3 Use Limitations - That portion of the attached plat which is designated as "Lot 3" and as further referenced under Article I hereinabove, shall be reserved and used subject to the same limitations as those imposed upon "Open Space 1" and "Open Space 2" categories above-referenced, as portions of Lot 3 might have otherwise beer-, included in either of those two respective categories; provided, however, the City shall be allowed to lease said property to tie current user of same, Neil Beck, and that such lease may allow for the continuation of its current use as at "non-conformina use" so long as the same tenant occupies the premises under such lease for the same purposes. C. Lots 1 and 2: With resDect to the parcels indicated on the attached plat and under Article I hereinabove as Lots 1 and 2, respectively, the uses thereon shall be limited to those uses allowed under the particular zone category as applicable, the attached plat, and the herein PUD and subdivision agree- ment, with any breaches thereof to be remedied as is currently provided by law. D. Management - The management.of the properties contained within the attached plat shall be governed by the following: 1. ODen Soace, Rights of Way and Lot 3: With resDect to the categories on the attached plat and under Article I hereinabove labeled as Open Space 1, Open Space 2, Main Street R.O.W., Cemetery Lane R.O.W. and Lot 3, the management and supervision thereof shall be the responsibility and cost of City, and shall be conducted on pursuant to the provisions and intent of the attached plat and the herein PUD and Subdivision Agreement; provided however, that at all times such management and supervision shall be subject to proper easement.s for access, ingress and egress over, across, and through such cate- gories of property to the benefit of the owners and occupants of the units contained within Lots 1 and 2 on the attached plat. 2. Lot 1: As indicated, Lot 1 is anticipated to be improved by the construction of seventy-three (73) dwelling -8- .. units, pursuant to provisions elsewhere contained herein ancl on the attached plat. Although documents will be filed against Lot 1 submitting same to the provisions of the Colorado Condo- minium Ownershin Act, it is currently anticipated that the units contained within Lot 1 will be operated initially a deed restricted rental units, with such units converted to "for sale" ownership units at such time as the market dictates and the City agrees. Durina such tjme as the units contained within Lot 1 are operated as rental units, the necessary condo- minium association and condomjnium declaration shall be under the control and direction of the Owner or the Owner's succes- sors or assigns. Pursuant thereto, the Owner shall cause the manaoement of the units contained within Lot 1 pursuant to a professional property management contract which contract will allow for the private management of said units consistent with first-class Dronerty management policies, including such leases, rules, regulations, fine systems, parkina requirements, and other policies and procedures that will enhance the live- ability and quality of such residential livino environments. The responsibility for such management shall rest with the Owner, or its successors or assigns during such time as the property is retained as a rental community, and the management shall be the responsibility of a properly-formed and activated condominium association, at such time as the units therein contained are converted to "for sale" ownershiD status by sep- arate deeds. Such management contract shall also provide for the proper management and supervision of the common facilities, including the proper and on-going maintenance thereof, and necessary budgets and reserves shall be allocated to provide for proper deferred maintenance and reserves for replacements as necessary to maintain a quality living environment. 3. Lot 2: As indicated elsewhere herein, Lot 2 shall be improved by the construction of thirty-one (31) free market dwelling units, which free market development shall be sub- mitted to the provisions of the Colorado Condor:linium Ownership Act. Pursuant thereto, a condominium association will be formed by the filing of necessary Articles of Incorporation, and the establishing of By-Laws, Condominium Declarations, Association budget and Association Rules and Requlations suffi- cient to meet the provisions of the Colorado Statutes applic- able thereto, and to cause the adequ>ite management and mainten- ance of all common facilities included within Lot 2 in a manner to reflect a first-class residential living community. D. Maintenance - With respect to the maintenance of the various parcels contained within the attached plat, and as further referenced under Article I hereinabove, the following shall apply: 1. Permanent Care and Maintenance of Onen Snaces 1 and 2 and Lot 3: The permanent care and maintenance of those categories known as Open Space 1, Open Space 2 and Lot 3 shall -9- .. be pursuant to a plan provided, imolemented, and borne by the City, such plan of permanent care and maintenance to be consistent with the use limitations and management provisions elsewhere contained herein and to the enhancement of the development plan shown on the attached plat. 2. Permanent Care and Maintenance of Main Street R.O.W.: The permanent care and maintenance of the Main Street R.O.W. shall be pursuant to a plan provided for, implemented, paid for and borne by the City, and such plan shall be consist- ent with the use limitations and management provisions else- where contained herein. 3. Permanent Care and Maintenance of Cemetery Lane R.O.W.: The permanent care and maintenance of the Cemetery Lane R.O.W. shall be subject to the following: a. Interim roadway improvements: With respect to those portions of the Cemetery Lane R.O.W. that are entici- pated to be improved at the cost of the Owner pursuant to the attached plat and Exhibit "D" attached hereto, the permanent care and maintenance thereof shall be maintained pursuant to a maintenance sharing agreement entered into between the manage- ment entity for Lot 1 and the management entity for Lot 2, with the responsibility for imolementation of the plan borne by the management entity for Lot 2. The maintenance sharing agreement shall provide for a sharing of the costs between the ownership of Lot 1 and the ownership of Lot 2 that reflects 70% alloca- tion to Lot 1 and 30% allocation to Lot 2 of such costs, and the assessments therefor shall be reflected in the resoective condominium declarations for Lot 1 and Lot 2 as additional assessments subject to approariate liens as provided by statute. Such maintenance sharing agreement shall include the repair and replacement of the paving and other improvements to be constructed by Owner as indicated, snow removal, landscape maintenance, and other related costs, expenses and tasks con- nected with the on-going care and maintenance of said improved roadway and related facilities. b. Remainder of Parcel and Permanent Roadway - With respect to the remainder of the Cemetery Lane R.O.W. not. included within the interim roadway area above-referenced, and with further respect to the full Cemetery Lane R.O.W. in the event of the full extension of the Cemetery Lane Roadway in a manner that results in its connection to Castle Creek Road and public dedication to the City, the permanent care and mainten- ance thereof shall be pursuant to a plan provided, implemented, and paid for by the City, such plan subject to the use limita- tions and management provisions hereinabove set forth. 4. Lot 1: The permanent care and maintenance of anv recreational areas, common parking, common facilities and pri- vate interior streets within Lot 1 shall be pursuant to a -10- .. property management contract entered into between the Owner, or its successors or assigns, and a Droperty management company that will allow for sufficient funds and budeet categories to provide snow removal services, building and grounds mainten- ance, and other maintenance services normally provided by such private professional management companies to allow for the proper care, deferred maintenance, repair and replacement of the facilities contained within Lot 1 during such time that the units therein are operated as a rental development. At such time as the units contained within Lot 1 shall be converted to separate unit ownership by wav of transfer of deed, then the permanent care and maintenance thereof shall be provided our- suant to a plan that requires the condominium association to establish a budoet, and pursue maintenance pursuant to proper covenants and assessment provisions contained within the condo- minium declaration allowing for same. The covenants and provi- sions shall be contained within the condominium declaration originally filed against the property at inception, although not necessary to be incurred until such time as the units are converted to separate ownership. The plan shall include the approoriate filing of the necessary documents pursuant to state statute, including the articles of incorporation for the condo- minium association, by-laws and condominium declaration, which documents shall meet at least the following requirements: a. The condominium association must be estab- lished before any of the units contained within Lot 1 are transferred to separate ownership: b. Membership in the condominium association will be mandatory for each unit owner, pursuant to the provi- sions of the Colorado Condominium Ownership Act; c. Any open space restrictions contained within Lot 1 must and will be permanent and not for a period of years (subject to long term ground leasel if any): d. The condominium association shall be respons- ible for a blanket liability and hazard insurance policy with respect to the common areas as well as maintenance of recreational and other facilities; e. The condominium association shall have the power to levv assessments which will become a lien on individ- ual units for the purpose of paying the cost of operating and maintaining common facilities; f. The board of managers for the condominium association shall consist of at least five (5) members who shall be owners of units within Lot 1. 5. Lot 2: The permanent care and maintenance of the commonly owned facilities, includino recreational facilities, -11- .. parking and any private strepts contained within Lot 2 shall be pursuant to n Dronerty management agreement entered into between the condominium associatinn and either a professional property manaoement comoany or employment contracts with personnel of the condominium association. As indicated, Lot 2 shall be submitted to the provisions of the Colorado Condomin- ium Ownershio Act, by the filing of a condominium declaration and condominium map, as appropriate, along with the fill.ng of articles of incorporation for the condominium association, by-laws for the condominium association, establishment of a condominium association budget for maintenance and operations, and the initiation of rules and regulations with respect there- to. The documents to be provided with such condominium establishment shall meet at least the following requirements: a. The condominium association will be estab- lished before any of the individual units are sold within Lot 2: b. Membership in the condominium association will be mandatory for each unit owner; c. Any common facility, common area, or open space restrictions will be permanent in nature and not for a period of years; d. The condominium association will be resoons- ible for blanket liability and hazsrd insurance unon the common elements, as well as the maintenance of all common elements thereunder; e. The condominium association shall have the power to levy assessments which will become a lien on individ- ual units for the puroose of paying the cost of DDerating and maintaining common elements and facilities; f. The board of manaoers of such condominium association shall consist of at least five (5) members who shall be owners of units within the condominium development. VI. WATER RIGHTS AND AVAILABILITY Owner and City mutually acknowledge that certain water rights accrue to the property which is the subject of the attached plat, which rights have been adjudicated and are titled in the Owner. Additionally, City and Owner recognize that the attached plat will result in a demand for taps in order to allow for the proper servicing of the needs of the improvements to he constructed thereon. In connection there- with, Owner and City agree to assign an aporoariate value to the adjudicated water rights of the Owner, and to the taps necessitated by the anticinated development herein, and our- suant to respective off-sets, result in a net fee to be paid by -12- Owner to City, which fee vould be intended to cover all neces- sary tap fees, plant investment fees, and other fees and charges that may in any manner or form be connected with the installation and hook-uD of water service to the property covered hereby. It is understood that these fees are exclusive of any on-going service fees that would be required to continue the water servicing to the units contained within Lots 1 and 2 and to the property generally covered hereby. The respective values of the water rights and water tops and fees are hereby acknowledged as equaling those set forth on Exhibit "E", entitled "Relative Water Rights and Fee Values" which relative values, properlv off-set, result in net fees payable by the Owner to the City for water installation, hook-up, and other related charges equal to ($ VII. SEWER AVAILABILITY (To be inserted upon determination) VIII. FINANCIAL ASSURANCES Pursuant to Section 20-16(C) of the Municipal Code, Owner hereby agrees to provide a guaranty for no less than One Hundred Percent (100%) of the estimated cost of the improve- ments to be constructed, which estimated costs, as further set forth and allocated under Exhibit "D" attached hereto total Dollars ($ ) as approved by the City Engineer. The guaranty to be provided by ~ Owner shall be in the form of cash escrow with the City or a bank or savings and loan association; or shall be in the form of an irrevocable sight draft or letter of commitment from a financially responsible lender; and such ouaranty shall qive the City the unconditional right, upon default by the Owner, or its successor or assign, to withdraw funds upon demand to partially or fully complete and/or pay for any improvements or pay any outstanding bills for work done thereon by any party. As portions of the improvements required are completed, the City Engineer shall inspect them, and upon approval and accep- tance, he shall authorize the release of the agreed estimated cost for that portion of the improvements; provided, however, that ten peicent (10%) of the estimated cost shall be withheld 13- .. until all proposed imorovements are completed and approved by the City Engineer. For purposes of clarity, the percentage attributable to the estimated costs that are applicable to each stage of completion are as further set forth on Exhibit "F", entitled "Imorovement Comoletion Percentage Schedule", which schedule shall be binding upon the City and Owner with resnect to amounts to be released upon the City Engineer's approval of the respective completion stage. To the extent portions of such completion stages as set forth in Exhibi.t "F" are deter- minable to be aDDroved severally by the City Engineer, an equitable allocation of funds to be released shall be applied as and when such partial completions occur. The Owner, its successors or assigns, hereby agrees to further provide unto City a warranty as to all imorovements for a period of one (1) year from and after acceptance by the City as to such improvements. The Owner shall further guaranty by a maintenance bond or other suitable means, the repair of any existing improvements damaged during the course of construction of new improvements pursuant to the provisions hereof. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. The provisions hereof shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Owner and City and their respective sue- cessors and assigns. B. This agreement shall be subject to and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. C. If any of the provisions of this agreement or any para- graph, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or section or the application thereof in any circumstances is invalidated, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this agreement, and the application of any such Drovision, paragranh, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or section in any other circumstance shall not be affected thereby. D. This P.U.D. and Subidivison Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties herein with respect to the transactions contemplated hereunder and may be altered or amended from time to time only by written instruments executed by all parties hereto. E. Numerical and title headings contained in this contract are for convenience purposes only, and shall not be deemed determinative of the substance contained herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto executed their hands and seals on the dates and year -14- .. respectively indicated, in full understanding and agreement to the terms and conditions herein contained. CITY OF ASPEN, A Colorado Municipal Corporation By: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ) The above and foregoing was subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 19 by , Mayor and , -Fity Clerk of the City of Aspen, A Colorado Municipal Corporation. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public MAROLT ASSOCIATES, A Colorado General Partnership Partner Partner Partner Partner STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ) The above and foregoing was subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 19__ by , -15- . . .. and , Partners of Marolt Associates, A Colorado General Partnership. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public -16- 44 - ~ EXHIBIT A 0j LEGAL DESCRIPTION A tract of land situated in Lots 9, 10, 13, SW 1/4 SU 1/4 Sec. 12, TlOS, P.8514 6th P.M. and Lot 5 and NWÂ· 1/4 N'W 1/4 Sec. 13, TlOS, 23511, 6th P.M. described as follows: Beginning at a point, in the center line of Castle Creek (the SW cor. Lot 2 Adams Subdivision), thence. N14Â°40'E 149.97 ft. to corner #13 Holden Tract, thence ?114Â°35'W 172.00 ft. to corner #14 Holden Tract, thence :137Â°50'11 314.72 ft. to corner #1 Holden Tract, being identical with corner #4 North Texas Itill Site MS i;3288, thence t154Â°45'W 84.00 ft. to the center line of Castle Creek, thence N26Â°00'W 94.00 ft. along the center line of Castle Creek, thence N28Â°10'E 294.00 ft. along the centeÂ¥ line of Castle Creek,, - thence N20Â°05' E 115.40 ft. along the center line of Castle Creek, to the South Right-of-Way line of Colorado Highway No. 82, thence M75Â°03'11 360.26 ft. along the South Right-of-Way line of Colo- rado Highway Flo. 82, thence 63.52 ft. along the arc of a curve to the left (radius of 905.00 ft. chord bears N77Â°(3'38"W 63.51 ft.), thence Sl 0Â°51 '11 90.71 ft., thence 521Â°47'W282.37 ft., thence S25Â°23'bl 715.83 ft. to a point being 1794.68 ft. S41Â°52'15" E, from the 1954 Brass Cap marking the W 1/4 corner of Sec. 12, thence S18Â°14'W 1107.77 ft. to the North Right-of-Way line of Castle Creek Road, thence S40Â°00'E 114.98 ft. along the Ilorth Right-of-Way line of Castle Creek Road, thence S53Â°34'E 124.61 ft. along the florth Right-of-Way line of Castle Creek Road, thence I!31Â°56'E 254.45 ft., thence Â£06Â°42'E 308.07 ft., thence N90'00'W 9.11 ft., thence S33Â°00'E 61.65 ft., thence :168Â°35'E 280.15 ft. to line 1-2Short Line MS #4610, .. thence t]16Â°00'W 44.62 ft. along line 1-2 to corner No. 1 Short c j Lime MS #4610, thence tl74Â°00'E 236.35 ft. along line 1-4 of Short Lime MS #4610, thence 1190Â°0041 74.04 ft., thence N19Â°12'E 117.35 ft., thence N42Â°30'W 329.09 ft., thence N02Â°43'W 221.35 ft., thence N16Â°44'E 139.78 ft., thence S70Â°12'E 120.00 ft., thence N36Â°45'E 268.63 ft. to the most tlortherly corner of property described in Book 196 at Page 376, Pitkin County Records, thence N60Â°46'9 190 feet to the center line of Castle Creek, thence along the center line of Castle Creek'the following courses:, N12Â°33'29"W 154.72 feet, thence N43Â°00'E 80.00 feet, thence N85Â°30'E 83.00 feet, thence N85Â°00'E 150.00 feet, thence S68Â°00'E 80.00 feet, thence S77Â°00'E 110.00 feet, thence t<81Â°19'21"E 40.17 feet to the point of beginning. containing 35.25 acres, more or less. .. EXHIBIT B SITE DATA TABULATION (BY PARCEL) Total Acreage: 35.25 Acres Lot 1 Acreage: 4.325 No. of Units: 70 Employee Size & Type: 34 - 2 bedroom 2 bath @ 845 S.F. 19 - 1 bedroom 1 bath @ 637 S.F. 17 - Studios, 1 bath @ 484 S.F. Parking: 104 spaces (1 per bedroom) Parcel Density: 16.8 DU/Acre Ground Coverage: Units Building A -,3880 S.F. B - 6486 S.F. C - 6486 S.F. D - 3243 S.F. = 20,095 S.F. Parking ' 104 spaces @ 180 S.F. = 19,620 S.F. Road 900 L.F. @ 24' width = 21,600 S.F. 400 L.F. @ 10' width = 4,000 S.F. TOTAL COVERAGE/LOT 1 65,315 S.F. Projected Monthly Rental Rates 2 bedroom $591/month (70Â¢/S.F. ) 1 bedroom $446/month Studio $338/month Lot 2 Acreage: 6.925 No. of Units: 30 Free market Size & Type: 30 - 3 bedroom 4 bath @ 2400 S.F. Amenities: The Granary - storage & Clubhouse amenities Marolt Homestead - Management Office Landscape plaza and pool @ 1500 S.F. Tennis Court @ 7200 S.F. Parking: 60 Covered (2 per unit) Parcel Density: 4.5 DU/Acre Ground Coverage: 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. 0 11,500 S.F. TOTAL COVERAGE/LOT 2 106,058 S.F. .. EXHIBIT C MAROLT RANCH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Site Iinprovements Employee Housing Units (Lot 1) Free Market Units (Lot 2) Site Work Aug. 1, 1981 - Oct. 1, 1981 Mass Grading, Utilities Relocation, Construction Access Roads Employee Housing Units (Lot 1) Apr. 15, 1982 - Dec. 31, 1982 Site Utilities Apr. 15, 1982 - July 31, 1982 Building Excavation & Foundations May 1, 1982 - June 30, 1982 Superstructure & Exterior Closure June 1, 1982 - Oct. 15, 1982 Interior Construction & Finishes Aug. 1, 1982 - Dec. 31, 1982 Finished Site Development Aug. 1, 1982 - Oct. 31, 1982 Roads & Parking Areas, Intersection Completion, Finish Grading, Landscaping, Walks Free Market Units (Lot 2) July 1, 1981 - July 31, 1983 Site Utilities May 1, 1982 - July 31, 1982 Building Phase 1 (11 Units) June 1, 1982 - Jan. 31, 1983 Building Excavation & Foundations June 1, 1982 - June 30, 1982 Superstructure & Exterior Closure July 1, 1982 - Sep. 30, 1982 Interior Construction & Finishes Oct. 1, 1982 - Jan. 31, 1983 Finished Site Development Aug. 1, 1982 - Oct. 31, 1982 ' Roads & Parking Areas, Finish Grading, Landscaping Building Phase 2 (19 Units) Sep. 1, 1982 - July 31, 1983 Building Excavation & Foundations Sep. 1, 1982 - Sep. 30, 1982 Superstructure & Exterior Closure Oct. 1, 1982 - Dec. 31, 1982 Interior Construction & Finishes Jan. 1, 1983 - Apr. 30, 1983 Finished Grading, Landscaping May 1, 1983 - July 31, 1983 Roads & Parking Areas, Finish Grading, Landscaping .. EXHIBIT D 5 ~ i MAROLT RANCH IMPROVEMENT RESPONSIBILITY SCHEDULE Employee Housing Free Market Units Item Total Cost Percentage Share & Cost Percentage Share & Cost Sewer Existing Manhole to Manhole #8 Manholes $ 9,600.00 $ 6,720.00 (70%) $ 2,880.00 (30%) 8" Sewer, 34,925.00 24,447.50 (70%) 10,477.50 (30%) Manhole #8 to Manhole #11 Manholes 3,600.00 - 3,600.00 (100%) 8" Sewer 8,900.00 - 8,900.00 (100%) Manhole #8 to #12 & Manhole #12 to #17 Manholes 7,200.00 7,200.00 (100%) - 8" Sewer 36,325.00 36,325.00 (100%) - Sewer Tap 14,250.00 2,700.00 11,550.00Â· Connections Sewer Totals $114,800.00 $77,392.50 $37,407.50 t F Water Interconnection 12" D.I.Pipe $ 16,415.00 $11,490.50 (70%) $ 4,924.50 (30%) 12" Valve 2,500.00 1,750.00 (70%) 750.00 (30%) Free Market Water Service 12" D.I. Pipe 11,221.00 - 11,221.00 (100%) 10" D.I. Pipe 42,770.00 - 42,770.00 (100%) 8" D.I. Pipe 15,225.00 - 15,225.00 (100%) 12" Valve 2,500.00 2,500.00 (100%) Fire Hydrants 5,250.00 - 5,250.00 (100%) 16" Water Service 2,700.00 2,700.00 (100%) 3/4" Water Service 300.00 300.00 (100%) Employee Housing Water Service 8" D. I. Pi pe 14,875300 14,875.00 (100%) - 8" Valve 50,2. CIO 500.00 (100%) - Fire Hydrants 5,250.00 5,250.00 (100%) - 2" Water Service 3,000 DO . 3,000.00 (100%) - Water Totals $122,506.00 $36,865.50 $85,640.50 EXHIBIT D 1 i A r. n 1 -r . I .intt MAKUL 1 liAH.fl c j IMPROVEMENT RESPONSIBILITY SCHEDULE (continued) Employee Housing Free Market Units Item Total Cost Percentage Share & Cost Percentage Share & Cost Drainage Employee Housing Drainage Basins 1,2,3 12" C.M. P. $ 3,225.00 $ 3,225.00 (100%) - 3' Standpipe 2,000.00 2,000.00 (100%) Concrete 2,250.00 2,250.00 (100%) Excavation & 8,000.00 8,000.00 (100%) Embankment Free Market Drainage Basins 1,2,3 21" C.M.P. 4,320.00 - $ 4,320.00 (100%) 15" C.M. P. 1,320.00 - 1,320.00 (100%) 3' Standpipe 5,000.00 - 5,000.00 (100%) Excavation & 9,600.00 - 9,600.00 (100%) Embankment Tennis Courts 1,500.00 - 1,500.00 (100%) Improvements Rock Channel 1,500.00 1,500.00 (100%) 5 Check Dams Free Market Units 1,950.00 - 1,950.00 (100%) Cemetery Lane 1,050.00 735.00 (70%) 315.00 (30%) Holden Road 1,800.00 1,800.00 (100%) - Drainage Totals $43,515.00 $18,010.00 $25,505.00 Irrigation Relocation Holden Ditch 50x31 Arch Pipe -$30,750.00 $30,750.00 (100%) - Channel Excava. 1,050.00 1,050.00 (100%) - Headwall 1,000.00 1,000.00 (100%) - Marolt Ditch 30 mil.hypalon liner 7,200.00 $ 7,200.00 (100%) Red Butte Cemetery 8" Irrigation gate 800.00 800.00 (100%) Headwall 500.00 500.00 (100%) 8" P.V.C. Pipe & Fittings 4,080.00 - 4,080.00 (100%) Irrigation Totals Â· $45,380.00 $32,800.00 $12,580.00 C d CLIENT: MAROLT ASSOCIATES ) ) MEMORANDUM RE: WATER RIGHTS NEGOTIATIONS) OF WITH CITY OF ASPEN ) POSITION DATE: May 22, 1981 ) Within the on-going perspective of co-operative subsidy between the City of Aspen and Marolt Associates in connection with an attempt to provide employee housing within The Marolt Ranch subdivision, have been discussions concerning the City's willingness or non-willingness to apply the implementation of its co-operative subsidy to assistance with the fees connected with water taps and plant investment fees. The basic premise of Marolt Associates has been that waivers of such fees (water tap and PIF) by the City through some allowed procedure will be necessary in order for the employee housing project contemplated within The Marolt Ranch to be succes.sfully completed. To date, discussions with personnel within the City, including varying representatives of the City Attorney's office, the City Manag- er's office, the City Planning Office, and the City Water Department have indicated perspective that addresses the issue of whether or not any water rights that The Marolt Ranch may have appurtenant to it have any value, as opposed to the issue of how can we accomplish a subsidy that will allow for a partial .. or full waiver of these costs to the employee portion of the project. Of course, this perspective does not allow for con- structive discussion, but appears to place the context within the inevitable "apples and oranges" status. In an attempt to place a constructive perspective on the issues, this office has done some further research with the aoove-referenced personnel, the respective City Codes, and herein will attempt to set forth The Marolt Associate's approach, and some facts pertinent to the water situation. 1. CO-OPERATIVE SUBSIDY: As indicated via previous discussions and correspond- ence with City personnel, this water issue is being pursued within the larger framework of a co-operative subsidy concept originally discussed and agreed to between the City and Marolt Associates. All parties were aware from the beginning that the implementation of a quality employee housing project that would fall within the pricing guidelines desired by the City required the implementation of a "public-private partnership" that would allow joint co-operation and subsidizing to allow for the realization of such a project. The first stage of such co-op- eration was the negotiation of adequate zoning densities to allow Marolt Associates or assigns sufficient reasonable incen- tive in purs4it of the free market portion of the project to justify an employee housing project that would itself be at cost to the eventual developer. The oft quotetl "Robin Hood" -2- .. concept of having the free market side of such a project "sub- sidize" the employee side of such a project was a portion of this contemplated arrangement, with the City's on-going commit- ment to assist in this effort to the extent possible. Marolt Associaties has pursued this effort throughout the platting process, and via open space transfers, direct expenditures of dollars for professionals to work with the City on a continuing basis, direct cost subsidies projected for the project, land transfers for the project itself at no cost, and related suD- sidies has provided "Robin Hood" valued subsidies to the pro- ject in excess of $2 Million. Much negotiation ensued to have the City approving a free market site density that would allow potential reasonable return to Marolt Associates, and tnis density on the free market side has been a long and arduous series of approvals, denials, reconsiderations, and justifica- tions and ultimate reductions that make the above-referenced "Robin Hood" subsidies questionable from an incentive stand- point to Marolt Associates. Despite this, there has been an indicated reluctance on the City's -part to provide any indirect subsidies by way of waiver of fees, deferral of property tax assistance, and related issues, requiring at the time of each such request further negotiation, justification, and added research that only encumbers Marolt Associates' subsidy by fur- ther dollars and makes the free market incentive marginal at best. It is within this context that Marolt Associates is -3- .. regretably hearing again the City's reluctance to provide any type of assistance in this cost-based area of water taps and PIFs. 2. WATER ISSUE: As above indicated, the request for partial or full waiver of water taps or PIFs is being pursued within the larger perspective of cooperative subsidy, and in this context was thought to be sufficient justification in and of itself. Reluctance on the part of the City Water Department, the City Planner's Office, the City Attorney's office and the City Manager's Office to address this as a viable issue has resulted in the necessity to do further research in regard to this particular issue. As a result, the following information is provided: A. Resolution No. 2, Series 1976 - This Resolution appears to authorize the City Manager to acquire any water rights which are appurtenant to land proposed for annexation, subdivision, or development permit issuance. The method of acquisition is left open to the City Manager, which may be by gift, sale, lease, option, right of first refusal, or otherwise. No provision is made for requiring land owners without appurtenant water rights to purchase water rights for dedication, or in lieu thereof to pay cash. The City has -4- .. expanded this Resolution by interpretation, particularly when considering the new water policy that has yet to be implemented by the City. For example, in the event that the transferable water rights are less than the anticipated consumptive use, the City has required the developer to purchase other rights on the open market and convey same to the City in order to make up a deficit, or in the alternative, to do the same by way of cash payment in lieu of water. There are some serious questions about the viability of this approach, including the fact that the policy is by resolution without the force and effect of an ordinance, and the interpretation of such Resolution being somewhat overbroad in nature. The method of acquisition in such vague and indefinite format leaves open the possibility of addressing the issue of "taking" of property without just compensation. B. Equal Treatment - With respect to the PIF fees, we have been informed that in-City units whether employee housing or free market in nature, are charged a standard PIF rate. Out-of-City free market units are assessed a 100% surcharge, apparently because they do not contribute to the City's tax basis. Opposed to this, however, is the fact that out-of-City employee housing projects in the past have, at the discretion of City Council, received a subsidy in the form of 50% credit of fees. No such credit appears to apply to those units located within the City. Does the reduced fee charged -5- .. out-of-City employee housing units end up discriminating against in-City employee housing units as to amount to a violation of equal protection concepts? Additionally, we have been informed that the City, under certain limited circumstances in the past, has had the City general fund pay the PIF fees for a particular project, thereby relieving the developer of such responsibility. The specific instances have not been garnered yet, but requests for research of same have been made and are being pursued. This is a precedent setting issue and should be of import to the City Council in determining direction. Lastly, the City's own water plant housing project has benefited from the City's awareness of the difficulties associated with employee housing construction costs. The project will pay no property taxes, and will be allowed to defer the cost of its PIF fees over a number of years by note execution or other appropriate arrangements. That project has been substantially completed and is in the process of occupancy, with no PIF fees paid and no specific arrangements completed yet as to their deferred payment plan. With the above facts in mind and the obvious "public purpose" that is served by the construction of such employee housing, there appears to me to be sufficient factual basis to have the City address some assistance in this regard, even . beyond the previously committed co-operative subsidy approach that the City has made to Marolt Associates in this project. -6- In summary, the City has previously committed to Marolt Associates to pursue a co-operative subsidy concept with this project, and within that framework, Marolt Associates has requested the City's assistance with the high cost of the water related fees, since this is within the jurisdiction of the City to pursue (i.e., as opposed to sewer tap fees). With such perspective in mind, and the facts above enumerated, it appears somewhat inconceivable for the City to be reluctant to approach this concept in a co-operative posture. -7 - .. EXHIBIT C MAROLT RANCH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Site Improvements Employee Housing Units (Lot 1) Free Market Units (Lot 2) Site Work Aug. 1, 1981 - Oct. 1, 1981 Mass Grading, Utilities Relocation, Construction Access Roads Employee Housing Units (Lot 1) Apr. 15, 1982 - Dec. 31, 1982 Site Utilities Apr. 15, 1982 - July 31, 1982 Building Excavation & Foundations May 1, 1982 - June 30, 1982 Superstructure & Exterior Closure June 1, 1982 - Oct. 15, 1982 Interior Construction & Finishes Aug. 1, 1982 - Dec. 31, 1982 Finished Site Development Aug. 1, 1982 - Oct. 31, 1982 Roads & Parking Areas, Intersection Completion, Finish Grading, Landscaping, Walks Free Market Units (Lot 2) July 1, 1981 - July 31, 1983 Site Utilities May 1, 1982 - July 31, 1982 Building Phase 1 (11 Units) June 1, 1982 - Jan. 31, 1983 Building Excavation & Foundations June 1, 1982 - June 30, 1982 Superstructure & Exterior Closure July 1, 1982 - Sep. 30, 1982 Interior Construction & Finishes Oct. 1, 1982 - Jan. 31, 1983 Finished Site Development Aug. 1, 1982 - Oct. 31, 1982 ' Roads & Parking Areas, Finish Grading, Landscaping Building Phase 2 (19 Units) Sep. 1, 1982 - July 31, 1983 Building Excavation & Foundations Sep. 1, 1982 - Sep. 30, 1982 Superstructure & Exterior Closure Oct. 1, 1982 - Dec. 31, 1982 Interior Construction & Finishes Jan. 1, 1983 - Apr. 30, 1983 Finished Grading, Landscaping May 1, 1983 - July 31, 1983 Roads & Parking Areas, Finish Grading, Landscaping .. j EXHIBIT F MAROLT RANCH SITE IMPROVEMENT PERCENTAGE COMPLETION SCHEDULE Percentage of Guaranty, Item Time Period Guaranty Release Date 1. Approval of Final Plat June 8, 1981 2. Advertise for Bids July 6, 1981 3. Anticipated Award of Site Improvements Contracts July 24, 1981 - 4. Notice to Proceed Aug. 1, 1981 h 5. Red Butte Cemetery Pipeline Relocation Aug. 1 - Aug. 10, 1981 6. Construct Temporary Marolt Ditch Aug. 1 - Aug. 10, 1981 7. Rough Grading, Free Market & Employee Sep. 30, 1981 Aug. 1 - 8. Holden Road Rough Grading & Placement of 24' Width of Base Course Aug. 1 - Aug. 31, 1981 9. Electric & Telephone Relocation, Free Market July 1 - July 31, 1981 10. Remainder of Electric c & Telephone Relocation Aug. 1 - Aug. 31, 1981 -~,- 11%, September 1981 11. Holden Ditch Relocation Sep. 1 - Oct. 1, 1981 3%, October 1981 12. Installation of Sewer & Water, Free Market May 1 - June 30, 1982 h 13. Installation of Sewer & Water, Employee Apr. 15 - May 31, 1982 14. Installation of Remainder of Sewer & Water May 15 - July 31, 1982 15. Installation of Underground > 31%, August 1982 Electric, Telephone, TV, Gas Lines, Free Market & Employee June 1 - July 31, 1982 EXHIBIT F MAROLT RANCH SITE IMPROVEMENT PERCENTAGE COMPLETION SCHEDULE (continued) Percentage of Guaranty, Item Time Period Guaranty Release Date 16. Finish Grading & Drainage Improvements, Free Market Phase 1 & Employee Aug. 1, 1982 - Aug. 31, 1982 17. Intersection Work Aug. 1, 1982 - Sep. 30, 1982 18. Finish Grading, Base * > 30%, October 1982 Course Placement & Paying, Free Market Phase 1 & Employee Aug. 1, 1982 - Sep. 30, 1982 - 19. Landscaping, Free Market Phase 1 & Employee Oct. 1, 1982 - Oct. 31, 1982 ~ 15%, November 1982 20. Finish Grading, Base n Course Placement & Paving, Free Market Phase 2 May 1, 1983 - June 30, 1983 21. Landscaping Free Market Phase 2 June 1, 1983 - July 31, 1983 -~- 10%, August 1983 >>6 .. . . JAMES M. MULLIGAN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 7,1 N ?' -nre ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW o F ~ f.n f- ~1. - 1060 SEVENTEENTH STREET Â· SUITE 360 DENVER, COLORADO 80202 JAMES M. MUI.LIGAN , 4 (003) 572-0600 - MAY 2 8 19@ 1 VICKI JO EDWARDS ABLE Â· MULLAW May 20, 1981 nor-LI N / rh : KI#TFO, PLANNING 0Â¥Flâ‚¬2, f Paul Taddune, Esq. ~1201=s . Â»Â· . I . 