HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.an.Marolt Ranch.1980
"-- ~..
.
r-,
r-,
~
0iJi)@@1k~ITi)@ memo
([
Pr~ect' Marolt/City Planning Staff Work Session
W~h, Jim Reents, Housing Director
Karen Smith, Planning Director
Joline Vrchota, Assistant Planner
Dan McArthur, City Engineer
Don Ensign, DWI
Carlyle Wood, DWI
design workshop, inc.
415 s. spring
aspen. co 81611
303.925.8354 ,
,Date' March 6, 1980
L Site Plan
Density Calculations:
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 9f the pI:operty 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~ 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
-or'
r-,
~
Thomas property. This affects the existing site plan
concept in t~e 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. Jolineexpressed 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 900 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 -
"
...
r-,
.-.,
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 I 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' whichmrght'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 -
,r-,
1'""\
<Jr,5!th riAl
...,;--=,,.~_.
AGENDA
Meeting with City ,Planning Staff
1. Site Plan
(u'~
~ Uw S- .$1J~
, ' .
March 6', 1980
MAROLT PROPERTY
- Density Calculations: Opal's parcel
_ ~lO?e, 'I L~
- Clustering Units l~O
- Phasing
2.' 'Roads and Access .>R. ~~~~.
Ii - Castle Creek-Cemetary Lane connection -th1J. ;l;;t;;;~;:J;;-:tlz, ;f.
/- Intersections: Cemetary Lane '
, , Castle Creek (Water Plant, liospi tal)
Main Street extension
Midland Row
- Alignment i grades and sig~, distance," s} .11. /
Use of Thomas property ~fll~ Wf;1.f;fUJl1 f<
Cul-de-Sac lengths
- Castle Creek spur to Prince of Peace Chapel
~~,
c~J ~K
~,
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
A fk:k/!tu-- ZmJ" ~
~t~ i:u-r
WJ7(YA'~Lg ?~
- Overlay ordinance
-
"'-".":""'.-."'!'
,....,
PERCENTAGE COMPARISON
Assume: 125 units
Avg. Unit Size
# BedroomsjDU
# Bedrooms
# DU's
Sq. Footage,Total
Sq. Footage %
~
70-30 70-30
Bedroom Mix Unit Mix
,
PMH FM TOTALS PMH FM TOTALS
800 sf 2000 'sf - 800 sf 2000 sf -
1.7 3 - 1.7 3 -
'2-
, 171.5 73.5 245.0 148.75 112.50 261.25
bl 6D
100 25 125 $7.5 :!J'JlJF' 125
80,000 50,000 130,000 10,000 75,000 145,000
61% ' 38% 99% 48% 51% 99%
,
W~~
~t?,s ~~~.
r-,
I""'i
.....' -.H
MEMORANDUM
I
TO:
Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Sandra M. Stuller~1f~
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 pending
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 de.elopment 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 tJ 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.
r-,
.~
"
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 exceeded 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).
r-,
1"""\
MEMORANDUM
Page 3
January 30, 1980
2. Ooohalf 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
cc: Karen Smith
..
/1
.1
," I
.
r-,
....
I
.,
I"l'Cf'ER:1Y ^'''''f't''^~
t5i ..x.;x-1N IV\. r--Y'LL
N:N.~n..l (I?.o~~)
.
.
~ .X
e~
~. to::
.
.
.
'..
.'
'~L mIMe. .~
I ~...5f""'\ r...,(_ t'<o.r.'"
_ '! -. "",-" 'r i
~
tJ
.
....
.
..
-' ..
:.,~ U' '~.,:".
.
4....
,- ...
.... ...
'.
--:t'
.. .
,
...., .~.
.
__,
.
5"6t:em.Ct1
Wt'.;::\1:. l.J'NO .
'f" ."
.
.
..
_'0-
, :~:
'"
'"
"
.
.
.
. .
"
'"
.'~
.
-
.
,
.
..
.,
..'
'.....1.
,.- .-
"..,
.... -
.
..
..-.
....,. ..
-.. .
,
:'.:"tl.~~~1:
-
....
, -
.... I,
. ....... n'
......u.... t' .
"t' II .
..
.....- ,
-,
,
....... .
.'
. "....
.
.
"
.
.,......... ...
........... .-.......
.....................-
.-....... ..1 .'" ,..U .,.......
.... '.
ll:-~-....... _t....t
:::..'\:,+..:....1.... .. .............
-,
. -
...
':)0"..."';"
",;.",
..~
,.-......,....".'..--...--.
.
"
~
.
~ ' ..
~.j""-':::-
..
,
, .
'f ..
..
..
..,
" .
'.
'.
. '
.."'....
,......:..
-.'
.
"
..
"
.
.....
",
.'
;'--, ".
,.,..,
,
"
BI:~.vuJ.lY
.
.'
~;.
.
....
~.
..
.... t', .."
.." ..
.....
,
.
..
"
._ t'
-. . ....
...
"...
..
-. -
.- .. '..
.'
"
..
.
.1......,.."....;;
. .
..'" ~ ~,' ,;.. "-:-,f It,, f':"Il
'<['.: ;' _~.. ~_l';'...~':-;-
"
~...y,.. (.....,..,
..,. ,..~
....,., tf ..#...
't""';""'"'"
. .... '...
-
.
"
,
""t, ."
,
...t.. .. ,.
,
. .
, ..
.;~ -or- ............
..-
.,_,_~_w
-~- .,....~~~......,-',..."
t"""'.",
""'"
,.
'.c!.
MEMORANDUM
.
'To: Aspen City Council
.
FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Director
.
RE:, Rezoning and Annexati,on,Reconunendation - Opal Marolt Property
DATE: December 3. 1979
Considerable discussion has taken place at the P &, Z, level regarding the pro-
posed annexation, and rezoning of the 35 acre Opal Marolt property west of ,Castle
Creek.- Since the Planning and Zoning Corrmission, intends to take final action
on Tuesday, December 4th. after your packet deadline, their recommendations can-
not be placed in your packet. Please, however, review the enclosed memoranda
for a briefing on the issues.
.
.
