HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.an.Marolt Ranch.1980tw,e""-.L I I as-
mg@Mg memo
Project: Marolt/City Planning Staff Work Session
Date: March 6, 1980
With: Jim Reents, Housing Director
Karen Smith, Planning Director
Joline Vrchota, Assistant Planner
Dan McArthur, City Engineer
Don Ensign, DWI
Carlyle Wood, DWI
1. Site Plan
Density Calculations:
design workshop, inc.
415 s. spring
aspen, co 81611
303-925-8354
Decision to calculate final density figures based on
accurate topography and property lines to be done by
Survey Engineers.
Clustering Units:
Due to the County's highway planning, specifically Main
Street Extension, changes in the original site plan
must occur. (see Roads) Therefore, the original
comments by. Karen Smith concerning "further clustering
opportunities" to the south of the property will be
explored.
It was suggested that rental PMH units could be clus-
tered densely at the old foundation site, while owner-
ship "caretaker" units might be combined architecturally
with clustered free market units at the southern end of
the property.
Phasing:
Was not discussed beyond reaffirming the 70-30 build -
out mix in view of future sit_e plan revisions.
2. Roads and Access
The latest in Pitkin County's highway alignment trends
seems to favor the extension of Main Street with the
abandonment of both the existing Castle Creek Bridge
and and Midland R.O.W. The State Highway Department is
doing yet another study which should be ready by mid -
April to May 1. This study apparently will recommend
the Main Street Extension 4-lane combined busway and
highway solution. Karen Smith feels this option would
cause less impact on the existing neighborhoods and
community development land planning landscape architecture
Thomas property. This affects the existing site plan
concept in the following ways:
a. Although the 150' Main Street R.O.W. does not
directly interfere with buildings shown on the plan,
the Main Street Bridge over Castle Creek will dramat-
ically reduce the privacy and appeal of the old foun-
dation site for free market units.
b. We are assuming also that the 200' building
setback from the highway is a County, not City, standard.
C. If the foundation site were to be used for PMH
housing, adequate parking for 80-100 units might be
difficult to accommodate or possibly an eyesore from
Main Street. The suggestion was made to split the
parking to both sides of Main Street, utilizing the 5+
acres to the north of Main Street as possibly a remote
parking lot for PMH, an intercept lot for the downtown,
and/or city recreation fields.
d. The free market units would therefore be clustered
at the south end of the property, with the possibility
of dispersing ownership PHM throughout the free market
units. Joline expressed a definite preference for
utilizing the foundation site to the fullest extent in
order to minimize impact on the more visually vul-
nerable open field.
Castle Creek-Cemetary Lane/Intersections/Alignment
The City Engineer prefers a connecting alignment
beginning at a 90° intersection with Highway 82,
following the westernmost boundary of Marolt and City
lands, and connecting directly to Castle Creek with a
300'-400' radius curve. The roads from the hospital and
Water Plant Housing would become a T-intersection into
the Cemetary-Castle Creek connection. Sight distances
from that intersection would be improved. Grades would
not be a significant problem.
Since it is unlikely that the County and State Highway
Department will move with temerity, the site planning
effort must accommodate as many eventualities in road
alignment as possible. Cemetary Lane to Castle Creek
must allow.for clear intersections at Main Street and
at the Midland R.O.W.
Use of Thomas Property:
Reents said that the City open space land could be used
for "public facilities," which he interprets to include
roads. He could foresee no legal problems in locating
a road on that property. • .
- 2 -
Cul-de-Sac Lengths:
No discussion due to expected plan changes.
Castle Creek Spur to Prince of Peace:
No specifics.
3. Open Space
Discussion only on the 1 acre City Maintenance Corner
(under existing Castle Creek Bridge). Reents said the
City was hoping to move its maintenance operations in
town; therefore, would not need that triangle of land
for storage. However, if the City were to use the
upper plateau for parking, play fields, etc., it would
not exclude that corner from the parcel.
4. Castle Creek Corridor
Lot Extension Land/Bicycle Path/View Plane:
Possible trade-offs with neighbors (opponents) across
Castle Creek were discussed. There are odd parcels of
land across the river which might be deeded or sold to
those who own the land directly above. The bicycle
path alignments have been roughly laid out by the
County. These might also be points for negotiation
later.
Karen suggested building a model of the proposed
development across the river to quell the opponents,
fears of the unknown. It was pointed out that no
matter how good the model looked, opposition would not
be totally blocked if any development were to occur on
the old'foundation. Also, the construction of the Main
Street Bridge, if any should occur, will drastically
affect the views of those neighboring property owners.
5. Implementation
Overlay Ordinance:
The chart comparing square footage percentages between
a 70-30 unit mix and a 70-30 bedroom mix was briefly
discussed on terms of the varying outcome of each.
Karen felt City Council should see chart comparisons
based on a 100 unit assumed density, as opposed to the
125 unit assumed density. Karen preferred the lower
square footages under the 70-30 unit mix.
- 3 -
AGENDA
Meeting with City.Planning Staff
March 6', 1980
MAROLT PROPERTY
1. Site Plan
- Density Calculations: Opal's parcel
Slope `
- Clustering Units
- Phasing
2. Roads and Access
- Castle Creek-Cemetary Lane connection�t 6 f,
�- Intersections: Cemetary Lane
Castle Creek (`'dater Plant,
Main Street extension
Midland Row
- Alignment, grades and sight distances
- Use of Thomas property r�,ygl,4,r l�%i� eTl
- Cul-de-Sac lengths
- Castle Creek spur to Prince of Peace Chape
3. Open Space
- Total acres,
- 82 view corridor
- CSU Maps - visually vulnerable areas
- City Maintenance corner
- Thomas property swap - legal ramifications
4. Castle Creek Corridor
- Lot extension land
- Bicycle path alignment
- View planes from opposite bank
5. Implementation
- Overlay ordinance
Hospital)
Lam( ,�
"--Xtcr� .
PERCENTAGE COMPARISON
Assume: 125 units
Avg. Unit Size
# Bedrooms/DU
# Bedrooms
# DU's
Sq. Footage Total
Sq. Footage %
70-30
Bedroom Mix
70-30
Unit Mix
PMH
FM
TOTALS
PMH
FM
TOTALS
800 sf
2000 sf
-
800 sf
2000 sf
-
1.7
3
-
1.7
3
-
171.5
73.5
245.0
148.75
112.50
261.25
100�
25
125
125
80,000
50,000
130,000
M 000
75,000
145,000
617o
387o
99%
487o
51%
99%
U (J
4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Sandra M. Stuller '-�`,1>
RE: Rezoning and Annexation: Opal Marolt
DATE: January 30, 1980
Gentlemen:
I want to advise you that the annexation proceedings for the Marolt
property was completed on Monday, January 28th (second reading of
annexation ordinance). The annexation will be effective five days
after publication (Aspen City Charter). The Colorado Municipal
Annexation Act provides that newly annexed lands must be rezoned
within 90 days after annexation (without regard to any Fending
challenge to the annexation proceedings). The Act further provides
that if the BOCC wishes to challenge the annexation it must do so
by certiorari within 45 days of the effective date of the annexation
"and, if such action is not brought within such time, such action
shall be forever barred." The purpose of this memo is to give you
an opportunity to determine if you want to challenge the annexation,
given the terms and conditions of the annexation agreement.
The annexation agreement provides that:
1. The land will be zoned from AF-2 to R-15A/PUD/SPA, with 70%
of the units to be deed restricted to the low and moderate income
housing guidelines. (The rezoning will permit from between 70
to 150 units.) "Marolt agrees that said development plan will be
designed to the extent possible to increase clustering of the
residential units, maximize open space corridors and reduce
intrusion into environmentally sensative areas."
2. The project will be reviewed under the Housing Overlay Process, if
adopted by the City.
3. If Marolt does not file building permit applications within two
years of receiving final development approval (unless delayed
because of inability to obtain financing), the City may initiate
proceedings to rezone to Rural Residential (RR) "or other appropriate
zone category."
Karen, in her memo to the Council dated January 21, 1980, supported the
annexation and rezoning stating that: "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 recommend the Maroltsite,
with conditions, because we believe that development be designed to
fit the site's unique features, protect environmentally 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 compatible siting with surrounding neighborhoods. The
.SPA designation is necessary to accommodate any mixed uses
which may be proposed in the subsequent development plan in
multi -family structures.
MEMORANDUM
Page 2
January 30, 1980
2. The proposal respresents a dispersal of employee housing
developments to the west side of the City of Aspen, avoiding
the further 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
transportation. Other utilities, water and sanitation are
available to the site.
5. There is an opportunity to preserve open space corridors
along Castle Creek, as well as the visual connection from
the Thomas property to Shadown Mountain through innovative
design and clustering. Through the Planned Unit Development
procedure, environmentally sensitive areas can be avoided."
Karen's memo also summarized arguments made in opposition to the
proposal, including:
1. Castle Creek serves now to contain the urban form and
this development will contribute to urban sprawl.
2. There are environmental constraints according to the CSU
maps; namely, steep slopes, riparian areas and visually
vulnerable lands.
3. The site is designated in part as agriculturally productive
lands.
4. Free market units are involved,
5. Neighborhoods have objected that the density is not consistent.
6. Given the uncertainity of development feasibility, critics
questions whether it is appropriate to grant a density
increase without assuring that the development would follow.
I want to make clear that a challenge to an annexation cannot be
premised soley on disagreement with the City's action; that is, the
Courts will not permit you to merely substitute your judgment for
the City's as to the wisdom of the action. You must establish that
the City has exceeaed its jurisdiction (i.e., did not have the
authority to annex under the Act (eg. lack of contiguity)) of which
there is no evidence; or the City abused its discretion in doing so.
The City, to justify an annexation of eligible property, need only
make the following findings to support is action:
1. A community of interest exists between the area proposed to
be annexed and the City.
2. The area is urban or will be urbanized in the near future.
3. The area is integrated or capable of being integrated with the
annexing municipality.
If there is one -sixth contiguity, this contiguity itself may
constitute the bases for making these three findings unless two of
the three following conditions exist:
1. Fewer than 50% of the population in the annexed area use the
City's facilities and services (including commercial).
MEMORANDUM
Page 3
January 30, 1980
2. One half of the area is agricultural and the owners express an
intention to keep it agricultural for five years.
3. It is not physically practical to extend to the area urban
services provided to City residents on the same terms.
As is apparent, there are limited opportunities for a successful
challenge to an annexation action (the statutes favor annexation and
give the City advantages in such contests) and I cannot be
encouraging under the circumstances of this case.
SMS: cjs r
cc: Karen Smith
• P�etzTY /��/��CD '
�( _XT`1N NL my L
�• � �\ •.sir fi "�' ��•'-.'��• `;i.] �
LfDCL PiZIN ••••t'1.
• •• P• is �\ '
•nti , .
' ..icy ��� � l LS�C.. ' . _.... •• •.
HiLL ^,,o ml;e
••r • • ty• I.M
• • • .• • • • •• �•• .y..... i • • Air/ .• ., • .•
N• • •• • • • • •• • a+.• 4• • ' •e/••
00 • I .. ••..•. •y
- 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 F & 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 1-imits 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
rent 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.