4 : Â·4' 9,igk Aspen City Attorney 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: The Marolt Ranch Revisions to P.U.D. and Subidivision Agreement Dear Paul: Pursuant to earlier discussions and meetings amongst your- self, Bob Edmondson, Sonny Vann, Wayne Chapman, Jim Markalunas and myself, I enclose herewith the revised "P.U.D. and Subdivi- sion Agreement for The Marolt Ranch". The issues discussed and changes agreed to have been attempted to be incorporated into the Agreement, and attempts to address other issues have been made in a manner that intends to either clarify the client's position, or resolve matters discussed. Although the copy of the enclosed Agreement is "red-lined" for ease of your review in connection with the original draft, following is the think- ing behind some of the issues amended, changed or retained in the same fashion. 1. City Parcel: On Page 3, Article I (i) has been amended to attempt to reflect the agreements of the City with respect to that portion of the Thomas property that will be necessary for the extension of Cemetery Lane, the extension of the Main Street right-of-way, and the creation of necessary restrictions against this property to insure access to the platted property. 2. Sharing of Maintenance: On Page 4, in the paragraph immediately preceding Article II, additional language was added to attempt to address the intent of the parties to have on-going maintenance costs, unless specifically provided other- wise in the contract, shared in the manner that is reflective of the resulting use of such facilities to which the costs apply. I understood one of the issues presented by yourself or Bob was a concern that the costs of on-going maintenance of the employee housing development may be such as to add a layer of costs in excess of the pricing guidelines. As discussed, and .. Paul Taddune, Esq. Aspen City Attorney May 20, 1981 Page 2 as the Agreement reflects, we understand that the employee housing development is subject to the pricing guidelines, and to the extent that said project can be built and operated with- in said guidelines, it will be done. In the event that properly allocated costs or charges should result in those pricing guidelines being potentially breached, then, at that time, either a reduction in the services or maintenance will be made or a request to the City will be made to allow for an amendment of the pricing guidelines in that particular respect. Although it is everybody's intention to build and operate the project within the pricing guidelines indicated, both the City and the owner from either experience or research are aware that no accurate "crystal balling" can be guaranteed. 3. Simultaneous Construction: On Page 6 in the paragraph immediate preceding Article III, language was added to address your concern with respect to the requirement of substantially simultaneous construction of the employee units along with the free market units. This was done in a manner to reflect the intent of the parties to follow such simultaneous construction, with the pragmatic allowance for minor variances to conform to construction schedules and efficiencies. To insert a specific number of days beyond which would breach the "minor variations" issue only invites an arbitrary framework that is not in rela- tion to any particular time that reflects experience in con- struction scheduling or particular attention to the anticipated structured management of this particular project. 4. Land Dedication/"Passive" Open Space: Although some changes were made to Article IV on Page 8 to reflect the intent of the parties to deem the employee housing development a mod- erate income housing development, and to provide more specifics by way of exhibit as to the value formula utilized for land dedication purposes, the open space restrictions remain sub- stantially the same as originally drafted, again with the thought in mind that the City (both P&Z and Council) have pur- sued the reservation of such open space in a manner that is intended to reflect its passive nature. To the extent that any internal agencies or staff within the City may disagree with this policy, it would occur to me incumbent upon them to resolve their own inconsistency internally in a manner that would reflect a continuation of the City's overall consistent policy with this particular project, which is to maintain the largest amount of passive open space possible. This issue has been a major issue in the project and resulted in an approxi- mate one year delay because of constant relocation of the -4 4 .. . Paul Taddune, Esq. Aspen City Attorney May 20, 1981 Page 3 employee housing development in a manner that allows the reten- tion of the "entrance to Aspen" in the maximum manner possible and to allow the reservation of as much passive open space as possible. To attempt to amend this philosophy because of some internal code justifications at this late date appears to me to be inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the City's direc- tives during this process. 5. Neil Beck Rights: Under Article V, Paragraph B 5, on Pages 10-11, additional language was added to attempt to more specifically address the nature of the rights that accrue to Neil Beck in his current possession ofÂ· the Lot 3 land therein referenced. 6. Roadway Improvement Maintenance: Under Article V, Paragraph D 3 (a) a specific allocation is made as to the on-going maintenance and care of Holden Road (interim roadway improvements) based upon the 70/30 housing mix. Although I do add some language in there with respect to allowance to provide a different formula reflecting equitable use, I would suggest that any addressing of equitable use may result in more burdens to the employee housing development. For example, a stretch of Holden Road beginning with the entrance to the free market pro- ject and running all the way down to the employee housing development cul de sac should equitably be maintained 100% by the employee housing development, and the stretch of roadway beginning with the Cemetery Lane intersection with Highway 82 and running to the entrance to free market units should be split on a 70/30 basis if one looks at the use allocation as it should apply on a per unit basis. This would appear to be somewhat more onerous than the 70/30 split indicated in the Agreement, although it is probably more reflective of an equit- able arrangement that addresses actual use. 7. Title to Employee Development Land: This issue has been more particularly addressed under a new Article VIII on Page 17 in an attempt to set the parameters around which the City would accept title to such land to assist in the efforts of improving and maintaining the employee housing project. 8. Price Guidelines: A new Article IX on Page 18 has been added to attempt to address the pricing guideline restrictions and how they would work with this particular project, along with adjustments to such pricing guidelines that would be reflective of at least the most recent adjustment formula utilized with such guidelines. 0 . .. Paul Taddune, Esq. Aspen City Attorney May 20, 1981 Page 4 In addition to the above more major items, the issues of additional parking, short-term rental restrictions, and deed restrictions are covered by adding new sections, XI, XII, and XIII, respectively, to the Agreement on Page 20. You will note that the provisions addressing water rights, their value, and potential trading have remained the same. As indicated earlier, it is the undersigned's firm and continuing belief that those areas that allow for City subsidy should be addressed in a substantive manner in order to allow the employee housing development to move forward without greatly sacrificing the quality of the resulting product. I have enclosed herewith some additional material relative to the water rights issue, and would again urge the City to consider this issue as a material one to the success of the employee project. It will be appreciated if you will cause an expeditious review of the enclosed Agreement. Upon your review, and should you find any matters of material concern to you, please re-draft that particular concern and submit to me for review. As you are aware, we have a brief time within which to cause the finalization of this Agreement, and the extent to which same can be done in the immediate future will assist us in pursuing the time schedules necessary to attempt cost-effective pursuit of matters herein contained. Thank you for your attention. Very truly yours, JAMES M. MULLIGAN, A Professional Corporation James M. Mulligan JMM:cdw Enclosures ec: Bob Edmondson, Esq. Sonny Vann Cary D. Clark The Marolt Family James W. Buchanan, III Al Brandt James Otis, Jr. .. CLIENT: MAROLT ASSOCIATES ) ) MEMORANDUM RE: WATER RIGHTS NEGOTIATIONS) OF WITH CITY OF ASPEN ) POSITION ) DATE: May 22, 1981 ) Within the on-going perspective of co-operative subsidy between the City of Aspen and Marolt Associates in connection with an attempt to provide employee housing within The Marolt Ranch subdivision, have been discussions concerning the City's willingness or non-willingness to apply the implementation of its co-operative subsidy to assistance with the fees connected with water taps and plant investment fees. The basic premise of Marolt Associates has been that waivers of such fees (water tap and PIF) by the City through some allowed procedure will be necessary in order for the employee housing project contemplated within The Marolt Ranch to be successfully completed. To date, discussions with personnel within the City, including varying representatives of the City Attorney's office, the City Manag- er's office, the City Planning Office, and the City Water Department have indicated perspective that addresses the issue of whether or not any water rights that The Marolt Ranch may have appurtenant to it have any value, as opposed to the issue of how can we accomplish a subsidy that will allow for a partial .. or full waiver of these costs to the employee portion of the " project. Of course, this perspective does not allow for con- structive discussion, but appears to place the context within the inevitable "apples and oranges" status. In an attempt to place a constructive perspective on the issues, this office has done some further research with the aoove-referenced personnel, the respective City Codes, and herein will attempt to set forth The Marolt Associate's approach, and some facts pertinent to the water situation. 1. CO-OPERATIVE SUBSIDY: As indicated via previous discussions and correspond- ence with City personnel, this water issue is being pursued within the larger framework of a co-operative subsidy concept originally discussed and agreed to between the City and Marolt Associates. All parties were aware from the beginning that the implementation of a quality employee housing project that would fall within the pricing guidelines desired by the City required the implementation of a "public-private partnership" that would allow joint co-operation and subsidizing to allow for the realization of such a project. The first stage of such co-op- eration was the negotiation of adequate zoning densities to allow Marolt Associates or assigns sufficient reasonable incen- tive in pursuit of the free market portion of the project to justify an employee housing project that would itself be at cost to the eventual developer. The oft quoted "Robin Hood" -2- .. concept of having the free market side of such a project "sub- sidize" the employee side of such a project was a portion of this contemplated arrangement, with the City's on-going commit- ment to assist in this effort to the extent possible. Marolt Associaties has pursued this effort throughout the platting process, and via open space transfers, direct expenditures of dollars for professionals to work with the City on a continuing basis, direct cost subsidies projected for the project, land transfers for the project itself at no cost, and related sub- sidies has provided "Robin Hood" valued subsidies to the pro- ject in excess of $2 Million. Much negotiation ensued to have the City approving a free market site density that would allow potential reasonable return to Marolt Associates, and this density on the free market side has been a long and arduous series of approvals, denials, reconsiderations, and justifica- tions and ultimate reductions that make the above-referenced "Robin Hood" subsidies questionable from an incentive stand- point to Marolt Associates. Despite this, there has been an indicated reluctance on the City's part to provide any indirect subsidies by way of waiver of fees, deferral of property tax assistance, and related issues, requiring at the time of each such request further negotiation, justification, and added research that only encumbers Marolt Associates' subsidy by fur- ther dollars and makes the free market incentive marginal at best. It is within this context that Marolt Associates is -3- .. regretably hearing again the City's reluctance to provide any â€ž type of assistance in this cost-based area of water taps and PIFs. 2. WATER ISSUE: As above indicated, the request for partial or full waiver of water taps or PIFs is being pursued within the larger perspective of cooperative subsidy, and in this context was thought to be sufficient justification in and of itself. Reluctance on the part of the City Water Department, the City Planner's Office, the City Attorney's office and the City Manager's Office to address this as a viable issue has resulted in the necessity to do further research in regard to this particular issue. As a result, the following information is provided: A. Resolution No. 2, Series 1976 - This Resolution appears to authorize the City Manager to acquire any water rights which are appurtenant to land proposed for annexation, subdivision, or development permit issuance. The method of acquisition is left open to the City Manager, which may be by gift, sale, lease, option, right of first refusal, or otherwise. No provision is made for requiring land owners without appurtenant water rights to purchase water rights for dedication, or in lieu thereof to pay cash. The City has -4- .. expanded this Resolution by interpretation, particularly when " considering the new water policy that has yet to be implemented by the City. For example, in the event that the transferable water rights are less than the anticipated consumptive use, the City has required the developer to purchase other rights on the open market and convey same to the City in order to make up a deficit, or in the alternative, to do the same by way of cash payment in lieu of water. There are some serious questions about the viability of this approach, including the fact that the policy is by resolution without the force and effect of an ordinance, and the interpretation of such Resolution being somewhat overbroad in nature. The method of acquisition in such vague and indefinite format leaves open the possibility of addressing the issue of "taking" of property without just compensation. B. Equal Treatment - With respect to the PIF fees, we have been informed that in-City units whether employee housing or free market in nature, are charged a standard PIF rate. Out-of-City free market units are assessed a 100% surcharge, apparently because they do not contribute to the City's tax basis. Opposed to this, however, is the fact that out-of-City employee housing projects in the past have, at the discretion of City Council, received a subsidy in the form of 50% credit of fees. No such credit appears to apply to those units located within the City. Does the reduced fee charged -5- .. out-of-City employee housing units end up discriminating against in-City employee housing units as to amount to a violation of equal protection concepts? Additionally, we have been informed that the City, under certain limited circumstances in the past, has had the City general fund pay the PIF fees for a particular project, thereby relieving the developer of such responsibility. The specific instances have not been garnered yet, but requests for research of same have been made and are being pursued. This is a precedent setting issue and should be of import to the City Council in determining direction. Lastly, the City's own water plant housing project has benefited from the City's awareness of the difficulties associated with employee housing construction costs. The project will pay no property taxes, and will be allowed to defer the cost of its PIF fees over a number of years by note execution or other appropriate arrangements. That project has been substantially completed and is in the process of occupancy, with no PIF fees paid and no specific arrangements completed yet as to their deferred payment plan. With the above facts in mind and the obvious "public purpose" that is served by the construction of such employee housing, there appears to me to be sufficient factual basis to have the City address some assistance in this regard, even beyond the previously committed co-operative subsidy approach that the City has made to Marolt Associates in this project. -6- .. In summary, the City has previously committed to Marolt Associates to pursue a co-operative subsidy concept with this project, and within that framework, Marolt Associates has requested the City's assistance with the high cost of the water related fees, since this is within the jurisdiction of the City to pursue (i.e., as opposed to sewer tap fees). With such perspective in mind, and the facts above enumerated, it appears somewhat inconceivable for the City to be reluctant to approach this concept in a co-operative posture. -7- . .. X . P.U.D. AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR THE MAROLT RANCH City of Aspen State of Colorado 0 0 . P.U.D. AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR THE MAROLT RANCH TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Section I. General Development Plan .......... 2 Section II. Construction of Improvements ........ 4 Section III. Easements, Rights of Way, and Relocations .. 6 Section IV. Dedications .......... ...... 8 Section V. Open Space and Common Area Management, Maintenance and Use ........ .... 8 Section VI. Water Rights and Availability .......16 Section VII. Sewer Availability ......... ... . 17 Section VIII Employee Development - Title ........17 Section IX. Employee Housing - Price Guidelines .....18 Section X. Financial Assurances ........... . 19 Section XI. Additional Parking .............20 Section XII. Restrictions on Short-Term Rentals .....20 Section XIII. Deed Restrictions ..............20 Section XIV. Miscellaneous .............. . 21 Exhibit A Legal Description Exhibit B Table of Site Data Tabulation Exhibit C Construction and Development Schedule Exhibit D Improvement Responsibility Schedule Exhibit E Relative Water Rights and Fee Values Exhibit F Improvement Completion Percentage Schedule .. P.U.D. AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR THE MAROLT RANCH This P.U.D. and Subdivision Agreement is made and entered into this day of , 1981 by and between THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, a Municipal Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and MAROLT ASSOCIATES, a Colorado general partnership (hereinafter referred to as "the Owner"). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the Owner has submitted to the City for approval, execution and recordation, the final plat and development plan of a tract of land situate within the City of Aspen, Colorado, legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and designated as "The Marolt Ranch Subdivision" ("The Plat"); and WHEREAS, the City has caused the rezoning of the real prop- erty covered by said Plat so as to result in a zoning of R-15A PUD and providing for certain exemptions and special review processes; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered said Plat, the pro- posed development and the improvement of the land therein, and the burdens to be imposed upon other adjoining or neighboring properties by reason of the proposed development and improvement of land included in the Plat; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to approve, execute, and accept for recordation that Plat upon agreement of the Owner to the matters hereinafter described, and subject to all of the requirements, terms and conditions of the City of Aspen PUD and subdivision regulations now in effect and other laws, rules and regulations as are applicable; and WHEREAS, the City in_accordance with this P.U.D. -and Sub-- division Agreement-, has imposed certain conditions and require- ments in connection with its approval, execution and recordation of the Plat, and such matters are necessary to protect, promote, and enhance the public welfare; and . WHEREAS, under the authority of Section 20-16 (C) and " 24-8.6 of the Municipal Code of the City, the City is entitled to assurance before acceptina the final olat, that the matters hereinafter agreed to will be faithfully performed by the Owner; NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE PREMISES, the mutual covenants herein contained, and the approval, execution and acceptance of the Plat for recordation by the City, it is mutually agreed as follows: I. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN The Marolt Ranch development as shown on the attached Plat is composed of various elements comprising the total platted area, and those elements include the following: A. Lot 1 - Shall constitute the "employee housing" or "deed restricted" development as is further referenced herein- after, which parcel may at Owner's option, be transferred to the City in conjunction with a long term lease-back of the ground to Marolt Associates or assigns for improvement and development, as more specifically referenced under Sentinn VTTT herein; B. Lot 2 - Shall constitute the "free market development" as further referenced hereinafter, and shall be owned, improved, marketed and sold by the Owner; C. Lot 3 - This parcel, as shown on the Plat, shall. be dedicated to the City for its use, which use includes the pos- sibility of leasing said parcel to_Neil Beck by way of a leas- ing right of first refusal; provided, however, that certain use, maintenance and management standards are mutually agreed to between the City and the Owner as further set forth under Article Y herein; D. Lots 4-6 - Shall be subject to restricted sale by the,0 Owner to the three adjacent property owners, such restrictions to be included-within the conveyance document, shall be in the nafure- of covenantsrunning with the land, shall include the prohibition of any building improvements on such lands, and. s-hall further stipulate that the owner receiving such lands sh_@11 receive no change or increase in development rights by virtue of the added acreage resulting_ from such conveyance_j E. Open Space 1 - Shall be dedicated to the City for open space in perpetuity, with specific management, maintenance and -2- .. use guidelines satifactory to the Owner as further set forth herein; F. Open Space 2 - Constitutes the river corridor and shall be dedicated_to the City for open space in perpetuity with specific management, maintenance, and use guidelines within the context of maintaining river corridor conservation lands, as further set forth herein; G. Cemetery Lane R.O.W. - Shall constitute the Cemetery Lane extension providing for 100' right of way dedicated to the City for a future roadway alignment between State Highway No. 82 and Castle Creek Road as further shown on the Plat; H. Main Street R.O.W. - Shall constitute the Main Street extension equalling a 150' right of way dedicated to the City of Aspen for future road alignment of such possible Main Street extension, as is further shown on the attached Plat. I. City Parcel - The currently owned City parcel, commonk kno-wras- the "Thomas-property", located contiguous and immed- I-ately to the west of the platted property, shall be made subÂ·~_ jedt-to such easements and/or restrictions, as required, to_ illow for its use for the alignment of Cemetery Lane at the_ -intersection of Highway 82 and its extension for connection to_ tli-6-Cemetery Lane right-of-way referenced hereinabove, the_ necessary reservation of property to extend the connection to_ the above referenced Main Street right-of-way, and such addi- tional Op-en-space restrictions as apply to Open Space Numbei71_ herginabove referenced to those portions of said City parc-@1 that lay between the Cemetery Lane alignment, the Main Street r~_ght-of-way extension and the subject property.__Such restriction shall be in a form and manner as to insure propeL access to the subject property over and across the City parcel f.or title insurance purposes, and to further allow for the _c_on- stru_ction of the alignment of Cemetery Lane and its future_ -exte_ns.ion as_ further_-referenced__he_rein. For further and more specific allocation of the uses antic- ipated within the various parcels indicated above, reference is hereby made to the "Table of Site Data Tabulations" attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference. The submitted Plat anticipates, in major part, the improve- ment of the lands by the construction of two distinct develop- ments, one of which shall be deed or covenant restrictive in accordance with the provisions of Section 24-11.4(b)(3) of the Municipal Code as those provisions apply to low, moderate and middle income housing, and to the extent those provisions allow for exceptions from the growth management quota system pursuant -3- .. to Section 24-11.2(i) of the Municipal Code, and the second portion of said development shall be improved as a "free market" development. It is further acknowledged that although the ownership of the land beneath the two developments may be distinct as referenced, the construction and ownership of the improvements for both developments will be under the auspices of the Owner. In consideration of the dual nature of the two developments which constitute a major portion of the improvements anticipated on the enclosed plat, cost allocations for the projects will need to be made for the improvements and resulting costs indi- cated under this P.U.D. and Subdivision Agreement. The parties hereto acknowledge that a general guideline for cost allocation and proration shall follow the relationship of each develop- ment's number of units to the total number of units approved for development upon the Plat. In connection herewith, it is currently understood and agreed that the deed or covenant restricted development shall constitute units equaling 70 per- cent of the total number of units approved on the Plat, and the free market development shall constitute 30 percent of the total number of units approved on the Plat. For purposes of specificity, the cost allocations for the improvements required hereunder are further set forth on Exhibit "D" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and the parties hereto mutually accept such allocations. Additionally .it _12.