HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.an.Marolt.r6pud.1980MAROLT (Opal) pul(,�,>
N
Recorded at 10:37 a.m. JuZ 1980 � ^�
Reception No. 2��.r NAZI
Loretta Banner, Recorder
nr_DPvMFNm
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this (.9 day of
, 1980, by and between the City of Aspen, Colo-
rado, a qunicipal corporation of the State of Colorado, located in
Pitkin County, Colorado, hereinafter called "Aspen", and Marolt
Associates, a partnership organized under the laws of the State of
Colorado, hereinafter called "Marolt".
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, Marolt is the owner of certain unincorporated lands
situated in Pitkin County, State of Colorado, described in Exhibit
"A", which is attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof;
and
WHEREAS, Marolt desires that said property be annexed to
Aspen and concurrently with said annexation desires that Aspen
initiate zoning of said land to R-15A/PUD/SPA (Residential,
planned unit development, specially planned area); and
WHEREAS, Aspen does agree to annex said property and so zone
subject to certain conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and promises
contained herein it is mutually agreed by and between the parties
hereto as follows:
1. Marolt shall petition Aspen, in accordance with State
Statutes, for the annexation of the property described in Exhibit
"A". Marolt shall also petition Aspen to initiate zoning concur-
rently with said annexation. The zoning requested shall be R-15A/
PUD/SPA.
Aspen agrees, subject to the provisions of applicable law, to
annex the property described in Exhibit "A" and to zone the pro-
perty therein in accordance with this agreement.
391 r.` 244
If Aspen is unable to accomplish said annexation or said
zoning as requested by Marolt, Aspen shall dismiss the foregoing
petition for annexation and zoning, and in such event, this
agreement shall be null and void.
2. Marolt agrees that the development plan for the property
will provide for no greater development than the construction of
one -hundred twenty-five (125) residential units. Marolt agrees
that the development plan for the property will be consistent with
Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1980, which ordinance exempts develop -
went from the Growth Management Plan when 700 of the residential
bedrooms developed are permanently deed restricted to comply with
the City of Aspen, Colorado, definition of low and moderate income
housing. (A proposal has been submitted to amend said ordinance
to exempt if 70 % of the residential units, as opposed to bedrooms,
are deed restricted. If said ordinance is so amended, Marolt may
elect to develop consistent with the ordinance as amended.)
Marolt further agrees that said development plan will be
designed to the extent possible to increase clustering of the
residential units, to maximize open space corridors and to reduce
intrusion into areas designated by Aspen as environmentally sensi-
tive.
Marolt further agrees that Aspen may withhold or refuse
to issue a building permit for the construction of any structure
which is not in accordance with this agreement.
Marolt and Aspen agree that it is the intent of both
parties to develop housing on the site as early as feasible.
Therefore, if an application for a building permit is not made
within two years from final approval of the development plans by
the City Council, said approval being defined as the last
2
25
governmental act (with the exception of the review and approval of
the Chief Building Inspector) necessary to authorize the issuance
of a building permit or permits, and if the City Council of Aspen,
Colorado, has not extended such time period at its behest or at
the developer's request, the City may undertake any procedure or
procedures necessary to rezone the property to the Rural Residen-
tial (RR) zone classification, or any other appropriate zone, and
to deny development inappropriate to the area and bulk require-
ments of said district. It is understood by both parties that
Marolt's ability to develop may be drastically affected by vari-
ations in economic conditions. Therefore, the City Council shall
not unreasonably refuse to extend such deadlines if the delay for
applying for a building permit or permits is due to difficulty in
arranging for the financing of construction despite the good faith
efforts on the part of Marolt to accomplish the same.
3. Nothing herein shall preclude Marolt from petitioning
Aspen to rezone the property in accordance with Ordinance No. 16,
Series of 1980, which ordinance creates the residential housing
bonus overlay.
4. Marolt agrees that it will, to the extent possible,
incorporate adequate area for road and highway right-of-ways
within the development plan.
5. Marolt may organize the program for financing on an
industrial revenue bond basis its costs with respect to the
development of the property described in Exhibit "A". Aspen
agrees to cooperate with Marolt in organizing and issuing such
industrial revenue bonds, provided, however, that Aspen shall
incur no liability whatsoever with respect to such program or any
industrial revenue bonds resulting tr,erefrom.
3
M391 248
EXHIBIT A
An enclave annexation of that parcel of land situated in Lots
9, 10, 13, SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec. 12, T10S, R85W, 6th P.M. and
Lot 5 and NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec. 13, T10S, R85W, 6th P.M.
described as follows.
Beginning at a point, in the center line of Castle Creek (the
SW cor. Lot 2 Adams Subdivision), being N 45121' W 682.87 ft.
from the 28" x 14" x 10" rock witness corner monument set for
the witness point for the S 1/4 corner of Sec. 12 (said rock
being 78.57 ft. N 78110130" W from an unapproved 1954 Bureau
of Land Management Brass Cap stamped as witness corner),
thence N 14*40' E 149.97 ft. to corner #13 Holden Tract;
thence N 14*35' W 172.00 ft. to corner #14 Holden Tract;
thence N 37*50' W 314.72 ft. to corner #1 Holden Tract, being
identical with corner #4 North Texas Mill Site MS #3288,
thence 14 54*45' W 84.00 ft. to the center line of Castle
Creek,
thence N 26100' W 94.00 ft. along the center line of Castle
Creek,
thence N 28°10' E 294.00 ft. along the center line of Castle
Creek,
thence N 20*05' E 115.40 ft. along the center line of Castle
Creek, to the South Right -of -Way line of Colorado Highway
No. 82,
thence 14 75°08' W 360.26 ft. along the South Right-ot-Way
line of Colorado Highway No. 82,
thence 63.52 ft. along the arc of a curve to the left (radius
of 905.00 ft. chord bears N 77°08'38" W 63.51 ft.),
thence S 10°51' W 90.71 ft.,
thence S 21°47' W 282.37 ft.,
thence S 25*28' W 715.83 ft. to a point being 1794.68 ft
S 41052115" E, from the 1954 Brass Cap marking the W 1/4
corner of Sec. 12
thence S 18'14' W 1107.77 ft. to the North Right -of -Way line
of Castle Creek,
thence S 40000' E 114.98 ft. along the North Right -of -Way
line of Castle Creek Road,
thence S 53°34' E 124.61 ft. along the North Right -of -Way
line of Castle Creek Road,
thence N 81*56' E 254.45 ft.,
thence S 06°42' E 308.07 ft.,
thence N 90000' W 9.11 ft.,
thence S 33°00' E 61.65 ft.,
thence N 68°35' E 280.15 ft. to line 1-2 Short Lime MS #4610,
thence N 16*00' W 44.62 ft. along line 1-2 to corner No. 1
Short Lime MS #4610,
thence N 74000' E 236.35 ft. along line 1-4 of Short Lime
MS #4610,
thence N 90100' W 74.04 ft.,
thence N 19012' E 117.32 ft.,
thence N 42030' W 329.09 ft.,
thence N 02043' W 221.35 ft.,
thence N 16°44' E 139.78 ft.,
thence S 70°12' E 120.00 ft.,
thence N 36*45' E 268.63 ft. to the most Northerly corner of
property described in Book 196 at Page 376, Pitkin County
Records,
thence N 60°46' W 261.04 ft. to the center line of Castle
Creek,
thence Easterly along the center line of Castle Creek down
the creek 651 ft. more or less to the point of beginning.
"391 z47
APPROVED AS TO FORM
w,
Ronald W. Stock
City Attorney
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss
County of Pitkin )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of/ 1980, by
as partners of Marolt Associates.
0'v 1 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
commission expires:
-; V,
.c,
Not ry Public
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss
County of Pitkin )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before we this
day of` 1980, by Herman Edel as Mayor and Kathryn
S. Ko as ity Clerk of the City of Aspen, Colorado.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OF IC AL SEAL.
•��` , ,My `r•,Qnuniss ion expires
Nota y u l is
eoL, '
5
6. This agreement, when executed after final reading by the
City Council of the annexation and zoning ordinance(s), shall be
binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto,
their successors and assigns, and shall be a covenant running with
the property described in Exhibit "A".
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
agreement to be executed in duplicate as of the date first herein
written.
MAROLT ASSOCIATES
By
Partner
By
Partner"C)
By L 44�WL,4�
Partner
Ity
Partner
CITY OF ASPEN
By
Herman Edel
Mayor
4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Director
RE: Rezoning and Annexation - Opal Marolt Property
DATE: January 21, 1980
On January 28, the City Council will hold the second reading and public
hearing of ordinances related to the rezoning and annexation of the
Opal Marolt property. As you know, this property has been submitted to
you with a proposal that incorporates up to 125 dwelling units roughly
divided into 70% deed restricted employee housing and 30% free market
units. The proponents are seeking a zoning district which will accomodate
the proposal. Since the site is currently zoned AF-2 (2 acre minimum lot
size) in the County, the decision for the City Council is to determine
whether the zoning is appropriate based on such factors as surrounding
land use and density patterns, the Aspen Area Master Plan, and changed
conditions since the time of original zoning..
While the applicant has requested R-6 zoning as that which they feel
comfortably accommodates the proposed density, the Planning Office has
recommended to you an R-15A zone district density. The Planning Office
has recommended the R-15A zone density with SPA and PUD designation also
attached. While we recognize that there are disadvantages to development
on this property, our recommendation is made with the objective in mind
that sites must be found to accommodate employee housing and it is our
intent to recommend to you those sites which best can achieve a balancing
of community goals through clustering and innovative design. We recom-
�„���u �;ia Marolt site, with conditions, because we believe that ueveiuu-
ment can be designed to fit the site's unique features, -protect environ-
mentally sensitive areas, and create open space buffers which both continue
the open space corridors gained by public acquisitions and minimize the
impact of the development on surrounding areas. Other reasons supporting
the recommendation include:
1. The R-15A density is consistent with surrounding land use and
zoning patterns to the east across Castle Creek and to the
north across Highway 82. The Aspen Land Use Plan of 1973
recommends single-family medium density for this site, which,
if clustered, is what this application proposes. The PUD is
recommended in the absence of any housing overlay or similar
zoning technique to encourage the clustering of density, its
accommodation to the site's unique features, and its compat-
ible siting with surrounding neighborhoods. The SPA desig-
nation is necessary to accommodate any mixed uses which may
be proposed in the subsequent development plan in multi-
family structures.
2. The proposal represents a dispersal of employee housing develop-
ments to the west side of the City of Aspen, avoiding the fur-
ther concentration in areas to the north and east of the City.
It is a medium-sized project and results in a heterogeneous mix
of income levels.
3. R-15A zoning requires that at least 50% of the units are deed -
.restricted to employee price guidelines. In fact, the application
proposes to restrict 70°; or more of the units.
4. The site is proximate to town -and well -served by bus transpor-
tation. Other utilities, water and sanitation, are available
to the site.
J -
5. There is an opportunity to preserve open space corridors
along Castle Creek, as well as the visual connection from
the Thomas property to Shadow Mountain through innovative
design and clustering. Through the Planned Unit Development
procedure, environmentally sensitive areas can be avoided.
The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended S.P.A. zoning for the site
consistent with the zoning recommended for the water plant employee
housing site. The recommendation was based on the lack of a housing
overlay and the opportunity that that zoning designation would give
for fitting the appropriate density to the site through the review of
a development plan. The Planning Office recommended against that because of
the lack of adequate criteria in the S.P.A. zone district, a district which
was originally intended for a few very limited sites within the City of
Aspen.
Opposition has spoken to you on first reading. Points cited in opposition
have included:
-that Castle Creek serves now to contain the urban form and this
development will contribute to urban sprawl,
-there are environmental constraints according to the CSU maps;
namely, steep slopes, riparian areas and visually vulnerable lands,
-the site is designated in part as agriculturally productive lands,
-free market units are involved,
-neighborhoods have objected that the density is not consistent,
-and given the uncertainty of development feasibility, critics question
whether it is appropriate to grant a density increase without assur-
ing that the development would follow.
The Engineering Department has also pointed out that there is a need to
preserve alignments for the extension of Main Street and four-laning and/
or uua way u i� n i wiwav or-. i Here niav be increased public cost if bus trans-
portation needs to be fortified.
This is meant to be a summary only of extensive memoranda given to the City
Council in early December. These memoranda included a December 3rd summary
of development potential on the site, and analysis of pros and cons of
alternative employee housing sites, as well as the November 13th memorandum
to the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission summarizing the conditions on
which a decision to change zoning must be based. The memoranda appeared in your
packet twice and will be available in the Planning Office for your review.
Included in this packet will be a draft annexation agreement, which incor-
porates many of the conditions of approval that the Planning Office recom-
mended.
Again, the recommendation is for R-15A/P.U.D./S.P.A zoning, which, after
a density analysis, appears to accommodate somewhere between 70 and 150
units, depending on such things as density reduction for steep slopes and
the subtraction of a lot for Opal Marolt's. house. We believe that the
appropriate density within this range will be found through the review of
a development plan. If that plan is devised in accordance with the con-
ditions recommended in the annexation agreement and cognizant of the sensi-
tive areas pointed out through this rezoning process, we believe a develop-
ment can be sited in this location which will balance community goals
and objectives and maximize its compatibility with surrounding areas. The
increase in density, furthermore, is warranted in view of the need for
employee housing documented in the recent work of the Housing Task Force.
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION
TO
The City Council of the
CITY OF ASPEN
Aspen, Colorado 81611
The undersigned hereby respectfully petition the City
Council of the City of Aspen to annex to the City of
Aspen the territory shown on the map attached hereto
and described as follows, to -wit:
(SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO)
In support of this Petition, the Petitioners state,
represent, and allege as follows:
1) It is desirable and necessary that the
above -described territory be annexed to
the City of Aspen.
2) The Petitioners are landowners of more than
one hundred percent (1000) of the territory,
herein proposed for annexation to the City of
Aspen.
3) Not less than one -sixth (1/6) of the aggre-
gate external boundaries of the above -des-
cribed territory hereby petitioned to be
annexed to the City of Aspen is contiguous
to the city limits of the City of Aspen.
4) A community of interests exist between
the above -described territory and the
same is urban, or will be urbanized in
the near future, and further that said
territory is integrated or is capable
of being integrated into the City of
Aspen.
5) In establishing the boundaries of the
above -described territory, no land held
in identical ownership, whether consist-
ing of one tract or parcel of real estate
or two or more contiguous tracts or par-
cels of real estate have been divided into
separate parts or parcels.
6) The above -described territory does not in-
clude any area which is the same with sub-
stantially the same area in which an elec-
tion for an annexation to the City of Aspen
was held within twelve (12) months preced-
ing the filing of this Petition.
7) The above -described territory does not in-
clude any area included in any other annexa-
tion proceeding involving the City other than
the City of Aspen.
8) Four (4) copies of an annexation map setting
forth with reasonable certainty, a written
legal description of the boundaries of the
area proposed to be annexed, the delineation
of the outer boundaries of the above -describ-
ed territory, the portion of the boundary con-
tiguous with the existing city limits of the
City of Aspen, and the dimensions of said
contiguous boundary have been attached here-
to and hereby constitute a part of this Peti-
tion.
9) The above -described territory is not present-
ly a part of any incorporated city and county,
-2-
or town.
WHEREFORE, the undersigned respectfully petition
to the City Council of the City of Aspen to annex the
above -described territory to the City of Aspen in accord-
ance with and pursuant to the Statutes of the State of
Colorado.
DATED July 16, 1979.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
OPAL MAROLT
VICKI MAROLT
KEITH.,.)KAROLT
PEGGY' DGE
Jl�
JUDY `TESITOR
"PETITIONERS"
ADDRESSES OF PETITIONERS:
Opal Marolt
P. 0. Box 423
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Vicki Marolt
2609 Juniper Avenue
Boulder, Colorado 80302
Keith Marolt
108 Libertv Street
San Francisco, Calif. 94110
Peggy Eldridge
625 Emporia Road
Boulder, Colorado 80303
Judy Tesitor
4862 Earle Circle
Boulder, Colorado 80301
-3-
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF
MAROLT PROPERTIES
PITKIN COUNTY
COLORADO
PARCEL l '
71 tract of land in Lot 13
J(fro"9 -`M Plat by Withers approved
July 18, 18II9) Sec. 12 T10S R8501 6P, M. being part, of the
"Stitzer Entry" described as follows:
Beginning at a point, a fence corner in��place, beirz 282.4 i
ft. N66'19'l5"j9 from the 28" y 1-" x lU roc); witness corner
monument set for the witness point for the S 1/4 corner of
Sec_ 1e Nov. N(witness corner mon. sho:.
n in Cutshaw notes and plat
approved 8, 1888) s'-aid roc): being 78.57 ft. N78°10'30"T•l
from Dui unapproved 1954 Bureau o= Land Managementass Cap
13r
stamped as witness corner, '
.thence N70'25'E 132.33 ft. to lineClaim, 2-3 MS 4211 Ilomestake
thence S09'37'B 200.25 ft. along line 2-3 to property des-
cribed in Book 243 Pg. 895 Pitkin County records,
thence S82'26'W 3.12. 13 ft. along northerly line .of Property
properrop described in Bk. ' 243 Pg_ 895 to the corner of erty
cribed in Bk. 182 Pg_ 183, -
thence N23019'W 62.56 ft. along Pasterly line of property ' described in Bk. 182 Pg. 183,
thence N71'121E 151_41 ft. along a fence line to a.fence
corner,
thence N6l'02'15"1,: 84.61 ft. along a fence line to a fence
corner,
thence N41'19' 50"ltil 62.56 ft.. alonc., of beginning. a fence line to .the point
TOGETHER with a perpetual 30 ft. right of way and utility
casement upon, over, along, . across and under .the real property described as follot•1s:
Beginning* at the above -described ooiizt of beginning,
thence N70'25'B 30.35 ft., r
thence N28'20'55"W 3.54_30 ft.,
thence S61°56'10"T•1 30.00 ft.,
thence S211'20'55"E 149.82 ft, to ;.he point of beginning.