MEMORANDUM
n
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 CSU maps, and
any revised Planning Office comments. Additional information is presented here-
in.
Alternative Emoloyee 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 ccsts
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
L. lower density (AF-2)
c. many amenities proposed
d. sited to avoid hazards and resources,
Disadvantages
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, river 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.
1
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 CSU maps, and
any revised Planning Office comments. Additional information is presented here-
in.
Alternative Emolovee Housinq 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
h. lower density (AF-2)
c. many amenities proposed
d. sited to avoid hazards and resources
Disadvantages
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 - poss-ibly not socially desirable - no
mix
3. Smuggler Mountain Area - several vacant parcels exist though no formal appli-
cations have been made.
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
Disadvantaqes
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. "Under the Bridge" - Don Ball's 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
Disadvantaqes
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 Westof town
c. proposal and approval process fairly far along
d. partial clustering possible
e. close to hospital as employment center
Disadvantaqes
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. TOR 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
Disadvantages
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. Marolt Property
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
Disadvantages
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 (25-50 units reduction)
(estimate)
Density reduction for roads (5-10 units)(estimate)
Planning Office Comments and Recommendation
152 units
130 units
80-105 units
70-100 units
The crux of the issue over approval of the Harolt 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''Z
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
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-
a.
0
0
M
E
R
A
N
G
Dear Sidney,
LO ® G E
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 contributvfing 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) disguiE4ed under the promise
of 70;b' moderate income units for locals, 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 ---- that
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 not what this big outfit appears to have in
mind. On the 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. Uery 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 5:00pm. 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.0.14./30' paved (1280')
Parcels: A/Elks
10,000 sq. ft. building
80 parking spaces
recreation field
pool/amenity area
B/City Maintenance Yard
C/Marolt
House and Garage
Picnic grounds to river
Field
D/Market 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 narking 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.
C=:iVA
design workshop, inc.
415 s. spring
aspen, co 81611
303-925-8354
ACRES
4
1.7
1
5.5
3.5
2.1
2.4
1
9.1
community development land planning landscape architecture
CONCEPTUAL PLAID/MAROLT (cont'd)
J/Lot Extension Land
East of Castle Creek
Area used for 80' R.O.W.
through city conservation lan4
2.3
(3)
35.4 acres.
11/28/79
Mr. Olaf Hedstrom
Aspen Planning &
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Colo. 81611
Dear Mr. Hedstrom:
Zoning Commission
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 disinterest or a lessening of my strong disdain
for the type of development planned for the Marolt property.
I hope the ideas expressed in Ms. Morrell's letter will be
seriously considered by the committee before any action is taken.
t respec u ,
Sidne E. Weinberg
enc.: 1
125 S. 7th St.
Aspen, Colo. 81611 and 820 Ridge Rd., Highland Park,Ill.60035
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
T
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 units than applied for and is 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 30% 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.
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 durinq 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 f1arolt 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. 't 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 Aqencies
With respect to the above mentioned relevant considerations, the Planning Office
offers the following comments which are based on referral agency comments, comments
of adjacent landowners, and analysis of the issues:
1. The County has commented as an adjacent landowner that it supports a re-
zoning which would facilitate employee housing in this location because
of its location with respect to transportation, utilities and services,
and natural characteristics of the sight which offer opportunities to
cluster the development. The County did state that because R-6 zoning
would allow more density than had been applied for and recommended that
R-15 zoning would be more appropriate given adjacent R-15 zoning on the
Aspen side and AF-2 zoning on the County side. The County went on to
recommend that the site be designated with a mandatory PUD and/or perhaps
an SPA overlay which would facilitate development in accordance with a
site plan that could best be geared to relevant site characteristics.
The County recommended against the location of the Elk's Club at this
site although it did approve of perhaps some minimal neighborhood com-
mercial or community facilities orientation.
2. The application was referred to the Open Space Advisory Board which has
not as yet made a formal comment pending an inspection of the site on
November 20. However, they did reiterate that this site was high on
the list of priorities for acquisition for open space as it is located
at the entrance to Aspen and adjacent to a valuable piece of open space,
the Thomas parcel.
3. The Aspen Land Use Plan of 1973 recommends single-family land use for this
site with a fairly large open space 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 the Smuggler
Mountain area has always been an inadequate circulation system
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 original -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 raoid 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 develonment. 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 Mountain 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 with the applicant to refine the development plan. We are highly favorable
toward the generalized location of free market and employee units.
The Planning Office does recommend the R-15-A 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.
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-
Robert J. Joyce
James M. Mulligan
Allen G. Reeves
Don R. Teasley
October 15, 1979
Mr. Ron Stock
City Attorney
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado
Dear Ron:
Mulligan, Reeves, Teasley & Joyce, P. C.
Attorneys and Counselors at Law
Suite 300, Equitable Building
81611
730 Seventeenth Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
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 also
included for your information, a copy of the trade name
affidavit of that partnership, as it is recorded 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
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*ly,
TEASLEY & JOYCE, P.C.
jSeVr" �oyce
r
RJJ:fn
Enc .
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION
TO
The City Council of the
CITY OF ASPEN
Aspen, Colorado 81611
The undersigned hereby respectfully petitions 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 fifty percent (500) of the territory,
herein proposed for annexation to the City
of Aspen.
3) Not less than one -sixth (1/6) of the
aggregate external boundaries of the
above -described territory hereby petit-
ioned 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 in
urban, or will be urbanized in the near
future, and further that said territory is
intergrated or is capable of being intergrated
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 in 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,
or town.
- 2 -
WHEREFORE, the undersigned respectfully petitions
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 October 15, 1979.
ADDRESS OF PETITIONER:
Suite 300, Equitable Building
730-17th Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
MAROLT ASSOCIATES, a Colorado
general partnership
BY (]2_1_
Cary Clirk
Managing Agent
- 3 -
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
BYC!, CAge,—�
Cary C1 rk
Managi g Agent
":50 P August 27 1979 374
Recorded at o'clock M.,
Reception No �(% Loretta Ba_er Recorder.
PAGE 890
THIS DEED, Made this day of August 19 & 9,
between JUDY MARIE TESITOR w
TPnAIO
of the County of Boulder and state of Q - _d
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 inconsideration of the sum of
Ten Dollars and other good and valuable consideration nom/",
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 QUIT CLAIM 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, ltEbeirs and assigns forever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The said party of the first part h"as hereunto set her hand----
and seal the day and year first above written. `� y1 4 ` tC J `
U✓ (,< SEAL]
Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of Juby MXRIE TESITOR
[SEAL]
SEAL]
J !SEAL)
STATE OF COLORADO,
as.
County of /� 2
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
19 r/�, by' Judy Marie Tesitor
17 >
My commission expires 19 Witness my hand and official seal.
TAP I
T� �a`.:�o�o��
Notary Public.
No. 933. QUITCLAIM DEXD.--Bradford Publishing Co.,192/-4s Stout Street, Denver, Colorado (673-6011)-9/77
S'
3 P August 27, 7079 374 rAGE871
Recorded at........................o'clock............M.
Reception No ........... 21-74 . Loretta Banner
7. Recorder.
O—�
STATE OF COLORADO
Pitkin
ss.
................. County of ---....................
OPAL MATILDA MAROLT of the
............... ..........................................
------------------ - ------------ County of ....... Pitkin in the State of
Colorado, ....................... --------------------------
. ----- -----------------•-----------••-•-------------------------------------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. ----- t.--- __.__..._
in the ---------------------------------------- County of ...... Pitkin--------------------------------- and State of Colorado.
That the full Christian and surname and address of all the persons who are represented by the
said name of Marolt Associates _ is as follows, to wit:
------------ -- - -• --
Opal Matilda Marolt - P.O. Box 423, Aspen, Colorado 81611
---------------------------------I -•---------------------------------------......----.....-•------•---------•--•------•---.
Judy Marie Tesitor - 4862 Eagle Circle, Boulder, Colo. 80301
............................. -.......................................................... ...... 1•-----------------------------•-----...--•------•---••---------------------------..
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------••--•---------------------•--------------...•--•----.......---..........•---..............
-----------------------------------------------.------------.--•---------...__...----• ------------..........-----------------..._...--------------------------------
That the affiant.... is--- one of ... the person ---- S- --- ....carrying on said business or trade under the
name or style aforesaid.
b AL l�f l;�A 'r fztiT�T ------------- 1 = i
----------------------------------------------------------------- ----- ..........
,SvbA``dHbe4 and sworn to before me, this .--.a_7....... day of..__...�7&------------------------------------ 1977_.
y corriiiiiQp expires .................. 19..------
c _,Wm,haTfd and official seal.
Notary Public.
IQ7') -LAll co -partnerships and every person doing business otherwise than in his o ful name should make
this, affidavit, which must be filed in the county in which the firm carries on its trade or busi s and must be ref iled
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. nradf-d Publishing Co., 1824-46 Stout Street, Denver, Colorado 1673-60111 —4-77
•46 P August 27 '979 - _ - -c Urt
Recorded lit o'clock D1., _ - .. -
374
Reception No. 'Z Loretta B er Itvcordvr.
TIiiS DEED, Made this
day of August 19 79
between OPAL MATILDA MAROLT
of the County of Pitkin and state of
Colorado, of the first part, told
MAROLT ASSOCIATES, a Colorado General Partnership
tE ii
All G 2 TPAID
I
I�
�I
whose legal add ressis c/o #300 Equitable Building, 730 Seventeenth Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202
of the i City andcounty of Denver and state of Ij
Colorado, of the second part, �)
W ITNESSETH, That the said part y of the first part, for and in consideration of the surn of
Ten Dollars and other good and valuable consideration 19E)I:I ptfi iI
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, has remised, released, sold, conveyed and QUIT CLAIMED, and by these
presents does remise, release, sell, convey and QUITCLAIM unto the said party 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 in and to the followin described lot or parcel of land situate, 1 up and being
S g 1 Y K g in the County
Of Pitkin and State of Colorado, to wit: j
See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference
also known as street and number
i
.I
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 II
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 j
the second part, itSheirs and assigns forever.
1N WITNESS WHEREOF, The said party 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 OPAL MATILDA MAROLT
ut"r�„------------------- --- ---.(SEAL.)
cQ-
--d�A3' QF'COLORADO, ---- - -- - -
>.'•. �.Aountyof ITlilh
Fl Rp4Qing instrument was acknowledged before Methis o? 7 day t i
�I Y61: , •oby" OPAL- NI/ri!!-�A m)lRot- T
SEAL]
- -- ---- _ _-------- (SEAL(
My commission expires 4.-t(- , 19V - Witness my hand and official seal.
�4� Lcet
Notary Public.
_0
No. 933. QUITCLAIM DEED.—Cupyriaht H—dforcl f`ubl.ahing ('o., 18?4 41; Strut Str—t. I),- —. Colorado (573.5011)—I-78
A
":47 P August 27 1979
Recorded at o'clock M.,
374
4
Reception No - �1--.� Loretta Ba_ —_ Recorder.
tik
THIS DEED, Made this day of August 19 791
between VICKI ANN MAROLT AUG 2TPAID
___-6
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
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
Ten Dollars and other good and valuable consideration rMt-L-A75,
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, released, sold, conveyed and QUIT CLAIMED, and by these
presents doeS remise, release, sell, convey and QUITCLAIM unto the said party of the second part its 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 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 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 hrs hereunto set herhand
and seal the day and year first above written.