- anticipated that certain on-going costs of maintenance, repair, and replacement of-6-6-FE-di-A 6 f tli-e -imp-r-ovenients to be~-pla-ded on- the subject will be appropriate for "sharing" between the two_ developments above-referenced. Notwithstanding the above guideline and unless specifically provided for otherwise hereinafteri such sharing of on-going maintenance, rebuir, and replacement costs attributable to such commonly used improve-- ments shall be based upon an equitable formula which is reflee- TIVe--of the amount of usage normally attr_ibutable to. e_ach --development as to such improvementic II. CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS A. Nature and Estimated Costs of Improvements: - Owner hereby agrees to be responsible for the construction and installation of the improvements to be contained within the developments indicated on the attached plat, to the extent required by Section 20-16(A) of the Municipal Code, the nature, extent and estimated cost of such improvements (along with their allocation between the two developments contained on the attached plat) being more specifically set forth on Exhibit "D", entitled "Improvement Responsibility Schedule", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The costs -4- .. shown on Exhibit "D" as referenced, are based on certain assumptions, including assumptions related to the timing of final plat approval, expeditious and timely scheduling of con- struction, no substantial delays based on acts of God and other matters beyond the control of the owner or its assigns, avail- ability of required labor and materials continuously throughout the construction of improvements, non-interruption of the con- struction operations through the 1981-82 winter season, and sufficient premarketing and marketing activity to justify timely construction of the improvements consistent with the schedule referenced under paragraph B hereinbelow. Such-cos-tfi may require amendment in the event any delay should occur as a result of said assumptions proving false despite good faith__ efforts of the owner or assigns; provided, however, that_ su_ch_ 08-Â§T a d just-nfan-ti - s haII--ho t affect the price guideline restric- lion-rplaced_upon-the-"employe#_housing" or "deed _Kestricted" deve_lo_ament as_furthey set fprt_h under Section I X hereinafter. B. Construction Schedule - The development and construction schedule required by Section 20-16(C)(1), and Section 24-8.9(B) of the Municipal Code are more specifically set forth under Exhibit "C", entitled "Construction and Development Schedule", which schedule also includes the anticipated construction dates for the beginning and completion of the improvements, the sequence of construction and phasing, including the phasing of the construction of public improvements, recreational, park, and common space areas. Certain assumptions have been made in connection with the projected and estimated scheduling set forth in Exhibit "C" and said scheduling is subject to and con- ditioned upon those assumptions being accurate, which assump- tions include the following: 1) Final approval of the plat submitted herewith along with all other documentation related thereto, and record- ation of said final plat prior to July 1, 1981; 2) Negotiation, arrangement and completion of pre- construction activity by owner or owner's assigns, including bidding, contractor selection, and contractor mobilization prior to the projected starting date of August 1, 1981; 3) Ratification of the estimated constuction and development schedule by the selected contractors; 4) Immediate availability of the required labor forces and construction materials at all necessary phases throughout the project; 5) Non-interruption of the construction operations through the 1981-1982 winter months; and 6) Pre-marketing and marketing activity with respect to the free market units at a rate which would justify the con- struction schedule indicated, without the necessity of con- structing and completing units on speculation. -5- T. .. In the event the above assumptions are not met because of " any actions, direct or indirect, which are in any manner or form not under the direct control of the owner or the owner's assigns, then the estimated construction and development schedules shall be deemed to be delayed for a time sufficient to allow for the necessary assumptions to be met. Further, and in connection with the above-referenced "con- struction and development schedule", it is the intention and agreement of the owner or assigns, and a material requirement under this agreement, that the construction and development of the free market development and the "employee housing" or "deed | restricted" development occur in a substantially simultaneous fashion, so as to result, to the extent reasonably appropriate, in a substantially simultaneous issuance of certificates of occupancy as between the two developments. Minor variances from such simultaneous construction and issuance of certificates of occupancy shall be allowed in order to accommodate efficiency of construction scheduling, individual' building construction, and related matters, but in no event shall a permanent certifi- cate of occupancy be issued on all of the free market units until such time as the "employee housing" or "deed restricted" units have been completed to the point of allowing certificates of occupancy to issue. Notwithstanding the above, and so long as any phased construction allows for a substantial simultaneous construction activity as between the two developments, based on a formula reflective of the 70/30 housing mix, the City specif- ically agrees to issue "temporary" certificates of occupancy on individual free market units as they come on line for comple- tion and occupancy. It is the intention of this paragraph to require "substantial" compliance with a simultaneous construe- tion schedule in line with the housing mix as referenced, recognizing that efficiency in building scheduling, material supplies, and construction activity may dictate minor variances from "technical" compliance with the letter of such simultan- eous construction, and the parties hereto recognize and agree to such variances. Nothing herein shall prevent the owner or assigns from construction and completion of the "deed restricted" units in advance of the "free market" units. III. EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY, AND RELOCATIONS The attached Plat sets forth certain easements, rights of way, and anticipated relocations that will be necessary to cause the improvements anticipated thereon, which easements, rights of way and relocations include the following: A. Main Street Right Of Way - As indicated under Section I hereinabove, and as shown on the attached Plat, the Owner ahall dedicate to the City a 150' right of way for the potential -6- .. future extension of Main Street. The exact location and legal description of such right of way are as further set forth on the Plat attached hereto. B. Cemetery Lane Extension, Easements and Relocation - The Owner agrees to relocateÂ·the intersection of Cemeterylane-with- State Highway No.--82 to allow for Cemetery Lane's -alignment_ with the right-of-way referenced on the attached plat, and to_ furt-fre-r- dedicate to-the- City (in--6-0 ri-junction with the City'g- restriction of the portion of such Cemetery Lane alitinmen_Las~ is--included within the Thomas property ano as is further refer- enced he reinabove), a one hundred foot (100' ) right-of-way -fog th-e proposed future extension of Cemetery 1@ne_ _aa. is furthe-E shb-*fi 06 the attached plat. _Such Cemetery Lane alignment-and extension as provided by both the City and owner herein shall lil-Ibi- for su-ch easements as will satisfy the title insurabilit-1 Af-0- ideeds to the subject property over and across such re_z_ a-ligned--andext-erid-dd- Cemetery Lane roadway and right-of-wqx_: C. Gas Company Building and Gas Line Easement - The City and the Owner hereby agree to an easement for the continued existence of the Gas Company Building currently located on the property covered by the Plat, together with an easement for the maintenance of a gas line, both the easement for the building and the gas line as further specifically referenced and located on the attached Plat. D. Cross Easements - The City and the Owner hereby specif- ically agree to provide any and all necessary cross easements for access over and across parcels to be respectively owned, and such cross easements shall be deemed to include those shown on the referenced Plat with the intent that the nature of such easements shall be to afford necessary access to and from the public highways to the respective parcels. E. Ditch Relocations and Pondinq - The City hereby_approves the relocation and ppÂ®ing-0-f_-ttpe w-a-te-ra-F-Tn di 6-61ed--on the... attached plat. F. Utilities and Drainage - There is hereby established and agreed between the City and the Owner necessary easements for the relocation, installation and maintenance of utilities and the establishment and maintenance of drainage, as such easements are specifically set forth on the utility sheets, the utility relocation sheets, and the drainage sheets as appended to the attached Plat. G. Miscellanous - All easements, rights of way and reloca- tions as are shown on the attached Plat but not specifically -7- .. referenced hereinabove are hereby established, authorized and approved by the City and agreed to by the Owner. IV. OTHER DEDICATIONS In accordance with Section 20-18 of the Municipal Code, the following dedications and/or exemptions apply: A. Exemption - The "employee housing" or "deed restricted" housing development contained within Lot 1 of the general development plan, as referenced under Article I hereinabove, and shown on the attached plat, is hereby deemed and agreed to_ constitute (for purposes of the herein agreemen_U a bona fide moderate income housing development, and the Owner and City hereby agree to the exemption of same from the application of Section 20-18 of the Municipal Code. For clarification pur- po_ses, the City and owner, in their deliberations over the price guidelines referenced under Section IX hereinafter, anticipates that the-Fric-i-n-0-ir-65Â£Â¥i-Et-IBA-Â©-id - st-ate-Es-fiill fall Within the "moderate iticom-e" categoriat the time that said units are ready for occupancy, and such anticipation ha_i resulted-3.h--the-placing of._saig emplgy@_e.un.its _within_.thi "moderate income housing devel_opmgnt'-LgategornÂ· B. Land Dedication - With respect to the dwelling units contained within the "free market development" referenced as Lot 2 under Article I hereinabove, and as further shown on the attached plat, the Owner elects to provide and City hereby accepts, land dedications, by way of open space and right- of-way transfers elsewhere herein referenced and City accepts same as having a value sufficient to at least meet the require- ments of Section 20-18 of the Municipal Code concerning the requirement of the dedications therein referenced. Further reference is hereby made to Exhibit "G" entitled "Land De dicg- TIo-n Schedule" for the value formula arrived at, V. OPEN SPACE AND COMMON AREA MANAGEMENT, MAINTENANCE AND USE A. General - As referenced under Article I hereinabove, the plat herein referenced consists of certain parcels which include open space dedicated to the City, dedicated rights of way for future alignment and current extension of roadways, and two interior developments which will contain common areas and cross-easements for access, ingress, and egress. It is the -8- .. intent of this Article to address respective responsibilities, limitations, covenants, and mutual agreements with respect to the management, maintenance and use of the open space, rights of way, and common area parcels contained within the plat as indicated. B. Open Space And Right-of-Way Use Limitations - With respect to the open space and right-of-way parcels referenced under Article I hereinabove and further set forth on the attached plat, the Owner's public dedication thereof to the City is expressly conditioned upon and made subject to the City's use of such open space and right-of-way parcels being subject to certain specified use limitations, as follows: 1. Open Space 1 Category: Those portions of the attached plat which are designated as "Open Space 1" further referenced under Article I hereinabove, shall be expressly limited to an open space designation that requires said parcels to retain their natural growth and vegatation, with no recrea- tional or other active use, allowed that would interfere with or cause damage to the natural growth and vegetation contained thereon. It is the intent of this limitation that no disrup- tion of the natural growth and vegetation contained within the open space parcel shall be allowed, and that said parcel shall be retained in its natural state, with no improvements, activ- ity, or other action taken by the City or its designee that would allow for any interruption of such natural state, with the sole exception of any necessary easements for the installa- tion, maintenance, repair, and replacement of trails within the planned trail system, underground utilities, telephone or other such underground servicing improvements as may be necessary to complete the improvements anticipated by the attached plat and the herein agreement, and such other uses as may be specifical- ly approved in writing by the owners of Lots 1 and 2 above-ref- erenced from time to time. 2. Open Space 2 Category: That portion of the attached plat designated as "Open Space 2" further referenced under Article I hereinabove, shall be limited in use to the extent necessary to retain its natural state as a river corri- dor, with no uses, improvements, activity, or other action allowed that will cause any interruption or interference with such natural river corridor state which currently exists; pro- vided, however, that the City shall be allowed limited clearing and improvement within this open space 2 category sufficient to allow for the installation, maintenance, repair and replacement of any minimal trails and trail easements necessary and antici- pated to allow for the inter-connection of the trails system anticipated by the attached plat, and provided further, that -9- .. there shall be allowed such easements for the ins-callati_on, maintenance, repair and re pla_Re-ment_of underground service fabilities -and systems necessary to cause the completion of the improvements and developments anticipated by the attached plat and the herein agreement, and such other uses as may be specif- ically allowed from time to time, evidenced by written agree- ment, by the owner of Lots 1 and 2 above-referenced. 3. Main Street Right-Of-Way: That portion of the attached plat designated as "Main Street R.O.W." as further referenced under Article I hereinabove, shall be reserved sole- ly for use as an extension of the Main Street corridor, in the event such corridor is actually approved and constructed. At all other times during which such Main Street corridor shall not be in existence, the property contained within the parcel known as the "Main Street R.O.W." shall be preserved and its use limited by the provisions of sub-subparagraph 1 and sub-subparagraph 2 hereinabove, those portions of such parcel which would normally be contained within the category known as Open Space 1 being limited by the uses anticipated for such category, and those portions of the Main Street R.O.W. parcel that would otherwise be contained within Open Space 2 being limited by such respective uses. 4. Cemetery Lane R.O.W.: That portion of the attached plat categorized as "Cemetery Lane R.O.W." as further referenced under Article I hereinabove, shall be limited in use solely to improvements in the nature of extending Cemetery Lane from its intersection with State Highway 82 through and includ- ing its connection with Castle Creek Road, along with any necessary lighting, signage, easements, paving, curb and gutter landscaping, and other necessary improvements to allow for the roadway extension's compliance with necessary state, county, and municipal codes, as well as compliance with the provisions of the attached plat and the herein agreement. At all times during which the Cemetery Lane extension improvements are not required or necessary, the land contained within the "Cemetery Lane R.O.W." parcel shall be limited in its use to those uses consistent with the allowances provided under the Open Space 1 category hereinabove referenced. 5. Lot 3 Use Limitations - That portion of the attached plat which is designated as "Lot 3" and as further referenced under Article I hereinabove, shall be reserved and used subject to the same limitations as those imposed upon "Open Space 1" and "Open Space 2" categories above-referenced, as portions of Lot 3 might have otherwise been included in either of those two respective categories; provided, however, the City shall be allowed to lease said property to the current -10- .. user of same, Neil Beck, and that such lease may allow for the continuation of its current use as a "non-conforming use" so long as the same tenant occupies the premises under such lease for the same purposes. As referenced Â®ove 1_the lea.sing .of said property to Neil Beck shall- be pu-rsuant to a "leasing -r.ight of first refusal". For purposes of the herein agreentent -such leasing right of first refusal in Neil Beck shall and_ hereby does require the City to grant unto Neil Beck a right o{ first refusal-to lea-se said property frb-ni-th-6 Cit-Â£ for purposes- previously -and EUr-rentl~-utiliz@d-by Neil Beck in the event the CI-9- pufsues a leasing or rental of said property to outside users rot othey than City purposes.- - Theterms and condilions of such lease shall be no less favoraole than that offered by 0-f-Uo the City at the time of such leasing/rental. The City. -fu-Yther recognize-g- Neil Beckrs- current possession o f said property, and shall allow Mr. Beck's continued possession of same pursuant to muTO~Ally agreeable terms and conditions. In the event the City desires to take said lands out of the 1-gise/rental marketplace and utilize same for City purposes, Mr. Beck shall be entitled to ninety (90) days prior written nbtice of such election by the City in which to vacate the premises and terminate any further possessory rights. 6. Lots 1 and 2: with respect to the parcels indi- cated on the attached plat and under Article I hereinabove as Lots 1 and 2, respectively, the uses thereon shall be limited to those uses allowed under the particular zone category as applicable, the attached plat, and the herein PUD and subdivi- sion agreement, with any breaches thereof to be remedied as is currently provided Dy law. 7. Default/Remedies. In the event the City, follow- ing the dedication and reservation anticipated by the attached plat and the herein agreement with respect to the above-refer- enced categories, should allow, encourage, or participate in any action which would result in a breach of the above-refer- enced use limitations as to any specific parcel category, then and in such event, the Owner or the Owner's successors or assigns, shall have a right to re-enter upon the respective parcel and cause an abatement of such breach by any legal process allowable, including injunctive relief, and the costs for such abatement, including court costs and reasonable attor- ney's fees, shall be borne by the City. In the event such abatement is impractical or impossible by reason of the nature and extent of the action taken by the City in breach of the above limitations, then the Owner, or its successors or assigns, shall be entitled to re-enter the property, evict the City or its designee from occupation or possession thereof, and receive a re-conveyance of title to such parcel upon which the breach of use has occurred. -11- .. C. Management - The management of the properties contained ~ within the attached plat shall be governed by the following: 1. Open Space, Rights of Way and Lot 3: With respect to the categories on the attached plat and under Article I hereinabove labeled as Open Space 1, Open Space 2, Main Street R.O.W., Cemetery Lane R.O.W. and Lot 3, the management and supervision thereof shall be the responsibility and cost of City, and shall be conducted pursuant to the provisions and intent of the attached plat and the herein PUD and Subdivision Agreement; provided however, that at all times such management and supervision shall be subject to proper easements for access, ingress and egress over, across, and through such cate- gories of property to the benefit of the owners and occupants of the units contained within Lots 1 and 2 on the attached plat. 2. Lot 1: As indicated, Lot 1 is anticipated to be improved by the construction of Aeyenty_(701. dwelling units, pursuant to provisions elsewhere contained herein and on the attached plat. Although documents are intended to be filed against Lot 1 submitting same to either the provisions of the Colorado Condominium Ownership Act or to a cooperative f g_rm_g_11 ownersh_imt it is currently anticipated that the units contained within Lot 1 will be operated initially as deed restricted rental units, with such units converted to "for sale" ownership units at such time as the market dictates and the City agrees. During such time as the units contained within Lot 1 are oper- ated as rental units, the necessary condominium association and condominium declaration or cooperative housing corporation- shall be under the contro-I- an-d direction of the Owner or the Owner's successors or assigns. Pursuant thereto, the Owner shall cause the management of the units contained within Lot 1 pursuant to a professional property management contract which contract will allow for the private management of said units consistent with first-class property management policies, including such leases, rules, regulations, fine systems, park- ing requirements, and other policies and procedures that will enhance the liveability and quality of such residential living environments. The responsibility for such management shall rest with the Owner, or its successors or assigns during such time as the property is retained as a rental community, and the management shall be the responsibility of a properly-formed and activated condominium pr cooperative association, at such time as the units therein contained are converted to "for sale" ownership status by separate deeds or stock. Such management contract shall also provide for the proper management and supervision of the common facilities, including the proper and on-going maintenance thereof, and necessary budgets and reserves shall be allocated to provide for proper deferred maintenance and reserves for replacements as necessary to maintain a quality living environment. -12- .. 3. Lot 2: As indicated elsewhere herein, Lot 2 shall 4 be improved by the construction of th.irty (301 free market dwelling units, which free market development shall be sub- mitted to the provisions of the Colorado Condominium Ownership Act. Pursuant thereto, a condominium association will be formed by the filing of necessary Articles of Incorporation, and the establishing of By-Laws, Condominium Declarations, Association budget and Association Rules and Regulations suffi- cient to meet the provisions of the Colorado Statutes applic- able thereto, and to cause the adequate management and mainten- ance of all common facilities included within Lot 2 in a manner to reflect a first-class residential living community. D. Maintenance - With respect to the maintenance of the various parcels contained within the attached plat, and as further referenced under Article I hereinabove, the following shall apply: 1. Permanent Care and Maintenance of Open Spaces 1 and 2 and Lot 3: The permanent care and maintenance of those categories known as Open Space 1, Open Space 2 and Lot 3 shall be pursuant to a plan provided, implemented, and borne by the City, such plan of permanent care and maintenance to be consistent with the use limitations and management provisions elsewhere contained herein and to the enhancement of tne development plan shown on the attached plat; including the maintenance of the irrigated meadowlands contained within Open Space 1 in a manner consistent with its current maintenance. 2. Permanent Care and Maintenance of Main Street R.O.W.: The permanent care and maintenance of the Main Street R.O.W. shall be pursuant to a plan provided for, implemented, paid for and borne by the City, and such plan shall be consist- ent with the use limitations and management provisions else- where contained herein. 3. Permanent Care and Maintenance of Cemetery Lane R.O.W.: The permanent care and maintenance of the Cemetery Lane R.O.W. shall be subject to the following: a. Interim roadway improvements: With respect to those portions of the Cemetery Lane R.O.W. that are antici- pated to be improved at the cost of the Owner pursuant to the attached plat and Exhibit "D" attached hereto, the permanent care and maintenance thereof shall be maintained pursuant to a maintenance sharing agreement entered into between the manage- ment entity for Lot 1 and the management entity for Lot 2, with the responsibility for implementation of the plan borne by the management entity for Lot 2. The maintenance sharing agreement -13- .. shall provide for a sharing of the costs between the ownership of Lot 1 and the ownership of Lot 2 that reflects 70% allocation to Lot 1 and 30% allocation to Lot 2 of such costs or such other allocation formula that is mutually agreed to between -th= respective associations that is reflective of an equita_910. Â·sharing of such costs, and the assessments therefor shall be Fefle-Efed in the respective condominium declarations or other governing documenta for Lot 1 and Lot 2 as additional assess- *Ant Â§-subjet-t- to appropriate liens as provided by statute. Such maintenance sharing agreement shall include the repair and replacement of the paving and other improvements to be con- structed by Owner as indicated, snow removal, landscape main- tenance, and other related costs, expenses and tasks connected with the on-going care and maintenance of said improved roadway and related facilities. b. Remainder of Parcel and Permanent Roadway - with respect to the remainder of the Cemetery Lane R.O.W. not included within the interim roadway area above-referenced, and with further respect to the full Cemetery Lane R.O.W. in the event of the full extension of the Cemetery Lane Roadway in a manner that results in its connection to Castle Creek Road and public dedication to the City, the permanent care and mainten- ance thereof shall be pursuant to a plan provided, implemented, and paid for by the City, such plan subject to the use limita- tions and management provisions hereinabove set forth. 4. Lot 1: The permanent care and maintenance of any recreational areas, common parking, common facilities and pri- vate interior streets within Lot 1 shall be pursuant to a prop- erty management contract entered into between the Owner, or its successors or assigns, and a property management company that will allow for sufficient funds and budget categories to pro- vide snow removal services, building and grounds maintenance, and other maintenance services normally provided by such pri- vate professional management companies to allow for the proper care, deferred maintenance, repair and replacement of the facilities contained within Lot 1 during such time that the units therein are operated as a rental development. At such time as the units contained within Lot 1 shall be converted to separate unit ownership by way of transfer of deed Qr stock. then the permanent care and maintenance thereof shall be pro- vided pursuant to a plan that requires the condominium pr co: _operativeassociation to establish a budget, and pursue main- tenance pursuant to proper covenants and assessment provisions contained within the condominium declaration or other governina documents allowing for same. The covenants and provisions shall be contained within the condominium declaration or othu> governing documenti originally filed against the property at -14- . inception, although not necessary to be incurred until such " time as the units are converted to separate ownership. Th e plan shall include the appropriate filing of the necessary documents pursuant to state statute, including the articles of incorporation and Dy-laws for the condominium or cooperative_ association, and condominium declaration or other appropriate_ governing documents, which documents shall meet at least the following requirements: a. The condominium or cooperative-association must be established before any of the units contained within Lot 1 are transferred to separate ownership; b. Membership in the condominium or c.opperative association will be mandatory for each unit or siEck owner, pursuant to the provisions of the Colorado Condominium Owner- ship Act or cooperative housing_itatutes; c. Any open space restrictions contained within Lot 1 must and will De permanent and not for a period of years (subject to long term ground lease, if any); d. The condominium or cooperative association shall be responsible for a blanket liability and hazard insur- ance policy with respect to the common areas as well as main- tenance of recreational and other facilities; e. The condominium pr cooperative_association shall have the power to levy assessments which will become a lien or stock restriction on individual units pr stock_certifi= cates for the purpose of paying the cost of operating and main- taining common facilities; f. The board of managers for the condominium or cooperative association shall consist of at least five (5) members who shall be owners of units within Lot 1. 5. Lot 2: The permanent care and maintenance of the commonly owned facilities, including recreational facilities, parking and any private streets contained within Lot 2 shall be pursuant to a property management agreement entered into between the condominium association and either a professional property management company or employment contracts with per- sonnel of the condominium association. As indicated, Lot 2 shall be submitted to the provisions of the Colorado Condomin- ium Ownership Act, by the filing of a condominium declaration and condominium map, as appropriate, along with the filing of articles of incorporation for the condominium association, by-laws for the condominium association, establishment of a condominium association budget for maintenance and operations, -15- .. 1 and the initiation of rules and regulations with respect " thereto. The documents to be provided with such condominium establishment shall meet at least the following requirements: a. The condominium association will be estab- lished before any of the individual units are sold within Lot 2; b. Membership in the condominium association will be mandatory for each unit owner; c. Any common facility, common area, or open space restrictions will be permanent in nature and not for a period of years; d. The condominium association will be respons- ible for blanket liability and hazard insurance upon the common elements, as well as the maintenance of all common elements thereunder; e. The condominium association shall have the power to levy assessments which will become a lien on individ- ual units for the purpose of paying the cost of operating and maintaining common elements and facilities; f. The board of managers of such condominium association shall consist of at least five (5) members who shall be owners of units within the condominium development. VI. WATER RIGHTS AND AVAILABILITY Owner and City mutually acknowledge that certain water rights accrue to the property which is the subject of the attached plat, which rights have been adjudicated and are titled in the Owner. Additionally, City and Owner recognize that the attached plat will result in a demand for eleven (11)- taps in order to allow for the proper servicing of the needs of the improvements to be constructed thereon. In connection therewith, Owner and City agree to assign an appropriate value to the adjudicated water rights of the Owner, and to the taps necessitated by the anticipated development herein, and pur- suant to respective off-sets, result in a net fee to De paid by Owner to City, which fee would be intended to cover all neces- sary tap fees, plant investment fees, and other fees and charges that may in any manner or form be connected with the installation and hook-up of water service to the property covered hereby. It is understood that these fees are exclusive of any on-going service fees that would be required to continue -16- .. the water servicing to the units contained within Lots 1 and 2 and to the property generally covered hereby. The respective values of the water rights and water taps and fees are hereby acknowledged as equaling those set forth on Exhibit "E", entitled "Relative Water Rights and Fee Values" which relative values, properly off-set, result in net fees payable by the Owner to the City for water installation, hook-up, and other related charges equal to Thirteen Thousand- Four Hundred Twenty-One and 45/100 Dollars ($13,421.45), VII. SEWER AVAILABILITY Sewer lines shall be installed consistent with the provi- sions contained within the utility sheets, the utility reloca- tion sheets and the drainage sheets as shown on the attached plat, and the costs of such installation shall be those estimated amounts as set forth on Exhibit D attached hereto. The City agrees, upon approval of this agreement and the attached plat by the Metropolitan Sanitation District that sewer services are fully available for the development antici- pated on the plat, and that the estimated costs for sewer taps and related fees connected with the installation and hook-up of such sewer services are estimated to be the sum of $86,453.00 as_further referenced in letter labeled as Exhibit "H" and attached hereto. The availability of such sewer services shall be provided by-the Sanitation District in a manner that conforms to the estimated construction and development schedule as set forth on Exhibit C attached hereto. VIII. EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT - TITLE The land contained within Lot 1 above referenced, has been approved by the City for development of seventy (70) "employee housing" or "deed restricted" dwelling units, which dwelling units shall be subject to the rental/sale guidelines established by the City and further referenced hereunder. In , order to assist in the financing of the construction of the ' improvements and/or in the potential deferral of real property taxes to the extent allowable, the owner may be required or ~ desire to deed the ownership of said Lot 1 land to the City. I In the event the owner should be required or should desire to cause the transfer of said lands to the City, the City hereby agrees to accept such transfer of land so long as the acceptance of such title shall in no way incur any direct liability to the City for the maintenance or other costs related to said lands. Further, such transfer to the City must -17- .. occur prior to or simultaneously with the commencement of con- struction of the improvements upon the lands contained within Lot 1, and must be accompanied by a simultaneous lease-back of said lands from the City to the owner or assigns, the terms and conditions of such lease requiring the owner or assigns to cause the full maintenance and upkeep of the lands, and any improvements thereon constructed by the owner or assigns, and to further indemnify City against any costs and/or liability connected with the ongoing use and operation of said lands and any improvements