Pitkin County, Colorado.
' Page 1 of 4 - - - •:----- --- --.._ __. _---
PAJ:ChL 2
A tract of lzna situated .i.n Lots 9, 10, 13, Msw 1/4 Ill 1P
Sec, 1.2, *'T10S, 118511, Gth P.M. and Toi; 5 and 141.7 1./4 VW 1/4
Sec. 13, TIOS, 1%85W, Gth P.I.1. dc5cr:iLed a:r fo11U1Js_
i
J3ginning at a point, in the center line of Castle Creek
• the SW cor. Lot- 2 Adams Subdivision) , bc_iiig 1445°21.' 11 G82. 87
%t. from the 28" x 14" x 10" rock witness corner monum?nt
set for the witness paint for the S 1/4 corner of Sec. 12
(said rock being 78.57 ft_ N78°10'30"W from an unapproved
1954 Bureau of Land A9anage;iient Drass Cap starnped as witne�;s
corner) ,
thence 1414°401E 149.97 ft. to corner V 13 Holden Tract, .
thence N 14 ° 35' W .172.00 ft. to corner l,'14 . Ilolden Tract,
thence N37°50'W 3.14.72 ft. to corner ill Holden Tract, being i
identical with corner #4 North Texas mi:Ll Site AIS V3288,
thence. N54 ° 45' 19 84.00 -ft. to the center line of Castle Creel:,
thence N26'0011q 94_ 00. ft. along the center line of Castle
Creek,
thence N28°10'E 294.00 ft. along the center line of Castle
Creek,
thence N20°05'E 115.40 ft. along the center line of Castle
Creek, to the South Right -of -Way line of Colorado }iighway
No. 82,
thence N75°08' W 360. 26, ft. ' along the South Right -of -Way line
of Colorado Highway Noy 82,
thence 63.52 ft. along the arc of a curve to the left (radius
of 905. 00 ft. chord bears N77°08' 38"W 63.51 ft.) ,
thence S10 '51'19 90.71 ft.,
thence S21'47'17 282_ 37 ft.,
thence S25'28'W 715.83 ft: to a point being 1794.68 ft.
S41°52'15"E, from the 1954 Brass Cap marking the 11 1/4.
corner of Sec. 12,
thence S18'14'W 1107.77 ft. -to the North Ri.uht-of-Way line
of. Castle -Creek Road, '
thence S40'00'E 114.98 ft. along the North Ricjht-of-;qay line
of Castle Creek Road,
.. j
thence S53*34'13 124.61 ft. along the North Right-of-114y line
of Castle Creek Road,
thence N81°56'h 254.45 ft.,
thence S06042'E 308.07 ft_,
thence N90°00111 9.11 ft.,
thence S330001E 61.65 ft-,
thence N68035' E 280.15 ft. to line 1-2 Short Lime MS 11610,
Page 2 of 4
thence N1G°00'iI 44. G2 ft. along line
Short . 1-2 io corner No. 1
L• ime P.LS (r 4G10,
thence N74"00'E 2.36.35 ft. along line 1-4 of Sliort Lime '
f 4 G10,
. ,IS
thence 1\190-00'W 74.04 ft.,
thence N190121E 117.32 ft_,
thence N�42° 30'P] 329.09 ft., -
thence N02043117 221. 35 ft.,
-1)-
L-bence
2:1G°44'La:
139.78
thence
S700121B
120.00
ft.,-
thence
property
N36"45'E
described
268.G3
ill Dk.
ft- to
19G
the most A , ort-herly corner of
P�,_ 37G Pig}.�n Co. Records,
thence
Creek,
1\160046'11
261.04
ft, to
the center line of Cast).e
thence Easterly along the center line of Castle Creek do;an
the creek 651 ft_ more or less to the poiint of beyinn ling.
Pitkin County, Colorado. f
. 1
TOCETIIER with a perpetual easemen s
thirt t over, along and across the
southerly.
thirty. (30) feet of tj�e real property
Paragraph 4 hereof, in
'for ingress, to, egress from .ann1VUT-1 ��IPrbU •.
to the Portion of the property cis 'round
p �' Y scribed in this paragraph i
lying and being westerly of the property described in paragraph
4 of. this Decree, but easterly of the centerline Creek, said easement being foof Castle
r the benefit of said Teal
Property above described and the plaintiff, its grantees,
assignees, invitees and distributees only. ..
TOGETHER With the following described property:
A tract of land being parts of Lots 8 and 10, and the Sid 1/4
SW 1/4 Sec. 12 T10S R85W, 6th P.1•.. , being part of Property
described in Book 175, Page 628 of the'Pitkin Count
described as follows: Y -Records,
Be r.-In'!ing ',-:t a point on the East line of the Thomas Estate
propPzty being 1823:79 feet S 40°19' E.
Section 12 T10S R85T^I, 6th P.pg, from the W 1/9 Cornea:
anent Brass Ca c (a 1954 Bureau of Land �lanage p) ; thence S lII 14 17 66. 44 feet along the East
line of the Thomas Estate property; Thence along a curve to
the left, radius of 308.10 feet, a distance of 540.42 feet
(chord bears S 18"54' W 473. 7G feet) ; thence S 31021' E 8.00
feet to the East line of the Thomas Estate S 18014' Property;; thence
W 131.35 feet along the East line of the Thomas
Estate property; thence A' 31021' i-I 93.16 feet; thence along
2 curve to the right, radius of 408.10 feet, a distance of
2?.1.14 feet (chord bears 14 15°49'30" W 218.4G feet along a curve to the right, radius of 663-65 feet, )a disence
tance
Of 100.00 feet (chord bears N04001' E 99.91 feet).; thence
Page 3 of 4
N O V2.0' L' 245. 00 fe(t; thence along a curve to the lift,
radius of 448.22 feet, a distance of 235.07 fee-L- (C),urd hears
IJ 06041' 14 232.39 feet) to the Soiith right of \,,ay line of
the Main line of the railroad; thence along a curve to the
right, radius of 2964.8 feet,a distance of 13G.07 feet
(chord hears N 49°11' 14 136.07 feet); thence N 47"52' W
458.00 feet; thenco S 80'24' E 154- 18 feet to a point on the.
centerline -of the railroad mainline"being 2376 feet more or
less* Northwesterly from the -East line of Lot VI Sec_ 12
(I:imberly Survey) ; thence S 88'24' L 154.18 feet; thence -
S 47052' E 215.00 feet; thence along a curve to the' left,
radius of 2764. 8 feet, a distance cif . 454. 01 :feet- (chord
bears S -52°34' E 453.50 feet) to the East line ok the Thomas
Estate property; thence S 25"28' S4 147.50 feet aloncl the East
line of the Thomas Estate property; thence S 18°14' 1-7 57.06
feet along the* East line of the. Thomas Estate property to
the point of beginning.
Page 4 of 4
' r
„� ..._ __- . _ _. • �.. � . •-•. • •-� � c... ter..
a
r-
:�l,C�-t
an ^c, ) _
• ..aor• c. r f •.
77
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Director
RE: Rezoning and Annexation Recommendation - Opal Marolt Property
DATE: December 3, 1979 _
Considerable discussion has taken place at the P & Z level regarding the pro-
posed annexation and rezoning of the 35 acre Opal Marolt property west of Castle
Creek. Since the Planning and Zoning Commission intends to take final action
on Tuesday, December 4th, after your packet deadline, their recommendations can-
not be placed in your packet. Please, however, review the enclosed memoranda
for a briefing on the issues.
To summarize the debate (and to greatly oversimplify), the main issue seems
to have been that of extending the city limits and zoning west of Castle Creek
and opening up a new area for development (mixed free market and employee housing)
versus the benefits to be derived from employee housing to be built and the oppor-
tunities to cluster and reduce the impact on surrounding areas that the site seems
to offer. There was vocal opposition from surrounding residents, a few private
citizens, and the Open Space Advisory Board, who suggested other sites were better
suited for employee housing. There was support from one interested citizen and
the Board of County Commissioners.
The Planning Office has recommended the annexation and rezoning to R-15-A/PUD/SPA
as the only existing mechanism allowing the mixed use and clustering concepts pro-
posed. The Planning Office has also recommended a slightly lower density (70 to
100 units) and other conditions of annexation related to the conceptual develop-
ment which we offer as a means to best relate the development to the site, take
advantage of opportunities to cluster and preserve valuable open space features,
both along the highway and river and internal to the site; and finally to reduce
impact on surrounding areas and prevent the sprawl the critics have feared. Under
these conditions this office believes a careful balance among community goals can
be achieved. In particular, we have been attempting to maximize compliance with
review criteria recommended in the housing overlay proposal which in itself is
designed to allow you as policy -makers to balance community policy and seek innova-
tive solutions. We think this compromise is a supportable one.
Mulligan & Reeves, P G.
Attorneys and Counselors at Law
Suite 300
Robert J. Joyoe
Ecluntable Building Telephone
James AMull _
730 Seventeenth Street (303) 572-0000
Allen G. Reeves
Denver, Colorado 80202 Gable
Don R.Teasley
MULLREEVES
July 17, 1979
Karen Smith
Director of Planning
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Karen:
Please find enclosed a Petition requesting that
the Marolt property be annexed to the City of
Aspen.
Also enclosed is a conceptual layout showing
the proposed use of the property subsequent to
annexation. This use would require that the pro-
perty be zoned S.P.A.
I would appreciate your assistance in processing
these applications and will of course be avail-
able to you for discussion or further informa-
tion.
As we discussed, by phone today, since the exact
procedures necessary for approval of the Marolt
development have not been settled upon by all of
the officials involved, we have also submitted un-
der separate cover an application for rezoning, to
Pitkin County. Obviously when we collectively de-
cide the best course of action to undertake one or
the other of these applications will be withdrawn.
I will call you after you've had a chance to view
this material to arrange some time with you and
Karen Smith -2- July 17, 1979
any other city officials as you direct to further dis-
cuss the proposal.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sim ee ly,
MULLIGAN\& RFEVES ,1 P .'� .
ert, J .' Joy
RJJ:jjf
Enclosures
xc: Opal Marolt
Vicki Marolt
i
REQUEST FOR ZONING
WHEREAS, Marolt Associates, a Colorado general partner-
ship, has requested in the Petition to which this Request is
attached, the City of Aspen to annex the land described in the
Petition for Annexation to the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the land to be annexed will be developed in the
manner indicated in the various materials attached to the
Petition for Annexation.
NOW, THEREFORE, Marolt Associates requests that the City
Council of the City of Aspen direct the Planning and Zoning
Commission of the City of Aspen, at the earliest possible con-
venience of the Planning and Zoning Commission, to commence
proceedings to rezone the subject property R6/PUD.
MAROLT ASSOCIATES,
a Colorado general partnership
By
Cary Cl rk
Managi g Agent
3:45 P Atlsust 27, 1979 374 rvi 8Y/
Recordedat......... o.... .. .... O'clock ............ M .. ......................................... .............................
' +,11 Loretta lianner
Reception No ..... ..I..ti i-1 , ! F . ........ _ .. ...............Recorder.
.. ........................
STATE OF COLORADO
Pitkin ss'
County of ........................
...... OPAL...MATILDA MAR.OLT................................................of the
................. .• ..... --•.....
............County of ....... P i tk i n in the State of
CoIorado....................................................................................................
....................•----•-•--...............-•---................. .......-----.......being first duly
sworn, upon oath deposes and says that ... ..... MAROLT ASSOCIATES ,
.......................... ..........................................................
---•---•...............•-------------................................------------.....----•------...................------------.....................------...---.................
is the, -name under which a business or trade is being carried on at......:.:....::...:x:�...`�1........._.._.........
in the ........................................ County of..... P_ ............................................tkin, and State of Colorado.
That the full Christian and surname and address of all the persons who are represented by the
said name of ............ . . 1 t Associates is as follows, to wit:
Opal Matilda Marolt - P.O. Box 423, Aspen, Colorado 81611
---------------------------------------------------•-------------------------------•--•---•--••----•---•-----------------.....-•••--....--••-•-•-•-----•.........-••--•----•---.
Judy Marie Tesitor - 4862 Eagle Circle, Boulder, Colo. 80301
...............•-••--•----------------------------------------•-------•---••--...••--------.....--•-------.......---------••--•••--.........------•----•---........
Vicki Ann Marolt - 2609 Juniper Avenue, Boulder, Colo 80301
•-•.......................•'--••---•---•------•--'•...._........-•--•-------........-----------••-•--•-------•-•••--•---.....-•-•-.....-•--••---•----•--------•--.
Peggy Louise Eldridge - 625 Emporia Road, Boulder, Colo 80303
Keith E. Marolt - 108 Liberty Street, San Francisco, Calif 94110
..............
affiant.... is one Of...the person ... s.... .--- carrying on said business or tiaue under the u
name or style aforesaid.
.................................•--•-••----•----.......-••-------......................
Stfti dilbe4,and sworn to before me, this ......... _7....... day of ....... A9"�-----
. ,1917.
Nj commiaslop expires ....... 4.%---- ••...' 19....•---
` r nes m 'hand and official seal.
�' U t>......................
_- Notary Public.
`\ UNW9—All co -partnerships and every person doing business otherwise than in his owr ful name should make
t'4is;affidavit, which must be filed in the county in which the firm carries on its trade or busi s and must be refiled
whenever there is any change in the membership of the firm; and no suit can be prosecuted y such firm for the
collection of any debts until such affidavit is filed.
No. 298. TRADE NAME AFFIDAVIT. Bradford Publishing Co.. I824-46 Stout street, Denver, ColoraJo 1673-60111 —4-77
. ._ -. -..r- •�."r'�•
..-�-. .. rr..�R..... . �.�r.w .R�'. _ i
•7T; +�*i.;�.. _�...� _. ,t+TTI. ,...��-T... ..,-..-n�r.
•
•
p.".- �-�'?�> '. _�
ji
gar--1.�... _�...,._
.1
• to
3,:5 P August 27, 19 �� c 8c o
Recorded at o'clock M.,—.—__._ 1 h��
Reception No ` LU_Ptta_Banner —, Recorder.
TIIIS DEEP, Made this day of August ,19 &_9,
between JUDY MARIE TESITOR AUU w 7-)HID
of the County of Boulder and state of Z -a
Colorado, of the first part, and
MAROLT ASSOCIATES, a Colorado General Partnership
whose legal address is c/o #300 Equitable Building, 730 Seventeenth Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202
oftheCity and County of Denver and state of
Colorado, of the second part,
WITNESSETH, That the said part y of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of
Teri -Dollars and other good and valuable consideration rom-A-Rs,
to the said party of the first part in hand paid by the said part y of the second part, the receipt whereof
is hereby confessed and acknowledged, ha Sremised, released, sold, conveyed and QUIT CLAIMED, and by these
presents do eSremise, release, sell, convey and QUITCLAIM unto the said part y of the second part, its heirs,
successors and assigns, forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said part y of the first part
ha S in and to the following described lot or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the County
of Pitkin and State of Colorado, to wit:
See Exhibit "A", attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this
reference.
also known as street and number
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same, together with all and singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto
belonging or in anywise thereunto appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest and claim whatsoever, of the
said party of the first part, either in law or equity, to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said party of
the second part, itEheirs and assigns forever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The said party of the first part has hereunto set her hand —
and seal the day and year first above written. 11 l^ ,�
l ems( �, y✓ K` 4tC. �c,i� L<- s -SEAL]
Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of I JURY MARIE TESITOR
STATE OF COLORADO,
sa.