To summarize the debate (and to greatly oversimplify), the main issue seems
to have been that of extending the city limits and zoning west of Castle Creek
and opening up a new area for development (mixed free market and employee housing)
versus the benefits to be derived from employee housing to be built and the oppor-
tunities to cluster and reduce the ,impact on surrounding areas that the site seems
to ,offer. There was vocal opposihonfrom surrounding residents, a few private
citizens, and the Open Space Advisory Board. who, suggested other sites were better
suited for employee housing. There was support from one interested citizen and
'the Board of County Commissioners.
The Planning Office has recommended the annexation and rezoning to R-15-A/PUD/SPA
as the only existing mechanism allowing the mixed use and clustering concepts pro-
posed.' The Planning Office has also recommended a slightly lower density (70 to
100 units) and other conditions of annexation related to the conceptual develop- ,
'ment which we offer as a means to best relate the development to the site, take
advantage of opportunities to cluster and preserve valuable open space features.
both along the highway and river and interna,l to th.e site;' and fi na 11y 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~
tivesolutions. We think this compromise is a supportable one.
.
.
./"
..
"
..
.
\
'.....
,~.."~" "
/""",
,,-,,
MEMORANDU/1
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 Employee 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
b. lower density (AF-2)
c. many amenities proposed
d. sited to avoid hazards and resources
Disadvantaqes
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.
Advantaqes
a. no free market units - land subsidy possible
b. proximity to town
c. development opportunity to improve river frontage, given City finane~al
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
Disadvantaqes
a. competing uses - since land was purchased with restricted (open space
and transportation) funds, election must be held to authorize realloca-
tion
b. precludes riverfront park and restoration as originally conceived - loss
of open space to contain urban area on north
c. uncertainty over who will develop
d. high concentration of employees - possibly not socially desirable - no
mix
3. Smuggler Mountain Area - several vacant parcels exist though no formal appli-
cations have been made.
r-,
~
Advantages
a. excellent exposure
b. fairly close to town - served by bus
c. flat topography - little, if any, environmental constraints
d. existing high density residential pattern
,Disadvantages
a. bus system costs - will have to be expanded
b. circulation system - inadequate - new and improved roads will be re-
quired
c. serves to further concentrate all employees in one location - does not
disperse
d. no specific proposals exist now
e. in some areas, utility extensions will be costly
4. Benedict Gravel Pit - currently being revegetated
Advantages
a. well-hi dden
b. disperses some housing to east end of town
c. site is already disturbed
Disadvantaqes
a. more distant from ,town ~ Mountain Valley bus may or may not serve it
adequately
b.'~,eT)vironmel'1tal constraints exist _ wildlife habitat nearby, site might
ha'le 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,~s well as feasibility
6. Water Plant
Advantaqes
a. land subsidy possible
b. disperses employee housing to West 6f 1Jown
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-
("""""
r-,
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. dose to core
b. security for MAA - new opportunitrfor transient workers
c. concentrated employee housing in high density tourist zone
Disadvantages
a. topography may present some constraints
b. mixed uses and and densities surrounding - may result in objections
based on inconsistent character
c. difficult to accomodate parking and development (assumption that em-
ployees will bring cars whether they need them or not)
8. TDR Sites - Existing Lodges in R-6, RMF, 0, etc.
Advantages
a. existing structures can be converted quickly and cost effectively
b. disperses employees within town '
c. proximate to bus transportation and commercial core
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
fairly proximate to town - served directly by Highlands bus, less
directly by Snowbunny
disperses employee housing to west side of town
is an immediate proposal
site offers opportunities to cluster and through planned development,
maximize open space and riverfront protection objectives, minimize
impact on surrounding areas
not too high a concentration of employees/mixed free market to balance
R-15 density consistent with east of Castle Creek and Cemetary Lane
good ,util iti es
road across property may help solve Maroon/Castle intersection problem
primarily consistent with 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan
Disadvantages
a.
~,\. ", /i b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
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.designate'd 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-
1*'\
-,
h. need to preserve alternatives for highway/Main Street/pursuing re-
alignment and/or relocation
i. may result in additional bus costs
j. free market portion conflicts with '75 Master Plan
k. if no development occurs, we have increased value of land unnecessarily
and with no public benefit
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/fatrlyqpen parcels may offer these ~opportuniti es
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 calc4lations.
35 Acres @ R-I5-A (duplex or rowhouse)
5 Acres/Opal's lot
Density reduction for steep slopes (25-50 units reduction)
(estimate)
Density reduction for roads (5-10 units) (estimate)
Planning Office Comments and Recommendation
The crux of the issue over approval of the Marolt proposal seems to be the importance
of the site in terms of open space and urban containment objectives along with
the existence of certain natural constraints versus the benefit of a planned
development which achieves a substantial proportion in employee housing and which
can be designed to accomodate the unique features of the site. In this regard,
the Planning Office has concluded that there will never be found the "best" site
for employee housing which is free from all constraints and problems. In accor-
dance with the recommended guidelines within the hOUSing overlay proposal, and
in view of the documented need for employee housing, we should be searching for
those sites which offer opportunities to design the development to fit a site's
unique features and, by clustering, create open space buffers thereby minimiZing,
impact on surrounding areas. The Planning Office recommends medium-sized projects
dispersed throughout the City. We think this site offers opportunities to strike
a balance among diverse community goals and that, with conditions, this site and
proposal can achieve a sound balance.
152 units
130 units
80-105 units
70-100 units
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-I5-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 ~t(iJII,
2. to allow easier clusteri,ng, 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
acti vity commerci al use inconsistent with the residenti a 1 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-
^
,,,,",,
11/28/79
Mr. Olaf Hedstrom
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Colo. 81611
Dear Mr. Hedstrom:
My second letter~ But mainly to enclose another important
letter written to me by our hoose-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-gloriou~ly-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.
enc.: 1
125 S. 7th St.
Aspen, Colo. 81611 and 820 Ridge Rd., Highland Park,Ill.60035
~a j)1JJ f,,?
~l
&rf
^'
,1""\
OOMERANG
LODGE
21 Wednesday 1979
Dear Sidney,
Gus, Annie & I treck~d 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
theci ty 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 contribut~ing to an increased lost sense of
community for those of us calling Aspen home.
However, we join you. A slick ~ty developer has
some evil plans (huge 1) disgui~d under the promise
of 70% 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
supermarketl
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 rat~her dead group
(zoning folks) .... so who can say. Very few people
were present at the hearing to speak out against it.