thereon. The terms of such lease-back shall be triple net in nature to further reflect all costs of the property being borne by the lessee (owner or assigns), shall be for such term as mutually agreed between City and owner or assigns, but in no event, shall be less than the agreed to useful life of the improvements to be constructed upon said land, and the rental consideration to be paid to the City by the owner or assigns shall be the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) per year. Such lease-back shall further contain such other terms and provisions as may De deemed necessary or required to effect the intention of the parties in the original transfer of the lands to the City by the owner or assigns, including the allow- ance to construct the improvements anticipated, the creation of such terms and conditions as to allow leasehold financing of the improvements to be constructed, the co-operation of the City in the execution of such documents and/or instruments, and the doing of such acts and/or things as may be necessary or desired to achieve the purposes of the herein agreement in the improvement of said lands by the development and operation of the anticipated "employee housing" or "deed restricted" dwell- ing units. IX. EMPLOYEE HOUSING - PRICE GUIDELINES The "employee housing" or "deed restricted" dwelling units to be constructed upon the subject property within the lands labeled as Lot 1 herein shall be subject to pricing guidelines which will require a maximum rental rate for such units, upon completion, reflecting no greater than seventy cents (700) per square foot, or in the event of the sale of individual units, no greater sales price than Seventy-Six Dollars ($76.00) per square foot. In the event said units or any of them shall not be completed in a manner to allow for the issuance of a certif- icate of occupancy by August 31, 1982, despite good faith dil- igence on the part of owner or assigns in pursuing the con- struction schedule referenced herein, then said pricing guide- lines shall be amended to reflect the greater of the above-ref- erenced guideline figures or the "moderate income" guideline figures for rental or sale, as approved for the period that begins subsequent to the issuance of such certificates of occupancy as such figures are established by the City of Aspen. -18- 0 0 ..1 Notwithstanding the above-referenced "threshold pricing guidelines" as adjusted by delays in occupancy as referenced, said guidelines shall be subject to an annual adjustment ' equalling the greater of eight percent (8%) per annum, or the allowable annual adjustment approved by the City of Aspen as to such restricted units from year to year, commencing with the first year following the issuance of the certificate of occu- pancy for the appropriately restricted unit. X. FINANCIAL ASSURANCES Pursuant to Section 20-16(C) of the Municipal Code, Owner hereby agrees to provide a guaranty for no less than One Hun- dred Percent (100%) of the estimated cost of the improvements to be constructed, which estimated costs, as further set forth ana allocated under Exhibit "D" attached hereto total One Million Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,050,00_Q) as approved by the City Engineer. The guaranty to be provided by Owner shall be in the form of cash escrow with the City or a bank or savings and loan association; or shall be in the form of an irrevocable sight draft or letter of commitment from a financially responsible lender; and such guaranty shall give the City the unconditional right, upon default by the Owner, or its successor or assign, to withdraw funds upon demand to partially or fully complete and/or pay for any improvements or pay any outstanding bills for work done thereon by any party. As portions of the improvements required are completed, the City Engineer shall inspect them, and upon approval and acceptance, he shall authorize the release of the agreed estimated cost for that portion of the improvements; provided, however, that ten percent (10%) of the estimated cost shall be withheld until all proposed improvements are completed and approved oy the City Engineer. For purposes of clarity, the percentage attributable to the estimated costs that are applicable to each stage of completion are as further set forth on Exhibit "F", entitled "Improvement Completion Percentage Schedule", which schedule shall be binding upon the City and Owner with respect to amounts to be released upon the City Engineer's approval of the respective completion stage. To the extent portions of such completion stages as set forth in Exhibit "F" are determinable to be approved severally by the City Engineer, an equitable allocation of funds to be released shall be appliea as and when such partial completions occur. The Owner, its successors or assigns, hereby agrees to fur- ther provide unto City a warranty as to all improvements for a period of one (1) year from and after acceptance by the City as to such improvements. -19- .. The Owner shall further guaranty by a maintenance bond or other suitable means, the repair of any existing improvements damaged during the course of construction of new improvements pursuant to the provisions hereof. f n XI. ADDITIONAL PARKING In consideration of the City's willingness to accept two (2) parking spaces per unit as approved parking allowances within the free market development to be located on Lot 2 here- in, owner, for itself and its assigns, hereby specifically agrees to provide additional parking allowances up to a maximum of one parking space per bedroom at such time as City shall require same as a result of City's determination that such additional parking is necessary to meet the on-going use attributed to the Lot 1 units. In the event such additional parking is deemed necessary, provisions for the location of same have been made as shown under Schedule "I" entitled "Addi- tional Parking Schedule". In the event the City determines that such additional parking, or any portion thereof, is neces- sitated by the on-going use of the Lot 1 units, such additional parking spaces shall be provided within a period of one (1) year from and after notice of such requirement to the owner from the City, such notice to include the City's determination of the need, and proper resolution promulgated by the City with respect to such requirement. XII. RESTRICTIONS ON SHORT-TERM RENTALS As further referenced hereunder, owner intends the improve- ments to be located upon Lot 2 to be submitted to the provisions of the Colorado Condominium Ownership Act, and in connection therewith, the owner understands and acknowledges that such units shall be subject to the provisions of Section 20-22 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code related to restrictions on short-term rentals. In consideration of this restriction, and in the event the owner should pursue improvement of the units contained within Lot 2 in a manner that is distinct from con- dominium ownership, the intent, letter and spirit of the provi- sions of Section 20-22 with respect to such resulting units shall continue to apply against same, despite their form of ownership and/or use. XIII. DEED RESTRICTIONS The units to be constructed within Lot 1 shall be subject to certain "deed restrictions" that are intended to restrict -20 .. the rental/sale of said units to fall within certain pricing " guidelines as further referenced herein. The nature, extent and particulars of such deed restriction language shall be required to be placed against Lot 1, or the respectively resulting units, prior to the issuance of building permits in a ~manner that binds said lands contained within Lot 1. XIV. MISCELLANEOUS A. The provisions hereof shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Owner and City and their respective successors and assigns. B. This agreement shall be subject to and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. C. If any of the provisions of this agreement or any paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, wbrd, or section or the application thereof in any circumstances is invalidated, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this agreement, and the application of any such provision, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or section in any other circumstance shall not be affected thereby. D. This P.U.D. and Subidivison Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties herein with respect to the transactions contemplated hereunder and may be altered or amended from time to time only by written instruments executed by all parties hereto. E. Numerical and title headings contained in this contract are for convenience purposes only, and shall not be deemed determinative of the substance contained herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto executed their hands and seals on the dates and year respectively indicated, in full understanding and agreement to the terms and conditions herein contained. CITY OF ASPEN, A Colorado Municipal Corporation By: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk -21- . I 0 0 0 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ) The above and foregoing P.U.D. and Subdivision Agreement between The City of Aspen, Colorado, a Municipal Corporation and Marolt Associates, a Colorado general partnership was subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 1981 by Herman Edel, Mayor and , City Clerk of the City of Aspen, A Colorado Municipal Corporation. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public MAROLT ASSOCIATES, A Colorado General Partnership Partner Partner Partner Partner STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ) The above and foregoing P.U.D. and Subdivision Agreement between The City of Aspen, Colorado, a Municipal Corporation and Marolt Associates, a Colorado general partnershipwas subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 1981 by - ,and , Partners of Marolt Associates, A Colorado General Partnership. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public -22- ., .. EXHIBIT E â€ž RELATIVE WATER RIGHTS AND FEE VALUES Assumption #1 Based on consumptive use standards applied by counsel to the City, the related uses, current and upon completion, results as follows: a. Current: Owner currently has 2.0 CFS adjudicated rights to the property, which translates to 2.4 acre feet per year, per irrigated acre. The property has 11.78 irrigated acres, resulting in 2.4 x 11.78, or 28.27 acre feet per year worth of use value. b. Upon Completion: Based upon consumptive use standard of .6 acre feet per dwelling unit per year, and multiplying this times 104 units in the project, the completion project consumptive use value would be 62.4 acre feet per year. Result Apply the above values on a comparative basis, the existing value of water rights is equal to 45.3% of the needed value. Assumption #2 Owner's request for waiver of water tap and P.I.F. fees will be granted as to PMH housing, based on cooperation in allowing costs to remain within possible framework and still provide quality housing. Assumption #3 City figures on gross fees, prior to waiver credits, are correct in the amount of $134,116.00, of which $59,940.00 applies to PMH housing, and $74,176.00 applies to free market units. Numerical Calculations of Net Fees 1. $134,116 x 45.3% = $60,754.55 = value of current rights in existence that would be transferred to City. 2. $134,116 - $59,940 = $74,176 = Gross fees with credit for waiver of PMH fees. 3. $74,176 - $60,754.55 = $13,421.45 = Net fees after waiver and credit for existing rights to be transferred to City. . JAMES M. MULLIGAN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW 1350 SEVENTEENTH STREET Â· SUITE 360 DENVER, COLORADO 80202 (303) 572-0600 Â·JAMES M. MULLICAN CABLE Â· MULLAW May 13, 1981 78}Roter.299(len Mr. Sonny Vann ASFEN / el i KIN 00 21 MAY 15 1981 ~ City Planning Office V~ PLANNING OFFICE City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street , Aspen, Colorado 81615 j, Re: The Marolt Ranch Co-operative Subsidy Dear Sonny: I found our meeting on May 12, 1981 whereunder your concep- tual concerns with respect to the PUD and Subdivision Agreement were presented to be quite productive and helpful to me in attempting to draft the finalized version of the Agreement for approval by all parties. In connection therewith, one issue did arise that presents a grave concern of this office and this office's client with respect to the validity of the ability to implement an employee housing project without the "co-operative spirit" that was indicated originally. As you know, all of our discussions to date have revolved around the necessity of both the owner and the City to pursue the employee portion of the project in a manner that provides benefits to both parties and requires actions and co-operation from both parties to allow not only the potential of the employee housing project, but its reality in terms of implemen- tation. Such co-operative spirit requires both philosophical and financial (direct or indirect) subsidies from both parties. In an attempt to address this co-operation concept, it is prob- ably important to review the "balance sheet" of benefit/subsidy that accrues to the City and the owner respectively in pursuing this concept. 1. "POTENTIAL" CO-OPERATION/SUBSIDY - ZONING The initial balance sheet item that provides the immediate potential for such employee housing project is the . .. Mr. Sonny Vann May 13, 1981 Page 2 zoning/density issue, and the owner receives the benefit of an increased density of 13 units beyond the underlying original zone category in terms of its free market housing (assuming total unit count of 100). The City, in turn, benefits by a density/zoning commitment to the owner that allows for seventy employee housing units to be constructed on that site. This balance sheet item appears to be even in that both parties provide a "subsidy" (requirement of employee deed restricted housing upon the owner, and requirement of increased density allowance upon the City), in exchange for which they both receive the respective benefits indicated. 2. "IMPLEMENTATION" OF CO-OPERATION/SUBSIDY The above-referenced co-operative spirit in the phil- osophical subsidizing of this endeavor must be followed up by the same co-operative spirit in the actual subsidizing process to allow the above "potential" to be "realized". In order for this to be done, both parties will need to be addressing the co-operative spirit in the approvals and requirements that will allow the employee project that was approved to be actually built in a manner that falls within the guidelines negotiated at the same time as allowing quality to be retained within the project itself. Along these lines, the owner has indicated a willingness to provide the following: a. Open Space - The owner has agreed to dedicate to the City approximately 17 acres of open space, which, assuming for example, an appraised value of $3.1 Million of the land following final plat, would result in a dedicated value of approximately $1.5 Million. b. Employee Housing Project Land - In addition to the above open space dedications, the owner is providing the land upon which the employee housing project would De located at no cost and a resulting value of this would equal approximately $387,000. c. Direct Construction Subsidy - Current estimates of construction costs indicate that owner will additionally be providing approximately $400,000 worth of direct cost subsidy to the construction of the project. d. Miscellaneous - The added costs incurred by the owner in retention of professionals to assist in the creation and implementation of the rather unique process over two years (approximately $450,000), and the providing of trail system . .. Mr. Sonny Vann May 13, 1981 Page 3 improvements and related items of benefit to the City which will further increase the cost subsidy since these are not built into the cost of the employee housing project, out will be directly subsidized by the free market development. We are sure that there will be other costs, both direct and indirect, that will result in subsidization from the owner to afford the ability of the aDove potential project to be built in a manner that is consistent with our intended discussions. In exchange for the extent of subsidy which the owner has agreed to provide, beyond the initial subsidy of zoning/density requirement, the co-operative nature of our endeavor will require some subsidies by the City as well. Requested in the Subdivision Agreement, for example only, are issues related to the park dedication fee and issues related to the relative water rights. The park dedication fee issue really does not relate to a direct cost subsidy, but relates only to the issue of "passive" versus "active" recreation use restriction, and the issue of relative water rights only relates to a subsidy with respect to the employee housing project portion, in exchange for which, however, we are willing to transfer to the City water rights currently located in the property that could be utilized by the City for their purposes. Despite the some- what diminished and indirect nature of the subsidy requests to the City, our meeting on May 12 indicated to me some reluctance on your part to recommend to the City that they follow this co-operative spirit through to the implementation stage. This is gravely disconcerting to me, since the unwillingness on the part of the City to pursue such co-operative spirit into the implementation stage will only result in one of two possible occurrences: (1) the subtraction of such non-subsidized cost from the cost of construction, resulting in less quality to the development or (2) inability of the employee housing project to be implemented. I was, frankly, quite surprised by this attitude, since I understood the City's perspective to be one of co-operation with this project. We have discussed in the past the difference between co-operation in spirit and co-operation in fact, and such co-operation must be evidenced not only in terms of the "potential" of the project, but also in terms of the actual implementation of the product itself. The reluctance on the part of the City to pursue such implementation co-operation .. Mr. Sonny Vann May 13, 1981 Page 4 will directly affect the ability of this whole program to work, and if the program does fail because of this, the City must be willing to accept its responsibility in this regard. I sincerely hope that you will give some time to reflect on this issue so that further meetings and final negotiations of matters in the coming week to week-and-a-half will result in an understanding of the substantive necessity to mutually co-oper- ate in the implementation of the project. Looking forward to seeing you in the immediate future, I remain Respectfully yours, JAMES M. MULLIGAN, A Professional Corporation C >91\ F Ja'mes Ntr Muiligan JMM:cdw F : i Â· cc: Paul Taddune I Carlie Wood, Design Wdirkshob Cary D. Clark The Marolt Family James W. Buchanan, III Charles Fox, C.P.A. James Otis, Jr. EXHIBIT D MAROLT RANCH ; IMPROVEMENT RESPONSIBILITY SCHEDULE (continued) Employee Housing Free Market Units Item Total Cost Percentage Share & Cost Percentage Share & Cost Roads, Driveways, Parking Areas & Bike Paths Hwy. 82-Holden Rd. Intersection to Station 3+00 Asphalt $15,000,00 $10,500.00 (70%) $ 4,500.00 (30%) Base Course 13,300.00 9,310.00 (70%) 3,990.00 (30%) Excavation & Embankment 18,600.00 13,020.00 (70%) 5,580.00 (30%) Traffic Light Control s 30,000.00 21,000.00 (70%) 9,000.00 (30%) Concrete 1,000.00 700.00 (70%) 300.00 (30%) Painting 1,500.00 1,050.00 (70%) 450.00 (30%) Traffic Control 3,000.00 2,100.00 (70%) 900.00 (30%) (during construction) Irrigation Ditch Relocation 990.00 693.00 (70%) 297.00' (30%) Drainage Swales 800.00 560.00 (70%) 240.00 (30%) 18" C.M.P. 5,075.00 3,552.50 (70%) 1,522.50 (30%) Subtotal $89,265.00 $62,485.50 $26,779.50 Holden Road - Station 3+00 to , Station 7+66 (Free Market Entrance) Asphalt $13,200.00 $ 9,240.00 (70%) $ 3,960.00 (30%) Base Course 12,040.00 8,428.00 (70) 3,612.00 (30%) Excavation & Embankment 3,000.00 21,000.00 (70%) 900.00 (30%) Subtotal $28,240.00 $19,768.00 $ 8,472.00 Holden Road - Station 7+66 to Station 16+69 (Employee Housing Entrance) Asphalt $25,500.00 $25,500.00 (100%) - Base Course 23,240.00 23,240.00 (100%) - Excavation & Embankment 6,000.00 6,000.00 (100%) Subtotal $54,740.00 $54,740.00 : EXHIBIT D MAROLT RANCH . IMPROVEMENT RESPONSIBILITY SCHEDULE (continued) 1 Employee Housing Free Market Units Item Total Cost Percentage Share & Cost Percentage Share & Cost Employee Housing Drive & Parking Station 7+66 to End Asphalt $42,000.00 $42,000.00 (100%) Base Course 28,420.00 28,420.00 (100%) - Excavation & Embankment 45,000.00 45,000.00 (100%) Subtotal $115,420.00 $115,420.00 - 1 F'ree Market Drives, Parking & Access Loop Asphalt $ 35,280.00 - $ 35,280.00 (100%) Base Course 24,696.00 - 24,696.00 (100%) Excavation & Embankment 38,000.00 - 38,000.00 (100%) Subtotal $ 97,976.00 - $ 97,976.00 Roads Total $385,641.00 $252,413.50 $133,227.50 Electric Relocate overhead $ 8,250.00 - $ 8,250.00 (100%) lines in free market area Relocate overhead 2,250.00 $ 2,250.00 (100%) - lines in employee area Underground service 40,000.00 - 40,000.00 (100%) to free market units Underground service 40,000.00 40,000.00 (100%) - 1 to employee units 4 Electric Total $ 90,500.00 - $ 42,250.00 $ 48,250.00 6 Telephone Relocate existing $ 8,800.00 $ 4,400.00 (50%) $ 4,400.00 (50%) overhead lines Telephone Total $ 8,800.00 $ 4,400.00 $ 4,400.00 Natural Gas 2" Steel main $ 8,240.00 - $ 8,240.00 (100%) 3/4" Service con- nections 2,700.00 - $ 2,700.00 (100%) ) Natural Gas Total $ 10,940.00 - $ 10,940.00 EXHIBIT D MAROLT RANCH IMPROVEMENT RESPONSIBILITY SCHEDULE (continued) Employee Housing Free Market Units Item Total Cost Percentage Share & Cost Percentage Share & Cost Landscaping Fine grading, trees & plants, site accessories $225,000.00 $ 75,000.00 $150,000.00 SITE IMPROVEMENTS TOTALS $1,047,082.00 $539,131.50 $507,950.50 SITE IMPROVEMENTS TOTALS (ROUNDED) $1,050,000.00 $540,000.00 $510,000.00 l.6/ Â· EXHIBIT E MAROLT RANCH ~ SITE IMPROVEMENT PERCENTAGE COMPLETION SCHEDULE Percentage of Guaranty, Item Time Period Guaranty Release Date 1. Approval of Final Plat June 8, 1981 - 2. Advertise for Bids July 6, 1981 3. Anticipated Award of Site Improvements Contracts July 24, 1981 - 4. Notice to Proceed Aug. 1, 1981 5. Red Butte Cemetery Pipeline Relocation Aug. 1 - Aug. 10, 1981 ~ 6. Construct Temporary Marolt Ditch Aug. 1 - Aug. 10, 1981 7. Rough Grading, Free Market & Employee Aug. 1 - Sep. *30, 1981 8. Holden Road Rough Grading & Placement of 24' Width of Base Course Aug. 1 - Aug. 31, 1981 9. Electric & Telephone Relocation, Free Market July 1 - July 31, 1981 10. Remainder of Electric . & Telephone Relocation Aug. 1 - Aug. 31, 1981 -~~- 11%, September 1981 11. Holden Ditch Relocation Sep. 1 - Oct. 1, 1981 3%, October 1981 12. Installation of Sewer & Water, Free Market May 1 - June 30, 1982 h 13. Installation of Sewer & Water, Employee Apr. 15 - May 31, 1982 14. Installation of Remainder of Sewer & Water May 15 - July 31, 1982 15. Installation 6f Underground > 31%, August 1982 Electric, Telephone, TV, Gas Lines, Free Market & Employee June 1 - July 31, 1982 -7 ..70â€¢ . , -/- 5 , U -/ 9.4 ..... tal, U ' + . 7.: I .3 - E . I ' ./ .....4/w --- -I - ~ EXHIBIT F MAROLT RANCH SITE IMPROVEMENT PERCENTAGE COMPLETION SCHEDULE (continued) Percentage of Guaranty, Item Time Period Guaranty Release Date 16. Finish Grading & h Drainage Improvements, Free Market Phase 1 & Employee Aug. 1, 1982 - Aug. 31, 1982 17. Intersection Work Aug. 1, 1982 - Sep. 30, 1982 18. Finish Grading, Base > 30%,October 1982 Course Placement & Paying, Free Market Phase 1 & Employee Aug. 1, 1982 - Sep. 30, 1982 19. Landscaping, Free Market Phase 1 & Employee Oct. 1, 1982 - Oct. 31, 1982 ~ 15%, November 1982 20. Finish Grading, Base -, Course Placement & Paying, Free Market Phase 2 May 1, 1983 - June 30, 1983 21. Landscaping Free Market Phase 2 June 1, 1983 - July 31, 1983 -~- 10%, August 1983 ... I * 4 '*6 ... . d -). 4 .---/ 9. 1 u >at l M. b r -F .. , I (P 565 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE * 925-2537 May 26, 1981 Carlie Wood Design Work Shop 415 S. Spring , Aspen, Co 81611 To Whom it May Concern: The estimated tap fee for the Marolt project based on 31 free market units and 73 employee units plus a swimming pool and amenity building is $86,453. These are current tap figures and can be sub,lect to change in the future. Sincerely *-4 44__ Heiko Kuhn, Manager Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District EXHIBIT 6-- Additiona~~Parking Schedule . a.iN-Â· f. câ‚¬ 4 i 1 1,<51--63*Jixte;kELS-362/ I.__---=-*. ..#------v_-_=-r/----- 3 3-->%' 7 .-. *. -V \ C- -- --- . -- i., > ' 3 "44, , 5 -Addit-imial-Parling-Â»4 ; - 1194 , ..4 L.I Â»,4-7 -1-Â»04 . 4 \ 7, / Ae.3.c - 7. Aci/%1 f'''P~4 ' >671./ -1.'/ t.532 >9-f '97~4- Â£9.4 22 4/f ((01*, -: 4 ttjÂ«(17 >Â»1 \.li k -.2/ 41. 3 -/1,Ini#) l,'/Ts \ 1 : -'c..,4 --~*-*~ -~91\Â·f:./ ra 3 ( 'll) 0 ,< \Â·00 ./\ \11 1 B K Â·Â¥TrÂ·r, AM..1 1 i ly@ Â·. 1 3 .'.tA .0 I ,\2=:0.- \ .4. \ 1 /<7\1\ \ \ \\ i ~ l Â·17* ;>**f~04\ \ 1 .IL Â¥ ...4'.-''4Â«<%~,(~.~\ 1~~p~.~~jyj ,t;.2\ ,,Â·' 4 ErÂ»tr.5-,--12-1.:j Lf.Â·:. 1/i .. L i ; ''2 '12 . 424 .8 U 1 - 1 (\ 1 8/ f 12 11Â» D .7/ 4. I . \ 1 , . 5>/ 1 ~; f'- ~ 2 -rff 14 6 k \ 1 Â· 32{ Â·Â·------12/3:-7 it:/: 11.- -5..6 fl Â» ':, ./... \ , Â·it <2 '*tji~~~~~ . A ! \27 / 0 . .... -*-- -,SLII.I / ' 2 / I ) 2 ..f /4 i / l .:i . 4, 1 1 j J / f ~/f , Â· i i \ lit,t, Â£:33<2-:-3 77' / / . b Â·i,F ; Â·, , 'I' ./ / 1 1 .1 1 I. --- 1 \/ 0 .-2.3.-=Â©127-'LE V--22=91--5-4. V. C -- 1 ./1 . , 1 2. 4 1 1 1. \1 This plan indicates the areas reserved for additional parking in the Free Market Cluster, which can be constructed at such time as the City deems it necessary. The covered parking shown on the plan allows for two cars per unit. The applicant has asked for a partial exemption from parking requirements, providing two-thirds of the parking required by Code. MAROIS ADDITIONAL PARKING RANCH i FREE MARKET CLUSTER be# Cohort> 0 . i 1 4, .*/*Il,ill/ -=*PAW/ki"/4. 4 BOOA Z Â£ l} F.'4[ 61,5.i i 441 11 . . ; Filed for record December 27, 1972 at 3:02 P.M. , .~ Reception No. 156167 Peggy E. Miklich, Recorder 3 4 i 1 - 3 EXECUTORS' DEED 1 1 4 1 0 71 , This Indenture, Made this / f day of Dece,nher , in the year of our Lord One Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy 1 h Two between First Pennsylvania Banking and Trust Company, Win- field A. Huppuch II and William E. Clark, as executors of the . ~ Estate of Leonard M. Thomas, deceased, parties of the first part and The City of Aspen, a Colorado municipal corporaticn, County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, party of the second part, Witnesseth that Whereas, the said parties of the first part did, on the 17th day of November A.D. 1972, sell at private sale to the party of the second part, the hereinafter described real estate pursuant to and in full compliance with the power of sale con- tained in the will of said aecedent, which is as follows: 1 R j "TENTH : I hereby grant to my executors, with ~ ~ 4 respect to any and all property, whether real or personal, of which I am the owner at the time of 1 i my death, or which shall at any time constitute a li part of n y estate, and to my trustees, with respect to any and all property, whether real or personal, which shall at any time constitute part of any j trust created hereunder, the following powers, in addition to those conferred by Law: t *** i "(b) To sell such property at either public l or private sale for cash or on credit, to exchange such property, and to grant options for the purchase thereof ;" Now, Therefore, This Indenture Witnesseth, That the ~ said parties of the first part for mcre than Ten Dollars and other consideration have sold and conveyed, and by these presents do hell and convey unto the said party of the second part, it:-: 0 0 successors and inisignia forever, all the right, title, interest . 1 aniP estate which the said Leonard M. Thcaws had in his lifetime and at the time of his death in and to the following described real estate, situate, lying and being in the County of Pitkit, and State of Colorado as described in Exhibits Anl, A-2 and A-3 attached hereto 2 n incorporated herein; together with all 1 1 j 1 1*,/421&,AWBIF I61091â„¢'-NmaS~riWf##,â€¢11Â»7%%f:4%*19&~r<f- .E/.'...R *<*..-Ill#."F.6r99-*ME-p./1.- .*t-7/... ;IrT-#Yil/eli.*.%F|~ L ~ vw,Â·~-c-- - Â·*p " , 2 '~V~ . 1 * $-u~;A~-,W :&//1-- 4-Â·- =I.'/6.Uâ‚¬Aha~...W:A:/Ii~~ .. i: PRI j,MeÂ»Â»~â€¢... +14â‚¬,1 -#.I~Â·RW)Â·â€¢IÂ·?! 4~,L .IÂ·â€¢'~~-~ JW~AMU,Ul;r'N[*4,Â·4 - Â· 4.-Â·#I . ......... Â·.a_, ,42 t Cjj '' '1 CiltUAL i U ... 1 7 . # :AwkY- i ) 1 i N : 1 water and water rights, ditches and ditch rights, appurtenar : i i 2 to or used in connection with said lands, in the ratio or I N 1 proportion of 79.38/110.38 of the total water and ditch 3 rights appurtenant to the 110.38 acres encompassed in the . Marolt Ranch at the time of closing of the within sale. 1 A To Have and To Hold the Same, with all appurtenances 4 : 1 : thereunto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, to the proper use, benefit and behoof of the said party of the second part, its successors and assigns forever, except liens, assessments and easements of record. 1 The parties of the first part reserve unto themselves, 1 their successors and assigns: r . . 4 1.3 an irrevocable easement for a water transmission \ ...I .,1,13. . < line an 1 3-Â· 2. P an irrevocable right of user of n roadway as said easement and right of user are more fully des- cribed in the Agreement For Sale and Purchase 1 Â£ between the parties hereto dated November 17, 1972 it 9 b' 0 K \ R 1 9% 1 1 1 1 , 1 Â· i 3 1 1 , ! -2- -i .. a , Â· 1 4. M , # w 7 1 f t Â©.. ......40 /4 . t' 40 4 , t. 4 I'lluK 2 4 1 1 t,\Ll X,Ytj : i ln Wituottâ€¢ Whiroof, thu Ht\id pin'tiBA of thu firtlt part , an Executore of RAid tpotate am aforonald have exeouted thin Grant ' t. the day and year hereinabove written. THE FIRST PENNSYLVANIA DANKING AND TRUST COMPANY ATTEST* 1 . ' 3 i :*-, I I L f By (h /4, .1 - A 1 V 7 .. . 't " , , 1 1.4,-4'le : 1/ 1 f. 'I ((14" 14\4 '4~. tt>_uÂ¢~.geÂ·. t. ,. , *. â€¢Â· i V : 2 . WTErraIrl. itup~iwiint i - 6, 1 C . 'l Â¢' .4.5 1 ' j . 4 '1% . 4 4 ... e 4 .i k -, C C U ', 4~~. e .4 1 William E. Clark \ i 4, i The Executoru of the Entato of i Leonard N. Thoman, doooaned, State of Ponnoylvania ) ) .0, County of Philadolphia ) i The foregoing inutrument wai acknowl@dged befora me thia ~ i 'Â¢'Â· day ofÂ·, 6 f' 0 1972 by , a. and by,/Â· f . '' 1 1 * am :'.. . I .., B %.1 t.1 11, of the Firat rennoylvania Banking and Truâ€¢t Company, on# of thâ€¢4xtioutorn of tho outate of Leonard M. Thonati, decoamed. i /4/'11.11,1,1 1 My commiumion expirent //, 1 ~t ,1' Witne,â€¢0 my hand and official goal. 14 i -J t. 4.8. 1 1 I , .1 Notary Public 4 1,Â·A' 1 /,11/1.. 1'.1 70,/ ',2,"'t'2';llt,4.â‚¬4 'Â· 1 4 1 State of Now Yerk ) i 1 t/ ) net ' 1 County of ''x. ) k i Thu foregoing inatrument waw acknowledged before me thin i -Ili 0 1972 by Winfield A. nuppuoh ZI an one of tha oxeoutorm of th@ Raid eatate of Leonard M. Themaa, 1 %,1.lt,1,11#'.1,1" : doceamed. , . "0'.10 6 2, 7 ,'2:I'k , U -0. 01.4Â· t.41'.U;;:i*â€¢,X.Â·Â·. 1 1 1 1 Witnons my hand and official ..al, 4, . 1 I .. Lutary Pul,lio . 4.7 '11,1 0.4..,0 . 11 . Â· b 14'â€¢, , 4 .4 19 C , 6 1 1 .1,11 ..f 1 1 .: 1 ..6 .4*&4..buD.i.1 *AL#96** Â·. Â·~baiN,Ch' re<IA 2 /1 i P. 1 I d ' 01 1 4 /1 1 04* 6.0.1 J i 11 2 i State, of Colorado ) 1 , 28, Â· ~ County of Pltkin ) t . Â£ 1: , 2 The foregoing Knutrument wan Reknowludged bofer@ ma thin ~ 11 ..."I'. 4. ./7Â· ~ day of ,0-2Uk,Ae,Ur:Â¥2-' 1970 by Williem th Clark ma one of l t , the exocutora of the Ilaid Entate of Loonard M, ThemAIR, due@&04,2, i r 5 'i i ' My Commiaâ€¢ion expired i ; â‚¬ Witnom@ My hand und offlotal 81*al, 2 0.,4 h; I h' 1 ROT;771,LUTID ;0*, 4 i 1 Â¢ ./4 ./.I#/"I///'P I ' , , F 11 It I f 1 l 1 Â¥ 4 11 4 Â· le i I 2 It ' i I f - ./ 't 1 ji f. f il Â¥ 11 12Â· . A . itr~ 11 -4. t P ... - it . 1 3 \W j .4 1 i a , l .. F t . 34 0 . 4..,J 0.:.}A 2: il; 1 4..9 . I 1 i k ~ ' November 29, 1972 f Job No. 2334A 11.am,a Estate Description Land Sale to City of Aepen EXHIBIT A-2 A tract of land being parts of Lots 8,9, & 10, and tha SWits'i Sec. 12 TlOS 2354 61Â·15 described as follows: Beginning at a point beine the interaection of tha South right of way line of Stat3 Highway 50. 82, and the List right cf way line of the (13Â£19 Creek Road, ' being 332.91 ft. 010932'20'15 frcu the Â¥24 cor. Soc. 12 7103 Â£857 6â„¢ (a 1954 Bureau of Land kinasecent Brass Cap), thenco S16035'g 132.87 ft. alang tha East right of may fence, thence S2C054'S 2006.31 ft. along the East right of way fence, thenca S32010'E 67.10 ft. alog the Eaet ritht ef way feice, thence 018914'E 1107.77 ft., ther.co /125028'E 715.03 ft., thence N21o47,E 282.37 ft., thence Nlt)051' E 9,)a71 ft. to th, South right of way lice of Golo. StÂ£:te ilidlway Ho. 82, . thenerâ€¢ alaniz a curve to the left, rattius ef 905*0 fte, a digtance of i. 416.63 ft. (chent bears 037241 47 413.21 fts) along the 2Â»uth right cf way line of Colo. State Hid,Â¥:g No. 82, thence 87402749 272.30 ft. aleng the Smith right of =, line of Colo. State Hts?:%4 No. 82, thence along a curve to the rlpht, radlua of 1196.0 /1., a dlitance of 919.54 ftc (chord beari MU3031'W 097.96 ft.), along the South right of way line of Colo. St.ate Hipfpray No. 82, to the point of beÂ¢ginaing, ouoject to t.cleÂ»ga1, power, water, and ditch lines iii nl:â€¢Ce, EXCEPT A tract of lad fermerly,being Cole. 1:ldl.ind Elil Road RiAE of '~y in Lotâ€¢ 9 and 10, and the &11&54 Sec. 12, demerleed in rk 175 - Fg. 623 Pitkin County Recorda, more particularily described am follewa: Beginning at a point an the East ling of the 2:ccas E,tat, property being K 1823.79 ft S40019Â¢15 fran the hi ccr. Sec. 12 1103 P,851 41; ' ~*- - 170 '4 Jureatl of Land Management Brass Cap), thence S18014'W 66.44 fte alang tho Ehat line of the Thazaa Estate prepare, the: nce alang a curve to the left, railiuo of EC'3.10 ft.., a d.latknet, CY f 540.42 ft. (chond bearo Slao;4Â·W 442.,U fus), D & I i t t Werge/d%/I)41"#1#+1bR41*%*'*9-69Â¤*#/*"*p"q,"*% m. N%'*a-'.gfie.e.0,99?t?e'*'Z,8*w~&/.'