County of %� `
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before the this day of
19 rf by' Judy Marie Tesitor al�r
My commission expires 1 `i , 19 7 Witness my hand and official seal.
ar. coIr,,.
SEAL)
SEAL)
SEAL)
7 Publie.
No. 933.QVIT CLAIM DF.ED.—Drndtord Publishinc Co., 1824.46 Stout Street, Denver, Colorado (673.6011)-9/77 �!_�
r
374 PA61.891
,. 7301339-6 C
heet 2 of _7
SCIIEDULE A —Continued
2. Covering the Land in the State of Colorado, County of Pitkin
Described as:
A tract of land situated in Lots 9, 10, 13, 'SW4 SW; Sec. 12, T10S,
R85W, 6th P.M. and Lot 5 and NW < NW ; Sec. 13, T10S, R85W, 6th P.M.
described as follows:
Beginning at a point, in the center line of Castle Creek (the SW cor.
Lot 2 Adams Subdivision), being N45°21'W 682.87 ft. from the 28"x 14"
x 10" rock witness corner monument set for the witness point for the
S ;corner of Sec. 12 (said rock being 78.57 ft. N78010'30"W from an
unapproved 1954 Bureau of Land Management Brass Cap stamped as wit-
ness corner),
thence N14°40'E 149.97 ft. to corner #13 Holden Tract,
thence N14°35'W 172.00 ft.. to corner r14 Holden Tract,
thence N370501W 314.72 ft. to corner #1 Holden Tract, being identical
with corner 1#4 North Texas Mill Site MS 7#3288,
thence N540451W 84.00 ft. to the center line of Castle Creek,
thence N260001W 94.00 ft. along the center line of Castle Creek,
thence N28010'E 294.00 ft. along the center line of Castle Creek,
Ehence N20005'E 115.40 ft. along the center line of Castle Creek,
to the South Right -of -Way line of Colorado Highway No. 82,
thence N75°08'W 360.26 ft. along the South Right -of -Way line of Colo-
rado High way No. 82,
thence 63.52 ft. along the arc of a curve to the left (radius of 905.00
ft. chord bears N77008138"W 63.51 f+-
thence S10°511W 90.71 ft.,
thence S21047'W282.37 ft.,
thence S25°28'W 715.83 ft. to a point being 1794.68 ft. S41052115"
E, from the 1954 Brass Cap marking the t% ; corner of Sec. 12,
thence S18°14'W 1107.77 ft to the North Right -of -Way line of Castle
Creek Road,
thence S40000'E 114.98 ft. along the North Right -of -Way line of
Castle Creek Road,
thence S530341E 124.61 ft. along the North Right -of -Way line of
Castle Creek Road,
thence N81°56'E 254.45 ft.,
C-1 4 2.2
- Continued -
-77
J16.
n
• 7301339-6
#3 of 7
374 K� M
2. (Continued)
SCIiEDULE A — Continued
thence S06.42'E 308.07 ft.,
thence N90.00'W 9.11 ft-,
thence S33.001E 61.65 ft.,
thence N68.35'E 280.15 ft. to line 1-2Short Lime MS tt4610,
thence N16.001W 44.62 ft. along line 1-2 to corner No. 1 Short
Lime Ms #4610,
thence N74.001E 236.35 ft:. along line 1-4 of Short Lime Ms #4610,
thence N900001W 74.04 ft.,
thence N19.12E 117.32 ft.,
thence N42.301W 329.09 ft.,
thence NO2.43'W 221.35 ft.,
thence N16.44'E 139.78 ft.,
thence S70012'E 120.00 ft.,
thence N36.45'E 268.63 ft. to the most Northerly corner of property
described in Book 196 at Page 376, Pitkin County Records,
thence N60046'W 261.04 ft. to the center line of Castle Creek,
thenrp P.actarly along the center line of Castle Creek down the
--- 'I - --- 4--3 4-*e point of beginning.
nrm No. C-14=.6
1
•
r
/�- "•� - t{I-corded l 3, P August 27 1—
o, Im k %I., _ 374 87
8
tter(-ptlml aN", r✓17,178 Loretta Bann-- Ro-vordler.
if
itG
c:
i
t7
rrHIS I)I:ED, Made thi`I daty I,r August 1,) 79 AUG
l �AI�
1'
between OPAL MATILDA MAROLT
,I
of the County of Pitkin and state of
Colorudo, of the first part, and
MAROLT ASSOCIATES, a Colorado General Partnership I
whoselegaluddr(`seis c/o #300 Equitable Building, 730 Seventeenth Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202
of the City andt'ounty of Denver and state of
Colorado, of the second part,
IVITNESSI:TII, That the said Prtrt y "I'the first part, for and in consideration of the Burn of �I
Ten Dollars and other good and valuable consideration IK)ft7kH i
to the'said party of the first part in hand paid by the said party of the second part, the receipt whereof
is hereby confessed and acknowledged, has remised, relea-red, sold, conveyed acid QUIT CLAINIED, kind by these
presents does remise, release, sell, convey and QUITCLAIM unto the said party of the second part, its heirs,
successor's and assigns, forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said part y of the first part
hag in and to the following described lot or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the County
I
of Pitkin and State of Colorado, to wit:
I
See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference ?�
1'
I!
also known as street rtnd number (I
I
.I
TO HAVE AND TO HOl,D the same, together with rtll Ilnd singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto
belonging or in nnywise thereunto appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest and claim whatsoever, of the I
said part y of the first part, either in law or equity, to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said part of I i
the second part, itslreirs and assigns forever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF. The said party of the first part ha S hereunto set herhand
and seal the day and year first above written.
Signed, Scaled and Delivered in the Presence of OPALS MATILDA MAROLT
(SEAL.(
JSEALJ
�.'`-1 ��-�?-� '�'� _------- ---- -- - -- -- ---- -- --- —(SEAL(
�St3ATEGFCOLOR ADO,
j p LI Bl1� ss.
r>. •. •r�, .County of PlTKl/l/
?z•f1�,4.ving instrument was acknowledged before me this a 7 day of
OPltL MPrll JA mhl?oc`T
iMy commission expires 4-8- 19v. Witness my hand and official seal.
fl
It�
I
�I
�I
II
Notary Public. I I
— 0
No. 9:13. tl t'ITCIA 1%1 IU F:FI$.—('optrgl,t ', ly-ri P—d I--f P.Ad:.h-t ('u IM.i I1� Sl,-t SI to t, 11—ver, t'o to rails 1573 60111 --I 7M
3:47 P August 27, 1979 14 f-Ai,M1
Recorded at_i
Reception No— �_ Loretta 13anne
--- Recorder.
! +:C
THIS DEED, Made this day of August 19 791
�y PAfD
between �1ICKI ANN MAROLT AUG �'`
of the County of Boulder and state of
Colorado, of the first part, and
MAROLT ASSOCIATES, a Colorado General Partnership
whose legal address is C/o #300 Equitable Building, 730 Seventeenth Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202
ofthe Ci ty and County or Denver and state of
Colorado, of the second part,
WITNESSETH, That the said part y of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of
Ten Dollars and other good and valuable consideration per,-L-ARs,
to the said party of the first part in hand paid by the said party of the second part, the receipt whereof 1
Is hereby confessed and acknowledged, haS remised, released, sold, conveyed and QUIT CLAIMED, and by these
presents does remise, release, sell, convey and QUITCLAIM unto the said parLV of the second part i tS heirs,
successors and assigns, forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said party of the first part
has in and to the following described lot or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the County
of Pi tkin and State of Colorado, to wit:
See Exhibit "A" attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this
reference.
also known as street and number
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same, together with all and singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto
belonging or in anywise thereunto appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest and claim whatsoever, of the
said part y of the first part, either in law or equity, to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said part y of
the second part, its heirs and assigns forever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The said part y of the first part hjS; hereunto set herhand
and seal the day and year first above written.
Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of
VICKI ANN MAROLT SEAL)
jSEAL)
'SEAL)
STATE 0FCOLORADO, !SEAL]
ss.
County of
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
19 , by*
My commission expires . ,191 . Witness my hand and official seal.
Cps
'.
I
otary Public.
No. 933. QUIT CLAIM DEED --Brad ford Publishing Co., 1824.44 Stout Street, Denvrr, Coluradu (679-6011)-0177 �a jl
3:49 P Aticnu-,r 77 1 0"9
3P August 27, 1979
Recorded at_—�� •_-. c�S�ck ____ ht.,
Reception No.�_��[ `t_�1__ --Loretta Banner
J 1'1 PAL:. 0 U ?
Recorder.
C
„r7�,/�ir
Tilts DEED, Mndethis dayof August 1979, AU �' tt(�.
—D —
between PEGGY LOUISE ECKENRODE (a/k/a PEGGY LOUISE ELDRIDGE)
of the County of Boulder and state of
Colorado, of the first part, and
MAROLT ASSOCIATES, a Colorado General Partnership
whose legal address is c/o #300 Equitable Building, 730 Seventeenth Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202
ofthe City and County of Denver and state of
Colorado, of the second part,
W ITNESSETII, That the said part y of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of I
Ten Dollars and other good and valuable consideration Dorm- "1
to the said party of the first part in hand paid by the said part y of the second part, the receipt whereof
is hereby confessed and acknowledged, ha Sremised, released, sold, conveyed and QUIT CLAIMED, and by these
presents do eSremise, release, sell, convey and QUITCLAIM unto the said part y of the second part, its heirs, l
successors and assigns, forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said party of the first part
ha S in and to the following described lot or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the County
of Pitkin and State of Colorado, to wit:
See Exhibit "A" attached hereto
and incorporated herein by
this reference.
also known as street and number
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same, together with all and singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto
belonging or in anywise thereunto appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest and claim whatsoever, of the
said party of the first part, either in law or equity, to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said part Y of
the second part, i tS heirs and assigns forever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The said part Y of the first part ha S hereunto set herhand
and seal the day and year first above written.
Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of
iSEALI
PEGGY LOUISE ECKENRODE a/k/a
P GY LOUISE ELD$�ID/9GE �l� LI
C,C�'1:G2rCf�-f�EALI
—=jSEALI
STATE OF COLORADO,
es.
County of
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
19--�,by Peggy Louise Eckenrode, AKA Peggy Louise Eldridge
My commission expires �) f �.f 1977 .Witness my hand and official seal
O J.
i LJ V0
:-7- ' - -..- . - r - - _. -_ - -1 * _.: __ * ___ :- _: ____ 1.
No. 933. VVI7 CLAIM DEED.—DradRvd Nbliehint Ca.. 11424.46 Stout Streit, Denver, Cnkorado (573-bUll)-9177 tl
3;49 P August 27, 1979
Recorded at—� _ �_j o'clock-.___—M.,---------_---_
Reception No- fl- I.Oretta Bat _
V • - 1'IV, V V .
Recorder.
Tms DEED, Made this dayof August .19 79. AU
U
between KEITH E . MAROLT V�
of the County of and state of California
Colorado, of the first part, and
MAROLT ASSOCIATES, a Colorado General Partnership
whose legal add ressis c/o #300 Equitable Building, 730 Seventeenth Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202
of the City County of Denver and state of
Colorado, of the second part,
WITNESSETH, That the said part of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of
Ten Dollars and other good and valuable consideration 1307L-AM,
to the said part Y of the first part in hand paid by the said part Y of the second part, the receipt whereof
is hereby confessed and acknowledged, his Sremised, released, sold, conveyed and QUIT CLAIMED, and by these I
presents does remise, release, sell, convey and QUIT CLAIM unto the said part Y of the second part, its heirs, j
successors and assigns, forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said party of the first part
has in and to the following described lot or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the County
of Pitkin and State of Colorado, to wit: 1
See Exhibit "A" attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this
reference
also known as street and number
TO HAVE AND TO BOLD the same, together with all and singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto
belonging or in anywise thereunto appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest and claim whatsoever, of the
said part y of the first part, either in law or equity, to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said part Y of
the second part, i tS heirs and assigns forever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The said part y of the first part ha S hereunto set hi Shand
and seal the day and year first above written.��S
ALJ
Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of I KEITH E . MAROLT
(SEAL]
!SEAL)
J [SEAL)
STATE OF COLORADO,
aa.
County of A6.LC A'L)J I-- �,�;;UI 0
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this c� /AJ�' day of C r' SGLJ %'. ,•.-.".':.
19 % %, by" Keith MMolt
y tommisslon expires h)ay 18, 1983 •�,,
My commission expires .19 Witness my hand and official seal. Cv
V
r,�
NN`
L LCL.
Notary Public.
No. 933. QUIT CLAIM DEED. —Bradford Publishing Co., 1824.46 Stout Street, Denver, Colorado (673-6011)—Y/77
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Joseph E. Edwards, Chairman Board of County Commissioners
DATE: November 15, 1979
RE: Opal Marolt Rezoning Proposal
The Board of County Commissioners would like to offer comments
to the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission with respect to
the proposed Opal Marolt property rezoning application. Pit -
kin County owns land which is adjacent to this property along
Castle Creek Road, so this comment should be considered that
of an adjacent land owner and a local government entity which
is concerned with the Aspen area employee housing problem.
In general, the County supports a rezoning which would facil-
itate employee housing in this location as it is well -located
with respect to transportation, utilities, and other services.
The site is also large enough to offer opportunities to cluster
the development. We offer the following additional comments
related to both the rezoning application and conceptual devel-
opment plan:
1. The Elks Club represents a trend toward commercialism which
is inappropriate. Reservation of a site for certain pub-
lic facilities (transportation or fire protection) or
a neighborhood convenience store might be appropriate
to maintain certain neighborhood/community public service
needs. Any neighborhood store should not be located on
the highway but internal to the site and accessible to
the water plant housing.
2. R-6 density allows more uni'.� L_ilai, appi_iea ror and i s too
dense given the adjacent land's zoning, which is R-15 on
the Aspen side and AF-2 on the County side. Therefore,
the BOCC believes that R-15 with a PUD overlay and also
perhaps an SPA overlay would be most appropriate.
3. The zoning should be contingent on a housing mix on the land
which is at least 70% price restricted resident/employee
and 30o free market. The number of units should probably
be kept to less than 120, perhaps about 80.
4. The busway alignment is probably pointed too far south
of the appropriate alignment. See Curt Stewart for details.
5. Examine the possible relocation of the combined MAA/Country
Day School facilities at the proposed location for the
Elks Club. Talk to John Doremus.
6. Trails needs will increase with this proposed development.
The Castle Creek trails corridor both upstream towards
the MAA/Country Day School campus and Conundrum Creek and
downstream towards the Aspen Institute should be planned.
Other paved trails should be planned between the High
School Trail and the Aspen valley Hospital/Aspen Filter
Plant Housing Project access road and between South
Seventh Street and the Castle Creek Bridge underpass per
the Aspen/Pitkin County Trails Master Plan (1979).
7. Opportunities for resolving the Maroon/Castle intersection
problems should be looked at in the development plan.
Also, a new north/south road across the Marolt property
should align with Cemetary Lane and incorporate a turn-
out lane for highway safety.
HOUSING TASK FORCE
A Summary Report
January 1980
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction.. . 1
Proposal and Time Frame for the Process ............. 1
Problems.. ....................................... 2
Housing Goal ........................................ 2
DataAnalysis ... ... ....... ....................... 3
Objectives -- Preliminary Discussion ................ 7
Final Objectives and Assumptions .................... 9
TABLES:
Table I. Matrix of Rental and Ownership Shortfall
andFuture Need .......................... 4
Table II. Renters Analysis (Individual Annual Incomes.
Less than and Greater than $5,000)....... 5
APPENDICES: (available from Planning Office)
Appendix I. Housing Master Plan Outline
mppenuix ii. it/, tmpioyee housing Demand Survey Questionnaire
Appendix III. 1979 Employer Housing Demand Survey Questionnaire
Appendix IV. 1979 Survey of Single -Family Units
HOUSING TASK FORCE
A Summary Report
January 1980
Introduction
In 1978 and 1979, the dimensions of the local problem of
housing employees have become dramatic. Community wide, there is
agreement that the problem must be addressed. The public and private
sectors have recently joined forces.both to fully examine the problem
and to propose means for solving it.
In January 1979, the Aspen City Council, Pitkin County
Board of Commissioners and the Aspen Chamber of Commerce initiated
a Housing Master Plan. It was proposed to define the problem, to
outline goals, objectives and programs for solution, and to provide
for on -going evaluation of the plan. To arrive at specific objectives
for the number of units needed, and their mix of size, price and loca-
tion, a generally -accepted data base was needed. Therefore, a sur-
vey of employees and employers was jointly designed by the City of
Aspen, Pitkin County and the Aspen Chamber of Commerce in the Spring,
1979. This survey established demand for housing in terms of how
employees currently live (size and location of units, number of
people sharing and their relationship, and household income) and in
terms of their. preferences (tempered by actual income potential).