SEAL]
Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of VICKI ANN MAROLT
ISEAL]
STATE 0FCOLORADO,
s s.
County of,
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
19 by`
My commission expires
CO Jr
we
day of el I .
'19- . Witness my hand and official seal.
SEAL]
A L]
Notary Public.
No. 933. QUITCLAIM DEED. —Bradford Publishing Co.,182/-d8 Stout Street, Denver, Colorado (573-5011)-9/77 �(
y Recorded at ck M., 3:48 P August 2- 1979
�� c _
Reception No. -ALe ` Loretta Bani
-_374 �88 '
Recorder.
I
TPA(D A"
nn
TH[S DEEn, Made this day of August ,19 79, f�1U l.7 �^
between PEGGY LOUISE ECKENRODE (a/k/a PEGGY LOUISE ELDRIDGE) D
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,
WITNESSETH, That the said part y of the first part, for and inconsideration of the sum of
Ten Dollars and other good and valuable consideration nett-A-"7
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 Srenlised, released, sold, conveyed and QUIT CLAIMED, and by these
presents do eSremise, release, sell, convey and QUIT CLAIM 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 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 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, 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.
—(SEAL]
Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of PEGGY LOUISE ECKENRODE a/k/a
TAPGY LOUISE ELDIJDGE fSEAL]
i1 4 c�
fbsEAL]
=SEAL]
STATE OF COLORADO,
ss.
County of OLe:�'
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this y_e' day of z +.-ww�.. ►
19�-a,by"Peggy Louise Eckenrode, AKA Peggy Louise Eldridge
My commission expires � _i. 19�y . Witness my hand and official seal.
"0
' �V t
No. 933. QUITCLAIM DEED. —Bradford Publiahine Co., 1824-48 Stout Street, Denver. Colorado (573-5011)-9177
9
3-14 PAGE 88
1;49 P August 27 1979
Recorded at_ � r� �yo'ccllocck____M.,
Reception No.`_�8 s Loretta iner _ Recorder.
THISYiEED, Madethis dayof August 19 79, AUG -2 f AID
between
KEITH E . MAROLT
ofthe Countyof and state of California
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
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 U=-A-R`S,
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, ha Sremised, released, sold, conveyed and QUIT CLAIMED, and by these
presents does remise, release, sell, convey and QUIT CLAIM unto the said part Y 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, i tS heirs and assigns forever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The said part y of the first part ha S hereunto set hiShand
and seal the day and year first above written.
Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of KEITH E . MAROLT
SEAL]
SEAL]
SEAL]
STATE OFCOLORADO,
ss.
County of AL 7t U.L r-
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this c� I O k day of CC LC
19 % ! • by' Keith Maro't
My toMmaR 1SSlon expires May 18, 1983 ,
My commission expires 119 Witness my hand and official seal.
�:� (�>✓t 1 NN
No. 933. QUITCLAIM DEED. —Bradford Publishing Co.,1824-46 Stout Street, Denver. Colorado (675-6011)-6l77
a
374 i'A" 891
No. 7301339-6 C
Sheet 2 of _ 7 SCHEDULE 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 SWSec. 12, T10S,
R85W, 6th P.M. and Lot 5 and NW 4 NW 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 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 4corner of Sec. 12 (said rock being 78.57 ft. N78°10130"W from an
unapproved 1954 Bureau of Land Management Brass Cap stamped as wit-
ness corner),
thence N140401E 149.97 ft. to corner #13 Holden Tract•
thence N14°35'W 172.00 ft. to corner #14 Holden Tract,
thence N370501W 314.72 ft. to corner #1 Holden Tract, being identical
with corner #4 North Texas Mill Site MS #3288,
thence N54°45'W 84.00 ft. to the center line of Castle Creek,
thence N26°00'W 94.00 ft. along the center line of Castle Creek,
thence N28°10'E 294.00 ft. along the center line of Castle Creek,
-Ehence N20°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 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 ft.),
thence S10°51'W 90.71 ft.,
thence S21°47'W282.37 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 V.1 4 corner of Sec. 12,
thence S18°14'W 1107.77 ft to the North Right -of -Way line of Castle
Creek Road,
thence S400001E 114.98 ft. along the North Right -of -Way line of
Castle Creek Road,
thence S53°34'E 1.24.61 ft. along the North Right -of -Way line of
Castle Creek Road,
thence N81°56'E 254.45 ft.,
- Continued -
374 mu 892
. 7301339-6
#3 of 7
2.
SCHEDULE A — Continued
(Continued)
thence S06°42'E 308.07 ft.,
thence N90°00'W 9.11 ft.,
thence S33°00'E 61.65 ft.,
thence N68135'E 280.15 ft. to line 1-2Short Lime MS #4610,
thence N16°00'W 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 N901001W 74.04 ft.,
thence N19°12E 117.32 ft-,
thence N42030'W 329.09 ft.,
thence NO2°43'W 221.35 ft.,
thence N16°44'E 139.78 ft.,
thence S70°12'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 N60°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.
Form No. C•142 5
,spen/Pit n
,130 s
Ospen,
N
ing Office
street
81611
f7ct Dcl
Unable To Famard
James E. Gerbaz
301 th eet
zfi,en, CO 11
PUBLIC 140TICE
Re: Zoning of Opal Marolt Property
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, November 20, 1979, at a meeting to
begin at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, City Hall, 130 South
Galena Street, to consider zoning of property owned by Opal Marolt situated
in Lots 9, 10, 13, SWQ SW14 Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West, 6th
P.M. and Lot 5 and NW4 NW4 Section 13, Township 10 South, Range 85 West, 6th
P.M.., Pitkin County, Colorado (Located south of the intersection of Highway 82
and Cemetery Lane). The proposed zoning is R-6 P.U.D. Further information may
be obtained from the Planning Office, 130 South Galena, Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 225.
/s/ Olaf Hedstrom
Olaf Hedstrom, Chairman
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Fspen Times on November 1, 1979.
To be billed under City of Aspen fund.
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 develcp-
ment should be open space. The conceptual plan shows this property being usec,
for the Elks parking. What will the developer give the City for all this open
space they will be acquiring?
1;
Mulligan, Reeves, l'easley `F Joyce, P. C.
Robert J. Joyce
James M.2vlulligan
Allen G. Reeves
Don R. Teasley
October 11, 1979
Herman Edel
Mayor, City of Aseez
130 S. Galena S ft
Aspen, Colorgdo 81611
Aspen C' Council
130 S. Galena Street
Asp , Colorado 81611
Attorneys and Counselors at Law
Suite 300, Equitable 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.
f� J
s
Telephonc
(303) 572 - 0600
Cable
MULLREE VES
During the last several months, we have made 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:iose conversations,
Jim Reents, Aspen Housing Director, shared 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.
As a general proposition, we find Mr. Reents' 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, trie 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.
E
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
30-350 of total project build out.. If there is concern that
on very large projects this percentage would be excessive, you
have the alternative of creating a staged percentage at higher
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.
Sincerely,
rNREE
l
MULLI, TDASLEY & JOYCE, P.C.
Rob RJJ: / /
bcc: Karen Smith, Pl nning Director
Ron Stock - City Attorney
Jim Reents - Housing Director
Opal Marolt
0
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 o' - unique flora (riparian
flora on Castle Creek, Oak Brush slopes, stands of
cottonwood trees); and (c) rontages on river(includas
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
(the property lies between she 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 Jslopes);
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 ;pace 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 reflectinc
the criteria for open space as stated herein and in the
Open 1cpace Master Plan;
C. The City seek to secure the open space areas
permanently by dedications, conservation easements or by
other appropriate means.
i
A G R E E M E N T
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into day of
11 1979, by and between the City of Aspen,
Colorado, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Colorado,
located in Pitkin County, Colorado, hereinafter called
"City", and Marolt Associates, a partnership in the State
of Colorado, hereinafter called "Marolt":
W I T N E S S E T ii :
WHEREAS, the City in order to insure orderly growth and
the development of employee housing in Aspen desires to annex
to the City certain unincorporated lands situated in Pitkin
County, State of Colorado, described in Exhibit "A", which is
attached hereto and by reference made part hereof; and,
WHEREAS, Marolt desires that said lands be annexed to
the City and concurrently with said annexation desires that
the City initiate zoning of said land; and,
WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to enter into an
agreement with respect to the eventual development of housing
to be constructed on the lands of Marolt to be annexed to
the City in order that public needs may be best served by
such housing.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and
promises contained herein it is mutually agreed by and be-
tween the parties hereto as follows:
ANNEXATION AND ZONING
Marolt shall petition the City, in accordance with
State Statutes, for the annexation of the lands described in
Exhibit "A". Marolt shall also petition the City to initiate
zoning concurrently with said annexation. The zoning requested
shall be R-15A PUD-SPA.
The City agrees, subject to the provision of applicable
law, to annex the land described in Exhibit "A" and to zone
the lands therein in accordance with this agreement. Provided,
however, that if the City is unable to accomplish said
annexation or said zoning as requested by Marolt, and the
City and Marolt are unable to resolve any differences, then
MA
I'� the City agrees, and it shall, upon request of Marolt, dis-
=IVY miss the aforesaid Petition for Annexation and Zoning, and
in such event, this Agreement shall be null and void.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Marolt agrees that the development plan for the property
in question will provide for 70% of the residential units to
be developed on said property to be permanently deed res-
tricted to comply with City of Aspen definitions related to
permanently moderate housing (PMH).
Marolt agrees that said development plan will be designed
(� to the extent possible to increase clustering of the residential
units, maximize open space corriders and reduce intrusion into
environmentally sensative areas.
The City and Marolt agree that the appropriate process
w1
for the development of the property is through the Housing
Overlay Process. The parties are aware that final legislative,,,
authorization of such Housing Overlay Process will not be made
until January 14, 1980. However, the parties agree in antici-
pation of the approval of that process by the Aspen City
Council that if such a plan is passed, the development plan
for the referenced property will be reviewed through the
Housing Overlay Process.
Marolt agrees that it will to the extent possible incor-
porate adequate area for road and highway realignment within
the development plan.
Marolt agrees it will use its best efforts to insure that
during each phase of the development, to the extent possible,
dwelling units will become available for occupancy in a por-
portion of 70% PMH units to 30% free market.