~â€¢%~.'I-F~./.'.Iq.17".,I,%9.'#.,*.~f,,r,~g~"I'lÂ» -*ih~i~â€¢-.,6/aU/*-1.-#Il-0,Â»61* ehi*z;-i~6.biÂ»iaU/.*-IDi,....wÂ»45Â·Il........./..Â£//W.Qi'./.dit~lu.44-*4.Mâ€¢*I.-IN. ~1~01!M..A;-aâ€¢e' ..4 <Â· ....z./4.......'ll.:, 1.... .. k M. ... e 270 2,Â·; 1:.,1. hi'JA - 1 . D i ' I 1 Al,6 k# 1 J ' i 1.1 . f , , 1: ' Â· 1 ' . I . 9 . . , November 29, 1972 t,1 I. r .. Job Nce 2334A .CV , ./ w, .0 . , . -An=** IYetate Poseription C ./ . . . Lond Eale to City of Upea I ' EXHIBIT A-1 . I. A tract k land beings:part of lot 11 Sec. 11 T103 R857 6It[ described . ; as follows: - Beginning at a point b;ing the intersection of the South right of way ' line of Colo. State Hichway NoÂ® 82 and the West line lot 11 Sec. 11, being S31v31'ri 234.65 fte frca the El cor. Sec. 11 T103 R851 60, . (1954 ILM Brass Cap) Thence S03'poo' 8 289.34 ft. along thl West line Lot 11 to the Northerly right of way~ line of Maroon Creek Road, Thence N32030'E 123â€¢- no ft. eleng Maroon Creek Road right cf pay, Thence 1100013'E 119.24 ft. along the 12.roon Creek flood right of way to the South right of way line of Colo. State Highway N. 82, Thence- X50*43'19 104926 ft. eleng the South right of way libe of Colo. State 11147:ny Ne. 02 to tl), poiNt of tegioning, eantâ€¢ining 0Â®347 acres acre er lease Â· I. 1 0 . I . . I. . 1 . 0 . . I . , I I . 4 Â¥ I . ' 4 , 0 4 .. I.*Il, -I./Â·.. t 11 ~1~~I:-./.-U;*.~.ia,U ~ill,%&/iL.â€¢r 16:,r-.A.&#.+A.a,.~~*e Â·' Â· Â· ~a-6~e,-L.I./.4//Uc4.~26.â€ž,.sll/'./&/Ill// I. t'.-U--I,i--I* . 9~ 1 1. .., . - .. 0 6 1 _ ~ ~ 0 L 4 0 2.- 2 /0 [Act 12 i ' 1 -a 0,9 . Jeb Me. 2334A Thamae Entâ€¢te .....jâ€ž.0,1. A-2 0,20(rip.:tn vant. CKnce 631Â©21*3 6.00 21.0 to t.te Suit lice rf the Thosu Eatate property, 2. meâ€¢ 616014 '70.31.35 2. aleg tka East line of t,ho Z,90. Estate pre.rty, ' thence 2310212 93.16 ft., . ttionce alont a cul,0 to ta rieht.'rfiditza ef 403.10 1%., a distance ef 95. t i C*- t ..4 It.. 62:cÂ·U be.Ara 515249,20:ly 22.46 11.), ther.ce along a turve te the rHI:, radlts cf of;3.65 Zi., 8 41.tan= of 100.00 ft. (ch.wd boary ((4Â©0102 99.91 IL.}, thenca 10-3020'3' 245.03 ft.p . therice :lang a curve to 12,9 left redics ef 6433.22 ft., a distâ€¢2*1 0/ 235.07 fte f ,chord bears N.OÂ·'41'1 232.37 ft.5 1.0 th, ts:,uth righl, cr way lins Gf th, tain line of the -railre.d, thance alcng a curve to the rlett, radluo of 2964.8 ft., a dist=:89 of 336.37 fte (chord boara W,9911;/ 136.07 fte), thence W.7252'11 458.00 11., t.heace 99024,8 154;18 n. to â€¢ poizi cn tbe enaterline of thi rallrÂ©24 =$01(:049 Â· being 20 r.0 ft. scre or .lesâ€¢ Airth#*sterly froa thâ€¢ Uet line â€¢f Lf; VI thence :23024'!5 114.18 ft., thence 247'52' 6 215.00 ft., - tter.Ci al<â€¢11 a curru to tbe len, ndlue e.1 276.4.8 ft. a distanes of 454.01 ft. (chord bei-ra EfÂ·29Â£,08 453,50 ft*) ta Ske I;ast 1190 Â©f th) 9=00 2,6/.ta 1 property, I . thence S25028'9 147.50 ft. alets t:= ID:,1 11;ne of thi Tb=-0 Egtate propâ€¢rth , tbears 2180149; 57.06 11. al=g the Xeft 118* er th, 1~k:020 Estate Nopert, -- v.g. r. t. â‚¬ te*nning, ..4 '1 . 9 -4, e . I . 1.0. r .. 905%12:45Â·27.98.4 cares wom er lesâ€¢ i tlet Acres- to 1,4, convegeB. 2. I. I .... I. I I . I ... . Â¢ . I . ....' .. . ... , 1 . I . . f. I . . ... I Â¥ .. .. ..... L DULAA .2./i , 4. A 4 4 U FALL 4,2 Doc. 119 1972 Ral. 2>* & Hor. 29, 1972 Job No. 2334A Thumas k :1tate Deseriptien Land Sale to City of Aspen Curveâ€¢, Deocription EXHIBIT A-3 , A tract of j.and being part of 09.4 Lot 5 and Lot 6 of Sece 13 and 048*4 526. 12 1103 }13517 6}12 described ae follows: Beginning at the K.1 ter cf Soo. 13 Tles R8571 6Pli being the sams c -rner ae arcreved by th, (14.)ral Land Cfl'ice from the official plat dated Nor. 0, 1668, whence an woopyro,ed 1954 Burean of Land le.nagon:*nt. Br ass Cap bears 94-Uc - a - , P Cr JÂ·Â·b /VJ * 4.1 4)27) 41,â€¢, thsnes 23)003(401â‚¬ 875.00 ft. clong the West line Erk Sec: 13, thencâ€¢ !?70200'E 714.79 ft., thence }00000< 208.13 . ft., thence !00000'2 160.00 ft., thence 500*00' 170.00 ft., thence 590000'W 160.00 ft.p thence 600000' 38â€¢11 ft., thance N90000Â¢ E 85Â®21 ft., thence SOODOO' 526.89 ft., thence N90000'E 24.79 fts, thence 9)0000 9 120.00 ft., thence N90000'E 213.00 ft., thence 800900' 300.00 ft., thence 890000:17 480.00 ft., thonce NO0900' 141.89 ft., thence S90Â©00'77 557.20 ft. to the W lins of Lot 6 Sac. 13, ad#-:li@~ . l= L , Thbricy. 370â‚¬07,4.0.5 1234,71 ft. cleÂ«Â·Â·Â· f. 1' f 242. 13 (15>4 Daread of L .. ,Â· c...-..~+_.. . $ r; Â·Â·? F f Â· Â·Â· 4.. . A TheriÂ·z !~97Â© "3 671: 97 i t. ricÂ· Â· to thÂ·, lYtle 14 .Â· -Â· ltd.en with 4 0 - ' eon:.7 Ke' 6,Â·i J &16 0 Thâ‚¬=2 N,4919Â¥Z 73.51 ft. 618~.1 1-" ... :.Ic f ~ f to Corâ€¢>A, - 2 .ce 'a Ster?., Car. iti : 1 .. Thence N33Â©15'2 450.1_5 fte race frÂ·.0 c. 625% 2.0.W.' linÂ·, Cant:16 Creek 62 -1, Therce :115"53'13 975.CO i C. Ater.6 1.1 5 Wect, 13.0.5 1 1.0, or :4. ...... :I f Ja, . 1 10 *t #i Of, D thans.c M09'14'2 739.34 . â€¢â€¢ . . thence FO?â‚¬01'W 252.69 it. 14 Nk 13 07 U 1, 5 . - Ther.ca N33027'W 161.03 419 0 aguen $10/ , Th,nca KAI<'.r'2;Â¤ 150,70 ft. . 1 0 0 0 U ... Ane.*** . ., 6 44' -71 44,18(â€¢/ AW' 19 10 . . * M N Thence E:430174! 111.14 ft. 0 9. e H n 0 Thence 223C., 7.9:'223.61 rt. to tha N lina of Nti Ses. 13, Thence 1?390524? 733.67 n. along N line_ 6: WEA Etc. 13 to ttip point of be ginning, Containing 57.835 Acre8 mors or lesâ€ž except that portion describad tolew which is Â·not being conveyed.** Desert'Â·tion Qualified by interi: gr.1 position o: 193-4. una:Â·=red BrMas Cap 184 1223 Sec. Cor. ea it refera to bour:frier ff property ce:Crital ill Book 115 Pase 413 â€¢24 Bock 221 P#-3 105 cr. i-'itkin CoLY,t.7 L..coric. there is a 0.212 Acre overlap of thaze Quchytion, hot -3 2 rs r,Jove note. ** A tract of land being partÂ· of NWINT!1 Sec. 13 TleS R859 â‚¬PM as folltws: Beginnins at the &11 eor. of Soc. 13 9103 F!85tf Cr:1 boint, tb.,3 F:,tr a coe. as approved tv the Ceneral La :14 Office fr.: : t:'ti: O%-1 1.e.?3 :-t..> r~ 'rr ' from the official plat dated Nov. 13, 188.3. wher.ro i.tn lir,T~i r.-,VE,3 - *40......,.. N 22 253' 1 4.... C .j 't 1954 Bureau of Land Varage=ent Brass Cs, thence S 89*52' 2.735.67 ft. blonu th, North l:ble of the !47 1 :3 . hen<FWÂ· 2 23'41' W 563.43 ft., bence N 89'52' W 534.72 St. to the Went line, cri' lize 33 8 C"c. :.0 0- ' -~ *~ - Ellne- 1 5 Â·Â· 4...31 1.ir,e of 341'1 1:tfc hemen N (0002'40" W v.,1. .., 1,, Ege. 13 te'the point 02 begintslce, Curitair.lild U -r'f- ACT.Â£3 1 -.T . or..less. ,2 Â· t . a .. . . .. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Director RE: Rezoning on Opal Marolt Property and Additional Comments on Celia Marolt Rezoning Application DATE: November 13, 1979 The Planning Office has received an application for annexation and rezoning of the property known as the Opal Marolt property west of the Castle Creek River. The property comprises aporoximately thirty five acres of land generally between the Highway 82 entrance to town and Castle Creek Road. The DroDerty is bounded on the west by conservation zoning and the City limits extended during the Thomas property annexation several years ago. The City's Water Plant site, now zoned SPA, is immediately to the south. A small.oarcel (36,000 square feet) owned by Celia Marolt is also located on the southern portion of the property. Across the river to the east the land is held in many separate Drivate ownerships and is zoned R-15. The property itself is currently zoned AF-2 as is property to the southwest, AF-1 property surrounds the City's SPA zoning to the south and south- east. To the north of the property across Highway 82 the valley floor is zoned R-30. The application in your packet originally requested SPA zoning to allow maximum flexibility to develop a unique land use configuration designed to provicle a mixed employee/free market project. The applicant changed that request to an R-6 zone density and that is the zone that was published for the Public Hearing to be held on Tuesday, November 20. The question for the P&Zisa recommendation to the City Council regarding appropriate zoning for the site which is proposed for annexation. The Council has not entertained or reviewed the annexation proposal as yet until the P&Z makes its recommendation. A related question is the recommendation of zoning for the Celia Marolt parcel. Conceptual Plan In order to facilitate the Commission's understanding of the prooosal and the merits of the zoning request, the anplicant has prepared a conceptual developmenE plan. It is too lar9e for your packet, but is in our office for your insoection. Your packet does include a summary of the land use and densities included as Darn of that plan. The primary thrust of the plan is to develop the Marolt property in a primarily residential development comorised substantially of deed restricted employee housing. Free market housing is included in order to generate the revenues to subsidize the employee housing portion. As currently proposed, the application breaks down into approximately 80 deed restricted employee units which are provided iii both a townhouse and multi-family configuration cn the . southernmost half of the property and into a freeÂ·-market portion which is approx- imately 40 to 45 unii.s of clustered townhouses on the site of the old mine facto v a on the northernmost portion of the property. The developinent plan reserves a parcel for the exist-ng single-family house of Opal Marolt. The plan also pro- poses to relocate the Elk's Club to this site on the northernmost portion closest to Highway 82. A final element of the plan is to reserve a parcel on the Castle Creek Valley floor on the northeast portion of the site for a City maintenance building. A new access road would parallel the western border of the site and run north/touth between Highway 82 and Castle Creek Road. The site is generally flat except for steeply sloping portions on the ea;ternmost border which descend to the Castle Creek Valley floor. In some areas the site extends across Castle Creek to the hillside on the eastern portion. Rel evantÂ· Cohsiderations in Recommending Upon Rezoning In recommending any rezoning the Planning and Zoning Commission must take into account the following -relevant factors: 1. Are there conditions which have changed which might warrant the rezoning? 2. Is the zoning proposed consistent both in terms of land uses permitted .. and densities allowed with surrounding existing land uses as well as zoning patterns? Â·3. Is the land use and density allowable as a result of the proposed zoning consistent with the natural features of the site, available public facil- ities and services, transportation and access? 4. Is the proposal consistent with the adovted Master Plan? Comments and Input from Referral Agencies With respect to the above mentioned relevant considerations, the Planning Office offers the following comments which are based on referral agency comments, comments of adjacent landowners, and analysis of the issues: 1. The County has commented as an adjacent landowner that it supports a re- zoning which would facilitate employee housing in this location because of its location with respect to transportation, utilities and services, and natural characteristics of the sight which offer opportunities to cluster the development. The County did state that because R-6 zoning would allow more density than had been applied for and recommended that R-15 zoning would be more appropriate given adjacent R-15 zoning on the Aspen side and AF-2 zoning on the County side. The County went on to recommend that the site be designated with a mandatory PUD and/or perhaps an SPA overlay which would facilitate development in accordance with a site plan that could best be geared to relevant site characteristics. The County recommended against the location of the Elk's Club at this site although it did approve of perhaps some minimal neighborhood com- mercial or community facilities orientation. 2. The application was referred to the Open Space Advisory Board which has not as yet made a formal comment pending an inspection of the site on November 20. However, they did reiterate that this site was high on the list of Driorities for acquisition for open space as it is located at the entrance to Aspen and adjacent to a valuable piece of open space, the Thomas parcel. 3. The Aspen Land Use Plan of 1973 recommends single-family land use for this site with a fairly large open space greerbelt paralleling Castle Creek, It appears to us from the map that the greenbelt does cover the portiOL of the property which is proposed for the free-market clusters. 4. The Planning Office has prepared a map which will be partially xeroxed for your packet and which demonstrates the surrounding zoning patterns in both the City and the County. The site is-adjacent to R-15 and lesser density zoning categories with the exception of the specially planned areas zoned for the employee water palnt site to the south. 5. Current AF-2 zoning would allow approximetely 17 units if there were no slope reduction (i.e., one third or more of the property would have to be covered by slopes in excess of 45%). This density might be further reduced by dedication of roads. If the property were zoned with City's R-6 zone category, and if there were no slope reduction formula applying (this is more likely to apply, however, n the City), single-family develop- ment would yield 254 units at 6,000 square feet apiece. A duplex or multi-family development (if develoDed through a PUD row houses are permitted) would yield 338 units. Under the City's R-15 zone category on the other hand, a single-family development at 15,000 square feet per unit would yield 101 dwelling units, again, no density reduction for slope factors. A duplex or multi-family development at 10,000 square feet per unit would yield 152 units. Under the R-15-A and whether the - same restriction would apply to multi-family typeÂ·structures, although that certainly was the intent. There is little development to compare. with the Marolt property west of Castle Creek. The Water Plant proooses 80 units on over one hundred acres. 6. In the matter of changed conditions, we point out identified employee -2- .. housing needs. Recent market data indicate that there is a demand for anywhere between 250 to 500 units just to solve an existing employee housing deficit. This does not estimate the need over future years if certain trends in the market continue to reduce the supply available to"employees even further while generating new employees. This argues for selective upzoning to creale density bonuses to motivate the pro- duction of deed restricted employee housing. The housing overlay district as proposed offers a review mechanism for identifying appropriate sites. Among the revi ew criteria is a Dreference for sites which are open and which offer opportunities to cluster development, buffer with greenbelt, and mitigate impact on surrounding neighborhoods. This site offers those characteristics. 7. It is appropriate to compare alternative sites for employee housing de- velopment. Among the ones that have recently been discussed are: a. The Pfister site. It was recently aooroved for some 40 units of deed restricted employee housing. It is more distant, but would develop at a lower overall density under the current plan. b. The Benedict proposal for the Rio Grande property. This proposes 1 to locate up to 200 units of employee housing on the Rio Grande site. It is complicated by the necessity for public vote in order to approve an alternative housing use for land purchased with sixth and seventh penny funds (competing uses for that property have always been an issue). Location of the jail facility, performing arts, olayina fields, greenbelt park, parking structure, and other transportation functions have all been pro- posed. The advantages include the benefit of a public land Slb- sidy (if it is possible) as well as its proximity to the urban core. It would also provide an interesting if not originally contemplated redevelopment of the Rio Grande property and river front area for the community. c. Various areas on Smuggler Mountain. There are a couple of vacant parcels which could accomodate fairly high densities consistent with the neighborhood development. The problem with the Smuggler Mountain area has always been an inadequate circulation system and confusing traffic pattern. Further development would only conplicate that. The advantages of the area include its relaÂ· ti\'ely close proximity to town and adequate bus transportatiori. The area is obviously excellent for solar purposes. d. Benedict Gravel Pit Site. This site has the advantage of being well-hidden from surrounding arees. Like the Smuggl er area, rio specific proposals have been received on this site and the problems of access and greater distance from town are among those that are likely to crop up. e. "Under the .Bridge" housing, which is the 200 to 300 unit proposal , pyramid structure Droposed to be located under Castle Creek B-'idge. The structure proposes an innovative solution to the employee housing problem in close proximity to town. The site is just to the no"theast of the Marolt proper'ty, In fact it incorporates laid owned by Ooal Marolt as well as several other ownerships belonging to the State/City/County and other Drivate individuals. It is also proposed as and energy-conserving structure. However, its major problems include the difficulties of negotiating the land acquisitions and approvals necessary from various levels of govern- ments and private individuals. f. -The Water Plant Housing. A serious proposal is being pursued on this property. The City has determined that it must go to a General Obligation Bond Issue, however, before proceeding. Toe site is at a further distance from the Marolt Property and would be aided by any access going across that property. 8. There is adequate utility service to the site. 9. Bus service in this area has greatly improved since original zonÂ¢ng. -3- :0 0 Planning Office Recommendation The City of Aspen heretofore has established a fairly well-defined policy against zoning to higher densities.based on its land use and growth management plans and i zoning implementation develoned in response to the radid growth of the early 1970's. This is true for the County as well. However, in view of the developing policy regarding the need to produce employee housing, areas must be found which are suitable for rezoning for development at higher densities in order to promote housing at an affordable cost. Both the City and the County have considered measures which 'would permit such housing develooment. These are the County's PMH zone district and the City's proposed Housing Overlay District which both granta density bonus in return for deed restricted units within the low, moderate, and middle income ranges. Among the review criteria which the City is considering in its Housing Overlay proposal is that sites be looked to for increased densities which are not primarily developed with uniform neighborhood characteristics. We believe that the Marolt property fits in this category. The site apoears to be among the best for employee housing development. In view of other proposed review criteria: it is yet close to town, served by utilities and bus transportation, and offers an opportunity to cluster. We-agree that the Smuggler Mountain area is probably the best area for employee housing. However, it has a disadvantage of being the primary repository of emoloyee housing proposals. The Marolt Drop- erty has the advantage of dispersing employee housing to a different area of the community. We acknowledge that the-onen space characteristics of this site have long had a high Driority. We would argue, however, that there is an appropriate density on this parcel that would allow for preservation of the open space amenities of that land. One hundred and fifty units is too dense for the oroperty. It would generate approximately 1,050 more automobile trips over Castle Creek Der day. An evaluation of the development plan indicates that 120 units, even when clusteredk has 'not acheived maximum benefits of greenbelt and clustering and might more likely do so with a lower number of units. This would be more consistent with the pattern of development across Castle Creek. The density reduction formula is very likely to reduce the maximim allowable density under the R-15-A category. We recommend somewhere in the oTter of 70 to 100 units be developed on the property, and will work with the applicant to refine the development plan. We are highly favorable toward the generalized location of free market and employee units. The Planning Office does recommend the R-15-A zon'3 district as the appropriate zone given surround ng zoning patterns. The greater density is legitimate givel the changed conditions noted. R-15-A is consistent with previous annexation policy. A further recommenddtion is that any SPA overlay oe attached to the parcel that would facilitate the mixed uses and clustered densities contemplated by the development plan. Ilandatory PUD is also warranted by the size and topographic nature of portions of the site. While the R-15-A/PUJ/SPA is a complicated zoning schemes it is necessary in view of the uncertain future of the housing overlay zone. Should that district pass in the near future, this project would most suitably be developed under an R-15-A/ Housing Overlay. This scheme would offer the review process and exemption from GMP Quota competition. Selective SPA zoning, might still be necessary to accomodate any community facilities. We, too, recommend against any commercial orientation near the highway. The Elks facility seems to lead to that and is unlikely either to facilitate economically or complement the employee housing use. Other ccmmunity facilities may be aDpropriate near the highway; or some small neighborhood commercial located in the interior of the site would serve the needs of this and the Water Plant development...SPA zoning would facilitate development of such uses while the review process is the same as that for implementation of the housing overlay. , The P&Z should also recommend that annexation be contingent on a development plan w deed restricted emoloyee units. that is at least 70 ) Given this recommendation, the previous proposal to zone the Celia Marolt property - R-15-A is consistent with the zoning proposed here. -4- 0 . Comments Regarding Development Plan We will comment verbally at the meeting as these comments will be useful for back- ground information and in anticipation of the development proposal. However, they are not clearly relevant to the rezoning question. -5- , t 'tv,\ 1 ; 14 1 1, TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission it 7 931 1 60 1 FROM: Open Space Aclvisory Board ~ ~~~~ ~ RE: Opal Maroll Property--Zoning Recommendation 124/ DATE: November 29, 1979 The Open Space Advisory Board has reviewed the Opal Marolt annexation and zonj.ng application and the conceptual development plan, in the light of the preliminary draft of the Open Space Master Plan. This property is included in the OSAB list of d9sireable open areas for preservation. The OSAB believes that the Marolt property' satisfies the Master Plan criteria for open space preservation as follows: A. Natural area and rural character of landscape (river bottom, river edge, irrigated meadow and farm land); B. Areas which have (a) unusual variety in near and far views (views of Shadow Mountaini town, .Smuggler Mountain, Red Mountain, RoarinG Fork Vall pv. Buttermilk, Maroon 7.-,~-1, 17- 1 1 --- .9 3 --1 -1 9 ------4 ' Castle. Creek Valley) ; (b) native or unique :flora (riparian flora on Castle 'Creek; Oak Brush slopes, stands of cottonwood trees) ; and (c) -frontages on river (includes - or borders Castle Creek along its entire eastern boundary) r C. Agricultural land (irrigated meadow and farm land);Â· . DÂ® Lands which may be utilized for shaping urban, . neighborhood, and rural areas such that building .. and population are concentrated in urban modes (the property lies between the existing urban " border and the Thomas property open space purchase and includes the geographic boundaries of the Castle Creek ravine and flat irrigated lands adjacent to steeply rising Valley slopes); E. Undeveloped land along transportation corridors (the property lies between major roads located on the north and south, namely State Highway No. 82 and the Castle Creek road, and lies directly in the path of a proposed transit corridor, and would be separated from the adjacent Thomas property by a proposed new road linking the Cemetery Lane- Highway 82 intersection with the Castle Creek Road at the entrance to the Aspen Valley Hospital) I. ... . .. ... . 4 .. . F. Areas accessible to population centers, especially those areas where non-motorized modes of travel (walking, bicycling, equestrian) a public transit provide access (the property lies adjacent to and is surroundad.on three sides by the incorporated limits of the City of Aspch and the property itself marks the westerly boundary of and the end of the urban area); G. Areas for passiv'e or active recreatibnal use, with more intense activity encouraged in close proximity to population centers (flat, irrigated land within walking distance of town lends itself to development as playing fields and the steep slopes and deed ravine of Castle Creek lends itself to passive recreational pursuits such as fishing and picnicing); H. Areas of historic and cultural interest (property is the site of the Aspen Union Smelting Company, is bisected by the Old Midland Railroad right of way, includes the westerly end of the now demolished Midland Railroad trestle, is occupied by farm buildings bearing witness to the farm uses of the surrounding land and being. in themselves historic examples of good work-a-day authentic rural wooden architecture never to be replaced, and is historically the place where the farmed valley began at the edge of the original Aspen townsite); TheÂ· City of Aspen and Pitkin County have purchased lands lying easterly and westerly of the urbanized area of Aspen for the express purpose of protectiing open spact at the entrances to Aspen and for the-express purpose of confining and concentrating development within an area closely identified with Aspen's urban core. The Open Space Advisory Board i there fore recommends to the City of. Aspen that: $ U a. The city seek to purchase all or part of the Opal Marolt property for open space purposes; b. The property be zoned with a PUD overlay. reflecting the criteria for open space as stated herein.and in the Open Space Master Plan; C. The City seek to secure the open space areas permanently by dedications, conservation easements or by other appropriate means. : . . . . I I . 7/ze - 0 c->'Â»U 3111 Special Meeting Aspen City Council June 15, 1981 Mulligan pointed out the developer is already dedicating 24 acres of land, plus this other space is for the common use of the project not just for one individual's use. 1 Mayor Edel rebutted it was not for the entire city population. Mulligan said the way 1 the Code is written, it is not required that the active and passive recreational area be for public use. Councilwoman Michael noted the park dedication fee started at $589,000 , and is now down to $70,000. City Manager Chapman said there are so many different ways ' to interpret this and calculate it, the park dedication fee can go from $16,000 to ; $3,000,000. Council had told staff to work through calculations and come up with a ' method that wi 11 work for this project and also forÂ· other projects. Chapman said what the applicant is requesting, in the opinion of staff, the Code permits. Mayor Edel said this is based on an arbitrary figure of 88 per cent of the 6.9 acres. Mulligan said he i did not feel this was arbitrary. ! Mayor Edel asked if the Code addresses accepting land for the general city. Chapman i answered the Code just says land dedication. Mayor Edel asked if he wanted to have a picnic on this land, could he do that. Mulligan answered no. Mayor Edel explained to him land dedication means dedication to the city, not to a private enclave. Chapman pointed out it could also mean that there was intended to be open space just for visual purposes, aesthetic purposes, not- necessarily use purposes. Vann said another way to look at this is that the intent was to use the money, the cash fee, to purchase necessary ' active and passive park lands that the additional people associated with the project would impact. The applicant, in this case, is arguing that he is providing for that on-site, through the provision of land for his people. The new tenants will not necess- arily impact the parks as much as they would have had he not provided this open space; t therefore, this is a reasonable exchange in lie.1 for a portion of his park dedication fee. Mayor Edel said he followed the theory and agrnes to some extent; however, it is out of ' proportion in terms of dollar return and dollar purchase amount. Mu l 15. gan Sci 1 1 Â·cl-, e deveJoper and the staff are trying to come up with a realistic exercise; many things in 1-his project are uniaue, such as 62 per cent of the lind includes open space already, and the free market portion is being utilized to suffice fcr active and pass:ve recreation r.irmÂ·:ses. Mayer Edel said he felt it should be a lot mor e than 12 per cent of the free market portion that the formula for park dedication fern- is based on. Mulligan pointed out +he formula for park dedication fee is a relationship Zo the size of the dwelling units, the number of bedrooms and residents -- not necessarily the value of the units. Mulligan said if one takes that concept and applies it to the strictures of what the coue seems to be saying, and a developer provides sufficient active and passive recreation use for all the additional 'residents under the formul, the purpose of the code has been met. Molligan stated to Council that they are giving a lot of open space and providing intense active and passive recreation area, the only property that should be penalized for purposes of the park dedication fee is that land that is not used. City Attorney Tadd,Ine pointed out the code references land dedication, it does not j indicate that it has to be dedicated specifically to the city. The code states, " the : subdi vision shall dedicate that amount of land the current value.equals the amount of cash payment computed above". The code does not refer directly a dedication to the city for public park purposes. Taddune said when the staff calculated the park dedication fees they came to about 85 per cent of the estimated value of the land or $670,000. Also in a PUD, which is a bit different from a subdivision application, the city requires a certain amount of open space. Councilwoman Michael stated though the theory is good, she has trouble justifying that the open space fund get only $70,000 out of this whole project. Mulligan said this project is already giving $2,000,000 on that value formula worth of open space to the city. Councilwoman Michael said the Marolt project represents growth, and one of the reasons for the park dedication fee and for the desire on the part of the city to acquire land as growth occurs is open space for the people whom this project will generate and , the kinds of public uses of public land that they need. Councilman Parry said the developer is putting money into creating the facilities and 1 paying a park dedication fee on top of that. Mayor Fdel said the developer is putting 1 the money in to make it as enticing as possible, to make the amenities nice and to bocst i up the cost of the individual units. The developer then comes to the city and say we ' are doing this to make the units sell at a higher price, but they also want a lower park : dedication fee. Mayor Edel said he felt the $67,000 is out of line based on the fact i that most of the 80 per cent of the land is for the accommodation and convenience and i saleability of the units. Mayor Edel said he is looking for a compromise between the I three million or $580,000 and the $67,000. Councilman Parry agreed to look for a com- I promise, but how is one arrived at. Mulligan suggested they could handle $96,000 wit.hout: hurting the project. Councilman Knecht said he agreed the 24 acres of dedicated land is a lot of land; on the other hand $2,000 per unit isn't very much. Mayor Edel suggesteci the applicant and staff caucus and come up with an acceptable formula. Vann told Council the 88 per cent used was based only on the parking sheds end the buildings. If the ~ parking lot and roads were taken out, the percentage would change. I Vann went on with the agreement, Section 5 deals with the open space and maintenance agree ments. When Council decided not to take the 24 acres in lieu of tt e park dedication fee,, the applicant agreed to dedicate it to open spade with some specific conditions. ; Essentially, this land can be used for passive open. space. Vann said if the city were to accept is in lieu of a fee, the city would want it unencumbered. The agreement is that the city will not put ball fields and horticultural centers on this open space. Taddune explainal to Council that in the event this is not maintained as pessive open ! space, the applicant wants the right to have this land back. Section 7 sets forth the procedure by which the applicant can be reconveyed the land if not maintained as passive open space. Taddune said the agreement is written in such a way that if the applicaut takes the land back, it is still limited to the purpose the city is intending to use it for. Mayor- Edel said was responsibility costs pursuant to terms of this agreement mean.. Vann said whatever it takes to maintain the land as is is the city's responsibility. 