-U1 wicr. a �urrvev was annP r.n establ i sh supply of uni is ava-i-f abl e for
rent or ownership at prices within reach of employees.
Upon completion of these surveys and preliminary summary
reports by a consultant (Gail Mahoney of Sno-Engineering), a stra-
tegy for beginning to develop a Housing Master Plan was discussed.
To define the problem and to establish goals and objectives, a
Housing Task Force held weekly meetings from October 2, 1979 through
January 3, 1980. The group was comprised of the City and County
Planning and Zoning Commission members (charged with adopting master
plans for their respective jurisdictions), members of a Chamber of
Commerce Housing Subcommittee, and several members of the public
who regularly attended the meetings.
Proposal and Timeframe for the Process
At the first Housing Task Force Meeting on October 2nd,
the following process for developing a Housing Master Plan was
proposed:
Step 1: Data Analysis
Step 2: Establishment of goals and objectives (Housing Task
Force, October 1-Dec. 31)
Goals: broad statements of achievement desired. Should
be limited in number and directed toward the most im-
portant themes of the housing plan.
Objectives: measurable, more specific levels of achieve-
ment desired. These are a refinement of goals and
should be established for a periodic basis (e.g., annual
or five year).
Step 3: Policies and Programs (Community Workshop,; City/County Staff)
Policies and Programs: Policy Statements are mechanisms
for accomplishing community housing goals and objectives.
These should cover both the public and private sector
and provide a means for coordinating with other planning
goals and activities. Programs are the next level of
detail, setting forth specific strategies or implemen-
tation mechanisms.. A recommended way to organize these
in the plan text is to present them as follows:
a. Problem or issue
b. Policy and Program recommended to deal with each
problem or issue.
Step 4: Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation criteria: criteria set forth in advance for
evaluating working policies and programs to determine
whether housing goals and objectives are being met.
This requires an ongoing mechanism for gathering data and
comparing results with the measurable and non -measurable
objectives. The difficulty is one of finding adequate,
reliable, and reasonable data sources, i.e., using the
limited resources of a community to best advantage. A
timeframe for periodic review should be established con-
sistent with the timeframe established for objectives.
The following is a review of the Housing Task Force's proceedings
and decisions related to Steps 1 and 2 above:
Problems
n; �+ +ho n.+„kn- 11th meeting centered around an attempt
to list housing problems in a manner which would lead to comprehensive,
discrete goals. It was suggested and generally agreed that the problems
could be restated as follows:
1. Aspen has a supply -constrained market (not enough units).
2. The cost of many existing units is too high for employees.
3. The supply of existing units available to employees is being
reduced through conversion of units to tourist use (which is
often neither rented long term nor owner -occupied).
4. New development has not provided an adequte supply of new afford-
able units.
Other problems were suggested in the October 5th Planning Office
memo or raised at the meeting (e.g., which employees should be included
in housing solutions --seasonal workers, better -paid professionals such as
doctors, etc.). These were dismissed as symptoms of problems to be dealt
with in attempting to define programs (or solutions).
Housing Goal
Based on the above problems, discussion began generally to include
all facets of perceptions of the housing problem: financial hardship,
crowding, inconvenient location, dissatisfaction, displacement, etc. From
such discussion, a general goal was agreed upon as a statement of the
broad situation. The community goal is:
To assure existence of a supply of desirable and affordable
housing for all segments of the Upper Roaring Fork Resort
Community work force.
(2)
(1) To conserve the existing housing stock used by employees.
(2) To encourage new development of employee housing.
Further, provision of such housing shall, to the maximum extent pos-
sible, be consistent with other City and County policies, minimizing adverse
environmental, land use, transportation, growth, economic and social impacts.
The•Roaring Fork Resort Community, intended to be defined as the
entire area along the Roaring Fork which provides housing opportunities for.
Aspen Metro Area employees, is included as the scope of the housing goal.
Data Analysis
To move from the very general goal statement to specific objectives,
an analysis of data was necessary. Available sources were organized to des-
cribe shortfall and future need for both renters and owners. The attached
Table I is a compilation of all indicators upon which agreement was reached
by Task Force members.
Rental shortfall is based on data from the 1979 employee and employ-
er surveys, plus supply data (a 1979 survey of single-family units and the
1978 Silverking survey for multi -family units). Indicators of shortfall,
or housing needs of the current Aspen Metro work force, are categorized as
location, financial and crowding. They range from 200 to 630 people,
with overlap between categories. Each factor is expressed in terms of a
20% range around an agreed upon number.
Future rental need is a composite of several supply and demand fac-
__ _— tcr::. T' _ d�-c;:J rw, �; ;.,,,,ual growth in number of employees. Sev-
eral growth indicator projections were examined, including the following:*
e
--7.2% average compound annual rate of growth of permanent resident
population 1970-1978 (projected annual rate of 3% based on linear
regression analysis.
--5.1% annual growth in employment
--7.0% annual growth in retail sales (constant dollars)"
--5.1% growth in skier visits (through 1977)
--4.0% growth in skier visits (through 1979)
--4.0% growth in commercial build -out (projected, based on City and
County building permits 1970-1979)
--4.7% annual growth in income tax returns (projected)
--5.0% (est.) annual growth in residential units
Supply factors include loss of existing units used by employees
through condominiumization and gain through use of new downvalley units
by Aspen Metro employees. The City of Aspen has had 299 existing units
converted through condominiumization in the past seven years, averaging
43 units per year.** While not all units are lost to employee use, (some
owners and renters purchase and occupy units), few are restricted in terms
* All projections are made using linear regression analysis.
** Based on condominiumization study - Planning Office, December 1979
Table I. Matrix of Rental and Ownership Shortfall and Future Need
RENTAL
OWNERSHIP
3954 employees in Aspen Metro rent; 1776 employees in Aspen Metro own
2890 of these live in Aspen Metro 060 of these live in Aspen Metro
1. LOCATION: 225-275 people want
to move to metro area.
2. FINANCIAL:
a. 520-630 people of the 270
households earning $7000 per
SHORTFALL year pay 40% of their income
OR for rent. 440-540 people
PRESENT of the 216 households earning
NEED $7000 per year pay 40% of
their income for rent.
b. 550-670 people earn less than
$5000 per year, rent and
live in the Aspen Metro area
3. CROWDING:
200-250 people earning less than
$5000 per year live in bedrooms
with 1.2 people.
In addition, 340-420 people of
all earning levels live in
bedrooms with 1.2 people.
1. Estimate 100 households based
on applicants for Lone Pine
who did not receive units.
2. No overcrowding factor.
3. Paying over 30% of income for
home purchase is not a problem.
4. There are downvalley owners who
would prefer to live in the
Aspen Metro area (including
mobile home owners).
5. 593 people earn over $14,000
and could own. (Possible to
provide units for $10,000
annual individual income.)
TOTAL
5730
3650
1. Increased number of employees
ioased on annual projections):
4% x 7,500 jobs
= 300 jobs/year 1 1.3 jobs/person
INCREASED
= 230 new employees/year
DEMAND
OR
2. Supply:
FUTURE
A. Loss of employee rental
NEED
units by condominiumization:
43 units/year.
B. Downvalley supply of new
moderately -priced units.
NOTES:
1. There are 7450 gross jobs in the Aspen Pietro Area
2. There is a 10% unemployment factor.
3. Ranges of numbers are 20% aroung a central point.
4. The "Aspen Metro Area" includes the are from Independence Pass to Brush
Creek Road/Highway 82 (not including Snowmass Village which has its own
Master Plan).
5. Distribution of Pitkin County Work Force:
Renters
Owners
TOTAL
Live in
As en Metro
Live outside
Aspen Metro
TOTAL
20U90
1064
3954
760
1016
1776
3650
2080
5730
(4)
TABLE II,
RENTERS A'IALYSIS
Demographic Characteristics
.Income
less the $5,000/ r
N=900
Income
$5,000'to 30,000
N=3,040
Marital Status: Single
80%
61%
Married
6%
16%
Divorced
4%
12%
Cohabitation
10%
11%
Age: Average (Slightly Greater Than:)
26 yrs.
30 yrs.
Under 30
91%
70%
Residence Snowmass
2%
4%
Location: Down Valley
30%
24%
Aspen Metro (County)
38%
29%
Aspen
30%
43%
Intended Stay: Winter or less
30%
8%
Through Summer
8%
5%
1 year
8%
6%
1-3 years
13%
15%
Indefinitel
41%
66%
enure in Roaring Less than 1 year
56%
28%
Fork Valley: 1-5 years
14%
'41%
5+ years
8%
13%
Average years (approximate)
2.3 yrs.
4 yrs.
n•
Avg. # Children/"Total Households
.1
..z
Avg. # Children/Households W/Child
1.8
1:6
Residence Type: Apt./Condo
42.6%
45%
Single Family
i.10%
17%
Multi -Family (Duplex, Triplex, Fourplex)
10%
15%
Mdbile Home
12%
7%
Other -
25%
15%
Avg. # Bedrooms/Unit
2%
2%
Avg. Total Cost/Month (Approximate)
$267.00
$372.00
itkin County Avg. Length (Approximate)
2 yrs.
4 yrs.
Employment: Less than 1 year
55%
29%
1-5 years
44%
44%
5+ years
1%
27%
Avg. # Hours/Week
39 hrs.
43 hrs.
1979 Mos. Employed > 10 mos.
27%
82%
Avg. # Winter Jobs
1.5
1.4
Avg. # Summer Jobs
1.2
1.2
-Income: Avg. Individual
$3,000.00
$11,000.00
Avg. Household $11,800.00
$21,500.00
Avg. # Employed Adults
2.6
2.2
__.. ...�-...��.. �.. ......w-�.� - «ate^°.. .: .q. .,-.•�. 4 � �e••..�,..nr,4iA� ': �^ S •rZ•^ ;.-�'�•'!T,1 �f^ �a
of sales or rental price or of occupancy by local employees.
Use of new downvalley units by Aspen Metro employees has not yet been
clearly determined. When completed and available, a Market Study for Basalt
South and a survey of housing in Garfield County should help answer ques-
tions of the expected use of such units. Disagreement presently exists
concerning affordability of units and expected use by downvalley employees
or second -home owners. A discussion with the Garfield County planner indi-
cated the following downvalley supply potential:
-- Basalt South; 67 acres; 404 units (approx. 80 single-family,
150 townhouse condominiums, and 170 apartments); 181,000 sq. ft.
commercial space; $100,000 minimum price for residential units.
-- Lake Springs Ranch on College Road, Spring Valley; Single-family
units on one -acre parcels; 195 units, lower cost.
-- Los Amigos; single-family, clustered apartments, duplexes; 96
apartments are under construction; about 50% of the total 568
(i.e., 284) units will be about $100,000.
-- St. Finnebar; cluster and single-family PUD (small lots); PUD and
zoning have been approved; 120 units ranging from $100,000 to
$200,000.
-- Four -Mile Ranch; new application for about 350 low-cost units;
to P & Z in one month.
-- Carbondale is annexing land which involves applications for
1,100 units; some lower -cost.
Relative to ownership; the group agreed that such opportunities
should exist, and that planning efforts should take into account the
expectation that ownership by local employees will free rental (and pos-
�,•hisome-ownership) units _affordable by other -emp_loyees,-t,Lnn
into account in attempting to establish, as an objective, a number of
units to be made available include: experience in the County with Lone
Pine and Midland Park demand, interest expressed by mobile homeowners and
families living downvalley in moving to the Metro area, and renters earning
over $10,000 to $13,000 who can potentially own units.
Considerable discussion was directed toward varying needs of people
in different income categories. For instance, renters in higher income
categories (for local employees), as well as downvalley mobile home owners
can potentially take advantage of reasonably -priced unit ownership opportun-
ities. Another group selected as "unique" was the group earning less than
$5000 annual individual income (see Table II) which appears to consist pri-
marily of seasonal workers whose housing needs may include dorm or larger
shared units (e.g., three or four bedroom).
Another factor which might affect future housing need would be
an increase to full work force. Twenty-four percent of employers in the
1979 survey indicated that they needed more employees (24% x 1048 = 250
employees). This figure was not used in projections since a conservative
growth was decided to be preferred, especially considering that there is
a 10s unemployment rate so that more people in the community could work
if necessary.
Agreement was reached from the data in Table I that rental short-
fall ranges from 200 to 670 people, that future rental demand is conserva-
(6)
tively 4% per year (not including loss of employee -type units through
condominiumization), and that present and future ownership needs can be
generally guaged in terms of renters who can afford to own and downvalley
owners (e.g., families or mobile home owners) who wish to own and are able
to afford price -restricted units in the Aspen Metro area.
Objectives -- Preliminary Discussion
The data analyzed above was then used as a basis for more specific
housing objectives, or targets which, when met, will result in meeting
the general housing goal. As a starting point, such issues as the following
wer discussed at length for maintenance of existing and for production of
new housing:
- annual targets;
- ownership/rental mix;
dwelling unit types (including number of bedrooms, mobile
homes, etc.) and prices; and
- location of units;
- proportion of total Metro Area employees to be housed in the
Metro Area;
- ideal employee/bedroom ratio;
- which housing dissatisfaction or expectations to meet.
Several possible approaches for arriving at employee housing objec-
tives for the Aspen Metro Area were examined and compared before specific
members were agreed upon to be presented as the Task Force's recommended
objectives. Those approaches and the data bases used are:
A. Rental Housing Shortfall and Future Need
(by Harry Truscott with data .from 1979 Employee/ -Employer-,,' �,:--:;u, vuy;
Shortfall:
{1)
Household
(2)
Percent
(3)
Acceptable
(4)
No. of
(5)
No. of
(6)
No. of
(7)
Available
(8)
Units
(9)
Units Neede
Income
($1000)
of
Employees
Rental
Rate*
Adults in
Aspen Metro
Bedrooms
to House
Units***
Units_at
Given
Needed
(Column
to Bring
253 Emps.
($)
Work Force
Adults**
Rental
Rate
6 - 7)
from
Downvalley
0_/0
z47o
0-2sD
-756
&30
300.
2_87
31
z4
5040
IZ5-0-400
361
/4
30
34�0
400-�z5
1077—
B73
425
409
l/10
33
25+
)44
4
)2
MTALS:
1 DO, �o
3/42.
Z �o
Z 50
1 Zo3
lo%
* Assume 30% of annual income is a reasonable amount to pay for rental.
** Assume 1.2 Adults/Bedroom.
*** Assc,r,e 2.1 average.
ALSO: Assume that to maintain residency of 101 of employees in Aspen Metro Area is desirable.
Future:
At 4% annual growth x 1203 units = 48 units
TOTAL RENTAL REQUIREMENTS: 1st year: 47 + 99 = 140' units
Next 5 years: 5 x 48 = 24,0 units
TOTAL UNITS - 386 UNITS
Units
Needed at
35% of
Income
So
�G�SS
85
77
Z-7
mess
(7)
B. Rental and Ownership, Shortfall and Future Need
(Prepared by Mark Danielsen, County Housing Director, based on
experience with County housing projects and 1979 survey data).
Rental 250-300 SHORTFALL units needed in first year to solve
overcrowding, location, financial problems
30-45 FUTURE units needed per year.for next 5 years
(Assuming Silverking is not condominumized)
400-525 Subtotal of units for next 6 years
Ownership 70-140 SHORTFALL units needed immediately (70 based on
Lone Pine prices; 140 represents units for
which a $10,000 individual income would qualify)
20 FUTURE new units needed per year for next 5 years
(demonstrated demand from Lone Pine: 125-150 qual-
ify)
170-240 Subtotal of ownership units for next 6 years
570-765 TOTAL FOR NEXT 6 YEARS (ownership and rental)
C. A third approach was taken by Gail Mahoney using numbers which the
Task Force had agreed upon. (See Table I). From that data, 486
rental units are neede to meet 1000 of shortfall based on financial
need (assuming that most other needs would be met as well). The
group agreed that it was fair to discount that number by 50% to
account for slack in numbers when assumptions were made at several
stages. Therefore, the need is about 250 rental units to accomo-
date shortfall.
Rental shortfall, therefore, appears to be near 250 units in each of the
three analyses.
Further, the units might be distributed as follows, based on 1979 survey
RENT OWN
45% seasonal 35% 20%
250 units 112 (fewer units 88 50
if greater than
1.2 people per
unit)
576 people 259 202 115
Mark Danielsen suggested the following distributions:
Rental Mix (based on Silverking and 1975 surveys):
5% dorms
10% studios
15% 1-bedroom
40% 2-bedroom
30% 3-bedroom
Ownership Mix
15%
studios
25%
1-bedroom
45%
2-bedroom
(8)
Objectives and Assumptions
Extensive discussion.of many aspect& of each of the following
points lead to informal agreement that these specific objectives and assump-
tions will provide an effective basis for solutions to the Aspen Metro Area
employee housing problem, to be set forth in a comprehensive Housing Mas-
ter Plan. It is understood, however, that the Master Plan will include the
process and criteria for periodic evaluation of both objectives and pro-
grams.