-2-
The City and Marolt agree that it is the intent of both
parties that housing be developed on the site as early as is
feasible. Therefore, if application for building permits is
not made within two years from final approval of the final
development plans, said approval being the last governmental
action necessary to authorize the issuance of building permits,
and if the City Council has not extended such time period at
its own behest or at the developer's request, the City may
undertake any procedures necessary to reject the annexation
and zoning of the property in question. It is understood by
both parties that Marolt's ability to develop may be drastically
affected in variations in economic conditions. Therefore, the
City Council shall not unreasonably refuse to extend such
deadlines if the delay applying for building permits is due
to difficulty in arranging for the financing of construction
despite good faith efforts on the part of Marolt to accomplish
such financing arrangements.
i
MISCELLANEOUS
Marolt may organize a program for financing on a tax exempt
municipal bond basis its portion of the costs with respect
to the improvements located on the subject land. City agrees
to cooperate with Marolt in organizing such municipal finance
program, provided, however, the City shall incur no liability
whatsoever with respect to such program or any municipal bonds
resulting therefrom.
This agreement, when executed after final reading by City
Council, of annexation and zoning petitions shall be binding
upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto,
their successors and assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
Agreement to be executed in duplicate as of the date first
herein written.
CITY OF ASPEN
MAROLT ASSOCIATES
two
-3-
BY:
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF
MAROLT PROPERTIES
PITKIN COUNTY
COLORADO
PARCEL l
A tract of land in Lot 13 (from •7.,.M plat by Withers a droved
July 18, 1889) Sec. 12 T10S IZ85;; 6P.I1. bean p`
"S titzer Entry" described as follows: g fart, of the
r
Beginning at a point, a fence co_ner in place, being 282.4
ft. N6G019'l5"Sl fror' the 2.8" r. 1:" x .lb" roc)- ti�itness coxncr i
rnonumzzit set for the Witness point for the S ` _
Sec. 12 (witaless corner mon_ shO__L - Cuts l/4 corner of
approved Nov. 8, 1888) [,_aid rock J In ��aw notes and plat
from zui unapproved 1954 13ureau of Land Management 7�R 7II ° l0' ao
stamped as witness corner, IIxaS.� C�xp
.thence N700251L 132.33 ft. to line 2-3 MS 4211 )Io[nestake
Claim,
thence•S09°371E 200.25 ft_ along line 2-3 to proY
des-
cribed ill Book 243 Pg. 895 Pitkin County records,
thence S82°26'W 312.13 ft. along northerly line .o•
described in Bk. ' 243 Pg_ 895 to the corner ff propErty
of property des-
cribed in Wt. 182 Pg_ 1831.
thence N23°19114 62.56 ft. along II=sterly line of propert. described in IIk.. 182 Pg. 183, y
thence N710121E 151.41 ft. corner, along a fence line to a. Felice
thence 1\'61°02' l5"E 84. 61 ft, alor0 �z fence
corner, line to a fence
thence N41°19' 50"Id 62.56 ft.. alon; .a fence line to .tho point
of beginning.
TOGETHER with a perpetual 30 ft. right of tvay acid utility
casement upon, over, along, .acros, and under.tlje eal property.
described as follot•[s: r
Beginning' at the above -described ooii�t of beginning,
thence N70"25'E 30.35 it_,
thence N2.8°20155"W 154.30 ft..-
thence S61°56110"11 30.00 tt,,
thence 'S2ft°2.0'55'T, 149.02 fi:, to Lhe point of beginning.
Pitkin Cou.n ky, Colorado:
• Page 1 of 4 - .... -;- :----- • -- • --..._ ._....
I:CliL 2
n' t.ri7ct• of lane :yttuaLecl in LoL-g 9, 1.0,
Sec. 1.2, TIOS, R85W, Gth P.M. and 7-�c�i: 5 iind 1419 1./4 111.4 1/4
;cc. 13, TIOS, J:05VI, Gth I'. I1. �Ic::cr:il�c d us follow
Dc!ginning at a l)oint:, in the center of C j::;Lle Czcz};
• the SW cor. Lot 2 Adams Stihcliv.i�:.ion) , be-LI19 1445°21.' 1.1 G8?_. 87
%t. fron t}ie 2 8 " x 14" x 10" rock witness cor.iler monument
:yet for the witness point for the S 1/4 corner of Sec. 12
(said rock being 78. 57 ft. N78110' 30"W from an unapproved
1954 Dureall of rand Management brass Cap sL•arnped as witness
corner) ,
thence 1414040'E 149. 97 it. to corner 1101den Tract, .
thence N 14 ° 35' W .172.00 ft. to corner 4114 ,11olden Tract..
thence 1,1.37°50'W 3.14.72 ft. to corner Ill Holden Tract, being �
identical with corner #4 North Texas Mill Site IIS ;;32.881
thence. N54'45'1,I 84.00 -ft. to the center line of Cas-t-
le Creek, '
thence N26°00119 94. 00. ft. along the center line of Castle I
Creek,
thence N28°10'E 294.00 ft. along the center line of Castle
Creek,
thence N200051E 115.40 ft. along the center line of Castle
Creek, to the South Right--of-way line of Colorado }li.ghway
No. 82,
thence N75°08'19 360.2G.ft,'along the South Right -of -Way line
of Colorado Highway No; 82,
a
thence 63.52 ft. along the arc of a curve to the left (radius
of 905. 00 ft. chord bears N77108' 38"W 63.51 ft.) , .
t
thence S10°51'19 90.71 ft., '
thence S21°47'19 282.37 ft.,
thence S2.5°28'11 715.83 ft: to a point being 1794. 68 ft.
S41°52'15"E, from the 1954 Brass Cap marking the T9 1/4.
corner of Sec. 12, i
thence S18°141W 1107.77 ft. -to the North R.i.c;ht-of-1�?ay line
of. Castle -Creek I:oad, '
thence S40°00'E 114.98 ft. along the North Right -of -WAX _line '
of Castle Creek Road,
thence S53° 34' F, 124.61 ft. along the North Right-of-ijay line
of Castle Creek Road,
thence NII1°56'L 254.45 ft.,
thence SO G ° 42' E 308. 07 ft-,
Uicnce N90°00111 9.11 ft.,
thence S33°00'E G1. 65 f L-. ,
thence N6II035' E 280..15 ft. to Brie 1-2 Short rime I•}S 4,610,
Page 2 of 4
thence N16000 °Id 44. G2 fL. crlond Short. , 1--?_ tocorn�.r No_ 1
l�.ilne 1•134G.10
(;,
t.hcnccr N74°00'z; 23G.35 ft
V46101 n. along 1J_e 1-4 of :IhozL 7,int� •r
thence
I\190°00
1111
74. 04
ft_ r
thence
N19°121E
117.32
ft_,
thence
N42° 30'�•7
329.09
ft. ,
thence NO2°4311•7 221. 35 ft. ,
-9-
t.1lcnce NIG°44'I:: 139.78 f,-t, ,
thence S70012'E 120.00 ft.,
I
thence N36045'E 268. G3 ft_ to t.},V rnos ,
Property described ill )31;. 196 P�,, t 1\orl}ir z.ly corner of
37G Pj �).xn Co. }lecords,
thence 1\160°46'11 2G1.04 ft:. Creek, to the ec.l)ter line of Castle
thence Easterly along, the center line. of Castle Creek c7o-.�n
the creel: G51 ft_ more or less to t}le Point of beclinning.
Pitkin County, Colorado.
°
TOChTIIER %,>j.t" a perpetual easeme;lt over, aloe and across
southerly thirty . (30) feet of the � 9 i the.
pa ��graph 4 hereof, 'for in ress• real proper. ty cles �rT����IJrv%nd
to the portion of theor
. dto, eg.re.-s from .and u j._
lying and being westerly of the prorezb-tU der in this paragra,oh i
P scribed in paragraph
of. this Decree, but easterly of the cenLer:line of Castle
Creek, said casement beine� for the benefit of said real
Property above described and the plaintiff, its grantees,
assignees, invitees and distribu tees only.
TOGETHER with the following described property:
1/4 Sec
S tract ec land being
st11 parts of Lots 8 and 10, and the 12 .I'
. 1.OS RII561 6th P. I.;. ,
being part of
rpert
described in Book 175, Page 628 of the Pipty�Fecords,
described aw
s follows_ the Coun
point on the East line of the Thomas Estate
prOPerty being 1823.79 feet S 40°19' 1J.
Section 12 TIOS R85Tq, 6th P.P•i. �^ frorn the is 1/4 Corner:
rn��nt Brass Ca ( 19�, Bureau of Laud It��rlage-
p) ; thence S 18 14' 11 G6. 44 feet 'along the Last
linof the s ThomaEstate property; Thence alon
t.e lie left, radius of 308.10 feet, a distance of 540_ 42rfCet° (chord bezlrs S 18°54, W 473.7G feet
feet to the East line of t}le ThWnas)Estate S 31°21' I: a.00
S lII°14' W 1-31.35 feet alone the EastJljne }of-othet }yom��ence
I„tate property; t.hc>ncc N• 31°21' W 93.1G feet.;
curve to the righL, xaditls of t:henc� 7lollg
2.21.14 tent. r �.° 08.10 feet, a distance- of
(cho,r.d bc'zkr.., 14 .l_> 49'30" IY 218.46 fee-L); thence
alone {� c:urve to the right, radius of 6G3.65 feet a �,
of 100.00 feet (chord bears N04°01' I: 99.91 fc�eL ., disLWICe
thence
Page 3 of 4
N OU-2-O' L 2/15.00 feet; thenc:c along a curve. t:o t:he- 1ofL
radius of 440.22 icet, a disttance of 235.07 fcet: (c:)iord )wars-
IJ 06041' 1J 232.39 feet) to the: SoiiHj ri.glit of pony line of
the- main line of the railroad; thence zil.ong a curve to the
right, ra(2ius of 2964.0 feet,. a di_st:<Me(I of 13G.07 feet
(chord bea):s N 49°11' 14 136- 07 feet) ; thence N' 47"52' 11
450.00 feet; thenco S 00024' E 154.18 fceL to a poinL on the
centerline' of the railroad main}.line. ))eing 2376 feet »ore: o)_
less NOrthcaesterly from the ],ast time: of LcA VI Sec_ 12
(1,imberly Survey) ; thence S 00024' E 154. 18 feet; Lherice
S 47°52' B 215.00 feet; thence alone] a curve to the' left,
radius of 2764_ F feet, a distance- of .454. Ol. feet. (e))ord
bcars S 52'34' E 453.50 feet) to the East line of thc: 'Thomas
Estate property; thence S 25°28' lq 147.50 feet alone] the Last
Line of the Thomas Estate properly; thence S lh°14` 1-7 57.06
fact along the' East- line of the. 1.1'homas ],state property to
the point of beginning.
Page 4 of 4
July 11, 1979 •
CONCEPTUAL PLAN/OPAL MAROLT
QUANTITY TAKEOFFS
e
Luadso 80' R.O.W./40' paved (23201)
60' R.O.IV.130' paved (1280')
Parcels: A/Elks
10,000 sq. ft. building
80 parking spaces
recreation field
pool/amenity area
D/City Maintenance Yard
C/M-arolt
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 Mousing
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••alley edge
Links to existing pathways.
design workshop, inc.
415 s. spring
aspen, co 81611
303-925-8354
ACRES
4
1.7
1
1
5.r
3.5
2.1
1.8
2.4
1
9.1
community development land planning landscape architecture
_ z ..�r••f mr -a:• -< artc.— •,•Fr�.1,��_- ..-.�•.. ,-•,�..�r'-^-�r'�'�' _,.•,,..