78 ,112 Special Meeting Aspen City Council June 15, 1981 Vann told Council that Lot 1 is the employee portion and contains 70 units. This will be ~ condominiumized; however, the conversion to sale is subject to Council approval. While the project is a rental project, it will have a management entity. Vann told Council the : agreement provides this management contract is subject to Council approval, which is not an important issue to staff. Council agreed to delete that provision. Vann pointed out lot 2 is for the 30 free market units. These will be condominiumized for separate sale; 3 this is one of the approvals. The agreement deals with the responsibility of maintenance for facilities, facilities in common for both of the projects will be shared on a 70/30 basis. In section 6, it says that the applicant will convey such water rights for maintenance of open space to the city. Taddune told Council this will be between .25 and .5 cfs, which is acceptable to the water department. Mulligan told Council these will be low priority water rights. Mayor Edel asked what percentage of the water rights this is. Mulligan said about one-fourth. Mayor Edel asked if there discussions about getting more of the water rights. Taddune said this is still in discussion. Vann told Council that section 7 deals with sewer, refers to the plant investment fees, etc. Section 8 deals with the issuance of industrial revenue bonds or the concept that the city would accept title to the employee portion of the project for issuance of IRBs. It also says that as long as the property is rental, the city will accept ownership with lease back provisions for the purposes of deferral of real estate taxes. The Council must review if this comes up as a sale project and there are conditions. Section 9 is price guidelines; it will be $.70 per square foot for occupancy at December 1982. If they do not meet that deadline, and there is some justification, they will either meet $.70 per square foot or the moderate guidelines in place at that time. Mulligan told Council they would have to submit a request for extension if they cannot meet the deadline. There is a paragraph which provides for an annual adjustment after the date of occupancy, either at 8 per cent or the annual adjustment in effect at that time, the greater of the two. Section 10 deals with assurances required by the subdivision regulations. There will be escrowed $1,050,000 for water, sewer, roads, etc. Section 11 deals with additional parking. P & Z recommended Council approve a reduction in the required parking for the free market portion of the project from one parking space per bedroom to two parking spaces per units. The applicant has indicated on the plat provision for additional park- ing to meet the Code should the city determint that the two space per unit is inadequate. Section 12 deals with the six month minimum leases with no more than two shorter tenancies per year. Vann said that P&Z and Council were concerned about this being a tourist- oriented project; it was intended as a permanent-type project. The original conditions of the annexation did not address short-term tourist uses in this location. The R-15 zone is inappropriate location for tourist use. The City's master plan has tourist uses located close to the mountain. Mulligan reminded Council he had presented an exemption requested from the six month minimum restrictions, which was denied by Council. This request was .based on the fact that the condominiumi ordinances applies to conversions, in the original intent, and not to new projects that are supplying additional employee hous- ing with no displacement. Mulligan said they also addressed this on the basis that the underlying zone category did not, in fact, require short term rental restrictions. Mulligan said they have accepted this condition although under protest. Section 13 is the deed restrictions for the employee portion. There will be a deed restriction for 50 years setting up prices, etc. consistent with guidelines established by Code. Section 14 is non-compliance and a provision for extensions and sets up the mechanisms whereby extensions from the time frame can be applied for the by applicant. Taddune pointed out there are six assumptions that are made which give a little flexibility to the applicant in terms of asking for extensions. There is also a procedure if the city feels they are not complying notice can be given and approval withdrawn. Vann told Council the last sections deals with miscellaneous and other agreements to be entered into. The housing mix is outlined, which is 34 two-bedrooms, 19 one-bedrooms and 17 studios. Vann told Council the applicant is requesting sufficient flexibility, if the housing office recommends and Council approves, the mix may be changed within the overall total of 70 units to reflect what the demand is at the time. Mulligan said rather than ' try to get this into the agreement to do a separate resolution regarding what the housing office will come out with as a result of the study as to housing demand. Taddune suggested work out a modification to this agreement and have the applicant come in and ask for an amendment to PUD. Vann told Council the size of the units are within the guidelines established by growth management. Vann told Council there are guidelines associated with the 70/30 ordinance, and that is that the project maintain an average of 1-1/2 to 2 bedrooms per unit for the employee portion of the project; and at least 50 per cent of the total floor area is devoted to deed restricted units. The. Marolt project does maintain a bedroom average of 1.5, subject to change as discussed above. Approximately 41 per cent of the total project floor area is currently devoted to employee housing. This was reviewed with the housing office; it was felt the free market units are excessive in size and that the mix is acceptable. There was no objection to this. 4 Vann said the third approval being requested is condominiumization for the free market portion of the project. The request and application are consistent with the guidelines; the planning office has no problem with the request for condominiumization. Appropriate documents will have to be submitted. The planning office recommends that the applicant's i request for growth management exemption and condominiumization be approved subject to compliance with the six month minimum lease provisions and subject to the deed restrictions , of the employee portion of the project at a rental rate of $.70 per square foot or sales ~ price of $76 per square foot as provided for in the agreement. Council recessed for applicant and staff to discuss the park dedication fees. 3113 Special Meeting Aspen Citv Council June 15, 1981 Mulligan told Council he and staff have gone back through the park dedication fee formula ' and tried to relate it to a number. When they went through the calculations, taking everything but the units and come up with a percentage to figure the park dedication fee on. They percentage came up from 11 per cent to 22 per cent, which comes to a figure of $129,580. Mulligan said this straps the budget for the project. Mulligan said the city does allow a note for park dedication fees to be executed at building permit and paid out of the c/o's of each unit. Mulligan requested to take a note out but not to accrue any interest. Mayor Edel said Council had arrived at a figure of 25 per cent for the park dedication fee, rather than 22 per cent; this comes to a park dedication fee of $147,000. City Manager Chapman told Council he would have to check of the consistency of charging 12 per cent interest. Chapman said he did not think the city has been doing this in an i even manner. Chapman said if the Council wanted to do this, the applicant would pay the park dedication fee when the certificate of occupancy is issued and not pay any interest. The Code lets the director of finance use his discretion in this circumstance. Council decided as a compromise to use 22 per cent for the formula and charge 12 per cent interest. ; Jeffrey Sachs said he felt this project was inappropriate for Aspen. It was upzoned when i the land was annexed at a time when there was more urgency to the employee housing problem 1' than there is now. This urgency has been abated; 100 units is not needed on this land. I ~ There would have been 17 units on this land had it been zoned appropriately. Sachs stated ~ the growth management plan is being undermined; it was never intended for a project like .1 1 this. In a single year, this is basically two and a half times the growth rate which was ' 1 ~ originally established at the 3-1/2 annual rate. Sachs said with regards to the park ' dedication fee there is a set formula and it has always been applied fairly with respect ~ , to the value of the property and type of development; this is specified in the Code. I If the same formula was applied to 30 single family dwellings, the park dedication fee woub 0' be in the neighborhood of $600,000. The Council is establishing a precedent and cheating , the City of Aspen out of 78 per cent of what the true correct totally practicable park ~ dedication fee has been in the past. This developer is asking the city for a five times | , density increase and then asking to waive 78 per cent of the park dedication fee. The ] ~ concept of dedicating private land as open area and calling that land in lieu of park i dedication fee is incredible. Citizens cannot go out there and use that land; it is not 2 a public park. ~ Francis Whitaker said this project will add several hundred people to the population of , ~ the city all at one time. This means more cars, more air pollution, etc. The City has ! taken property that belongs to people who are not residents of the city, annexed it and upzoned it five times. All that is heard this evening is exemptions; exemption from growth management, exemptions from park dedication, exemptions from floor space ratio, reduction in the parking requirements. As far as cluster development, the purpose was to allow cluster development so there aren't so many roads, to reduce constructions costs, and to leave some of the land for all of the people to enjoy. In no way was that intended for community public use. That would be a sad mistake to consider that area in any way as a ' reason for reducing the park dedication fee. Ellie Bealmer, Ed Czacky, Jerry Fels and i~ Bob Francis opposed the project. Mulligan reiterated the applicant had accepted the six month minimum lease restriction under protest; they had to agree to it to get the approvals. Taddune told Council the applicant is agreeing to the six month minimum lease but they have their fingers crossed. Mulligan said by signing this agreement, they will adhere to the six month minimum lease; ~ the applicant does not agree with the clause but does agree to it. Mulligan pointed out 1 ~ this process was started in recognition of employee housing needs. This will contain , 2.8 units per acre; this is less overall density than much of the surrounding land. The property has been private property and never was dedicated to the city for park. Councilman Parry moved to approve the revised Marolt Ranch final PUD subdivision applica- tion as submitted subject to the following conditions; (1) the engineering department's ' conditions outlined in the attached memorandum dated June 8, 1981, and (2) the execution i of final PUD/subdivision agreement prior to issuance of a building permit; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. Councilman Knecht said he likes this project because the city has gained 24 acres of open , space. He also like the 30 units clustered rather than 17 single family dwellings all i over. Councilman Knecht said he would like to swap with Jay Kuhen over at Silverking for the employee units. The area at Marolt where the employee units are is some of the most beautiful property in the entire project. Councilman Knecht said he felt it would be better for employee housing not to be next to $600,000 houses. Councilman Knecht said not all employee housing should be the lowest rate; there are a lot of middle income employees in town and the employee housing should be a mix. Councilman Knecht said he would like the staff to look -into switching this housing approval to the east side of town. Vann said ! there would be a process to amend this; the 70/30 ordinance would not preclude moving to ~ a separate site so long as the conditions were maintained. Mulligan said he has discussed the idea of moving the employee housing with the applicant; they feel the idea has a lot ~ of merit. One of the problems, however, is what would that do to the construction schedule. Mulligan said the idea is very sketchy at this point. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Knecht. Motion carried. 1 Councilman Parry moved to approve the applicant's request for growth management exemption ' and condominiumization subject to the compliance with six month minimum lease provisions ast currently set forth in section 20-22 of the Municipal Code; and subject to the deed I restriction to the employee portion of the project to a rental rate of $.70 per square foot and a sales price of $76 per square foot as provided for in the final PUD/subdivision agreement; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, motion carried. Jim Mulligan expressed appreciation during a lengthy process; the applicant has expended i much energy and sums; the city staff spent a lot of time and effort with the applicant. 3114 Special Meeting' Aspen City Council June 15, 1981 1./ 1 MUNICIPAL JUDGE ~ 4 Mayor Edel requested, on behalf of Brooke Peterson, that in Municipal Court in the ~ J Councilman Knecht issue that a new judge be appointed. Council requested this be put on the next regular Council agenda. BOND ISSUE FOR WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN ; : City Manager Chapman reminded Council he had wanted to research the short term versus ' long term funding and give Council a recommendation. Chapman said it would cost $67,000 for 60 days, based on 70 per cent of prime, which is 14.35 per cent over the last two months. Chapman told Council the city would be required tc reinvest the unused portion of the borrowed amount with the lender, who will pay the city the federal funds rate. Chapman said he then took an average of the federal funds and figured out the return and based on 19 per cent federal rate and a 20 per cent prime rate, the city would lose about $5,000. The decision of short term versus long term is predicated on what the city thinks the market will do in the next 30 to 45 days. Mayor Edel said he did not agree with the logic of this memorandum. Mayor Edel said the feeling of accountants and investors is that the prime will be down substantially in two months, and he would not like to go with the $2,700,000 bond issue. Chapman told Council what the city is trying to do in the short term market is get just enough money to get through the first 60 days of payments. Chapman explained short term borrowing at $1,200,000 was predicated on Council's request that staff go out for proposals for an underwriter. That would get through the first phase, then the city would go with the bonds. The first phase of the program, which will last more than 60 days, will cost more than $1,200,000. Council.woman Michael moved the City issue $2,700,000 in long term bonds; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Knecht and Mayor Edel. Motion NOT carried. Councilman Knect said he felt short-term money is the best way to go on this; everything is so up in the air. Councilman Knecht said whenever one can do short-term and then renegotiate, it is a better situation. Councilwoman Michael said perhaps Councilman Collins should be in on this vote. City Manager Chapman said the staff would inform Council to both sides of the issue. Mayor Edel said he had no problem with having the whole Council vote on this. Councilman Knecht said he would sit with the staff to go over this because the issue is new to him. Councilwoman Michael moved to continue the meeting to Tuesday, June 16, 1981, at noon; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. ~~Â»b L Ad# I Kathryn ,#( Koch, City Clerk Continued Meeting Aspen City Council June 16, 1981 Mayor Edel called the meeting to order at 12:10 p.m. with Councilmembers Collins, Knecht Michael and Parry present. Councilman Knecht moved to reconsider the previous vote; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Parry moved to approve the issuance of a maximum of $2,700,000 in bonds for the water project; seconded by Councilman Knecht. All in favor, with the exception of Mayor Edel. Motion carried. Councilwoman Michael moved to adjourn at 12:15 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. 6.--UL uÂ»/3 LS 406 Kathryn #~ Koch, City Clerk Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 22, 1981 1 Mayor Edel called the meeting to order at 5:25 with Councilmembers Collins, Knecht, Michael and Parry present. MINUTES Councilman Parry moved to approve the minutes for March 9, and 17, 1981; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE i 1 Councilman Parry moved to approve the accounts payable for May; seconded by Councilman ~ Knecht. All in favor, motion carried. , ,% CITIZEN PARTICIPATION i There were no comments. 3115 .. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 22, 1981 COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS ~ 1. Councilman Collins asked if there was a special permit for the big party the Design Conference held. City Manager Chapman told Council there was a permit issued for the fireworks by the fire chief. The building inspector is working with the fire chief on these fireworks events. The fire chief and building department are trying to work out a system they can agree on. Chapman said he and the city attorney do not like the way the Code is written. Councilwoman Michael said she felt the design conference was a very exciting event. 2. Councilwoman Michael said there was a celebration of the incorporation of the City of 100 years and it went very well. Councilwoman Michael thanked Ramona Markalunas, Jane Jenkins and Lois Butterbaugh for their help. Lois Butterbaugh told Council she would report on the cost to the city later. i 3. Mayor Edel pointed out the signs have gone up on Lake avenue saying "This is a i Pedestrian thoroughfare". Mayor Edel said if this works it will be amazing. It is a well ~, intended concept; Mayor Edel suggested that it be monitored very carefully. Mayor Edel , said he had thought this was just for the Sunday afternoon concerts. Chapman said the | people who presented this to the city were talking about anytime during the concert season.. % Mayor Edel said unless barriers are put up, this will probably not work and requested the ~ ~ staff come back to Council with a report on this. 4. Mayor Edel said the city has a person interested in purchasing the water plant housing project. Councilman Parry moved to put this issue on the agenda; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, motion carried. 5. Mayor Edel said Council had met to come up with an Aspen Meadows Advisory Commission. ~ Councilman Parry moved to put this on the agenda; seconded by Councilman Knecht. All i in favor, motion carried. 1 6. Mayor Edel said he had received a phone call from an irate citizen having to do with i noise at Little Nell's. Tom Dunlop, environmental health officer, told Council he had been working with this person for about a year; Dunlop has taken all the non-enforcement I actions he can. Dunlop told Council he has a meeting with the police department to i instruct them in the use of the sound level meter reader so that the police department can i cite Little Nell's into court, if they are over the allowable decible level. UPDATE ON COG PROGRAMS i Gary Martinez was present to give a brief update on the variety of program operated , through COG. One is CETA, which COG is a sponsor. The locally elected offical dictate the use of CETA resources; approximately $174,000 was spent in Pitkin County during the ! first six months of this year. There is an emergency medical services program, $35,000 will be spent in Pitkin County for EMS communications equipment. COG is also involved in training programs for EMS persons. COG has a natural resources staff. COG held a i r housing conference which was in Aspen. Martinez told Council that COG is trying to get 1 money to fund a transportation study to improve transportation between all points in Colorado. COG is negotiating with Moffatt tunnell commission to see if they will fund i this study. There is an energy impact program which is the state's attempt to offset impacts in energy related towns. COG also conduct a senior citizens program; Aspen and , Pitkin County will be represented by Budge Bingham. COG is also involved in the 208 water program. Martinez reported on the Williams Fork issue, in which a Federal judge I ruled in favor of COG's position on this. Denver wanted to divert water without what the Â· local jurisdictions said. This is a fairly significant decision, which will probably be appealed. COG's legal staff has worked with the city's staff on all these various projects. ORDINANCE #36, SERIES OF 1981 - Water Management Plan/Water Rates I City Manager Chapman told Council this ordinance increases the monthly charges by 10 per 1! cent. This is the first step of the water management plan; the staff wants to do this now because it is the watering season. Chapman said the city is doing this in anticipation of building a surplus to pay the debt service on the water bond issue. Councilwoman Michael moved to read Ordinance #36, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman ' Parry. All in favor, motion carried. 1 ORDINANCE #36 i (Series of 1981) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING DIVISION 3 OF ARTICLE III OF CHAPTER 23 OF THE MUNICIPAL j CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, ENTITLED "WATER RATES AND CHARGES" was read by the city clerk ' Councilwoman Michael moved to adopt Ordinance #36, Series of 1981, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Collins. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Knecht, aye; Parry, aye; Michael, aye;.Collins, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #34, SERIES OF 1981 - Rea, Cassins Contract f Councilwoman Michael moved to read Resolution #34, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. 1 RESOLUTION #34 ' (Series of 1981) A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND REA, CASSENS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. PROVIDING FOR THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES ? FOR WATER CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, ALL AS MORE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED HEREIN " 3116 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 22, 1981 WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract agreement 1 between the City of Aspen and Rea, Cassens and Assoicates, Inc. providing for the professional engineering services for certain water system construction projects, which agreement the Council wishes to approve, adn WHEREAS, Section 9.13(b) of the Home Rule Charter of the City of Aspen, Colorado, authorizes the City to execute such agreements, I! NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF -ASPEN, ..L. COLORADO: 1! Section 1 That it does ratify and approve that certain contract between the City of Aspen and Rea, Cassens and Associates, Inc. attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, and the Mayor is hereby authority and directed to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Aspen. was read by the city clerk Councilwoman Michael moved to approve Resolution #34, Series of 1981; seconded by Council- man Parry. All in favor, motion carried. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENT Councilman Collins stated he was not at the special meeting last week at which the vote was taken on the Marolt subdivision application. Councilman Collins asked that his vote be shown as a no on that particular question. This will not change the outcome of the vote but does reflect his position. MAROON BELLS BUS PROGRAM City Manager Chapman told Council this is a status Â·report on the feasibility of the Maroon Bells bus service. The city staff has worked on arrangements with the County. The city will bill the program at $.57 per mile, which will cover the additional costs of the program; the county is agreeable to that. The forest service and CETA worked the program last year; however, funds are not available from them for this year. The forest service is providing interns free of cost and the City is putting them up at the Plum Tree. Mayor Edel asked if the city was covering any costs for this at the Plum Tree. Chapman said there would only be a minimal amount of electricty. There will be four interns to greet people, handle traffic and answer questions. Councilwoman Michael said her big problem is if there is a deficit the Aspen Skiing Corporation indicated a will- ingness to pick up the insurance; the Highlands indicated they would give free sky rides. None of these are firm promises. Chapman said he felt they were firmed up. Councilman Knecht said the staff did a very nice job putting this together. Councilman Collins moved to instruct the transportation director to organize, budget and direct a summer bus service to Maroon Bells for the summer of 1981; seconded by Council- man Knecht. All in favor, motion carried. j ORDINANCE #34, SERIES OF 1981 - Appropriations Councilwoman Michael moved to read Ordinance #34, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman Knecht. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #34 (Series of 1981) AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,880 FROM FUND BALANCE, APPROPRIATING WATER FUND EXPENDITURES OF $3,400 FROM FUND BALANCE was read by the city clerk Councilwoman Michael moved to adopt Ordinance #34, Series of 1981, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Collins. Councilwoman Michael stated she would like to see that the baby pool is never, ever closed again. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Parry, aye; Michael, aye; Knecht, aye; Collins, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. SALE OF CASTLE RIDGE City Manager Chapman told Council that Lois Butterbaugh had found people interested in the city's housing project. The investors were in town and toured Castle Ridge and have said they are interested. There are time consideration on their part. Chapman said he needs feedback from Council on whether they are interested in having staff pursue this. Mayor Edel said he did not think the staff had the expertise to understand the financial problems and perhaps a tax accounting expert should be asked to look into this. Mayor Edel told Council he knew an excellent tax accountant and perhaps he could come to Aspen to discuss the tax ramifications and problems. Chapman agreed; the obvious reason for the interest in Castle Ridge is that is represents a good tax shelter. Chapman said in order for the city to get fair value out of the project, the city should get advice of a tax expert. A ! Jeff Sachs asked if this had to go to the electorate. Councilman Knecht asked how much 1 was known about the interested investors. Chapman said that would be part of the work 2 of staff if Council was interested at all. Councilman Collins said as far as the tax ---j laws, this is something the investors will present to Council. Also the city should be 1 looking at other proposals. Chapman said there are a number of variables the city will E have to consider in any sale and the staff and Council will be better off having more 1 information. Councilman Parry said the city should pursue this and he is in favor of a tax expert. i 4 . r- ---- - - 0 0 3* 3 8\ 40-A Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 22, 1981 1t RESOLUTION #35, SERIES OF 1981 - Creating and Appoint Members to the Aspen Meadows 1 Advisory Board 1 Councilwoman Michael requested that a member from ACIIC be added to the committee. They worked so hard when the Institute was turned down to get a solution. Councilwoman Michael moved to read Resolution #35, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. i. - RESOLUTION _z1O_ (Series of 1981) A RESOLUTION CREATING AND APPOINTING MEMBERS TO AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO BE KNOWN AS THE ASPEN - MEADOWS ADVISORY BOARD WHEREAS, that property located in the West End of the City of Aspen historically known as the Aspen Institute Property and here- inalter designated as the "Aspen pleadows" exists as one ot the largest undeveloped tracts of land within the present boundaries of the City 01- Aspen and its development will have a signiticant impact on the City, and WHEREAS, historically said tract of land has been used by the Aspen Institute tor Humanistic Studies which has rendered an in- valuable academic and cultural service to the citizens of the City of Aspen and has provided a site for the Aspen Music Festival and Physics Institute, and WHEREAS, the City Council is aware that Mr. Hans Cantrup has purchased or placed under contract for purchase either a portion or all ot the Aspen Meadows and intends to propose plans for con- tinued ret.ention and support of the above academic anci cultural services, as well as deve-lopi.ent, and WHEREAS, in view Of the size, location and nist.orical use ot the Aspen Meadows Property, the City Council deems it to be in t.he best interest 01 the City that any and ali proposed uses or devel- opment. be given t.lie closest scrut.iny t.0 assure that t.he qualiti 01 tile environment be maintairiea and that any use or development-. remain compatiole with tile West End res Ident.lai area ot the City, and WHEREAS, the City Council has been requested to appoint- an adivSOry committee to be known as the Aspen Meadows Advisory Board to review and recommend any and all proposed plans for devi-:102Â·~ient. and uses 01 the Asi,en Meadows Property by Mr. Cantrup and 1113 sue- Cessors and assigns, and WHEREAS, tne City Council desi.res to create and appoint Mull- bers to such advisory committee to be Known as the Asi,en Meadows Advisory Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF Tli E CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: 1. There is hereby created an aavisory committee to be known as the Aspen Meadows Advisory Board tor the purpose or reviewing and recommending any and all proposed plans and uses ot the Aspen Meadows Property by Mr. Hans Cantrup, his successors and ass ig ns . Tite Board shaii establish its own rules arla Shall serve in an advisory capacity only, and its act.ions shall riot be cori- strued in any way to constit-ute City approval ot any proposed plans for development or uses of the Aspen Meadows Property. 2. The following individuals are hereby requesned to serve as members of the Aspen Meadows Advisory Board and their willing- ness to serve shall and hereby aoes constitute their appointinent to the Board: 1. Governor Richard Lamm or, 1.n his absence, Lt. Governor Nancy Dick 2. A representative to be selected by the Board of County Coramissioners of the County ofj Pitkin 3. Chairman or the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, Robert 0. Anderson 4. Music Associates of Aspen Chairman, Edgar Stern 5. Elizabeth Paepcke 6. Hans B. Cantrup 7. A president of one of the local Dan'ks or savings and loan companies (to be designated by the presi- dents 0Â£ the local banks or savings and loan com- panies) 8. President of the Chamber of Commerce 9. Pres dent of VOICE, Mort Heller 10. President of the Aspen Valley Improvement Associa- tion 9 A l . e 9- 5 lib -13 %/15/ Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 22, 1981 11. Presicent of the Aspen Arts Council (formerly the Aspen Foundation tor the Arts) 12. A representative to De designated by the Inter- national Design Conference 13. James Hopkins Smith 14. A representative to be designated by the Aspen Cen- ter tor Physics 15. Mr. John Kelly 16. Mr. Melton Fleisher, as a representative of the Concerned Citizens of the West End 17. President of the West End Improvement Association, John Schumacher 18. The president of the Aspen Lodging Association 19. A representative to be designated by the Aspen Skiing Corp. 20. A represeritative from the Aspen Community Institute Interaction Comfilittee Councilman Parry moved to adopt Resolution #35, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman Knecht. Councilwoman Michael asked if a time limit should be suggested in the resolution. Mayor Edel said if the Advisory Board hasn't come to Council by September 1st, then the Council can say something to them. Mayor Edel requested staff contact all members on the Advisory Board to set up a meeting for Thursday at noon in Council Chambers. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Collins. Motion carried. LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS Councilman Parry moved to approve the liquor license renewals for the Crystal Palace, Paragon and Sgt. Pepper's; seconded by Councilman Knecht. All in favor, motion carried. Council recessed to an executive session. ORDINANCE #35, SERIES OF 1981 - Water Bonds Councilwoman Michael moved to read Ordinance #35, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #35 (Series of 1981) Councilwoman Michael moved to adopt Ordinance #35, Series of 1981, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Collins. Mayor Edel asked what the city was realizing with the issuance and how much is it going to cost the city to realize that. Chapman told Council generally what the city has done with Kirchner/Moore is to negotiate the fee. Chapman said he could separate the two bond issues and bring back to Council what the fee is. Mayor Edel said he felt this bond issue was the wrong way to go from a financial point of view. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Michael, aye; Knecht, aye; Collins, aye; Parry, aye; Mayor ~ Edel, nay. Motion carried. 3117 .. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 22, 1981 ~ FINAL PIAT PUD - Park Place ~ Jack Johnson, planning office, told Council this project is located on the Cooper avenue mall and has been before Council to consider a GMP allotment of 8,800 square feet of ~ commercial space. There are other approvals necessary such as waivers to the Wheeler ~ Opera hous and Wagner park view planes. This is a two-story structure with ground floor I commercial and second story employee housing units which will penetrate 6 feet into the view plane. Johnson told Council this building is not out of scale with the surrounding buildings and the planning office does not object to the view plane penetration. | Johnson told Council there is another request for the reduction of open space. The , applicant is requesting an additional .5 FAR which he envisions all the bonus will go to employee housing. Another approval request is a total waiver of parking needs ~ for the employee units; they request no parking be imposed. The final approval is for i 1 exemption of the four employee units from GMP pursuant to density bonus of the Code. ~ Johnson told Council the attorney's office notes there shall be a final plat required I prior to -issuance of a building permit and there shall be a subdivision/PUD agreement ~ required. The engineering department has no particular problems with the variances ' necessary for the project. i 1 1 This application is for 8,800 square feet of commercial space and 3,032 square feet of !1 employee housing, which will be four one-bedroom units at approximately 750 square feet ! I each. The applicant is requesting middle income guidelines. Mayor Edel said there are ] 4 three applications tonight, two are for middle and one is for low. Mayor Edel stated he i ~ is distressed about higher rental rates being charged and would implore the developer to i a re-examine the level of rent. Johnson pointed out the P &Z has recommended moderate. i Andrew Dracopoli, representing the applicant, said there position is that the commercial ) core is the most expensive part of the city in which to build and middle income housing Â·i is appropriate in the commercial core. Dracopoli told Council in this project they have committed the entire bonus to employee housing and did not take any for commercial. , Dracopoli said in their GMP application they spelled out the housing would be middle ! ' income housing. Johnson pointed out in the commercial GMP competition there are no 1 ~ points given on low, moderate or middle levels only on the fact that employee housing is ~ given. ' Johnson told Council the planning office has no objections to the waivers of the heighth into the view plans; there are many obstructions in the vicinity. Dracopoli pointed out the developer has stepped the second floor back so that it appears less large from the ! mall. The planning office encourages an additional .5 FAR for employee housing and are ! in support of that request. The planning office also recommends the waiver of the 25 per cent open space and supports the exemption from GMP for the four one-bedroom units. 1 P&Z recommended approval of these four requests subject, however, to the moderate income' restrictions. Dracopoli told Council in a subsequent meeting the P&Z approve middle ; income guidelines for the Epicure project. , , Councilman Knecht asked about the parking issue. Dracopoli pointed out these units are I 5 right next to Rubey Park which is the transportation center, and are in the downtown area. The are guidelines as set out in the Code for special review for parking exemption. Regarding the income level guidelines, Lennie Oates said the confusion through the i process is compounded because there is no provision in the commercial section which addresses the three levels of housing. City Attorney Taddune said he felt it was within 1 the prerogative of Council to determine that, the question is when that prerogative is i exercised. Dracopoli said the Codes sets out guidelines to get the best commercial, i residential or lodging projects through the GMP. The developer followed these criteria T to get a score. In the commercial section there is not reference to the three levels as there is in the residential section. Dracopoli told Council this project has stated all i through the process, these units would be -middle income housing. The developer has ) ~ devoted the entire FAR bonus to employee housing. Lennie Oates said he did not feel the ! income guideline classification should be first addressed at the final plat stage of the ~ process. Councilman Parry said when people design a building, they determine what people i are going in that building, they design the apartment accordingly. If these are low i income, they will be too crummy for middle management. Councilman Collins said he agreed , these should be middle; it is difficult to determine unless the Council has established a policy. The applicant has gone through the entire review process. Counci 1man Collins moved to approve the final plat PUD including waivers to the Wheeler Operas House and Wagner Park view planes, and a waiver to the 25 per cent open space 1 requirement in the CC zone, and approval of special review to utilize additional .5:1 FAR bonus in the CC zone for four deed restricted employee housing units, approval of review to waiver parking needs of the four one-bedroom employee units proivded employee ~ units are restricted to middle income guidelines, and approval of exemption of four i one-bedroom employee housing units from GMP subject to the following conditions; (1) I prior to acceptance of final plat, applicant must enter into a subdivision/PUD agreement as required by Sections 24-8.6 and 20-16(c), including an open space and common facilities maintenance agreement required by Section 24-8.19, if applicable, and (2) f recordation of the final plat prior to issuance of a building permit; seconded by Council-, man Parry. All in favor, with the exception of Mayor Edel. Motion carried. , SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION - Park Place Development ' , 1 Councilman Parry moved to approve of the Park Place Development subdivision exception for the purposes of lot line adjustment subject to the following conditions; (1) submission of a final plat indicating the new lot line between lots B and C; (2) engineering depart- ment review of the new meter and utility locations and the associated maintenance and access easement, and (3) conveyance of the 227 square foot parcel to the Aspen Skiing Corporation and not to a third party; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. . ~. 3118 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 22, 1981 1 1 1 SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION - Epicurean 3 JackÂ·Johnson, planning office, told Council this is a reques t to condominiumize 21 spaces ~ I in the Epicure building. The Epicurean received a commercial GMP allotment for 10,041 i square feet in 1979. This allotment will expire in September if the applicant does not 2 submit plans sufficient for a building permit issuance. The engineering department has f noted this is not an adequate condominiumization plat, and the applicant will need to / resubmit a plat. Johnson told Council there is additionally 1,959 square feet of employee housing space divided into three units. The applicant is proposing this housing be restricted to the middle income category. Johnson told Council the planning office has reviewed this and has recommended that six month minimum leases apply to the three housing units. The P&Z reviewed this and recommended middle income guidelines. The applicant is requesting that the three parking spaces that would be required for the employee units be waived per the review criteria on the basis of the proximity to public transport and the closeness of the downtown core. The two studios will rent for $412 and the one bedroom for $635. These are 550 square feet and 850 square feet respectively. Johnson told Council the basement will probably be used as restaurant space; the second floor will be 8 units; the third floor 9 units and the top floor the employee housing. The is special review required for the waiving of the parking requirements. Johnson told Council the engineering and planning departments are in support of auto disincentive in the commercial cial and support this application; however, they would like to bring to the attention of Council, as the city continues to exempt the residential component of the commercial core, this is compounding the parking problems in the downtown. Johnson said as future applications come through, the staff will start looking more critically at parking association with the residential aspects of the downtown. Councilman Parry said he would like agreement from applicants to join in a parking structure sort of like a sidewalk district. The planning office recommends exemption of the employee units and approval of the no parking request. The employee units should be restricted to the middle income guidelines with a six month minimum lease restriction. Mayor Edel again strongly opposed the middle income guidelines; the city is getting no affordable units if they are all to be middle income. Councilman Parry moved to approve the application for subdivision exception for the purposes of condominiumizing theEpicure Plaza building subject to the following conditions: (1) compliance with the engineering department comments, (2) deed restrictions of the three employee units at the middle income price guidelines, (3) restrictions to six month minimum leases with no more than two shorter tenancies per year on the three employee housing units; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, with the exception of Mayor ~ Edel. Motion carried. Councilman Parry moved to approve the Epicure Plaza request for exception from GMP for the three employee housing units and approve the request that no parking be required for these units subject to the following condition: employee units restricted at the middle income guidelines wjth six month minimum leases and no more than two shorter tenancies; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, with the exception of Mayor Edel. Motion carried. SUBDIVISION EXCEPTIONÂ· - Brandt Councilwoman moved to approve the Brandt subdivision exception for purposes of condomini- umization subject to the following conditions: (1) submission of a condomjnium plat showing each units, common elements, parking, etc., to be signed and recorded following construe- tion of the second unit; (2) deed restriction on both halves of the duplex to six month minimum leases with no more than two shorter tenancies per year; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Edel requested a work session to discuss the issue of the pricing of employee units. This was scheduled for June 24, 1981, at noon. EXEMPTION FROM GMP FOR EMPLOYEE HOUSING - Mill Street Shopping Plaza Colette Penne, planning office, told Council this is a request to use a .5 FAR bonus for employee housing; exemption from GMP for employee housing , and exemption from the parking requirements for the employee hcusing. This is located in the CC zone. This project went through GMP in September 1980 and was alloted 20,500 square feet in addition to the retention of 6500 existing square feet. Three employee apartment are included in the plan and are part of the FAR. One of these units will be substandard in size. Ms. Penne told Council the present plan reflects some changes, one is that the existing Mill street station is being removed. This has been reviewed and approved by HPC. There will be three studios, two at 548 square feet and one at 530 square feet. The employee units are part of the .541 PAR bonus and.the applicant did not select to take advantage of the . bonus for the onmmercial square footage. P&Z r 20 :, Amended approval of the exemption of :i the employee units from GMP, conditioned upon them being deed restricted, and voted to ] waive the parking requirements. Councilwoman Michael moved to exempt from GMP the employee units in the Mill Street Shop- 1 ping Plaza subject to the following conditions: (1) deed restricting the employee hous- ing units as per Section 20-22 of the Aspen Municipal Code, (2) that these deed restrictions be for the low income category of the housing authority guidelines, (3) that these deed 4 .-/ restrictions be recorded prior to the receipt of a building permit; (4) that the parking j requirements for the employee units be waived; seconded by Councilman Parry. Councilman Parry pointed out these should be middle income units like the previous applicaL tions. Tony Mazza, representing the applicant, agreed he would like to receive what the i other applicants have gotten. Ms. Penne explained she had taken this application to P & Z' with no guidelines recommendations. P&Z recommended low and said they wanted to recom- mend low guidelines from now on. Mayor Edel requested that P&Z attend the study session on June 24. All in favor, motion carried. - 9110 e . ul.J-V Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 22, 1981 SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION - Behrendt Colette Penne, planning office, told Council this is five Contiguous lots zoned 'R-6. ~ The applicant is requesting subdivision excâ‚¬Â·rtion to f,orm two parcels, parce- one is i lots K, L, M, and parcel two is lots N and O. Ms. Penne told Council the Code says that nothing can be done which will increase the non-conformity of a structure or a parcel. In this application, if the land is split along the original lots lines, there will be a side yard that is not adequate. The applicant's attorney feels it is important to keep the lots at 6,000 and 9,000 square feet. The planning office came up with a compromise ~ of an easement granted for the affected section. Ms. Penne suggested the easement be ! granted along the edge of the wood frame house and a covenant not to build within 5 feet 1 of the house. ~ Councilwoman Michael moved to approve the requested lot split for Behrendt conditioned i 2 upon; (1) the granting of an easement, from the southeasterly corner of the house 15.8 g feet to the northeasterly corner of that section of the structure along the newly- i outlined lot line of 1.4 feet so that the minimum side yard of 5 feet is maintained and - nonconformity is not increased, (2) in additiona, a covenant should be attached with a commitment from the owner not to build within 5 feet of that easement on lot M; (3) that ! if either of the present non-conforming uses ceases to exist for any reason for a period i of more than a year, any subsequent use of such land shall conform to the regulations specified by the Code for the R-6 zone; seconded by Councilman Parry. i All in favor, motion carried. APP01NTMENTS TO HPC AND MUNICIPAL JUDGE Councilwoman Michael moved to nominate at regular members to the IIPC Lary Groen and that the current alternate, Marjorie Brenner, be appointed as a regular member; and that as alternates Steve Marcus and Nick Pasquarella be appointed; that Brooke Peterson be appointed Municipal Judge, and William Hodges III appointed as deputy Municipal Judge; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Edel noted there were superb candidates for both positions. ORDINANCE #31, SERIES OF 1981 - Single transfer of fuel ' Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Edel closed the ' public hearing. Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #31, Series of 1981, on second reading; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Michael, ayo; Collins, aye; Knecht, aye; Parry, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. CENTRAL RESERVATIONS LEASE Councilman Collins said he felt this lease should come under Council's annual review of ~ donations and contributions. Chapman pointed out the lease had been changed to expire on December 31, 1981, so that it will be renewed. Councilwoman Michael moved to adjourn at 8:20 p.m.; seconded by Cou :c..]man Pal-ry. All in favor, motion carried. Moti~j 1 4~0Â£__ Kathryn 0% Kochf City Clerk Special Meeting Aspen City Council July 2, 1981 Mayor Edel called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. with Councilmembers Collins, Knecht and Parry present. THRIFT SfIOP - GIft of House Assistant City Manager Butterbaugh explained Council has asked staff to investigate sites i available on which to move a Victorian house for the Thrift Shop to use. The staff has , 1 narrowed these to the east of city hall and next to the fire station. There are no !1 restrictions that cannot be handled; however, either parcel would have to be rezoned. 4 They are both zoned P, park. The Thrift Shop ladies have several buildings available to .i ~ them; some are not suitable. The Thrift Shop ladies hope to be able to determine if any 1 of these are feasiable. There is a Victorian house tbat is available to the ladies, and it will be moved to thi.s ~| site. The person donating the house needs a letter from Council st.ati.ng that a site is 11 available to use. The person needs to qet this deal firmed up so that he knows he can get a tax deduction. Ms. Butterbaugh told Council she has measured the building and it appears it would fit on the site. Ms. Butterbaugh has asked the fire chief to come to show Council the p]:ans of the fire department future build out to see how the donated building k might fit there. Also, the engineer and building inspector are present to answer questions on the problems of renovating the building and moving it from a residential zone to a i commercial zone. P Mayor Edel said it is nice to have ths, house moved ind fonjted to the Thr. ft Shop, but 1 d.u they WErit to stÂ·ra:'dle theÂ·msâ‚¬-'lves with 0100,000 to fix it rp. Maren Kash.'nsti se id the-â€¢ ' have ne ch,Ticc. Mayor EdÂ·-1 s.Tid 'Â·e though the T!-rift Shop should have some leverage from , the man donating this house to see if they can get money towards renovation. The man i donating the house is getting a large tax write-off. Herb Paddock, building inspection, i told Council the basic problem of moving the house from fire zone 3 to fire zone 1 is it changes the occupancy and use of the building; theCode requirements are far more stringent. Paddock told Council he has done a site inspection of the house. The roof is inadequate and will have to be replaced with a one-hour roof. Depending on the setbacks, the house will have to have 1 or 2 hour fire walls throughout. 3120 Special Meeting Aspen City Council . July 2, 1981 ~ Dan McArthur, city engineer, told Council the building will have to be gutted inside and ~ i out; it will have to be torn down to the bare studs; it will have to be insulated. The ' ~ interior walls have to come out. Paddock reiterated the problem is taking an R-1 occupancy ~ and turning it into B-2 and the codes are more stringent. Councilman Parry said it seems I one cannot survive with a Victorian in town. Ms. Butterbaugh said there is an exception 1 for older buildings, there is discretion up to the building inspector on what must be done. ~ Mayor Edel asked where the money for this building would come from. Ms. Kashinski said Â· in the event of a sale of the Wheeler Opera House, sjnce the Thrift Shop is losing their space, perhaps the new owners would underwrite the costs for them. Ms. Butterbaugh told Council i Andy Hecht, representing the Victorian owner, knows there is interest on the part of Council but that they are hung up with approvals, they do not have any problems holding. Ms. Butterbaugh said today the Council should address the problems of this ' Victorian building. Ms. Kashinski said it did not seem feasible to tear out the entire building and repair and renovate it. ~ Willard Clapper, fire chief, showed Council. the proposed expansion for the fire department, which is approximately a ten year project. This year the fire department is putting an extension on the top of this; probably not for the apartments, just the lower, the exten- sion out to the property line. The fire department has gotten a ten year lease with the city so that they can build out. The main reason for this is the fire deparment will have paid people within a few years. To do that, the fire department will have to have available space. The fire department will have to have a little area over here where the parking area is shown this year to build, for staging and for packing equipment, etc. The fire department will need part of this area this year. Presently, the fire department has three bays; they want to add a fourth bay so they will have four bays opening onto Hyman Avenue . This expansion will give them a shop area in the rear and total frontage on to town. Clapper explained with the future of pajd fire marshal and fire chief, there will be an office there for the person responsible for fire inspections and living quarters above. Councilman Parry asked why not go total second story above the fire station. Clapper answered the main reason is the view plane. Mayor Edel sai.d he thought the Counci.l has the right to void that. Councilman Parry said he felt it would be much better to go with a second story. Clapper told Council when they designed their expansion plans, there were not aware of the Thrift Shop ladies wishes for this property. The fjre department was looking to improve the park. Mayor Edel said in order to help the fire department with their plans, the Council could address the view plane. Clapper showed Council the back area slants and they designed it to cut the height. Mayo Edel asked staff to investigate the view plane problem to see if more space on top could be utilized. City attorney Taddune told Council if they void the view pl.anc for this, it can apply to other buildings. Councilman Parry said the new Epicure building will be much higher. Lou Buettner, engineering department, told Council that building is outside the .view plane. Mayor Edel requested staff to look at this. Clapper said they tried to put a plan together which is appealing and fits in with the whole area and also to have a fireman's park. Councilman Parry suggested the fire depart- ment could incorporate a new building for the Thrift Shop and the fire department's needs. Mayor Edel asked Clapper if he had any problems working with the Thrift Shop; Clapper said he had no problems. Ms. Butterbaugh showed cut outs of how buildings would fit oIl thO lot. They could have a basement and fit within the FAR in that zone. 11'he planning department has sonia corcerns about moving into an historic district. The HPC will. have to aF prove both the hui..digg a.dÂ·it.s placement on thi lot. Planning feuls this Victorian would be incompatible with the suriounding buildings. Bott staff and the Thrift -hoÂ·) have put the lot east: of city hall as low priority. Too many trees would have to be rel-oved . Claoper told Council the fire. depar.me:t i:; tr-inc to cet E fort j.' th. docr, Ehod-ng wh: t they vil' ne.d .im the fuÂ·fun? . They hav. 1.0-,ke,1 at ether areas a: a district it is difficult to furd lEnd. Clapp-Fr s: id thev do not zank to :ret -,us'-ed cut Ma i Or Ed.el- .;ai? th.3 ciÂ·by i..: not - truing to push them o.it. Citv Attorney Taddune told Counci.1 thev woi,ld bave to :ez. ne ':.hi.; prope-ty to cimm.Frcial. ThÂ·?y nity d, th's w'th ut oi. g te the voter: . Councilman Parry suggested the Thrift Shop ladies go back to the owner to see if he will put in a basement for them; he w.ill get a tax write off and they should see if he will be willing to put some money into the renovation. Councilman Parry also suggested trying to find someone to design a new building for the Thrift Shop. Councilman Knecht sai.d lie felt it was lip to Councj.l to preserve n Victorian like this at all costs. Sunny Vann, planning director, told Council there are some guide].ines for the downtown core and buildings. If Council i.s considerin, acceptine this b'ij.lding, the building and sit.e wi.ll have to he accented by HPC. Th i s particul.ar building may have some priblams with HPD; scale will be one of thei.r primary concerns within the guidelines for thal. district. Vann told Council the planning office does not encourage duplicating Victorians. Mayor Edel said in order to maximize land -sage and solve problems, it is fine Â·â€¢,ith. the i. fire department to put a second gtory in for their needs over the next 10 years, which Â· ~ free. up land to occonunodate p?rking, a perk and : spot fir the Thrift Shop. Thpt is ; i Council'. Â·objecti.ve. Council,ran ynecht said this Victorian is an important building. I i Mayor Edel gairl this Victori-an mey enhance the whole block; however. with the expense of renovation, it is probablv not fe:9sible. Councilman Parrv said the first step is for , 1 the Thrift Shop ladies to findÂ· out what thev can get from the owner of the building. 1 T Then they should go to HPC and sce what they would like. 1 .i Taridune asked -- Council was giwinl this lend awav. Coun-il'nan nar--y s,id it would be ,-1 ~ f le.ise Taddune said there in a grestion about -3 long-terÂ·r lease ind whether th.is con- ; ' :ititutes a S,11.e This nuy ri-?quire -lot;r arproval i.f the lease is so long. it does in fact : - tie up the property. Mayor Edel asked to instruct the staff that this is the intent of , Council; they want to work this out whatever the mechanism is. Ms. Butterbaugh said , : staff will have to return asking for speci.fj.c permission. Councilman Collins questioned , putting a house on that site, and looking at the needs of a volunteer fire department : : plus tile fact there are little amount of parks in this area. Councilman Collins said he ' i would like to hear back from HPC. Councilman Collins said he would like to see more 1 planning for this area, and until Council sees that, they should riot take any action. 0 Special Meeting Aspen City Council July 2, 1981 Councilman Collins said he likes the idea of a park where it is. Ms. Kashinski said in ; regards to leaving it a park, the Thrift Shop could work with the fire department for a i new building. They need a basement and a first floor. It is conceivable they could : build this building where it sits in the fire department plans; then when needed, the fire department could build a second story. They would still have a park-ing lot and a f park in the front. Mayor Edel said there are a lot of problems, zoning, the building, working with the fire ~ department. Today Council should say they are willing to realize that the Thrift Shop must go somewhere and this is an appropriate spot. Councilman Collins asked about the traffic and parking problems. Ms. Kashinski said they could unload in the alley where the parking is. The Thrift Shop does not prefer the park east of city ahll; there would be : public outcry if the huge spruce is moved. There is no parking with all the police cars.., Next to the fire station, people can go through the alley and drop off their items; there , would be parking for the Thrift Shop. Councilman Knecht moved to instruct staff to proceed with the Thrift Shop proposal; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. Taddune asked if Council was going to do anything with respect to Hecht. Ms. Butterbaugh ' said this is now up to the Thrift Shop ladies. ORDINANCE #35, SERIES OF 1981 - Issuance of general obligation water bonds , Ms. Butterbaugh told Council this has been passed on first reading. The city needs the i second readj.ng to obtain money by next Monday to make initial payout on the contract. i Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Edel closed the ,: public hearing. Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #35, Series of 1981, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Collins. Roll call vote; Cou ncilmembers Parry, aye; Knecht, aye; Collins, â‚¬ aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. â€ž ; Councilman Parry moved to adjourn at 5: 15; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, 1 motion carried. ~0Â«-n 1 3 Auu Kathryn S~Aloch, City Clerk 4 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 13, 1981 ! TOINT MEE;TING WITH COUNTY COMMISSIONERE " Mayer Edel ca-Â·131 tho meetinc to o.nier At. '1 :&0 5.m. wi-:h Councilmembers Knect, Pei]-ry, and Collins and Commiss'oners Kinsley, Klanderud, Child, Madsen and Blake present. 1. Consolidation of Police Functions. County Attorney Sandra Stuller presented a proposed consolidation of city/county police function. There are two issues; whether the governments are interested and, if so, how to go about this. The sheriff can continue in his existing capacity and negoation a contract an an annual basis. The city charter could be changed to establish the sheriff as a municipal officer. Another issue is whether the sheriff would be appointed or elected. Another point is who pays for the law enforcement and how : is it paid for. Don Davis, sheriff's department, said their department did not have a specific position other than if it is to be done, in what manner does the community want it done, i.e. appointment versus election. Davis said he did not think the consolidation approach would be a big money saver; all the police work could not be done by the ! sheriff's office without adding a force about the size of the present police department. , In the long run, the savings could be significant in the administration end. Rob McClung, police chief, said he felt over time the consolidation will prove to be more , ~ effective; it will provide more consistency in the style of law enforcement. McClung i ~ said he felt an appointed department head would be preferable. The Commissioners and v ~ Council are elected; they are responsible to the electorate. Mcelung pointed out an ,~ ~ elected sheriff is politically autonomous from the people who 'are elected and who run his 1 I budget. Having a sheriff run for election every four years can change the person and i the policy of. the department. Commissioner Kinsley stated the auestion is whether to ' i submit this to the voters, and do the Boards thing there is enough potention for ~ I benefit from this change. ~ Mayor Edel s:aked he LikEÂ· the concept, but f elt: thpre ihould be neÂ·re bac'<grTÂ·u:ifÂ· infor rat ion : ind ?is:us=io-Â· with stafT and wikh the B-ar?s. The ?epirtnents ot law e-,fr-cemant s' nzild i co.mpile Inicrmation on the cost effectiveness of eliminating the duplication and how to 1 combine the two ddpartments. Cliff Browning, FBI - Glenwood Springs, told the Boards he ! has had experience in consolidations. In Florida, Browning put together a city and county) department, which became an effective law enforcement agency at considerable saving. Browning stated it is his experience in law enforcement that there are conflicts with city,~ police department and county sheriff's department; if these conflicts are taken away, ! there can be a more effective law enforcement... Browning told the Boards that Craig, | Colorado, tried consolidation for three years. They did separate because of political 1 conflicts. Browning said he felt consolidation with one agency is much more effective. . d Mayor Edel said if the Boards created a joint department with an appointed head, does 4. this become a reporting problem. County Manager Stewart noted an e]ected department head allows the public to determine every fours years what the politics of the department should be. City Manager Chapman said he felt strongly that law enforcement officials ,; should be appointed; with elected law officials Afton there is no accountability. If there are appointed law enforcement officials responsible to elected officials, there is l a clear line of accountability. 3123 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 13, 1981 COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS t 1. Councilman Knecht asked whose jurisdiction is it to keep clean the area from the last bridge to the dump. City Manager Chapman said beyond the bridge it is the responsibility of the County; Chapman said he was not sure what program the county has for cleaning 1 along the roadsides. Councilman Knecht said he felt this was a problem that should be addressed. Tom Dunlop pointed out that the people administering the dump are not to allow anyone in who has trucks with lose debris; this is a $20 fine. Dunlop said to his r knowledge this has been working. Dunlop told Council that highway clean up is one of the major programs of the Chamber of Commerce, they do it twice a year. 1 2. Councilman Parry moved to add to the agenda the industrial revenue bond question for ~ Little Annie; seconded by Councilman Knecht. All in favor, motion carried. 