The Task Force agreed upon the following objectives for meeting the
housing need of the Upper Roaring Fork Valley's work force (not in order
of priority):
1. Total rental and ownership housing shortfall is estimated at
250 units (average 2.1 bedrooms per unit). Financial need,
desire to move from downvalley to the Aspen Metro Area, crow-
ding and loss of units through condominiumization are taken into
account.
2. The target proportion of rental to ownership units is 70:30 or
175 units: 75 units. A greater proportion of ownership units
is desireable.
3. Four percent average annual growth results in a further need
for 48 units annually (assuming continuation of past trends
in growth and employee generation.)
4. Maintain the existing stock of employee housing in addition
to providing an additional 48 units per year to accomodate
growth. For instance, reduce the number of condominium con-
versions (from the current annual level ---of '
evel_of. 40)--which h, %o tho
_ effect of displacing low and moderate imome h'ousL-iiui�3, uiiu,'
or encourage conversions which provide restricted housing
units. (Develop a method to determine if displacement occurs
and then maintain such units as low and moderate priced units).
5. The 250 units would ideally be located in the Aspen Metro Area.
6. As a guideline, the following mix of rental units is recommended
for the overall housing stock:
Rental (% of units)
10% Dorms or other low-income units
25% Studios and 1-bedroom
50% 2-bedroom
15% 3-bedroom
7. Both short-range and long-range guidelines are recommended for
the mix of ownership units. The short-term guideline could
accomodate higher -income renters and downvalley owners, while
the long-term guideline could encourage more family ownership
in the Aspen Metro Area.
Short-ranqe (% of units)
15% Studios
25% 1-bedroom
45% 2-bedroom
15% 3-bedroom
(9)
Long-range (% of units)
25% 1-bedroom and studios
45% 2-bedroom
30% 3-bedroom
8. As a guideline, the following number of rental units will be
provided for each of the following income categories:
Household % of units in # units
Income each category shortfall
$0-10,000 29 10
$10-16,000 29 11
$16-25,000 29 13
$25,000 + 13 5
Total: 39
Number of units needed
in each cate4ory
29% x 175 = 51
29% x 175 = 51
29% x 175 ='51
13% x 175 = 22
Total: 175
9. While the problem of different needs for seasonal and for
more permanent renters is recognized, no attempt is made to
differentiate between rental units for the two types of renters.
10. Disperse employee housing within the Aspen Metro Area through
variety in sizes and locations of projects and units.
11. Better control development of those uses which generate a
need for additional employees (e.g., by reviewing major new
developments to assure that total employee generation is con-
sidered as illustrated by Aspen Institute or new ski areas.)
Also reveiw the cause and effect relationship between historic
commercial development (50,000 sq. ft. per year) and employee
generation rates to see if better control of the development
of those uses generating additional employees is needed.
12. Provide incentives for innovative solutions to provision of
housing.
13. Encourage employers to participate in housing employees (e.g.,
by providing rent supplements).
14. Deed restrict (for rent/purchase price, local employment,
residency) all units intended to s-erve employee--nec'-:
that they continue -to —provide- for such needs, and ���_eniNluyee
incomes to the cost of units.
15. Encourage the private sector to actively participate in pro-
duction of needed employee housing with public assistance,
facilitation; and incentives where appropriate.
16. Employee housing development shall be compatible with neigh-
borhood character, including scale, architectural design, and
surrounding land uses.
The objectives are based on the following assumptions, made for planning
purposes:
1. An average occupancy for rental and ownership bedrooms is 1.2
people.
2. There are an average of 2.3 income -earning adults per house-
hold.
3. Between 30% and 40% of a person's income spent on housing (ren-
tal or ownership) is acceptable.
4. The 250 unit shortfall number includes the assumption of no more
than 20 condominium conversions which cause displacement of
employees per year. The 48 unit per year future demand does
110i, dCCOU11L iur ally loss due -t0 disjjiLll,_. ,_.
Plan I - 12/79 14z-C.17q)
Price Restricted Units, Including Publicly -Sponsored
Projects and
Growth
Management Plan Allocations
Ownership Units Completed or Under Construction
,
Year
U N I T
S
Name Developer
Completed
TOTAL
Studio 1-bed
2-bed
Park Circle
County -Sponsored
1975
12
12
Midland Park
County
1978
37
8
14
Lone Pine
Private
(1980)
28
7 11
10
Creekside *
Snowmass Co.
(1'980)
27
Rental Units Completed or Under Construction
3-b
15
Name
Developer
Year
Completed
U N I T
S
TOTAL Studio 1-bed
2-bed 3-bed
Community Ctr.
County
1978
10
6 **
3
1
Rocky Mtn. Nat.
Gas
Private
(1980)
4
2 2
Creekside *
Snowmass Co.
(1980)
45
Hunter Longhouse
Private/Co. Lan
(1980)
28
14
14
KSNO
Private
(1980)
5
4
1
Park Central W.
Private (GMP),
(1980)
3 ,.
3
Water Plant
City
(1980-81)
80
24
16
32 8
Tom Thumb
Private (GMP)
(1980)
2-3
Approved Units
Year
Name IDeveloper Approved
Price -Restricted Units
)TAL Studio 1-bed 2-bed 3-bed
Top of Mil-1-
Private(City GhDl'
111711
500 S. Galena/
925 Durant
Private(City GMP)
1978
13
Mtn. Chalet
Priv.(Lodge GMP)
1978
8
Aspen Inn
Priv.(Lodge GMP)
1978
24
Abacus Ranch
Priv.(Co. GMP)
1979
4 lots
o Waterman
Priv.(Co. GMP)
1979
2
Bell Mtn. Sports
Priv.(Comm GMP)
1980
1 1•
Smith Bldg.
Priv.(Comm GMP)
1980
2 2
Epicure
Priv.(Comm GMP)
1980
3 2 1
Pfister _ ---Pi+✓.
(Metro GMP)
1979-80
44
Aspen Racq. Club
Priv.(Metro GMP)
1980
1
White Star Ranch
Priv.(Co. GMP)
1980
6
Pomegranate West
Priv.
1979
14 Low income price guidelines
Proposed Units
double occupancy
��.
Name Developer
Marolt Private (owner)
Smuggler Trailer Private
Park Expnsn.
Benedict Private
0
*Units will not serve Aspen Metro employees.
**Rooms with shared kitchens.
4
Total Possible Units
70-80
18-20
200
i
11/28/79
Mr. Olaf Hedstrom
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Colo. 81611
Dear Mr. Hedstrom:
My second letter! But mainly to enclose another important
letter written to me by our house -sitter and permanent
resident of Aspen: Connie Morrell.
Connie has been the manager of the Boomerang Lodge for the past
five years. "Gus and Annie",referred to in her letter, also
live permanently in town and work at th eir respective
construction and teaching jobs.
As Connie Morrell so honestly confides: "we were not expecting
to share your and Jerry's (Fels) viewpoint ........ But.
I think her letter should be of great interest to you and
your committee because she states - in her own, devoted way -
how many of us feel about Aspen.
Because we did not receive her letter until today, Nov. 28th,
due to Aspen's anxiously -and -gloriously -awaited snowfall, this
letter will certainly not arrive in time for the next hearing --
tomorrow, Nov. 29th. Alas!
I hope to get in touch with you by phone before the meeting.
But I must emphasize that my absence tomorrow will, and does,
not indicate dieintPrPgt or a lessening of my strong disdain
z' planned for the Marol t property.
I hope the ideas expressed in Fps. Morrell's letter will be
seriously considered by the committee before any action is taken.
4respec "'u. Weinberg
enc.a 1
125 S. 7th St.
Aspen, Colo. 81611 and 820 Ridge Rd., Highland Park,Ill.60035
ORRt-. x'art'�.. _,
"'k' •'� . -T, -,,.
y.
- ..'-v, • 'r---" -. - c- .a- * -rts-�"' ... T•�P
- .
l
r
to 4
.•..
3.4,>�+a..r yar.
s-.'. ern„*.tr•'sn. ...,.,,.,a �....
.-._ •• fS ^_.-.-�.!... ,.. `• .,. t_�,_•.f ��.
- ..
..
i
Y
0
M
E
R
A
N
G
0
Dear Sidney,
LODGE
21 Wednesday 1979
Gus, Annie & I trecked off to the AP&Z meeting last
night to see what is proposed for the Marolt property
----- across the creek from your house. We must
confide that we were not expecting to share your and
Jerry's viewpoint. Such would have been the case if
the city had intentions of building some moderate
income units available to yearround residents ---
such a beautiful site and so needed. The mass
forced exodus downvalley is saddening,for what it
is contribut0ing to an increased lost sense of
community for those of us calling Aspen home.
However, we join you. A slick c,�ty developer has
some evil plans (huge 1) disguisIjed under the promise
r of 70% moderate income units folocals, 30% free-
market. It sounds like a minimum of 125-150 units,
recreational facilities, roads everywhere, etc. etc.
etc. Devestating use of this fine property ---- th3t
lies as green space for all to enjoy approaching
the village from the West, just before the high
density zoning of in -town. Something small, maybe,
but _t -.`.ct t`i_- ,;y i*6 dopears to have in
mina. un zne conceptual drawings, Annie saw a
supermarket!
Somehow, I cannot even begin to see Aspen approving
something like this ---- in light of the past 30 years'
controls. However, the board is a ratXher dead group
(zoning folks) .... so who can say. Very few people
were present at the hearing to speak out against it.
Mention was made of your and Jerry's letters; they were
passed along the desk for the board to review.
The next session, to finish the hearing, is scheduled
for Thursday, Nov. 29th, at 5:OOpm. Please write
or telegram again !!!! ThVis one needs strong
opposition from those of you with property interests.
On the joyful side ------ lots of feathery snow fell
this week. You will definitely find the skiing great
come Dec. 17th and your house ready to welcome you back.
I feel so lucky to live in this beautiful town
500 W. HOPKINS
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
303/925-3416
July 11, 1979
CONCEPTUAL PLAN/OPAL MAROLT
QUANTITY TAKEOFFS
Roads: 80' R.O.W./40' paved (2320')
60' R.O.W.130' paved (1280')
Parcels: A/Elks
10,000 sq. ft. building
80 parking spaces
recreatiion field
pool/amenity area
B/City Maintenance Yard
C/1±arolt
House and Garage
Picnic grounds to river
Field
D/Ifarket Housing
40-45 units (14 DU/AC
72 parking spaces
pool area
E/Employee Housing
27 units (13 DU/AC) 1&2 B.R.
54 parking spaces
F/Employee Housing
27 units (18 DU/AC) 1&2 B.R.
48 parking spaces
G/Employee Housing
12 units 2&3 B.R. (6DU/AC)
40 parking spaces
H/Employee Housing
14 units (20 DU/AC) 2B.R.
28 parking spaces
I/Dedicated Open Space
Pool area.
Contiguous open field
River valley edge
Links to existing pathways.
community development
design workshop, inc.
415 s. spring
aspen, co 81611
303-925-8354
land planning landscape architecture 71
Y
' � vt I.. }f�a.r K.. •.=�; wic'.r �'�,h ;T;r .�.. . «e..M.v.".
L f
6ilk
ACRES
4
1.7
4
1
5.5
3.5
2.1
1.8
2.4
1
9.1
e
' r ,
CONCEPTUAL PLAN/MAROLT (cont'd)
J'/Lot Extension Land
East of Castle Creek
Area used for 80' R.O.W.
through city conservation land
2.3
(3)
35.4 acres.
'
�
/yam-'.'."". =ii �`-^-- � yis�r—�.`•--+.,..,...�....,
w. : i
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Director
RE: Rezoning on Opal Marolt Property and Additional Comments on Celia Marolt
Rezoning Application
DATE: November 13, 1979
The Planning Office has received an application for annexation and rezoning of
the property known as the Opal Marolt property west of the Castle Creek River.
The property comprises approximately thirty five acres of land generally between
the Highway 82 entrance to town and Castle Creek Road. The nroperty is bounded
on the west by conservation zoning and the City limits extended during the Thomas
property annexation several years ago. The City's Water Plant site, now zoned
SPA, is immediately to the south. A small parcel (36,000 square feet) owned by
Celia Marolt is also located on the southern portion of the property. Across the
river to the east the land is held in many separate private ownerships and is
zoned R-15. The property itself is currently zoned AF-2 as is property to the
southwest, AF-1 property surrounds the City's SPA zoning to the south and south-
east. To the north of the property across Highway 82 the valley floor is zoned
R-30. The application in your packet originally requested SPA zoning to allow
maximum flexibility to develop a unique land use configuration designed to provide
a mixed employee/free market project. The applicant changed that request to an
R-6 zone density and that is the zone that was published for the Public Hearing
to be held on Tuesday, November 20.
The question for the P & Z is a recommendation to the City Council regarding
appropriate zoning for the site which is proposed for annexation. The Council
has not entertained or reviewed the annexation proposal as yet until the P & Z
makes its recommendation. A related question is the recommendation of zoning
for the Celia Marolt parcel.
Conceptual Plan
In order to facilitate the Commission's understanding of the proposal and the
merits of the zoning request, the applicant has prepared a conceptual development
plan. It is too large for your packet, but is in our office for your inspection.
Your packet does include a summary of the land use and densities included as part
of that plan. The primary thrust of the plan is to develop the Marolt property
in a primarily residential development comprised substantially of deed restricted
employee housing. Free market housing is included in order to generate the
revenues to subsidize the employee housing portion. As currently proposed, the
application breaks down into approximately 80 deed restricted employee units
which are provided in both a townhouse and multi -family configuration on the
southernmost half of the property and into a free-market portion which is approx-
imately 40 to 45 units of clustered townhouses on the site of the old mine factory
on the northernmost portion of the property. The development plan reserves a
parcel for the existing single-family house of Opal Marolt. The plan also pro-
poses to relocate the Elk's Club to this site on the northernmost nortion closest
to Highway 82. A final element of the plan is to reserve a parcel on the Castle
Creek Valley floor on the northeast portion of the site for a City maintenance
building. A new access road would parallel the western border of the site and
run north/south between Highway 82 and Castle Creek Road. The site is generally
flat except for steeply sloping portions on the easternmost border which descend
to the Castle Creek Valley floor. In some areas the site extends across Castle
Creek to the hillside on the eastern portion.
Relevant Considerations in Recommending Upon Rezoning
In recommending any rezoning the Planning and Zoning Commission must take into
account the following relevant factors:
1. Are there conditions which have changed which might warrant the rezoning?
2. Is the zoning proposed consistent both in terms of land uses permitted
and densities allowed with surrounding existing land uses as well as
zoning patterns?
3. Is the land use and density allowable as a result of the proposed zoning
consistent with the natural features of the site, available public facil-
ities and services, transportation and access?
4. Is the proposal consistent with the adopted Master Plan?
Comments and Input from Referral Agencies
With respect to the above mentioned relevant considerations, the Planning Office
offers the following comments which are based on referral agency comments, comments
of adjacent landowners, and analysis of the issues:
"l. The County has commented as an adjacent landowner that it supports a re-
zoning which would facilitate employee housing in this location because
of its location with respect to transportation, utilities and services,
and natural characteristics of the sight which offer opportunities to
cluster the development. The County did state that because R-6 zoning
would allow more density than had been applied for and recommended that
R-15 zoning would be more appropriate given adjacent R-15 zoning on the
Aspen side and AF-2 zoning on the County side. The County went on to
recommend that the site be designated with a mandatory PUD and/or perhaps
an SPA overlay which would facilitate development in accordance with a
site plan that could best be geared to relevant site characteristics.
The County recommended against the location of the Elk's Club at this
site although it did approve of perhaps some minimal neighborhood com-
mercial or community facilities orientation.
2. The application was referred to the Open Space Advisory Board which has
not as yet made a formal comment pending an inspection of the site on
November 20. However, they did reiterate that this site was high on
the list of priorities for acquisition for open space as it is located
at the entrance to Aspen and adjacent to a valuable piece of open space.
+"^ Thomas parcel.
3. The Aspen Land Use Plan of 1973 recommends single-family land use for this
site with a fairly large open space greenbelt paralleling Castle Creek.
It appears to us from the map that the greenbelt does cover the portion
of the property which is proposed for the free-market clusters.
4. The Planning Office has prepared a map which will be partially xeroxed
for your packet and which demonstrates the surrounding zoning patterns
in both the City and the County. The site is adjacent to R-15 and lesser
density zoning categories with the exception of the specially planned
areas zoned for the employee water palnt site to the south.
