The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.100 Marolt Pl.1991-PD-1VI. j CIT~f~ ASPEN 130 ~g~ena Street asp ~,s~si~orxdo $1611 x,t-r;: -.-- 303-925-2020 MEMORANDUM DATE: January 9, 1991 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jed Caswall, City Attorney ~ ~c_, RE: Marolt Affordable Housing Project Recordation Deadline Extension This matter is on your consent agenda at the request of the Housing Authority seeking an extension of the 180-day recordation requirements as set forth in Sections 7-906 (PUD's) and 7-1005E (subdivisions) of the Land Use Code (see attached). Council gave final approval to the final development plan, PUD, and subdivision for the Marolt Affordable Housing Project on April 23, 1990, per Ordinance No. 25. In accordance with Sec- tions 7-906 and 7-1005E of the Land Use Code, the final approvals and a new plat were to have been recorded by October 20, 1990. The development applicants (Housing Authority and the MAA) failed to do so. Absent an extension in the recordation deadline, the new plat cannot be recorded. The Housing Authority is working on their agreements and the new plat and it is expected the approvals and recording of same can take place shortly. EMC/mC Attachment cc: City Engineer Liz Mason, Housing Authority Kim Johnson, Planning Department . 9.- 1 00 AL \ 4 p\ &40 i 1 9% C - ?t - C _Marolt Ranch - -1 Â«2~ pUb Subdivision Agreement MFO- /94 Â£1Â£02/ 5 CA-Al ED Â·i'-1 ;o . .0 .VI. j CITY.DBASPEN 130 Fth galena street asphbolorad /1611 Fn-925-iOYo MEMORANDUM DATE: January 9, 1991 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jed Caswall, City Attorney 17<2*+. 0 RE: Marolt Affordable Housing Project Recordation Deadline Extension This matter is on your consent agenda at the request of the Housing Authority seeking an extension of the 180-day recordation requirements as set forth in Sections 7-906 (PUD's) and 7-1005E (subdivisions) of the Land Use Code (see attached). Council gave final approval to the final development plan, PUD, and subdivision for the Marolt Affordable Housing Project on April 23, 1990, per Ordinance No. 25. In accordance with Sec- tions 7-906 and 7-1005E of the Land Use Code, the final approvals and a new plat were to have been recorded by October 20, 1990. The development applicants (Housing Authority and the MAA) failed to do so. Absent an extension in the recordation deadline , the new plat cannot be recorded. The Housing Authority is working on their agreements and the new plat and it is expected the approvals and recording of same can take place shortly. EMC/mc Attachment CC: City Engineer Liz Mason, Housing Authority Kim Johnson, Planning Department .. Housing Authority ~~EityofAsPen/PitkinC-ounty 39551 Highway 82 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303] 920-5050 Fax: {303] 920-5580 TO: City Council FROM: Housing Authority <~~00)~ DATE: January 8, 1990 RE: MAROLT RANCH P.U.D. The time allowed for the recordation of the P.U.D. for Marolt Ranch has lapsed and we are respectfully requesting a retroactive extension of 180 days. The current title commitment on Marolt Ranch, held by the City of Aspen, must be updated prior to recording a final plat. It is anticipated that an updated title endorsement will be available within a few weeks and that a final plat can be completed and recorded before the end of FebruAry. We have obtained a temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the residential units as all but the above requirement have been met. We appreciate your consideration of this issue. 125 ~22~.~ per day spread out over a tim~.eriod of eight hours. Based on a one hour time period per visitor, this translates to 16 visitors per hour. Assuming two visitors per car, this would generate a need for eight parking spaces. Staff demands might account for two more spaces. We also would like one space dedicated for handicap parking. Total required parking would thus amount to 11 spaces for museum use. Ihere are several important characteristics of this museum which we feel will greatly reduce demand for parking. Firstly, it is located on a major intersection of important pedestrian and bicycle trails connecting town, Cemetery Larae, Castle and Maroor Creeks and eventually downvalley. Ihis, combined with the fact that there is no parking on site, makes pedestrian, bike, and ski access easier for many people than automobile access. Also, the Aspen Historical Society will initiate many walking tours from their Stallard House facility. Access by bus is available from stops near the hospital as well as on Main Street. We feel these factors will provide a very real auto disincentive. On page 15 of the Marolt Ranch (Housing) Final PUD Application of December 29, 1989, 22 parking spaces are allotted to park, community garden, and museum use. Our proposal is that 11 of these spaces be considered for museum use as follows: 1. Visitor parking 8 spaces 2. Staff parking 2 spaces 3. Handicap parking 1 spaces Total 11 parking spaces 5. Open Space The percentage of open space is set as a part of this PUD process. The existing open space constitutes 96% of the 1.9 acres. Our proposal is to maintain this 96% figure. 6. Landscape Plan The existing shrubs, trees and significant landforms (contours) will be retained. Open areas between the exhibit areas will be seeded with native grasses and wildflowers. Additional trees for shade and shrubs for visual screening and wind protection are anticipated. Cultivated plants of the ranching era would be introduced at selected exhibits and at the garden area. One pond currently exists at the northwest off the pedestrian trail. A pond with an irrigation gate might be located off the west entry deck. This feature along with the planting of cottonwoods for shade would provide a pleasant picnic area for the museum. The existing fencing at the south access near the workshop would remain. The remaining fencing would be relocated to frame the ranch yard area between the workshop and the museum. No other -9- DIal b. T~lan is consistent with surrou~ g land uses. See II C for further explanation. c. The minimal nature of this proposal should ensure that development of surrounding properties is not adversely affected. d. Part IV of this application requests exemption of this proposal from requirements of the GMQS process. 2. Density ~ a. General Density is set as a part of this PUD application and therefore is not greater than that allowed. b. Not Applicable 3. Land Uses A museum is an allowed use in the public zone. 4. A significant part of this package is that the parcel be rezoned to public (P) to allow the museum use. Section 5-221 of the Aspen Code states that dimensional requirements and parking requirements be set as part of the P.U.D. process. Proposed dimensional requirements for the project are as follows (assuming the west property line as the front): Lot size 1.9 acres Minimum front yard: Barn 100' Shop 80' Minimum side yard: Barn 100' Shop 61' Minimum rear yard: Barn 45' Shop 46' Maximum height: Barn w/cupola 35' Shop 20' % of open space 96% External floor area ratio: .05 Internal floor area ratio: 1.1 4. Off Street Parking The museum operation section of the minimum submission contents portion of this application proposes a maximum visitor count of -8- MaN*/8Â©hedkous 1 j\Atte \900 .julff Aikg.~,~~- f f El'--rEN BEIL- 061* Bet NOVEM TSâ‚¬k, i,1 2345 6~0 91011121314,16'16171819202*232425262776?*30*1 234 ,50~7 8 9 101Ii )01#1415161718 3*'Â®21 2223242526@f28293031 1 20'/4 5678,0'161112131415 16,1Â¢1819202122232425262728293031 123456789 1011 12 13141516171819 202122232425262728293031 12345678 91011 1213141516 171819202122232425262728293031 12345678 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031 604. M.?10+44 ed'yu *~"Wk .ee:â€¢w ..044.,-- - ewwk kt.~-- . 1*. tâ‚¬) A -I - -I - - - -- -4----- --, 2.:-fC. *lt Ml*l"l\A~ > Call Â»0,4.. 4.,Pur Ld/1 P Â· 9 1 C f M 1 -f?,Vi, W l Pubi SUBA 2*Â«41 1,.7/5/1,*' t-Ov/ AFF,34~7.97?Â·'"#~) ~66Â·htÂ©v' 4Â·49 Â§14â€¢.9,22 ickl 54 6.-0- 09 64$1.4.4-1 h,4. r 47- P'f -z pi,e zeviv.,64 ary RÂ«-241 ew m.)16 : '0 6. .lt .1,1 2 Fukk 12 .*1 l Yup, $ ow, ,- -G F.FE- frot>/s'BD) . Pas ll'c ilf'al.i*-Ll 72â€¢~ tz hUÂ· O 6 lu le ek ~i)~ gÂ¢,h *41-(AL Peâ€¢iL,,1 2,<2 2,>I'liwft~ '4'.4 1 . VM ed FL,~cd Ardp t R.evt f.A/v ' 0 9-2Â» tf 91' 5 +Vi Or 1#1- 4 1 5 0 -*.1.1 r 1 2 , :rit 3146 A { 4, 9,0 1,1 1=.<e U.r ACM 13 62Â»UJ L 1 "49 t~&44 0 8.vt,uv 79/3.0 Mp: 64Whâ€¢,t -I E K.\ 199/ 9 wddâ€¢ pl,f 9013Â· IMEogMpr. 621,1.tiA â‚¬ fe 44:fi>â€ž/ WATEK- 11,4. 1 < 0 /26 76*1401 1 /7 1 0 Op,2 64 0 L /3 Â· Want F'44Â· . ?vull-dÂ· A . A va, 462' Ch~ ' 1 22,1 cw -90 Â¢ 04Â£ 1 (d..j{ 1 9, 1KA'i, 41 MÂ¥#fr i ATILiTIEs /5ERy. A.Locitiol /(spbft 16' 4 6,1â„¢ le'T , .1, DE- \ g, Loudi 7202/0/1,95055 APPRESCED , jEUctiA// aide 1 -. 311'132, o- 9 . tt fit'' 09 0, ft. 1, 'afvv.-1 ...Cu /il.tul.-E - . - lt#.fi #catktÂ·e<6+01.-c- re / â€¢, ~utÂ£...*i f 0, "4.-21 - - -------- - - -- ..3~. FLAT- 12â‚¬Fir ED F , Pl, 66,,â€¢d .4 â€¢he,- /1 1 - L. . / 1/. 1 1 19'AftefyÂ« 7 rAdt . l:tÂ·~,~~Â£~:(14 -.21/jittiÂ°t j :Â·~ Â·,; i~f' >iull<-1~ttA'u(~. Wil' fli Â¢ AEC,Hille-TOR E- ' - -Â·-- --- pÂ£v.el.op ~<--5â€¢162-fackets A 72.0 (flu k~/ 1%,A,oi, / A\' 6. i u :' t'WÂ·'32 11: i,Â·c. 27 'h<Â·LF, tzÂ© <kih- De 'J"v L Â«te.:79 *0"*t- 8 4...efy: 1, 1 4Â¢.Â»10 L /t 1 ftâ‚¬ LÂ¢ # t;t+~.- . _ P. 6*-4 1 - 1 E .IE*~*2 44-1 -- a./1.,7..Pa ./ fi, 1,~ AA 0 7 . _264.-441Uk#* TA/1= J , 1 01 L.N. 44.14 f ...., | /4.f.Â£ Put (.+a-*~4-i.. . -It .- ...... ---1-- .- . - ~ DEV, fgote, 1 26,4 N ; ~ | ~ C AA'<U L - iÂ·j V, VN) 3 0-- -- - 1 PCV, MANADEMT 1<ha,o: 4 Styll tfwx i A.- .1, # J 1 ij? 0, 9,034# P 5 -- 1 50*ld hil/(-MPI-,iÂ® _ ~ ~~ ~_4 P. 6.01. . _ .. __ _ 91 t,tfliv, 9Â£41 ARLâ‚¬/ 0Â·4â€¢1 fi : r.-/ --V- - EÂ· (LtÂ»Offh-1 60;.ic'Or"..ilk/.2.,11;7;0,646, f ' 0~,#,93714,*1 1 -0 1 1 1 1, A P.U. .D. AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR THE MAROLT RANCH City of Aspen - 1 State of Colorado 0 . P.U.D. AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR THE MAROLT RANCH 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS pagE Section I. General 'Development Plan . .......... Section II. Construction of Improvements . ........ Section III. -Easements, Rights of Way, and Relocations .. 5 Section IV. Dedications . ................ 7 Section V. Open Space and Common Area Management, Maintenance and Use ... .......... , Section VI. Water Rights and Availability . . ...... 14 Section VII. Sewer Availability . ............. 14 Section VIII. Employee Development - Title ......... 14 Section IX. Employee Housing - Price Guidelines ..... 16 Section X. Financial Assurances ... .......... 16 Section XI. Additional Parking . ............. 17 Section XII. Restrictions on Short-Term Rentals ...... 18 Section XIII. Deed Restriction4 .... .......... 18 Section XIV. Non-compliance and Request for Alnendments or Extens ions by Owner . . . .......... 18 Section XV. Miscellaneous . ................ 20 Exhibit A Legal Description Exhibit B Table of Site Data Tabulation Exhibit C Construction and Development Schedule Exhibit D.. *Improvement Responsibi.lity Schedule Exhibit E Improvement Completion Percentage Schedule Exhibit F Letter from Sanitation District Exhibit G Additional Parking Schedule 6 .. . P.U.D. AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT ' FOR THE MAROLTÂ· RANCH This P.U.D. - A -1- 2-1 2__2_2 - -1 Agreement is inade and entered into this Â· ./29 , 1981, by and between'THE CITY OF AS]PEDiy> COLORADO, a Municipal Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and MAROLT ASSOCIATES, a Colorado general partnership (hereinafter referred. to as "the Owne r" ) . WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Owner has submitted to the City for approval, execution and recordation, the final piat and development plan of a tract of land situate within the City of Aspen, Colorado, legal- ly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated here- in by this reference, and designated as "The Marolt Ranch Subdi- vision" ("The Plat"); anti WHEREAS, the City has rezoned the real property covered by Â· the plat to R-15A/PUD/SPA; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the plat, the proposed development and improvement of the land indicated thereon, and the burdefts to be imposed upon other adjoining or neighboring proper- ties by reason of the proposed development and improvement of the land indicated on the piat; ana * ' WHEREAS, the City is willing to approve, execute, and accept for recordation the plat upon the condition that the Owner agree to all matters contalnea in this Agreement, and subject to all of the applicable requirements, terms and conditions of the City of Aspen PUD and subdivision regulations now in effect anQ other applicable laws, rules and regulations; and WHEREAS, the City desires to impose certain conditions and requirements in connection with its approval, execution and recordation of the plat, as are necessary to protect, promote, and enhance the public welfare; and WIIEREAS, the Owner is willing to acknowledge, accept, abide by and faithfully perform all of the conditions and requirements imposed by the City in approving the plati and WHEREAS',Â·pursuant to Sections 20-16(c) and 24-8.6 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, the Owner is required to pro- vide assurances that it will faithfully perform the conditions and .. . I 3 1 requirements hereinafter agreed to prior to the City's acceptance and approval of the final plat, 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 Ma'rolt Ranch development indicated on the plat includes the following elements: A. Lot 1 - Shall constitute the "employee housing" or "deed restricted" development. B. Lot 2 - Shall constitute the "free market development" and shall be owned, improved, marketed and sold by the Owner or Owner's assigns; C. Lot 3 - This parcel, as shown on the plat, shall be dedicated to the City for its use, subject to an existing leasing right by the current occupant, Neil Becki D. Lots 4-6 - Shall be restricted for sale by the Owner to the owners of the property adjacent to those respective lots. Any conveyance document shall include restrictions in the nature of covenants running with the land prohibiting any Duilding improve- ments on such lands and shall expressÂ·ly stipulate that t.he aaja- cent property shall not receive a change or increase in develop- ment rights by virture of the .added acreage resulting from such conveyance. Any document.s of conveyance -shal l be subnitted to the City Attorney for approval as to form of. the herein restriction prior to recordation; E. Open Space 1 - Shall be dedicated to the City as open space in perpetuity, with specific management, maintenance and use guidelines; F. Open Space 2 - Constitutes the river corridor and shall be dedicated to theÂ·City as open space in perpetuity with specific management, maintenance and use guidelines within the context of maintaining river corridor conservation lands; G. Cemetery Lane R.O.W. - Constitutes a 100' right-of-way, designated on the plat as "Holden Road", to be dedicated to the City for a potential roadway alignment between State Highway No. 82 and Castle Creek Roadi H. Main Street R.O.W. - Constitutes a 150' .right of way to be dedicatea to the City for a future road alignment of a pot.en- tial Main Street extension, as indicated on the plati 2 .. 6 I. City Parcel - For purposes ot reference, the City cur- rently owns a parcel conunonly known as the "Thomas Property" , located contiguous and immediately to the west of the platted property. It is the understanding of the parties that the "Thomas Property" shall be utilized to accomplish the following general improvements shown on the plat documents. a. Alignment of Cemetery Lane at the intersection of High- way 82, its connection to the Cemetery Lane right-of- way, and private roadway access to Lot 2. b. Extension of the connection of the Main Street right-of- way. . The Table of Site Data Tabulations annexed hereto and incor- porated herein by reference as Exhibit "B" provides a more speci- fic allocation of the uses anticipated within the various parcels indicated above. The plat indicates the improvement of the iands by the con- struction of two distinct developments. One shall be deed or covenant restricted 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 Â£ and the other shall be improved as a "free market" development. Although the land beneath the two developments may evolve in separate ownership, Owner expressly acknowledges and agrees that construction and ownership of all imp rovements for.both developments will remain under the auspices of the Owner or Owner's assigns. The "employee housing" or "deed restricted" development shall constitute 70 per- cent of the total number of units approved on the -plat, and the free market developmerit shall constitute 30 percent of 1.[ic libtal number of units approved on the plat. In view of the dual nature of the developments, the Owner represents that the cost allocation and proration shall follow the relationship of each development's number of units to' tile total nu~ber of units approved for develop- ment as indicated on the Improvement Responsibility Schedule annexed nereto and iaade a part hereof as Exhibit "D". II. CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS A. Nature and Estimated Costs of Improvements: - Owner and its assigns shall be responsible for the construction and instal- lation of all improvements contained Within the developments as indicated on the plat, in accordance with the requireinents of Sec- tion 20-16(a) of the Municipal Code. The nature, extent and esti- mated cost of such improvements shall. substantially conform to the schedule entitled Improvement Responsibility Schedule annexed hereto and macie a part hereof as Exhibit. "D". 3. .. 0 B. Construction Schedule: - In accordance with the require- ments of Sections 20-16(c)(1) and 24-8.9(b) of the Municipal Code, the construction of all development shall substantially conform to the "Construction and Development Schedule" annexed hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "C", which schedule includes the dates of 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. In connectiori with the aforesaid "Construction and Develop- ment Schedule" (Exhibit "C"), the Owner represents that the con- struction of the "free market" development and the "employee nous- ing" or "deed 'restricted" development will occur in a substan- tially simultaneous manner. However, the Owner acknowledges that any approval granted by this agreement is .expressly conditioned upon the requirement that a number of employee units reflective of the 70 precent "employee housing" or "deed restricted" to 30 per- cent "free market" mix must be qualified for a permanent certifi- cate of occupancy before a permanent c'ertificate of occupancy may issue for a "free market" unit. Thus, certificates of occupancy will only be issued for the individual "free market" units as they Come on board for completion and occupancy if there are a number of "employee housing'" or "deed restricted" units simultaneously completed and qualified for permanent occupancy in ratio of tne 70/30 percent unit mix contemplated by the Growth Management. Quota System exception set forth in Section 24-11.2(1) of the Municipal Code, referenced herein as a condition of approval. Nothing herein shall prevent the Owner or its successors and assigns from construction and completion of the ".eniployee housing" Or "deed rest.ricted" units in advance of tne "1.ree market" units. As a further express conditioh -to any of the approvals con- tained herein, that Agreement and the terms and conditions thereof entered into by the parties, dated July 3, 1980, and recorded in the Office of the Pitkin County Recorder at Book 391, Page 243, are hereby incorporated herein and made a part hereof by refer- ence. C. Landscaping Plan: - In accordance with the requirements of Section 24-8.16 of the Municipal Code, all landscaping shall substantial.ly conform to the "Landscaping Plan" consisting of three pages labeled "A", "B" and "C" annexed to the plat and incorporated herein by reference, which plan shows the extent and location.of all plant materials and other landscape features, flower and shrub bed definition, proposed plant material at mature sizes and appropriate relation to scale, species and size of existing plant material, proposed treatment of all ground surfaces Ce.g. paving, turf, gravel, etc.), location of water outlets, and a plant-. material schedule with conunon and botanical names, sizes, quantities and method of transplant. Prior to the granting of any 4 .. permits for construction and as an express condition of approval of the plat, the Owner shall provide to the extent not covered by the assurances required under Article X of this Agreement a guar- Antee for no less than one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of the current estimated cost of the landscaping improvements as estimated by the City Engineer to insure the installation of all landscaping shown on the Landscaping Plan and the continued main- tenance and replacement of the same for a period of two (2) years after installation. The guarantee shall be in the form specified in Section 20-16(c)(1) of the Aspen Municipal Code, and may be withdrawn by the City as therein specified. As portions of the landscaping improvements 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 except that ten percent (10%) of the estimated cost shall be withheld until all proposed improvements are completed and approved, and an additional twenty-five percent (25%) retained until the iinprovements have been maintained in a satisfactory con- dition for two (2) years thereafter. It is the express under- standing of the parties that the procedure set forth in Article XIV of this Agreement regarding non-compliance shall not be required with respect to the enforcement and implementation of the financial assurances. set forth herein and required by Section 24- 8.16 of the Municipal Code. III. EASEMENTS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY, AND RELOCATIONS The plat sets forth the following easements, rights-of-way, and anticipated relocations which will be necessary to cause the improvements: A. Main Street Right-of-Way.- As indicated on the plat, the Owner shall and hereby dedicates to the City a 150' right-of-way for the potential. extension of Main Street as a transportation artery and those uses set forth in Article V B.3 of this Agree- ment. The exact location and legal description of such rignt-of- way are as further set forth on the plat. In conlunction with said dedication, the Owner and its successors and. assigns hereby specifically waives the right to and agrees not to protest or enjoin the construction and placement of sidewalks and gutters along Main Street in the event the same are contemplated or con- structed. B. Cemetery Lane Extension, Easements and Relocation - The Owner agrees to relocate the intersection off Cemetery Lane with State Highway No. 82 to allow for Cemetery Lane's alignment with the right-of-way indicated on the plat, and hereby dedicates to the City (in conjunction with the City's restriction of the por- tion of such ,Cemetery Lane alignment as is included within the Thomas Property) a one hundred foot (100') right-oi-way for the proposed future extension of Cemetery Eane as indicated on the 5 .. ../ pl at. Such Ceinetery Lane alignment and extension as provided Dy both the City and Owner herein shall allow for such easement-s as will satisfy the title insurability and access to the suoject property over and across such realigned and extended Cemetery Lane roadway and right-of-way (designated on the plat as "Holden Road"). In connection herewith, the City shall grant to Owner an easeinent across a portion of that property Commonly known as the "Thomas Property" for access purposes and for the purpose of the installation and maintenance of the Highway 82 intersection with the proposed nolden Road which will be located on the "Thomas Pro- perty", and the installation and maintenance of that portion of a private roadway connecting Holden Road to Lot 2, all as indicated on the unplatted portion of the plat. C. Gas Company Building and Gas Line Easement - The City and Owner hereby agree to an easement for the continued existence and maintenance of the Gas Company building and gas line currently indicated on the plat. D. Cross Easements - City and the Owner hereby specifically agree to provide all necessary cross easements indicated on the plat and such other cross easements as may be autually agreed in Writing between the Owner and the City for the purpose of afford- ing necessary accessÂ· to and trom the public highways to the respective parcels. E. Ditch Relocations and Ponding - The City hereby approves the relocation and pending of the water as indicated on the plat. In connection therewith, the Owndr and its 'successors and assigns expressly recognizes the existing rights-of-way for ditches and the right of the City to go onto and maintain the same, as well as the right of the City to direct water into the ditches and ,pond water for subsequent use on the golf course, principaliy through temporary detention of the direct flow of water. Following such temporary interruption or maintenance activity, the City shall cause any disturb'ed property, improvements or landscaping to be returned to its original state prior to such temporary interrup- tion or maintenance activity. F. Utilities and Drainage - The City and Owner agree to the easements for the relocation, installation and maintenance of utilitj.es and the establishment and maintenance of drainage speci- fically set forth on the utility sheets, the utility relocation sheets, and the drainage sheets which are appended to the plat. G. Miscellaneous - All easements, rights of way and reloca- tions indicated on tne plat but not specifically referenced here- inabove are hereby dstablished, authorized and approved by the City and agreed to by the Owner. 6, .. H. Reservation of Rights Regarding Easements and Restric- tions on the "Thomas Property" - Notwithstanding anything herein- . above to the contrary, any and all easements to De granted to Owner by the City shall be subject to any and all existing ease- ments and restrictions of record and such easements and restric- tions indicated in the deed conveying the "Thomas Property" to the City, dated December 19, 1972, recorded in the Office of the Pit- kin County Clerk and Recorder at Book 270 and Page 221. The Owner and its successors and assigns hereby agree to defend, hold harm- less and indeinnify the City from any and all suits and claims arising out oÂ£ Owner's use of the "Thomas Property" as set forth in this Agreement to the extent that such use conflicts with or encroaches upon the rights ot those who are not parties to this Agreement. The City will cooperate with the Owner to the extent of readJusting any easements granted to Owner which conflict with existing easements and restrictions on the "Thomas Property". IV. 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 shall constitute a bona fide moderate inCOIfte housing development, and the Owner and the City hereby agree to the exemption of the same from the applica- tion of the Park and Recreation requirements of Section 20-18 of the .Municipal Code. B. Park Dedication Fee - The City recognizes that Owner has agreed to dedicate to the City tor open space purposes those par- cels designated on the plat as Open Space 1 and Open Space 2. With respect to that land to be used for "free market" development (Lot 2) the Cit.y. recognizes t.ttat. the Owner is dedicating a sub- stantial portion of such land for open space and recreational pur- poses. In consideration thereof, the City Council elects, pursu- ant to Section 20-18 of the Municipal Code, that a cash payment in lieu of land dedication be made by Owner on the basis of approxi- mately twenty-two percent (22%) of the land contained in Lot 2, which cash payment is determined to be One.Hundred Twenty-nine . Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Dollars ($129,580.00). Owner agrees to pay such parkÂ·dedication fee via the execu- tion of a promissory note in favor of the City at the time of issuance of a building permit, which note snail bear interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum, and shall be due, on a pro rata basis, upon the issuance of a certificate of occupany on each respective free market unit. 7 .. . 1 - V. OPEN SPACE AND COMMON AREA MANAGEMENT, MAINTENANCE AND USE A. Â· Gene,al - It is the intent of this article to address 'Â· Â·2Â·~I?es.peclive...j.~.fL. 4lonctibilities, limitations, covenants, and mutual agreements with respect to the management, maintenance and use of the opnr or,Ar-,9, rights of way, and comnon area parcels indicated on the r' 1 A f ..f).Den..Space.-and ,Right of Way Use Limitations - With res pell to tire open space and right of way parcels, the Owner's dedication thereof to the City is expressly conditioned upon and made subject to certain specified use limitations, as follows: 1. Open Space 1 Category: Those parcels designated on the plat as "Open Space 1" shall be expressly limited to open Â·Â·space -.des i.inat ionÂ·-thai-:Â·rirequires said parcels to retain their .-Â·.I....liatural -; i ;D.Â·J: 1-Â·' and ve Jetation, with no recreational or other active use allowed which would interfete with or cause damage to the natural growth and vegetation contained thereon. It is the intent of: this limitation that no disruption of the natural growth and vegetation contained within sdid parcels shall be allowea, and that they snail be retained in their natural state, with no im- provements, activity, or other action taken by the City or its designee tb.pt -021.-'.Â·nj low for any interuption oli such natural stat.,3, wit.1. ''.-hÂ·e-Â·ts<.,..1.4. -'Er.eption of any necessary easements for the .ins t.Â£1.-1.lation, clact.frit-E:.ance, repair, and replacement or trails with- in the planned trail system, underground utilities, telephone or other such underground servicing improvements as may be necessary to complete the improvements indicated on tne pla.t and in this Agreementl, aill-1 SUCN Other us US CS luay De specifically approvea irt writing by the Owners of Lots 1 and 2. 2. Open Space 2 Category: Those parcels des ignated on the plat as "Open' Space 2" shall De limited in use to the extent necessary to retain their natural state as a river corridor, with no uses, improvements, activity or other action allowed which will cause any interruption or interference with such natural river corridor state which currently exists; provided, hbwever, 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 anticipated to allow for the connec- tion of the trail system anticipated by the plat and, provided, further, that.-trcro shall .be allowed such easements for the .ins talÂ£).ation-, maj.nten.Fitjrn.. -epair and replacement of the under- ground ~erviue ...Itic i.lil-..3 2-4 .61.1-,a systems necessary to cause the com- Dletion of tne improvemenls and developments indicated on the plat 8. . 0 and in this Agreement, and such other uses as may be specifically approved in writing by the Owners of Lots 1 and 2. 3. Main Street Right of Way: The "Main Street R.O.W." indicated on the plat shall be reserved for use as an extension of Main Street as a transportation corridor, in the event such corri- dor is actually constructed, along with any necessary lighting, signage, easements, paving, sidewalk, curb and gutter landscaping, and all other improvements attendant to a transportation artery. Until the Main Street 'extension is actually constructed, the "Main Street R. O.W." shall be preserved and its use limited by the pro- visions of sub-subparagraph 1 and sub-subparagraph 2 hereinabove, and those portions of such parcel which would have been contained within the category indicated as Open Space 1 being limited by the uses anticipated tor such category, and that portion which would have been contained within Open Space 2 beÂ·ing limited by the uses anticipated for such category. 4. Cemetery Lane R.O.W.: The "Cemetery Lane R. O.W." 0 (indicated on the plat as ilolden Road) shall be limited in use solely to improvements in the nature of extending Cemetery Lane from its intersection with State Highway 82 through and including its connection with Castle Creek Road, alon'j witn any necessary lighting, signage, easements, paving, sidewalk, curb and gutter landscaping, and all other improvements attendant to a transporta- tion artery to allow for the roadway extension's compliance with necessary state, county and municipal codes, as well a5 compliance with the provisions of the plat and this Agreement. Until such time as the Cemetery Lane extension is constructed, tne land con- tained within the. "Cemetery Lane R.O.W." parcel shall be limited in use to those uses indicated under the Open Space 1 category hereinabove defined with the exception of tne interim roadvaty improvements for Holden Road indicated on the plat. 5. Lot 3 Use Limitations: Lot 3 shall be dedicated to the City for its use, subject to a leasing rignt by the current occupant of the same, Neil Beck. For purposes of this Agreement, such leasing right in Neil Beck shall and hereby does require the City to grant to Neil Beck a right of first refusal to lease the property from the City for purposes previously and currently util- ized by Neil Beck, in the event the City pursues a leasing or rental of the property to outside users for other than City pur- poses. The terms and conditions of such lease snall be no less favorable than that offered by the City at the time of such leas- ing/rental. The City further recognizes Neil Beck's current pos- session of the property. and shall allow Mr. Beck's continued pos- session of the same pursuant to mutually agreeable terms and con- ditions. In the event the City desires to take the land out of the lease/rental marketplace and utilize the same for City pur- poses, Mr. Beck shall be entitled to ninety (90) days' prior writ- 9. ./ 1 , 1 - I. .. I , ten notice of such election by the City in which to vacate the premises. 6. Lots 1 and 2: With respect to the parcels desig- nated on the plat as Lots 1 and 2, respectively, the uses thereon shall be limited to those uses allowed under the particular zone category as applicable, the plat, and this Agreement. 