Mention was made of your and Jerry's letters; they were
passed along the desk for the board to review.
The next session, to finish the hearing, is scheduled
for Thursday, Nov. 29th, at 5:00pm. Please write
or telegram again 1111 Th~is 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 1
500 W. HOPKINS
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
303/925.3416
%~
""""
"
"
July 11, 1979
CONCEPTUAL PLAN/OPAL MAROLT
QUANTITY TAKEOFFS
Roads: 80' R.O.W.j40' paved (2320')
60' R.O.W.j30' paved (1280')
Parcels: AjElks
10,DOO sq. ft. building
80 parking spaces
, recreation field
pooljamenity area
BjCity Maintenance Yard
Cj1!arol t
House and Garage
Picnic grounds to river
Field
D j},larket Housing
40-45 units (14 DUjAC
72 parking spaces
pool area
EjEmployee Housing
27 units (13 DUjAC) 1&2 B.R.
54 parking spaces
FjEmployee Housing
27 units (18 DUjAC) 1&2 B.R.
48 parking spaces
GjEmployee Housing
12 units 2&3 B.R. (6DU/AC)
40 parking spaces
H/Employee Housing
14 units (20 DU/AC) 2B.~.
28 parking spaces
l/Dedicated Open Space
Pool area.
Contiguous open field
River valley edge
Links to existing pathways.
community development
land planning
,-.
, (r
~
design workshop, inc.
415 s. spring
asp,en, co 81611
303-925-8354
ACRES
4
1.7
4
.'
1
5.5
3.5
2.1
1.8
2.4
1
9.1
landscape architecture
i
t"'.
r-.,
,0
~
CONCEPTUAL PLAN/MAROLT (cont'd)
J/Lot Extension LanJ
East of Castle Creek
2.3
Area used for 80' R.O.W.
through city conservation lane
(3)
35.4 acres.
.'
,
,--
.~,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
DATE:
Jo""ph E. Edwarde. Chairma~~,ounty
November 15, 1979 ~
Opal Marolt Rezoning Proposal
commissioners
FROM:
RE:
,
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 fmr 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.
r-,
t"'\
~1EMORANDU~~
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Director
RE: Rezoning on Opal Marolt Property and Additional Comments on Celia Marolt
Rezoning Application
DATE: November 13, 1979
The Planning Office has received an application for annexation and rezoning of
the property known as the Opal Marolt property west of the Castle Creek River.
The property comprises aporoximately thirty five acres of land generally between
the Highway 82 entrance to town and Castle Creek Road. The property is bounded
on the west by conservation zoning and the City limits extended during the Thomas
property annexation several years ago. The City's Water Plant site, now zoned
SPA, is immediately to the south. A small parcel (36,000 square feet) owned by
Celia Marolt is also located on the southern portion of the property. Across the
river to the east the land is held in many separate private ownerships and is
zoned R-15. The property itself is currently zoned AF-2 as is property to the
southwest, AF-l property surrounds the City's SPA zoning to the south and south-
east. To the north of the property across Highway 82 the valley floor is zoned
R-30. The application in your packet originally requested SPA zoning to allow
maximum flexibility to develop a unique land use configuration designed to provide
a mixed employee/free market project. The applicant changed that request to an
R-6 zone density and that is the zone that was published for the Public Hearing
to be held on Tuesday, November 20.
The question for the P & Z is a recommendation to the City Council regarding
appropriate zoning for the site which is proposed for annexation. The Council
has not entertained or reviewed the annexation proposal as yet until the P & Z
makes its recommendation. A related question is the recommendation of zoning
for the Celia Marolt parcel.
Conceptual Plan
In order to facilitate the Commission's understanding of the proposal and the
merits of the zoning request, the applicant has prepared a conceptual development
plan. 'It is too large for your packet, but is in our office for your inspection.
Your packet does include a summary of the land use and densities included as part
of that plan. The primary thrust of the plan is to develop the Marolt property
in a primarily residential development comorised substantially of deed restricted
employee housing. Free market housing is included in order to generate the
revenues to subsidize the employee housing portion. As currently proposed, the
application breaks down into approximately 80 deed restricted employee units
which are provided 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 portion closest
to Highway 82. A final element of the plan is to reserve a parcel on the Castle
Creek Valley floor on the northeast oortion of the site for a City maintenance
building. A new access road would parallel the western border of the site and
run north/south between Highway 82 and Castle Creek Road. The site is generally
flat except for steeply sloping portions on the easternmost border which descend
to the Castle Creek Valley floor. In some areas the site extends across Castle
Creek to the hillside on the eastern portion.
Relevant Considerations in Recommending Upon Rezoning
In recommending any rezoning the Planning and Zoning Commission must take into
account the following relevant factors:
1. Are there conditions which have changed which might warrant the rezoning?
2. Is the zoning proposed consistent both in terms of land uses permitted
^
,,,-.,
and densities allowed with surrounding existing land uses as well as
zoning patterns?
3. Is the land use and density allowable as a result of the proposed zoning
consistent with the natural features of the site, available public facil-
ities and services, transportation and access?
4. Is the proposal consistent with the adopted Master Plan?
Comments and Input from Referral Agencies
With respect to the above mentioned relevant considerations, the Planning Office
offers the following comments which are based on referral agency comments, comments
of adjacent landowners, and analysis of the issues:
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 pl,1n 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 proDoses 80 units on over one hundred acres.
6. In the matter of changed conditions, we point out identified employee
-2-
1""1
~
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 sHe, Itv/as recently approved for some 40 unHs
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 woul d al so provide an interesting if not originallY
contemplated redevelopment of the Rio Grande property and river
front area for the communi ty.
c.' Various areas on Smuggler,~10lintain. There ,are a, couple of vacant
parcels,which could,acc()m6date 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 orivate 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,60;.g:imal ],zonli,ng.
-3-
r-,
r-.,
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 develooment. 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 cl uster. Vie agree that the Smuggler ~loulitai n 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 1 and.
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~,chas,)rilot
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.::;SRA
zoning would facilitate development of such uses while the review process is the
same as that for implementation of the housing overlay.
The P & Z should also recommend that annexation be contingent on a development plan
that is at least 70% deed restricted employee units.