5. Current AF-2 zoning would allow approximately 17 units if there were no
slope reduction (i.e., one third or more of the property would have to
be covered by slopes in excess of 45%). This density might be further
reduced by dedication of roads. If the property were zoned with City's
R-6 zone category, and if there were no slope reduction formula applying
(this is more likely to apply, however, in the City), single-family develop-
ment would yield 254 units at 6,000 square feet apiece. A duplex or
multi -family development (if developed through a PUD row houses are
permitted) would yield 338 units. Under the City's R-15 zone category
on the other hand, a single-family development at 15,000 square feet
per unit would yield 101 dwelling units, again, no density reduction
for slope factors. A duplex or multi -family development at 10,000 square
feet per unit would yield 152 units. Under the R-15-A and whether the
same restriction would apply to multi -family type structures, although
that certainly was the intent.
There is little development to compare with the Marolt property west of
Castle Creek. The Water Plant proposes 80 units on over one hundred acres.
6. In the matter of changed conditions, we point out identified employee
-2-
housing needs. Recent market data indicate that there is a demand for
anywhere between 250 to 500 units just to solve an existing employee
housing deficit. This does not estimate the need over future years if
certain trends in the market continue to reduce the supply available
to ---employees even further while generating new employees. This argues
for selective upzoning to create density bonuses to motivate the pro-
duction of deed restricted employee housing. The housing overlay district
as proposed offers a review mechanism for identifying appropriate sites.
Among the review criteria is a preference for sites which are open and
which offer opportunities to cluster development, buffer with greenbelt,
and mitigate impact on surrounding neighborhoods. This site offers those
characteristics.
7- It is appropriate to compare alternative sites for employee housing de-
velopment. Among the ones that have recently been discussed are:
a. The Pfister site. It was recently approved for some 40 units
of deed restricted employee housing. It is more distant, but
would develop at a lower overall density under the current plan.
b. The Benedict proposal for the Rio Grande property. This proposes
to locate up to 200 units of employee housing on the Rio Grande
site. It is complicated by the necessity for public vote in
order to approve an alternative housing use for land purchased
with sixth and seventh penny funds (competing uses for that
property have always been an issue). Location of the jail
facility, performing arts, playing fields, greenbelt park, parking
structure, and other transportation functions have all been pro-
posed. The advantages include the benefit of a public land sub-
sidy (if it is possible) as well as its proximity to the urban
core. It would also provide an interesting if not originally
contemplated redevelopment of the Rio Grande property and river
front area for the community.
c. Various areas on Smuggler Mountain. There are a couple of vacant
parcels which could accomodate fairly high densities consistent
with the neighborhood development. The problem with y"c
Mountain area has always been an inadequate circuiaLAun 5ySLelll
and confusing traffic pattern. Further development would only
complicate that. The advantages of the area include its rela-
tively close proximity to town and adequate bus transportation.
The area is obviously excellent for solar purposes.
d. Benedict Gravel Pit Site. This site has the advantage of being
well -hidden from surrounding areas. Like the Smuggler area, no
specific proposals have been received on this site and the problems
of access and greater distance from town are among those that
are likely to crop up.
e. "Under the Bridge" housing, which is the 200 to 300 unit proposal,
pyramid structure proposed to be located under Castle Creek Bridge.
The structure proposes an innovative solution to the employee
housing problem in close proximity to town. The site is just to the
northeast of the Marolt property. In fact it incorporates land
owned by Opal Marolt as well as several other ownerships belonging
to the State/City/County and other private individuals. It is
also proposed as and energy -conserving structure. However, its
major problems include the difficulties of negotiating the land
acquisitions and approvals necessary from various levels of govern-
ments and private individuals.
f. The Water Plant Housing. A serious proposal is being pursued on
this property. The City has determined that it must go to a
General Obligation Bond Issue, however, before proceeding. The
site is at a further distance from the Marolt Property and would
be aided by any access going across that property.
8... There is adequate utility service to the site.
9. Bus service in this area has greatly improved since ori9*inai_zoning.
-3-
Planning Office Recommendation
The City of Aspen heretofore has established a fairly well-defined policy against
zoning to higher densities based on its land use and growth management plans and
zoning implementation developed in response to the rapid growth of the early 1970's.
This is true for the County as well. However, in view of the developing policy
regarding the need to produce employee housing, areas must be found which are
suitable for rezoning for development at higher densities in order to promote
housing at an affordable cost. Both the City and the County have considered
measures which would permit such housing development. These are the County's
PMH zone district and the City's proposed Housing Overlay District which both
grant a density bonus in return for deed restricted units within the low, moderate,
and middle income ranges. Among the review criteria which the City is considering
in its Housing Overlay proposal is that sites be looked to for increased densities
which are not primarily developed with uniform neighborhood characteristics. We
believe that the Marolt property fits in this category. The site appears to be
among the best for employee housing development. In view of other proposed
review criteria: it is yet close to town, served by utilities and bus transportation,
and offers an opportunity to cluster. We agree that the Smuggler "fountain area
is probably the best area for employee housing. However, it has a disadvantage
of being the primary repository of employee housing proposals. The Marolt prop-
erty has the advantage of dispersing employee housing to a different area of the
community. We acknowledge that the open space characteristics of this site have
long had a high priority. We would argue, however, that there is an appropriate
density on this parcel that would allow for preservation of the open space amenities
of that land.
One hundred and fifty units is too dense for the property. It would generate
approximately 1,050 more automobile trips over Castle Creek per day. An evaluation
of the development plan indicates that 120 units, even when clustered; has•not
acheived maximum benefits of greenbelt and clustering and might more likely do
so with a lower number of units. This would be more consistent with the pattern
of development across Castle Creek. The density reduction formula is very likely
to reduce the maximum allowable density under the R-15-A category. We recommend
somewhere in the order of 70 to 100 units be developed on the property, and will
work wit►i Liie dUUliCdnr ro rPTin. p rha max—lopment plan. We are highly favorable
toward the generalized location of free market and employee units.
The Planning Office does recommend the R-15-A zone district as the appropriate
zone given surrounding zoning patterns. The greater density is legitimate given
the changed conditions noted. R-15-A is consistent with previous annexation
policy.
A further recommendation is that any SPA overlay be attached to the parcel that
would facilitate the mixed uses and clustered densities contemplated by the
development plan. Mandatory PUD is also warranted by the size and topographic
nature of portions of the site.
While the R-15-A/PUD/SPA is a complicated zoning scheme, it is necessary in view
of the uncertain future of the housing overlay zone. Should that district pass
in the near future, this project would most suitably be developed under an R-15-A/
Housing Overlay. This scheme would offer the review process and exemption from
GMP Quota competition. Selective SPA zoning, might still be necessary to accomodate
any community facilities.
We, too, recommend against any commercial orientation near the highway. The Elks
facility seems to lead to that and is unlikely either to facilitate economically
or complement the employee housing use. Other community facilities may be appropriate
near the highway; or some small neighborhood commercial located in the interior
of the site would serve the needs of this and the Water Plant development. -',SPA
zoning would facilitate development of such uses while the review process is the
same as that for implementation of the housing overlay.
The P & Z should also recommend that annexation be contingent on a development plan
that is at least 70% deed restricted employee units.
Given this recommendation, the previous proposal to zone the Celia Marolt property
R-15-A is consistent with the zoning proposed here.
-4-
Comments Regarding Development Plan
We will comment verbally at the meeting as these comments will be useful for back-
ground information and in anticipation of the development proposal. However, they
are not clearly relevant to the rezoning question.
-5-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Director
RE: Opal Marolt Annexation and Rezoning
DATE: December 3, 1979
At your special meeting on November 29th, the P & Z heard additional testimony
regarding the Marolt proposal. You asked for follow-up in several areas: pros
and cons of alternative housing sites, density calculations and CSII maps, and
any revised Planning Office comments. Additional information is presented here-
in.
Alternative Employee Housing Sites
The following are offered as a means of allowing the P & Z to evaluate alternative
sites. No attempt is made to weight each factor or assign any numerical values.
The job of the P & Z and Council is to balance these in your own minds based on
your understanding of community policy and goals. You may also wish to add costs
and benefits to the list. Also, some other sites may become available in the
future but are unknown to us now.
1. Pfister Site - Approval has been given for a 67 unit project with roughly
40 employee and 27 free market units.
Advantages
a. has approval
b. lower density (AF-2)
c. many amenities proposed
d. sited to avoid hazards and resources
Lr ... wu Y 411 1. CiyGJ
a. more distant from employment center: farther commute, no bus service,
but partially mitigated by van system proposed
b, uncertain whether owner will pursue it
c. opens up new area for development
2. Rio Grande - Benedict's proposal for approximately 200 employee units.
Advantages
a, no free market units - land subsidy possible
b. proximity to town
c. development opportunity to improve river frontage, given City financial
situation, riper restoration has to date been postponed
d. offers extremely good amenities to employees in riverfront location
e. high number of units to solve employee housing
f. few environmental constraints
Disadvantages
a. competing uses - since land was purchased with restricted (open space
and transportation) funds, election must be held to authorize realloca-
tion
b. precludes riverfront park and restoration as originally conceived - loss
of open space to contain urban area on north
c. uncertainty over who will develop
d. high concentration of employees - possibly not socially desirable - no
mix
3. Smuggler Mountain Area - several vacant parcels exist though no formal appli-
cations have been made.
r
Advantages
a. excellent exposure
b. fairly close to town - served by bus
c. flat topography - little, if any, environmental constraints
d. existing high density residential pattern
Disadvantages
a. bus system costs - will have to be expanded
b. circulation system - inadequate - new and improved roads will be re-
quired
c. serves to further concentrate all employees in one location - does not
disperse
d. no specific proposals exist now
e. in some areas, utility extensions will be costly
4. Benedict Gravel Pit - currently being revegetated
Advantages
a. well -hidden
b. disperses some housing to east end of town
c. site is already disturbed
Disadvantages
a. more distant from town - Mountain Valley bus may or may not serve it
adequately
b. environmental constraints exist - wildlife habitat nearby, site might
have to be drained
c. no specific proposal
d. impact on Ute Avenue
e. utility extensions
5. "imriar than Pririna" _ Ilnn Rai 1 conception for under Castle Creek Bridge
Advantages
a. innovative architecture - hidden from public view, but maximizes solar
b. proximity to town - fairly good - served directly by two bus routes
c. disperses employee housing to west side of town
Disadvantages
a. single family neighborhood to north is adamantly opposed
b. involves several ownerships
c. requires cooperation of State Highway Department
d. high concentration of employees
e. sponsorship uncertain at present as well as feasibility
6. Water Plant
Advantages
a. land subsidy possible
b. disperses employee housing to West of town
c. proposal and approval process fairly far along
d. partial clustering possible
e. close to hospital as employment center
Disadvantages
a. farther from town
b. topography results in additional development cost
c. proximate to rural area and single family subdivision
d. potential impacts on wildlife habitat
e. visibility
f. depends on GO Bond
-2-
7. Koch Lumber - Cantrup's proposal to construct 150 rooms on former Shaw
property - would house seasonal and MAA students, thus serves a different
purpose from other proposals.
Advantages
a. close to core
b. security for MAA - new opportunity for transient workers
c. concentrated employee housing in high density tourist zone
Disadvantages
a. topography may present some constraints
b. mixed uses and and densities surrounding - may result in objections
based on inconsistent character
c. difficult to accomodate parking and development (assumption that em-
ployees will bring cars whether they need them or not)
8. TDR Sites - Existing Lodges in R-6, RMF, 0, etc.
Advantages
a. existing structures can be converted quickly and cost effectively
b. disperses employees within town
c. proximate to bus transportation and commercial core
Disadvantaqes
a. impacts of increased densities in Lodge districts not clear
b. lodge owners say it further motivates lodge conversion and loss of
short term
c. injurious to dispersed lodge/small lodge/mixed use benefits
d. neighborhood objections to conversion to residential use with possible
increased parking and other impacts
9. hiarnit Nrnnorty
Advantages
a. fairly proximate to town - served directly by Highlands bus, less
directly by Snowbunny
b. disperses employee housing to west side of town
c. is an immediate proposal
d. site offers opportunities to cluster and through planned development,
maximize open space and riverfront protection objectives, minimize
impact on surrounding areas
e. not too high a concentration of employees/mixed free market to balance
f. R-15 density consistent with east of Castle Creek and Cemetary Lane
g. good utilities
h. road across property may help solve Maroon/Castle intersection problem
i. primarily consistent with 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan
Disadvantaqes
a. development and city limits will jump a natural feature which has
served to contain and shape the urban form
b. high priority on Open Space Advisory Board and PCPA acquisition list.
(see list of open space advantages in OSAB resolution dated November 29,
1979).
c. some environmental constraints - steep slopes and riparian ecosystem
along river. free market units may intrude on this (Villas
prohibited from entering area) some units will be located in "pro-
ductive lands" (see CSU maps), however, it is the lowest agricultural
suitability rating.designated moderate and high visual vulnerability
areas
d. free market units are involved - potential damage to GMP
e. neighborhood objections
f. road across property will be visible
g. uncertainty of development feasibility given high land costs, no devel-
oper involvement to date
-3-
h. need to preserve alternatives for
alignment and/or relocation
i. may result in additional bus costs
j. free market portion conflicts with
k. if no development occurs, we have
and with no public benefit
highway/Main Street/pursuing re-
'75 Master Plan
increased value of land unnecessarily
In general, there are several issues which do not relate to specific proposals
but which should be considered in reviewing alternative sites:
1. feasibility of project and timing
2. almost no site is without drawbacks, therefore there is a need to find
the sites where impacts can best be addressed and where advantages out-
weigh disadvantages - The proposed housing overlay suggests that large
and/fairly open parcels may offer these opportunities
3. The community must weigh the alternatives of large projects (such as
Silverking) or smaller, more dispersed projects as well as concentration
in one area through a series of projects versus integration in diverse
segments of the city.
The Planning Office recommends that integration of different neighborhoods with
smaller, more dispersed projects is more consistent with the unique scale and
and character of development in Aspen historically.
Density Calculations
Although we have not required or received detailed slope calculations as required
through PUD, we have been able to further refine gross density calculations.
35 Acres @ R-15-A
5 Acres/Opal's lot
(duplex or rowhouse)
Density reduction for steep slopes !?c_ G^
kestimate)
Density reduction for roads (5-10 units)(estimate)
Planninq Office Comments and Recommendation
152 units
130 units
0-9-105 units
70-100 units
The crux of the issue over approval of the Marolt proposal seems to be the importance
of the site in terms of open space and urban containment objectives along with
the existence of certain natural constraints versus the benefit of a planned
development which achieves a substantial proportion in employee housing and which
can be designed to accomodate the unique features of the site. In this regard,
the Planning Office has concluded that there will never be found the "best" site
for employee housing which is free from all constraints and problems. In accor-
dance with the recommended guidelines within the housing overlay proposal, and
in view of the documented need for employee housing, we should be searching for
those sites which offer opportunities to design the development to fit a site's
unique features and, by clustering, create open space buffers thereby minimizing
impact on surrounding areas. The Planning Office recommends medium-sized projects
dispersed throughout the City. We think this site offers opportunities to strike
a balance among diverse community goals and that, with conditions, this site and
proposal can achieve a sound balance.
In the absence of a housing overlay zone that allows review of a development plan
in conjunction with a rezoning application, we strongly recommend that both the
annexation and rezoning be carefully conditioned on several elements that will
assure that the objectives of the proposal are met. Our recommendation is for:
R-15-A/PUD/SPA zoning as consistent with surrounding zoning and master plan if
developed to fit the natural features of the site through PUD. SPA is neces-
sary to accomodate mixed uses and multi -family structures.
The annexation and rezoning should be contingent, however, on the following
to maximize city goals and reduce impacts on surrounding areas:
1. 70% of units devoted to employee housing consistent with housing overlay
-4-
and with applicant's stated 96,
2. to allow easier clustering, maximize open space corridors, reduce in-
trusion into environmentally sensitive areas, and reduce the free mar-
ket impact, a maximum of 100 units is recommended (70 employee; 30 free)
It appears that this will be the appropriate density anyway given density
calculations under R-15-A
3. in the event the housing overlay is passed, application should be made
under that procedure for rezoning and development plan approval as a
streamlined procedure intended to achieve community objectives,
4. the development plan shall assure that in my phased development, a pro-
portionate share of employee units is built along with free market, the
intent being that the most employee units be built as early as possible,
in no event to be less than 70% of the development phasing. Phasing
should not extend longer than a five year period.
5. Elks facility is not recommended both because it is in a corridor that
should be maintained free of development and is potentially a high
activity commercial use inconsistent with the residential pattern and
which contributes nothing to the development
6. adequate area for road and highway realignment (Main Street extended and
Midland right of way) be reserved in the development plan
7. in view of the lack of assurance of the development feasibility, the
annexation and rezoning should be contingent on application for build-
ing permits under a plan following elements outlined above within some
reasonable period of time (2 years?) from development plan approval
or the annexation and rezoning would revert. This is to prevent the
development approval from being used for purely speculative purpose with-
out achieving any of the community benefits for which the rezoning and
annexation actions were intended.