7. Default/Remedies: In tne event the City, following the dedication and reservations indicated on the plat and this Agreement, shall as a result of matters within its control breach any of the above-referenced use limitations as to any specific parcel, the Owner or the Owner's successors or assigns, shall have the right upon thirty (30) days' notice to the City providing the City with -an opportunity to remedy the same within such period, to cause an abatement of such breach by any legal process allowable, including injunctive relief. In the event such abatement is im- practical or impossible and the City does not cure the breach within thirty (30) days or the time period set. forth in the notice, whichever is greater, the Owner or its successors or assigns shall De entitled to reenter the property, and evict the City or its designee Erom occupation or possession thereof, and receive a reconveyance of title to such parcel upon which the breach of use has occurred along with the water rig lits previously conveyed by Owner therewith. In such event, sucn reconveyance will be sublect to the use restrictions set forth in this Agree- ment, unless the City and the Owner or its successors or assigns agree otherwise in writing. l. Management - The management of the properties shall be as follows: 1. Open Space and Rights of Way: With respect to those parcels des.ignated on the;, plat as Open Space 1, Open Space 2, Main Street R.O.W., Cemetery Lane R.O.W. and Lot 3, the manage- ment and supervision thereof shall be the responsibility and cost of the City pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 2. Lot 1: As indicated on the plat, Lot 1 will be improved by the coristruction of seventy (70) "employee housing" or "deed restricted" dwelling units. Although documents may be filed against Lot 1 submitting said parcel to either tne provisions of the Colorado Condominium Ownersnip Act or to a cooperative form of ownership, it is currently anticipated that the units contained within Lot 1 will be operated initially as "deed restricted" ren- tal units. Such units may De converted to "deed 'restricted" "for sale" ownership units at such time as the market dictates and the City, in its sole discretion, agrees iIi writing. During the time the units are operated as rental units, the condominium associa- tion and condominium declaration or cooperative housing incorpora- 10 .. ../ tion shail remain under the control and direction of the Owner or the Owner's successor or assigns. The Owner shall cause the management of the units pursuant to a protess ional property mAnagement contract. Such management contract shall provide for the management of the units consistent with first class property management policies, including suchÂ·leases, rules, regulations, fine systems, parking requirements, and other policies and pro- cedures which will enhance the livability and quality of such residential living environments. Such management contract shall also provide.for the proper management and supervision of the common facilities, including the proper and ongoing maintenance thereof, and necessary budgets and reserves shall be allocated to provide tor proper deferred maintenance and reserves for replace- ments as necessary to maintain a quality living environment. In the event the units are converted to "for sale" ownership status, as approved by the City, the properly formed and activated condo- minium association or cooperative association will assume manage- ment responsibility. 3. Lot 2: Lot 2 shall be improved by the construction of thirty (30) "free market" dwelling units, which "free market" development has been approved by the City for condominiumization and shall De governed by the provisions of the Colorado Conao- minium Ownership Act 'and the applicable provisions of the Aspen Municipal Code. Pursuant thereto, a condominium association Will be formed Dy the filing of toe necessary articles of incorpora- tion, and the establishment of bylaws, condominium declarations, association budget and association rules and regulations suffi- cient to meet the .provisions of the Colorado statutes and the Aspen Municipal Code applicable thereto, and to cause tne adequate management and maintenance of all common facilities included within Lot 2 in the manner to reflect a first--class residential living community. D. Maintenance - With respect to the maintenance of the various parcels indicated on the plat, the following shall apply. 1. Permanent Care and Maintenance of Open Spaces 1 and 2. The permanent care and maintenance of those parcels designated as Open Space 1 and Open Space 2 shall be borne byÂ· the City, con- sistent with the use limitations and management provisions else- where contained in this Agreement, including the maintenance of the irrigated meadowlands contained within those parcels desig- nated as 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 borne by the City. consistent with the use limita- tions and management: provisions contained in this Agreement. 11 . 0 3 Permanent Care and Maintenance of Cemetery Lane R.O.W.: The permanent care and maintenance ot the Cemetery Lane R.O.W. (designated on the plat as "Holden Road") shall be subject to the following. a. Interim Roadway Improvements: Those portions of the Cemetery Lane R. O. W. toÂ· be improved at the cost of the Owner pursuant to the plat and Exhibit "D" (i.e. Holden Road) , shall be maintained pursuant to a maintenance sharing agreement between the management entity for Lot 1 and the management entity for Lot 2, with the responsibility for implementation of the plan borne Dy the management entity for Lot 2. The maintenance sharing agreement shall provide for a sharing of the cbst between the own- ership of Lot 1 and the ownership of Lot 2 that reflects 70% allo- cation to Lot 1 and 30% allocation to Lot 2 of such costs or such other allocation formula that is mutually agreed to between the respective owners which is reflective of an equitable sharing of such costs, and the assessments therefor shall be reflected in the respective condominium declarations or other governing documents for Lot i and Lot 2 as additional assessments subject to appropri- ate liens as provided by statute. Such maintenance sharing agree- ment shall include the repair and replacement of the paving and other improvements to be constructed by Owner as indicated, snow removal, landscaping maintenance, and other related costs expenses and tasks connected with the ongoing care and maintenance of said imp roved roadway and related facilities. b. Remainder of Parcel and Permanent Roadway. 'The Cemetery Lane R.O.W. not incluued within the interim roaaway area above-referenced, and the full Cemetery Lane R. O.W. (in the event of the full extension of tile Cemetery Lane Roadway so as to connect to Castle Creek Road) shall be maintained by the City, at its own cost, subject to the use limitations and management provi- sions contained in tnis Agreement. 4. Lot 1: In fulfilling its responsibilities for the permanent care and maintenance of all recreational areas, common parking, columon facilities, and private interior streets within Lot 1, it is the intent of the Owner during the period that- units are operated as a rental development to enter into an agreement with a property management company. Such agreement shall allow for sufficient funds and budget: categories to provide snow removal services, building and grounds maintenance, and other maintenance services normally provided by professional management companies to allow for the proper care, deferred maintenance, repair and re- placement of the facilities. During the time that the units are operated as a rental development there shall be no surcharge on the tenants,Â· in addition to rental payments, for sucri care and maintenance. 12 In the event that the units contained within Lot 1 are coverted to "for sale" ownership, as approved by the City in writing, the permanent care and maintenance thereot shall be pro- vided pursuant to a plan that requires a condominium or coopera- tive association to establish a budget and pursue maintenance pur- suant to proper covenants and assessment provisions contained within the condor,~inium declaration or othdr governing documents allowing for same. The covenants and provisions shall be con- tained within the condominium declaration or other governing docu- ments originally filed against the property at inception, although not necesshry to be incurrea until such time as the units are actually converted to separate ownership. The plan shall include the appropriate filing of the necessary documents pursuant to the applicable ordinances of the City and state statutes, including the articles of incorporation and bylaws for the condominium or cooperative association, and condominium declaration and other appropriate governing documents, which aocuments 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, D. Membership in the condominium or cooperative asso- ciation will be mandatory for each unit or stock owner, pursuant to the applicable prov is ions of the Aspen Municipal Code and the Colorado Condominium Ownership Act or cooperative housing stat- utes; C. Any open space restrictions contained within Lot 1 must,and will be permanent and riot 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 insurance policy with respect to the common areas as well as maintenance of recrea- tional and other facilities, e. The condominium or cooperative associatiori shall , 1 1 have the power to levy assessments which will become a. lien or . 4 stock restriction on individual units or stock certificates for the purpose of paying the cost of operating and maintaining of recreational and other facilities; f. The board of managers for the condominium Or co- operative association shall consist of at least five (5) members who shall be owners ot units within Lot 1. li 5. Lot 2: The permanent care and maintenance of the corn- monly owned facilities, including recreational facilities, parking and any private stree.ts contained within Lot 2 has been approved ~ h 13 0 0 by the City for condominiumization and shall be pursuant to a pro- perty management agreement entered into between the condominium association and either a professional property management company or employment contracts with personnel of the condominium associ- ation. As indicated, Lot 2 has been approved by the City for con- dominiumization and shall be governed by the applicable provisions of the Aspen Municipal Code and the Colorado Condominium Ownership Act including the filing of a condominium declaration and condo- minium map, as appropriate, along with the filing of articles of incorporation for the condominium association, bylaws for the con- dominium association, establishment of a condominium association budget for maintenance and operations, and the initiation of rules and regulations with respect thereto. The documents to be pro- vided with such condominium establishment shall meet at least the following requirements: a. The condominium associations wili be est.ab- lished before any of the individual units are sold within Lot 2; b. Membership in the tondominium association will be mandatory for each unit owner, c. Any common facility, common area, or open space restrictions w'ill be .permanent in nature arid not for a period of years; d. The condominium association will be respon- sible for blanket liability and bazard insurance upon the common elements, as wellÂ· as the maintenance of all common elements there- under; e. The condomittium association shall have the power to levy assessments which will become a lien on individual units for the purpose of paying the cost of operating and main- taining 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 ot units within the condominium development. VI. WATER RIGHTS AND AVAILABILITY Owner warrants that certain water rights accrue to the pro- perty which is the subject of the plat, whicn rights have been adjudicated and are titled in the owner. The Owner hereby dedi- cates to the City the necessary water rights attendant and accru- ing to those properties dedicated to the City for the purpose of irrigating and maintaining those parcels dedicated to the City which are calculated to be .5 c.i.s. 14 .. VII. SEWER AVAILABILITY ' Sewer lines shall be installed consistent with the utility sheets, the utility relocation sheets and the drainage sheets appended to the plat, and the costs of such installation shall be those estiinated amounts set forth on Exhibit "D" attached hereto. The City agrees, upon approval of this Agreement and the plat Dy the Metropolitan Sanitation District that sewer services are fully available tor the development anticipated on the plat, and that the estimated cost 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 that letter from the Sanitation District annexed hereto ana macie a part hereof as Exhibit "11". 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" annexed hereto. VIII. EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT - TITLE The lana contained within Lot 1 has been approved by the City for development of seventy (70) "employee housing." or "aeed restricted" dwelling units subject to the rental/sale price guide- lines established by the City as referenced in Article IX of this Agreement. As a cooperative effort on the part of the City to assist the Owner in organizing and issuing such industrial devel- opment bonds as the Owner deeias necessary or appropriate to facil- itate financing of the improvements contained within Lot 1 for purposes of sale or rental of the individual units the City agrees that it vill accept title to the property ciesjunc-led Â·on the plat as Lot i upon conveyance by the Owner and lease back the same in accordance with the lease-back provisions set forth herein- after, provided that the City shall incur no liability with respect to such industrial development bond program nor shall incur any direct or indirect liability for the maintenance or other costs related to said parcel. Additionally, as a cooperative effort, the City will also accept title to Lot 1 upon conveyance by the Owner and lease-back the same in accordance with the lease-back provisions set. forth hereinafter for the purpose of deferral of real property taxes to the extent allowable by law, provided the following conditions are met: 1. The City will incur no liability with respect to such industrial development bond program nor shall incur any direct or indirect liability for the maintenance or other COS tls related to said parcel. 15 2. The City will hoid title only during such time as the units are operated as a rental development. Any deeds to the City shall occur prior to or simultaneously with the commencement of construction of the improvements upon the lands contained within Lot 1, and will be accompanied by a simul- taneous lease-back of the lands from the City to the Owner or its assigns. Tne terms and conditions of such lease shall include the following terms and conditions: 1. The Owner and its succesors or assigns shall be required to cause the full maintenance and upkeep of the lands and any improvements constructed thereon by the Owner or its assigns. 2. The Owner and its successors or assigns shall agree to indemnify the City against any costs and/or liability connected with the ongoing use and operation of said lands and any improve- ments thereon. 3. The terms of such lease:-back shall be triple net in nature to further reflect that all costs of the property shall be borne by tile Owner ancl its succesors or assigns as lessee. 4. The terms of such lease-back shall be as mutually agreed to between the City and the Owner and its successors or assigns, but in rio event, shall be less than tne agreed to useful life of the improvements to be constructed upon said land, so long as the Owner complies with the express cond.itions above under which the City will accept title to said lands. 5. The rental consideration to be paid to the City by the Owner or its successors una assigns shall De in t.he sum' OÂ£ 0:te 'Â·-- Dollar ($1.00) per year. The terms of the lease-bacK will allow the construction of the improvements anticipated on the plat for said parcel, leasehold financing of the improvements to be con- structed, and the cooperation of the City in the execution of sucn documents and/or instruments and the doing of such acts as may be necessary to achieve the purposes of this Agreement in the improvement of the lands by the development and operation of "employee housing" or "deed restricted" dwelling units. IX. EMPLOYEE HOUSING - PRICE GUIDELINES The "employee housing" or "deed restricted" dwelling units to he cons{ rected within the lands labeled as Lot 1 shall be subject ,}ta ll -1 "' am rental rate for such units, upon completion, reflect- ing no g:calcer-:han Seventy Cents (6.70) per square foot, or in +he event of the sale of individual units, no greater sales price than Seveuly-six .0Â·Â·llars ($76.00) per square foot. In the event 16 .. - I.' that a unit shall not be completed in a manner to allow for the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by December 31, 1982, despite good faith diligence on the part of the Owner or ltS assigns in pursuing the construction schedule annexed hereto, then the rental/price restrictions applicable to said unit shall be adjusted to reflect the greater of the above-referenced rental/ price figures or the "moderate income" guidelines figures for rental/sale, as approved for and in effect at the time of issuance of such certificates of occupancy as such figures are established by the City of Aspen. The rental/price guidelines applicable to any unit shall be subject to an annual adlustment equaling the greater of eight per- cent (896) per annum, or the allowaole 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 occupancy for the appropriately restricted unit. X. FINANCIAL ASSURANCES Pursuant to Section 20-16(c) of the Municipal Code and prior to the issuance of any permits for construction, Owner shall pro- vide a guarantee for no less than one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated costs, as further set forth and allocated under Exhibit "D" attached hereto totalling One Million Fifty iliousand Dollars (51,050,000.00) as approved by the City Engineer. The guaranty to be provided uy 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 irrevocaole sight draft or letter of commitment from a financially responsible lender; ancil such guar- anty shall give the City the unconditional right, upon default Dy the Owner, or its successor or assigns, to withdraw funds upon demand to partially or fully complete and/or pay for any improve- ments or pay any outstanding bills for work done thereon by any party. As portions of the improvement 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 fgr 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 by the City Engineer. For purposes of clarity, the percentage attributable to the estimated costs that are applicable to each stage of comple- tion are as further set forth on Exhibit "E", entitled "Improve- ment 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 Com- pletion stage. To the extent portions of such completion staÂ·ges as set forth in Exhibit "E" are determinable to be approved sever-- ally by the City Engineer, an equitable allocation of funds to be 1 -7 .. - released shall be applied as and when such partial completions occur. The Owner, its successors or assigns, hereby agrees to fur- ther provide unto the City a warranty as to all improvements for a period of one (1) year from and after acceptance by the City of such improvements. The Owner shall further guarantee 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. It is the express understanding of the parties that the pro- cedure set forth in Article XIV of this Agreeinent shall not be required with respect to the enforcement and implementation of financial assurances and guarantees to be provided by Owner as set forth above and required by Section 20-16(c) of the Municipal Code. 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, Owner, for itself and its assigns, hereby specifically agrees to provide additional parking allowances up to a maximum of one parking space per bed- room at such time as City shall require saine as a result of City's determination that such additional parking is necessary to Meet. the ongoing use attributed to the Lot 2 units. In t.he event such additional parking is deemed necessary, provisions for t.lie loca- tion of saine have been made as shown under Schedule "G" entitled "Additional Parking Schedule". In the event the City determines that such additional parking, or any portion thereof, is neces- sitated by the ongoing use of the Lot 2 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 or its successors or assigns from the City, such notice to include the City's determination of the need, and proper resolution promul- gated by the City with respect to such requirement. XII. RESTRICTIONS ON SHORT-TERM RENTALS Owner agrees that all units constructed and contained within Lot 2, regardless of their form of ownership or use, shall be restricted with respect to short-term rentals to six (6) Month minimum leases with no mc)re than two (2) shorter tenancies per year. 1 Ft .. I '' XIII. DEED RESTRICTIONS The units to be constructed within Lot 1 shall be subject to certain "deed restrictions" that are intended to restrict the rental/sale of said units to fall within the moderate income pricing guidelines as furtherÂ· referenced herein. The nature, extent and particulars of such deed restriction language shall be reqiured to be placed against Lot 1, or the respectively resulting units, prior to the issuance 0Â£ building permits in a manner that binds said lands contained within Lot 1 in accordance with the current requirements of Section 24-11.4(b)(3) of the Municipal Code. XIV. NON-COMPLIANCE AND REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS OR EXTENSIONS BY OWNER In the event that the City Council determines that the Owner or its successors or assigns is not acting in substantial compli- ance with the terms of this Agreement, the City Council may issue and serve upon the Owner or its successors or assigns a written order specifying the alleged non-compliance and requiring the Owner or j. ts successors or assi.gns to cease and desist from such non-compliance and rectify the same within such reasonaule time as the City Council may determine. Within twenty (20) days of the receipt of such order, the Owner or its successors or assigns may file with the City Council either a notice advising tile City Coun- cil that it is in compliance or a written petition requesting a hearing to determine any one or both of the following matters: (i) Whether the alleged non-compliance exists or did exist, or .(ii) Whether a variance, Â·extension of time or amendment to this Agreement. should be granted with respect to any such non- compliance which is determined to exist. Upon the receipt of such petition, the City Council shall promptly schedule a hearing to consider the matters set forth in the cease and desist order and in the petition. The hearing shall be convened and conducted pursuant to the procedures normally established by the City Council for other hearings. If the City ' Council determines by a preponderance of the evidence that a non- compliance exists which has not been remedied, it may issue such orders as may be appropriate; provided, however, no order termin- ating any approval granted herein shall be granted without a find- ing of the City Council that substantial evidence warrants such action and ,affording the Owner and its successors or assigns a reasonable time to remedy. such non-compliance. A final determina- tion of non-compliance which has not been remedied or for which no 19 .. variance has been granted shall, at the option of the City COUR- cil, and upon written notice to the Owner or its successors or assigns, terminate any of the approval contained herein. In addition to the foregoing, the Owner or its successors or assigns way, on its own initiative, petition tne City Council for an amendment to this Agreement and the exhibits annexed hereto or to extend .any of the time periods required for performance. With respect to the Construction Schedule (Exhibit "C") and the Improvement Responsibility Schedule (Exhibit "D") the Owner has made various assumptions, including the following: 1. Final approval of the plat and related documenta- tion prior to Juiy 1, 1981. 2. Negotiation, arrangement and completion of pre-con- struction activity by Owner or Owner's assigns, including bidding, contractor selection and contractor mobilization prior to the pro- Jected starting date of August 1, 1981. 3. Ratification of the estimated construction and , development schedule by the selected contractors. 4. Immediate availability of the required laoor forces and construction materials at all necessary phases throughout the project. 5. No interruption in the construction operations through the 1982/1983 winter months by acts of God or other mat- ters beyond the control of the Owner or its successors or assigns. 6. Pre-marketing activity with respect to the free market units at a rate which would Justify tne construction schedule indicated, without the necessity of constructing and completing units on specification. f The City Council shall not unreasonably refuse to extend the ti.me periods for performance indicated in the construction , schedule (Exhibit "C") or allow reasonable adjustments. to the Improvement Responsibility Schedule (Exhibit "D") if Owner demon- stratus by a preponderance of the evidence that t.he reasons for said extension or said adjustments are beyond the control of the Owner or its successors or assigns, despite good faith efforts on their part to accomplish the same. 20 XV. 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. Th is agreeinent shall be subject to and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and the Munici- pal Code ofÂ· the City of Aspen. C. If any of the provisions of this Agreement or any para- graph, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or section or the applica- tion 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 Subdivision 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 deter- minative of the substance contained herein. F. Notices to be given to the parties to this Agreement are considered to be given if personally delivered or ilf deposited in the United States Mail to the parties by -registered ou certified mail at the addresses indicated below, or such other addresses as may be substituted upon written notice by the parties or their successors or assigns: CITY OF ASPEN. City Manager 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 OWNER or its Successors and Assigns. Marolt Associates c/O James M. Mulligan, Esq. 1350 Seventeenth Street, Suite 360 , Denver, Colorado 80202 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto executed their hands and seals oil the dates and year respectivel.y indi- cated, in full understanding and agreement to the terms and condi- tions herein contained. 21 CITY OF ASPEN, A Colorado Municipal Corporation Herdari Edel, Miyor ATTEST: Kathryn S:#7Koch, ~City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: =----*---7-E~El-, 4<=ForL______ Paul J. Taddunâ‚¬ City Attorney STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) 'rile above and foregoing P.U.D. and Subdivision Agreement between the City of Aspen, Colorado, a Municipal Corporation and Maroll Associates a Colorado general part.Ilerytill,-Scis_subscribed and sworn to before tue this /4217 day of _Â£=2~-LD 1981 by Herman Edel, Mayor, and Kathryn S. Kockf, City Clerk, of the City of Aspen, a Municipal Corporation. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. My commission expires: S I AG 1 g l Fgtal-y~Publie MAROLT ASSOCIATES, A Colorado General Partnership C 3 j LFic i,-4 173 ReÂ»3/ Partner 22 72/41* /Â»,9 6. Paridek (14 442. Pattnerv 14Â«9-2 Â»FazaÂ» (79Â»-46-9- 64 0 41 k /1 PaÂ».ner /1 ...1~ STATE OF COLOR,ADO ) a.Â£-, 1 rds)4-,At- 1 SSâ€¢ County o f ) The above and foregoing P.U.D. and Subdivision Agreement between the City of Aspen, Colorado, a. Municj.pal Corporation and Marolt Associates , a Colorado general partnership was subscribed and sworn to before methir /h ME day of ~01 -2.32,~10 1981 '3 2.1 ril; ipo .7 /1 J j ,(32 #&-Â£, 2%144 2 444 ;t-'41. e : 11|Câ€¢Ar-Z/r 11 - -p i \-j :t at 4 1 -4,0.4 9'daÂ«9 1 r~.9.0.-1 5 and j<.culft)'Â·:). 746-4,12 Â»-1 C a,.i. 16 +-3. ' 71,U p60Â£ tne64 of Marolt Associates, A Colorado G6neralOPartn,ership.:U-- WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. My commission expires: glle.be,+._le-) /4, /0/0 Â· *lA. c , Notary Public / BUCHANAN, THOMAS 1Â· ..-Â· u.Â»anSON PROFESSIONAL CO,RPORATION 12499 WEST COLFAX AVE., SUITE A LAKEWOOD, COLORADO 80215 23 0 - .. ~ -' EXHIBIT A , LEGAL DESCRIPTION A tract of land situated in Lots 9, 10, 13, SU 1/4 St.1 1/4 Sec. 12, TlOS, R8511, Gth P.M. and Lot 5 and NW 1/4 t:11 1/4 Sec. 13, TlOS, 1135;/, Gth P.tl. defcribed as follows: Beginning at a point, in the center line of Castle Creek (the SW cor. Lot 2 Adams Subdivision), thence .I!14Â°40'E 149.97 ft. to corner f13 Holden Tract, thence N14Â°35'9 172.00 ft. to corner #14 Holden Tract, thence :137Â°504/ 314.72 ft. to corner #1 Holden Tract,- being identical with corner #4 North Texas Mill Site tÂ·IS 53288, thence 1154Â°4541 84.00 ft. Â·to the center line of Castle Creek, thence t:26Â°00'W 94.00 ft. along the center line of Castle Creek, thence 1128Â°10' E 294.00 ft. along the cente'r line of Castle Creek, - thence ti20Â°05'E 115.40 ft. along the center line of Castle Creek, to the South Right-of-Way line of Colorado Highway flo. 82, : thence N76Â°03'U 360.26 ft. along the South Right-of-Way line of Colo- rado Highway No. 82, thence 63.52 ft. along the arc of a curve to the left (radius of 905.00 ft. Â·chord bears i177Â°(3'331'11 63.51 ft.), thence 510Â°51'11 90.71 ft., thenceÂ·521Â°47'9282.37 ft., thence 525Â°2341 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 North Right-of-Way line of Castle Creek Road, thence S53Â°34'E 124.61 ft. along the North Right-of--Way line of Castle Creek Road, thence 1!31Â°56'E 254.45 ft., rhence S06Â°42'E 308.07 ft., . thence ~190Â°00'11 9.11 ft., thence.533Â°00'E 61.65 ft., thence t163Â°35'E 280.15 ft. to line 1-2Short 1.Tme HS f4610, .. thence 1116Â»00'W 44.62 ft. along line 1-2 to corner ?10.. 1 Short Lime MS #4610, thence 1174Â°00'E 236.35 ft. along line 1-4 of Short Lime MS #4610, thence N90Â°0041 74.04 ft., thence N19Â°12'E 117.35 ft., . 1 thence ?!42Â°3041 329.09 ft., thence ?102Â°4341 221.35 ft., thence N16Â°44'E 139.78 ft., Â· thence S70Â°12'E 120.00 ft., thence h36Â°45'E 268.63 ft. t.0 the most Northerly corner of property .described in Book 196 at Page 376, Pitkin County Records, thence ?160Â°46'W 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 t(85Â°00'E 150.00 feet, thence 568Â°00'E 80.00 feet, thence 577Â°00'E 110.00 feet, thence 1~81Â°19'21"E 40.1Â·7 feet to the point of beginning.. containing 35.25 acres, more or less. r - .,1 ' ... 0 EXHIBIT B . I ../ SITE DATA TABULATION (BY PARCEL) Total Acreage: 35.25 Acres Lot 1 4.325 Acreage: No. of Units: 70 Employee bize & 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. . S 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 6 5,-3 TS S . F . Projected Monthly Rental Rates 2 bedroom $591/month (70Â¢/S.F. ) 1 bedroom $446/month Â· 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 & Club house amenities Marolt Homestead - Management. Office Landscape plaza and pool @ 1500 S.F. Tennis Court @ 7200 S.F. Parking: 60 Covered (2 per unit) Parcel Dens il-2 : 4.5 DU/Acre Ground Caverage: Units 3 bedrooms 35,588 S.F. Granary & Hornestead 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.0 25' width 33,360 S.F. Paths - 1150 L.F. 0 _11,500 T.' TOTAL COVERAGE/LOT 2 1 0-67(j go---S--1--171- ~ EXHIBIT C MAROLT RANCH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE . 0 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.Excava-tion & Foundations May 1, 1982 - June 30, 1982 Superstructure & Exterior Closure June 1, 1982 - Oct. 15, 1982 . Interior Construction & Finishes Â· Aug. 1, 1982 - Dec. 31, 1982 Finished Site Development Aug. 1, 1982 - Oct. 31, 1982 Roads & Parking Areas, Intersection Completion, Finish Grading, Landscaning, Walks Free Market Units (Lot 2) - July *1, 1981 - July 31, 1983 Site Utilities May 1, 1962 - July 31, 1932 Building Phase 1 (11 Units) .. June 1, 1932 - Jan. 31, ]983 , Building Excavation & Foundations June 1, 1982 - June 30, 1982 Superstructure & Exterior Closure July 1; 1982 - Sep, 30, 1932 Interior Construction & Finishes Oct. 1, 1982 - Jail. 31, 1983 Finished Site Development . Auq. 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 SuperstructureÂ· & Exterior Closure Oct. 1, 1982 - Dec. 31, 1982 }nterior Construction & Finishes Jar]. 11 1983 - Apr. 30, 1983 Finished Grading, Landscaping May 1, 1983 - JulyÂ·31, 1983 Roads & Parking Are as, Finish Grading, Landscaping EXHIBIT D : 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 h Manhole #11 Manholes 3,600.00 - 3,600.00 (100%) 87 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 11,550.00 Connections : Sewer Totals $114,800.00 $77,392.50 $37,407.50 I , , Water Interconnection 12"-D. 1.Pipe $16,415.00 $11,490.50 (70%) $ 4,924.50 (30%) 12" Valve 2,500.00 1,750.00 (70%) 750.00 (301) Free Market Water Service 12" D.1. Pfpe 11,221.00 - 11,221.00 (100%) 10" D.I. Pipe 42,770.00 - 42,770.00 (100%) 8" D. I. Pi pe 15,225.00 - 15,225.00 (1005) 12" Valve 2,500.00 - 2,500.00 (100%) Fire Hyd?ants 5,250.00 5,250.00 (100%) 1 li" Water Servi ce 2,700.00 -- 2,700.00 (1003) 3/4" Water Service 300.00 - 300.00 (100%) Employee Housing Water Service 8" D.I. Pipe 14,875.00 14,875.00 (100%) 8" Valve 500.00 500.00 (1007) Fire Hydrants 5,250.00 5,250.00 (100%) 2" Water Service 3,000.00 3,000.00 (100%) - Water Totals $122,506.00 $36,865.50 $85,640.50 . .. . . EXHIBIT D 4% MAROLT RANCH '' 111PROVEMENT RESPONSIBILITY SCHEDULE (continued). Employee Housing Free Market Units Item Total Cost Perpentage 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 & Â· 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. 1,320.00Â· 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%) Â»-Â· 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 $30,750.00Â·(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 . $ Â·7,200.00 (100%) Red Butte Cemetery : 8" Irrigation gate 800.00 800.00 (100%) Head wall 500.00 - 500.00 (100%) 8" P.V.C. Pipe & Fittings 4,080.00 - 4,080.00 (100%) Irrigation Totals $45,380.00 $32,800.00 $12,580.00 . . . EXHIBIT D 1,1.AROLT RANCH 6 IMPROVEMENT RESPONSIBILITY SCHEDULE (continued) Employee Housing Free Market Units Item Jotal Cost Percentage Share & Cost Percentage Share & Cost Roads, Driveways, Parking Areas & . Bike Paths Hwy. 82-Holden Rd. Jntersection 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 (305) Excavation & Embankment 18,600.00 13,020.00 (70%) 5,580.00 (30%) Traffic Light Controls 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 â€¢ Relocation 990.00 693.00 (70%) 297.00 (30%) Drainage Swales 800.00 560.00 (70%) 240.00 (303) 18" C.M.P. 5,075.00 Â· 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 $ 9,246.00 (70%) $ 3,960.00 (30%) Base Course 12,040.00 8,428.00 (70) ' 3,612.00 (30%) Excavation & Emban kiiicht 3,000.00 21,000.00 (70%) 900.00 (30%) Subtotal $28,240.00 $19,768.00 $ 8,472.00 Ilol den Road - Station 74 66 to ' Station 16Â·169 (Employee Housing Entrance) f Asplialt $25,500.00 $25,500.00 (100%) Base Course 23,240.00 23,240.00 (100%) Expavation & Embankment +6,000.00 6,000.00 (100%9 - Subtotal $54,740.00 $54,740.00 L .. EXHIBIT D MAROLT RANCH IMPROVEMENT* RESPONSIBILITY SCHEDULE (continued) 4 - Employee Housing Tree 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 & Embanknfent , 45,000.00 45,000.00 (100%) Subtotal $115,420.00 $115,420.00 - Free 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 (1003) Subtotal $ 97,976.00 - Â· $ 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 Â·40,000.00 40,000.00 (100%) - to employee units . r. Electric Total $ 90,500.00 - $ 42,250.00 $ 48,250.00 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%) i Natural Gas Total $ 10,940.00 - Â· $ 10,940.00 . . 