Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.Castlewood Headgate Sub.1981-3044 4 (14\e-,reo 1, A edyle- 94 Ccuy, btll-? D -#3 t»'U•·-t 4k22 li L- L# U 1 2 ILI . .. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director RE: Castlewood/Headgate Final PUD/Subdivision Review . 11 Ov * j DATE: May 5, 1981 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~76:t / 0 6 £90-6 -€12 40, t BACKGROUND In view of the numerous reviews which this project has under§one and to facili- tate your understanding of the applicants' Final PUD/Subdivision submission, I have briefly outlined below the most salient steps in the process to date and the recommendations or the conditions that have ensued. Should you have any questions or wish additional detail with respect to the outline, please contact the Planning Office prior to your May 11, 1981 meeting. 1. On January 28, 1980, Council approved the annexation and rezoning of the approximately 35 acre Marolt property. Based on the recommendation of the Planning Office and P & Z, the property was rezoned from AF-2 to R-15A/ PUD/SPA, with the additional stipulation that at least 70% of the proposed development consist of deed restricted employee units. 2. On July 22, 1980, P&Z approved the Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual PUD/Subdivision application. The Commission moved to approve with modi- fication the applicants' proposed development plan in view of the numerous work sessions that proceeded P&Z review and to expedite further processing of the application. The Commission, however, conditioned its motion to approve upon the following: A. 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 Cemetary Lane/Castle Creek connector, B. That development of the project's free market housing be confined to the area immediately south of the proposed Main Street extension right-of-way, C. That site constraints within the development envelopes outlined above determine development densities, D. 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, E. That recommendations with respect to parking requirements; the Midland right-of-way; and open space, trails and road dedications also be deferred until Preliminary Plat review, and F. That all free market development be subject to the six (6) month minimum lease requirements of Section 20-22 of the Municipal Code. 3. On August 11, 1980, Council approved the applicants' Conceptual PUD/ Subdivision submission. Council concurred with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations with the additional stipulations that the proposed Cemetary Lane/Castle Creek connector be located so as to minimize intrusions · into the adjacent Thomas property and that the proposed right- of-way be approved by the Engineering Department and the Planning Office. 4. On November 18, 1980, P&Z reviewed the applicants' Preliminary PUD/ Subdivision submission. All of the conditions attached by P&Z and Council at the conceptual review stage with respect to design parameters were met by .. Memo: Castlewood/Headgate Final PUD/Subdivision Review May 5, 1981 Page Two the applicants and incorporated into their Preliminary Plat application. No formal action was taken by P&Zat this meeting. The Commission, however, expressed considerable concern over the projected rental rates of the employee housing portion of the project and the application was tabled until December 2 in order to enable the applicants to reconsider this aspect of their proposal. 5. The applicants submitted a revised employee housing proposal which was reviewedby P& Zon December 2, 1980. While the revised employee rental structure more closely approximated the City's employee housing price guidelines. There was considerable public concern expressed at the public hearing with regard to the size of the project, its density, its location with respect to the entrance to Aspen, and their revised price structure. A straw vote resulted in a 5 to 1 decision to deny the proposal and the application was tabled to a date uncertain. 6. On December 8, 1980, an informal work session involving both the Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council and the Planning Office was held to dis- cuss the Commission's concerns and the current status of the Castlewood/ Headgate project. After considerable discussion, it was the general con- sensus of opinion of both P&Z and Council that the project could be approved if certain revised design parameters were adhered to. These parameters were: A. That the employee housing portion of the project be relocated to the southernmost extremity of the site, B. That the overall density of the project be reduced to approximately 100 units, C. That the Main Street right-of-way be dedicated as the preferred alignment for a revised entrance to Aspen, D. That the project be subject to the six (6) month minimum lease restriction of Section 20-22 of the Municipal Code, and E. That all efforts be made to minimize to the extent possible the projected rental rates of the employee portion of the project. 