...,,R,j 717
r e
�. + � � . �,' �� I , } � •fit • ' . .
CONCEPTUAL PLAID/MAROLT (cont' d) �
J%Lot Extension Land 2.3
East of Castle Creek
Area used for 801- R.O.W. (3)
through city conservation land .
35.4 acres.
_. Wit_ 1• ��.f,��.��, sy1' ; �s:•�':,�.. Aa�• !w s�ti,i�•'" .,....y`..•FC - �' .. ~ _. ._'�w' •-• __..• � ...►;.t� • _ i
Robert J. J�oyoe
J=ea�M.1'dulli ..
Men G. Reeves
Do, R.Tea9l7
Mule,in tic Reeves. i . G.
Attorneys and Goansclors at Law
Suite 300
Eq it ble 5-111%
730 Seventeenth Street
Denver, Ciolorado 80202
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-
t�one .
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 Countv. 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 sometime with you and
Telephone
M03) 572-0G00
Ca61e
! ;UI YTE ES
_
---- sr--p- ---.�- —.�--
_
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. ,
Ober J.: Joyce
RJJ:jjf
Enclosures
xc: Opal Marolt
Vicki Marolt
w--•rT�s"-._z�!^'_ _.�-
_—w,,.o, � -77 '.+C!'T . �
� �'T�. ;t •'"'.{.. ..... _ �w�'4.�. ,.1�.,�.--•�.+s�ei+r -�wn„��
_._. ..
Special Requests
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
" C. C. 11 Ff Kfl. N. U. 4 L. C ).
100 Leaves
Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission December 4, 1979
Opal Marolt, Closing of Public Hearing and Discussion of said pro -
Annexation and posal and Decisions made concerning such:
Rezoning
Anderson closed the public hearing: 1
Commissionmember
Klar questioned Smith on zoning S�A, and concerned with
Comments
turning turning it into a caretaker unit. Smith, stated that
any zoning designation is only as good as a Council vote
to change it. Klar felt however, if we do SPA, and use
the 7 points given the P & Z as guidlines, would be
pursuant of long lines of thought and if we change our
minds are we legally liable. Pardee thought not, but
the problem with the Institute was with tremendous de-
lays and changes in direction. If we deal diligently
with the options and can't come to an agreement, then
we say RR and he has no case, he came in from RR and
is still RR and he fave his best shot and I would like
to give more guidlines to the applicant, but we have
to protect the city's interest. Is there a problem
with doing SPA?
Smith, No. Klar felt that after the two day seminar
and some of the things on the agenda, hoping that the
extent of interest by so many groups in our community,
will help. We know what our shortfall is now and with
the predictable shortfall will be what, in years to
come and what our growth rate should be and what our
needs are going to be and with policy to be determined
do we want the large projects or are we going to have
the mix. She felt with this being such a prime piece
of property, and someone like Opal Marolt as well as
other local people that have put hteir time and energy
into this community should be rewarded. I would like
to be able to work with them, but I am hesitant at
this point to do to much with that property because of
a general picture in the immediate future, along with
all these criteria, where we are going to be able to
look at this and have more community involvement and
with these programs that we are going to be developing,
I really don't want to create anymore red tape or post-
pone things, but we are getting in a real critical
time and we should be looking at acquiring as many
pieces of property as we can for a long range planning.
The focus right now is on employee housing, who knows
what it is going to be in 5 years.
Hunt felt a problem exist of as soon as recommendation
of zoning on the property is done there is no assurance
that Opal Marolt will do as specified and possibly
faced with some other developer, as much as he would
like to see Opal Marolt do it. Now, getting back to
the real problem at hand, it has been the policy of
the city, any property annexed does not in effect allow
an increase in density by vurtue of its annexation,
that means legitimately we should zone it RR and there
is certain presidence for that. What I have been
trying to figure out, is a way of getting a designated
development site in that area with appropriate zoning
and is it possible to say RR and then indicate for the
purposes of development of primarily employee housing.
that we could except a maximum number of units.
� r
'
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
FORM �0 C. F. HOFCKFL 9. 9. 9 1. 11.
Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission December 4, 1979
Smith, with the RR as an underlying zone district, I
think that would limit the density. Hunt, but where
the SPA preposses, we could come up with an absolute
number of units. Smith, the RR comes up with an abso-
lute number of 17 units. Hunt, I understand that, but
because I basically want to have it an RR floor. Pardee,
if we don't agree with SPA instead of leaving it SPA
like we have done with the Institute, we could say sorry
it is RR and that's it, everyone has given it their best
shot and nothing happened and they didn't gain their
density when they got their final zoning. SPA means,
special planned area and if there has been an area that
is to be special planned it is that. Hunt agreed, we
should indicate it is SPA with an absolute maximum num-
ber of units. Pardee, I would say that, we are all with
the same views and are the ones that are going to look-
ing at it and someone is not going to slip in with 180
units, but we may find some places that by clustering
and because of trees and on thing or another get in 140
units of which still only 30 or 40 or so are free mar-
ket. Hunt, well it better be SPA with conversion only
to RR, after a period of time.
Anderson suggested a straw motion on SPA-PUD, and asked
Smith, would it be appropriate to designate it PUD-SPA.
Smith felt there is a question that has to be decided,
with the PUD gives you more review criteria and a long-
er process, SPA is the same process as the Housing
Overlay without clarity perhaps.
Anderson, the SPA will allow to determine numbers for
PUD. As a proposed motion on this motion to the effect
that we move to adopt a SPA-PUD zoning designation for
the property known as the Opal Marolt Property, should
it be annexed into the City of Aspen based on a gen-
eral favorable reaction of this commission to the pre-
liminary plans as presented to this commission in ruff
and conceptual form without this approval being restric-
ted to specific numbers and site design, all of which
shall be determined during the SPA and PUD procedures.
The approval shall contain the seven (7) conditions of
the Planning Office Memo, dated Dec. 3, 1979.
Pardee, I'm generally in favor, except with the seven (7
conditions, I'm not sure, but don't vilantly disagree.
Hunt, felt the problem with that motion, has no numbers
with PUD.
Smith, the motion does have numbers and was not sure
that the sense was that they are wanted. Pardee, also
it says R15A and a lot of things. Smith, now the seven
(7) conditions do not say R15A, one of the conditions
days it.
Anderson, can I poll each member as to how their feelinc
about this motion.
Klar, I would be in favor of it if we could delete that
with a ratio put in of some type of potential develop-
ment to give them some guidlines. I think this would
be okay and I would approve.
s
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
FONM 11 C. F. W Ff K FL R. 9. & L. C 1.
Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission December 4, 1979
Anderson, how about saying, it says with a maximum to be
set during PUD procedure with at least with a 70%/30%
maximum.
Hunt, paragraph 7, where it says rezoning would revert,
Zoning should revert to RR, because we have nothing to
revert to if we adopt this.
Anderson, there is two years from the approval of the
development plan, which is after all the bureaucracy
that goes in here gives them 2 years to get financing
and start construction.
Hunt, One of the biggest problems with the Institute's
SPA, was we gave them nothing to go by.
Anderson, they have given us a plan and we are saying
in this motion that we generally except this plan they
have given us, generally, without tying ourselves down
to it, but that we generally have excepted it, and I
have made mention to numbers of units. Can I have any-
one move to adopt a SPA-PUD zoning designation for the
property known as the Opal Marolt Property, should it
be annexed into the City of Aspen based on a generally
favorable reaciton of this commission, should the pre-
liminary plan as presented to this commission in ruff
and conceptual form without this approval being restric-
ted to specific numbers and specific site designs,
which shall be determined during SPA and PUD processes.
The approval shall be conditional on the seven (7) con-
ditions of the Planning Office Memo, dated December 3,
1979, with the following changes: subparagraph 2, line
3, shall be changed from a maximum of 100 units as re-
commended (70% employee/ 30% free market), that shall
be changed to, with a maximum to'be determined during
SPA process with no less than a 70%/30% mix of employee
and free market units.
Smith, why don't you eliminate that paragraph, because•
I said the 70% previously, in condition #1. You may
want to leave the condition that you are urging
clustering and maximuizing of units.
Anderson, eliminate and also strike the last sentence
in that paragraph, it appears that this would be the
appropriate density calculations of R15A, and in the
last paragraph 7, line 5, following the sentence after
()'s, two years from development plan approval or the
zoning would revert to RR and to add to that condition,
(.) that serious study and design work be formulated
iri regards to access to and from this property.
Klar, so moved. Pardee, seconded.
All in favor; Hunt, aye. Klar, aye. Pardee, aye.
Anderson, aye. McDonnell, nay.
Motion approved.
Special Requests
1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
10R. •e C. ,. NOr KIL R. R. B 1. C 1.
Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission December 4, 1979
Opal Marolt, Closing of Public Hearing and Discussion of said pro -
Annexation and posal and Decisions made concerning such:
Rezoning
Anderson closed the public hearing:
Commissionmember Klar questioned Smith on zoning SPA, and concerned with
Comments turning it into a caretaker unit. Smith, stated that
any zoning designation is only as good as a Council vote
to change it. Klar felt however, if we do SPA, and use
the 7 points given the P & Z as guidlines, would be
pursuant of long lines of thought and if we change our
minds are we legally liable. Pardee thought not, but
the problem with the Institute was with tremendous de-
lays and changes in direction. If we deal diligently
with the options and can't come to an agreement, then
we say RR and he has no case, he came in from RR and
is still RR and he fave his best shot and I would like
to give more guidlines to the applicant, but we have
to protect the city's interest. Is there a problem
with doing SPA?
Smith, No. Klar felt that after the two day seminar
and some of the things on the agenda, hoping that the
extent of interest by so many groups in our community,
will help. We know what our shortfall is now and with
the predictable shortfall will be what, in years to
come and what our growth rate should be and what our
needs are going to be and with policy to be determined
do we want the large projects or are we going to have
the mix. She felt with this being such a prime piece
of property, and someone like Opal Marolt as well as
other local people that have put hteir time and energy
into this community should be rewarded. I would like
to be able to work with them, but I am hesitant at
this point to do to much with that property because of
a general picture in the immediate future, along with
all these criteria, where we are going to be able to
look at this and have more community involvement and
with these programs that we are going to be developing,
I really don't want to create anymore red tape or post-
pone things, but we are getting in a real critical
time and we should be looking at acquiring as many
pieces of property as we can for a long range planning.
The focus right now is on employee housing, who knows
what it is going to be in 5 years.
Hunt felt a problem exist of as soon as recommendation
of zoning on the property is done there is no assurance
that Opal Marolt will do as specified and possibly
faced with some other developer, as much as he would
like to see Opal Marolt do it. Now, getting back to
the real problem at hand, it has been the policy of
the city, any property annexed does not in effect allow
an increase in density by vurtue of its annexation,
that means legitimately we should zone it RR and there
is certain presidence for that. What I have been
trying to figure out, is a way of getting a designated
development site in that area with appropriate zoning
and is it possible to say RR and then indicate for the
purposes of development of primarily employee housing
that we could except a maximum number of units.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
-ORM 11 C. F.
Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission December 4, 1979
Smith, with the RR as an underlying zone district, I
think that would limit the density. Hunt, but where
the SPA preposses, we could come up with an absolute
number of units. Smith, the RR comes up with an abso-
lute number of 17 units. Hunt, I understand that, but
because I basically want to have it an RR floor. Pardee,
if we don't agree with SPA instead of leaving it SPA
like we have done with the Institute, we could say sorry
it is RR and that's it, everyone has given it their best
shot and nothing happened and they didn't gain their
density when they got their final zoning. SPA means,
special planned area and if there has been an area than
is to be special planned it is that. hunt agreed, we
should indicate it is SPA with an absolute maximum num-
ber of units. Pardee, I would say that, we are all with
the same views and are the ones that are going to look-
ing at it and someone is not going to slip in with 180
units, but we may find some places that by clustering
and because of trees and on thing or another get in 140
units of which still only 30 or 40 or so are free mar-
ket. Hunt, well it better be SPA with conversion only
to RR, after a period of time.
Anderson suggested a straw motion on SPA-PUD, and asked
Smith, would it be appropriate to designate it PUD-SPA.
Smith felt there is a question that has to be decided,
with the PUD gives you more review criteria and a long-
er process, SPA is the same process as the Housing
Overlay without'clarity perhaps.
Anderson, the SPA will allow to determine numbers for
PUD. As a proposed motion on this motion to the effect
that we move to adopt a SPA-PUD zoning designation for
the property known as the Opal Marolt Property, should
it be annexed into the City of Aspen based on a gen-
eral favorable reaction of this commission to the pre-
liminary plans as presented to this commission in ruff
and conceptual form without this approval being restric-
ted to specific numbers and site design, all of which•
shall be determined during the SPA and PUD procedures.
The approval shall contain the seven (7) conditions of
the Planning Office Memo, dated Dec. 3, 1979.
Pardee, I'm generally in favor, except with the seven
conditions, I'm not sure, but don't vilantly disagree.
Hunt, felt the problem with that motion, has no numbers
with PUD.
Smith, the motion does have numbers and was not sure
that the sense was that they are wanted. Pardee, also
it says R15A and a lot of things. Smith, now the seven
(7) conditions do net say R15A, one of the conditions
days it.
Anderson, can I poll each member as to how their.feelinc
about this motion.
Klar, I would be in favor of it if we could delete that
with a ratio put in of some type of potential develop-
ment to give them some guidlines. I think this would
be okay and I would approve..
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
FORM •O C. F. HnE'KFL R. E. 4 L. C I.
Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission December 4, L
Anderson, how about saying, it says with a maximum to be
set during PUD procedure with at least with a 70%/30%
maximum.
Hunt, paragraph 7, where it says rezoning would revert,
Zoning should revert to RR, because we have nothing to
revert to if we adopt this.
Anderson, there is two years from the approval of the
development plan, which is after all the bureaucracy
that goes in here gives them 2 years to get financing
and start construction.
Hunt, One of the biggest problems with the Institute's
SPA, was we gave them nothing to go by.
Anderson, they have given us a plan and we are saying
in this motion that we generally except this plan they
have given us, generally, without tying ourselves down
to it, but that we generally have excepted it, and I
have made mention to numbers of units. Can I have any-
one move to adopt a SPA-PUD zoning designation for the
property known as the Opal Marolt Property, should it
be annexed into the City of Aspen based on a generally
favorable reaciton of this commission, should the pre-
liminary plan as presented to this commission in ruff
and conceptual form without this approval being restric-
ted to specific numbers and specific site designs,
which shall be determined during SPA and PUD processes.
The approval shall be conditional on the seven (7) con-
ditions of the Planning Office Memo, dated December 3,
1979, with the following changes: subparagraph 2, line
3, shall be changed from'a maximum of 100 units as re-
commended (70% employee/ 30% free market), that shall
be changed to, with a maximum to be determined during
SPA process with no less than a 70%/30% mix of employee
and free market units.
Smith, why don't you eliminate that paragraph, because
I said the 70% previously, in condition #1. You may
want to leave the condition that you are urging
clustering and maximuizing of units.
Anderson, eliminate and also strike the last sentence
in that paragraph, it appears that this would be the
appropriate density calculations of R15A, and in the
last -paragraph 7, line 5, following the sentence after
()'s, two years from development plan approval or the
zoning would revert to RR and to add to that condition,
(a.) that serious study and design work be formulated
in regards to,access to and from this property.
Klar, so moved. Pardee; seconded.
All in favor; Hunt, aye. Klar, aye. Pardee, aye.
Anderson, aye. McDonnell, nay.
Motion approved.
QUIPS I 10111� Associates, loc.
Real Estate appraisers and Consultants Mason Er Morse Building • 315 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 209 Aspen, Colorado 81611 •303/925-8987
Aspen, Colorado
A PRIELIMINARY OPINON OF VALUE FOR
THE MAROLT F:LliNCH
LOCATED ON HIGP- AY 82 and CASTLE CREEK
PITKIN COUNTY, CO
October 17, 1977
FOR:
Mr. Lenny Oates and
Mr. Mick Mahoney
C/o Oates, Austin, McGrath and Jordan,
600 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 8161-1
PREPARED BY: James J. i•tolli ca, RkI
Real Estate Appraiser
James J. Mollica, R.M.
Appraiser -Consultant
JUNIeS 1.'a 11h (t Associates, Ix
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants Mason & Morse Building • 315 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 209 Aspen, Colorado 81611 •303/925-8987
Aspen, Colorado
October 17, 1977
Hr. Lenny Oates and
Mr. dick Mahoney
c/o Oates, Austin, McGrath and Jordan
600 E. Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: A preliminary "Opinion of Value" for the 'I'arolt Ranch located on
Highway 82 and Castle Creek, Pitkin County, CO
Gentlemen:
At your combined requests, I have personally :inspected the subject property,
have gathered and analyzed applicable market data and development costs, for
the purpose of estimating the racy land value of the subject's approximately
38 acres.
This analysis has been offered in a brief letter form at this time, since
both client's are local persons, and very familiar with the subject property
as well as the local Aspen economy. However, I have contained in my files
all of the supporting data and exhibits from which I have based my opinion
and from which I could prepare a formal appraisal at a future date if'so
desired.
The valuation stated herein is based upon the following assumptions. If
any one of these assumptions is not considered reliable by the clients or
iT they change at a future date, prior to purchase negotiations, your appraiser
reserves the right to reanalyze the property under the alternate situation_
These assumptions are as follows:
1) The subject is currently zoned AF-2 P.U.D. ur.`er the Pitkin County
Zoning Code. Under these requirements, the subject can be developed
with 19 residential units.
2) Currently, under Pitkin County regulations, all acreage on a parcel
can be used for density allowance. This suggests that alt'noucl no
development could take place on topography over 30% grade, it can be
used Tor density requirements.
3) The direct expenses used in the analysis reflect total road and
utilities extensions riot to exceed one-half mile (2,640 lineal feet).
Dep nding upon the development program and P.T.D. requirements, this
may vary considerably.
4) Indirect expenses of mar_agem=,nt, supervision, overhead, interest and
real. estate conir:issior_s are considered average for this size of
development. Development profit of 20 of tha total sales price also
James J. Mollica, R.M.
Appraiser -Consultant
October 17, 1977
Oates -Mahoney
Marolt Ranch
Page Two
is considered average for the Aspen area.
5) Tap fees and extension approvals are not easily determined at this
time. Therefore, your appraiser rolled the net value downward to
include these costs.
6) Much of the information supplied in the direct expense section was
supplied by the developers of the 45-unit subdivision located on
the Hubbard Property in Basalt. Further verification of expenses
were selected from the Mashall-Swift Residential Cost Manual, 1977.
These expenses are subject to change, depending upon the topography,
development program, and soil types.
7) The current improvements on the property include a small single family
residence, garage, and old historic outbuildings and miscellaneous
landscaping. Although these improvements are basically in sound
condition, your appraiser gives them little or no weight in the
analysis of a 19-unit P.U.D. project. The only value considered
applicable is for rental space and/or project office to help defer -
.the interim costs of taxes and/or management.
Based upon my analysis of the accumulated data, and considering the above
mentioned assu=ptions, I have concluded that the Fair Market Value of the
subject property as of October 17, 1977 is:
One Million Dollars
$ 52,632 per raw site
$ 26,316 per acre
Attached to this letter are four charts which were used in the analysis of
the subject property.
1) Recent comparable sales chart for building site at one acre or less
which reflect market values for single unit building sites.
2) Current listings of similar building sites in the area as an alter-
native to the prospective purchasers.
3) Recent sales of large tracts of land similar to the subject's which
could be used for development purposes. Also listed are two current
listings, one nearly adjacent to the subject (Wardwell) and another
very comparable being the Droste Property on Red Mountain.
4) A preliminary development program which lists direct expenses,.in-
direct expenses, developer's profit reflecting net value of the
subject property.
Jame J.11011 h, � ASSIXI&S, IIK
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
October 17, 1977
Oates-M honey
Marolt Ranch
Page Three
If I can be of further assistance in the application or interpretation of
the findings contained in this letter I will be available to meet with both
parties upon your request.
Thank you for this opportunity to be of service.
I hereby certify that I have no present or future contemplated interest in
the subject property; that to the best of my knowledge the information con-
tained herein is true and accurate; that my fee is not based upon the valua-
tion stated herein.
Respectfully submitted,
am2` J follica, Rai
Real state Appraiser
JJ,i: sfy
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
•SALES
(I Acre
VII"'CO
Price
S i z C!;
11cr Acre
UL
es
DtC'd records
2n:! Aspen Co-
13
11176 $
73,500
.33 ac
222.727/ic
S.
W. Ex
3191630
2n:! Aspen Co.
14
11/76
77.0DO
.33
233,333
S,
w. E
319/635
2nd A.sD?n Co.
l
5177
100,0130
.5
200,000
S.
IT. E
327/506
R;�Iae of Red
23
3177
90.0c0
.74
121,62L
E
326/481.
---a n
2 nd A s p e a Co.
8
3/77
90,00.0
.75
120.000
IT, E
2r.3 Aspen Co.
9
5177
100,0000
.75
133.333
S'
14. F
327/501+
2n! AsDtn Co.
10
3/77
90.000
.75
120,000
S.
w. E
N/p,
2-4- Aspen Co.
11
11/76
&3.000
.75
106.666
S.
11, E
319/620
2,- ils-.en Co.
12
11/76
80,000
.75
106.666
S.
w. E
319/625
2n As D a nn Co.
1
11/76
125,000
1 ac
125.0-,0
S.
W, E
NIR
2-. d AsDe-L Co.
2
11/76
125.000
1
125.000
S,
w, E
v/R
2n3 Asp an Co.
3
6/77
123,000
1
125,000
S,
V1, F.
332/327
RECE%y
CC, --,>ARABLE
SALES
(I
to 5 Acres)
1 i v 15 i 0
T. a t
Date
Price
sizes
Per Acre
Utilities
Deed Records..