1 0 - .7 . EXHIBIT D MAROLT RANCH IMPROVEMENT RESPONSIBILITY SCHEDULE (continued) Employee Ilousing 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 SIIE 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 4.- . . . 4 . I MAROLT RANCH - SITE IMPROVEMENT PERCENT~f COMPLETION SCHEDULE .... P Percentage of Guaranty, 11-KE . Time Period . Guaranty Release Date 1. Approval of Final Plat June 8, 1981 2. Advertise for Bids July 6, 1981 Â· 3. Anticipated Awaret 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 c Market & Employee Aug. 1 - Sep.,30, 1981 8. Â·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. 1nstallation of Sewer & Water, Free Market May 1 - june 30, 1982 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 . . k. A 111 15 1 1 r ~HAROLT RANCH SITE HAPROVEMENT PERCUITAGE COMPLETION SCHEDULE (conti./ d) Percentage of Guaranty, Item Time period Guaranty Release Dare I . 16. Finish Grading & h Drainage Improvements, Free Market Phase 1& Employee Â·Aug. 1, 1982 - Aug. 31, 1982 17. Int6rsection Work Aug. 1,'1982 - Sep. 30, 1982 18. Finish Grading, Base ' >- 30%,October 1982 Course Placement & Paving, Free Market Phase 1 & Employee Aug. 1, 1982 - Sep. 30, 1932 19. Landscaping, Free Market . 1 Phase 1 & Employee Oct. 1, 1982 - Oct. 31, 1982-~ 15%, November 1982 20. Finish Grading, Base h 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 ~- 103, August 1903 . . . , 1 . 4 .... I ... ..... I. ...I- I- -- Ey X'lu ls. }1- 47 - I I U . 0 . (4. I ' . jusfic U . Ce Â¥Â·(Â·tt'Â·(t (<t M ./<titi '(<tti<:,1 J (3(r<<.2 565 NORTII MILL STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 - TELEPHONE , 925Â·2537 May 26, 1981 Carlie Wood Design Work Shop 415 S. Spring Aspen, Co 81.61.1 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 \A* W- Heiko Kuhn, Manager Aspen Metropolitan Sanita'Lion District I. , .. EXHIBIT 6-- Additional Parking c>Cllcualu , . 1'1 44':3:kfil.3~>5-4(!dilional p,ity.ing -â€ž-â‚¬- .. .4), U=27 - \Â»3h=-Eff.:-1-Â» 1 r~ 9,23%Â·UffÂ·i c FzE- -324,-dip\Â¢1'.391.3- 0/1, /- ' 9\ \\.\~ 2 .3:k; ~Â¢g*r] f .61 j I &2~f -~26~<1 \\ \ "1, a.44/ * . *.Il- H :' \'. A 6-Ar-'o,Q 1 \ 1.-,3 I. I i ' : 3.: ./ -/. ''ttÂ·t 1 ; . , \ 1 5 1. . 1 v'-,1 il} Uju'..2 1)9..IA .40 3:4:\9/,c- 3::~<'*:-- -2 -i,f~....,,\\ \ \\ . J â€¢Â·:1-hÂ· rn-t/fiffÂ·Â·-6 ) \\ 2 04443. 9 Â»Â»ilit) .41 r 9 . -t. ...i: -. 114 â€¢:/ 1 -, t.,f'2~413 j 1 1 /. - 1. - . r., 7,0 '. S. . 1 - \ 1 - . ,- ./- .>- ->.4 -Dk <92 1 :â€¢r-~v % Â·' ~ ~~ vb J 4-2- frs.,:-: \ -I . , , I. / ' 'V . I '' I . /. < 458*26/ Â£ *73." :Â· 0.' t ~. i ' -1 --49, .399 'tr.;.s: ) vo Â·, 0,6--* .4-3\ 4- \Â·~4,~534/1*K?.3 _.....Â»-420%94Â· 4. . 7 4 -- 9 1.... itifi.f-{194 - {Â»~ iii{ AkÂ·Â·1! 4 , Ty,z . ,~4 Â· 1 #l - 1 ---Â°49<574;41 - . b...174 .. /2 1 1 0. '-1,491 L/21\ 9. 26 -'\'1 4 Y A V: b' 11" I.'V,h; -YAF 54 46 . CUA 3.- "'~-b w "K.3, I. , 4 /1. - ... ..%:. .. , ' ' i 22.1-2.276 <-,-rf.,. 7 .a -/2 I \ i.'/i,4 f 4.-'*r. 94959 5 . 2 Jfk- 6. 'p .--2 Â·'~\ i , h h le.1-4 /2,792. . -1. -- /.A ...\--- ./ .....J , 1 1. . 9. a MICÂ·S:.tuf. 1...-ifÂ· ..1 . Â· .. ,./. , / r i,IiiI i 1 'tg L:-9..2 : r .. j . 1<24213%3?<13499-3-3?syliffli? I.1-' Â·' i I â€¢'1Â· 1,{ 1 !'~| 1 " / \ 1 1 :Id 1 11 1 -t . (11==tkn- 1 h-1==26.4,t:.. . . 1.1 - 11 .. ) . C - 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 p] an all.ows for two cars per unit. The applicant has asked for a partial exemption y from parking requirements, providing trio-thirds of the parking required ' 3 by Code. l . 1. - Â· i D.f?iRC>j W - ~ ADDITIONAL PA1-11<ING 1:u[ I.L'/ L..'Â·~4& 1 , , 1=1{EE MAR}<ET CLUSTER : 212:iâ‚¬F=#5~al 0â€¢reÂ« C.4â€¢<1> â€¢ i 1 e . 1 P.U.D. AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR THE MAROLT RANCH City of Aspen State of Colorado 0 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 4 Section IV. Dedications 5 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 Exhibit D Improvement Responsibility Schedule Exhibit E Relative Water Rights and Fee Values Exhibit F Improvement Completion Percentage Schedule 0 0 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, such zoning in conjunction with the utilization of the residential bonus overlay approved under Ordinance 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 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 has imposed certain conditions and requirements 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 that the matters hereinafter agreed to will be faithfully performed by the Owner: NOW, THEREFORE, e . 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 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 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 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 mutually 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 Space 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. Open 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 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 -2- .. 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 properly dedicated or restricted, as reauired, 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 soace designation with appropriate restrictions that apply to Open Space Number 1 hereinabove referenced. For further and more specific allocation 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 Code, 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 Agreement. The parties hereto acknowledge that a general guideline for cost allocation and Droration shall follow the relationshin of each development's number of units to the total number of units aporoved for develooment 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 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. -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 olat) being more specifically set forth on Exhibit "D", entitled "Improvement Resnonsibility 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 seouence of construction and ohasing, 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 Right Of Way - 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 Cityls 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 beginning from the referenced intersection with Highway No. 82 over the portions of the extension owned by the City through and across the platted prooerty and ending with its intersection with Castle Creek Road, all as further shown on the attached Plat. -4- .. C. Gas Comnany 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 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 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 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 contained within the "free market development" referenced as Lot 2 under Article I hereinabove, and as further shown on the -5- .. 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 of value suffi- cient to at least meet the requirements of Section 20-18 of the Municipal Code concerning 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 roadways, 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. 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 Dlat which are designated as "Open Space 1" further referenced under Article I hereinabove, shall be expressly limited to an ooen 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 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 oarcel 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 portion of the attached plat 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 Dlat 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-subparagraph 2 hereinabove, those Dortions 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- inq 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 be 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 nlat 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 upon the resnective 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 attorney'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. 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 been included in either of those two respective categories; provided, however, the City shall be allowed to lease said property to the current user of same, Neil Beck, and that such lease may allow for the continuation of its current use as a "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 respect 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 subdivjsion 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. Open Soace, 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 sunervision 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 easements for access, ingress and egress over, across, and through such cate- gories of pronerty 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 and on the attached plat. Although documents will be filed against Lot 1 submitting same to the provisions of the Colorado Condo- minium Ownership Act, 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 operated as rental units, the necessary condo- minium association and condominium 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 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 prooerty management policies, including such leases, rules, regulations, fine systems, parking requirements, and other policies and procedures that will enhance the live- ability 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 association, at such time as the units therein contained are converted to "for sale" ownership 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 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 -9- 0 . he 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 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 nursuant to a maintenance sharing agreement entered into between the manage- ment entity for Lot 1 and the management entity for Lot 2, with the resnonsibility for implementation 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 ownershia 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 respective condominium declarations for Lot 1 and Lot 2 as additional assessments subject to approoriate 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 any recreational areas, common parking, common facilities and pri- vate interior streets within Lot 1 shall be pursuant to a -10- 0 . property 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 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 way 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 budget, 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 ownershio. The plan shall include the anprooriate 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 lease, 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 levy 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, includina recreational facilities, -11- 0 . 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 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 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, 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 oermanent 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 taps in order to allow for the proper servicing of the needs of the improvements to be constructed thereon. In connection there- with, 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 be paid bv -12- 0 . 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 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 eaualing 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 ($ 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 aoproved 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 accep- tance, 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 -13- .. until all proposed improvements 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 11 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 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 bv 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, 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 contemolated 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- 4 ''. .. 4 1, b respectivelv 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 , 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 was subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 19_ by , -15- 0 0 .. and , Partners of Marolt Associates, A Colorado General Partnership. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public -16- 01 . 1" r: . : . ' Â· 0,:02..1 te :r.Ii:..c :1 4 .an.,d, ,.â€ž14 41â€¢. fir,!i E',1,tle Appraiher; .J,ld C<,1,Â·:,7!tants M...ci,, B Morse Buill|Ilt,J . 319 i a.t Hym.in A.Â·â€žt,ti,:, Suit,: 209 A,iâ€žÂ·ri, Color.Â·du 61(,11 â€¢ 303/975 Cols / A PRELIMINARY OPTION CF VALUE FOR THE MAROLT RANCH LOCATED ON HIGHWAY 82 and CASTLE CREEK PITKIN COUNTY, CO 1 October 17, 1977 . 1. .. FOR: , Mr. Lenny Oates and Mr. Mick Mahoney c/o Gates, Austin, MeGra.th and Jordao 600 East Hopkins Avenue .* ' Aspen, CO 81611 / / PREPARED BY: James J. Molt.1.ca, RM Real Estate App:aib..r 1 ' LÂ·,-3 Jamcs J. t..40!lica, n,r.i, C . I. r.**, 4 11,1.1 r 1 . r. 1. !(,:Â·Â·Â·,Â·:,Â·f,Â·t,i f:â€ž. .kah.1.19 â€ž. inud.Qui N :id.)Bki:ti,~A,!tit'. 1{,:al f-st,itc AppraistÂ·rs and Consult.ints M,,wn 13 MorieÂ· Building â€¢310[Et Hymun AveÂ·nue, Swill; 209 Awion, Colorado 81 011 â€¢ 303,"175 0987 A.V.Â·11, Co'.,ra: 19 October 17, 1977 Mr. I.enny Oatcs and â€¢ Mr. Mick Mahoney c/o Dates, Austin, McGrath and Jordan 600 E. Hopkins Avenud Aspen, CO 81611 Re: A preliminary "Opinion of Value" for the Marolt Ranch located on Highway 82 and Castle Creek, Pi.tkin County, CO Gentlemen: At your combined requests, I have personally inspected the subject property, have gathered and ana]-yzed applicable market data and development COStS, for the purpose of estimating the raw land value of the subject's approximately 38 acres. This analysis has bcon offered in a brief letter form at this ticte, since both client's areÂ·local persons, and very familiar with the subject property as well as the local Aspen economy. However, I have cuntained in my files all of the supporting data and exhibits fron which I have based my opinion and from which I could prepare a formal appraisal at a future d,ate if so desired. : The valuation stated herein is based upon the fdllowing assumptions. If any one of these essumptions is not considered reliable by the clients or if they chanÂ·ie at a future date. prior to purchase negotiations, your appraiser reserves the right to reanalyze the property under the alternate situation. These assumptions ate as follows: 1) The subject is currently zoned AF-2 P.IJ.D. under the Pitkin County Zoning Code. Under these requirements, the subject Call be developed with 19 residential units. 2) Currently, under Pitkin County regulations, all acreage on a parcel can be used for density allowance. This suggests that althought no development could take place on topocraphy over 30% grade, it can be used for density requirements. 3) The direct expenses used in tlic analysis reflect total road and utilities cÂ·:<; '~r.:;iolls not to exceed one-half mile (2, 640 1-lueal feet) . Depending zipon the dovel.01':lient prograin and P.U.D. requirements, this mav vary considerably. 4) Indirect exper.ses of management, supervision, overhead, iaterest and re.-11 estat:# cir.i.:.i.sr:ions al:c consiJ(red avernst.3 for t:his size of development. Development profit or 20% of tho tot.il SAleS price also . I Jarties J. Mollica, H.rA. Apprher- Congul tant ( I . .. October 17, 1977 Oates-Mahoney Marolt Ranch Page Two - S is considered average for the Aspen arca: 5) Tap fees and extension approvals arc not easily determined' at this time. There[ore, your appraiser rounded the net value downward to . include these costs. 6) Much of the information supplied in the direct expense section was supplied by the developers of the 45-unit subdivision located on Â·the Hubbard Property in Basalt. Further verification of expenses were selected from the Mashall-Swift Residential Cost Manual, 1977. These expenses are subject to change, depending upon the topography, development program, and soil types. 7) The current improvements on the property include a small single family residence, garage, and old historic outbuildings and miscellaneous , landscaping. Although these improvements are basically in sound condition, your appraiser gives them little or no weight in the analysis of a 19-unit P.U.D. project. The only value considered applicable is for rental space and/or project office to help defer the interim costs of taxes and/or management. Based upon my analysis of the accumulated, data, and considering the above mentioned assumptions, I have concluded that the Fair Market Value of the subject property as of October 17, 1977 is:, - - One Million Dollars - $ 52,632 per raw site $ 26,316 per acre Attached to this letter are four charts which were used in the analysis of the subject property. 1) Recent cimparable sales chart for building site at one acre or less which reflect market values for single unit building sites. 2) Current listings of similar buildi.ng sites in tlic area as an alter- native to the prospective purchasers. 3) Recent sales of large tracts of land similar to the subject'S wllich 1 could be used for development purposes. Also ].isted are two current listings, one nearly adjacent to the subject (Wardwell) and another very co:Â®arable being the Droste Property on Red Mountain. 4) A preliminary development: program which lists direct expenses, in- direct expen,es, developer's prefit reflect:inn net.value of the Â· sublect prop:rly. . ji, IM n .1, dam. :lit lisÂ·'I.Mts li!{I r!,Â· il D:,<It,; Appret..Â· 0. ar,1 Con..Ult,!1 ,!S .. 0 . ... October 17, 1977 Oatcs-:Idhoney Marolt .Ranch . Page Three , 'If I can Le of further assistance in the application or interpretation of . the findings; contained in this letter I w.ill be available to weet with both parties upon your request. Thank you for th ls-opportunity to be of service. I hereby certify that I have no present or future contemplated interest in the subject property; that to the best of my knowledge the information con- tained herein is true and accurate; that my fee is not based upon the valua- tion stated herein. Respectfully submitted, Q129.<2'94Â«' - ,/'~Ameff'~/'Mollica, R>I - -- - ~0,/'0 Real*Estate Appraiser - JJM:sfy , . . . / . .. . .. i"r.'/kil 1 ~. i':11.ft,) ft ..1 r....,4, Arri. ' 4:,r- 4...1-1 (,w.%U!,Â·i,~:3 ~ (1 A(te .i:,Â·1 lt.,!â€¢Â·L; C ' '~ I . ' 1Â·,Â·r A,Â·rÂ·Â· l'-Lit!â€¢'Â·. berd P, cord; I . S:*AtufAL' 17 1,. 51 ....1 2,.2 AÂ·.;,en Cu, 13 197/6 4 7.1.50(1 .3 3 4.c 7/2,7'7/ac 3.' W, E 319/6 10 2r.J A'.ron 01. 14 11/76 7/.000 .3l 23],333 5, W, K 319/635 223 As;, u r.1. 10 5/11 100,0,1,1 .5 200,640 .' , 11, 1/ 327/505 Ridge o Red 23 3/l/ 90.000 .14 121,621 S, W, E 326/481 Counca n 2:11 Atpco Co. 8 3/17 90,000 .75 120,0C0 S, W, E t!/ K 2r.4 A;pen G. 9 5/11 100.000 .75 133,]33 S, W, E 321/504 0 2rl A:ren G. 10 3/77 90,000 .75 120,000 . S. W. E NIC - 2nj Aspen Cu. 11 11/76 60,000 .75 106,646 S, W, E 319/620 . 2rd Aspen Co. 12 11/76 go.oSi) .75 106,646 S, W, E 319/625 2nd Ast,in Co. 1 11/76 125,000 1 ac 125,000 S, W. E N/R 201 Aspen Co. 2 11/76 125,000 1 125,000 S, W. E t!/ Rl - 203 Aspen Co. 3 6/77 125,000 1 125,000 S, W, E 332/327 RECENT CON?ARABLE SALES (1 to 5 Acres) sted (vision Lot Date Price Sizes Per Acre Uril i tif:s teed Recorch Ridge of R 4 1 4/77 $ 85,GOD 1.23 ac $67,656/ac S, W, Ed: 326/903 Mounrain Castle Creek 6 5/77 110,(00 2 55.000 S, w. E 329/399 Scarwood R-34 6/77 107,500 2.8 38,392 W, EÂ· N/R U.C. Scarwood R-100 8/77 125,000 2.879 43,417 W, E 333/381 U.C. Red kn. Tract 11/75 95,000 4.52 21,018 W. E 306/513 Panch III C.1- wood It-23 7/76 120,000' 4.59 26,141. . w,-E 314/211 Red Men. Tract IL Ranch Blk 4 3/77 119,000 4.8 24,792 ti, E, 326/512 Maroon C:eak 3 6 3 6/77 78,000 5 15,600 W. E t!/ R U.C. . M F. B N/R 1 l 71 235,000 2.7 87,037 S, w. E a. Hunter Crk U.C. RECENT COMPAMBI.2 SUES (5 to 20 Acre.:) Subrlivision LZE Ree Pric-. Sizes Per Acre Utilities Deed Record: Cas:le Creek O & B 12/76 $71,500 5.146 ac $13.57'/ac E* 322/305 le /4/. Burterailk >1&3 5/77 105.000 5.05 LO ,Â·G " E Lot Â£.1.1., Ca:tle Cueek b[ 6 B 8/77 123,000 10 12,800 E PUR U.C. Whtcchor:e M 6 8 10)/75 140.000 19 14,000 W. E Â·304/607 Syrings Castle Creek t! f. B 1/7/ 159,010 15 10.000 2 333/3Â·10 Luctut.:.Ilik :t :. B 5/76 70,013 11 6,363 2 311/955 . Â·.1.,le At)[,rate,5 .1,2,1 Collâ€¢:,1 "Als . CURLM-Â£ LIt;'1'ING:; .. ( As of 8/1.~~7, Aspen Mult.iple List:fi~~Book) Sizes SubdiviÂ·1; ion Lot Price Por Acre Ut:i].it Lott '. .. 2nd Aspen Co. 14 $130,000 .33 ac $393,939/ac S, W, E* W. Buttermilk MEB 105,000 5.286 . 19,864 E Maroon Creek M&B 127,500 5 Â· 25,500 W, E - Meadowood -Lot 8 117,500 .7 167,857 S, W, E Blk 3 Fil 3 Meadowood - Lot 11 120,000 .6 200,000 S, W, E Blk 3 Fil 1 Red Mountain 81 & B 70,000 .97 72,165 E Red Mountain Lnt 8 95,000 .765 - I124,183 S, W,-E Ranch Blk 4 Red Mountain Lot 7 105,000 .85 123,529 W; E Ranch Blk 1 Red Mountain Lot 8 . 110,000 3 36,666 S, W, E Ranch Blk 3 Red Mountain. Lot 4 150,000 2.5. - 60,000 - S, W, E Ranch Blk 3 . Ridge of Red 26 90,000 .7 , 128,571 S, W, E Mountain Â· - Red Mountain 8-A 75,000 1.205 . 62,241 Â· W, E kidge of Red 29 105,000 .76 138,158 S, W, E Mountain itarwood - R-71 125,000 2.26 55,309 W, E Btarwood R-55 128,500 4.37 29,405 W, E itarwood R-23A 149,600 4.03 37,122 W, E itarwood . = R-101 132,500 5.33 24,859 W, E r W - water . - e /,IT ,/- .1 . Â·Â· i .tÂ· 1, I j, Â·t'Â·ta, 1Â·,, 1{to: 1.-Â·~~,fet'~Â·v,>w,Fe: s ..al Coti:.idtant 11 '' 1 1 ! 1 1 . 1 1 1 . ' I t i . 1 . 11 1 1 1 . 1 1 , I 1 1 I. 1 RECENT LARGE TRACT LAND SALES Price/ Zoning Allogable Rhw Land/ Dced Seller Location 'Date Price Size ' Acre Unit/Size Unit Cost Record ' e -. rn. './. I.. 0 v Woody Crcek 7/77 $550,000 228 ac $ 2,413 11/20 (RS-20) PJU,vuj . Ute Avenuc 3/76 - 821,570 20 @C 41,078 30Â£ (Tourist) Li ,-03 4-Li -11 A- Buttermilk 3/76 315,000 83.96 ac 3,752 6/102 (AF-1) 39,373 310il.7 2 Catclcmen Assn Castle Creck 7/77 UC 222,500 41 ac 5,426 4/10 (AF-1) 55,025 ../.. CURRENT LISTINGS , . 4. â€¢'Â¥CZC'.4011 Isclin 8/77 205,500 8.9 ac 23,089 4/2 (AF-2) (1 1.< le'l J-,-IJ .'i â€¢ b Droste Red Mountain 8/77 800 000 65 cc 12,307 6/10 (AF-1) 133,333 :.'.1 //4 1 . -20 ter.houses; 10 iots; clubhouse building; recreation building ' I , . 4- .rt verifying the Charthousc and .Cattlemen. Assn. sales, it was noted that both properties were purchased as single homesites without speculation of subdivision. 1 1. 1 1. 1 . 1 ' .. . 1 . . i "pÂ· :11<1,0.) plm:.1.Â·Â·Â·Â·,Â·'ll.â€¢V AplÂ·.1 2.,:t .. . ... EST I:Â·LA'LICI) DEVIÂ·' [.O PMEN'[' PI:(in [LAtÂ·th f .. 19 2-acre sites under AF-2 P.U.D. = ce Per Lot: $90,000 Â·Â· $1,7 LO,000 1Arment Cost - -1;15Â·29 3' (18' paved) x $22/lineal ft =$ 58,080 -Â· e>.tension: 2640' (S" water line) x $13/lineal ft = 34,320 5 fire hydrants (8600/en) 3,000 1.7 3 3 = aderground-..,$5.50/1.ineal ft x 2640' 14,520 . 2%- - 2.-I. 1- . == Â· vr clevelnpr:,Â·i,t pari :3, estimated 1,000 P = 4.- - 5 -enzinarrinÂ·,7 (est.,4.$500/lot) ... 9,500 r ... . 'r.st.imated ])irect Cost $ 120,420 - ..'>:nt?IlseS , supervision & overhead: (est. 10% of direct - costs) 12,042 12,042 Â·.n development money (10% x $120,420, 1 yr period) = :s: (10% x $1,710,000) = 171,000 Ebrimated Indirect Cost $ 195,084 ' s trofit '=$ 342,000 . n ' al sales price - . - . Â·st Price Per Lot ' - $1,710,000 R.,valopment Cost: t . $120,420 6 ./ t: 1-9 1 , U<>4 342,000 $657,504 ($ 657,504) .Led Value of Raw Land: $1.,000,000 (Rounded) . $ 52,632/raw lot 6 26,316/acre - I. 4 A~ . ':.7:.7 . Â·Â·f't..m. - 4'' .0,eÂ· 1.id:~ .1,4~.27.,Oual d j nt:ince (,F ro:U.: 210(1 1ll:-Llition, , ii ri- cut.chousce ., 61'he Cross SaltÂ·>. Price in h.Â·k:Â·-:.1 0:1 0,00.,1 1.:..4. Mil-c. These v:,lites w.ill .\7:11'v t.!:ed upon ::ize er rach si 1 2. I t. I A.11 1 ..'.;t . A,t.â€¢r.:;Â·â€¢ r.Â·..i,,~; ~:on.a.: 15Â· >1.-=:i....4.Ir--I.'I.%: . . I . ... . 0. I - *k" '4 nfl ~ 1.ef,F,;2941~ â€¢ *t,:1:61_ 11 /0 1,90::.1 1. U .ht.,in;!:11,1. r..,Â·0 firal bt,itc Appruisers and Coll,lillunts Ma5on 0 Morse Building â€¢ 315 [JU Hyman Avrtille, Suite 209 Aspen, Colorado 81611 â€¢303/925 8987 AÂ·.1*'fl, CÂ¢ k j, ack) QUALIFICATIONS OF APPRAISER James J. No].lica I . Residential Member (R.M.) Designation of the American Institute of Real Estate'Appraisers, 1976 Licensed Real Estate Broker in the State of Colorado Member of Aspen Board of.Real tors Member of National Association of the Board of Realters Instructor University of Colorado Continuing Education Division EDUCATION Business and Advertising, BSJ, Ohio University ~ Real Estate Law, Ohio University Course 1-A, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers Course 8, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers Course 201, Society of Real Estate Appraisers 1 course 2, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers . BACKGROUND .Un) EXPERIENCE Incorporated Janes J. Mollica & Associates, Inc., February 1977 Independent Fee Appraiser and Real Estate Broker, associated with Mason & Morse, January 1974 to present. Appraiser Intern - Associate.d Consultants and. Appraisers, inc., lune 1972 through November 1973. Construction, Deffett Companies, Ohio (during college) . MAJOR. CLIENTS SERVED Aspen Highlands Ski Corp. County of Pitl:in Aspen Industrial Bank First National Bank of Aspen Aspen Savings and Loan Association .First Western Mortgage Corp. Bank of Aspen Holland & Hart, Attorneys Bank of Snowmass Majestic Savings and Loan City of Aspen Oates, Austin, McGrath, Attorneys TYPES OF PROPERTY APPRAISED Coremercial Lodges Residential Condominium3 Ranches Vacant.Land . Pl'POSES OF APPRAISALS ' Acquisition Exchange Partition Condemnation Insurene e Sales Estate Plaaning Liquidation Tax Planning Mortance t 4 2...Â·.3 James J. &10!hon, H.f.1. A.iÂ·,u.ner Cnil-.i:!t.in: . 3 .. 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 t ' EXHIBIT F MAROLT RANCH SITE IMPROVEMENT PERCENTAGE COMPLETION SCHEDULE 1 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 3 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 & h Water, Free Market May 1 - June 30, 1982 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 h 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 h 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 .. 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 ~ EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION A tract of land situated in Lots 9, 10, 13, SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec. 12, TlOS, P.85W, 6th P.M. and Lot 5 and NW 1/4 N'W 1/4 Sec. 13, TlOS, 23514 6th P.M. defcribed 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 N14Â°35'W 172.00 ft. to corner #14 Holden Tract, thence :137Â°50'W 314.72 ft. to corner #1 Holden Tract, being identical with corner #4 North Texas Mill Site tÂ·IS /3288, thence N54Â°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 tl28Â°10'E 294.00 ft. along the center line of Castle Creek, - thence N20Â°OWE 115.40 ft. along the center line of Castle Creek, to the South Right-of-Way line of Colorado Highway No. 82, thence N75Â°03'11 360.26 ft. along the South Right-of-Way line of Colo- rado Highway No. 82, thence 63.52 ft. along the arc of a curve to the left (radius of 905.00 ft. chord bears N77Â°03'38"W 63.51 ft.), thence Sl 0Â°51 "1 90.71 ft., thence S21Â°47'W282.37 ft., thence S25Â°23'W 715.83 ft. to a point being 1794.68 ft. 541Â°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 North Right-of-Way line of Castle Creek Road, thence S53Â°34'E 124.61 ft. along the North Right-of-Way line of Castle Creek Road, thence N31Â°56'E 254.45 ft., chence 506Â°42'E 308.07 ft., thence :I90Â°00'1Â·1 9.11 ft., thence S33Â°00'E 61.65 ft., thence :168Â°35'E 280.15 ft. to line 1-2Short Lime MS #4610, .. thence N16Â°00'W 44.62 ft. along line 1-2 to corner No. 1 Short ~ Lire MS #4610, thence t174Â°00'E 236.35 ft. along line 1-4 of Short Lime MS #4610, thence N90Â°00'9 74.04 ft., thence N19Â°12'E 117.35 ft., thence N42Â°30'W 329.09 ft., thence :I02Â°4341 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 Northerly 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 1;81Â°19'21"IE 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. @ 11,500 S.F. TOTAL COVERAGE/LOT 2 106,058 S.F. .. 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 .. EXHIBIT D 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 11,550.00 Connections Sewer Totals $114,800.00 $77,392.50 $37,407.50 ~ 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%) 14" Water Servi ce 2,700.00 - 2,700.00 (100%) 3/4" Water Service 300.00 - 300.00 (100%) Employee Housing Water Service 8" D.I. Pipe 14,875.00 14,875.00 (100%) - 8" Valve 500.00 500.00 (100%) - Fire Hydrants 5,250.00 5,250.00 (100%) - 2" Water Service 3,000.00 3,000.00 (100%) - Water Totals $122,506.00 $36,865.50 $85,640.50 EXHIBIT D MAROLT RANCH ~ 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%) 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 $45,380.00 $32,800.00 $12,580.00 . 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) 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 - Free 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%) - to employee units Electric Total $ 90,500.00 - $ 42,250.00 $ 48,250.00 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 . EXHIBIT f .. * T. 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 h 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 & h Water, Free Market May 1 - June 30, 1982 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 1 0 0 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 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 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 h 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 & Paving, 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 h 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 ~ EXHIBIT 6.- Additional~arking Schedule . , 1/1. \./ , t ,.2391-26Â»ES:. I /,0:r=03Â»*EFÂ»-33. 7:.926~6 2Oz-Â»Â»--9<7Â»2 '11/4/'45>59.7, Additional Parking-9,1~.-_:-~~X __ /4. />':t --9 \ <** r $2 / \-%3- -...,~73Irtic.97~1 . r,\ i \ A ~Â·EU--~~ .â„¢.hÂ«Â»7-29 304\\\ 1 _r ,-:53332*2~. ~ Â¥'- A ,O..\â€¢51 , i i Y/4'i):r:- - -Â·=9 i ,//1/ / rl: lib, 6:9 7 /,,~-Â· rv,1 1/'' /-. INÂ¥i W'r.' *, 5/ j~r f ~/fE. \ r. ..... \ J'f t; A- - 9, h ///_EN f ~- AqI.-6- .I\ -I. ' . I - f 4 k>i - I Â·, t, %... I. 6 -1 LS)-A 1. \7 . , f , \\ 't. . 4. . . 4' *rd/N/*1 '1 , - - - 141.% e â€ž.rÂ·.-2. i, ~ Â»u:;29 / - . b. I .4 1 r > 'Ll -1~2-A:B*'Liferit:,%163:rj- . I ' I AA - ,/ : .35 1 (*C-$Â»r.. E-:9~L~-4 i 2 :1 ~-2<-~#&--''i# elt:--**1#~ ~~>,' Â· E -:1 /:-f,:-:fat#3j0fk~r. - . - 66 /4 / \ 292-3.7-542<4 /ex rcipt# *9-- ~~0-- A ~11~:~V:.TY'JMRA - -- -73'~tw 3 . /.4 / ---, .. / i.- I - I . I '1 Â£; I , . 'tt 2 1 8, t :....t 1 . . i i er .~ :~vt - L//(\ 1 t \ %. ; 11\ 1 1, j.,1 .9'1.,EA :7 -Â». 3..~~; .bii.) '': --- f . 11!; 1 1 1 1 t;t.Â·A 1 , â€¢Â·Â·Â·''k'Ed-_111/ff ir\f.r.53 - --- 31Â£ -6 i /:i / 0 ./., - 11': ....1, % E %Â· 11 ';4'~0* L _3-9,t ; tv.*33..1-*.2:'DIL-04-,di515., s \ 1 A / J (<CT-PKE=:=-frt::.ts: *-: .:1 A ~::Â·'j , . -- 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 Â·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. MAROII ADDITIONAL PARKING RANCH i FREE MARKET CLUSTER Amp-1 Cok,r=10 James M. Mulligan 'r' - c'JM, NzIEEzz.-"57 *.5-29'l,LB'--5/4---- - - â‚¬ p . 4/,46*tleÂ¢.4Â¢4999~4p-#.-3 %1>.1 9. .-2 A Professional Corporation r,1/ Attorneys and Counselors at Law , Suite 860 Market Center , 1850 Seventeenth Street Denver, Colorado 80202 A \,4, . LF- \0'gi ASPEN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 James M. Mulligan 42 ... :7 ./ , -,1 '7~~:' A Professional Corporation ** t~ '>j.- i. / 2. ' Ut " C Attorneys and Counselors at Law 4 JAN- 5'5 1 0. 0 21 = no C :132>T:i - U .L L 7 . 0 9 Suite 860 Market Center 1850 Seventeenth Street - Denver, Colorado 80202 0/11 4.-0.U; , 100510-5i ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING OFrICE City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 4 , ATTNETION: Sonny Vann, Planning Directory t> 1 Â¢-ibtÂ¢*#9+; 41 , 4*-; ~ Â·- .ba b - i :t e- 7/r- '~f.. â„¢ TTA)-11 -4 9 .1 ~-2__ ._ . '24 \ 1 1 1 . . 9 4 4 4 Â» \4 r ~4 4 9 \.N \ e. 1 Â» 191Â«14 Â» 4-ft~ Â¤ ti 6 2 4 \#i A Aft k h -k m . , 1. 1 3\% .,4 eld 1 ' 4 0 \N \4\ \141% ibÂ·. \, \ O%8 &7 1 A *<1 b * 24 4 4 21 41% t E 6 Al 41% 6 3\4 h Â·4> vt<t k 1- 0 4 i 4 3 4\ 0 k. 1 + 4 1 Â» I 3 f 41 k h t< \ t ' '*r. 1 - ':. ;'IÂ·Jift. J 1 Fla.%;811* &/'01 -jeâ€ž *4-t' 0. \ 9: (4~7 1 tl 1,641 1Â£ MC/1/91/tal n. 3 8 /1 .1 f \ 17 j, 1 1 gial *Â»41240 40 , .1 *Avf 9- /O- '~ - 9, 4-1~ fiff 0 ; 011 / f.-1 .8. h 1 1 a -0 a / Auic,r,09 0,< 42 yy - z, ~44, iz- # /1 11 8 Ad~ 1, - ~1 ,Â£~ d ~U 112 Â·4 4 l- Alt yaL" 4/, fk #91128~%4(14 /Â»0/0/ 4 - %LA A#111; 19 4 d V A i - 4 /1 f j t, 00\ . // M.ct*<ri -jE I v / Â· / ryh e-/ 4 7- 4 1 -~-I,12,-fpfr-~tf ~ Â£, 4,49 1 1,1 4 , 61 6 & 0 7 1 14. ji ..4 4 ,Â»L- 7~32947 g/77//i.~0â‚¬~.-Â« oÂ»15 8 -11 U - AU,UN *L 1 0. 'Â£ -4 6~4 3 4 'Â·1Â°~z . /1: /L. A-)5 12 V, 0 1 li -t I , /< ,/8,50Â»9 . 2777- // r T -*40"4/f 41Â£,Uu 24 LAs* A 4 4 - /4 .44. ZE ,0'*Â£02â€¢W264â‚¬0 re- I , ug- #1Â· - I lof _iu 4 /3 - r,a,6-2,(,44.44 1 L alolwa LE j f'*g 4 #47.1 17\ 1,)- (\24,+~ Urt.Af 3~91 .~ aL && <. S a t~it,r-nes 447&44- - 1' 8.1 1JÂ¥*MA A *lt. n#4 A. I- i A 11\. g 1,47 W Â«11> a~u*- - I 4% 4, fc/Â»< 4, '9Â£~4*.4;t~ g';.~f &,Lia.~- ~_- 6 t. . ,i fa: .. 0 design workshop, inc. 415 s. spring aspen, co 81611 303-925-8354 MEMO TO: Marolt Ranch Team FROM: Carlie Wood, Design Workshop DATE: March 13, 1981 Attached is a summary list of requirements to satisfy Final Plat Submission. Please review. community development land planning landscape architecture MAROLT RANCH Requirements for Fiial Plat < Mapping &2 Scale Plat (24" x 36") (Subdivision) a. Index Sheet ED/DWI b. Dimension Plan 1"=50' . Lots . Boundaries . Easements . Dedicated Lands . Street Names . Adjoining Properties . Total Acreage . Survey Monuments . Bearing Determination . Certification by Surveyor and Attorney or Title Insurer . Plat Approval Certificates by City Engineer, Parks, Planning Commission . Certificate of Filing C. Engineering Plans & Specifications 1"= 20' ED . Water . Sewer . Streets and Related Improvements . Trails . Storm Drainage Improvements d. Landscape Plan 1" = 50' DWI . Location, Size, Type of Landscape Features (PUD) e. Preliminary Evaluation and Perspective Otis Drawings of Proposed Structures Text (Subdivision) 1. Copies of Monument Records ED 2. Agreements with Utility or Ditch Companies Mulligan 3. Subdivision Agreement Mulligan (PUD) 4. Development Schedule Otis . Construction Phasing . 