7. The applicants revised their development proposal to essentially comply with the December 8 directives and resubmitted it to City Council for Con- ceptual PUD/Subdivision review on January 26, 1981. Council approved the applicants' revised Conceptual submission subject to the following conditions: A. That the overall project density not exceed the proposed 104 units, B. That the rental rate on the employee housing portion of the project not exceed 70¢ per sq. ft., C. That the development plan provide for the provision of one parking space per bedroom provided, however, that two parking spaces per dwelling unit may be provided for the free market portion of the project until such time as additional parking is determined to be required, D. The dedication of the Main Street right-of-way and the open space areas as depicted on the applicants' revised conceptual submission, E. The prohibition against short-term rental of the free market portion of the project, F. That access to the development be provided via Highway 82 and the proposed Cemebary Lane extensions and .. Memo: Castlewood/Headgate Final PUD/Subdivision Review May 5, 1981 Page Three G. The relocation of the employee housing portion to the southern- most extremity of the site. 8. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the applicants' revised Preliminary PUD/Subdivision submission on February 10, 1981. Essentially all of the conditions imposed by Council at its January 25 meeting were met by the applicants and the revised submission was approved subject to the following conditions: A. Correction of a number of primarily Plat related issues identified by the Engineering Department in their memorandum dated February 3, 1981, B. The completion of all outstanding Final PUD/Subdivision submission requirements prior to City Council review, and C. Incorporation of a prohibition against short-term utilization of the free market portion of the project in the PUD/Subdivision Agreement. In addition to Preliminary PUD/Subdivision approval the applicants also requested the following: A. Rezoning to R-15A/PUD/Residential Bonus Overlay in order to permit construction in excess of the underlying zone density, B. Subdivision approval for purposes of condominiumization of the free market units, C. Exemption from Growth Management under the 70:30 provision for the free market portion of the units, and D. Exception from the six-month minimum lease requirements applicable to condominiumization. With respect to these requests, P&Z moved to recommend to Council that the property be rezoned as requested; that the applicants' request for Growth Management exemption and condominiumization be approved subject to the deed restriction of the employee units to 70¢ per sq. ft. and compliance with the six-month minimum lease provisions of Section 20-22; and that their request for exception from lease restrictions be denied. CURRENT PROJECT STATUS On Monday, May 11th, you will be reviewing the applicants' Final PUD/Subdivision submission. In addition, you will consider the applicants' requests for the following related approvals: 1. Rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay in order to permit construction in excess of the underlying zone density, 2. Exemption from Growth Management under the 70:30 provision for the free market portion of the project, and 3. Subdivision approval for purgoses of condominiumization of the free market units. Of the remaining outstanding approvals, only the rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay requires ordinance adoption. Inasmuch as the adoption of an appropriate ordinance will require a first reading and a public hearing, the Planning Office recommends that the additional required approvals (i.e., Final PUD/Subdivision, GMP Exemption and Condominiumization) be consolidated with the Residential Bonus Overlay rezoning public hearing. Therefore, on May 11th the only action required is first reading approval of the applicants' request for rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay. .. Memo: Castlewood/Headgate Final PUD/Subdivision Review May 5, 1981 Page Four PLANNING OFFICE COMMENTS The Planning Office's comments with respect to all of the remaining approvals have been, where appropriate, excerpted from prior memoranda, revised as necessary, and are summarized below. 1. Rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay. To accommodate any density in excess of the approximately 102 units permitted by the underlying zone districts the Marolt property must be rezoned as a Residential Bonus Overlay District. The resulting reduction in the R-15A Minimum Lot Area requirements is sufficient to permit the construction of approximately 136 dwelling units, well in excess of the 104 units requested. Should Council wish to recommend approval of the applicants' request for a limited increase in density, the Planning Office feels that the proposed development essentially complies with all rezoning review criteria. The Planning Office is prepared to elaborate on these criteria at your Monday meeting. 