Given this recommendation, the previous proposal to zone the Celia Marolt property
R-15-A is consistent with the zoning proposed here.
-4-
l'.......!
r-,
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-
r-,
1"""'.
Robert 1- Joyce
, James M Mulligan
Allen G. Reeves
Don R. Teasley
Mulligan. Reeves. Teasley &Joyce. P. C.
Attorneys and Counselors at Law
Suite 300. Equitable Building
730 Seventeenth Street
Denver. Colorado 80202
October 15, 1979
Mr. Ron Stock
City Attorney
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Ron:
Enclosed for your information and file, are five deeds
dated August 27, 1979 which reflect the transfer of the
Marolt family property from the Marolts individually to
a partnership known as Marolt Associates. I have 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, 19 7 9
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.
P.C.
----"
RJJ:fn
Ene.
1""1
,""'"
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 (50%) 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 inter grated
into the City of Aspen
^
^
I
5) In est~bl~sh~ng the bound~ries of the
~bove-described territory, no l~nd held
in identic~l ownership, whether consist-
ing of one tr~ct or parcel of real est~te
or two or more contiguous tracts or p~r-
cels of re~l estate have been divided into
sep~r~te p~rts or p~rcels.
6) The ~bove-described territory does not in-
clude any ~rea which is in the same with sub-
st~nti~lly the same are~ in which an elec-
tion for ~n annex~tion 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 ~ny ~rea included in ~ny other annexa-
tion proceeding involving the City other
th~n the City6f Aspen.
8) Four (4) copies of an annex~tion m~p setting
forth with re~sonable certainty, a written
leg~l description of the bound~ries of the
are~ proposed to be annexed, the delineation
of the outer bound~ries of the above-describ-
ed territory, the portion of the boundary con-
tiguous with the existing city limits of':the
City of Aspen, ~nd the dimensions of s~id
contiguous bound~ry have been att~ched here-
to ~nd hereby constitute ~ p~rt of this peti-
tion.
9) The above-described territory is not present-
ly a part of ~ny incorpor~ted city ~nd county,
or town.
- 2 -
~
r-,
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.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
MAROLT ASSOCIATES, a Colorado
general partnership
By ~02/
Cary Cl rk
Managing Agent
----
ADDRESS OF PETITIONER~
Suite 300, Equitable Building
730-17th Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
- 3 -
1"""'\
,1"""'\
B,EQUEST FOR ZONING
WHEREAS, Marolt Associates, a Colorado general partner-
ship, has requested in the Petition to which this Request is
attached, the City of Aspen to annex the land described in the
Petition for Annexation to the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the land to be annexed will be developed in the
manner indicated in the various materials attached to the
Petition for Annexation.
NOW, THEREFORE, Marolt Associates requests that the City
Council of the City of Aspen direct the Planning and Zoning
Commission of the City of Aspen, at the earliest possible con-
venience of the Planning and Zoning Commission, to commence
proceedings to rezone the subject property R6!PUD.
MAROLT ASSOCIATES,
a Colorado general partnership
By ("2 eeL
Cary c;!;rk
Managi g Agent
0-----.
~
~
<J
~
, ^ \
. ,,'>
,,' ,:-
, ---::
.~ c:;::'
;~:. t}j.
~ -
""
3~
Recorded at..mf ;...........
P August 27, ~9 374 i1lGE8'7'7
....o'clock_n.........M.) ...........................__.: ' ,................____.___._........__..
Lo~.~.~.~.~.._ f?~~n er ..................Recorder.
Reception No........Z1-7-i177
STATE OF COLORADO 1
p . tk . IS8.
...,.................... County of .,___,1.....,..1.,tl,___.. J
... ....Cll?,!;,L... ,~~~.L.I?,l\., ..1:1l\..~~ r.'r:,...............,. ,....'....... .,.,......... ...of the
........."..County of....___l?,~,t:l<~,rl....______,.., in the State of
Colorado, ....
sworn, upon oath deposes and says that
,.............".being first duly
MAROLT ASSOCIATES,
. h d h' h b' t d . b . . d t !),' /)" W--2'
18 t e name un er W Ie a usmess or ra e 18 elng carrIe on a _...__~_!__(u!... .~L~_._.f'.~.:_/._____________h.....
in the,........................,..............County of......p.,i.,t,J<,i.!2..,....,.......,..............,., and State of Colorado.
That the full Christian and surname and address of all the persons who are represented by the
said name of.....___..,..~.Cll:".'?.l,:t___~~,~'?c;.i.,a,1:,~.s......,.......___..,___.......___..,",....,.........."js as follows, to wit:
Opal Matilda Marolt - P.O. Box 423, Aspen, Colorado 81611
.....u............................_______....u__._...._______.......____n._._._......._.____............______.__...__......___...._.____.........h.__..._....................
Judy Marie Tesitor - 4862 Eagle Circle, Boulder, Colo. 80301
Vicki Ann Marolt - 2609 Juniper Avenue, Boulder, Colo 80301
Peggy Louise Eldridge - 625 Emporia Road, Boulder, Colo 80303
,..,..., .~<=, ~ ,t:l1.. ~..~...!:1 OlE? ~.t:., .::,.. ,l~, ~.. ,r..i.b..<=E~Y...? ,t;J:'~e.1:!.., ,?,a.n.... .r:J:'.a..~~,i.,:>~~.!.. ..c::.a..~.i.L.?.~~},O
That the affiant. is one ,Cl.f...the person""s "...,carrying on said business or trade under the
name or style aforesaid.
c-. j".,~ ,>. .!..i {"', {(j."/i),,';, '-}'j./(~( (C-t 1---.
..OFAt'~M~.T>rtbA.'MAtfC5LT".....'..,."........L......,,' ,"
,,~u~~~~~~,/~ndsworn to before me, this..c2,l.~~~~;~f.:,:,:.A-u;~---t:::.::::.:'...::':.::.::::::':.:,'~~1i::
M'y ~~oili<{ffi~:f6JJ. expires.......Y~.!k.:.K.C3.,.......,.. ........" ...,....,...,............,..." 19........
o. .;.,;,: _0'- ~- ,~: Notary Pubhc.