Red
1
4177
$ 86,600
1-23 ac
$67,656/ac
S, W, E`
326/903
:Ki;!�-- of
Cast -le Creek
6
5/77
110.000
2
55.000
S, U, E
329/339
srar-wooc,
R-34'
S177
107,500
2.8
38,392
1-1, E
N/R
U.C.
S;;-,;Ooa
R-100
8/77
125.000
2.879
43,417
11, E
333/381
U.C.
Ret! Tan.
Tract
11/15
95,000
4-52
21,013
UT, E.
306/513
R-23
7/76
120,00
4.59
26.143
I-T, E
314/211
Rea -'mn. Trac= 11
3177
119,000
4-9
24.792
161. E.
3261512
PesachBik
4
Y3::00:1 Cree'k
tf & B
8177
73,000
5
15,600
v. E
1!
U.C.
Roari-lo :ors
a & B
7/77
235.000
2.7
87,037
S, W, E
V/R
Fuqter Crk
U.C.
RECENT CON?ARA37.S
SALES
(5 to 20 Acres)
Su:division
Lot
Date
P r i cc --
Sizes
Per Acre
Utilities
Deed Records
Castle Cree'l-
M & B
12/76
$71,500
5.146 ac
$13,8141P.c
E*
3221305
r e r ilk
M 3
5177
105.000
5.68
18,486
E
3231294
Castle Cre,%
B
8177
125,000
10
12,800
E
NIR
U.C..
10/75
140,000
10
1ti.000
W. F.
304/807
Castle Cre-2k
1177
150.000
15
10,000
E
333/340
e rm; U.-
5/76
70.000
11
6,363
E
311/986
J
C IMUS 110111M Assodales, Im
Al
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
lon.
i—f
CURRENT
LISTINGS
( As of
8/1,, 77, Aspen tiultiple
Listing, Book)
Su.di,rision
Lot
Price
Sizes
Per Acre
Utilities
2nd Aspen Co.
14
$130,000
.33 ac
$393,939/ac
S,
W,
E",
r7. Buttermilk
M & B
105,000
5.286
19,864
E
•goon Creek
M & B
127,500
5
252500
W,
E
leado:�ood
Lot 8
1-17,500
.7
167,857
S,
W,
E
Blk 3
Fil 3
Meado:tiood
Lot 11
120,000
.6
200,000
S,
W,
E
Blk 3
Fil 1
Red krountain
M & B
70,000
.97
72,165
E
Red 14-ountain
Lot 8
95,000
.765
124,183
S,
W,
E
Ranch
Blk 4
Red 1!ountain
Lot 7
105,000
.85
123,529
W,
E
Ranch
B ik 1
Red --ountain
Lot 8
110,000
3
36,666
S ,
IJ,
E
Ranch
B 11r: 3
Red Lountain
Lot 4
150,000
2.5
6P,000
S,
t� ,
E
Ranch
B1ri 3
Ridge of Red
26
90,000
.7
12-0,571
S,
W,
E
k!oun Lain
Red T ountain
8-A
75,000
1.205
62,241
Vi ,
E
Ride—Te of Red
29
105 , 000
.76
138,158
S,
t• ,
E
z•:oun `ain
Star. -good
R-71
125,000
2.26
55,309
E
Star:•.00d
R-55
128.1500
4.37
29,405
W,
E
Star -wood
R-234%
149,600
4.03
37,122
E,
E
Starwood
R-10-1-
132,500
5.33
24,859
j,,
E
W - :•later
S - sewer
E - electricity
fames D1011h � Asmxla[M.IN.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
U j
r--
1
L�7
U U
rt
N
U
Z
�+
W
cJ
U
it 4i
(]
U1
En
L1
Lr7
M
r: O
O
c*
r—
c`
r—
CI)
C.
cJ L'
U
cl
M
M
M
U
crr .
Ri J
c�
U
O
.{
4-3
r-t
ci
g C)
p
O
O N
N
w
-4
—4
��-+
4 4
r{ C!]
1
f
•,4
N
1
�
1
L�
-4
C\
O
v
C
F+
v
M
O
c+
v
�
P;
p
v N N
O
• 4
C,Z
p
O
C7
•n
\
r 4
r-A
-4
N
r-4
u
cn
co
.
d
Vr
c3
CO
co
CO
N
U
c�i
ON
co
Imo.
O
IdL'l
0
U is
:Y
O
O
r'7
U
U)
P C
r4
M
Lr1
M
N
O
r4
N
r i
t^
2
U)
b
H
U
o
c;
o
ci
VD
C
U
ca
E+
U)
rn
u
ca
a
r t
.Q
�+
(Y..
VJ
h'1
N
co
't
N
O
Q
-
H.
rZ
•rl
C) -
L*]vi
4j
1-4 r
(9
1
o
r-
o
o
U
N
v
U
C>
`n
O
�
o
tr�i
LO
L1 '
cl
N U
U�
co
U 47
CEj
4-4
U
c-4
00
�
14
I
u
s`
t`
r`
c�
.O
u O
cJ •14
C7 u
C3
• r�
M
M
n
CO
co
rC3
O
f: :
,O
Ci U
.p
U
�
U C•
•
r-1
C7 N
U
U
o
♦
41
p
74
�
. t
U
G
to.14
ss O
0>
Q
j7
Q
N.r`
f
a.:
c:
>1
C
P
0
C.)
r-r
e
a
,i
14
U
O
i.
O
iJ
4.)
1-1
(a
U
-0
CD
c3
UV
14
U c7
4j A-)
-
G
to
•14
U
O
OD N
rn
44 .C:
a
0
$4 v
s
+
X.
ci
-4
C:
U
"3
L
J
>
G
rt
C)
C3 - rr
Py
c3
3-1
to
0
C)f+
•rt
U
0
U
.1:
0H
c4
"
N
v�
>
v
U
Jollies i mollica i issoain lir
Rea) Estate Appraisers and Consuhars
i
ESTPiLATED DEVELOP%trE T PROGP`41-1^
Gross Sales Price Per Lot: $90,000 x 19 2-acre sites under AF-2 P.U.D. =
$1,710,000
Estimated Development Cost
Direct Expenses
Road: 2640'(18' paved) x $22/lineal ft = $ 58,080
[dater line extension: 2640' (8" water line) x $13/lineal ft = 34,320
5 fire hydrants ($600/ea) = 3,000
Electric underground: $5.50/lineal ft x 2640' = 14,520
Taxes: 1 yr development period, estimated = 1,000
Survey and engineering: (est. $500/lot) = 9,500
Total Estimated Direct Cost $ 120,420
Indirect Expenses
Management, supervision & overhead: (est. 10% of direct
costs)
Interest on development money (10% x $120,420, 1 yr period)
Commissions: (10% k $1,710,000)
Total Estimated Indirect Cost
Developer's Profit
20% of total sales price
Summary
Gross Sales Price Per Lot
Estimated Development Cost:
Direct: $120,420
Indirect: .195,084
Profit: 342,000
$657,504
Indicated Value of Raw Land: $1,000,000 (Rounded)
$ 52,632/raw lot
-$ 26,316/acre
_ $- 12,042
12,042
- 171,000
$ 195,084
= $ 342,000
$1,710,000
($ 657,504)
$1,052,496
^' Subject to change, depending on actual distance of roads and utilities,
and zoning requirement changes. The Gross Sales Price is based on
and average $90,000 per site. These values will vary based upon size
and location of each site.
jays �.�o�ica ��������.►��
Real Eszate Appraisers and Consultants
• e.11111,10, & ASSodflies,lu,
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants Mason Et Morse Building • 315 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 209 Aspen, Colorado 81611 •303/925-8987
Aspen, Colorado
QU-'•_LIFICATIO`iS OF APPRA-ISER
James J. Mollica
Residential Mernbar (R,'_`.) Designation of the American Institute of Real
Estate Appraisers, 1970
Licensed Real Estate Broker in the State of Colorado
Member of Aspen Board of Realtors
Member of National Association of the Board of Realtors
Instructor University of Colorado Continuing Education Division
VnTT 'ATTnM
Business and Advertising, B-S , Ohio University
Peal Estate Law, Ohio U^iversi ty
Course 1-A, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers
Course 8, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers
Course 2.01, Society of Real Estate Appraisers
Course 2, American Institute of Peal Estate Appraisers
BACKGROUN7D A�.i EIXPERIENCF.
Incorporated James J. i-iolli=a & Associates, Inc., February 1977
Independent Fee Appraiser and Real Estate Broker, associated with 'mason £�
Morse, January 1974 to present.
Appraiser Intern - Associated Consultants and Appraisers, Inc., Jtine 1972
through November 1973.
Construction, Deffett Companies, Ohio (during college)
r1AJOR CLIENTS SERVED
Aspen Hi.Chlands Sk-i Corp.
Aspen Industrial Bar_?:.
Asper_ Savings and Loan Association
Bank of Aspen
Bank of SnoTv-nass
City of Aspen
TYPES OF PROPERTY APPP,:,ISLD
County of Pitkin
First rational Bank of Asper,
First Western 1-:ort gale Corp.
Holland & Hart, Attorneys
Maiestic Savings and Loan
Oates, Austin, 11-1curath, Attorneys
Commercial Lodges Residential
Condominiums Ranches Vacant Land
PURPOSES OF APPRAISALS
Acquisition Ex -change Pa_tition
Condemnation Insurance Sales
Estate Planning Liquidation Tax Planning
Mor Lgage
James J. Mollica, R.M.
_ Appraiser- Consultant
December 16, 1976
Dear Bill,
I know you are in a time crunch, but before you correspond
with Keith Oswald I wanted to bless your busy schedule with one
more "creative" idea. Perhaps you will have a moment or two to
think about it on the plane to Washington. On Sheet #3 of the
latest drawings we submitted to you, Michael's graphics indicate
how the building could be set on the site. It is obvious that
(if allowed), a sizeable amount of basement space could be de-
veloped without major change to the site plan, or to the post
office for its central processing and distribution. (You remem-
ber that we touched on this idea briefly in one of our conver-
sations).
We can assume then, that the post office may be interested
in buying or leasing branch space in the Trueman Center and in
the City Market block. The idea may be appealing to them be-
cause it reduces their space requirements in two highly expen-
sive in -town locations, and it places the bulk of their square
footage requirements in an area where their costs could be re-
duced dramatically. It is conceivable, Bill, that we could
offer them the basement space under the West End building on a
cost plus basis which could reduce their presently planned
capital expenditure by 25 to 30% or more. We, of course, don't
know how this plan would affect their yearly operating expenses.
At this point in time, talk is the cheapest approach. Per-
haps Mr. Oswald would consider discussing the idea more thor-
oughly and ultimately run a few numbers to check out feasability.
Have a good trip,
AZ_ I
JIM ADAMS
JA:mn
z
0
4
5TE 5ECTIoN
MO xw.y
GA55MAA pRD)EGT
c or WErST END N?`IGH5c>FHOOD CENTEF�
SHEET NO.