2. Exemption from Growth Management. The applicants are requesting Special Review approval for the exemption of the free market portion of the project from Growth Management. Such exemptions are applicable to projects in which at least 70% of the total dwelling units are deed restricted as employee housing and are subject to Council approval upon the recommendation of P & Z. The applicants' proposed development program can be summarized as follows: Employee 36 - two bedroom, two bath at 845 sq. ft. 19 - one bedroom, one bath at 637 sq. ft. 18 - studio, one bath at 484 sq. ft. Free Market: 31 - three bedroom, four bath at 2,400 sq. ft. To insure eligibility, applicants for exemption are encouraged to submit proposals which maintain an average of 1.5 to 2 bedrooms per unit within the employee portion of the project and where at least 50% of the total residential floor area is devoted to deed restricted units. The Castlewood/Headgate submission proposes a bedroom per unit average of 1.5 and 41% of the project's total floor area is devoted to employee housing. While one of these indicators is well below the minimum size requirements, their mix is acceptable, and the free market units are not overly excessive in size. In the absence of any specific objections from the Housing Office, the Planning Office has no objection to the proposed development program. Rental rates for theemployeeunits are 70¢ per sq. ft. which falls between the City's moderate and middle income guidelines. Project rental rates at the time of occupancy will be as follows: Employee: two bedroom at $591.00/month one bedroom at $446.00/month studio/$338.00 month 3. Condominiumization. The applicants' are requesting approval to condo- miniumize the multi-family free market portion of the project. As these units are new construction, and therefore no employee displacement will occur, the Planning Office has no problem with this proposal. Final condo- minium documents will have to be submitted as required by the Engineering Department, and the applicants are subject to the provision of Section 20-22 of the Municipal Code. .. Memo: Castlewood/Headgate Final PUD/Subdivision Review May 5, 1981 Page Five 4. Final PUD/Subdivision. This request for approval represents the last step in the PUD/Subdivision process. Approval is normally followed by recordation of the PUD/Subdivision Plat and execution of an appropriate PUD/Subdivision Agreement. The Planning Office's comments with respect to the applicants' Final Plat are outlined in the Engineering Department's memorandum dated May 6, 1981 which, in the interests of brevity, we have simply attached it for your review. The Department's comments are essentially minor in nature and will have to be rectified by the applicants prior to formal Council action. With respect to the proposed PUD/Subdivision Agreement, the Planning Office, the City Attorney and various other City Departments have identified a number of areas of concern. Inasmuch as the only approval to be delt with by Council at your May 11th meeting is first reading of the request for Residential Bonus Overlay rezoning, the Planning Office and the City Attorney recommend that an informal study session be scheduled with the applicants to discuss our concerns in detail. Ample time exists between first reading of the Residential Bonus Overlay and the public hearing to allow negotiation and finalization of the PUD/Subdivision Agreement. The Planning Offi ce, however, is prepared to discuss the more major concerns at your Monday meeting. PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Office recommends that you approve on first reading, the applicants' request for rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay. We further recommend that an informal study session, to include the Planning Office, the City Attorney, the applicants and other affected City Departments, be scheduled for the purpose of refining the proposed PUD/Subdivision Agreement. Should you concur with the Planning Office recommendations, the appropriate motions are as follows: 1. "I move to read Ordinance No. , Series of 1981." 2. "I move to adopt Ordinance No. , Series of 1981 on first reading." 3. "I move that the Planning Office schedule a special study session for purposes of refining the proposed Castlewood/Headgate PUD/Subdivision Agreement." .. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen City Council FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director RE: Castlewood/Headgate Final PUD/Subdivision Review 1 '1147 DATE: May 20, 1981 APPROVED AS TO FORM: /Ver<-t' P C . /t 0 f .ti,/4«/ fl /i J Background: On May 11, 1981, the consideration of the applicants' request for rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay was tabled on first reading to Tuesday, May 26, due to the absence of several Councilmembers who supported the project. Those Councilmembers present, however, questioned the necessity of the rezoning inasmuch as only two additional dwelling units were proposed to be constructed in excess of the permitted underlying zone density. The applicants agreed to consider reducing the projected density from 104 dwelling units to 100 dwelling units, thus eliminating the need for rezoning. The Planning Office has researched the Planning and Zoning Commission's preliminary PUD/Subdivision Review of the project and has determined that the proposed density could be reduced consistent with the prior P&Z approval. The applicants have agreed to reduce the density to 100 units and are scheduled to appear before Council for final PUD/ Subdivision Review on June 8, 1981. The Planning Office and City Attorney have scheduled a work session for Thursdays May 28 at 4:00 to review and discuss the proposed PUD/Subdivision Agreement. Considerable time has al ready been expended on our behalf in dealing with some of the more perfunctory items of this agreement. A number of issues, however, remain which fall within the area of Council policy. We will be taking you through the entire agreement as well as concentrating on these specific issues which have yet to be resolved. 130 s q'~~h*gJMIa*street aspenlDO) O.{2112'81611 MEMORANDUM TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Director FROM: Jay Hammond, Assistant City Engineer ~ DATE: May 6, 1981 RE: Marolt Ranch Final Plat Submission Having reviewed the above submission for final plat, the Engineering Depart- has the following comments: PLAT 1. It is not clear at this point what portion of the maps submitted for final plat, comprising twenty-three (23) sheets, are intended for recording. Most of the survey information referred to in this section is contained on Sheets 1 through 4 although much of the information appropriate to final plat approval is on other sheets within the set. The applicant may wish to submit a somewhat more concise map set for recording. 2. Two parcels, lots 3 and 4, were chosen as samples within the tract to check bearings and distances for closure. Both lots failed to close by distances in excess of five feet and the applicant should be required to supply calculations supporting the closure of all internal lots. 3. Perimeter bearings and distances on the drawn plat do not correspond with the bearings and distances of the written description. Since the written description closes, the errors were probably a simple transposition of numbers in drafting. Bearing Number Sheet Number Written Drawn 9 2 N 77' 08' 38" W S 770 08' 39" 12 2 S 250 28' W S 280 25' W 20 4 280.15' 280.16' 24 4 117.35' 117.32' 37 3 N 81' 19' 21" E N 810 19' 12" Marolt Ranch Final P ~Submission - May 6, 1981 PAGE TWO PLAT - continued 4. The surveyor should include a bearing on the north line or centerline of the Main Street extension rather than have us assume the north line is parallel. 5. The recorded plat should include a clear vicinity map. The one on the print we received is somewhat difficult to read. 6. The index indicates a number of symbols denoting survey monuments found or set. The plat, however, does not seem to correspond, having symbols not shown in the index and lacking some that are. 7. Proposed ditch realignments should be noted in the recorded plat to be updated by as-built survey following construction. 8. As the legal description refers to the Castle Creek riverbed, it should be shown on the plat. 9. An easement for a future water line on the northwest corner of the plat should be removed and relocated per exhibit "A" attached. AGREEMENT 1. The agreement as written would appear to limit the City's ability to install improvements on its open space parcels. It is the opinion of the Engineering Department that the City should be free to install underground improvements such as water lines, electric lines, vaults, sewers, and other utilities without having to obtain the permission of the owners of lots 1 and 2. Additionally, any maintenance or repair functions should be unencumbered by a need for permission. It is also important at this time for the City to determine whether it wishes to maintain the ability to provide recreational facilities such as paths and playfields on these parcels or accommodate its concern for possible transportation alignments other than Main Street. It would seem unwise to allow the developer, who is supposedly dedicating these parcels for public use, to place too many restrictions on them. 2. Escrow agreement in the amount of $1,050,000.00 appears proper as does the stipulation regarding its release requiring approval by this office. 