......... \ () ..:'
/:' 0 J(~~A:1I co-partnerships and every person doing business otherwise than in his 0 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 refiled
whenever there is any change in the membership of the firm; and no suit can be prosecuted y such firm for the
collection of any debts until such affidavit is filed.
No. 29'8. TRADE NAME AFFIDAVIT. - llrad(ord Publishin&, Co., 1824..46 Stout Street, Denver, Colorado (6'7:)~5011, -4.77
_1 :50
Recorded aU"'"' o'cloclt'
Reception No 21.21B2
I ----'----=----
I
p
M., August_:h1979
Loretta RRilll~r
374 i'AGE 890
Recorder.
cc='=:;:--=C::...--------11
Tms DEED. Made this
day of Augus t
,19 &~9,
between JUDY MARIE TESITOR
AJI,~
uu
2 (FlAfO
-o~
of the County of
Colorado, of the first part, and
MAROLT ASSOCIATES,
Boulder
and state of
~ ,
-.....-.--
a Colorado General Partnership
whose legal address is c/o #300 Equitable Building, 730 Seventeenth Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202
oftheCi ty and County of Denver and state of
Colorado, of the second part,
WITNESSETH, That the ss.id part Y of the first part, for and in con!5ideration ofthe sum of
Ten Dollars and other good and valuable consideration DO~~,
to the said part Y oUhe 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 or Colorado, to wit:
I
I
See Exhibit "A", attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this
reference.
also known as !!treet and number
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same, together with aU and singular the appurtenances and privilege!! thereunto
belonging or in anywise thereunto appertaining, and .U 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 eecond part. i tEheirs and assigns forever. ~~
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The said partY ofthe first part ~hereunto set her hary" ,-:
and seal the day and year first above written. 1~' '11)1...... ; ~tf!-, z "
, ~ ,y' Vi! ,HL'-L ,LetL Lr- v (SEAL]
Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of J 'Y M.li:RIE TESITClR ,
[SEAL)
[SEAL]
II
I
STATE OF COLORADO, }
County of ~{, ss.
The foregoing instrume'nt was acknowledged before me this
19 tFt. by. Judy Marie Tesi tor
~q
[SEAL}
0.,;z
day of
~t
Mtcom:~is~~?n expires
_ ..\. nil " ",
~ 01' " I.tO'
,,'0-.......... .D "'_
,~~) .'~. ".;r:.y ~
';".\,\D1Af?,;- .... .:,
.. r : .~;; -<.t-v-(;>" ~ ~ ~
. ,./JUDl\\]': c t
~~.~~--~>~;,~~~ :,~.":'..""" .~~~~/,$
-":,,,/',0(:, c(')~ \\'~'
. /"/~n'i;;;;; "Iiil'\\\'
,19 9 -? Witness my hand and official seal.
/~
" /,.;;u
c/'
i~.
Notary Fublic.
b___
No. 933. QUITCLAIM DEED.-Bradford Publl.hinI'Co.,1824.4.6 Stout Strut, nenvfJr. ColorAdo (673-6011)-9/77
fil
,;Y"".'"
~ .-....
Hl:corded lIt
j{('('eption No.
..0.:46
r'"""'\ . o'\'!o('k
217/178
p
" M..
August 2 7 ~979
Loretta Bk_.ler
_.374 1',\GE878
f{t.('o l"d(~ r.
.-.",
ttt"
-()
TillS DEED. Mude lhi,
day of
August
,1\) 7Q
AUG2YPA1D
--o~,
between OPAL MATILDA MAROLT
<:
of the County of
Colorado, of the fir8t pnrl. Hnd
MAROLT ASSOCIATES,
pitkin
and state of
a Colorado General Partnership
who,ekguluddre,sis c/o #300 Equitable
80202
Denver
Building,
730 Seventeenth Street,
Denver, Colorado
of the Ci ty and:.\)untyof
Colorado, of the second part,
W1TNESSETH,1'hat the stlid purt y of th~ first part. for and in considenltion of the :'>urn of
Ten Dollars and other good and valuable consideration
und stnte of
I
!:
DO'M,"'fl&, II
to the said party of the first part in hand paid by the said part y of the second part, the receipt whereof I
is hereby confessed and v.cknowled~ed, h"18 remi~ed. rel('ased, .!wld, conveyed and QUIT CLAIMED, 8Qd by these I
presents doeS remise, rel(~nse, sell. convey anJ QU IT CLAIM unto the said partY of the second part, 1 ts heirs,
successors and assigns. forever, all the right. tiLle, interest, claim and demand which the said part Y of the first part
hn 5 in and to the {allowing d~scri bed lot or PHI'Cel 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
I
,
I,
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same, t()J{etlwl' with nll llnd singolar the Rppurtennnces and privileges thereunto il
belonging or in llnywise thereUlIto appt'rtninin,Lr, and all the estut.e, ri~ht, title, interest nnd cla.im whatsoever, of the II
Raid part y of the first purt, either in law or equity, to the only propel' u.sc, benefit Hod behoofofthe said part of! i
the s~cond part, i tSheirs and assigns fur\? vel', 1 i
and ~~n~ 1TNES~I:::~R:~,~:'e~~~i~:;(~,~::~~Ywr;~:e:~e first par~~;~;~~~~f~~~/t I [C(SEkJ\L1 -
! Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the Pre~{'ncc of I
I""..""':"'~""," _________m_______,_''__ [SEAL[ I
/J\.::'l!.)~:::-:.If~'''';\:. --------- -,---,- ----,---,----- {SEAL! 'I
;;.,':: /.. . . ".'l s
(,C',,11: ~~ ~A\~~C~::~-~~~~---}-'--'-'-"- [SEALI I
'" 1-. re;,)o\\ .- ~ ~" 1
-~. J.; u " ." - 0 . \,
~"J.>:.... .:,,~;\~ounty of f /1K/rI .. j ..1.
,...-.::#~,~€'..1~,.~~~~i~~ instrument Wl1S acknowledged befol:.:...!,l1e this c::2 71.f"^-- dn)' of nU1IMT
il 'f~:7."".Y" OML- Mtt-T/I..)1t Mfl/{O/..-/
"
I'
il
,I
Ii
:\
II
II
"
"I
also known tiS gtreet find lHunber
My commi::.sion expires
Lf-fl"
, 1983, Witness my hand llnd official scul.