5
NOV 3o; t,�7t,
Adams
Box 744
Aspen, Colorado 81611
December 10, 1976
Bill Kane
City -County Planning Director
Aspen/Pitkin County
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Bill,
A few days ago I discussed the West End Neighborhood
Center proposal with Stacey. His major concerns parallel
yours almost identically. They are as follows:
1. A concern for the visual impact on the
entrance area to Aspen.
2. A concern for the impact of commercial activity
in a area predominatly residential and open space.
3. A concern that the West End Center will induce
major commercial core service facilities to
move out of central Aspen.
4. A concern for balancing neighborhood commercial
facilities to Neighborhood Service Areas.
5. A concern for Project Timing.
The above questions pose reasonable and appropriate
concerns, and as a semi-professional observer and participant
in long-term public -private efforts to solve community con-
gestion problems, I offer the following as my best shot:
1. VISUAL IMPACT - ENTRANCE AREA - There is probably
not a more sensitive area in the whole Aspen area complex.
However, the proposed site is, perhaps, the most ideal lo-
cation in the West End. The site is very close to two major
West End highway intersections, almost adjacent to the traffic
light at Cemetary Lane and Highway 82, and central to the West
End Service Area. The building and parking can be screened
from almost every view plane on the approach to Aspen as is
evident on Sheet No. 2 and 3, (attached). A mandatory site
inspection will verify this position.
2. COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY IN RESIDENTIAL AND OPEN SPACE AREA
The site is the key to minimizing the impacts of commercial
activity on the surrounding area. The property is bounded on
the North by Highway 82 and Castle Creek Bridge, on the West
by City owned open space, (Thomas Property), on the East by a
steep drop-off into Castle Creek and on the South by a poten-
tial future highway approach into Aspen on Main Street. If the
Page Two
City were to enter into an agreement with the owner with an
option to acquire future right of way on the southside of the
site, the threat of expanded development pressures would be
virtually non-existant.
3. EXODUS OF COMMERCIAL SERVICES FROM CORE AREA - When
the Neighborhood Center concept was discussed and adopted by
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission in the early 70's, I can
remember that one of the major goals was NOT to encourage a
mass exodus of basic services out of the core area. As I
read the present reconstructed Neighborhood Commercial Regu-
lation, the size and allowable use restrictions really en-
courage the development of comparatively small branch facil-
ities, tailored in size and level of service to a very specific
Neighborhood Service Area. The intent of the original Aspen
Three Area Neighborhood concept envisioned the town and out-
lying subdivisions being divided into three fairly specific
service areas, each served by a Convenience Center inbalance
with the daily service demands of the neighborhood. The major
goal, of course, is to provide relief from the crush of auto
trips which now funnel into town from the northside, eastside
and West End of the City on basic daily shopping trips. My
theory is that the sooner the three service area lines are
drawn and defined, (i.e., eastside, westside, northside), the
more inbalance each of the extended Service Centers will de-
velop. If given the opportunity, central area businesses will
be able to plan their branch extensions more intelligently and
the risk of one Center developing far out of proportion to the
area it is designed to serve would be minimized dramatically.
I also believe that if no immediate steps are taken to encour-
age implementation of the three area concept the community
may experience a very undesireable chain of events. The North
Mill Street project is destined to become our Regional Shop-
ping Center. The project has been allowed enough retail space
allocation to encourage a substantial core area exodus and,
once established, it will probably cause the erosion of resi-
dent oriented services in the core area and the City Market
block. The new proposed single central post office, combined
with a large grocery at North Mill, will ensure the Center's
success. Traffic from East, West, North and South will_con
stantly converge on that point. In a few years the demand will
be to enlarge the Center. The die will be cast for years and
our fight to relieve downtown Aspen from automobile pressure
and blight will have experienced a major setback. I really
believe that if the City were to give substantial encouragement
NOW to the three area concept, present trends could, very surely,
be reversed.
4. A BALANCE OF NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS TO SERVICE AREAS
There is a rule of thumb formula which appears to be acceptable
in urban areas and could reasonably be applied locally. For
every one hundred dwelling units, one thousand square feet of
Page Three
retail space should be available. By checking the present
dwelling unit count, (with a potential growth adjustment),
Aspen's total service area can realistically support three
reasonably sized Neighborhood Centers, and if the complete
range of basic services were available to each one of them,
they would, in fact, encourage a positive change in traffic
patterns, quite different from those which will be created
by a single regional mid -town service center. Snowmass cer-
tainly has enough units to support a Neighborhood Center and
at this point, a developer with County encouragement can make
it happen. For the next few years Woody Creek will not have
the base or the proper mix of dwelling units to support any-
thing more than the present store and small post office. The
attached sheet No. 1 delineates the West End Service Area.
5. PROJECT TIMING - for the following reasons, NOW
seems to be the most appropriate and proper time to allow the
West End facility to happen. If the North Mill Street Center
is allowed to develop and establish an image as the only com-
plete one stop marketplace in town, future attempts to en-
courage a West End development or to revitalize a sagging East
End facility, (City Market block), will probably fail. The
competition will be much too great. "One Stop" is the key to
the Neighborhood concept and without reasonable competition
from other Centers, Mill Street will become a regional success.
Every high volume traffic generating service will be clustered
in one location with on site parking; grocery; post office;
gas station; banking, etc.. I believe that the extension of
services in the three area concept can only be effective if
two important decisions are made. With or without delivery
service, post office planners must be asked to seriously con-
sider establishing branches in East and West Aspen. All three
Neighborhood Centers must have the opportunity to develop sim-
ultaneously as "One Stop" full service Convenience Centers.
The grocery and post office facility are, of course, the two
most basic ingredients for success. I know of no other more
effective way to use the concept as a major tool in the battle
to de -congest central Aspen.
For your information I am sending a copy of this letter to
Mr. Albert Peter, Jr., Head Facilities Director, U.S. Postal
Service, San Bruno, California, and, at your request, to Mr.
Keith Oswald, U.S. Postal Service, San Francisco.
cc: Mayor Stacey Standley
Enclosures
Sincerely,
JIM ADAMS
Mr. Albert A. Peter,
Facilities Director
U.S. Postal Service
Jr. Mr. Keith Oswald
Real Estate and
Bldg. Dept.
U.S. Postal Servic
JA:mn
Ji.,, Adams
Box 744
Aspen, Colorado 81611
December 10, 1976
Mr. Albert A. Peter, Jr.
Regional Director
Real Estate and Buildings Department
U.S. Postal Service
San Bruno, California 94099
Dear Mr. Peter,
I appreciated the opportunity to talk with you by phone
Friday.afternoon, December 6th. I hope my proposal can offer
the U.S. Postal Service a more comprehensive approach in
helping to solve a portion of Aspen's complex service and
auto congestion problems.
As you know, I am proposing to develop an Aspen Westend
Neighborhood Convenience Center. If it is implemented in
reasonable time, I really believe that it will create a con-
structive balance in future in town resident/tourist movement
patterns. The CAR is damaging our atmosphere and the city's
environment is much too sensitive and vulnerable to endure
too many wrong decisions concerning where and how we locate
our goods and service facilities. I think that there is still
time to encourage successful coordinated effort in the im-
provement of Aspen's quality level.
Two Neighborhood Service Center locations have already
been designated by the City. One is the present City Market
block, and the other, as you know, is the planned North Mill
Street Center on the Trueman Property. My argument for a
third Westside Center is explained in an attached letter to
City/County Planner, Bill Kane and Mayor Stacey Standley.
Attached to the letter are two maps showing the general
Westend Neighborhood Service Area with dwelling unit counts
and the site location of the proposed project. The third
sheet reflects an artists rendering of conceptual placement of
the building on site.
The large map in the packet is, of course, the General
Aspen Area Map outlining ski areas, roadways, subdivisions and
other facilities between East Aspen and Snowmass Village.
In my talks with the City people there appears to be con-
siderable interest in how your office will react to the Westend
proposal. The Westend Service area is made up almost totally
of year around permanent residents. If a modest post office
branch were to be established in conjunction with the other
services listed on Sheet 1, our survey information indicates
Page Two
that the Westend operation could reduce the daily flow of basic
shopping trips into the center of town by 20 to 30 percent.
I have been asked to contact you in order to open a line
of communication on elements of this proposal which we hope
could benefit your service as much as the Aspen Community.
With City approval we may be in a position to offer you some
financial incentive to participate in the project.
We hope that you will agree to involve the Postal Service
in further discussion and evaluation of the Aspen Three Area
Neighborhood Concept.
Sincerely,
J I M ADAMS
cc: Bill Kane
Aspen City/County Planner
Mr. Keith Oswald
Real Estate & Building Dept.
U.S. Postal Service
Enclosures
JA:mn
G UN(�'S IN SERVlG6 /-�2i=A
Z P I f G PCrJE�j7121AN orz [->IC.-Tf� ACCE.S5
5Na W OQNNY Z30
MEAOOvd 1p D/ASFEN rPN(1) CWO 7%
WEST ENO oF� A5f SN
AQTO"05LE ACCESS
OOT-T--2M(Ltd./AteFb2r !So
STAr mop/`J� OOPY GSZEEK&. Z4 -
"TAP OF Hi" UNIrS PAST T
U1, TwUNe Vor INCl1�oED N tT S
g
IN 5NOW(y�NY A2r-A y\
' • •`
io
v S
� SNOW [jtlNNlr
/ •� 'j 0 uNfTS
v
/ r WV
' NNI
�I UN� `� ' •• ,, �c����0 WES UN SEN
—1
7
�o rat_ t�
MfAV(M d
�2 tJNlf� a
p I
a
V) SCALE i° s 2oOol
lP
M��AE.L. GA3SNVaN PI�O 1F r �1-1EEZ' ►�.
r /EST END NEIGNr' �D ENTER
ASPC-N c�o�nnal�t�o t�l�1l - 1
303 921� 2bg7 I1
N�V 3o i 1971�
®®
♦ ® �\ ) � �// /'�' . r;: � � G Zap_, _ _ 1 `� .�
J
OL ,�
,J
v�
M�GHAt GASSMA"
AKGN rT6GT
f�oox 7tio
ASPEN C;o�oRADo b1�.��
'.z�'S • �5 2�95
PRnJa--T
EST ENO NEIGHBOR} OD GENT�R
51HEST NO.---
2
r1a/. 30 � I�j7�i
rtJ�
c'-',
n _ w J _
Mlr-i. ,L GA55MAN
A&-H I'mGT
Ciox 71,0
ASPEN, CDLOMADO bKrti
30!3 �Z5 ?!0915
I
u,
ARCADE s+cYucNrS
SITE SEGTIoN
w 5CALS
p12o,JEGT
cf, 71N0MA5 PROPEICT'(
SHEET NO.
WEST END NEIGN►3oFZNcoD CENTES
NOV. 30, Wj7Co
y i 1 Imo[' Yt/
Parcels E/ F
Employee Condominiums
�J
I
I
-
____----
_._.�.__--.__-._ _._ _ ._
Parcel H
- Employee Townhouses
'[fl-PEG - 5AMY -- 7
i
4= {2AFANC;" - 4- t IWPY E*06� -- PDUF3� STA-r--Y. -�
Parcel D
'Market Condominiums
Ae
]TIT
now
j.
s
' MAARLF " UMT,