1/6 MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney Engineering Department Parks Department FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office RE: Marolt Ranch PUD and Final Plat Subdivision Submission DATE: April 13, 1981 The attached application is a PUD and final plat subdivision submission by Marolt Ranch (previously referred to as Castlewood/Headgate). They are requesting a rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay and an exemption from GMP under the 70:30 provision. The property known as the Marolt Annexation is located immediately west of Castle Creek and south of Highway 82. This item is scheduled for review at City Council on May 11, 1981; please review this application and return any comments to the Planning Office by Tuesday, April 28. Thank you. .. .Lry F rr-3'.* T ruiv A CI.1 111?i It-3 To\T Vt, 1 2 -51 vcli jil- 7 tO113 1.1_5 1 'N 130 sout h gazeua st. i., U . Fâ€¢ 41 A 9 ast,en, color:idc 81.411 MEMORANDUM 1./Z i 1 11 1 August 20, 1980 TO City Council FROM. Ron. Stock ~5~ 2 . Re Thomas Property I have reviewed the deeds transferring the Thomas Propecti to the City of Aspen. There are no limitations within these deeds on use. sale, or transfer. The property was zoned by Ordinance No. 91, Series of 1975. to "C" - Conservation. The intention of said zone, according to the Code, is to provide areas of low density development to enÂ·- hal-ice public recreation, conserve natural resources, encourage the production of crops and animals, and to contain and structure urban development. The permitted uses include single family dwellings, public elementary and senior high schools, hospital., church, park playfield, playground and golf course, riding stable, cemetary, crot) production, -orchards. nurseries, flower production and forest land, pasture and grazing land, dairy, fishery, animal production, husbandry services and other farm and agricultural uses, a railroad right-of-way but not a railway yard. The condi- tional uses include quest ranches, recreational uses including riding academy, stable or club, country club and golf course, ski lift and other ski facilities sewage disposal area, water treat- mel-it plant and storage reservoir, electr.ic substations and gas regulation stations. The future use of the Thomas Property has been heavily debated by the City Council. In 1973, the City Council approved the utilization of the Thomas Property for the keeping of hor.ses, and in 1974, a motion was carried recommending to the City Manager that the area be used for pasture. A councilinember, later in the same year, requested furtlier action to preserve the Thomas Pro- perty as pasture land but no action was taken. In 1974, the aug- gerfest games were held on the Thomas Property but concern Was voiced by the Council that this would set a precedent for use. Subsequently, the property has been used by the Hang Gliding Asso- ciation as a landing location. At the time of this approval, the members of the Council indicated that they were not interested in seeing any developed recreation. Consistent with this policy, the Council has turned down a request to use the property for a race track. .. J .. > Memo to City Council August 20, 1980 Page 2 Discussions during of the annexation of the property centered on the question of use. It was pointed out that the property was not purchased solely for open space but also for some form of transportation use as well.. When considering Ordinance No. 91, the Council was told that tue "C" - Conservation zone provided for active 'recreational uses and that highway relocation was ilot specifically excluded. One councilmember had misgivings about the zoning ancl desired an open space zone. Hovever.. another council- member said that such zoning would be too restrictive. FUNDS USED rOR PURCHASE The original Thomas Property purchase of 1972 was financed by bonds and payable from the Gth penny land fund. The Midland Right-of-way was purchased with 7th penny transportation funds. These funds limit the use of property. The Gth penny land fund is restricted and earmarked for the purposes of "land acquisition including open space and the con- struction of capital improvements for municipal purposes". As a result land purchased with 6th penny funds may only be used for park, open space; recreational uses and as sites for the construe- tion of municipal facilities. The 7th penny transportation fund is restricted and earmarked for the purposes of "land acquisition and the construction of capital improvements". Those uses have been further limited LY the adoption of Resolution No. 19, Series of 1972, wherein the Council pledged that all 7th penny revenues would be used to implement the Aspen Area Transportation Plan. Land purchased with 7th penny funds may only be used for transpor- tation facilities including, but riot limited to, streets, parking lots, parking structures, terminals, etc. The limitations on use way be removed by repayment to the Gth and 7 tli penny funds of the cost of acquisition. The limitations may be modified by either Council action to repeal or amend Reso- lution No. 19 or by the electorate to amend the sales tax ordin- ances. RESTRICTION AS A RESULT OF SALES TAX REVENUE BONDING To acquire the Thomas Property: the City issued refunding and acquisition sales tax revenue bonds in 1972 in the principal amount of $915,000 with the boilds payable from the proceeds of the one percent (10) municipal sales tax (6th penny) and, if neces- sarY, from the City share of the Pitkin County-wide sales tax. In 1978, the 1972 revenue bonds were refunded. These 1978 refunding bonds contain a limitation on the sal.e of the Thomas Property. 1 ./ r. - 7 1 1! .. V f Memo to City Council August 20, 1980 Page 3 Specifically. "in the event ...; that such a sale or other disposition of- any of the land or improvemellt should occur, any and all monies received as proceeds from such sale or other disposi- lion shall be deposited to the Bond Fund and applied toward the payment and redemption of the then outstanding Bonds at the earliest possible date." As a result or this condition, it is not possible to sell the Thomas Property, or a portion of it, and reinvest tile Money received into other open space property. It is not clear what limitation exists, if any, on the transfer or trade of the pro- perty. It a trade is considered likely, I would recommend that we obtain an opiniori of bond counsel. D IT; p .-1 T 1 -CTIONS IMPOSED BY THE CITY CHARTER 11 1.,..1 J. ij l Section 13-4 of the Charter of the City, restricts the sale or trade of this property. This section provides that the "Council shall not sell, exchange or dispose of public utili- ties, or either public buildings or real property currently in use for public purposes without first obtaining the approval of a majority of the electors voting thereon." Tile Thomas Property is in use for a public purpose and may not be sold or transferred without the vote of the public. RWS: inc e . MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office RE: Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual PUD/Subdivision Review DATE: July 18, 1980 On January 28, 1980, City Council approved the annexation and rezoning of an approximately 35 acre parcel of land which is generally referred to as the Opal Marolt property. Based on the recommendations of the Planning Office and the Planning and Zoning Commission, the property was rezoned from AF-2 to R-15A/PUD/SPA, with the additional stipulation that at least 70 percent of the proposed development consist of deed restricted employee units. To refresh your memory, R-15A was recommended as the underlying zone district in view of surrounding zoning patterns and to ensure consistency with previous . annexation policy (R-15A requires 50% deed restricted un ts). This zone classification would allow the development of approximately 150 dwelling units in a multi-family configuration if no reduction in density were required for such factors as existing right-of-way, easements, steep slopes, etc. However, given topographical constraints, visual vulnerability and unique open space characteristics of the property, mandatory PUD designation was also recommended to provide sufficient flexibility in site design and as an appropriate project review mechanism. The application of mandatory Â· PUD density reduction criteria (i.e., slope reduction, land under water and existing easements) to the Marolt property resulted in a net developable land , area of approximately 20 to 25 acres, which in turn would allow the development of approximately 90 to 110 dwelling units, a density which the Planning Office generally felt to be appropriate for the project. The applicant, however, con- tended that preliminary financial investigations necessitated a minimum den- sity of at least 125 units in order to produce an economically viable project. In the interest of compromise, the Planning Office and City Council reluc- tantly agreed to this figure as a maximum permissible density with the under- standing that the appropriateness of 125 dwelling units would be determined via the PUD review process based on siting considerations. In the absence of Ordinance #16, Series 1980 (Residential Bonus), SPA designation was recom- mended to accommodate the requested increase in density and to permit mixed use development (i.e., townhouses), two requirements which could not be accom- plished under existing PUD regulations. With the subsequent adoption of Ordinance 16, however, any request on behalf of the applicant for density in excess of the approximately 90 to lfO units permitted by the underlying zone will require rezoning to R-15A/PUD/Residential Bonus, a step which should occur at the preliminary and final plat stages of the PUD/subdivision review process in the event an increase in allowable density is deemed appropriate. The attached application for conceptual PUD/subdivision review represents the first step in the development process following annexation and rezoning. Subsequent steps will involve: 1) Council conceptual PUD/subdivision review, 2) Planning and Zoning Commission preliminary plat review, 3) special review by P&Z for purposes of GMP exemption under the 70:30 provision, 4) P&Z approval for rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay in the event increased density is approved, and 5) Council approval of final PUD/subdivision plat, 70:30 special review and Residential Bonus rezoning. In addition, subdivision exception review for purposes of condominiumization will most likely be required to enable the sale of individual dwelling units. Special review, subdivision exception, and overlay approval will be consolidated with the preliminary and final plat review in order to streamline the process. Proposed Development Concept The property in question, which is currently owned by Marolt Associates, is subject to a contract of sale to a development group, Castlewood Development Company, of which the Marolt family members are the major Memo: Castlewood/Ht:Â·~ite 1 ju u Page Two shareholders. This transaction is intendedtoallow Marolt Associates to secure a development partner who can provide development management anct consulting functions for the project. The attached application for concep- tual PUD/subdivison approval was submitted by Marolt Associates on June 18, 1980. In response to various problems identified by the Engineering Depart- ment, the Planning Office and the Open Space Advisory Board with respect to the proposed development plan, informal work sessions were held with the applicants, OSAB, City staff and, subsequently, the Planning and Zoning Com- mission in an attempt to resolve potential issues prior to formal P&Z review. Specific design parameters resulting from these sessions were as follows: 1. Vehicular access to free market and employee housing sites should be via the proposed extension of Cemetery Lane. No vehicular access from the project to Castle. Creek Road should be provided. 2. Open space should not be fragmented; rather, a significant parcel should be provided, visually, as well as physically contiguous to both the Thomas porperty and the Castle Creek corridor. 3. The development of employee housing should be confined to the area north of the proposed Main Street extension and south of Highway 82. P&Z further indicated a preference for restricting development to the area east of the proposed Cemetery Lane. The applicants have revised their original submission to incorporate all of the above criteria with the exception of restricting employee housing devel- , opment to the east of Cemetery Lane. The revised development plan (Alterna- tive #2) and the original plan (Alternative #1) are contained in the attached material. For the purposes of discussion, the Marolt property and revised development plan can be subdivided into four principal areas or parcels. Parcel #1, located between Highway 82 and the proposed Main Street extension, contains approximately three acres of Marolt property and an unspecified amount of the adjacent Thomas parcel. As shown on Alternative #2, 88 employee housing units are proposed for this area with the majority located east of the pro- posed Cemetery Lane extension. The development of the area west of Cemetery Lane contemplates an open space land trade or rights-of-way dedication in exchange for use of a portion of the Thomas property. Parcel #2 contains approximately six acres and is located immediately south of the Main Street extension. This parcel includes the proposed Midland right-of-way alignment and is earmarked for the development of 37 free market units and their asso- ciated amenity package. Parcel #3, which totals eleven acres, consists of the remaining pasture land south of Parcel #2 and is reserved as open space. Finally, Parcel #4, which is geographically separated from the majority of the Marolt property by Castle Creek, totals approximately two acres and is being considered for possible sale to contiguous land owners. The remainder Â· of the project's approximately 35 acres consists of portions of Castle Creek and a steeply sloping strip of land which parallels the Creek along its western boundary. Architecturally, the employee units are envisioned as two story, gable roofed buildings with common entryways, exterior stairwells and wood siding. The free market units are envisioned with flat roofs and wood siding. The proposed employee units mix consists of 14Â·1-bedroom, 65.2-bedroom, 9'3-bedroom units, while the free market portion consists of 12.2-bedroom, 20Â·3-bedroom, and 5.4-bedroom units. One parking space per bedroom, or a total of 171 spaces, will be provided for the employee units, while two spaces per dwelling unit, or 74 parking spaces, are proposed for the free market portion of the project. With respect to ownership intentions, the applicants are considering split- ting off the employee site and selling it to a City Housing Authority with a lease-back and development agreement for the improvements with the owner/ developer. The employee units will either be sold immediately upon comple- tion or lease for an interim period. The free market units will be developed - Memo: Castlewood/R{*~ate July 18, 1980 Page Three for individual sale and possible short-term rental through a common manage- ment structure. To ensure this flexibility, the applicants are reqoesting exemption the six-month minimum lease restrictions of the City's condo- miniumization regulations. The applicants have agreed to phase construction of the employee units consistent with the development of the free market portion of the project. Planning Office Comments The Planning Office concurs with the design parameters whidh have evolved as a result of numerous work sessions with the applicants, Open Space Advisory Board, the Engineering Department and the Planning and Zoning Com- mission. The concepts of clustering development on the northern portion of the property; limiting vehicular access to Highway 82 and the proposed Main Street extension via Cemetery Lane; and maintaining a significant, well-defined open space area whicH is both physically and visually linked to the Thomas property go a long way toward balancing the objectives of all concerned. The location of development as proposed provided convenient access to utilities, bus routes and bikeways, as well as potentially reduces site development costs, an essential factor to the construction of affordable employee housing. In addition, the utilization of that portion of Parcel #1 located east of the proposed Cemetery Lane extension for employee housing takes advantage of a potentially "isolated" parcel resulting from the extension of Main Street while the confinement of free market units to the area above the Castle Creek embankment reduces visual impact on neighboring property owners. Finally, the proposed development configuration is basically con- sistent with the adopted CSU "land suitability" and "visual vulnerability" maps, as well as the Castle Creek Greenway identified in the 1973 Aspen Land ~ Use Plan. The Planning Office, however, concurs with P&Zin its recommendation that the development of employee housing be restricted to the area east of the Cemetery Lane extension to maintain open space vistas to the golf course and to reduce the scale and impact of development around the new "entrance" to Aspen. The applicants argue that the resulting employee site is inadequate in size to accommodate the requested 88 dwelling units and associated parking require- ments and precludes the consideration of alternative access points to the free market parcel. In response, it is the opinion of the Planning Office, consistent with agreements made at time of annexation, that open space and transportation constraints should dictate development envelopes and that resulting density should be determined by sound site planning principles. An attempt to force-fit a predetermined density in violation of overall develop- ment objectives and constraints represents at best a backwards approach. To maximize the number of employee units which the applicants could develop on the recommended site, and thus maximize the number of free market units under the 70:30 GMP exemption provision, the Planning Office would recommend that the City cooperate with the applicants in determining the most favorable alignment of the Cemetery Lane extension so as to provide the largest possible .development envelope. The slight reduction (approximately 15 to 20 percent) in the number of employee units that would occur and the concurrent reduction in free market units would result in a probable overall project density con- sistent with the underlying zone classification, as well as remove the need for Residential Bonus rezoning. The resulting project density would most likely still exceed that which would be allowed were the project to be developed after the proposed transportation improvements were in place (after reduction in gross site area for new rights-of-way). With respect to the applicants' request for exemption from the six-month minimum lease restrictions of Section 20-22, which are applicable to all condominiumizations, the Planning Office offers the following comments: 1. The 1973 update of the Aspen Land Use Plan established the base of Aspen Mountain and area south of Main Street as the appropriate location for short-term, tourist-oriented development. The City was subsequently rezoned in 1975 to facilitate implementation of the 1973 land use policies, while Section 24-3.7(0) "Rental Limitations" and Section 20-22 "Condominiumization" were later Memo: Cas tlewood/-HE~te July 18, 1980 .. Page Four adopted to supplenient and strengthen zone district regulations. The intent of Section 24-3.7(0) was to prohibit short-term utilization of multi-family housing in inappropriate zones, specifically the R/MF, 0 and C-1 zone districts. A proposal initiated by Council more recently to extend this regulation to the remaining resi- dential zones, however, was not adopted. The argument then was thal these zones were never intended for short-term use and the proposal would make explicit that which was implicit in the City's updated land use and zone districts policies. Similarly, Section 20-22 was intended primarily to mitigate the depletion of employee housing resulting from the condominiumization of existing dwelling units. However, the application of the regulation to both existing and new construction serves to supplement Section 24-3.7(0) by res- tricting short-term use and prohibiting the intrusion of tourist, high-turnover usage in non-tourist oriented areas. 2. The applicants argue that exemption from the six-month minimum leaseÂ· restriction is consistent with the spirit of Council's relaxation of GMP policy in order to stimulate employee housing development. While the Planning Office has enthusiastically supported such code amend- ments as the 50:50 Residential Bonus and 70:30 GMP Exemption, we have never supported a relaxation of our land use policies. To permit short-term use of a residential project in this location would be inconsistent with the 1973 Land Use Plan, the 1975 rezoning and all subsequent attempts to strengthen these policies. 3. The applicant argues that "so long as additional inventory is created for the local market, those free market units created ... should not be limited ... but would provide a reasonable and non-excessive addi- tion to the tourist accommodations to reflect annual demand." In response, we would argue that the appropriate rate of tourist accom- modations development has already been determined and is strictly regulated by the Growth Management Plan. 4. No mention of anticipated short-term utilization occurred at the time of annexation or rezoning. Had theapplicants indicated their intentions, the Planning Office would have strenuously objected and recommended that any annexation agreement preclude such usage. 5. While the City Attorney concurs with the Planning Office's position with respect to short-term use, the Housing Director is of the opinion that no restriction should be attached to the free market units which would limit their marketability or affect their financing. The Housing Director's memorandum is attached for your review. Summarizing, the Planning Office strongly feels that the City's residential zones should be limited to permanent residential usage and not for short-term higher impact, tourist-oriented utilization. This policy is implicit in the *1973 Land Use update, the 1975 rezoning and in all subsequent rental limi- tation and condominiumization legislation adopted by the City. While pro- posed amendments to Section 24-3.7(0) for purposes of strengthening the City's land use policies were not adopted, Council support for the concept is evidenced by the application of six-month minimum lease restrictions to all condominiumizations regardless of zone district. There exists both legis- lative restrictions against short-term utilization in the R/MF, 0 and C-1 districts, as well as tacit approval for restricting such usage in the City's remaining residential zones. The issues of development west of the proposed Cemetery Lane extension, overall project density and short-term utilization of free market units represent the major concerns of the Planning Office with regard toÂ·the aplicants' conceptual PUD/subdivision submission. Additional issues, however, which we would like P&Zto consider, and which we are prepared to discuss in greater detail at your July 22, 1980 meeting include: Memo: Cast lewood/; iâ‚¬.,Uj a te July 18. 1980 Page Five 1. The desirability of restricting development in the proposed Midland right-of-way, 2. Exemption of the one parking space per bedroom requirement for the free market portion of the project, 3. Right-of-way alignment and dedication of Cemetery Lane/Castle Creek Road extension, 4. Trails and open space dedication as required by the subdivision regu- lations, 5. The possibility of a land trade for a portion of the Thomas parcel located between the applicants' western property line and the proposed Cemetery Lane extension, and 6. The question of separate sale of Parcel #4. Recommendation In summary, the Planning Office recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission informally approve the general development concept presented by the applicants, withholding formal conceptual PUD/subdivision approval pending resubmission of a revised site plan. The revised plan should limit employee housing and associated parking to the area east of a mutually agreed-upon Cemetery Lane alignment between Highway 82 and the proposed Main Street extension. The conceptual submission narrative should also be revised to reflect resulting development densities and to incorporate all other revisions necessitated by the Commission's July 22, 1980 review. Final ' disposition by P&Z should be predicated upon the extent to which the applicants satisfactorily comply with these conditions. In the event the applicants feel that compliance is untenable, then any generalized concep- tual approval by P&Z should include the comments outlined above. In view of the fact that decisions with regard to density were postponed at the time of annexation until PUD review, the Planning Office feels that it would be remiss if these questions were not satisfactorily resolved at this time. Any recommendation to Council should carry a specific recommendation with respect to the appropriate density for this project. Should P&Z fail to specifically address density at this time, no further opportunity would be available to the Commission until the preliminary plat stage of review. .9 1 To ~l.LT- UYUL Date_*~u' / / 0 Time ' ' ''l/4- JJ, 6 -I- WHILE YOU WERE OUT ~ M.~A,6 w.Â£ 1 of d e I .*,04Â£- Phone 4'AV tkiket.*.* TELEPHONED 1 #4Â£4Fs*kidA2<Ll 7 - 3DÂ¢UUD 1860>1* 4 894(6UL OLA/'- =rr - I WANTS39-Servou U[Vrflm#69$Â£6~~ 7~*, l~(Â» 7 1 1 K < 0 &112Â¥601 -44 fdo \ 1 ff!*'L--9 12780+0 Â«tÂ»421/ TI ,- MODERN SERVICE OFFICE SUPPLY CO. - FORM 1009 r , 4 U,1 2 /<Rw-' 64$ Acke 0 (A -1 awâ‚¬Â£4 hy 4-r~ 26 YAGAR t Ms 630 R Â£040,40 1 4 Â£ 40 cA 0/1 yu / 042 4Â« 4 C#U munbio 11*ur m anif %Â¢btf lit,9 81, PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Castlewood/Headgate Subdivision Preliminary Plat NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, November 18, 1980 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, to consider the preliminary subdivision application submitted by Marolt Associates for the Castlewood/Headgate development on the Marolt property located west of Castle Creek and south of Highway 82. The application requests approval for 80 "employee" units and 34 "free market" units, to be located on a 35.4 acre parcel. For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 226. s/Olof Hedstrom Chairman, Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Published on November 13, 1980 City of Aspen account. + Aspen/Pi~]0*1:1@uning Office ~ v ''- \ 'f~'i/4 3.~56,6 1-Â·PO.,3 - 130 squ~liâ„¢difill~ street ~ NOV- 6'80 JF- .7 .41 ,#466] 2.15:i I aspen ~WipdA 81611 ~ 19./.Pit 2 f ....1 i i. hoN\ #-3 f Susan Smithers Box 4504 Aspep, CO 81612 f UU 0 ---- A. ,/-~ \ / Â£407 13 -- *-I - 1--Ill PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Castlewood/Headgate Subdivision Preliminary Plat NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, November 18, 1980 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, to consider the preliminary subdivision application submitted by Marolt Associates for the Castlewood/Headgate development on the Marolt property located west of Castle Creek and south of Highway 82. The application requests approval for 80 "employee" units and 34 "free market" units, to be located on a 35.4 acre parcel. For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 226. s/Olof Hedstrom Chairman, Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission ~ Published on November 13, 1980 City of Aspen account. ~spen/Pit],k2taoning Office Â· --- - (V .r-'- '4 3. e 0 1 i.hu- 130 so017%aleh street 1 NOV-6'80 ~7Â· .-2 .! aspen,9**&0'f 81611 4.,Â«en! -1 .1 .,D : 1 A Al V - -- -r,Crl AuÂ·-2 f--- / R '1 1 ' t 'JU James E. Gerbaz 301 S. 7th St. Aspen, CO 81611 f i 2 13 3 4 = 6, 1 ) I 1 .. CITY OF ASPEN MEMO FROM KATHLEEN McCORMICK C"1114 : flob 'Alid 4. 170 '573.u. TIE '1\tl-1 41505 022/d.u. . 16Â·WI $ 2718 10 DAL CITY OF A~EN &~IA MEMO FROM AUDREY N. STORBECK ~*Ca , 0,Â»a,9 INÂ·~ I,... l(~r han - - 3 11 E ' ar) Mi 80 h:21-p, r-23.--Rec.0r k,4 4-Jtk rrtf c~ i mf , 10 ~544*4 (14. . 14Â·dÂ© tfi- aa,mÂ¢ UttdÂ·jt) 0 04-99_ L ire SootiltherÂ¢_be#wâ‚¬eyu 060,4/, Mfo 4- Uen 22, 190 I 4 n 4 48.0 tohaf- 64' 74 rj Au t 13*043 0/794,01164 12>~u G)60Â» *EGUAR 1 0,1(ttk.Ul~*~f~~tpt, rt, 44 4% 4Â« Â« 90 90 90) 0 1-fl 11244.4*you ~0,st- tero -14. .. GYNECOLOGY and OBSTETRICS, M.D.'s P.C. M ilton S. Mark, M.D. 1212 Pleasant Street, Suite 207 Michael R. Hirsch, M.D. Des Moines, Iowa 50309 William J. Burke, M.D. Telephone 288-7251 Grant L. Paulsen, M.D. I 4 4.OCT! r-15-7-lr7UF)ror---i July 23, 1981 *u Ici f { Dj) dil, , *' )% 1 ['11 1 *L 2 7 1981 .3 0 Mr. Sunny Vann CJL, - -_.. -2.4 Aspen Pitkin Planning Offic e h ASPEN / PITKIN CO. 130 South Galena Street P PLANNING OFRCE Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Vann: 4.- Many thanks for seeing Audrey and me last week. We needed all the information possible to try to reach a decision on whether or not to sell our Villa. At least for now we've decided to wait. The house is perfect for us and we were unable to find a satisfactory replacement. The uncertainty of the time the road will be built, in addition to the incredible prices added to our decision. I would appreciate either a phone call or a note from you, if you have additional information which might influence our decision. Thanks again. Sincerely, C 1 lit c <c_ f t-6 1-91~,~ Michael R.-Ifirsch, M. D. MRH:bjp ec: David Belin 1 + a / 79 >bedÂ£' -(0) 664 - I (199 432 0441 93, P~,.Gâ€ž41.- 7 14 '9 /1 - . fl 0,2.,+4 uâ€¢~_~ 6-1- t& 'P â€žM.*-- / yly /yi.f.,44 1 rk-4 1 64,4 \760 70#, 4 Â£ / 0,) tâ‚¬â‚¬/ b,â‚¬* i Â£*uj #<4LL4*741 860 0/2/,0 1 1f:'ll /7 yp/*Â·75 Pin~terb 8 L,rtdo rAD /*>r:h ron/suid 1>â€¢1(4 k) . 11/ 6174 + Mavio 9-0 Â¢,AL PCÂ¥>)9'3 6.-- 00'ty 4 AA 1 / 1 - Avekulat* 06 , i.. - 136*4 1. 5 f ut 233/ 1 Â»4 f tkâ‚¬j - 41741 1, Aylow* 19& .11â€¢t-i Me)'t.n cÂ«ta.Zix{U (50Â»0 /540/I- . 4 1 X MA 1 0 5212*. 1 ' 76 j'30 72 h,0 <21,44. v, tw"r t.4 fAA (.24 , 15,0 4*-9.hkAL,k.Zilt/04 4 7-a-â‚¬1 < 2 c 2"Ulod 1 Jib rE . 7 120-E., j V .4 . 62 2 0. .. 3Â»Â»3 00. 42 CO Reguer 1- '90 rz> . gKE)-/P-~.- t eAoÂ·trfo Encer, 4 1'- f.14*0 /:M>~,95,;0â‚¬) LApt,540620 5â‚¬) ~~~ 11,10 q 973313. edlefr- CC+It-â‚¬Fi*. -4 Â· C 8 +04. C 6,70 -1Â© Â£ge,43 1-2 H.b"Ch\ / 41- /9454* 6* 3-2-1 < 2.Mp /10:-sz>73 J .-- $ LA 1 * / A '6-El- Swb Oz~orp-r 53%, 6.-cat .Lu:Â¥,7 19.29 rn/& FCAFT /04. 0.-7.~- /,5Â«,39/0 2) 4.87-/Te.,0 (56..se) C 249 (sog.44) 1 1 C#No. j Cogilf \Ul//// /t,0 60*CHâ€¢ 7 eeF> C.--0 6/ce/7 04 ~r) rert. FLAâ€¢<1 12 #tr.0 6021 P'-44 *144 )24 5791 60 24LP 4 en- 5.-0:*3 607467 5 1 54 51 V 1 1 =a 9 114 'f &5F'.1 7 MU41 66Wd- Ek'*2 4 00\46% '*luvat*th. 15% fa,<Ad Â©ew#,5,14)18/\-,FA [56(4 -Gt- 6els &* \22,2-- Rided-4 60Â£1 06* 371} Git(2* @. 64$167% 1%731 11-U fU. &* t \71 F<r -4-Â·-(Aliced r gar# 6.~0 8)7Plf. 20#tvkt Got\*0 F Wwfluic'* 2%(( Rmmit 4 146(-1 Alls (10,14 U~rj.12042 (fus t,uÂ© 84 21<-4 Aspu 13-qE-Â§2Gl'44 370 0 KWA 44 9 6sio~ udlta 2872 5 0.kia# 6,-di [Lo, 1 11 ~_6411 01614Â» 26612- Pl,5,4 *1 U)01* Ft[ 1/*601 , A Nlrkets $364 614'* ch Al WN sid (Arp OILS Pack Ar S*<. GetsÂ¥51 10 (01#,4# 61Â«\C, 1*C, 14; IN)14 1Agi. BAe *bira BÂ® Il ke. --4-- R#Wm * ~36*45 215Â£) ' ~-flwoxi â‚¬gr. &<zl (42% late-0 Minn 56442- *i~ A~A+FA tekMI:~ Ln *7 Asr -*Le,4 {)&04 Koursclef Bax 31-19 + feteu Flu4,0- Jthwv 215- S tÂ«ad. Uke).A*bitr BAW/4 1946 +R44 Â¥ th-twk IF414 + 4-1\U '49 4 m â‚¬- Câ‚¬per- 1"1- 40_993>002 6< 4014 Aâ‚¬94. 34-4 Sulout *11 40) u Matn ::4*gLtfwikE> 80x (19(it A<Jpk '+FELLEID .80 45* <Pw*&-CYJA,w,RE ht 1633 4 -4 64*11*k-(*i-ALS#val Calle. Pcl EID 1] Boxi 00 -21 j Of-. 3- 40329, 2*f-al \ isted 6% 1 OSGZ- kIEE-2%93]%73 0 Mbl 91 lk~1 k-1 Aspa P ('\W. 6,te' 13Â« 3914 4 l-A \4lus Chest |Ytx qqq-7 4 AMe fourk & 16(61 A-p/~ -141 40*d 1 Auts;j {(-Mk 31â‚¬ 46 9 De, M~42s fb'WA 9311 7 No. 27-80 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen 1. DATE SUBMITTED: 6/19/80 . STAFF: Karen Smith, Sunny Vann 2. APPLICANT: Marolt Associates 3. REPRESENTATIVE: Design Workshop. Box 9376. Aspen 925-8354 Legal: James Mulliqan, Esq,. Suite 300. Equitable Bldg., 730-17th Street, Denver 80202 4. PROJECT NAME: Castlewood/Headqate P.U.D. and Subdivision Application 5. LOCATION: 35.4 acres directly west of Castle Creek and directly south of SH 82 6. TYPE OF APPLICATION: Rezoning x Subdivision Stream Margin X P.U.D. Exception _8040 Greenline Special Review Exemption View Plane Growth Management 70:30 Conditional Use HPC Residential Bonus Other 7. REFERRALS: x Attorney Sanitation District _ _School District x Engineering Dept. Fire Marshal _Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas ____Housing Parks State Highway Dept. Water Holy Cross Electric Other City Electric Mountain Bell copies of application to all P&Z members, referral to Open Space Advisory Board. 8. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS: ,. 9. DISPOSITION: P&Z Approved Denied Date Council Approved Denied Date 10. ROUTING: Attorney Building Engineering Other .. MEMORANDUM TO: Ron Stock, City Attorney Dan McArthur, City Engineer Jim Breasted, Open Space Advisory Board FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office RE: Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual P.U.D. Application (Marolt Property) DATE: June 19, 1980 The attached application requests conceptual approval for a P.U.D. plan for the Castlewood/Headgate proposal, to be located on the Opal Marolt property on Castle Creek. It is scheduled to be reviewed by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on July 8, 1980; acknowledging the short time allowance, we request that you return your written comments concerning this application no later than June 27, 1980. Thanks for your cooperation. .. MEMORANDUM TO: ~Ron Stocks City A~orney ~-Â·Â·-Dan- McArthor, City Engineer Jim Breasted, Open Space Advisory Board FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office RE: Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual P.U.D. Application (Mar'olt Property) DATE: June 19, 1980 The attached application requests conceptual approval for a P.U.D. plan for the Castlewood/Headgate proposal, to be located on the Opal Marolt property on Castle Creek. It is scheduled to be reviewed by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on July 8, 1980; acknowledging the short time allowance, we request that you return your written comments concerning this application no later than June 27, 1980. Thanks for your cooperation. L-;7 ~ ll.,6-74-,wi- 1/Jt .. MEMORANDUM TO: Castlewood/Headgate Referrals FROM: Sunny Vann RE: Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual P.U.D. Submission DATE: June 25, 1980 The attached sheet outlines additional information and corrections to the Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual P.U.D. Submission, which you have already received. Â·4.