J2~~}LJ(JbL
:-':(;t"r;'i~-':"~
II
I,
No, 933, QV IT eLA I ~t 1l~:1-:Il. -CQI.)'rikhl (, 197~ Il r",j rurd I'll bli~loi "ll C"" 11l1~ .ol" Sl<>ul Str",.t. !),'r\v,'r. C"I"rl\.llo (~13.S0111.-1'7X
.Ai
':'~"
~:47
Recorded a i o'clock
Reception No 2.124 ?q
p
August 2).... 1979
1f~retta Bar). .t
I
374 i',~~E881
..
.
Recorder.
'-''''c':c--=--=::.=:='-'-==~
iLe.
THIS DEED. Made thia
day of
August
,i9 75\
AU G 2 (PAID
--6 -
between VICKI ANN MAROLT
of the County of Boulder
Colorado, of the first part, And
MAROLT ASSOCIATES, a Colorado
And state of
,t
/'
whoaelegaladdreaaia C/o #300 Equitable
Denver, Colorado 80202
of the Ci ty and County of Denver
Colorado, of the second part,
WITNESSETH, That the said part Y .of the first part, for and in consideration of the 8um of
Ten Dollars and other good and valuable consideration DOLL~ns,
to the lAid parlY 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 QUIT CLAIM unto the said parW 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 Pitkin and State of Colorado, to wit:
General Partnership
"-
Building, 730 Seventeenth
Street,
and state of
See Exhibit "A" attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this
reference.
I
I
I
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 o{the said part Y of
the second part, its heirs and assigns forever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The aaid part y of the first pa~hereunto aet henand
and seal the day and year first above written. ~ ~7J1a4~ALl
Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of VICKI ANN MAROLT
[SEAL)
[SEAL]
[SEAL]
STATE OF COLORADO.
} 'a.
County 0(" ( ( .', I ,
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
191 / ,by. . ,". '_ t. ,: <c. J..<_ '), /..,
day of </[1....<. ~
)...
l4y ~Qp1mission expires.'.
1 /''''\~ I{ 'c""'"" '
.' '\ \,,,.... 0"
~ v.... .....'..{.. ....0:: .'
'f /~'le;~~~~\'.ki\
'j \:"f:>(j80G/~ i
. .~;'~~:." .~.. ..~" ,.~:~:-~..---'
Or- cov),
,19~' :, . Witness my hand and official seal.
, ' , ./.. _~. .~ L_'
(
\., ")
I';''';
No'n, P,'Ii" I
I
I
.J
(~-iJJ
I ----:--,---C'.::c::c', -', -,.- ,=,c.. :C",
No. 933. QUIT CLAIM DEED.-Bu.drord Pub1ishingCo., 1824.46 Stout Street, Den\1p.f. Colorado (~73-5011)-9f77
~;"" Recordeda~:4~AC~Ck-~M, Aug~1979 -~11 i'/IGE884
.y/ Reception No.--=Z:~ Loretta BanrL _/ _____ Recorder.
[1--==::--"'=-=="": '..''.'-'-'- '-"-"-' ,- " ~:ll
THIS DEED. Mnde this
dayof Augus t
.1979.
AUG 2'TPAID
., -0
Ej!;DRIDGE)
between PEGGY LOUISE ECKENRODE (a/k/a PEGGY LOUISE
of the County of
Colorado, of the first part, and
MAROLT ASSOCIATES,
Boulder
and state of
a Colorado General Partnership
whose legal address is c/o #300 Equitable Building, 730 Seventeenth Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202
o{the Ci ty and County of Denver and .tate of
Colorado, of the second part,
WITNESSETH, That the said part y of the first part, tor and in consideration of the sum of
Ten Dollars and other good and valuable consideration D~LL~~
to the said part y of the first part in hand paid by the said p.rt Y of the second part, the receipt whereof
is hereby confessed and acknowledged, ha Sremil!lcd, released, Mid, conveyed and QUIT CLAIMED, and by these
prese~ts do eSremise, release, seU, convey and QUIT CLAIM unto the said part Y orthe second part, its heirs,
successors and assigns, forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said partY orthe 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 ttS street and number
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same, together with all and singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto
belonging or in llnywise thereunto appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest and claim whatsoever, of the I
said part Y of the first part, either in law or equity, to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said part Y of
the second part, its heirs and assigns forever.- I
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The said part Y or the first part ha S hereunto set herhnnd
and seal the day and year first above written,
[SEALl
PEGGY LOUISE ECKENRODE a/k/a
. WGY LOUISE EL~DGE ~~LJ
if4tr ~c..( .(.(1-- C)/1U/. LrSEALl
'--I!2i-;Y;r'~<<t-v. Ud.a ./,;-e~SEALJ I
Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of
STATE OFCOLORA~O. } sa
Countyof~;;~~
The foregoing instrument wu acknowledged before me thiS -=<_1'_I'-rC. day of k.::.. ,(.,;o~ /- - ~~,...,'~l
197f.by'Peggy Louise Eckenrcx1e, AKA Peggy LDuise Eldridge "7 ,"~)OJ.;',
. . 0: ,."'.''i.l'.;,"'''o
My commission eXpIres {U_71 ,197/. Witness my hand and official seal. .:" ~<"~<.' ~ F7;'/ ,..".
.,....;.c.XVA>. .,
::~"l\.. '../ ",..., :
;. w IV ~ CV."
,.,-, Vi", J~ . .
~. ""<; r .-"
.", ...,....
'NGtllr!~41lli '
V 1:. " ""
,.
, '
No. 933. QUITCLAIM DEED._Brad(ord PublillhingC"..182(.46 $toutStro(!t, Dflonver, Colorado (573-o0111-9177
:.:=0===--'==::-,==_"_._"._::.,._____11
~~
Recordeda~, o'c1oc~,_M., August ~
Reception No 2 t.:z.4.B.L. Lor,e...tta " ,aner
r;:-..c=,===::c-=--=---===:o=_c=c=:=='::::===-,::::_:::~=-""::='''==:,,:,,=::::
374 I'^GE887
. .
.
R<<::corder.
THIS DEED, M.de this
dayoC August
,1979.