-5-
} 1�
fit. f •
-12.. 3.-
Robert J. Joyce
James M. Mulligan
Allen G. Reeves
Don R. Teasley
October 15, 1979
Mulligan, Reeves, Teasley & Joyce, P. C.
Attorneys and Counselors at Law
Suite 300, Equitable Building
730 Seventeenth Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
Mr. Ron Stock
City Attorney
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Ron:
Enclosed for your information and file, are five deeds
dated August 27, 1979 which reflect the transfer of the
Marolt family property from the Marolts individually to
a partnership known as Marolt Associates. I_have a7_sn
included for your information, --�--•• �` Lam_ _
affidavit of that partnership, as itisrecorded in Pitkin
County.
As we discussed, I have also enclosed a Request for Zoning
for said property which was not attached to the Annexation
Petition as a result of some miscommunication between the
Aspen Planning Office and our office. As you will note,
in accordance with our discussion, Cary Clark, the managing
agent of the partnership has signed the Request for Zoning.
I have also included, to insure no technical problems at a
later date, a Petition for Annexation signed by Mr. Clark
on behalf of the partnership which concurs in full with the
Petition entered by the Marolt family as individuals on
July 17, 1979.
Telephone
(303) 572-0600
Cable
MULLREEVES
'4`'�."''ry� r'�!+''7! ww—s is t•>• •....,.. — _ �+w.nP--.e•� — ,'1wn�7r
Y • � Mrs. - .�.r•.r.�C�..:2 -
a
.., . "'- _ .. i ..,.. ,► - Wier i ,c.s"" .ti'bR. ••r'y!'�r"i�ICS" -{* w" _ �. --
_., cs,d._._ � __...Y... . __........ ..,,.►. ....__..,.:5�....._._s - .ter .::.. �. _.._
Mr. Ron Stock
October 15, 1979
Page Two
If you have any difficulties with any of these materials,
please do not hesitate to get in touch with me, otherwise,
I expect that I will see you on or about November 6th. Thank
you for your cooperation in this matter.
ince 1 y , , N
TEASLEY & JOYCE, P.C.
i\
gb]:Nert J . oy e
RJJ : fn
Enc.
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Open Space Advisory Board
RE: Opal Marolt Property --Zoning Recommendation
DATE: November 29, 1979
The Open Space Advisory Board has reviewed the
Opal Marolt annexation and zoning application and the
conceptual development plan, in the light of the preliminary
draft of the Open Space Master Plan. This property is
included in the OSAB list of desireable open areas for
preservation.
The OSAB believes that the Marolt property satisfies
the Master Plan criteria for open space preservation as
follows:
A. Natural area and rural character of landscape
(river bottom, river edge, irrigated meadow and
farm land);
B. Areas which have (a) unusual variety in near and
far views (views of Shadow Mountain, town, Smuggler
Mountain, Red Mountain, Roaring Fork Valley,
Buttermilk, Maroon Creek Valley, Highlands, Castle
Creek Valley); (b) native or unique flora (riparian
flora on Castle Creek, Oak Brush slopes, stands of
cottonwood trees); and (c) frontages on river(includes
or borders Castle Creek along its entire eastern
boundary);
C. Agricultural land (irrigated meadow and farm
land);
D. Lands which may be utilized for shaping urban,
neighborhood, and rural areas such that building
and population are concentrated in urban modes
p (the property lies between the existing urban
border and the Thomas property open space purchase
and includes the geographic boundaries of the
Castle Creek ravine and flat irrigated lands
adjacent to steeply rising valley slopes);
E. Undeveloped land along transportation corridors
(the property lies between major roads located on
the north and south, namely State Highway No. 82
and the Castle Creek road, and lies directly in
the path of a proposed transit corridor, and
would be separated from the adjacent Thomas property
by a proposed new road linking the Cemetery Lane -
Highway 82 intersection with the Castle Creek Road
at the entrance to the Aspen Valley Hospital)
F. Areas accessible to population centers, especially
those areas where non -motorized modes of travel
(walking, bicycling, equestrian) a public transit
provide access (the property lies adjacent to and _
is surrounded on three sides by the incorporated
limits of the City of Aspen and the property
itself marks the westerly boundary of and the end
of the urban area);
G. Areas for passive or active recreational use, with
more intense activity encouraged in close proximity
to population centers (flat, irrigated land within
walking distance of town lends itself to development
as playing fields and the steep slopes and deed
ravine of Castle Creek lends itself to passive
recreational pursuits such as fishing and picnicing);
H. Areas of historic and cultural interest (property
is the site of the Aspen Union Smelting Company,
is bisected by the Old Midland Railroad right of
way, includes the westerly end of the now demolished
Midland Railroad trestle, is occupied by farm
buildings bearing witness to the farm uses of the
surrounding land and being in themselves historic
examples of good work -a -day authentic rural wooden
architecture never to be replaced, and is historically
the place where the farmed valley began at the
edge of the original Aspen townsite);
The City of Aspen and Pitkin County have purchased
lands lying easterly and westerly of the urbanized area of
Aspen for the express purpose of protectiing open spact at
the entrances to Aspen and for the express purpose of confining
and concentrating development within an area closely identified
with Aspen's urban core. The Open Space Advisory Board
therefore recommends to the City of Aspen that:
a. The city seek to purchase all or part of the Opal
Marolt property for open space purposes;
b. The property be zoned with a PUD overlay reflecting
the criteria for open space as stated herein and in the
Open Space Master Plan;
9
C. The City seek to secure the open space areas
permanently by dedications, conservation easements or by
other appropriate means.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Karen Smith, Planning Office
FROM: Louis Buettner, Engineering Department
RE: Opal Marolt Property
DATE: November 29, 1979
Dan told me to write a few comments on the conceptual plan.
First, I would like to point out that I put the approximate Main Street
corridor on the drawing. This corridor is for the realignment of Highway 82.
I have shown just a 100' corridor, the Highway may require more.
I also put the approximate location of the old Midland right-of-way, this
is the approximate route of the bus. The last thing I would like to commit on
is the roadway along the westerly property line. Scaling from the conceptual
plan the development would have the City providing the majority of the right-of-
way. In no way should the City (public) lands be used to enlarge this or any
development. The Engineering Department will want this road making an inter-
section with Cemetery Lane. The City property between the road and the develop-
ment should be open space. The conceptual plan shows this property being uses
for the Elks parking. What will the developer give the City for all this open
space they will be acquiring?
. r -„.y .„ T.,,,.. ,...,.,*,..;.. ••.►S+'•., • 5 ^•4,n., t . �. ��
4-
Mulligan, Reeves,'
1 caslcy cC joycc, P. C.
Robert J. Joyce
Jarncs M.1Vlulligin
Allen G. Reeves
Don R. "Teasley
October 11, 1979
Merman Edel
Mayor, City of As 'p-en
130 S. Galena S reet
Aspen, Color 81611
Aspen C' y Council
130 S. Galena Street
Asp Colorado 81611
Attorneys and Umris, lors at Law
Suite 300. i?quitable Building
730 Seventeenth Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
Dear Mayor Edel and Members of Council:
As you know, our firm represents the Marolt family with
respect to the annexation and development of their family
property which abuts the City of Aspen.
During the last several months, we have ::Wade a point of
consulting and generally attempting to keep in touch with
the various Aspen City staff members whose responsibilities
relate to that project. During one of t'aose conversations,
Jim Reents, Aspen Housing Director, shard with me his pro-
posal to the City Council regarding housing programs in 1980
and employee housing proposals from the private sector.
Since in one of Jim's memorandums to you the-Marolt project
was prominently mentioned, it seemed appropriate that we
should give you our input with respect to Jim's suggestions.
i
Tcicplionc
(303) 572.0600
Cable
MULLREE.VES
As a general proposition, we find Mr. Runts' comments to
be well reasoned and accurately reflective of the problems
and opportunities facing Aspen with respect to housing. We
believe that, as Mr.'Reents indicates, the growth management
plan, as it currently operates, significantly restricts the
development of employee housing, as well as free market housing
in the Aspen area. Without some modification to that plan or
its method of application, we see little hope for the deve-
lopment.of significant numbers of employee housing units in"
Aspen.
4)
Herman Edel, Mayor
and Aspen City Council
October 10, 1979
Page Two
Conversely, if the City permits the construction of mixed
free unit/employee housing developments, we believe you
can expect the fairly rapid creation of significant numbers
of employee housing units.
We also believe that the quality of those units, on the whole,
would be superior to units in totally restricted projects.
This is true because design and marketing considerations in
a mixed project require the employee housing units to be of
a quality and configuration similar to the free market units.
This point has been evidenced to us repeatedly in our preli-
minary discussions with the various land planners and architects
involved in the development of the Marolt property. These
professionals are unanimous in the opinion that substantially
similar quality and design characteristics must be used for all
structures within the development in order to make the entire
project work.
We also agree with the suggestion that the appropriate per-
centage figure for free market units be in the vicinity of
30-35% of total project build out.. If there is concern that
on very large projects this perr—tar.P w-11 a hP PY r`GCCI 17a, you
have the alternative of create.., �..y�.: r��. �..�uy� i,igher
densities. For example, 35% to 150 units, 30% from 150 to
200, and 20% abcve 200 units.
We again applaud the effort of your staff, including Mr. Reentz,
Ms. Smith, and Mr. Stock, to treat the subject of housing in a
reasonable and productive manner. If we can be of any assistance
to you in your deliberations of these matters, please feel free
to call upon us. Thank you for your consideration of these
comments.
ncerely,
MULLIG N, REEV,S, TE[ASLEY & JOYCE, P.C.
-bb t J. Joy,e
RJJ :Yn
bcc: Karen Smith, P1 nning Director
Ron Stock - City Attorney
Jim Reents - Housing Director
Opal Marolt
0
VERBAL PRESENTATION DURING PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE # 79,
SERIES OF 1.979, MAROLT ANNEXATION & REZONING, BEFORE THE ASPEN
CITY COUNCIL ON MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 1980, 07.00 P.M. BY HANS GRAMIGER
FOR THOSE PERSONS IN THIS ROOM WHO DON IT KNOW WHAT MY CONCERN IS
IN THIS MATTER MAY I JUST BRIEFLY STATE THAT I AM INTERESTED IN
UPGRADING OUR TRANSPORTATION & MASS TRANSIT SYSTEM.
WE NOW HAVE:. BEHIND US A PERIOD OF MORE THAN 14 YEARS OF TALKS &
STUDIES. WE DO HAVE A GOOD START ON A BUS SYSTEM BUT WE HAVE DONE
NOTHING TO ACCOMODATE IT OR TO CORRECT SOME OF THE WORST TRAFFIC
BOTTLENECKS OF OUR ANTIQUATED ROAD NETWORK.
Demonstration of Study -Reports:
(1) Aspen Area General Plan -Feb.-1966 (Leo Daly Co);
.(2) Colo.State Dept.of Highways Study of 1969;
(3) Regional Transportation Plan - July 1973 ( Voorhees & Assoc.);
(4) Colo.Si.:ate Highway 82 Design Concept Study - June 1975 (Halprin);
(5) Citizens Bus Alternative Study Report- August-1975;
(6) Aspen-Pitkin County Transit/TSM Alternatives Study - Sept.1978;
(7) Aspen/Pitkin County Transit Development Program - Nov.79 PDQ&D,Ir-1
and a separate stack of study reports in connection with the
Pitkin County Light Rail Transit System.
WHEN A LANDOWNER (NEWCOMER OR OLDTIMER, ALIKE) PETITIONS FOR
FAVORABLE RE -ZONING AND/OR ANNEXATION, THE GOVERNMENT NOT ONLY
HAS A MORAL, ETHICAL AND LEGAL RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE FOR AND IMPOSE
CONDITIONS IT CONSIDERS NECESSARY FOR THE GREATER GOOD OF THE
COMMUNITY, BUT THE ELECTED OFFICIALS ACTUALLY HAVE A CLEAR DUTY
AND AT THEIR SOLE RESPONSIBILITY TO WATCH OUT FOR THE LONG-RANGE
INTERESTS OF ITS CITIZENS AND THEIR ECONOMIC BASE.
THE MAROLT TRACT WILL SOONER OR LATER BE DEVELOPED WHETHER IT
STAYS IN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COUNTY OR WHETHER IT IS ANNEXED
TO THE CITY OF ASPEN. - THE NEW HOSPITAL, THE PROPOSED WATER -PLANT
EMPLOYEE HOUSING PROJECT, ITS RELATIVE LOCATION TO THE EXISTING
TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AND TO THE ONLY FEASIBLE ALTERNATE
ALIGNMENT FOR A BEAUTIFIED, MODERN WESTERN APPROACH TO THE CITY,
ARE SUFFICIENT REASONS WHY THIS PROPERTY NO LONGER CAN JUST REMAIN
A SLEEPING OLD RIVERBANK MEADOWLAND.
-1-
THE CITY OF ASPEN SHOULD IMMEDIATELY RECOGNIZE THAT THE MAROLT
ANNEXATION AND REZONING PETITION PROCESS GIVES US THE UNIQUE
OPPORTUNITY TO ACQUIRE A PIECE OF LAND WHICH IS IN DIRECT LINE
WITH WEST -MAIN STREET WHICH IS NECESSARY IF WE ARE TO IMPROVE.
AND STREAMLINE THE WESTERN APPROACH INTO ASPEN WITH A NEW PARK-
WAY AND A NEW BRIDGE (FOR A BUSWAY AND HIGHWAY) IN CONNECTION
WITH A WELL ENGINEERED INTERCHANGE FOR MAROON AND CASTLE CREEK
ROADS, JUST WEST OF THE PRINCE -OF -PEACE CHAPEL,
TO THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE CONCERNED WHETHER SUCH A REQUEST FOR LAND
IS FAIR TO THE DEVELOPER, ONE CAN ONLY SAY THAT ANY DEVELOPER WOULD
RATHER DEED ONE SPECIFIC PIECE OF LAND INSTEAD OF HAVING TO RESERVE
TWO SEPARATE EASEMENTS.
OUR 14-YEAR PERIOD OF INACTION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A DEGRADATION
OF OUR PERMANENT RESIDENTS AND EMPLOYEES AND`AN INSULT TO OUR
VISITING TOURISTS, ESPECIALLY AS'lT RELATES TO THE FOLLOWING
LOCATIONS;
(1) %TH & MAIN STREET CURVE;
(2) %TH & HALLAM STREET CURVE; (FOREST SERVICE CORNER)
(3)• EXISTING CASTLE -CREEK BRIDGE;
(4) CEMETARY LANE INTERSECTION WITH 82;
(5) CASTLE/MAROON CREEK ROADS INTERSECTION WITH 82;
(6) BUTTERMILK AREA/OWL CREEK ROAD INTERSECTION WITH 82
INCL,POMEGRANATE INN, THIEHACK, HOLIDAY INN, WEST BUTTER-
MILK ROAD AND ACCESS TO SARDY FIELD;
(7) AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER & SARDY FIELD ACCESS TO 82;
(S) SHALE BLUFFS;
(9) BRUSH -CREEK ROAD TO SNOWMASS VILLAGE INTERSECTION WITH 802;
(10) WOODY -CREEK ROAD TURNOFF ON 82;,
IF WE COULD SOLVE EACH OF THE 10 TROUBLE SPOTS ONE BY ONE (OR
IDEALLY ALL. SIMULTANEOUSLY) WE WOULD HAVE ACHIEVED ONE HELL OF
AN IMPROVEMENT OF WHAT WE NOW HAVE,
ONE-HALF OF THE JUST IDENTIFIED TROUBLE SPOTS CAN BE CORRECTED
IN ONE SINGLE PROJECT PHASE, A NEW MULTI-L.ANE BRIDGE OVER CASTLE
CREEK IN DIRECT ALIGNMENT WITH WEST -MAIN STREET AND CONNECTED
WITH A MODERN, LA14DSCAPED PARKWAY TO THE PRINCE -OF -PEACE CHAPEL
INTERCHANGE ELIMINATES FIVE TROUBLE SPOTS,
- 2 -
WE ARE NOT MAKING A DECISION OF WHETHER HIGHWAY 32 SHOULD BE
FOUR-LANED OR NOT. EVERYBODY HERE SHOULD BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT,
LAST WEEK I HANDED OUT A MEMORANDUM DEALING WITH MY SUGGESTION,
TO -DAY I AM ASKING YOU TO ADD AN IMPORTANT POST -SCRIPT TO IT.