3. Councilman Parry brought up a request from P&Z for Council to meet with them in a study session. Council requested staff to schedule this. ' 4. Councilman Parry commented on a letter from Monroe Summers regarding the Rubey Park transportation center. Councilman Parry said this is an excellent letter and requested 1 a meeting with Summers to work on this important item. Mayor Edel agrees the subject of, a transportation center deserves comment. The meeting was set for Wednesday, July 15. 1 5. Mayor Edel announced on July 24 there will be a CAST meeting at the Plum Tree. At this meeting there will be a member of Exxon to discuss the impact of oil shale on the Western Slope. 6. Mayor Edel said he would like on the agenda an appointment of special counsel in the case of People vs. Knecht. Councilman Party moved to put this on the agenda; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. 7. Mayor Edel said he has had serious complaints from merchants on the mall that the mall is being neglected as far as cleanliness. Mayor Edel said he realized there have h been problems with lack of personnel. Mayor Edel said the cjtv needs to do whatever possible to maintain the mall and asked for a report back from staff. 8. Mayor Edol said he has talked to golfers who are saying that the approach on the golf course is a little slovenly; people are getting in without getting their tickets punched or getting carts without paying for them. There have been complaints that the city is not supervising the golf course; it is sloppy and neglected. Mayor Edel said he would like a report on this. BMX TRACK REQUEST Ian Murray told Council this is becoming a very popular sport. The closest BMX track is in Grand Junction and the kids would like to have a track put in Aspen. Murray presented a drawing of a track located between the impound lot and the Roaring Fork river. Mayor 1 Edel asked how much this would cost. Murray told Council that Dooger Bigger has agreed 1 to supply help moving the dirt and smoothing out the track. Councilman Parry said this | area proposed for the track is completely bare and has no trees. Councilman Parry said i he would work with the boys and that Monroe Summers had agreed to work and to supervise. Mayor Edel pointed out this entire area is under study and Benedict is doi.ng a plan for 1 it. This should be brought to Benedict's attention. Councilman Parry said this is a temporary track and could be graded off in an hour. This is just a place for kids to ; ride bicycles; there are no motorized vehicles. Murray brought in a BMX bicycle and showed the required padding and safety features. Councilman Knocht moved to approve the site for a temporary BMX track; seconded by i Councilman Collins. 1 Mayor Edel said he would agree to this temporary situation because it is important to the ;, kids. Ms. Butterbaugh suggested the city draw up an agreement that the city would be 1 d held harmless. City Attorney Taddune said he did not know how this could be handled 6 Â· ' because the boys do not represent an organization. City Manager Chapman suggested giving ' : this a try to see how it will work. Chapman said if the city or the kids are not satisfied, they can get back together. All in favor, motion carried. LITTLE ANNIE - INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS | City Manager Chapman told Council this is an inducement resolution for the city to issue , industrial revenue bonds for Little Annie Development. Chapman said there is a need to I put this on the agenda because there is legislation in Washington concerning IRBs and what they may be issued for. Chapman told Council the concern of Little Annie is that i the recreation area may be closed to IRBs. Little Annie would like the opportunity to remain open to have IRBs issued by the city. Ron Garfield, representing Little Annie, told Council they are working with a firm in i Denver to help with the financing for the deve16pment and this is a phase they would like included. Mayor Edel said he was bothered by the rush and where Little Annie is in the approval process. Mayor Edel suggested this be put on the next agenda so that Council , and staff will' have an opportunity to look over this and report back. Chapman agreed staff has not reviewed this; however, the city's bond counsel prepared this resolution - at the expense of Little Annie. They have assured Chapman this inducement resolution has no reliance in the future. Chapman said he is comfortable that all this is doing is keeping the door open. , 11 91 Jir.9 1 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 13, 1981 1~ Garfield told Council he has reliable and accurate information from their consultants I 1 that there are changes coming from the legislature that may affect sports facilities in i ~ regards to IRBs. It is j.mportant for Little Annie in putting together its packaging for ' investors to identify IRBs as a potential element of financing. The total financing will ] be $35,000,000. _Garfield said that Little Annie may not even avail themselves of this 4 option for financing. By this resolution, Council is only i.ndicating their intention. Little Annie must come back with ordinances to put out the bond documents. Garfield said Little Annie does not gain any more in approvals by this resolution. Rick Boothe, Sherman & Howard, told Council the bonds cannot- be issued or sold until Little Annie comes back with financing documents and a formal ordinance. The Council asked for a statement on non-reliance. "This statement is being made in connection with City Council deliberations on a proposed resolution for Little Annie development revenue bond. My name is Ron Garfield and I am the attorney for Little Annie Limited Partnership and represent the Little Annie project. On behalf of my client who is sitting here with me this evening, we represent to the City, first, that no action under this resolution would be construed by us or relied upon by us an any additional approval of the Little Annie Ski Area or any other matters over which the City has jurisdiction of this application. This resolution is limited solely to an expression of intent on behalf of City Council with respect to the bonds. Number two, that should City Council act on the resolution this evening, this would not give rise to any reliance on our part nor would we ever assert that we could specifically enforce this resolution or compel the City to issue industrial revenue bonds should it decline at a future date to pass the enabling ordinances which are required for such bonds." Councilman Parry moved to read Resolution #36, Series of 1981, by title; seconded by Councilman Knecht. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #36 (Series of 1981) A RESOLUTION AGREEING TO ISSUE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS TO FINANCE SPORTS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES FOR LITTLE ANNIE, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DEVLIERY OF A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT IN CONNECTION THEREWITH BETWEEN TIIE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORAD, AND LITTLE ANNIE, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP was read by the city clerk Councilman Parry moved to adopt Resolution #36, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman Knecht. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Collins. Motion carried. APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL ~ Councilman Parry moved that Thomas T. Crumpacker be employed as special counsel in the matter of People vs Richard Kneelit currently pending iii Municipal Court as outlined in Paul Taddune's letter of July 9, 1981; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Knecht abstained. WATER MANAG EME NT ORD 1 NA NC ES Assistant City Manager Lois Butterbaugh told Council all ordinances have beon reviewed by staff and John Musick, the city water counsel. These six ordinances are to implement the city's water management plan. Ordinance 39 is for general provisions and establishes the operation of the city's water utility. Ordinance 40 outlines the service districts of the city's water system; goes through the connection fees and gives the equivalent units for calculating water fees. Ordinance 41 is a housekeeping ordinance, changing titles and a determination of whether the service is inside or outside of the city. Ordinance 42 deals with procedures to be dealt with during water shortages. Ordinance 43 is the water plumbing and advisory ordinance. Tom Dunlop told Council Ordinance #44 deal more explicitly with water quality and specific violations and definition which did not exist before. Councilman Parry asked in Section 11-11 who determines what are weeds and rubbish. Dunlop told Council this has always been , included in the ordinance; when there are complaints, either he or the fire chief inves- tigate. Dunlop said not once in 6 years had he asked someone to trim weeds because of a fire hazard. Ms. Butterbaugh explained the new approach to the connect charge dealt with in Ordinance 40. The city's water service has been divided into size areas because the cost of delivery of water to each area is quite different. The staff has taken the service areas, taken the new construction and allocated to each area the cost and how many EQRs are in the area and how many will be built and divided this up and came up with a charge that should be for new connects in each area. . Ms. Butterbaugh told Council the water system d within the city of Aspen is in fairly good shape; the water system outside the city is not in as good shape. Ms. Butterbaugh showed a demonstration of comparative water rates and connect fees in ~ the water service areas of Aspen. The city only increased their water rate 10 per cent. 1 The table of equivalents was worked on with Rea, Cassens and John Musick. Some of these will have to be modified by Council. Ms. Butterbaugh pointed out in Section 23-59 that ! .h ' all monies for connects will go into special funds to be used for the district they are 0 collected in. There will be a surcharge on connect fees for any place outside the city. ' 1 The utility hookup charge is the same structure as present- except it has been increased. 1 L- ~ Councilman Parry moved to read Ordinance #39, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman i I Collins. All in favor, motion carried. r 1 4 1 9 f 9 7 014â€¢C .. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 13, 1981 ORDINANCE #39 (Series of 1981) AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE WATER UTILITY CODE, " REPEAI,ING DIVISION 1 OF ARTICLE III OF CHAPTE 1 23 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND ENACTING A NEW DIVISION 1 THEREOF IN ITS PLACE, ENTITLED "GENERAL, PROVISIONS: ' PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISH MENT AND-OPERATION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN WATER UTILITY was read by the ciFy clerk Councilman Knecht moved to adopt Ordinance #39, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman Collins. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Knecht, aye; Collins, aye; Parry, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. Councilman Parry moved to read Ordinance #40, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman Knecht. All in favor, motion carried. p ORDINANCE #40 (Series of 1981) !j AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "THE UTILITY SERVICE CONNECTION ORDINANCE OF 1981, REPEALING DIVISION 2 OF ARTICLE III OF CHAPTER 23 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE d OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, ENTITLED "TAP PERMITS AND PLANT INVESTMENT FEE", AND ENACTING A NEW DIVISION 2 THEREOF ENTITLED "UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE", PROVIDING FOR APPLICATION PROCEDURES FOR CONNECTION TO THE CITY " OF ASPEN WATER UTILITY, CONNECTION CHARGES THERETO, SIZE OF CONNECTIONS, AND DISCONNECTIONS FROM THE UTII,ITY was read by the city clerk , ' Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #40, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman Knecht. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Collins, aye; Barry, aye; Knecht, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. Councilman Parry moved to read Ordinance #41, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman ' Knecht. All in favor, motion carried. L ORDINANCE #41 (Series of 1981) :AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTIN, IN PART, DIVISION 4 OF ARTICLE III i OF CHAPTER 23 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, ENTITLED "MISCELLANEOUS PROVISONS", CHANGING THE TITLE OF THE "SUPEIINTENDENT OF WATER WORKS" TO "Dl'RECTOR OF THE WATER TREATMENT AND SUPPLY" AND CHANGING THE TERM "WATER WORKS" TO "WATER UTILITY" AND AMENDING SECTION 23-156 THEREOF, ENTITLE "DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHIC 1 INSIDE OR OUTSIDE OF CITY" was read by the city clerk t1 Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #41, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman Kneclit. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Parry. aye; Knect, aye; Collins, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. Councilman Parry moved to read Ordinance #42, Series of ]981; seconded by Councilman Knecht. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #42 (Series of ]981) i AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "THE COMPREHENSIVE WATER SHORTAGE ORDINANCE OF 1981", ENACTING A NICIÂ·J DIVISION 5 TO ARTICLE III OF THE MUNICIPAI, CODE OF TILE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, ENTITLED "WATER SHORTAGE", PROVIDING FOR PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED DURING WATER SHORTAGES was read by the city clerk Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #42, Series of 1981; seconded by Courcilman Knocht. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Collins, aye; Knecht, aye; Parry, aye; Mayor Edel, ave. Motion carried. Councilman Parry moved to read Ordinance #43, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman Knecht. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #43 (Series of 1981) AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "THE WATER CONSERVATION AND PLUMBING ADVISORY ORDINANCE OF 1981", ENACING A NEW ARTICLE X TO CHAPTER 7 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, ENTITLED "WATER CONSERVATION AND PLUMBING ADVISORY CODE," PROVIDING FOR THE INSTALLATION OF WATER CONSERVING FIXTURES, LAND , SCAPING, AND IRRIGATION METHODS was read by the city clerk Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #43, Series of 1981, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Knecht. Roll call- vote; Councilmembers Parry, aye; Collins, aye; Knecht, : aye;, Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. Councilman Parry moved to read Ordinance #44, Series of 1981; seconded hy Councilman I Knecht. All in favor, motion carried. 1 ORDINANCE #44 1 (Series of 1981) ! AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "THE WATER QUALITY ORDINANCE OF 1981, " REPEALING AND i REENATTING CHAPTE 1 11 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, ENTITLED "HEALTH", AND ENACTING A NEW CHAPTER 11 ENTITLED "HEALTH AND WATER QUALITY", PROVIDING FOR T'IIE REGULATION OF ACTIVITIES IN AND AROUND THE CITY AND ITS VARIOUS SOURCES OF WATER SUPPLY, IN ORDER TO PREVENT WATER QUALITY ' DEGRhDATION, AND REGULATING ON-SITE INDIVIDUAL WASTER DISPOSAL SYSTEMS, DISPOSAL OF ANIMAL CARCASSES, REMOVAL OF RUBBUSH, WEEDS AND BRUSH AND OTHER SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES CAUSING POLLUTION was read by the city clerk 3126 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 13, 1981 ~ Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #44, Series of 1981, on first reading; seconded I~ by Councilman Knecht. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Knecht, aye; Collins, aye; Parry, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. COG TRANSPORTATION STUDY , Mayor Edel reported to Council at the last CAST meeting it was noted they have most of their monies towards making COG's transportation study and implementation. They went to all cities on the wester slope for funds towards this study. This study is to develop and improve transportation between Denver and Aspen/Glenwood and Denver and the western slope and all. Colorado. Moffatt Tunnel is funding $15,000. COG would like $2,000 from ' Aspen; $1,000 in 1981 and the rest in 1982. Councilman Knecht asked where the money would come from. Chapman told Council there are some monies in the general fund. Councilman Collins moved to approve an expenditure of $2,000; $1,000 in 1981 and $1,000 in 1982 for the purpose of a transporation study of alternate modes by NWCCOG: seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM PARK DEDICATION FEE - Aspen Sanitation District Employee Housing Councilman Party moved to waive the park dedication fee for the Aspen Sanitation District Employee Housing. Motion DIES for lack of a second. City Manager Chapman reminded Council they have been dealing with this on a case by case basis. Perhaps a stronger policy should be outlined. VENDING CONTRACT - Peppermint Pattie's Popsicle Palace Mayor Edel said last year Council requested the city publish to allow rome sort of competition for this vending contract. Councilman Parry noted the city receives no revenue from this, nor do they have a guarantee on the kind of performance a vendor will give. City Manager Chapman suggested extending the term of this contract for one month so the staff can get the procedure in place and give notice. Councilman Collins said at this late date, the Council should approve the renewal of the agreement for one year and have the staff work on the procedure for next siimmer. Councilman Parry agreed. Councilman Collins moved that the contract between Patricia Holbrook and the City of Aspen be approved; seconded by Councj.lman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Col-lins moved to table the request for exemption from park dedication fee for Aspen Sanitation District employee housing; there was no representative; seconded by Councilman Knecht. All in favor, motion carried. | Council took a 10 minute recess. SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION Colette Penne, planning office, explained to Council this is a duplex located a 1135 Cemetery Lane; it is zoned R-15 and is 15,000 plus square footlot. The first application for condominiumization was in May 1979; this did not go through the process. The structure has since t.hon been remodelled to 3138 square feet. The lower unit has been ownner- occupied for the past three year a nd nei ther has been offerred for rental. This condo- miniumization will not reduce the supply of housing and should not have price restrictions on the units. The planning office recommends approval with the condition the condominium plat be fully revised to meet the engineering departments request and that the six month minimum lease restriction applies. P & Z requested that the non-conformity be noted on the plat. Councilman Collins moved to approve the condominiumization of the Valley duplex located on lot 11, block 1, Pitkin Mesa subdivision, with the fol]owing conditions; (1-) full revision of the condominium plat to moot the requirements outlined by the engineering department, and recordation of this plat; (2) compliance with lease restriction of six= month mir,imum leases with no more than two shorter tenancies per year; (3) non-conformity to be noted on final plat. ORDINANCE #37, SERIES OF 1981 - Lot line adjustment Alan Richman, planning office, told Council this code amendment came from the request from P &Zto review the procedure for lot line adjustments. P & Z recognized there is criteria to evaluate this but the code does not have specific criteria and also requested a clarification of the overall intent. P & Z requested the staff outline more specific criteria for eligibility for a lot line adjustment. P & Z came up with a resolution of approval defining the purpose of lot line adjustment; secondly, the adjustment will not directly or indirectly affect the development rights or permitted density on the property by providing the opportunity to create a new lot. The third point the P&Z gave was that the parcels or lots will continue to conform to the underlying area and bulk requirements of the zone. Also the applicant for a lot line adjustment must comply with i, all applicable land use regulations of the Code. Councilman Parry said he felt two adjacent property owners should have a choice; they may want to move the lot line for view purposes or mutual. agreement. Richman suggested adding language to the ordinance to j the effect, "so that it does not result in additional development rights in either area". 4 Councilman Collins moved to read Ordinance #37, Seriep of 1981, as amended; seconded by ; V. Councilman Knecht. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #37 (Series of 1981) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 20-19 AND 20-5(d) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE ( CITY OF ASPEN BY THE ADDITION OF CRITERIA FOR GRANTING EXCEPTION FROM THE ~ SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUSTING A LOT LINE BETWEEN ADJACENT PARCELS OR LOTS WHICH MAY BE UNDER INDIVIDUAL OR SEPARATE OWNERSHIP was read by the city clerk 3127 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 13, 1981 Councilman Collins moved to adopt Ordinance #37, Series of 1981, as amended; seconded by i ~ Councilman Kne dit. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Collins, aye; Knecht, aye; Parry, aye; ~ Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. : SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION - Vicenti Alan Richman, planning office, told Council this is a request for condominiumization of a duplex which is next door to property which received a residential GMP allocation for 1981, located at 1015 East Hyman. This is in the R/MF zone on a 9000 square foot lot. , This duplex has not been occupied. The engineering department made comments about the ' resubmission of the plat. There are four bedrooms and only three parking spaces. The ? applicant should provide one parking space per bedroom, and therefore, should be required J to regrade the space on the side of the building for parking, or add an additional space in the alley. Richman tol.d Council a rental unit was located on this property; it has been revised and determined it was rented at a price which exceeded the housing price guidelines. The house was donated and moved to ACES to be used as employee housing. The planning office recommends the six month minimum lease restriction be a condition. Council- man Knecht said he felt this restriction was impossible to enforce. Councilman Knecht moved to approve the Vicenti Building Company subdivision exception for ' the purposes of condominiumization, subject to the following conditions; (1) the applicant agreeing to revise the condominium plat to meet the specifications of the engineering department memoradnum of May 26, 1981, and resubmitting the plat prior to recordation; (2) the applicant providing four usable parking spaces for the four bedroom duplex by either regarding the space on the side of the biiilding so that it is usable or providing a second space in the alloy behind the building; (3) the applicant agreeing to provide an electrical/communications easement at the southeast corner of the parcel; and (4) the applicant restricting all units to six month minimum leases with no more than two shorter tenancies per year; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION - Vicenzi/Goldstein Alan Richman told Council this is a request to condominiumize an office/commercial structure located at 300 South Spring in the 0, office zone. This is on 6,000 square feet with nine units and has been known as the Hanna-Dustin buil.ding. Since this is a commercial building most of the requirements of Section 20-22 do not apply. There are comments from the engineering department. The applicant should obtain an encroachment license for the intrusion of the building into the right-of-way; the applicant should construct a five foot wjde sidewalk; the applicant should revise their p].at. Richman told Council there are comments from the building inspector as to numerous life, health and safety violation at the building. Richman reminded Council a life, health and safety ordinance relating to condominiumization was enacted earlier tlii.56 year requiring the building inspector to conduct inspections of structure prior to condomiriumization to determine life, health and safety violations. Richman told Council the report from the building inspector to P &Z was complicated and two problems arose because of this. f)&Z made a statement that they were looking, from this; ordinance, to get a report ; they wore not looking to be a review body for building violations. The building inspector has his own mechanism for compliance. The planning offi.co and PLZ feel for the staff to place compliance on the buil.ding inspector's report as an aspecti of approval is redundant and is not as strong a mechanism as the building inspector has for code violations . Richman said the staff did not want to put the building inspector compliance as part of eithor the P&Z recommendation or the staff to Council. Richman said P&Z felt they did riot have the expert.iso to say which violations were not life, health safety violations. Richman said P&Z did not want to put these as a condi.tions because if they are condit.ions then the applicant has to sit and argue on a due process consideration and have the P&Z decide who is right and who is wrong. Paul Taddune told Council the P&Z did not want to act as an appeals board; there is one. P & Z's position is that they do not have jurisdiction to make rulings ort determinations made by the building department; the building department has its own mechanism for this. Mayor Edel said one of the conditions for approval is to conform to the building code; if an applicant does not conform to it., they go to the Board of Appeals. Gideon Kaufman told Council he is concerned because the original intent of this was to look at life, health and safety violations was could cause serious problems, with the understanding that , some old buildings cannot be brought up to Code. Kaufman pointed out that when the building inspector goes into a building he makes a list of all violations; the initial request for health and safety inspections has gotten to a larger degree. Kaufman said he ~ felt the Council should listen if an applicant feels aggrieved because this has gotten outside of the intent of the ordinance. Kaufman told Council this building went before the Board of Appeals in 1969 and received a variance. The building department is now ~ asking them to undo the variance they received. Mayor Edel suid if an applicant gets the privilege of condominiumization, they should conform with the building code. The building codes are different in 1981 than they were in 1969. Kaufman said the only change when condominiumizing is the possible ownership, not the use of the building. Richman said ~ the best avenue to determine whether or not these are life, health and safety issues is to appeal to the Board of Appeals. Councilman Collins suggested going to the Board of Appeals with this and then come back to Council. 1 Councilman Col-lins moved to table this item; seconded by Councilman Knecht; All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Parry. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #38, SERIES OF 1981 - Ute City Place Rezoning to RBO Alan Richman told Council this project. received a residentj-al CMP allocation; it is located in the R/Mr zone on 15,000 square feet on Cooper avenue east of West end street. One lot is vacant; one lot has a unit on it. Council heard this application in March at ~ conceptual stage. P&Z has heard this at preliminary plat for rezoning to RBO; also ~ for request from exemption from GMP or the employee units; for condominiumization. P&Z i approved all requests. This presentation is only for rezoning to RBO as it is an ordinance process; the other requests will be heard at second reading of this ordinance. S . 0 i i pular Meeting Aspen City Council July 13, 1981 1 .! zhman told Council this request is for 22 units; 12 units deed restricted to low income ' 1' idelines, two units at moderate, and 8 free market units. In the RBO review criteria, ore are underlying area and bulk requirements which are required by this ordinance. The i t meets the minimum required size; multi-family dwelling units are allowed in the R/MF- ~ D if at least half of the units are deed restricted to employee housing. Richman said ~ Rt basically all of the permitted density under the RBO is being requested. The applicant , meeting the requirements of yard width, heighth, etc. and not asking for any waiver . any of these requirements. There is no open space requirements. The FAR for the siteÂ· , der the RBO is 1:1 normally and is increasable to l.25:1; this 15,000 square foot site s an allowable FAR of 18,750 square feet. The applicant is proposing an FAR of 15,876 1 J uare feet. i w e applicant has made a proposal for the price of the units based on the housing price ~~ idelines and presented rent or sale prices for the units. Richman told Council he hap und in the Code a section which states if an applicant exceeds the maximum square foot- e for employee housing, it can only be rented on the basis of the maximum size outlined The normal the Code. Another issue is exactly how the units get deed restricted. ocedure would be deed restriction on the units as new units under the housing price idelines, existing when the units are approved. There is a two-tiered housing guidelines; cing for new units and pricing for existing units. These units would be deed restricted , new units. In October of each year, the housing price guidelines are revised. 4 hman told Council in 1979 the new units were increased by 17 per cent and for existing .$ , struction by 9 per cent; in 1980 new units were increased by 14.5 per cent and 8 per ; t for existing structures. This applicant is being approved now but will not be Â· :upied until the new guidelines are in effect. The planning office is suggesting that : ~ units, be deed restricted as new units under the new unit guidelines and in October, i Â·y be eligible for an annual -price increase as existing units despite the fact they are 1 i occupied and not totally in existence yet; an unit is not normally increased as a new .2 .t. Allowing an applicant to get increases for new units, rather than existing units, encouraging them to hold the units down the line. .ti. in La Salle, representing the developers, understood the city would not want people to . SO .d off units and keep getting increases. La Salle pointed out the review process is igthy; they started at the beginning of the year and have done everything they could to : t re this along. La Salle said the guidelines set in 1980 were set with what happened in trth 1 1 -2 previous year in mind and should not apply to a project that may have occupancy in ~~, :ruary 1982. By the time these units are occupied, the rents will be a year and four iths out of date. La Salle told Council that 14 of these units are employee housing and ; :. those 12 are low income. These units are larger than the guidelines and the developer ' i E i only charge for the maximum size of the guidelines. Richman pointed out the applicant 1 : Mi it comes in for a GMP allocation on January 1 of any year is aware of the existing price .9 1 1 2 idelines for new and existing housing; that should be the year to which the deed restric- ,n applies. La Salle suggested these should be established later in the year. La Salle luested that the 1981 price guidelines be applied to this project; the project is beina - 1 11. Llt in 1981. Richman said.the 1981 guidelines will be applied; however, they will be ! r.1 ; 1- 1 ilied as existing units. li incilman Knecht said what he liked about both this project and- the Marolt project is that kt. ivate developers are building employee housing. The precedent for employee pricing was le with the Marolt project and the Council should stick with that. Councilman Parry said ~, the Council starts cutting people down, there won't be any private sector building uloyee units. Mayor Edel said he wanted to adhere to the recommendation of the planning fice as far as the pricing guidelines. Richman requested that the planning office p.ditions in the memorandum be included in the ordinance. uncilman Collins moved to read Ordinance #38, Series of 1981, with the amendment of ling conditions 1 and 2 from the planning office memorandum to the ordinance; seconded Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #38 ' (Series of 1981) 16 AN ORDINANCE REZONING LOTS C, D, E, F, AND G, BLOCK 118, IN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, FROM R/MF to R/MF/RBO was read by the city clerk ~ It. uncilman Knecht moved to adopt Ordinance #38, Series of 1981, as amended, on first read- g; seconded by Councilman Parry. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Collins, nay; Parry, e; Knocht, aye; Mayor Edel,. aye. Motion carried. 1 j' NSENT AGENDA 1 1} vor Edel opened the public hearing on Ordinance #34, Series of 1981, Appropriations; dinance #32, Adoption of the Uniform Building Code; Ordinance #33, Adoption of the Uniform it chanical Code; Ordinance #36, water Rates; I,ane Correction Deeds, and Special Event . i. rmit Requests. There were no comments. Mayor Edel closed the public hearing. :i uncilman Parry moved to adopt the consent agenda; seconded by Councilman Collins. All 1 favor, motion carried. i r. 4 uncilman Collins moved to adjourn at 8:20 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in ' 2 Wor, motion carried. *ILO M, Â£{CA_.0. Kathryn~'. KocK, City Clerk ;