AU G Z 1PAiD
-0-
=--==-=--==-I
,; I
I
between
KEITH E. MAROLT
3 \>"
of the County of
Colorado. of the first part, and
MAROLT ASSOCIATES,
and state of
California
a Colorado General Partnership
whoselegaladdressis c/o #300 Equitable Building, 730 Seventeenth Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202
orthe Ci ty County of Denver and state of
Colorado, of the second part,
WITNESSETH, That the said part of the first part, [or and in consideration of the sum of
Ten Dollars and other good and valuable consideration ~A~,
to the said part Y or 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 dceS remise, release, sell, convey and QUIT CLAIM unto the said p,art Y oC the second part, its heirs,
successors and assigns, forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said partY oC 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 aU the estate, right, title, interest and claim whatsoever, of the
laid 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 heirll and a8signs forever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The said part Y olthe first part ha S hereunto set hiShand
and seal the day and year first above written. ~ ;- 'Z77- L- ~/_'" ~
//d!A4Iv 7 '~~SEAL]
Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of KEITH E. MAROLT
[SEAL]
[SEAL]
[SEAL)
} ss.
County of ~,'VW; t--
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
19/9.by' Keith.E Marolt
, My 'Commission expires May 18, 1983
STATE OF COLORADO,
a~A-'C
1- a 'C,,:.lOl ;;
c;J 1,0 Y day of U S~GLJ r....o:;~"....;~,~:''',)
, ""f'JJ'" "-".,
, .: ;" 'u, J
':-;" <Y:
;"',(Y/;r
~ ',,~~?' '-la'
'. ....~'. .' '"
~~~.l7j'NN. . """,
"';" 1'111
Notary Public.
My commission expires
.19
. Witness my hand and official leal.
I
1
i
I'
L,_~===-=-==:-_-:c' --=-o-..cc:.c:
. ,,______,.-___,u_________.
.____,_._,,______,_,___~_' _",_~~,_ - ___, _____u
No. 933. QUITCLAIM DE&D,-BradCord Publi~hin~Co" 1824-46 Stout Street, Denver. Colorado (673.5011)-9/77
riJ
,
..
r-,
,-,
374 r,~Gl891
~
No. 7301339-6
_C
SheetLof ~
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, SW~ SW~ Sec. 12, TIOS,
R85W, 6th P.M. and Lot 5 and NW ~ NW ~ Sec. 13, TIOS, R85W, 6th P.M.
described as follows:
Beginning at a point, in the center line of Castle Creek (theSW cor.
Lot 2 Adams Subdivision), being N45021 ',v 682.87 ft. from the 28"x 14"
x 10" rock witness corner monument set for the witness point for the
S ~corner of Sec. 12 [said rock being 78.57 ft. N78010'30"W from an
unapproved 1954 Bureau of Land Management Brass Cap stamped as wit-
ness corner),
thence N14040'E
thence N14035'vl
149.97
172.00
ft.
ft.
to corner
#13
#14
Holden Tract.
,
to corner
Holden Tract,
thence N37050'W 314.72 ft. to corner #1 Holden Tract, being identical
with corner #4 North Texas Mill Site MS #3288,
thence N54045'W 84.00 ft. to the center line of Castle Creek,
thence N26000'W 94.00 ft. along the center line of Castle Creek,
thence N28010'E 294.00 ft. along the center line of Castle Creek,
thence N20005'E 115.40 ft. along the center line of Castle Creek,
to the South Right-of-Way line of Colorado Highway No. 82,
thence N75008'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 N77008'38"\o,I 63.51 ft.),
thence Sl0051'W 90.71 ft.,
thence S21047'W282.37 ft.,
thence S25028'W 715.83 ft. to a point being 1794.68 ft. S41052'15"
E, from the 1954 Brass Cap marking the W ~ corner of Sec. 12,
thence S18014'W 1107.77 ft to the North Right-of-Way line of Castle
Creek Road,
thence S40000'E 114.98 ft. along the North Right-of-Way line of
Castle Creek Road,
thence S53034'E 124.61 ft. along the North Right-of-vlay line of
Castle Creek Road,
thence N8l056'E 254.45 ft. ,
- Continued -
J,,,,.C-H2.2
~
"
,1""'\
"".'\
374 p^GE89Z
"...:
.
. 7301339-6
#3 of 7
SCHEDULE A-Continued
2. (Continued)
thence S06042'E 308.07 ft.,
thence N90000'W 9.11 ft.,
. .
thence S33000'E 61.65 ft.,
thence N68035'E 280.15 ft. to line 1-2Short Lime MS #4610,
thence N16000'W 44.62 ft. along line 1-2 to corner No.1 Short
Lime Ms #4610,
thence N74000'E 236.35 ft.
thence N90000'W 74.04 ft. ,
thence N19012E 117.32 ft. ,
thence N42030'W 329.09 ft. ,
thence N02043'W 221.35 ft. ,
thence N16044'E 139.78 ft. ,
thence S70012'E 120.00 ft. ,
along line 1-4 of Short Lime Ms #4610,
-.
thence N36045'E 268.63 ft. to the most Northerly corner of property
described in Book 196 at Page 376, Pitkin County Records,
thence N60046'W 261.04 ft. to the center line of Castle Creek,
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.S
~~
-' ~,
",,,'_',,^c"""'." ,;..>,
PUBLIC NOTICE
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, SW~ SW~ Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West, 6th
P.M. and Lot 5 and NW~ NW~ 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
Pub 1 i shed in the I'spen Times on November 1, 1979.
To be billed under City of Aspen fund.
" '.h" ..
\ ~ \ ,( f "..
I.:~ - l \ .. ./.'. Y,
. ' ,
-......'.. ,.
. ' ! :'..::. - .. ~
f\spen/Pit
130 s
~spen,
~
(~
{
~
('-
~
ning Office
street
81611
Not Delivcr2b:8 !-'is h~d[0SS8d
I.:nabJe To FOiwan:l
Plli'l ~
l:w,j 1111.' !'>
...' '-. :ttl( (~r:.r?(; ....,
.~: ::. "~ l'l..vi..'~ifj.f'i.j
-- -
",-",.,
...... --
~
r-,
MEMORANDUM
.