-17.7. Â·Â·-.i-427 -- r.16~--:4. 4â€¢"'7 I .- â€ž-4 .44- Â¥ ,--a.. - .â€ž. I. 9 .â€ž, Â»1â€ž. . .- - .. 0 C -3914 - design workshop, inc. 415 s. spring MEMO TO: Sunny Vann aspen, co 81611 City of Aspen 303-925-8354 FROM: Carlie Wood Design Workshop RE: Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual Submission/Corrections Title Page Financial C & S Financial Technology, Inc. Page 9 (not numbered) Development Summary Projected Population: Employee Portion 205 (1.2 people/bedroom) Size of Units: (Free Market portion) 12 - 2 bedroom @ 1700 s.f. 20 - 3 bedroom @ 2000 s.f. 5 - 4 bedroom @ 2200 s.f. Appendix Statement of Intentions of Future Ownership: (between Title Policy and Annexation Agreement) 2. Last line should read "condominium regime, and..." community development land planning landscape architecture .. Open Space Advisory Board c/o Jim Breasted Box 1730 Aspen, CO 81611 June 27, 1980 Sunny Vann Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual P.U.D. Application (Marolt Property) Dear Sunny: The Open Space Advisory Board held a special meeting on June 24, 1980 to consider your request for a referral comment on the Marolt property conceptual P.U.D. application. With a quorum present, we arrived at a consensus on the points which follow. The key concern is to maintain contiguity with the City-owned Thomas property. The primary factors affecting this contiguity are the north/ south road and the location of the dwelling unit clusters. This board was more favorable to the tighter clustering of the free market units on the old mill site than to the spread-out configuration of this P.U.D. plan. At a minimum, we would prefer a tighter concentration of free- market units which uses the slopes to shield visibility across the Thomas property and leaves more than a token amount of meadowland between the two dwelling unit clusters. The group would prefer, however, to see the buildingssited in a linear fashion along, and defining, the edge of the embankment above Castle Creek. This squeezing of the structure toward the creek would leave a larger, more integrated meadow area, particularly if the north/south extension of Cemetery Lane to Castle Creek Road were shifted to the east. In any case, the north/south road should be designed to integrate general circulation from Highway 82 to Castle Creek and the specific circulation for the Marolt project. It is not acceptable to cut the Thomas property open space and to incidentally access this project. The proposed access road does not appear to be feasible according to City and County road design standards. The grade of the section from the south edge of the meadow to the Castle Creek Road intersection would be greater than ten percent. Thank you for this opportunity to comment again so that open space con- Sunny Vann ~ June 27, 1980 Page Two cerns are considered in the development of the important parcel of land. Sincerely, i j 43 (Uli4 Jim Breasted, Chairman - Open Space Advisory Board 3 .. MEMORANDUM TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Office FROM: Daniel A. McArthur, City Engineer RE: Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual PUD Application (Marolt Pro- perty) DATE: July 3, 1980 After reviewing the above conceptual PUD application and having made a site inspection, the Engineering Department would like to recommend the following. I. Entry/Access Road to the Above Project A. The developers shall provide one road for access to this new development only. This road should line up with the Cemetary Lane stop lights. B. As per the land use schematic as submitted the PMH clusters, we cannot allow the impact of an additional 200 people to the Castle Creek Road and create further traffic problems at the Castle Creek/Maroon Creek intersection. C. Existing entry 'road into the Opal Marolt property as to date will not be acceptable as an entry road for the new development because of short turning movements between Highway 82 and the Castle Creek bridge. D. The alternate roadway which circulates traffic underneath the new Main Street bridge is acceptable as an alternate route to bypass Highway 82. E. The PMH clustered units located on the southern part of the new development shall have direct access to Highway 82 bypassing the free market unils within the Marolt property. The PMH units and the free market units shall use a common road to enter High- way 82 at the Cemetary Lane stoplights. F. The developer should grant the City of Aspen a 10.0' right- of-way easement Hlong the western property line of the Marolt property for future alignment of a Castle Creek Road. - G. The developer should provide a road/trail pedestrian access 1 1 Lqi. t.2 PME c...u.152Â·2'_24 units to the hospital, water plant housing Castle Creek intersection. II. Midland Right-of-way A. Engineerinf.. 1/: rurtmont agrees with Design Workshop and Company 2.U.... -.- 1-2 & 14 g.2:Y._1 .... S ~lus 1 4..611-,i., .-.. - ' I â€ž.a,-Â«lue- - . -,1........ h . 6-.4.--- ...1 . page 2 Re: Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual PUD Application (Marolt Property) that the Midland right-of-way alignment is not a feasible bus route and that the Midland right-of-way should be dropped in the event that the bus right-of-way is incorporated in the Main Street extension. However, due to the uncertainties of the bus route being incorporated in the Main Street extension the Engineering Department recommends that the Midland right-of-way be left as a possible bus route and used as open space for this development. III.Design Analysis A. Eng-,'neerind .;172.1,~) iment feels that under the conceptual PUD pha, e the developer should describe how the title of the land will run with rn-ards to both the free market units and the em- ployee units. B. The developer should also distinguish what areas are being . .. used for common use for both the free market units and the PMH units. C. In the event the developer wants to sell off parcel 4 to contiguous lot Owifers on the east side of Castle Creek they must address this issue during the PUD subdivision review. One reason we are addressing it during the subdivision review is that parcel 4 may be used in the calculation for the density of this development. D. Under the development summary on page 9 under Free Market Units, they must provide two parking spaces per unit as per section 24-4.5 of the code and not provide two parking spaces per unit as stated in their submission. E. The developer shall provide a description of the parcels to be used for both the free market and the PMH units. F. Under roads, open space, etc. the Engineering Department feels that the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council should know exactly what we are getting in regards to dedication and easements for ,Â·.ijads, open space, etc. Drawing Updates A. Vicinity map shall include the following: 1) Include a legend for various solid and dash lines as shown on the vicinity map. : 2) Show city: and county owned lands. wvÂ·.Â·-- Â·.Â·2' <Â·13. Zining rap t')+1 jir,;7:'ide the foll.ewing : 1,1 Shou c.....119~'215Â·-ing on adj acent properties on both the east and west side .of this new development. 2) Show zonirg or axisting parcel to be developed. C. Land use schematic drawing to include the following: Dage 3 Re: Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual PUD Application (Marolt Property) 1) Identify property lines for this development. 2) Identify solid and dash lines. 3) Under the Main Street extension this should be labeled "Possible Highway 82 Main Street Extension". 4) Show Highway 82 right-of-way. V. Site Planning A. The developer should address the parking and snow removal problem with the regards to the developer taking responsibility or the city taking responsibility. .. MEMORANDUM TO: File FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office RE: Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual PUD/Subdivision Review DATE: July 24, 1980 On July 22, 1980, the Planning and Zoning Commission formally approved the Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual PUD/Subdivision application. The Commission moved to approve the applicants' submission in view of the numerous work sessions that preceeded P&Z review and to expedite further processing of the Castlewood/Headgate application. The Commission, however, conditioned its motion to approve upon the following: 1. That the development of employee housing be confined to that portion of the Marolt property located north of the proposed Main Street extension right-of-way, south of Highway 82, and east of a mutually agreed-upon right-of-way for the proposed Cemetery Lane/Castle Creek connector, 2. That the development of the project's free market housing be confined to the area immediately south of the proposed Main Stree right-of- way, 3. That site constraints within the development envelopes outlined above determine development densities, 4. That no indication as to the appropriateness of an overall density of 125 dwelling units be given at this time but, rather, deferred until Preliminary Plat review, 5. That recommendations with respect to parking requirements, the Midland right-of-way, and open space, trails and road dedications also be deferred to Preliminary Plat review, and 6. That all free market development be subject to the six month minimum lease requirements of Section 20-22. . MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission , 1 - A FulÂ« FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office 1 jA 1_lit* 1 93.-) r 001â€žv RE: Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual -PlaÂ»-(Maroll.2.~operty >- DATE: July 18, 1980 On January 28, 1980, City Council approved the annexation and rezoning of an approximately 35 acre parcel of land which is generally referred to as the Opal Marolt property. Based on the recommendations of the Planning Office an... thâ‚¬ Planning ard Zoning Commissions the property was rezoned from AF-2 to R-15A/PUD/SPA, with the additional stipulation that at least 70 percent i n Pfj)6.1.A aÂ»rt 4*0'14 :ti of the -project condist of deed restricted employee units,~To refresh your memory, R-15A was recommended as the underlying zone district in view of surrounding zoning patterns -and to ensure consistency with previous annex- C-K: 46Â· 4 00~lu rds 529/0 A e..4 Yfcz+V ,~ : ' 1 Lib r K . ) . ation policyf This zone classification would allow the development of approx imately 150 dwelling uni * ina mul ti-family configuration if no reduction in density were required for such factors as existing rights-of- wayl , easements, steep slopes, etc. However, given ;he topographical An # -re's'traints, visual vulnerability and unique open space characteristics of the property, mandatory PUD designation was also recommended to provide suffi- cient flexibility in 06 site design and as an appropriate project review ft?fi) mechanism. The applicationofmandatory density reduction criteria (i.e., /1 slope reduction, land under water and existing easements) to the Marolt 9-6 property resulted in a net developable land area of approximately 25 acres, r 4 A which in turn would allow the development of, approximately 110 dwelling units,/2- The applichn* howevert dontended that preliminary financial investigations P . 8 necessitated a minimum denstiy of at least 125 units in order to produce afl 0127*0' 7 l viable project. In the interest of compromise, the Planning Office and City Council reluctantly agreed to this figure as a maximum permissable density with the understanding that the appropriateness of 125 dwelling units 1 bfÂ« 1.. r- 17\ , -3 r{-1 DAD n'/WI. c 42,Â¢' LST-I (94:2 would be determined via the PUD review process 1 In the absence bf Ordinance #16, Series 1980 (Residential Bonus), SPA designation was recommended to accok- P: 40-oÂ» A modate the .,64eetta 1Â· increase in densÂ¢y and to permit mixed ~s;r (i.e., - townhouses) ~~~' two requirements which could not be accomplished under existing PUD regulations. With the subsequent adoption of Ordinance 16, \%7 ~1 ~t?~~ July 18, 1980 Memo: Castlewooc~adgate 4 41% .D Page Two Â·i NO<j h ..... f .4 3 2 '4 4 13\ 9\ 'NY however, any request on behalf of the applicant for density in excess of the.Â¢-lgvve#i~~ ~ J ~~192.6 71~ units permitted by the underlying zone will require rezoning to R-15A/ PUD/Residential Bonus, a step which should occur at the preliminary and final 3 9% plat stages of the PUD/Subdivision review process in the event an increase 4 f:% f A j in allowable densi tyÂ·we,ae-deemed appropriate. . 2 ~ 43 The attached application for~Anceptual PUD~ubdivision review represents 644 f the first step in the development process following annexation and -4 ~9 1\3 rezoning. Subsequent steps will involve: 1) Council,~nceptual PUD#~ubdi- \11 1 14.t vision review, 2) Planning and Zoning Commission/(reliminary plat review, 46 Wr 4~ 3);pecial~e;~~' by P&Z for purposes of GMP exemption under the 70:30 4 72 . /9 Vt. f 4 2 provision, 4~rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay in the event increased 35 24' 1 9 4 -<~ density is approved, and 5) Council approval of,Anal PUD/~ubdivision,~lat, 70:30,/pecial~eview and Residential Bonus rezoning. In addition,/4'bdivision *434 exception review for purposes of condominiumization will most likely be r 0244. 492 hj/l Zi 4 rev ~Â«KstiF> \13 ' - i â€¢Gequeâ‚¬4eelÂ· to enable the sale of indivildual dwelling units. ~1024# 'hAY 19 - . 2 1 474 4-, 1 702'~/ft / Â»1/# 1<:.1 . -,)/ E-Ard /7 '4 ' 1 144 'C~ Proposed Development Concept / ,~~:~ ~ < â€¢NI-application forglonceptual PUD/0ubdivision approval was submitted by T k#UN nnato 4 7 4*-ep#14â‚¬ant on June 18, 1980. In response to various problems identified L j by the Engineering Department, Planning Office~and Open Space Advisory Board with respect to the proposed development plan, informal work sessions were held with the applicants, OSAB, City staff and, subsequently, the Planning and Zoning Commission in an attempt to resolve potential issues prior to formal P&Z review. Specific design parameters resulting from these sessions include'~44Â«M 1. Vehicular access to-bethÂ· free market and employee housing sites should ry '*g A h/Y>?.42174((-4 be via the extension of Cemetery Lane. No Vehicular access to' Castle A A Creek Road should be provided. 2. Open space should not be fragmented; rather, a significant parcel should be provided, visually as well as physically contiguous to both the / 2 Thomas property and theÂ·AvierÂ· corridor. 3. The development of employee housing should be confined to the area north of the proposed Main StreeÂ¥extension and south of Highway 82. P&Z further indicated a preference for restricting development to the area Memo: Castlewoo~adgate July 18, 1980 Page Three east of the proposed Cemetery Lane extension~ The applicants have - ~~~0 revised their original submission to incorporate all of the above criteria with the exception of restricting employee housing devel- opment to the east of Cemetery Lane. The revised development plan (Alternative #2) and the original plan (Alternative #1) are contained in the attached material. For the purposes of discussion, the Marolt property and revised development plan can be subdivided into four principal areas or parcels. Parcel #1, located between Highway 82 and the proposed Main Street extension, contains approximately three acres of Marolt property and an unspecified amount of the adjacent Thomas parcel. As shown on Alternative #2, dghty-eight (88) employee housing units are proposed for this area with the majority located east of the proposed Cemetery Lane extension. The development of the area west of Cemetery Lane contemplates an open space land trade or rights-of- way dedication in exchange for use of a portion of the Thomas property. Parcel #2 contains approximately six acres and is located immediately south of the Main Street extension. This parcel includes the proposed Midland right-of-way alignment and is earmarked for the development of 37 free r market units and their associated a*enity package. Parcel #3, which totals eleven 1~ acres, consists of the remaining pasture land south of Parcel #2 and is reserved as open space. FlaBlly, Parcel #4, which is geographically separated from the majority of the Marolt property by Castle Creek, totals approximately two acres and is being considered for possible sale to con- tiguous land owners. The remainder of the project's approximately 35 acres consists of portions of Castle Creek and a steeply sloping strip of land which parallels the Creek along its western boundary. Architecturally, the employee units are envisioned as two story, gable roofed buildings with common entryways, exterior stairwells and wood siding. The free market units are envisioned in adjoining two and three story townhouse configuration with flat roofs and wood siding. The proposed employee unit mix consists of 14Â·1-bedroom, 65Â·2-bedroom, and 9'3-bedroom units, while the free market portion consists of 12Â·2-bedroom, 20Â·3-bedroom and 5Â·4-bedroom 1 :lil .t'c units. One parking spa3/,Â·tr bedroom, or a total of 171 spaces, ~4 provided for the employee unjits.-and-- two spaces per dwelling unit, or 74 parking spaces,=At=iprovtdÂ¢Â£1 for the free market portion of the project. Memo: Castlewood-adgate O 4 July 18, 1980 Page Four ~ With respect to ownership intentions, the applicants are considering splitting off the employee site and selling it to a City Housing Authority with a lease-back and development agreement for the improvements with the owner/developer. The employee units will either be sold immediately upon completion or leased for an interim period. The free market units will be developed for individual sale and possible short-term rental through a common management structure. To ensure this flexibility, the applicants are requesting exemption from the six-month minimum leaseir5strictions of the 1 IiiI 87 rui,tleAS Al 4.0â‚¬ 604;4491*~7 Cjty's condominiumization AU44*anee. .71, Â£*e,454Â·,; 4 1- R,j.14 /3 11 , 3 yyr , cc *24 C r/,257' 34'*6#'~ ib <4 .Â«216)44.-Of 4*x. cr.6 .~*799<. Planning Office Comments ZO 0 5 4 Af aug The Planning Office concurs with the design parameters which have evolved .after ~ numerous work sessions with the applicants, Open Space Advisory Board, the Engineering Department and the Planning and Zoning Commission. The concepts of clustering development on the northern portion of the property: limiting vehicular access to Highway 82 and the proposed Main Street extension via Cemetery Lane: and maintaining a significant, well-defined open space area which is both physically and visually linked to the Thomas property goalong way toward balancing the objectives of all concerned. The location of devel- opment as proposed provides convenient access to utilities, bus routes and ./ 25 /27/t' :127Â·" Â·' t./ bikeways, as well as potentially reduci/r, site development costs,/ factor /1 *essenlia,1-to the cons~truction of affordable employee housing. In addition, /. 4.4 the utilization of 4.he-portion of Parcel #1 located east of the proposed Cemetery Lane extension for employee housing takes advantage of a potentially "isolated" parcel resulting from the extension of Main Streefwhile the confinement of free market units to the area above the Castle Creek embank- A 1<441-"/,1-1 ment reduces visual impact on ed#eeent prpp?rty owners. Finally, the pro- Vi t 14ALA/4 posed development configuration is genere*** consistent with the adopted CSU "land suitability " and "visual vulnerability" maps, as well as the : , '1- ' 4 iÂ· 1 0.3.,,(2/7- Â·Lk 41 -~-i' , tor,52 object*=Lof_the Castle Creek-*eenway Plant The Planning Office, however, 450 concurs with P&Zin *he recommendation that +1're- development of employee housing be restricted to the area east of the Cemetery Lane extension to maintain open space vistas to the golf OCAL.< Al b />04-42 course and to reduce the~impact of development around the "entrance" to A Aspen. The applicants argue that the resulting employee site is inadequate /Â·19,~2*6- Memo: Castlewood~eadgate July 18, 1980 ~ Page Five to accommodate the requested 88 dwelling units and associated parking require- ments and precludes the consideration of alternative access points to the free market parcel. In response, it is the opinjon of the Plapning Office p CA'V><442 luitk 24,~Â·Uâ€¢*2*jo 1*044.-i ,>t- --hA,u:' O,1 --41 p~-2.Ad.i o'71 1 that open space and-transportation constraints should dictate'*he develop- ment envelopeand that resulting density should be determined by sound site planning principles. An attempt to force-fit a predetermined density in violation of overall development objectives and constraints represents a~~<MAG# backwards approach. To maximize the number of employee units which the applicant>could develop on the recommended site, and thus maximize the number of free market pnits under the 70:30 GMP exemption provision, the *t.*U.4 Planning OfficeÂ·wuut recommen~that the City cooperate with the applicantbin determining the most favorable alignment of the Cemetery Lane extension so as to provide the largest possible development envelope. The slight reduction 15 9 (approximately,20 to,0 percent) in the number of employee units that would occur and the concurrent reduction in free market units would result in a probable overall project density consistent with the underlying zone classi- ovkfit ( 60 fication .-1 remove the need for Residential Bonus rezoning. The resulting project density would most likely still exceed that which would be allowed were the project to be developed after the proposed transportation improvements were '9 i i in 0ace<~1 Â»<AW . (,1; *U'i ~61Â£~._-tr Aue 47<51-/6â€žP . With respect to the applicant* request for exemption from the six month minimum lease restrictions of Section 20-22, which are applicable to all condominiumizations, the Planning Office offers the following comments: 1. The 1973 update of the Aspen Land Use Plan established the base of ~' f i r Aspen Mountain <as the appropriate location for short-term, tourist- oriented development. The City was subsequently rezoned in 1975 to j 1,Â·1 facilitate implementation of the 1973 land use policies tyd Section 24-3.7(0) "Rental Limitations" and Section 20-22 "Condominiumization" were later adopted to supplement and strengthen zone d)strict regu- m.,Al-l%1 lations. The intent of Section 24-3.7(0) was fo 44-*t short-term utilization of multi-family housing in inappropriate zones, speci-.z , Â£ . t. F~_44<Q-, C 1 . - tek (00{ fically the R/MF, O and C-1 zone districts. <An attempt-on -behalf ( 0 li (\ 4 ( \ Vv, et / f k-10,(1,Â£4Â£4 0 of-the Planning Off-i-e@htd~ extend,*his regulation,~ to the remaining /1 I -14,0- bj.â‚¬*k Â· 00~- A-C t) no residential zones, however, was Unsuecessful-. Our argumentpwas that Â« \11 Memo: Castlewood~adgate July 18, 1980 Page Six t). f /T' i' 2]lj,-1 of'~3 -f>'n---1~ DV-r-U~~k these zones were -eerres intended for short-term use and we wished to diI, " . ~ make explicit that which was implicit in our updated land use and zone district policies. Similarly, Section 20-22 was intended pri - ~ .. marily to mitigate the depletion of employee housing resulting from //5 G.1.WA-4(17 66.Â« C (*1Â»ils, condominiumizatiorÂ¢ Howerer, the 'application of the regulation to both existing and new construction serves to supplement Section 24-3.7(0) by restricting short-term utilization and prohibiting the intrusion of tourist, high turnover usage in non-tourist oriented areas. 4 tr 1 2. The applicants argue that exemptior)~pe the six-month minimum lease res- triction is consistent with the spirit of Council's relaxation of GMP policy in order to stimulat~gnployee housing development. While fs..ts1// L. the Planning Office has whoteheartualy supported such code amendments Â£ 6 tle as the 50:50 Residential Bonus and 70:30~ Exemption~, we have never supported a relaxation e-bastarelizatie,rof our land use policies. To permit short-term usage of a residential project in this location -dic JAL would be inconsistent with eur 1973 Land Use Plan, our 1975 rezoning and all eur subsequent attempts to strengthen these policies. 3. The applicant argue,that "so long as additional inventory is created for the local market, those free market units created ... should not be limited ... but would provide a reasonable andi'non-excessive addi- tion to the tourist accommodations to reflect annual demand." In response, we would argue that the appropriate rate of tourist accom- modations development has already been determined and is strictly regulated by the Growth Management Plan. 4. No mention of anticipated short-term utilization occurred at the time of annexation or rezoning. Had the applicant indicated their intentions, the Planning Office would have strenuously objected and recommended that ~nexation agreement preclude *~ such usage. 5. While the City Attorney concurs with the Planning Office's position with respect to short-term utilization, the Housing Director is of the opinion that no restriction should be attached to the free mar- ket units which would limit theiP marketability or affect their financing. The Housing Director's memorandum is attached for your review. Memo: Castlewoo~adgate July 18, 1980 Page Seven + Summarizing, the Planning Office strongly feels that the City's residential zones should be limited to permanent residential usage and not for short-term highrvimpact, tourist-oriented utilization. This policy is implicit in the 1973 Land Use update, the 1975 rezoning and in all subsequent rental limi- tation and condominiumization legislation adopted by the City. While proposed amendments to Section 24-3.7(0) for purposes of strengthening the City's land use policies were not adopted, Council support for the con- cept is evidenced by the application of six-month lease restrictions to all ~, condginiumizytions regardless of zone district. There *Ppeers-4 existi ~r~~ K,64Â£81Â£11#f Â£Â£ , -'A(104 (1*<07~ . 7nV7tf.u .;4#.e/.tj,~24-'.,~, A41 UU ('~~f/Â·F~ a L~J c. / ,(i~-fl .i,fa .a,Z-i.ea 9*-*aGi.*-appreval....#06-the-continement-of--61*ey+*erm-uses-to-Uurist .zone .districts. , 4 jip il( di-7 -Lid{ 9,1940Â»A l,~ /(+4't-iltÂ£i32-) i., uza,fÂ»'' 2ia < 6~4 ~&97,-&Â¢4('27 /te.kirÂ£:r* C.Â©t frtw , The issues of development west of the proposed Cemetery Lane extension -p~ overall project density and short-term utilization of free market units -44*cussed vabove-Il; represent the major concerns of the Planning Office with . 5 regard to the applican*stConceptual PUD/,Abdivision submission. Additional issues, however, which we would like P&Zto consider, and which we are prepared to discuss in greater detail at your July 22, 1980 meeting include: 1. The desirability of restricting development in the proposed Midland right-of-way, 2. Exemption of the one parking space per bedroom requirement for the free market ~894*67 3. Right-ofyay alignment and dedication of Cemetery Land/Castle Creek 1,f & tÂ« 2 ~r 1 Road Â®em*ection, 1,, --f '60(fur. / ,>, t541-Â·d, 4. Trails Bpd.open space dedicatior~35 reit, ../:-71 '627 --zÂ¢>Â¢~4,2/:*Â«r I. 1, '-#i #Aff/0 1{IAL# 4 k 5,,And trade,/top;'bortion of Thomas parcel located between MaÂ¥#1"E 60<34Â£44 property line and~ proposed Cemetery Lane extension,/11.-t~ I r --1 Â¢5. oft <0tr~lcifc- -0-1-ir (1 '24 -/LE-f f-- t Recommendation U In summary, the Planning Office recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission informally approve the general development concept presented by the applicants, withholding/*4Â·ne*yonceptual PUD/,Abdivision approval pending resubmission of a revised site plan. The revised plan should limit employee housing and associated parking to the area east of a mutually agreed upon Cemetery Lane alignment between Highway 82 and the proposed Main Street extension. The conceptual submission narrative should also be revised to Memo: Castlewood "oadgate July 18, 1980 ~ .,/ Page Eight reflect resulting development densities and to incorporate all other revi- sions necessitated by the Commission's July 22, 1980 review. -40-44Â»1> ! /UU r , /~~~ 'Lf>t~ ~44< -,vI~1<- -~ ,0>4 --4~L)<rt,~ fÂ»,4. -DO j / '- et,ye 1 1 ' 1 1 . I A- <f ~.' 1. ; 6 -t.,6 V A i â‚¬ \,4-, { i 1.43' t:01'.4 <2 160L A P . , 644&,2/~ g>04Â»r , can taJ 1 792#~+A<Fi /0,409Â£Â»,3 Â» 2 Lif~,1 20â‚¬4' / // /1,4 /264-~~ 1"7-'P-r>#--7 /vit-/ I .- b&* ~90 99.~u..vtÂ«-j ~46*2+.0,9 zw.ze 77 / 90' 7/9.-,~ C L r / rv / 47/ (~C~~c LZLTL--L,-1, 6~4Â£* 11~24217 k, 3) / 411 -) , , & ~ c,~fiv,,--~~ d~.,~Mr >;f? â‚¬ c f /07 â‚¬ T ,- 1 F. i It 4 - 1,LArk .7 :/6/4,-170 'rÂ£.-577Â»,0/,t~ -' 6 2 'e-6/71 ,/~ , 7 / ( M i l )9 tfl' F 1 L.Â·u~ , ~7 , b /7 -1/7 tt/7 /779 1 11 .UÂ·,40: 0 1 r la- 154 .Â£r 4-7 ' 1/,4â‚¬ rÂ«42-2 /// / . 1 J 0 . .. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office RE: Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual PUD/Subdivision Review DATE: July 18, 1980 On January 28, 1980, City Council approved the annexation and rezoning of an approximately 35 acre parcel of land which is generally referred to as the Opal Marolt property. Based on the recommendations of the Planning Office and the Planning and Zoning Commission, the property was rezoned from AF-2 to R-15A/PUD/SPA, with the additional stipulation that at least 70 percent of the proposed development consist of deed restricted employee units. To refresh your memory, R-15A was recommended as the underlying zone district in view of surrounding zoning patterns and to ensure consistency with previous : annexation policy (R-15A requires 50% deed restricted un ts). This zone classification would allow the development of approximately 150 dwelling units in a multi-family configuration if no reduction in density were required for such factors as existing right-of-way, easements, steep slopes, etc. However, given topographical constraints, visual vulnerability and unique open space characteristics of the property, mandatory PUD designation was also recommended to provide sufficient flexibility in site design and as an appropriate project review mechanism. The application of mandatory PUD density reduction criteria (i.e., slope reduction, land under water and existing easements) to the Marolt property resulted in d net developable land area of approximately 20 to 25 acres, which in turn would allow the development of approximately 90 to 110 dwelling units, a density which the Planning Office generally felt to be appropriate for the project. The applicant, however, con- tended that preliminary financial investigations necessitated a minimum den- sity of at least 125 units in order to produce an economically viable project. In the interest of compromise, the Planning Office and City Council reluc- tantly agreed to this figure as a maximum permissible density with the under- standing that the appropriateness of 125 dwelling units would be determined via the PUD review process based on siting considerations. In the absence of Ordinance #16, Series 1980 (Residential Bonus), SPA designation was recom- mended to accommodate the requested increase in density and to permit mixed use development (i.e., townhouses), two requirements which could not be accom- plished under existing PUD regulations. With the subsequent adoption of Ordinance 16, however, any request on behalf of the applicant for density in excess of the approximately 90 to 110 units permitted by the underlying zone will require rezoning to R-15A/PUD/Residential Bonus, a step which should occur at the preliminary and final plat stages of the PUD/subdivision review process in the event an increase in allowable density is deemed appropriate. The attached application for conceptual PUD/subdivision review represents the first step in the development process following annexation and rezoning. Subsequent steps will involve: 1) Council conceptual PUD/subdivision review, 2) Planning and Zoning Commission preliminary plat review, 3) special review by P&Z for purposes of GMP exemption under the 70:30 provision, 4) P&Z approval for rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay in the event increased density is approved, and 5) Council approval of final PUD/subdivision plat, 70:30 special review and Residential Bonus rezoning. In addition, subdivision exception review for purposes of condominiumization will most likely be required to enable the sale of individual dwelling units. Special review, subdivision exception, and overlay approval will be consolidated with the preliminary and final plat review in order to streamline the process. Proposed Development Concept The property in question, which is currently owned by Marolt Associates, is subject to a contract of sale to a development group, Castlewood Development Company, of which the Marolt family members are the major Memo: Castlewood~adgate July 18, 1980 Page Two shareholders. This transaction is intended to allow Marolt Associates to secure a development partner who can provide development management and consulting functions for the project. The attached application for concep- tual PUD/subdivison approval was submitted by Marolt Associates on June 18, 1980. In response to various problems identified by the Engineering Depart- ment, the Planning Office and the Open Space Advisory Board with respect to the proposed development plan, informal work sessions were held with the applicants, OSAB, City staff and, subsequently, the Planning and Zoning Com- mission in an attempt to resolve potential issues prior to formal P&Z review. Specific design parameters resulting from these sessions were as follows: 1. Vehicular access to free market and employee housing sites should be via the proposed extension of Cemetery Lane. No vehicular access from the project to Castle Creek Road should be provided. 2. Open space should not be fragmented; rather, a significant parcel should be provided, visually, as well as physically contiguous to both the Thomas porperty and the Castle Creek corridor. 