3. We would defer to comments from the Water and Parks Departments regarding relative water rights and fee values as well as maintenance of the open space parcels. SITE PLAN 1. Drainage basins FM #1 and FM #3 both appear to be located within the proposed Main Street extension right-of-way. Future construction within the proposed alignment may not accommodate the basins and alternate sites should be located. harolt Ranch Final Pl~ubmission . May 6, 1981 PAGE THREE SITE PLAN - continued 2. The suggestion was made in a March 11, 1981 correspondence to Design Workshop that, in view of the deterioration we have experienced with a number of bicycle paths in the area, a thicker asphalt mat or concrete may be appropriate. 3. The landscape plan should include instructions regarding the fence through the proposed intersection paralleling Highway 82. UTILITIES 1. The water line schematic includes a dead end eight-inch (8") line serving the employee units. This dead end is an undesirable situation and we would prefer to explore the possibility of looping the area. Jim Markalunas is in contact with Eldorado Engineering. 2. All temporary kickblocks are to be concrete. 3. Valve thrustblocks as shown on Sheet 11 are rot necessary. 4. Also, Sheet 11 has a note referring to plastic water mains. There should be no plastic mains on the property as part of the City water system. The contractor for Marolt should not be installing plastic water mains and if he should find any we would wish to be informed. 5. Thrustblocks for reducers as shown on Sheet 11 are not required. 6. The fire hydrant detail, also on Sheet 11, should be revised to indicate an MJ x MJ x FLG tee bolted directly to a FLG x MJ valve which would then be tie-rodded to the hydrant as already shown. For hydrants located less than about thirty (30) feet from the main, we find the detail suitable. For situations involving longer runs to the main, the contractor should locate the valve closer to the hydrant and tie back to the main as detailed in the submission. 7. For situations involving sewer/water crossings, City of Aspen General Water Pipeline Specifications states that the water main shall. be a minimum one-and-a-half feet ( 115') clear distance above the sewer. If this cannot be obtained, the sewer shall be replaced with cast iron pipe or encased with a minimum six inches (6") of concrete all around extending ten feet from the water line in both directions. The water crossing sewer detail on Sheet 11 should be modified accordingly. 8. Any water or sewer mains crossing under the twenty-inch (20") concrete main shall be placed by boring or careful hand digging. Whenever the contractor shall encounter or cross the twenty-inch (20") concrete main he shall be required to contact the City Engineer or Water Superintendent. Marolt Ranch Final Pl~Submission May 6, 1981 PAGE FOUR SPECIFICATIONS 1. General requirements paragraph 8.0 Interruption of services shall read forty-eight (48) hours notice. 2. Section 02200, paragraph 3.05, Compaction, part B, Jetting, shall include permission of the City Engineer as well as the project engineer. 3. Section 02221, paragraph 2.01, part B, shall include Ductile Iron Pipe as requiring Class B bedding material. 4. Section 02221, paragraph 3.03, G. Jetting shall also require permission of the City Engineer. 5. Section 02555, paragraph 2.02, A. Fire Hydrants shall be provided by Mueller Company. 6. Section 02555, paragraph 3.04, part B, shall include Ductile Iron as requiring Class B material. 7. The Specifications shall require the contractor to provide as-built drawings for all utility installations as well as irrigation relocations. We feel that most of these items are things that can be revised on the plat documents as well as the agreements prior to recording. Engineering Depart- ment staff continue to work with the applicant in resolving the above items. . .. 1 \ \10 1 \\\ L E l 1 1 lf) 2 lib i C b CO 1 4\ i 1 0-\ \ I \ a i \ i i 5 1\\ V, Ll \\\ 1 1 1 1 -4€3 5«=--t E \ O 1.-7 E /- -\ \1\ ~ 10 Cu A-rm /2 \ i h Ex H re,11-- 7\- Ith - / 0 ~~r-122.4/NE EASEMEN-f- / NoRTAvvesr ~ORN E-¢4 MAgo cr -RAN (14 l~Repke<18 un«4£1 e.0-ae.-rite,*6 04 74(16· 3 282. 71 S 21° 47' W 5-FACE .. 0 C -/flf/194 design workshop, inc. 415 s. spring aspen, co 81611 303-925-8354 June 2, 1981 The attached pages have been revised and should replace the corresponding originals in the text of the Marolt Ranch Final PUD and Plat Submission, dated April 1, 1981. 7-46/3 4/4, Clt(; 0/ir> A fc#3kdg 34.1 Afuti~ Fl,614-6-3 k. (71'u joy vl 42ft k. df-f,A pk. -1 8144 3/71 lk U//1 l FL~ .10 . 61'Wy- el-? (44/F- 01« 1 /2060% 1/7~9 ~AQUill,fl d ~1-A/"tz-7 4.4-k1JA VitkYW ~Ly Mjl fwd/~ o nte y it, C*Of~O - v t'It /9 U>-3\ Ill/ , (7 ne.