IT IS AN ITEM OF EXCELLENT NEWS AND IT SHOULD HAVE A LOT OF
MEANING TO THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE HAD A PERSONAL RESERVATION
ABOUT MY PROPOSAL BECAUSE A MULTI-LFNE PARKWAY FOR THIS PROJECT -
PHASE NUMBER ONE COULD EASILY BE MISINTERPRETED AS MEANING TO
FOUR -LANE 82 TO BASALT, - THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT WE DO NOT HAVE
TO COMMIT TO A FOUR-LANING OF 82, NOW NOR AT ANY SUBSEQUENT
POINT IN TIME. IN OTHER WORDS WE CAN ENDORSE EACH PROJECT -PHASE
ON ITS OWN MERITS,
WHAT A FANTASTIC OPPORTUNITY: WE CAN CORRECT ANY OF THE IDENTIFIED
10 TROUBLE SPOTS WITH STATE AND FEDERAL HIGHWAY FUNDING. IN THE
CASE OF THE NEW CASTLE CREEK BRIDGE WE CAN IMPROVE A 5-POINT
PROBLEM AREA MORE BENEFICIAL TO OUR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS
WITH STATE AND FEDERAL FINANCING.
LET I S MAKE A FEW ASSUMPTIONS:
(A) THAT EVERYBODY AGREES THAT:
THE RIGHT-ANGLE CURVE AT NTH & MAIN IS NOT IDEAL
THE RIGHT-ANGLE CURVE AT %TH & HALLAM IS DANGEROUS & CONFUSING
TWO BRIDGES ARE BETTER THAN ONE
THE CEMETARY LANE INTERSECTION WITH 82 IS FRUSTRATING
THE CASTLE/MAROON CREEK ROADS INTERSECTION WITH 82 IS DANGEROUS
A BUSWAY ON A MAIN -STREET PARKWAY ALIGNMENT GIVES BETTER
DISTRIBUTION AND CAN SERVE A RIO GRANDE BUS TERMINIAL
IN A MORE EFFICIENT MANNER FOR LOCALS AND TOURISTS ALIKE
DEMONSTRATION of Aspen Times articles etc. re proposed Castle Creek and
Maroon Creek road intersections with 82
(B) THAT EVERYBODY IS CONVINCED THAT A NEW CASTLE -CREEK BRIDGE IN
DIRECT LINE WITH WEST -MAIN -STREET WOULD SOLVE ALL OF THE SIX
CONCERNS AS JUST MENTIONED.
(C) THAT THERE IS GENERAL AGREEMENT THAT NOT ONLY THE GENERAL
TRAFFIC ON 82 WOULD BE GREATLY IMPROVED BUT THAT THE DIRECT
SEPARATE BUSLANES WOULD STREAMLINE THE MASS TRANSIT SYSTEM,
AND THAT LOCAL USERS AND TOURISTS OF MAIN STREET, HALLAM STREET,
CEMETARY LANE, MAROON CREEK ROAD, CASTLE CREEK ROAD (WATER -
PLANT EMPLOYEES, HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES, EMERGENCY VEHICLES,
` WATER -PLANT 11 - EMPLOYEE HOUSING RES I DENTS, ItMAROLT11 HOUS' I NG
RESIDENTS, MEADOWWOOD SUBDIVISION RESIDENTS, VISITORS TO ASPEN
HIGHLANDS SKI AREA AND IN SUMMER TO MAROON LAKE, HIGH SCHOOL
AND MIDDLE SCHOOL STAFF, TEACHERS AND STUDENTS) WOULD GREATLY
BENEFIT FROM SUCH A NEW WEST ASPEN ENTRANCE;
(D) THAT NO COMMITTMENT HAS TO BE MADE AS TO FOUR-LANING OF 82;
(E) THAT FINANCING FOR THIS PROJECT -PHASE IS VIRTUALLY ASSURED
IN RECORD TIME AND CONSTRUCTION CAN BE STARTED BY THE SPRING
OF 1981 OR 1982;
NOW THEN, UNDER THESE ASSUMPTIONS SHOULD THE CITY COUNCIL ACT
POSITIVELY ON THE RECOM;",ENDATIONS TO ACCEPT A DEED FOR THIS STRIP
OF LAND IN QUESTION ? SUCH A QUESTION CAN ONLY BE ANSWERED IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE, WE CAN NOT AFFORD TO LOOSE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SHAVE
OFF MANY ADDITIONAL YEARS OF FURTHER STUDIES AND TALK ABOUT
NEBULOUS POSSIBILITIES WITH A DOUBTFUL OUTCOME, DO WE HAVE TO
BE REMINDED OF THE TIME LAG IT TAKES THESE DAYS TO GET ANY THING
DONE EVEN AFTER THE "GO" SIGNAL HAS BEEN GIVEN?
YOUR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WILL MARK THE BEGINNING OF AN ERA OF MUTUAL
COOPERATION AND TRUST BETWEEN THE ELECTED OFFICIALS AND THE ELECTORA
THE CREDIBILITY BETWEEN THE ELECTED OFFICIALS AND THEIR STAFF AND
THE CITIZENS WILL BE STRENGTHENED, YOUR AFFIRMMATIVE ACTION WILL
BECOME THE CATALYST NECESSARY FOR THE MUCH NEEDED ASSISTANCE FROM
STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES, - A COPOUT HERE AND NOW WOULD SET US
BACK ANOTHER 5 TO 10 YEARS,
I HAVE HANDED YOU THE BALL - PLEAS DONUT FUMBLE IT
MAY YOUR CONSCIENCE BE YOUR GUIDE,
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND INTEREST
NZf R1 tirr 7,10
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Hans R. Gramiger
RE: Marolt Annexation and Rezoning Petition
DATE: January 23rd, 1980.
The Marolt Annexation Petition presents you with an unique opportunity to negotiate for
a strip of land essential for our future improved transportation system and simultaneously
settle once and for all the much studied and politically debated question of its alignment.
It is suggested that Council bargain for and accept a deed for a 150' wide strip
of land (2.12 acres) for public use for the future West Main Street Busway/Hiway
and new bridge.
Your unanimous "AYE" -vote on this conditional deed will be recognized as coming
from that City Council who after a period of over 14 years of "studies & talk"
had the political fortitude to take positive action. Your positive approach will
be interpreted by the State of Colorado Department of Highways and by the Federal
Highway Administration and by UMTA as an act of good faith upon which immediate
cooperation for early funding and construction can follow. .
Inflation, energy considerations, competition for public project grant money,
maintenance and operating expense considerations, environmental impacts, etc.
all point to the fact that a consolidated bus-way/highway is the most timely
solution.
The Main -Street Busway alignment is the most flexible, efficient and effective
alignment for both summer and winter use. The most recent study (Aspen/Pitkin
County Transit Development Program, PDQ&D, Inc.-Nov.1979) recommends a Trans-
portation Terminal at the Rio Grande site because Ruby -Park will no longer be
adequate to function as terminal with an expanded bus system and also because
ridership statistics show that a more central location is desireable.
Therefore the continued use of the existing Main-Street'transporta.tion corridor
is logical.
A two-lane busway being part of a four -lane system results in:
a) less negative environmental impact (one principal transporation corridor
instead of two separate corridors);
b) impressive savings for r.o.w. acquisition costs;
c) considerable savings in construction costs (especially for new Maroon and
Castle Creek bridges);
d) considerable savings in maintenance costs (savings of fuel for plowing);
e) fantastic transit -incentives (auto -disincentives) through the fact passengers
in slower moving private vehicles see modern transit buses speeding by them);
f) possibility to allow h.o.v's. (high -occupancy -vehicles) and emergency -
vehicles to share bus -lanes at certain times and at the discretion of the
transportation manager (such as limousines, charter buses etc.);
g) channelization of all traffic by means of interchanges, feeder and frontage
roads to minimize the objectonable side road traffic;
h) less negative visual -impact inasmuch as trails, cross roads, bicycle paths.
and truck -service access lanes must only be-accomodated_with=under- & over-
passes, pedestrian bridges etc. once per given location instead of twice;
A novel concept for the new combination busway/highway West -Main -Street bridge
over Castle -Creek could incorporate an enclosed, heated lower deck for its
full length and width serving as a garage for buses. The natural heat loss
will prevent the icing of the actual roadway above. -'A covered all-weather
walkway and bicycle path at the lower level can easily be incorporated.
The City of Aspen should also consider to negotiate an option with the Marolts
for the purchase of that tract of land between the presently located Highway 82
and the new West -Main -Street alignment (approx 3 to 3.5 acres). It would make
an ideal site for the Transit -Maintenance Facility ($3,935,000 as recommended
by the PDQ&D,Inc. Transit Development Program. It can be constructed into the
bank and be kept underground thereby conserving the green -space above. IL
would be physically connected to the lower -deck garage under the bridge.
It would make an ideal. "in -kind" contribution (20%) under the proposed UMTA-
grant application (recently authorized by both City and County).
JEGRY FELS
3645 VALLEY XEADOW RE —
SHERMAN OAKS CA 914C3
4-0112455027 C1 /27/80 ICS IP!Y;RNCZ CSP GLWB
2139869500 'AGM TDRN LOS ANGELES CA 154 01-27 C627P EST
CITY CLERK, CITY HALL
ASP EN CO 31 61 1
PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE INTO THE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FE:
THE rPAL NAROLT PROPERTY:
WE ;-RESPECTFULLY AND MOST STRONGLY URGE THAT YOU VOTE AGAINST THE
.ANNEXATION AND REZONING OF THE OPAL NAROLT PROPERTY AS PRESENTLY
PROPOSED. ASPEN NEEDS EMPLOYEE HOUSING, BUT THIS NFU SHOULL NOT ANL
MUST NOT 2E SOLVEL BY HYPER —DENSITY AND OVER USE OF BEAUTIFUL
FCCLOGICALLY SENSITIVE LAND. WE PLEAL FOR ^90DERATION ANC RESTRAINT,
PEARI NG IN XI ND THE HUGE POTENTIAL INCREASE IN TRAFFIC AT THE. CRUCIAL
LOCATION, AND THE PRESERVATION OF' THE GENTLE CHARACTER OF THIS
GATEWAY TO ASPEN. THE ASPEN VILLAS WERE NOT ALLOWED TO BUILL LO'oJN T;{i
CREEK —SLOPES; PLEASE LO NOT ALLOW SELF SERVING LEVELOPERS TO LO SO ON
THE NAROLT PROPERTY. LO NOT ALLOW THE YEARS SPENT BY PREDECESSOR CITY
COUNCILS IN DOWN ZONING AND PRESERVIPJG THE ASPEN AST HETIC5 TO BE
SU!"XARILY %'ISCARDED AND LOST.
FESP ECTFULLY
JERRY & ESTHER FELS
1635 EST
MG-MCCCMP MGM
Ln
TO REPLY BY MAILGRAM, SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR WESTERN UNION'S TOLL - FREE PHONE NUMBERS
TO REPLY BY MAILGRAM, PHONE WESTERN UNION ANY TIME, DAY OR NIGHT:
FOR YOUR LOCAL NUM ER, SEE THE WHITE PAGES
OF YOUR TELEPIi0wE --,'RECTORY
OR
DIAL (TOLL FLEE) 000-257-2241
(EXCEPT IN NEVj J`E€4SEY 090-632-2271)
OR DIAL WESTERN UNION'S INFOMASTER SYS i 2!4 GI^ECTLY:
FROM TELEX....................6161 FROM TVIX................ 9104201212
July 11, 1979
CONCEPTUAL PLAN/OPAL MAROLT
QUANTITY TAKEOFFS
Roads: 80' R.O.W./40' paved (23201)
60' R.O.C./30' paved (1280')
Parcels: A/Elks
10,000 sq. ft. building
80 parking spaces
recreation field
pool/amenity area
B/City Maintenance Yard
C/Larolt
House and Garage
Picnic grounds to river
Field
D/Markel Housing
40-45 units (14 DU/AC
72 parking spaces
pool area
E/Employee Housing
27 units (13 DU/AC) 1&2 B.R.
54 parking spaces
F/Employee Housing
27 units (18 DU/AC) 10:2 B.R.
48 parking spaces
G/Employee Housing
12 units 2&3 B.R. (6DU/AC)
40 parking spaces
H/Employee Housing
14 units (20 DU/AC) 2B.R.
28 parking spaces
I/Dedicated Open Space
Pool area.
Contiguous open field
River valley edge
Links to existing pathways.
IIiiV"9-
design workshop, inc.
415 s. spring
aspen, co 81611
303-925-8354
ACRES
4
1.7
4
1
5.5
3.5
2.1
1.8
2.4
1
9.1
community development land planning landscape architecture
Tr
'�' ',►w ,. � ,.,. t,,;�r. .,..,.. _. ... ,,�.. yr. -^. .,,,x?•.<,, r
CONCEPTUAL PLAID/IAAROLT (cont'd)
J/Lot Extension LanJ
East of Castle Creek
Area used for 80' R.O.W.
through city conservation land
2.3
(3)
35.4 acres.
Karen Smith -2- July 17, 1979
any other city officials as you direct to further dis-
cuss the proposal.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Si ely,
MULLIGAN & R EVES, P.
obey J.:' Joyce
RJJ:jjf
Enclosures
xc: ®pal Marolt
Vicki Marolt
0
W--'-z+nr=
►.7.
- R
-- :� ;,w�• _ _
.._..r�.,,�~
,r
,�a,�,[rs _ .,,q,.;,,�_ "*•�e�slT
441
W.
-- ~^ �r'ric �'r'�'•'.Sw `�4RI� K-yil�` ;�.`A•.�7/rr'
..
.— •- ! ��
_ t"
•'
tt``S �J �M�' �
�
T S —
•
rat
..
r
0 _ ....
_ � T•
Mulean & peeves. 1. V.
Attorneys and Counselors at Law
Suite 300
T
l bent J. Joyoe
Eclnitable Buildincs
T
lelePkone
Jemes AM.18.n
730 Seventeenth Street
(303) 572-0000
Allen G. beeves
Denver, Colorado 80202
C ble
Don R.Teasle�+
MULU EEVES
July 17, 1979
Karen Smith
Director of Planning
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Karen:
Please find enclosed a Petition requesting that
the Marolt property be annexed to the City of
Aspen.
Also enclosed is a conceptual layout showing
the proposed use of the property subsequent to
annexation. This use would require that the pro-
perty be zoned S.P.A.
I would appreciate your assistance in processing
these applications and will of course be avail-
able to you for discussion or further informa-
tion.
As we discussed, by phone today, since the exact
procedures necessary for approval of the Marolt
development have not been settled upon by all of
the officials involved, we have also submitted un-
der separate cover an application for rezoning, to
Pitkin County. Obviously when we collectively de-
cide the best course of action to undertake one or
the other of these applications will be withdrawn.
I will call you after you've had a chance to view
this material to arrange some time with you and
Karen Smith -2- July 17, 1979
any other -city officials as you direct to further dis-
cuss the proposal.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
MMULLIGAN '\& R EVES , I P .
L � 1
l�ober J. Joyce
l 1
RJJ:jjf *�
Enclosures
xc: Opal Marolt
Vicki Marolt
1w :,,,}, -11TW711
- - :xF-- _ ,,,,, "�!'!!!► ... cs' - } - . -„ _ r,y �e _ ._._ „�, g. .r,, „ - �,A, '..r•, ,
F ry.
i !
** • _ y
� 1'::� rq .1�= ►F 'F'k �iFK. ."". !Y . �'�f.�`��w }'� M .. -1, .r-yR. _--••- ` .�yr.�'. � � 1
t
r'
',"",
~:~~;~~~na;o:0:37 ~'~25r7~
Loretta Banner, Reaorder
~"
, .~k
1980
-391 p'~[f243
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this ~~ day of
~ ' 1980, by and between the City of Aspen, Colo-
rado, a un~c~pal corporat~on of the State of Colorado, located in
Pitkin County, Colorado, hereinafter called "Aspen", and Marolt
Associates, a partnership organized under the laws of the State of
Colorado, hereinafter called "Marolt".
WIT N E SSE T H :
WHEREAS, Marolt is the owner of certain unincorporated lands
situated in Pitkin County, State of Colorado, described in Exhibit
"A", which is attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof;
and
WHEREAS, Marolt desires that said property be annexed to
Aspen and concurrently with said annexation desires that Aspen
initiate zoning of said land to R-15A/PUD/SPA (Residential,
planned unit development, specially planned area); and
WHEREAS, Aspen does agree to annex said property and so zone
subject to certain conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and promises
contained herein it is mutually agreed by and between the parties
hereto as follows:
1. Marolt shall petition Aspen, in accordance with State
Statutes, for the annexation of the property described in Exhibit
"A". Marolt shall also petition Aspen to in!itiate zoning concur-
rently with said annexation. The zoning req!uested shall be R-15A/
PUD/SPA.
Aspen agrees, subject to the provisions: of applicable law, to
annex the property described in Exhibit "A" land to zone the pro-
perty therein in accordance with this agree~ent.