3. The development of employee housing should be confined to the area north of the proposed Main Street extension and south of Highway 82. P&Z further indicated a preference for restricting development to the area east of the proposed Cemetery Lane. The applicants have revised their original submission to incorporate all of the above criteria with the exception of restricting employee housing devel- opment to the east of Cemetery Lane. The revised development plan (Alterna- tive #2) and the original plan (Alternative #1) are contained in the attached material. For the purposes of discussion, the Marolt property and revised development plan can be subdivided into four principal areas or parcels. Parcel #1, located between Highway 82 and the proposed Main Street extension, contains approximately three acres of Marolt property and an unspecified amount of the adjacent Thomas parcel. As shown on Alternative #2, 88 employee housing units are proposed for this area with the majority located east of the pro- posed Cemetery Lane extension. The development of the area west of Cemetery Lane contemplates an open space land trade or rights-of-way dedication in exchange for use of a portion of the Thomas property. Parcel #2 contains approximately six acres and is located immediately south of the Main Street extension. This parcel includes the proposed Midland right-of-way alignment and is earmarked for the development of 37 free market units and their asso- ciated amenity package. Parcel #3, which totals eleven acres, consists of the remaining pasture land south of Parcel #2 and is reserved as open space. Finally, Parcel #4, which is geographically separated from the majority of the Marolt property by Castle Creek, totals approximately two acres and is being considered for possible sale to contiguous land owners. The remainder of the project's approximately 35 acres consists of portions of Castle Creek and a steeply sloping strip of land which parallels the Creek along its western boundary. Architecturally, the employee units are envisioned as two story, gable roofed buildings with common entryways, exterior stairwells and wood siding. The free market units are envisioned with flat roofs and wood siding. The proposed employee units mix consists of 14Â·1-bedroom, 65.2-bedroom, 9'3-bedroom units, while the free market portion consists of 12.2-bedroom, 20Â·3-bedroom, and 5Â·4-bedroom units. One parking space per bedroom, or a total of 171 spaces, will be provided for the employee units, while two spaces per dwelling unit, or 74 parking spaces, are proposed for the free market portion of the project. With respect to ownership intentions, the applicants are considering split- ting off the employee site and selling it to a City Housing Authority with a lease-back and development agreement for the improvements with the owner/ developer. The employee units will either be sold immediately upon comple- tion or lease for an interim period. The free market units will be developed Memo: Castlewoo ~adgate July 18, 1980 Page Three for individual sale and possible short-term rental through a common manage- ment structure. To ensure this flexibility, the applicants are requesting exemption the six-month minimum lease restrictions of the City's condo- miniumization regulations. The applicants have agreed to phase construction of the employee units consistent with the development of the free market portion of the project. Planning Office Comments The Planning Office concurs with the design parameters which have evolved as a result of numerous work sessions with the applicants, Open Space Advisory Board, the Engineering Department and the Planning and Zoning Com- mission. The concepts of clustering development on the northern portion of the property; limiting vehicular access to Highway 82 and the proposed Main Street extension via Cemetery Lane; and maintaining a significant, well-defined open space area which is both physically and visually linked to the Thomas property go a long way toward balancing the objectives of all concerned. The location of development as proposed provided convenient access to utilities, bus routes and bikeways, as well as potentially reduces site development costs, an essential factor to the construction of affordable employee housing. In addition, the utilization of that portion of Parcel #1 located east of the proposed Cemetery Lane extension for employee housing takes advantage of a potentially "isolated" parcel resulting from the extension of Main Street while the confinement of free market units to the area above the Castle Creek embankment reduces visual impact on neighboring property owners. Finally, the proposed development configuration is basically con- sistent with the adopted CSU "land suitability" and "visual vulnerability" maps, as well as the Castle Creek Greenway identified in the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan. The Planning Office, however, concurs with P&Zin its recommendation that the development of employee housing be restricted to the area east of the Cemetery Lane extension to maintain open space vistas to the golf course and to reduce the scale and impact of development around the new "entrance" to Aspen. The applicants argue that the resulting employee site is inadequate in size to accommodate the requested 88 dwelling units and associated parking require- ments and precludes the consideration of alternative access points to the free market parcel. In response, it is the opinion of the Planning Office, consistent with agreements made at time of annexation, that open space and transportation constraints should dictate development envelopes and that resulting density should be determined by sound site planning principles. An attempt to force-fit a predetermined density in violation of overall develop- ment objectives and constraints represents at best a backwards approach. To maximize the number of employee units which the applicants could develop on the recommended site, and thus maximize the number of free market units under the 70:30 GMP exemption provision, the Planning Office would recommend that the City cooperate with the applicants in determining the most favorable alignment of the Cemetery Lane extension so as to provide the largest possible development envelope. The slight reduction (approximately 15 to 20 percent) in the number of employee units that would occur and the concurrent reduction in free market units would result in a probable overall project density con- sistent with the underlying zone classification, as well as remove the need for Residential Bonus rezoning. The resulting project density would most likely still exceed that which would be allowed were the project to be developed after the proposed transportation improvements were in place (after reduction in gross site area for new rights-of-way). With respect to the applicants' request for exemption from the six-month minimum lease restrictions of Section 20-22, which are applicable to all condominiumizations, the Planning Office offers the following comments: 1. The 1973 update of the Aspen Land Use Plan established the base of Aspen Mountain and area south of Main Street as the appropriate location for short-term, tourist-oriented development. The City was subsequently rezoned in 1975 to facilitate implementation of the 1973 land use policies, while Section 24-3.7(0) "Rental Limitations" and Section 20-22 "Condominiumization" were later Memo: Castlewoo~adgate I . July 18, 1980 Page Four adopted to supplement and strengthen zone district regulations. The intent of Section 24-3.7(0) was to prohibit short-term utilization of multi-family housing in inappropriate zones, specifically the R/MF, 0 and C-1 zone districts. A proposal initiated by Council more recently to extend this regulation to the remaining resi- dential zones, however, was not adopted. The argument then was that these zones were never intended for short-term use and the proposal would make explicit that which was implicit in the City's updated land use and zone districts policies. Similarly, Section 20-22 was intended primarily to mitigate the depletion of employee housing resulting from the condominiumization of existing dwelling units. However, the application of the regulation to both existing and new construction serves to supplement Section 24-3.7(0) by res- tricting short-term use and prohibiting the intrusion of tourist, high-turnover usage in non-tourist oriented areas. 2. The applicants argue that exemption from the six-month minimum lease restriction is consistent with the spirit of Council's relaxation of GMP policy in order to stimulate employee housing development. While the Planning Office has enthusiastically supported such code amend- ments as the 50:50 Residential Bonus and 70:30 GMP Exemption, we have never supported a relaxation of our land use policies. To permit short-term use of a residential project in this location would be inconsistent with the 1973 Land Use Plan, the 1975 rezoning and all subsequent attempts to strengthen these policies. 3. The applicant argues that "so long as additional inventory is created for the local market, those free market units created ... should not be limited ... but would provide a reasonable and non-excessive addi- tion to the tourist accommodations to reflect annual demand." In response, we would argue that the appropriate rate of tourist accom- modations development has already been determined and is strictly regulated by the Growth Management Plan. 4. No mention of anticipated short-term utilization occurred at the time of annexation or rezoning. Had the applicants indicated their intentions, the Planning Office would have strenuously objected and recommended that any annexation agreement preclude such usage. 5. While the City Attorney concurs with the Planning Office's position with respect to short-term use, the Housing Director is of the opinion that no restriction should be attached to the free market units which would limit their marketability or affect their financing. The Housing Director's memorandum is attached for your review. Summarizing, the Planning Office strongly feels that the City's residential zones should be limited to permanent residential usage and not for short-term higher impact, tourist-oriented utilization. This policy is implicit in the 1973 Land Use update, the 1975 rezoning and in all subsequent rental limi- tation and condominiumization legislation adopted by the City. While pro- posed amendments to Section 24-3.7(0) for purposes of strengthening the City's land use policies were not adopted, Council support for the concept is evidenced by the application of six-month minimum lease restrictions to all condominiumizations regardless of zone district. There exists both legis- lative restrictions against short-term utilization in the R/MF, 0 and C-1 districts, as well as tacit approval for restricting such usage in the City's remaining residential zones. The issues of development west of the proposed Cemetery Lane extension, overall project density and short-term utilization of free market units represent the major concerns of the Planning Office with regard to the aplicants' conceptual PUD/subdivision submission. Additional issues, however, which we would like P&Zto consider, and which we are prepared to discuss in greater detail at your July 22, 1980 meeting include: Memo; Castlewoo ~adgate July 18, 1980 Page Five 1. The desirability of restricting development in the proposed Midland right-of-way, 2. Exemption of the one parking space per bedroom requirement for the free market portion of the project, 3. Right-of-way alignment and dedication of Cemetery Lane/Castle Creek Road extension, 4. Trails and open space dedication as required by the subdivision regu- lations, 5. The possibility of a land trade for a portion of the Thomas parcel located between the applicants' western property line and the proposed Cemetery Lane extension, and 6. The question of separate sale of Parcel #4. Recommendation In summary, the Planning Office recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission informally approve the general development concept presented by the applicants, withholding formal conceptual PUD/subdivision approval pending resubmission of a revised site plan. The revised plan should limit employee housing and associated parking to the area east of a mutually agreed-upon Cemetery Lane alignment between Highway 82 and the proposed Main Street extension. The conceptual submission narrative should also be revised to reflect resulting development densities and to incorporate all other revisions necessitated by the Commission's July 22, 1980 review. Final disposition by P&Z should be predicated upon the extent to which the applicants satisfactorily comply with these conditions. In the event the applicants feel that compliance is untenable, then any generalized concep- tual approval by P&Z should include the comments outlined above. In view of the fact that decisions with regard to density were postponed at the time of annexation until PUD review, the Planning Office feels that it would be remiss if these questions were not satisfactorily resolved at this time. Any recommendation to Council should carry a specific recommendation with respect to the appropriate density for this project. Should P&Z fail to specifically address density at this time, no further opportunity would be available to the Commission until the preliminary plat stage of review. 1 ~ 1 . lrrux//-ZE. g A te~ ;* MEN/a=/ ///Sre '4' ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office RE: Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual PUD/Subdivision Review DATE: July 18, 1980 On_January-28, 1980, City @uncil approved the -annexation and rezoning of an approximately_35._acre parcel of Tand which is generally referred to aslhe Opal Marolt property-.--Based on the recommendations of the Planning Office and the Planning and Zoning Commission, the property was rezoned from AF-2 to R-15A/PUD/SPA, with the additional stipulation that at least_76 percent- of-the proposed development consist of deed restricle# employâ‚¬e units. To refresh your memory,_R:15.8 was recommended as the underlying zone district in view of surrounding zoning patterns and to ensure consistency with previous annexation policy (R-15A requires 50% deed restricted un ts). This zone r classification would allow the development of approximately_ 150 dwel_ling .units in a multi-family configuration if no reduction in density were required for such factors as existing right-of-way, easements, steep slopes,' etc. However, given topographical constraints, visual vulnerability and unique open space characteristics of the property,.mandator_BUD designation was also recommended to provide sufficient flexibility in site design and as an appropriate project review mechanism. The application of mandatory PUD density reduction criteria (i.e., slope reduction, land under water and existing easements) to the Marolt property resulted in a net developable land area of approximately 20 to 25 acres, which in turn would allow the development of approximately 90 to- 110 dwelling units, a density which the Planning Office 1 generally felt to be appropriate for the project. The applicant, however, con- #4. tended that preliminary financial investigations necessitated a minimum den- sity of at least 125 units in order to produce aneconomically_viable Eplegl. 5\+ In the interest of compro-nflise, the Planning Office and City Council-reluc- tantly agreed to this figure as a maximum permissible density with the under- standing that the agprgpriatenessof_125-_dwel 1.i ng _units_ woul d-be-determined via the PUD review process based on sjting considerations. In the absencE-67 -OrdinancE-#16 75â‚¬Fies 1980 (Residential Bonus) , SPA designation was recom- mended to accommodate the requested increase in density and to permit mixed use development (i.e., townhouses), two requirements which could not be accom- plished under existing PUD regulations. With the subsequent adoption of Ordinance 16, however, any request_An behalf of the applicant for density in excess of the app.roximatell_90-19. 110 unjts permitted by the uhderlyi-figÂ·zonâ‚¬- ~,Dvill require rezoning to R-15A/PUD/Residentii|--an-mLI, a step which should '14&*E--at the prelimi-nary-an-iniT-61-at_itages_of the PUD/subdivision reView Â£~1 grocess in the= event an increase in allowable densityis-deemed appropriate. -LE- 1/' }tiâ‚¬ attached application for conceptual PUD/subdivision review represents t/~~t 4 -Ahe first step in the development process following annexation and rezoning. ~ â€¢, .(f Subsequent steps will involve: 1) Council conceptual PUD/subdivision review, 2) Planning and Zoning Commission preliminary plat review, 3) special review op f 4 by P&Z for purposes of GMP exemption under the 70:30 provision, 4) P&Z approval for rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay in the event increased density is approved, and 5) Council approval of final PUD/subdivision plat, Â¢09 70:30 special review and Residential Bonus rezoning. In addition, subdivision exception review for purposes of condominiumization will most likely be 04 required to enable the sale of individual dwelling units. Special review, subdivision exception, and overlay approval will be consolidated with the preliminary and final plat review in order to streamline the process. Proposed Development Concept T[~e prop~ity in queffign, which/f*currentlfÂ»ned by Moffhlt Associa;,s, ~ is\ subject\to a contract of saYe to\a developmant groupt CAtlewocelÂ·j \ Defelooment\ Compank, of ~the MaN1-Efamily 'membpis are thÂ©najor \L// Memo: Castlewood/ .ate July 18, 1980 Page Two shareholders. This transaction is intended to 41]0Â¥ Marolt Associates to ~~p secure a development partner who can provide,444Fopment management and consulting functions for the project. -The-ettiehed application for concep- _tual_EUB/subdivisan_aggroval-was=ubmitted_by Maralt_Associates on june 18, 1980. In response_tq_.Maniou s._problems_jdentified by the ~ingering_-Qeart- ment_the_.El_anning_uffice and the_Quen_lpace Advisor,y_Board-wit}il-cpqpprt to_ the proposed de-xglopment_plan, informal_work sessions were held with the a*Tcants,OSAB, City staff andi-subsequently, the Planning and Zoning Com- mission jn an attempt to resolve potential issues prior to formal P&Z review.Â®Apecific design parameters resulting from these sessions were as followsv ~0 1. Vehicular access to free market and employee housing sites should be via the proposed extension of Cemetery Lane. No vehicular access from the project to Castle Creek Road should be provided. p~ 2. Open space should not be fragmented; rather, a significant parcel should be provided, visually,-as well as physically contiguous to both the Thomas porperty and the Castle Creek corridor. 4~ 3. The development of empl oyee housing should be confined to the area north I~~ of the proposed Main Street extension and south of Highway 82. P&Z further indicated a preference for restricting development to the area east of the proposed Cemete-ry Lane. the-abovecriteria with the-exceptio-fi-of-astrrE[i-figemployelhousing_deve.1- ~~~~~ The applicants have revised their original submission tp incorporate -all of 9ement to th@ east qt-Cemeters_Lane. The revised development plan..1Alternas.-31 tive #2) and the original plan (Alternative #1) are contained-in-the attached material. Acy. *t For the/unaoses-of .discussion, the Marolt property and pevised-development plan can be. subdivided__into_foutrincipallrear-or parcel s. Parcel #1, _located between Highway 82 and the proposed Main Street_extensjon,Icontal n s apprdxi-mately three acres of_Maroll_property and an ~specified amount_.of the adjacent Thomas parcel . As shown on Alternative #2, .88_emplogge_1"ousing unitt-are probbted for this area with the majority.located east of the pro=- posed Cemetery Lane extension. The develobment of the -area west of_Cenietery- [ine-contemplates an open spate land trade or rights-of-way_dedication in exchange for use ot a portior}_Of_the_ Thomas property. Parcel #2 contains approximately~z_agres-and is located inmediately south-EIHe-Main street extension. This parcel includer-Ene proposE-Midid niliqht-of-way alignment and is earmarked for~lbe-}IehikIbp#idn-f -oT-37 free market_units And tliii-r assd= ciated ameni.tackage. Parcel #3, which-totils eleven acres, consists of the remaining pasture land south -bf Parcel #2 and is reserved as open space. Finally,J.accel_#4, which isgeograFRically-separated from the majority of the Marolt property by Castle Creek, 1-otals--approximitely two acres and is being consi de red forigs sible sale to contiguous-in-8-ow?impÂ·~7--The-remainder of the projectli-approximately 35 acres consists-QI_Ertions-of Castle CFBE Era steeply sloping_itrip of land which parallels the Creek along its Western boundary: Architecturally, the employee units are envisioned as two story, gable roofed buildings with common entryways, exterior stairwells and wood siding. The ~0~~ ~lf?oposed employee units mix consists ot 14Â·1-bedroom, 65.2-bedroom, 9'3-bedroom ) free market_units are envisioned with flat roofs and wood sidir~g.J The- / units, while the free market portion consists of 12.2-bedroom, 20-3-bedroom, 1 and 5.4-bedroom units. One parking space per bedroom, or a total of 171 spaces, will be provided for the empl oyee units r while two spaces per dwelling / \ unit, or 74 parking spaces, are proposed for the free market portion of the ) Nu:Qject. -- .-. -// With respect to ownership intentions, the applicants are considering split-9 ting_off the employeg_ijle-and_selling it to a CiU_Housing Authority wi Ilease-BacE-and development agreement for the improvements wi th the omiefT. -069&100&77--The employee units will eitner be sold immediately upon comple- j tion or lease foran-interim period.. The free market un,its will De developed * 140 2.:79 9 Fc-,9/=a,A Memo: Castl ewood/~dgate July 18, 1980 Page Three for individual sale_and possible short-term rental through 9 common manage- ment structura.To ensurethis flexibility, the applicants arerequesETRi' - exemption . t-MLsix-man-th_.minimum-1-@ast-nestrictions of the City's condqi miniumization regulations. The applicants have agreed to phase construction of the employee units consistent with the development of the free market portion of the project. Planning Office Comments IN gale=/,64 ACC +02- fWD,1 -Â»46 P.6. ~ PAZ_ P=a .lzr -~wrr h\\ The Planning Office concurt withthedesieters-whith-have excl-xed as a result-ef--humerous work sessions with the applicants, Open Space Advisory(Board, the Engineering Department and the Planning and Zoning Com- mission. ,The conceRk of clustering development on the northern portion pt,the prgRAE-ty; lj-miting_vehicular access to Highway 82 and the proposed Main Street extension via Cemetery Lane; and'maintaining a significant, well-defined open space area which is bothpRysica-Ty--,rrEYisually linked Eo-th@Thomas property--grrl-unrway-156Ward balancing the objectives of iTl ch@kere E---Tlhel-Â®Ati-on-@Ldeveloeent as broposed prov-ide-d_convenlent access .to utilities-,Eus routes and bi keways, as we [T-as potentially reduces site developmetir'~5â‚¬7 an essential factor to'the construction of affordable empl oyee housing. -In_additions the utilization. of that portion of Parcel #1. located east of the proposed Cemetery Lane extension for employee housing takes ag'Entage of a__Â®IentiaTTy "isolated'r parcel resulting from the exteniian._ac- Main_Street while the -confinement of fretmarket units tq_the area abovt the Castle Creek embankment reduces visual imp.git_on nei_ghboring property owners. -1-inal ly,-the proposed de* e-1-Â®meriE-lonfigugation is~lasically-con-=- sistent with the adopted CSO'land suitability" and "visual vulnerability* maps, as weTT~35-tECastle Creek Greenway identified in the 1973-As-peii Land Use Plano__ - - - Â£1195.+Petsr) The Planning Office, however, concurs, with R&Zin its recommendation that the development of employee housing be restricted to the area east-oftheK--mettry Lane extension to maintain open space vistasto the qolf course and_la_.reduce IRE-~scalea-nd impact ot deveTbiment_around_lhe_-new__2-entrance"tg_ 812en-.-Th-9. applicants argue*art, the Cesulting employee-site is- inadequate in size to -accoriihodate the Lequestedwelling_unij-q -and- associated parkiTi#-Feq uirE tfiehE'-and precludes the consideration of alternative access-poinsto 11 t-the free market parcel. In response, it is the opinion of the Planning Offi te,37'~2 1*~C~D-sjstent with _agreements made at time of annexation,- that open_space_and tran.Spgrtation constrifint; shoulddl.glate_gevrt-6'pmentlenvelopes and that resultinq_denilly should be determined by sdurid-Kite planning pyinciples. An? FT Attempt to force-fit a predetermined density in violation of overall develop- / Ent_gbjective:_.and--conitraints-JeWresarrts-ar-bast a-liÂ¢FErds approach_.~ .IQ maximize the number of employee units which the applicants could dexelop on therecommenE@d site, and thus maximize the numbe-F or tree ma-Fkatunits under ~ t~Fie70:-30-5-MP-el-*nipfian provisidii-7-FifEEIiE[Fii7Ilce-*041Â·~ recommencE,$â‚¬r the CT-fy--cooperate-witlth.e_Appligntsin_determining the--mosf-Favorable ~~~'~ alignmentof the Cemetery Lane extension so as to provide the largest pos-sible development en=:14,222 The slfght reduction (approximately 15 to 20 berc-entj- /*ti-the numberiflm oyee units that would occur and the concurrent reduction 7 / in free market units would result in a probable overall project density con- / sistent with the underlying zone classifications as well as remove the need / / for Residential Bonus rezoning. The resulting project density would most / likely still exceed that which would be allowed were the project to be ~ l developed after the proposed transportation improvements were in place (after_--*, ~reduction in gross site area for new rights-of-way). --- With respect to the applicants' request for exemption from the six-month minimum lease restrictions of Section 20-22, which are applicable to all condominiumizations, the Planning Office offers-the.following comments: PEU>â€¢-AL-4EÂ»0 7 ~ vL cÂ£>4(-cAâ€¢ten rhzâ€¢*..L 1. The 1973 update of the_ Aspen_land_Usallan establi shet-the base of Aspeti MountainJAnd area south- of_Main_Street as tha_appropriale 10-caFTon-for short-term,- tourist-oriented development. The -City. Was flibsequently---razoned in 197% tf_fafTI-1 tate-implementation-of_ the 1973 lantuse_policies, whileJection 24-3.7(0)2Rental tlmit~ations" and Section 20-22 '%99dominiumization" were latir ~ - Memo: Castlewood,~ dgate July 18, 1980 Page Four adopted_to supplement and strengthin _zgne district regulations. The intentoflection_zAzizio) was to prphilit short-term utilization Qf multi-family housing in inaRREPRELate zones r-speci-f.lilll,E-the R/MF, O aiia-[.-1 Zone-districts. A Proposal initiated by Council more recently---toÂ· extend_thiT regulation to the remaining resT- tlentlal-zones-, bgwever, was not adopted. The_argument -then was _ 'that--th-ese zohes were never-th-Flued formort-term use and the proFEET-woota make exp I icir-:thrt-Wht MT-waâ‚¬tmptltlt-1-rttEmuk uadated land use a-ATzone dtztti-fts policies. Similarly, Section 25-22.was_tritended primarily_to mitiggle the depletion of_employee housing resuTUhg from the condbminlumilition g.f ~Existing_dwelling UnifEJ- However-ZEMrappligiton-of the regulation to both existing and new conitnucti,OILED.MeS-to supplement Section 24-3.7(0) by res- ' tricEingsbork=term liqp and_prohiffiling th-e_intrusion of tourist. highz.turnoven--usage-in_non--tottl~ oriented areas. 2. The applicants argue that exemption from the six-month minimum lease restriction i s, 0,8,50kent with the spirit of Council ' s- relaxation of GMP Paliqx in 6rder-_10_-itimulate_employee housing deve 1 0 Firrie riT.--Fh,i TE , the Plannini-Office his enthusiastitally supported such code_amend- menti_as the-50:50_Residential_Bonus_and 70:30 GMP Exemption,_-weÂ£~*,â€ž7. li-ave never_supported a relaxation of our land use policies. To permit-short-term use of a residential project in this location would be inconsjsterft with the_;973Iind-Usâ‚¬-Plan,-thâ‚¬-I975-rezoning and 8Es-Obsequent--al&Â£glits to strengthen tliese poli-Eies. 3. The applicant argues that "so long as additional inventory is created for the local market, those free market units created ... should not be limited ... but would provide a reasonable and non-excessive addi- tion to the tourist accommodations to reflect annual demand. " .k -res-Ponse,-we would argue that the appropriate rate of tourist accom- modations development has already been determi-ne--anlrstrictky- regulated by the Growth Management Plan. 4. No mentj~on of @gticip(ffed shoÂ«-term tftilizelion oopurred at jthejitime 011 annÂ¢dation /0# rezonihg. ,fladi the appilicantkindfcfted iheill /f / ihtentlons, the \PlaÂ¢ninlg Office\would Have/strenyiou$ly hbjeÂ¢tÂ¢~P~,9/ r~lend~hat~,0/ anrie*ation 'agreemeht/pretljide sucM usage. 5. While the City Attorney concurs with the Planning Office's position with respect to short-term use, the Housing Director is of the opinion that no restriction should be attached to the free market units which would limit their marketability or affect their financing. The Housing Director's me~o~~d~ is a~ached for your review. Summarizing, the Planning Office)strongly feelÂ¢ that the City's residential zones should be limited to permanent residential usage and not for short-term higher impact, tourist-oriented utilization. This policy is implicit in the 1973 Land Use update, the 1975 rezoning and in all subsequent rental limi- tation and condominiumization legislation adopted by the City. While pro- posed amendments to Section 24-3.7(0) for purposes of strengthening the City's land use policies were not adopted, Council sYPP-grt for the concept is evidenced.k. the application of six-mont.Lminimum lease_restrictions_to_all condbminiumizations regardless of zone district. There exists both legis- lative restrictions against short-term utilization in the R/MF, O and C-1 districts, as well as tacit approval for restricting such usage in the City's remaining residential zones. Ihe issues of development west of th@ proposed C;metery Lane extension, everall-prqject densit.t and short--term utilization-oF-Ttee market--Unlti represenÂ¥'the ~majon-concerns of the PlanninÂ¢f-Offirrwtttrregart-trthe aplicants conceptual PUD/subdivision submission. Additional_is-sues 6. howeven Ahichle would like P&Zto consider, and which we are prepared to discuss in ~74ter detail at your July 22, 1980 meeting include: d OC/ e_ *Alie-.~4-- 6 victocle_ 1 , Memo; Castlewood/~dgate July 18, 1980 Page Five 1. The desirability of restricting development in the proposed Midland right-of-way, 2. Exemption of the one parking space per bedroom requi rement for the free market portion of the project, 3. Right-of-way alignment and dedication of Cemetery Lane/Castle Creek Road extension, 4. Trails and open space dedication as required by the subdivision regu- lations, 5. The possibility of a land trade for a portion of.the Thomas parcel located between the applicants' western property line and the proposed Cemetery Lane extension, and / 6. *e,question/of separate sale of Parcel #4. * Fil 42Â« -ke f k , fu- 64 - / jRecom / i In summary, the Planning Office recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission informally approve the general development concept presented by the applicants, withholding formal conceptual PUD/subdivision approval pending resubmission of a revised site plan. The revised plan should limit employee housing and associated parking to the area east of a mutually agreed-upon Cemetery Lane alignment between Highway 82 and the proposed Main Street extension. The conceptual submission narrative should also be revised to reflect resulting development densities and to incorporate all other revisions necessitated by the Commission's July 22, 1980 review. Final disposition by P&Z should be predicated upon the extent to which the applicants satisfactorily comply with these conditions. In the event the applicants feel that compliance is untenable, then any generalized concep- tual approval by P&Z should include the comments outlined above. In view of the fact that decisions with regard to density were postponed at the time of annexation until PUD review, the Planning Office feels that it would be remiss if these questions were not satisfactorily resolved at this time. Any recommendation to Council should carry a specific recommendation with respect to the appropriate density for this project. Should P&Z fail to specifically address density at this time, no further opportunity would be available to the Commission until the preliminary plat stage of review. #I I L 0-606(Â»D F o. 01-1 . L CITY OF A-'EN , MEMO FROM SUNNY VANN frnf- 9935 9 fil_ 2-v /~ A /17 r. )41 4. pii7) 44 1 0Â»44 -j )<St o, A.>r- . MEMORANDUM TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Office FROM: Daniel A. McArthur, City Engineer 2-1 DATE: August 5, 1980 RE: Castle Wood - Headgate Conceptual P.U.D. Subdivision After reviewing the above Conceptual P.U.D. Subdivision submission dated 8/1/80, the Engineering Department would like to add the following comments to the earlier letter dated 7/3/80. Alternative #1 - The Engineering Department has two basic problems with Alternative #1, having a parking lot on the opposite side of the street on employee housing units. 1. In the event the Castle Creek Road is ever realigned to tie into the existing Cemetery Lane--Highway 82 intersection, this would create a major pedes- trian safety hazard with regards to pedestrian movements from the parking lot to the employee housing units. 2. In the event the proposed Highway 82-Main Street extension is ever developed, this would direct all existing traffic from the Cemetery Lane Road to pass through and divide the employee parking lot from employee housing units. The above would also create a major pedestrian safety hazard with regards to pedestrian movements from the parking lot to employee housing units. In summary, the Engineering Department would not recommend allowing the parking lot to be separated from the employee housing units by division of a major street. ' .. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office RE: Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual PUD/Subdivision Review DATE: August 6, 1980 On July 22, 1980, the Planning and Zoning Commission formally approved the Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual PUD/Subdivision application. The Commission moved to approve with modifications the applicants' proposed development plan (referred to as Alternative #2 in the attached document) in view of the numer- ous work sessions that preceeded P&Z review and to expedite further proces- sing ofthe Castlewood/Headgate application. The Commission, however, conditioned its motion to approve upon the following: 1. That development of employee housing be confined to that portion of the Marolt property located north of the proposed Main Street right-of-way, south of Highway 82, and east of a mutually agreed-upon right-of-way for the proposed Cemetery Lane/Castle Creek connector, 2. That the development of the project's free market housing be confined to the area immediately south of the proposed Main Street extension right- of-way, 3. That site constraints within the development envelopes outlined above determine development densities, 4. That no indication as to the appropriateness of an overall density of 125 dwelling units be given at this time, but, rather, deferred until Preliminary Plat review, 5. That recommendations with respect to parking requirements; the Midland right-of-way; and open space, trails and road dedications also be deferred to Preliminary Plat review, and 6. That all free market development be subject to the six-month minimum lease requirements of Section 20-22 of the Aspen Code. The above conditions generally reflect the Planning Office's recommendations with respect to the applicants, July 22, 1980 P&Z submission. Our comments are summarized in our memorandum dated July 18, 1980, which is attached for your review. In response to the condition attached by P&Zin its approval, the applicants have modified their Conceptual submission. The revised development plan, which is referred to as Alternative #1 in the attached document, clusters all of the project's employee units east of the proposed Cemetery Lane/Castle Creek con- nector as requested by P & Z. In order to maintain an overall project density of 125 units, the employee unit mix has been revised and a portion of the required employee parking allocated to an area west of the proposed Cemetery Lane/Castle Creek connector. However, the Planning Office, in conjunction with the Engineering Department and the applicant, is currently investigating a more favorable alignment for the Cemetery Lane/Castle Creek connector to enable all employee parking to be accommodated within the preferred employee housing development envelope. In view of this ongoing investigation, the Planning Office would like to reserve its comments and recommendation with regard to the revised development plan until the August 11, 1980 Council meeting. With the exception of the relocation of the project's employee housing units east of the Cemetery Lane/Castle Creek connector and the revision of the employee housing unit mix, the applicants' Conceptual Submission is essentially the same as that presented to P & Z. A~4-, ~ 4. . MEMORANDUM <~ To: ~en City Council FROM~/Sunny Vann, Planning Office RE~/ Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual PUD/Subdivision Review ~DATE: August 6, 1980 ~ On July 22, 1980, the Planning and Zoning Commission formally approved the Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual PUD/Subdivision application. The Commission moved to approve with modifications the applicants' proposed development plan (referred to as Alternative #2 in the attached document) in view of the numer- ous work sessions that preceeded P&Z review and to expedite further proces- sing ofthe Castlewood/Headgate application. The Commission, however, conditioned its motion to approve upon the following: 1. That development of employee housing be confined to that portion of the Marolt property located north of the proposed Main Street right-of-way, south of Highway 82, and east of a mutually agreed-upon right-of-way for the proposed Cemetery Lane/Castle Creek connector, 2, That the development of the project's free market housing be confined to the area immediately south of the proposed Main Street extension right- of-way, 3. That site constraints within the development envelopes outlined above determine development densities, 4. That no indication as to the appropriateness of an overall density of 125 dwelling units be given at this time, but, rather, deferred until Preliminary Plat review, r.k A 5. That recommendations with respect to parking requirements; the Midland right-of-way; and open space, trails and road dedications also be ' 4, deferred to Preliminary Plat review, and 6. That all free market development be subject to the six-month minimum lease requirements of Section 20-22 of the Aspen Code. The above conditions generally reflect the Planning Office's recommendations with respect to the applicantsl July 22, 1980 P&Z submission. Our comments are summarized in our memorandum dated July 18, 1980, which is attached for your review. In response to the_condition_Attached by P&Zin its approval, the applicants havemodifie-d their Conceptual submission. The revised development plan, which -IKIETEr,96- -fo as Alternatim_11__inthe attached document, clusters all 07 the- projeft' s employee units east of the proposed Cemetery Lane/Castle Creek con=- nector as requested by P_Al. In-072@-F Â£6-matntatran -69e-ral 1 _project dER53_ty 6T--125 units, the employee unit mix has been_revise-d and a portion of the 7*qutred-emijTOyeebarking allocated _to an area west--of theprÂ®06*6-Cemetery Lan@Castle Creek connector. - However, the Planning Office, in conjunc-on W'I-fFi-the Engineering Department and the applicant, is currently investigating /a more favorable alignment for the Cemetery Lane/Castle Creek connector to / enable all employee parking to be accommodated within the preferred empl oyee housing / development envelope. In view of this ongoing investigation, the Planning Office / would like to reserve its comments and recommendation with regard to the revised < development plan until the August 11, 1980 Council meeting. With the exception of the relocation of the project's employee housing units east of the Cemetery Lane/Castle Creek connector and the revision of the employee housing unit mix, the applicants' Conceptual Submission is essentially the same as that presented to P & Z. Bom P. O 4 Â»74, .DE,ME pÂ© AJET TE,14 0 73,5 *U,7,6,4 8 /'C> . - Of EN y--16 23- f r 3 2. 'LÂ£â‚¬~fi.,07 - Ah E*/6. - Troff,-,0 (27Â¥ /y~Eo~~~/ab,)472-AL 725 62,3~kqt fi90977Â·4227-- 64-NE .45- 4 .. L-@2- yri4-pL= 1 42*4 A - 0 8.-1 * 2.-MA L 7-0 #, 4- I __ 044,-UA>,0-Lk/1.RAM -I ~- 1 - @ Â«4-1,4 2 al) L ... b Â¥~1 'Â·i<Â£0 Pr ye,. g-U ,-1- OLD Â»l' *30- j Â«Li / A- up kle V n4-\-9 It . (33 4, f 1,-a /U,r,Â»A 4-- cp oi-rs ~ 6.-0\ 0*,<J t".~~ _ _ch rh U 60 1,L 0. (1> -43 4~Â«4 -4.40 44 j C In .ti Â»A LE- ~10_ WA - 1 4114 Â»-1 ~ f.4 Ill- 11I A /1 1 1~-4 AOL UNÂ£,6 1742,~ J -V . 1 17 M ' -4 e.04 v, t~-c_ /nÂ« - -tyu - PIA 0 C Ul/1~U/16 ) 0 t\302_~ Ag~*A~ 61A.4 10,4 #*UL -21 -1- 'I IAâ€ž47 - Y ch A , A. 1/.Ti .fv ACL, 924 -1/1 9-- 6 /1Â»>l "Â¢u~El.~~ ~Â«- ~+u,>0 / 11 1----1-1- . 11 1 c <kwy / A r 2--Anica 4 ~/ rif, ~-- *2111 Â¢64, -001 Y .r Â£3,3 _ 0 \1 - / 4 6-(ca .-:L __ jit' il Ut- k , 3 + - 4 4- A 9 4.1. LA kÂ»-----A (4 ~LU- 4- rALL U \1 0 (D n *# 6.-/l/r -2219 -- g /1 '71917 + HE-ATPAA-fif_r. Ef.~574-2 LiaÂ» NG__ ~ I LAMP (01121Â«GE FLA14 1 (0216:'INAL *UffÂ·Mi64(ON) -Â¢> UP(:r, UN VE TTFU 51022 4 -TDTAL 1 . 1 84 1304- Â¢ 10 1 3,046 Rd 1 , 9[upK) 1 L - I ------ 0 2-BR: 11040 4 20 20,900 1 1 i , 1 1 : 1 f . 1 1 3 , Â· i 1 if i ! -I *4Z21-AL LAMP COVE=12,46Â¤ - FLAN 1 3 53,54-0 FL/*4 2- C @EN((<ENt> *g.(11111:011*213: ~~ t SMALLEIL UN *16 1 .1 to 1980 1 -4 1-4 -I--1 i Ill i 1 1 Il.-I. i.:... I , : 1-ER-/ 2490#; 4 93(DO i 1 ......... li 11 94 NOTAL LAMP 60412*761 - -FLAN 2 7, eol 99Â·C MEDU O-Tiop, IN LAND 03'WEIFYA62 15 59,~ : i 1 1 .. CITY OF ASPEN LOW-MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING RENTAL RATES COMPARATIVE CHART DECEMBER 2, 1980 DEED RESTRICTED UNITS (Total 75) Size ~ Monthly Price per Unit Type Sq.Ft. Rent Sq. Ft. Castleridge Studio 482 $310 $.64 (Water & sewer paid) 1 BR 768 490 .63 2 BR 924 590 .63 Hunter Longhouse 1 BR 560 $340 $.60 (No utilities) 2 BR 812 495 .60 Creekside (Snowmass) Studio 250 $228 $.91 (Water & sewer paid) 1 BR 750 378 .50 2 BR 970 462 .47 Headgate (revised Studio 484 $338 $.70 architecture) 1 BR 637 445 .70 (Construction 1981; 2 BR 845 591 .70 occupancy 1982) (Plan 1) ' Studio 516 $361 $.70 1 BR 740 518 .70 2 BR 930 651 .70 NON-RESTRICTED UNITS Silverking Studio 382 $425 $1.11 (Utilities paid) 1 BR 595 490 .93 2 BR 800 650 .81 Week of November 23-29 Aspen Times listed 100 units for rent. Only 5 were long term, with prices of generally $750 for a 1 bedroom unit and $1,050 for 3 bedrooms. .. 0 C -MÂ«j design workshop, inc. November 28, 1980 415 s. spring aspen, co 81611 303-925-8354 MEMO TO: Sunny Vann, City of Aspen Planning Dept. From: Carlie Wood Attached are: 1) Prints with zipatone cross-hatch pattern indicating the additional parking spaces necessary to full- fill parking ratio requirements of the zoning code. As was requested by the planning office and P&Z, we have shown 5 additional spaces in the Employee area which will be provided, and 31 additional spaces in the Free Market area which will not be built immediately but provided at a later date if deemed necessary either from a traffic or marketing point of view. 2) Revised architecture for employee studio, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom units. The new unit mix and sizes are as follows: 36 - 2 bedroom @ 845 SF each 24 - 1 bedroom @ 637 SF each 20 - Studios @ 484 SF each Below is a comparative chart showing rental r@I~@ in Plan 1 (as submitted in preliminary Plat submission %f \Artober 15 1980) and Plan 2 with the revised architecture: d Plan 1 ~ Plan 2 (3-~ % reduction Studio 361.00 fe' 344= 00 A / 12% 1/ / 1 bedroom 518.00 r~ 445.00 ' ~ 14% 2 bedroom 651.00 ~ 591.00 - 9% The building configurations ~have changdd in order to maximize eff iciency of construction ahd thereby* lower rental rates as much as possible. 2 bedroom buildings (see rendehigf There are six units per building in a 24-3 story structure. A central stair for circulation divides the building in two and provides private entries for each unit. The site plan would accomodate three of these 2 bedroom buildings easily. 1 bedroom/Studio units These four buildings each contain. six - 1 bedroom units and - 5 studio units (utility and storage areas account for one studio in each building). community development land planning landscape architecture 1 1 0404 8-j-f . 1 1 LLE CD 4) Ill /11\~11 111/11 1\11 i t_lid 0 c.Lo. C.Lo. 3.1-4 , - 1 A'-r(J Ed - - Liv,Ju -+ I I -- . c>,4,401 . ,1 ' 1-17#77-~ ... 1 - apac k - 4 - STUDIO UNIT - 484 SF i U nm 1 , U 1 r, n (7 4 4 1 Al c. k0|~Ted.J- --] Â»AT'l - ear'. C~~~~ ~...4- - -- 0 - =Lo. c.Lo 0 1 127-12 111-/IN BETOR.00,1 L,jidc . DEC k..2272_121_1 ONE BEDROOM UNIT 637 SF lugdt"FAF"V ( /] j.--1 1 11 iL. ) 11 /,-0.'-~--- 11 - L J! ; 1 % ./ 1 1 - 11 1.--41 0 2-1 -liD i / 1 11 \ 1 t>, Id:Jc. k-,Tc d 11-- ] lu 1%*T1-1 .1 c1 OUJ' 1 4"Ii"IL --- 90,<i ~LO..T h I]-Ii-*lill _ --L,JIdc S ED RLOON. a 1 1- Â» 10 A-ooK, 2 . DECk--227____ TWO BEDROOM UNIT 845 SF 110 'Ril 9 r.-31795 -4(990-77771 obil'i-.'.'7:r MEMORANDUM 11 '1 :, 1- . . CO Â·.. i & 1,2 4 N JAN 2 1 1931 dll. ASPEN ./ PITKIN O TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Office PLANNUNG Oil iu. FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Department ..A~~--- DATE: January 20, 1981 RE: Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual Subdivision Having reviewed the amended conceptual application for the Castlewood/Headgate project, and having made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. It should be noted that most of the comments in my memorandum of November 14, 1980, remain in effect with the exception of Number 6 under Circulation, which has been rectified. 2. Special note should be made of comment Number 4 under Plat regarding the proximity of the free market access easement to the Main Street right-of-way. 3. The applicant has suggested an alternate access alignment to the employee units from Castle Creek Road. I would reiterate our desire to develop the alignment to the Cemetery Lane intersection while avoiding any further loads on the Castle/Maroon intersection as discussed in the work session with Council on January 15, 1981. 4. During the January 15, 1981 session with the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council, there was consider- able discussion of the status of the Midland right-of- way alignment. Consensus at the time appeared to be a desire to preserve some capacity to utilize an alignment to the south of the proposed free market units while not necessarily requiring a rigid adherence to the old Midland line. The following comments should be noted: a) The Castlewood free market units as proposed would completely obstruct the 60-foot right-of-way investigated for possible use by this office in 1975. b) It would appear possible to adjust the bridge and right-of-way locations to avoid the proposed units and utilize the parcel proposed for dedication to the City as open space. This would result Castlewood/He ~ate January 20, 1981 PAGE TWO in a shorter bridge span and a different curve alignment to the west requiring more interference with the Thomas open space. c) In view of the status of the Midland right- of-way (non-existent) and the applicant's willingness to deed the parcel to the south of the free market units knowing the land could be used as a transportation corridor, the possibility of having to shift the alignment would not present any real problems beyond those inherent in the Midland plan. While we are inclined to view the new conceptual submission as a more difficult site plan in terms of utility extension and access needs, none of the problems are insurmountable. Re- location of the employee units also provides a better oppor- tunity to require that a large development assist in the provision and construction of a new road alignment servicing the Castle Creek corridor. .. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office RE: Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual P.U.D./Subdivision Review /1 DATE: January 20, 1981 6 Uk-t / f 4 Â»Â·<-8< 't / Background On November 18, 1980, the Planning and Zohing Commissioh reviewed the appli- cants' preliminary PUD/subdivision submission. As the Planning Office's attached memorandum dated November 13, 1980 indicates, all of the conditions attached by P&Z and Council at the conceptual review stage with respect to design parameters were met by the applicants and were incorporated in their preliminary plat submission. No formal action was taken by P&Zin its initial review of the applicants~ preliminary submission. A straw vote, however, was taken with respect to the Planning Office's recommendations, the results of which are summarized in our memoranda dated December 1, 1980, which is attached for your review. The Commission expressed considerable concern over the projected rental rates of the employee housing portion of the project and the application was tabled until December 2, 1980 in order to enable the applicants to reconsider this aspect of the project. The applicants subsequently submitted a revised employee housing proposal, which was reviewed by P&Zata December 2 public hearing. While the revised employee rental structure more closely approximated the City's employee housing price guidelines, there was considerable public concern with regard / to the size of the project, its density, its location with respect to the 3 entrance of Aspen, and the revised price structure. A second straw vote resulted in a 5 to 1 decision to deny and the application was once again tabled to a date uncertain. On December 8, 1980, an informal work session involving both the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council was held to discuss the Commission's concerns and the current status of the Castlewood/Headgate project. After considerable discussion, it was the general consensus of opinion of both P & Z and Council that the project could be approved if certain parameters were adhered to. Specifically, 1)that the empl oyee housing portion of the project be relocated to the southern-most portion of the site; 2) that the overall density of the project be reduced to approximately 100 units; 3) that the Main Street right-of-way be dedicated as the preferred alignment for a revised entrance to Aspen; 4) that the project be subject to the six-month lease restriction of the Municipal Code; and 5) that all efforts be made to , minimize the projected rental rates of the employee portion of the project to the extent possible. The applicants have revised their development plan to essentially comply with the above directives. The employee portion of the project has been relocated to the southern-most extremity of the site. The overall density has been reduced to 104 units, 73 employee and 31 free market. In addition, the Main Street right-of-way is proposed for dedication and the projected rental rates for the employee portion of the project have been reduced through a re-design of the units. The applicants, however, are still requesting exemption from the six-month minimum lease restriction of the Municipal Code. Inasmuch as we have attempted to accommodate the applicants by placing this conceptual review on the first available Council agenda, the Planning Office is unable to provide you with detailed comments at this time. Both the Planning Office and the applicants, however, are prepared to discuss the project in detail at your January 26, 1981 meeting. .. TO: City Council, Wayne Chapman, Sunny Vann FROM: Jim Reents DATE: January 21, 1981 SUBJECT: Six Month Minimum Lease Provision The six month minimum lease provision is applied in two distinct cases in the City's code. 1. In the RMF, Cl, and 0 office districts, the six month minimum lease is incorporated into the zoning code. This allows no housing to be constructed except (in theory) long term housing. 2. Under the condominiumization section of the subdivision code, a 6 month minimum lease restriction is a requirement for condominiumization. In both .cases, two shorter terms are allowed per year, each of two week duration. There are certain problems inherent within this part of the code. There is currently no provision to disallow subleases under a master lease nor is there any way to police the shorter terms. At the present time, enforcement of the six month lease provision is on a complaint only basis. Unless the City is willing to institute unit checks on a periodic basis, the whole provision relies on good will compliance by each owner. There appears to be dual intent with -the six month lease. One is to preserve long term rental housing within the community and the other is preservation of the residential character of neighborhoods. While both might be worthy goals, the short term seems to be in conflict with both. In the case of preservation of long term housing, if an individual must vacate or relocate every six months, it hardly seems the case. In the preservation of the residential character of neigh- borhoods, allowing short term usage at all seems a conflict. It would be my suggestion that the City Council consider dropping the shorter term section 1 feel that there would be less of an enforce- ment prob].em without'llie-shorter term and address more directly the intent of the regula -.3 on I feel then that the administration could police the deed restij.ete,3. units through a periodic advertising pro- gram to inform tenants of Lhe provisions of the six month minimum lease and have it k Lrone tienant en forced. An alternative cou]7.Upert.jE?la be to require a business license and tax collection for any A.hor t l. rm unit in the community. However, this would also present its own enforcement problem. .. The disadvantage of this action would be to put an undetermined strain on the lodging community during the peak season. Thi.s couldÂ·be addressed more directly by some adjustment to the lodging section of the growth management section of chapter 24. The six month lease provision has come to the fore front with the Castlewood/Headgate proposal. Tlie philosophy behind the 70/30 ordinance was to provide a Robin Hood situation in which the free market- units offset some costs on the restricted units. In this part-i.cular case, the zone district (R 15A) does not disallow short term usage, but rather the condominiumization section of the code requires it (Sec. 20-22), the intent being to prevent displacement and to preserve long term housing. With a 70/30 project, we are requiring the doveloper to develop long term housing and expecting him to off-set costs through the marketing of his. free market units. To limit the marketability of theseÂ·units by imposing the six month minimum lease, it seems we have a conflict of intent: My recommendation to Council would be to seriously consider the waiver of- the six month minimum lease provision, (Sec. 20-19) . It might be noted, although the condominiumization section of the code does not differenciate between commercial and residential. property, most commercial applications have not had the six month lease imposed. If the concern of Council is to preserve the residential character of this area, perhaps a more direct way to go about it would be a code amendment applying the six month lease to all residential zones (primarily R6, R15 and R30). JR:ds Nt 2 :' P -40 4 2851Â·lm-,Uwl . -I L 4 COUNCIL MEETING January 26, 1980 Councilwoman Michael moved to approve the Castlewood/Headgate conceptual PUD/subdivision review with the following conditions: 1. That the development include 104 living units, that being 73 employee housing units and 31 free market units 2. That rentals on the employee housing units conform to middle income guidelines of $.70 per square foot 3. That the development provide two parking spaces per dwelling unit with the provision of one parking space per bedroom in the event it is determined it is required. 4. The provision of right-of-way for possible Main street extension; dedication of two major open space areas, the land along the Castle Creek corridor and the undeveloped area south of the free market portion of the project. 5. Prohibition against short term rentals in the development. 6. Access to the development to be off highway.82 in the Cemetery Lane area 7. Location of the employee housing units to the southernmost portion of the property seconded by Councilman Van Ness Councilmembers. Michael, Van Ness, Behrendt and Mayor Edel in favor; Councilmembers Isaac and Collins opposed. 3. Vif\ Fl__ 46 At -LA-Â£,Â£,4, 603/U I AL{-G-0 - n t. I (- [DV - .. RECORD OF PROCEEDi NGS 100 Leaves FIR' ro C. F. HAE'gl b. P. 5 I. lil. â€¢ RESOLUTION NO. (Series of 1981) WHEREAS, there is concern on the part of Maiolt that it may jeopardize legal rights which may have accrued by virtue of actions by t.he City of Aspen during the heretofore subdivision process, and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has requested Marolt to clioose between two alternative methods in continuing the subdivision process, that is, Marolt may submit an amended Preliminary Plat, or go back to City Council at conceptual phase, and WHEREAS, the City, through its staff has stated its prefer- ence that Marolt go back to City Council at conceptual phase, and WHEREAS, it is the pos ition of the City of Aspen that Marolt, by going back to City Council at conceptual phase, shall not waive any rights which may have accrued during the heretofore subdivi- sion process. i NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, that the City of Aspen hereby covenants agrees that Marolt will not waive any legal rights which may have accrued during the heretofore subdivision proceedings, and that by going back to City Council at conceptual phase, Marolt shall not be deemed to have waived any rights, legal or otherwise, with respect to any prior actions on the part of Marolt or the City of Aspen in connection with the subdivision process for the subject property and the Annexation Agreement executed in contemplation thereof and that Marolt shall retain the same rights, remedies and claims as may have accrued and which may have been asserted if] Marolt did not agree to go back to Council atthe conceptual phase. Dated: Herman Edel Mayor 1 f . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM <0 C. F. 11'HCKFI. H. 8. A L. t). I, Kathryn u. a p voch, duly appointua and acting City Clerk of the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby certity that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day of , 1981. Kathryn S. Koch City Clerk 0 3/91 (1> '01- tulb 0%\25 9 .1,6 -:70 4 1- f - 4 fÂ« 9 21 -b- 216 1 - 4 al_~ LA 1 41-*l f L Y 0 /â€ž646Â«.1 A Alif -f Â»Â©DE * p-j - ir) Ly . Study Session City Council and P&Z December 8, 1980 H Council and P&Z met at noon to discuss the Castlewood/Headgate subdivision application. B Present were Councilmembers Behrendt, Michael, Parry and Van Ness; P&Z members Hedstrom ~ i Harvey, Pardee, Blomquist, Tygre, Anderson and Hunt. Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt stated there i have been problems with this application. It is the first 70/30 residential bonus projectÂ·' of any size. The P&Z has strong feelings about this project. The Council would like to hear from the applicant and the P & Z. Sun rÂ¥ Vann, planning office, reviewed the application from the beginning. The property was annexed and rezoned with a revision provision in the event a development solution could not be reached. The annexation agreement was written with the tone to infer this would be an appropriate location for a 70/30 density bonus project, if the variety of concerns of staff, P&Z and Council could be met. A maximum density of 125 units was set; the criteria was ability of site to carry the units, open space, etc. These issues could be addressed through t PUD process as the residential bonus had not been passed. The under- lying zone, R-15A would have permitted about 150 units ignoring site constraints - slope reduction, rights-of-way, access. PUD would give the mechanism of a review process. Vann stated if the net acreage of the parcel is reduced down from 35 acres to 20 to 25 acres for these site constraints, it would result in a net density of 90 to 110 units. At the time of annexation, the applicant contended financial investigations indicated a density of 125 units would be necessary. The planning office and City Council reluctantly agreed to go ahead with this figure with the understanding that through the PUD process, ! the applicant would show whether this was realistic and. if 125 units was required. The I property was rezoned to R-15A/PUD/SPA because before the residential bonus, multi-family i could not be permitted without SPA. Since then, any more units over the underlying zone ~ district would require rezoning to residential bonus overlay. The applicant put together a conceptual PUD subdivision based on the annexation constraints. Several alternatives were submitted to the planning office. These were referred to in- ; house agencies, Open Space Advisory Board and some citizens' groups. A number of issues | arose and the applicant was notified in an effort to resolve some potential problems. In i the meetings with OSAB and the P & Z, three parameters came out. (1) vehicular access to 2 employee and free market sites should be via a Cemetery Lane extension - engineering and I P & Z felt Castle Creek could not take the added traffic. (2) Another concern from OSAB and concurred by P&Z was that open space should not be fragmented but a significant , open space parcel should be created by the development and should be contiguous to the Thomas property. (3) From review of all proposals, it was found the employee housing units should be located south of the Main street extension to maintain a significant open space li parcel, proximity to transportation and the constraints of adding additional employee d traffic to Castle Creek. r 11 , Based on these parameters, the applicant came up with a revised plan to incorporate these.'! l There was an additional plan to show the employee housing on the southernmost part of ~ the property. P&Z reviewed this, and at conceptual approval came up with six criteria. Â·t (1) development of employee housing confined north of Main street right-of-way and south of Highway 82 and east of a mutually agreed upon right-of-way for the Castle Creek/Cemetery ~' Lane connector. (2) development of the free market housing be south of the Main street i~ extension right-of-way. (3) that site constraints determine development densities. (4) h no indication of appropriate density of 125 units be given at conceptual review but be deferred to P&Z preliminary plat review. (5) recommendations regarding parking, Midlandi right-of-way, open space, trails and road dedication be deferred to preliminary at the a request of the applicant. (6) all free market units be subject to six month rental 1 restrictions. The applicants had requested exemption from the six month rental restrictiohs 1, This is the way the application left P & Z. Council essentially concurred with the 4 additional condition that the Castle Creek/Cemetery Lane extension right-of-way be located to maximize the size of the parcel for employee housing. The application then went to preliminary plat. The planning office memorandum at that i time states the applicant had concurred with the paramemters imposed on it in the con- i ceptual process. The engineering department had site specific conditions, technical in ! nature. Vann told Council a new feature. at the preliminary stage was a separate one acre parcel for relocation of Mrs. Marolt's house. It was argued this would create further I intrusion into the option space on the southern portion of the property. P & Z did not ! agree with the planning office and had no problem with this. The parking issue was dealt i with at preliminary, and P&Z stated the applicant must meet one space requirement for i residential development. However, P&Z was willing to waive an initial provision in the free market portion with flexibility to provide this at final plat. | The planning office recommended the integrity of the Midland right-of-way be maintained - ' no development be allowed in this right-of-way until a final disposition was made. P&Z' did not concur with this and felt it was appropriate to take a stand and pass their , recommendation to Council. P & Z recommended the Main street right-of-way should be a dedicated right-of-way. P&Z approved the applicant's site plan, which shows development in the Midland right-of-way. P&Z reaffired their commitment to the six month rental i; restrictions. 2 Vann told the Boards density is at 114 units, including Mrs. Marolt's relocated structure.~ Vann said the applicant provided detailed information regarding the slope reducation, and ' the planning office computed the underlying zone density to be 100 units on the PUD find- 3 ings. The planning office argued, given the parameters of where the units were to be , located and the conditons put on at conceptual stage, that the applicant would have to use C Â·' the residential bonus to get the density to 114 units over the underlying 100 units. Vann explained a reduction of 14 units would not significantly reduce the visual or physical impact of the project. A substantial reducation to 80 units would make a change. i .. Study Session C.it.X. Council and P & Z DecemberÂ· 8, 1980 P & Z, in reviewing preliminary plat, had a problem with the employee units - they were alli over the minimum size of City Code, which resulted in the rents falling close to middle ~ income guidelines. P & Z felt to approve this project and at this location, it should be I providing more affordable employee housing. P & Z tabled the application for the applicant to change the size of the employee units so that the rents would be closer to moderate income range. Vann said the applicants then submitted revised drawings for the employee portion, slight change in mix, smaller units, with rents about at the moderate range in * 1Â·982. There were some other changes, and the planning office was reserving comments for a site plan. Vann told Council not all P&Z members agreed with the location of the units. At the public hearing, there was considerable input that the project was too big, too dense, on the entrance to Aspen, too expensive. At the last P&Z meeting, the P&Z tabled action with a straw vote -- if the applicant submitted changes, could the Commission approve the project -- and a 5 to 1 vote against. Al Blomquist asked to what extent the City had a contractual obligation through the annexa- tion agreement. Acting City Attorney Bob Edmundson said the agreement speaks to that with the revision clause. Lee Pardee asked taht upon conceptual approval with three conditions, which the applicant has met,Â·what reliance does the applicant have. Edmundson said the process is three-pronged, conceptual, preliminary, and final, and there is never any agree- ment an applicant is " in". Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt asked that P&Z and Council go over the areas of concern - siting, density, easements, costs of the units. Olof Hedstrom said at the beginning there was the goal of employee housing; this was a developer that listended to all concerns. Hedstrom said at the first public hearing of preliminary plat there was great sincerity and devotion to Aspen rather than personal concerns. Hedstrom stated "density is forever", and people will always have to look at , this project on the entrance to town. Hedstrom agreed with the OSAB original recommendation that the entire parcel remain open space; however, he disagrees with the compromise that the project be clustered at the bridge and Highway. Hedstrom stated he feels the open !1 space should be preserved on both sides of the Highway to the Castle Creek bridge. Hedstrom said he felt the density is too great, and whatever it is, it should be as far back and out of sight as possible. Hedstrom said he doubted in the end this project would provide affordable employee housing. Lee Pardee stated he has always been in favor of the project. The developer has been coop- erative; the City gave parameters, which they met. Pardeed stated he liked the 70/30 policy. Pardee said he felt the P&Z was swayed by the OSAB, and he would prefer the units in the corner away from Highway 82 where they can be hidden. Pardee said his problem was I the cost of the units. Pardee stated density should be a function of location, site plan, i etc. Pardee said he does not mind density but does mind bulk and massing. i Welton Anderson said he did not know enough about financial feasibility to determine density under the "Robin Hood" theory. Anderson said this project may be too dense. Anderson i stated his problem is the location and the siting. Anderson said he would prefer the siting as originally presented; the density is, perhaps, an economic problem. Roger Hunt said, given the decision there will be develobment here, the choice is now what is the next best thing to occur. Hunt stated he felt now is the wrong time to be denying a project. Hunt pointed out, on the basis of inspections, it was decided to cluster development near accesses and leave everything else opeh. Hunt said he preferred concen- trated development, however at a slightly less density, where it is on the preliminary plat. On the right-of-way question, Hunt wants the Main street extension. Hunt stated the employee housing is still too high in cost, but what isn't. Hunt reiterated it is too late to say no. Jasmine Tygre stated her initial concern was the cost of employee housing; the idea of extra density or overlay bonus is an exchange to get employee housing, which was perceived as a community need. 70/30 bonus is not appropriate to get moderate or middle income hous- ing but should produce low income housing. Ms. Tygre said she is not in favor of the siting with the employee units close to Highway 82. If a relocation is possible, she would prefer them farther from view. Regarding overall density, Ms. Tygre stated this is much too dense but could not give a specific number of units. Ms. Tygre said the impact of this many more people on the west side of town has to be looked at with respect to Main street and the transportation system. The traffic patterns will change. Al Blomquist said he felt there is a contractual obligation through the annexation agree- ment. Blomquist demonstrated on a map where he felt the employee housing should be moved. Blcmquist stated the open space corridor along the river is priceless, and a big issue is that the parcels across the river not be sold and be kept as part of the open space. Secondly, the open space connector across to the golf course and onto the Zoline property i: a great planning opportunity for continuous open space. Perry Harvey concurred that the entrance to town should not be built upon. Harvey stated the density is approximately 20 to 25 per cent too great. The easements are all right; trails will be worked out. Harvey pointed out this project is making a trade with a developer - he gets 30 per cent free market housing in exchan'ge for 70 per cent good employee housing. Harvey stated, although this is not the city's concern, the 30 per cent I.