~ 1/ U ~ '716 y v community development land planning landscape architecture Revisea 6/2/6 I .. INTRODUCTION A. Submission Request The applicant, Marolt Associates, hereby submits this formal request to the Aspen City Council for Final PUD and Subdivi- sion approval. This approval is intended to be consistent with the approved zoning category of R-15A, PUD/SPA, accom- panied by a "special review" for the 70-30 unit mix approval. In addition, the applicant requests the following: 1. Exemptions a. Exemption from the Growth Management Plan in acordance with recent City ordinances that allow for certain lim- ited exemptions where at least 70 percent of the units contained in the project are properly deed or covenant restricted as required therein; b. A condominium exemption from the subdivision process; C. A partial exemption from the parking requirements to provide two parking spaces per Unit within the free mar- ket portion of the development until such time as addi- tional parking may be required as determined by the City. I.L ..... 'P .. .. SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURE A. Site Plan The site plan has not changed in substance from that which was submitted and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission at Preliminary Plat on February 10, 1981. Detailed grading and building refinements and other minor revisions are all indicated on the final landscape drawings. In essence, this plan represents a distillation of a series of plan alternatives discussed over the past two years. Since a lengthy document was prepared for preliminary plat addressing the design considerations of each alternative, this document will attempt to focus simply on the quanti- tative aspects of the proposed plan, with a brief review of some of the major plan components, such as land use, open space, pathways, roads and rights-of-way, and land- scaping. 1. Land Use (See Development Parcel Map) The following 10 parcels of land are necessary to allow separate ownership and/or use of the property, as described below: Lot 1 (4.325 ac.) - Development parcel to be dedicated to the City of Aspen for 70 employee units and 104 parking spaces. Lot 2 (6.925 ac.) - Development parcel for 30 free market units, 60 covered parking spaces, management office, pool and tennis court. ·.Lot 3 (.574 ac.) - Parcel to be dedicated to the City of Aspen for future expansion of maintenance operation, lease to current user, or extension of open space. Lots 4-6 (total 2.209 ac.) - Land across river for restricted sale to 3 adjacent property owners. Open Space 1 (8.709 ac.) - Parcel to be dedicated to the City of Aspen for Open Space in perpetuity, with specific use guidelines to maintain high quality meadowland. Open Space 2 (7.727 ac.) - Parcel to be dedicated to the City of Aspen for Open Space in perpetuity, with specific use guidelines to maintain high quality river corridor conser- vation land. Holden Road (2.656 ac.) - 100' R.O.W. to be dedicated to the City of Aspen for future road alignment between Highway 82 and Castle Creek Road. -1- .. CITY~FjA EPEN 130 s~u~ti galen~treet aspeni~El!2,L'0-81611 MEMORANDUM TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Director FROM: Jay Hammond, Assistant City Engineer -~~~-- DATE: June 5, 1981 RE: Marolt Revised Final Plat i-------------------------------------- I met with Carlie Wood of Design Workshop and Brian Duff of Eldorado Engineering last Monday to receive and discuss a revised final plat for the Marolt Ranch. I have since reviewed the new plat in detail and find it addresses all of the concerns in my memorandum of May 6, 1981, in terms of plat, site plan, and utilities. Brian also supplied me with a revised set of specifications that address our concerns in that area. We are now satisfied with the revised plat and specifications as submitted; however, in checking through the revised plat a minor item came up that we would like to request be revised in the water system plan. On revised Sheet 10 of the water and sewer plan and profile, the south end of the waterline shows an 8" x 6" reducer followed by a 6" x 6" x 6" tee, hydrant, valve, and plug. While we are not asking the developer to complete the difficult looping of this line, we would ask that the plan include an 8-inch tee and plug to allow looping at the 8-inch diameter should the City wish to do so in the future. We feel this is a minor item and will not result in substantial cost to the developer, yet it anticipates desirable future expansion. I will be in contact with the applicant and their engineers and should be able to report on this item prior to Council. CC: Carlie Wood, Design Workshop Brian Duff, Eldorado Engineering .. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Directo~~ RE: Marolt Ranch Final PUD/Subdivision Review DATE: June 8, 1981 APPROVED AS TO FORM: BACKGROUND On Monday, June 8, you will review the applicants' Final PUD/Subdivision Sub- mission. In addition, you will consider the applicants' request for the following related approvals: 1. Exemption from Growth Management under the 70/30 provision of Section 24-11.2(i) of the Municipal Code for the free market portion of the project, and 2. Subdivision approval for purposes of condominiumization of the free market units. The applicants' request for rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay in order to permit construction in excess of the underlying zone density has been withdrawn. PLANNING OFFICE COMMENTS The Planning Office's comments with respect to the applicants' remaining approvals have been, where appropriate, excerpted from prior memoranda, revised as necessary, and are summarized below. 