-) has to work economically. The six month r*ital restriction cannot be applied to these free market units; they have to be able to be sold for the maximum amount of money. If not, this will compromise the quality of the employee units. J - Hedstrom stated the .density is too high by 20 to 25 per cent; the developer has to work out finances to achieve density the P&Z and Council can support for the people of Aspen. Hedstrom reiterated he would accept siting as far back as possible from the highway. ' Regarding the six month rental restriction, Hedstrom is in favor of it but would accept a I waiver to make the project work. Pardee stated he favored no restriction. Hunt said if ~ the city wanted to take off the six month rental restrictions, then rezone the property i L-1 and L-2; if they want it residential, keep it residential which requires six month ! rental restrictions. .. Study Session City Council and P&Z December 8, 1980 1, Vann told the Boards the project has been designed with short-term receiver areas and 2 uses. The planning office arguement is that this is an R-15 zone district and appropriate. Â· for long term residential uses and should be restricted. Ms. Tygre said she felt it : important to uphold the six month .resntal restrictions in this area to retain it as a ! residential area. Blomquist said no to six month rental restrictions. Anderson stated ~ he saw no answer to this question as the units could be vacant 10 or 11 months a year. i Vann restated the issue whether this should be a residential area by definition and what ! happens to that concept to provide a mechanism to short term the units. If the six month ~ lease restriction is ignored here and a different project corries in, where dces one draw I the line. Pardee pointed out with the new 70/30 ordinance and special review procedures, i on of the procedures can be to review whether or not the six month rental restrictions I should apply. This would require a minor Code amendment. | Councilman Van Ness stated he preferred the density toward the read and has no problem I with the 114 unit density. Van Ness said the cost of the employee units seems reasonable , and yes, there should be six month rental restrictions on the units. Van Ness said it is , important that something should be built on this property as the City is committed by i contract. Behrendt stated the City is not committed by contract as pointed out by the ~ Acting City Attorney. Councilwoman Michael said she felt all through the process siting of employee housing should be at Castle Creek. This did not come to Council as an option. Ms. Michael pointed out, 1 whether this project is done or not, Castle Creek is going to be inadequate. The ~ community will have to come to a conclusion, Marolt project or not, that something will Q have to be done about Castle Creek. Ms. Michael stated she preferred the siting of the 1 6 0 employee housing on Caslte Creek with the understanding the inadequacy of Castle Creek ; road will have to be dealt with. Ms. Michael agreed with the right-of-way as proposed. 4 The density should be around 100 or as low as practical; the six month rental restrictionsj should stay. Councilman Parry said he preferred siting of the original map; the density is okay. Parry [ said he preferred Main street right-of-way and does not care about the Midland-right-of-4 way. The cost of employee housing is fine. Parry said he does not think the six month j rental restrictions is necessary. Behrendt told the Boards that Mayor Edel had said a d project is necessary but would like to see the density reduced. Behrendt stated the public sector has to recognize with this project, Castleridge, county project, the hospital, etc.I something has to be done about the roads. Behrendt said he wanted the siting of the i project at the rear of the site. Behrendt said he would go as far as 90 units for ~ density. The Main street right-of-way has to stay and Behrendt would appeal to leave the Il Midland right-of-way open or 30 years away, the next technology will have no place to go. 4 Behrendt stated the narrow Midland strip should remain open ahd everything should be built. ' back of that to the maximum density allowed. Behrendt said, regarding the cost of employee housing, to expect the developer to build quality units, the moderate category should be considered. Behrendt said given the location of the free market units and the residential character of the neighborhood, he would not want to see the units short-termed and wants the six month rental restriction to remain. Jim Mulligan, representing the applicant, told the Boards they did not expect the units to generally be used as short-term rentals; however, from marketability this is a buyer choice. Also permanent financing with a six month restriction is very difficult. Carly Woods said the designers of the project felt the units should be at the south. Vann stated he felt this meeting indicated this project is back at conceptual stage. Considering the cost involved in goihg to preliminary stage, the applicant will not want to go back to preliminary stage until they get a conceptual approval from P&Z and Council. Vann outlined the issues and the geineral consensus. . (1) new conceptual approval with the employee housing at the southernmost part of the property. (2) density - the feeling is split but most in favor of a reduction from 80 to 100 units with the minority members saying the existing density is all .right. The underlying zone density is 100 units, and some members say an increase above the underlying density may be inappropriate. (3) the question of access to Castle Creek is subject to discussion with a tendency that improvement to Castle Creek is required. There are alternatives on the location of this alignment. (4) The Main street right-of-way .should be a dedicated right-of-way. Behrendt and Hedstrom want the Midland right-of-way to be preserved. Vann said this issue may become moot if the density goes down and it is not necessary to develop into the right-of-way itself. Ms. Michael stated the majority of people do not feel the Midland important enough to change the site design in that area. Vann brought up the six month minimum lease - which he felt the Boards are generally in favor of keeping. The general feeling of the Boards is to keep the cost of the employee housing low to moderate. The applicant asked if there was any predisposition against the apartment-type housing. P & Z and Council said no. Behrendt asked now where this is in the process. Vann said the P&Z cannot take action on the plat as submitted. Vann said ' the applicant will have to go back to conceptual approval before P & Z, unless Council ; wants to defer that step and have the conceptual come straight to Council. Mulligan said i this application has been approved at conceptual with certain parameters. Changing those pre-approved parameters, they are no longer in the same plat mode procedurally. They ' have to go back and start at conceptual again. What has caused this is the relocation ~ of the building envelope for the employee project; that is the only change. Mulligan said the applicant has spent time, energy and money trying to solve the issue regarding I the Castle Creek road. It tas the city engineering department said that the employee ~ units could not be there just because of that road. They relocated the employee units i up by highway 82 for that reason. Wayne Chapman, city manager, said the Council seems to+ be saying they are willing to bite the bullet, temporarily, with the traffic problems that are created by putting the employee envelope on the back. If the units are left at the front, they are there forever and no matter'what traffic improvements are made, which will have to be made irrespective of that, the units will be there forever. Council is i saying they will trade off the hopefully temporary traffic problem in the hopes of getting a clear portal at the bridge. !1 t .. Study Session City Council and P&Z December 8, 1980 Behrendt reiterated he felt the Midland right-of-way should be designed around or there ~ will be problems in the future. Behrendt asked where this application was in terms of | process. Vann said there is a preliminary plat pending before P & Z, which has been tabled. This plat has to be approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved. Given ,; the change in the conceptual format, the applicant is back at square one. Vann said the i applicant could redesign the preliminary plat; however, with the cost of details required ~ the applicant may not 'to risk that exposure without getting some conceptual approval from , the Boards along these new guidelines. The applicant can have this flexibility if they , want to take the chance. The applicant can also submit a new conceptual to P&Z and this | will be fast tracked to Council; it is up to the applicant. Mulligan said going back to conceputal and fast tracking may be all right; however, all ~ construction figures are based on starting May 1981. If the applicant does go back to i the start, something has to be done with the preliminary plat submission. If the intent | is to let the plat die, it is with the stipulation that the intent of everyone is not to i let the project die. Vann said the planning office would fast track this to the extent | possible; however, there are minimum review requirements to be met. There will be a time ~ delay and more than one P&Z and Council meeting before P&Z sees this as a preliminary I plat. Vann reiterated it is up to the applicant to choose how they wish to proceed; they i may simply redesign their preliminary plat. Behrendt suggested the developer, city attorney , and planning staff get together and work out a solution for taking this project back through P & Z. Hedstrom welcomed that and said they would like to see this project move forward to some kind of solution. Hedstrom said he would prefer them going back to con- ceptual and finding ways to expedite the movement of the application. Vann told Council if the applicant comes in with a revised preliminary plat, when Council sees the project it will be final plat. Vann said P&Z could waive their conceptual review and the applicant could revise their plan along the guidelines outlined here and go straight to Council with the conceptual plan. If this is done, P&Z will have no input to conceptual and will only see this at preliminary stage. Council and P&Z agreed they would try to expedite the matter. Meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m. Kathryn S. Â·Koch, City Clerk J 11 rl, . I .. Study Session City Council and P&Z DecembeIÂ· 8, 1980 li 4 , Council and P &Z met at noon to discuss the Castlewood/Headgate subdivision application. 9 Present were Councilmembers Behrendt, Michael, Parry and Van Ness; P&Z members Hedstrom d Harvey, Pardee, Blomquist, Tygre, Anderson and Hunt. Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt stated there b have been problems with this application. It is the first 70/30 residential bonus project: of any size. The P&Z has strong feelings about this project. The Council would like 1 to hear from the applicant and the P & Z. || ! 1 Sun ry Vann, planning office, reviewed the application from the beginning. The property 11 was annexed and rezoned with a revision provision in the event a development solution could not be reached. The annexation agreement was written with the tone to infer this would Â· be an appropriate location for a 70/30 density bonus project, if the variety of concerns ! of staff,P&Z and Council could be met. A maximum density of 125 units was set; the ; criteria was ability of site to carry the units, open space, etc. These issues could be ! addressed through t PUD process as the residential bonus had not been passed. The under- ! lying zone, R-15A would have permitted about 150 units ignoring site constraints - slope i reduction, rights-of-way, access. PUD would give the mechanism of a review process. Vann stated if the net acreage of the parcel is reduced down from 35 acres to 20 to 25 I acres for these site constraints, it would result in a net density of 90 to 110 units. I At the time of annexation, the applicant contended financial investigations indicated a i density of 125 units would be necessary. The planning office and City Council reluctantly agreed to go ahead with this figure with the understanding that through the PUD process, 1 the applicant would show whether this was realistic and if 125 units was required. The 1 property was rezoned to R-15A/PUD/SPA because before the residential bonus, multi-family ~ could not be permitted without SPA. Since then, any more units over the underlying zone I district would require rezoning to residential bonus overlay. The applicant put together a conceptual PUD subdivision based on the annexation constraints. Several alternatives were submitteri to the planning office. These were referred to in- l house agencies, Open Space Advisory Board and some citizens' groups. A number of issues 1 arose and the applicant was notified in an effort to resolve some potential problems. In ! the meetings with OSAB and the P & Z, three parameters came out. (1) vehicular access to ! employee and free market sites should be via a Cemetery Lane extension - engineering and ! P & Z felt Castle Creek could not take the added traffic. (2) Another concern from OSAB i and concurred by P&Z was that open space should not be fragmented but a significant ' open space parcel should be created by the development and should be contiguous to the ' Thomas property. (3) From review of all proposals, it was found the employee housing units should be located south of the Main street extension to maintain a significant open space i parcel, proximity to transportation and the constraints of adding additional employee traffic to Castle Creek. 1 ~ i Based on these parameters, the applicant came up with a revised plan to incorporate these.t There was an additional plan to show the employee housing on the southernmost part of , the property. P&Z reviewed this, and at conceptual approval came up with six criteria. 1 (1) development of employee housing confined north of Main street right-of-way and south of Highway 82 and east of a mutually agreed upon right-of-way for the Castle Creek/Cemetery Lane connector. (2) development of the free market housing be south of the Main street ~ extension right-of-way. (3) that site constraints determine development densities. (4) 11 no indication of appropriate density of 125 units be given at conceptual review but be i deferred to P&Z preliminary plat review. (5) recommendations regarding parking, MidlandA right-of-way, open space, trails and road dedication be deferred to preliminary at the H request of the applicant. (6) all free market units be subject to six month rental p restrictions. The applicants had requested exemption from the six month rental restrictions. li This is the way the application left P & Z. Council essentially concurred with the , additional condition that the Castle Creek/Cemetery Lane extension right-of-way be located' to maximize the size of the parcel for employee housing. The application then went to preliminary plat. The planning office memorandum at that time states the applicant had concurred with the paramemters imposed on it in the con- ceptual process. The engineering department had site specific conditions, technical in nature. Vann told Council a new feature at the preliminary stage was a separate one acre parcel for relocation of Mrs. Marolt's house. It was argued this would create further intrusion into the option space on the southern portion of the property. P & Z did not agree with the planning office and had no problem with this. The parking issue was dealt with at preliminary, and P&Z stated the applicant must meet one space requirement for residential development. However, P&Z was willing to waive an initial provision in the free market portion with flexibility to provide this at final plat. The planning office recommended the integrity of the Midland right-of-way be maintained - , no development be allowed in this right-of-way until a final disposition was made. P & Z ' did not concur with this and felt it was appropriate to take a stand and pass their I recommendation to Council. P & Z recommended the Main street right-of-way should be a I dedicated right-of-way. P&Z approved the applicant's site plan, which shows development in -the Midland right-of-way. P&Z reaffired their commitment.to the six month rental restrictions. Vann told the Boards density is at 114 units,.including Mrs. Marolt's relocated structure.; Vann said the applicant provided deta-iled information regarding the slope reducation, and 4 ' I the planning office computed the underlying zone density .to be 100 units on the PUD find- |. ings. The planning office *rgued, given the parameters of where the units were to be located and the conditons put on at conceptual stage, that the applicant would have to use tÂ·i the residential bonus to get the density to 114 units over the underlying 100 units. Vann explained a reduction of 14 units would not significantly reduce the visual or physical J impact of the project. A substantial reducation to 80 units would make a change. i 1 i .. Study Session City Council and P&Z December 8, 1980 P & Z, in reviewing preliminary plat, had a problem with the employee units - they were alll over the minimum size of. City Code, which resulted in the rents falling close to middle ~ income guidelines. P &Z felt to approve this project and at this location, it should be ~ ,~ providing more affordable employee housing. P&Z tabled the application for the applicant to change the size of the employee units so that the rents would be closer to moderate income range. Vann said the applicants then submitted revised drawings for the employee portion, slight change in mix, smaller units, with rents about at the moderate range in ' 1982. There were some other changes, and the planning office was reserving comments for a site plan. Vann told Council not all P&Z members agreed with the location of the units. At the public hearing, there was considerable input that the project was too big, too dense, on the entrance to Aspen, too expensive. At the last P&Z meeting, the P&Z tabled action with a straw vote --' if the applicant submitted changes, could the Commission approve the project -- and a 5 to 1 vote against. Al Blomquist asked to what extent the City had a contractual obligation through the annexa- tion agreement. Acting City Attorney Bob Edmundson said the agreement speaks to that with the revision clause. Lee Pardee asked taht upon conceptual approval with three conditions, which the applicant has met, what reliance does the applicant have. Edmundson said the process is three-pronged, conceptual, preliminary, and final, and there is never any agree- ment an applicant is "in". Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt asked that P&Z and Council go over the areas of concern - siting, density, easements, costs of the units. Olof Hedstrom said at the beginning there was the goal of employee housing; this was a developer that listended to all concerns. Hedstrom said at the first public hearing of preliminary plat there was great sincerity and devotion to Aspen rather than personal concerns. Hedstrom stated "density is forever", and people will always have to look at this project on the entrance to town. Hedstrom agreed with the OSAB original recommendatioh that the entire parcel remain open space; however, he disagrees with the compromise that the project be clustered at the bridge and Highway. Hedstrom stated he feels the open ~ space should be preserved on both sides of the Highway to the Castle Creek bridge. Hedstrom said he felt the density is too great, and whatever it is, it should be as far back and out of sight as possible. Hedstrom said he doubted in the end this project would provide l affordable employee housing. Lee Pardee stated he has always been in favor of the project. The developer has been coop- . erative; the City gave parameters, which they met. Pardeed stated he liked the 70/30 , policy. Pardee said he felt the P&Z was swayed by the OSAB, and he would prefer the units in the corner away from. Highway 82 where they can be hidden. Pardee said his problem was ~ the cost of the units. Pardee stated density should be a function of location, site plan, I etc. Pardee said he does not mind density but does mind bulk and massing. , J Welton Anderson said he did not know enough about financial feasibility to determi.ne density under the "Robin Hood" theory. Anderson said this project may be too dense. Anderson & stated his problem is the location and the siting. Anderson said he would prefer the siting as originally presented; the density is, perhaps, an economic problem. Roger Hunt said, given the decision there will be development here, the choice is now what is the next best thing to occur. Hunt stated he felt now is the wrong time to be denying a project. Hunt pointed out, on the basis of inspections, it was decided to cluster development near accesses and leave everything else apen. Hunt said he preferred concen- trated development, however at a slightly less density, where it is on the preliminary plat. On the right-of-way question, Hunt wants the Main street extension. Hunt stated the employee housing is still too high in cost, but what isn't. Hunt reiterated it is too late to say no. Jasmine Tygre stated her initial concern was the cost of employee housing; the idea of extra density or overlay bonus is an exchange to get employee housing, which was perceived as a community need. 70/30 bonus is not appropriate to get moderate or middle income hous- ing but should produce low income housing. Ms. Tygre said she is not in favor of the siting with the employee units close to Highway 82. If a relocation is possible, she would prefer them farther from view. Regarding overall density, Ms. Tygre stated this is much too dense but could not give a,specific number of units. Ms. Tygre said the impact of this many more people on the west side of town has to be looked at with respect to Main street and the transportation system. The traffic patterns will change. Al Blomquist said he felt there is a contractual obligation through the annexation agree- ment. Blomquist demonstrated on a map where he felt the employee housing should be moved. Blomquist stated the open space corridor along the river is priceless, and a big issue is that the parcels across the river not be sold and be kept as part of the open space. Secondly, the open space connector across to the golf course and onto the Zoline property 13 a great planning opportunity for continuous open space. Perry Harvey concurred that the entrance to town should not be built upon. Harvey stated the density is approximately 20 to 25 per cent too great. The easements are all right; trails will be worked out. Harvey pointed out this project is making a trade with a developer - he gets 30 per cent free market housing in exchange for 70 per cent good employee housing. Harvey stated, although this is not the city' s concern, the 30 per cent -I has to work economically. The six month rental restriction cannot be applied to these ' free market units; they have to be able to be sold for the maximum amount of money. If ' not, this will compromise the quality of the employee units. Hedstrom stated the density is too high by 20 to 25 per cent; the developer has to work out finances to achieve density the P&Z and Council can support for the people of Aspen. Hedstrom reiterated ne would accept siting as far back as possible from the highway. Regarding the six month rental restriction, Hedstrom is in favor of it but would accept a waiver to make the project work. Pardee stated he favored no restriction. Hunt said if the city wanted to take off the six month rental restrictions, then rezone the property i L-1 and L-2; if they want it residential, keep it residential which requires six month i rental restrictions. 4 .. Studv Session City Council and P&Z December 8, 1980 Vann told the Boards the project has been designed with short-term receiver areas and l uses. The planning office arguement is that this is an R-15 zone district and appropriatei i for long term residential uses and should be restricted. Ms. Tygre said she felt it j important to uphold the six month resntal restrictions in this area to retain it as a i residential area. Blomquist said no to six month rental restrictions. Anderson stated i he saw no answer to this question as the units could be vacant 10 or 11 months a year. s Vann restated the issue whether this should be a residential area by definition and what I happens to that concept to provide a mechanism to short term the units. If the six month 1 lease restriction is ignored here and a different project comes in, where does one draw j the line. Pardee pointed out with the new 70/30 ordinance and special review procedures, : on of the procedures can be to review whether or not the six month rental restrictions i should apply. This would require a minor Code amendment. Councilman Van Ness stated he preferred the density toward the read and has no problem I with the 114 unit density. Van Ness said the cost of the employee units seems reasonable ' and yes, there should be six month rental restrictions on the units. Van Ness said it is important that something should be built on this property as the City is committed by : contract. Behrendt stated the City is not committed by contract as pointed out by the ! Acting City Attorney. Councilwoman Michael said she felt all through the process sit-ing of employee housing should be at Castle Creek. This did not come to Council as an option. Ms. Michael pointed out, 1 whether this project is done or not, Castle Creek is going to be inadequate. The community will have to come to a conclusion, Marolt project or not, that something will ~ have to be done about Castle Creek. Ms. Michael stated she preferred the siting of the | . employee housing on Caslte Creek with the understanding the inadequacy of Castle Creek i road will have to be dealt with. Ms. Michael agreed with the right-of-way as proposed. I The density should be around 100 or as low as practical; the six month rental restrictions should stay. Councilman Party said he preferred siting of the original map; the density is okay. Parry : said he preferred Main street right-of-way and does not care about the Midland-right-of- way. The cost of employee housing is fine. Parry said he does not think the six month i rental restrictions is necessary. Behrendt told the Boards that Mayor Edel had said a project is necessary but would like to see the density reduced. Behrendt stated the public ' sector has to recognize with this project, Castleridge, county project, the hospital, etc.4 something has to be done about the roads. Behrendt said he wanted the siting of the N project at the rear of the site. Behrendt said he would go as far as 90 units for 1 density. . The Main street right-of-way has to stay and Behrendt would appeal to leave the li Midland right-of-way open or 30 years away, the next technology will have no place to go. '' Behrendt stated the narrow Midland strip should remain open and everything should be builti back of that to the maximum density allowed. Behrendt said, regarding the cost of employee housing, to expect the developer to build quality units, the moderate category should be considered. Behrendt said given the location of the free market units and the residential character of the neighborhood, he would not want to see the units short-termed and wants L 11 the six month rental restriction to remain. 11 Jim Mulligan, representing the applicant, told the Boards they did not expect the units I to generally be used as short-term rentals; however, from marketability this is a buyer I~ choice. Also permanent financing with a six month restriction is very difficult. Carly Q H Woods said the designers of the project felt the units should be at the south. 11 Vann stated he felt this meeting indicated this project is back at conceptual stage. !~ Considering the cost involved in going to preliminary stage, the applicant will not want Q to go back to preliminary stage until they get a conceptual approval from P &Z and 1; Council. Vann outlined the issues and the general consensus. (1) new conceptual approvali with the employee housing at the southernmost part of the property. (2) density - the 2 feeling is split but most in favor of a reduction from 80 to 100 units with the minority I' members saying the existing density is all right. The underlying zone density is 100 ' units, and some members say an increase above the underlying density may be inappropriate.' (3) the question of access to Castle Creek is subject to discussion with a tendency that improvement to Castle Creek is required. There are alternatives on the location of this alignment. (4) The Main street right-of-way should be a dedicated right-of-way. Behrendt and Hedstrom want the Midland right-of-way to be preserved. Vann said this issue may become moot if the density goes down and it is not necessary to develop into the right-of-way itself. Ms. Michael stated the majority of people do not feel the Midland important enough to change the site design in that area. Vann brought up the six month minimum lease - which he felt the Boards are generally in favor of keeping. The general feeling of the Boards is to keep the cost of the employee housing low to moderate. The applicant asked if there was any predisposition against the apartment-type housing. P & Z and Council said no. Behrendt asked now where this is in the process. Vann said the P&Z cannot take action on the plat as submitted. Vann said the applicant will have to go back to conceptual approval before P & Z, unless Council wants to defer that step and have the conceptual come straight to Council. Mulligan said this application has been approved at conceptual with certain parameters. Changing those pre-approved parameters, they are no longer in the same plat mode procedurally. They have to go back and start at conceptual again. What has caused this is the relocation r. of the building envelope for the employee project; that is the only change. Mulligan said the applicant has spent time, energy and money trying to solve the issue regarding the Castle Creek road. It was the city engineering department said that the employee units could not be there just because of that road. They relocated the employee units up by highway 82 for that reason. Wayne Chapman, city manager, said the Council seems to be saying they are willing to bite the bullet, temporarily, with the traffic problems that are created by putting the employee envelope on the back. If the units are left at the front, they are there forever and no matter what traffic improvements are made, which 1 will have to be made irrespective or that, the units will be there forever. Council is i saying they will trade off the hopefully temporary traffic problem in the hopes of getting a clear portal at the bridge. 1 Study Session City Council and P&Z December 8, 1980 Behrendt reiterated he felt the Midland right-of-way should be designed around or there will be problems in the future. Behrendt asked where this application was in terms of process. Vann said there is a preliminary plat pending before P & Z, which has been tabled. This plat has to be approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved. Given the change in the conceptual format, the applicant is back at square one. Vann said the applicant could redesign the preliminary plat; however, with the cost of details required the applicant may not to risk that exposure without getting some conceptual approval from the Boards along these new guidelines. The applicant can have this flexibility if they ' want to take the chance. The applicant can also submit a new conceptual to P&Z and this will be fast tracked to Council; it is up to the applicant. Mulligan said going back to conceputal and fast tracking may be all right; however, all construction figures are based on starting May 1981. If the applicant does go back to the start, something has to be done with the preliminary plat submission. If the intent is to let the plat die, it is with the stipulation that the intent of everyone is not to let the project die. Vann sa-id the planning office would fast track this to the extent possible; however, there are minimum review requirements to be met. There will be a time delay and more than one P&Z and Council meeting before P&Z sees this as a preliminary plat. Vann reiterated it is up to the applicant to choose how they wish to proceed; they may simply redesign their preliminary plat. Behrendt suggested the developer, city attorney and planning staff get together and work out a solution for taking this project back through P & Z. Hedstrom welcomed that andÂ·said they would like to see this project move forward to some kind of solution. Hedstrom said he would prefer them going back to con- ceptual and finding ways to expedite the movement of the application. Vann told Council if the applicant comes in with a revised preliminary plat, when Council sees the project it will be final plat. Vann said P&Z could waive their conceptual review and the . applicant could revise their plan along the guidelines outlined here and go straight to .Council with the conceptual plan. If this is done, P&Z will have no input to conceptual and will only see this at preliminary stage. Council and P&Z agreed they would try to expedite the matter. Meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 1