1. Final PUD/Subdivision. This request for approval represents the last step in the PUD/Subdivision process. Approval is normally followed by recorda- tion of the PUD/Subdivision plat, and execution and recordation of an appropriate PUD/Subdivision agreement. The applicant has essentially complied with all plat-related conditions identified at preliminary plat review with the exception of several minor details outlined in the attached Engineering Department memorandum dated June 8, 1981. The applicants are prepared to correct these minor details prior to recordation. With respect to the proposed PUD/Subdivision Agreement, the Planning Office and the City Attorney have amended the Agreement to clarify those issues identified at your Thursday, May 28 work session. The applicants, however, may choose to further address a number of issues contained in this Agree- ment at your Monday, June 8 meeting. The Planning Office and City Attorney are prepared to discuss these issues in detail should the need arise. 2. Exemption from Growth Management. The applicants are requesting Special Review approval for the Exemption of the free market portion of the project from Growth Management. Such exemptions are applicable to projects in which at least seventy percent of the total dwelling units are deed re- stricted as employee housing and are subject to Council approval upon the recommendation of P & Z. The applicants' proposed development program, as amended, can be summarized as follows: Employee: 34 - two bedroom, two bath at 845 sq. ft. 19 - one bedroom, one bath at 630 sq. ft. 17 - studios, one bath at 484 sq. ft. Free Market: 30 - three bedroom, four bath at 2,400 sq. ft. To insure eligibility, applicants for exemption are encouraged to submit proposals which maintain an average of 1.5 to 2 bedrooms per unit within the employee portion of the project at where at least fifty percent of a total residential floor area is devoted to deed restricted units. t .. Marolt Ranch Final PUD/Subdivision Review June 8, 1981 Page Two Marolt Ranch submission proposes a bedroom per unit average of 1.5 and 41% of the project's total floor area is devoted to employee housing. While one of these indicators is well below the minimum requirement, the project mix is acceptable, and the free market units are not overly excessive in size. In the absence of any specific objections from the Housing Office, the Planning Office has no objection to the proposed development program. 3. Condominiumization. The applicants are requesting approval to condomin- iumize the multi-family free market portion of the project. As these units are new construction, and therefore no employee displacement will occur, the Planning Office has no problem with this proposal. Final condominium documents will have to be submitted as required by the Engineering Department, and the applicants are subject to the provisions of Section 20-22 of the Municipal Code. The Planning and Zoning Commission's Resolution with respect to the above requests is attached for your review. PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION In summary, the Planning Office recommends approval of the applicants' revised Final PUD/Subdivision application as submitted subject to the following: 1. The Engineering Department's conditions outlined in their attached memo- randum dated June 8, 1981, and 2. Execution of the Final PUD/Subdivision Agreement prior to issuance of a building permit. The Planning Office further recommends that the applicants' request for Growth Management Exemption and Condominiumization be approved subject to compliance with the six-month minimum lease provisions as currently set forth in Section 20-22 of the Municipal Code and subject to the deed restriction of the employee portion of the project to a rental rate of 70¢ per square foot and a sales price of $76.00 per square foot as provided for in the Final PUD/Subdivision Agreement. Should you concur with the Planning Office's recommendations, the appropriate motions are as follows: 1. "I move to approve the revised Marolt Ranch Final PUD/Subdivision application as submitted subject to the following conditions: a. The Engineering Department's conditions outlined in the attached memorandum dated June 8, 1981. b. Execution of the Final PUD/Subdivision Agreement prior to issuance of a building permit." 2. "I move to approve the applicants' request for Growth Management Exemption and Condominiumization subject to the compliance with the six-month mini- mum lease provisions as currently set forth in Section 20-22 of the Municipal Code and subject to the deed restriction of the employee portion of the project to a rental rate of 70¢ per square foot and a sales price of $76.00 per square foot as provided for in the Final PUD/Subdivision Agreement."