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Karen Smith, Planning Office
Louis Buettner, Engineering Department
Opal Marolt Property
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 laO' 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 th,;ng 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 providin9 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 usee
for the Elks parking. What will the developer give the City for all this open
space they will be acquiring?
y.
t
I
I
I
I
I
1
..- ,.
, ._~-
r.-_"'~___" " __.
7., "'~""';r;'7'1C,
~:'
~ ,-'"
r-,
''f'1
I I .I~'
/ /' I
,.. /1/'; /It ,.,....."J .-I.
,...'/"? """'; '" ,i.,,; I.
- ; ,
/. ~,/ 1 ,,/ f
<' y '~,-,~.("",....,".
Robert 1- Joyce
James M. MuJlig<n
Allen G. Reeves
Don R. Teasley
Mulligan, Reeves, Teasley &Joyce, P. C,
Attorneys and Counselors at La\'/
Suile 300, Equitable Building
730 Seventeenth Street
Denver. Colorado 80202
tL-u ,( g.) "
/ ,..';. ,^,,)_~:'~ ,.1 J l"."
tl,/ ",' ,,'..' I. ,> 01/
,,'-.. I' ,
I'i., "'J-},,-)/l' /,Jt
i " .,:' (::' (" ..:..- I "Telephone
(303) 572.0600
Cable
MULLREEVES
i
October 11, 1979
Herman Edel
Mayor, City of As
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Color
Aspen C' Council
130 S. Galena Street
Asp ,Colorado 81611
Dear Mayor Edel and Members of Council:
As you know, our firm represents the Marolt family with
respect to the annexation and developme.nt of their family
property which abuts the City of Aspen.
During the last several months, we have ~ade 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 those conversations,
Jim Reents, Aspen Housing Director, shared with me his pro-
posal to the City C01mcil regarding housing programs in 1980
and employee housing proposals from the private sector.
Since in one of Jim's memorandums 'to you the 'l1arol t 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, the growth management
plan, as it currently operates, significantly restricts the
development of employee housing, as well as free market housing
in the Aspen area. Without some modific3.tion 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.
...
p"
1""1
'f'
\
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 ereation of significant numbers
of employee housing units.
We also believe that the quality of those units, on the whole,
would be superior to units in totally restricted projects.
This is true because design and marketing considerations in
a mixed project require the employee housing units to be of
a quality and configuration similar to the free market units.
This point has been evidenced to us repeatedly in our preli-
minary discussions with the various land planners and architects
involved in the development of the Marolt property. These
professionals are unanimous in the opinion that substantially
similar quality and design characteristics must be used for all
structures within the development in order to make the entire
project work. .
We also agree with the suggestion that the appropriate per-
centage figure for free market units be in the vicinity of
30-35% of total project build out., If there is concern that
on very large projects this 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% above 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 prodnctive 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.
& JOYCE, P.C.
--------
Karen Smith, Pl nning Director~
Ron StOCK - Ci Y Attorney
Jim Reents - Housing Director
Opal Marol t
~
--, --."._.__....-__-... .......~_..._.,_" ,,.' i.''c''=._.........'''_.._.....,'.,.._..... 'V"-" """""'.........,,_~,.,.,c..Jl.II>:7_.~,M':.'.._.,~,..r:--="'-~~--.._",._, "....",'..........'.,..,._,~... ~
':'t .# ."".
#f.~
.
r-,
~
.'
:TO:
Aspen Planning and, Zoning Commission
RE:
Open Space Advisory Board
Opal Marolt property--Zoning Recommendation
November 29, 1979
FROM:
DATE:
The Open Space Advisory Board has, reviewed the
Opal Marolt annexation and zoning application and the
conceptual development plan, in t~e 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 spaee preservation as,
:follows: '
A.Natural area and rural character of landscape
(river bottom, river edge, irrigated ~eadow and
:farm land);
13.
Areas which have (a) unusual variety in near and
far ,views (views of Shadow Mountain, town, Smuggler
'Mountain, Red Mountain, Roaring Fork Valley,
Buttermilk, Maroon Creek Valley, Highlands, Castle
Creek Valley); (b) native or- unique flora (riparian
~lora on Castle Creek, Oak Brush slopes, stands of
,'cottonwood trees); and (c) frontages on river(includes
or borders Castle Creek along its entire eastern
.,boundary) ;
C. Agricultural land (irrigated meadow and farm
~and) ;
,:
D. Lands which may be utilized :for shaping urban,
~eighborhood, and rural areas such that building
:andpopulation are concentrated in urban modes
(i;he property lies between -ttheexistingurban
,:border and the Thomas prope~ty open space purchase
-and inclu,des the geographic cboundaries of the
Castle Creek ravine and fla.\t irrigated lands
:adjacent to steeply ,rising .'ialley'slopes);
cE. Undeveloped land along transportation corridors
(i;heproperty lies between major roads located on
the north and south, namely':StateHighway NO. 82
and the Castle Creek road,and lies directly in
the path of a proposed transit corridor, and
'Would be separated from the'.adjacentThomas property
by a proposed new road linking the Cemetery ~ane-
Highway 82 intersection with the Castle' Creek Road
at the entrance to the Aspen Valley Hospital)
~ ...~
.
,I
I
J
.t~
1
,
i -.
';1
r-,
~
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
~avine of Castle Creek, lends itself to passive
~ecreational pursuits such as fishing and picnicing);
B. 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 them.sl;llvesnis!:eric
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);
:~he'.city of Aspen and Pitkin county have purchased
~ands lying easterly and westerly of the urbanized area of
~pen for the express purpose of protectiing' open spact at
the entranc~s to Aspen and for the express purpose of confining
>Cmd concentrating development'within an area 'closely identifi,ed
,,"-With Aspen' $ urban core. The open Space Advisory Board
-therefore recommends to the City of Aspen that:
a. Tl;1e city seek to purchase\allor part of the Opal
".;Marol ti property for open space purposes;
i ..
h. The property be zoned with aPUD overlay reflecting
~e cr~teria for open space as stated herein and in the
'~pen s~ace Master Plan;
,E
c. T~e city seek to secure the open space areas
~erman~ntly by dedications, conservation easements.or by
cother ~ppropriate means.
.
,-
"....."
,....."
A G R E E MEN T
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into
day of
, 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":
WIT N E SSE T H
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,
\
'J
.
,-..,
"""
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
.-
ffV~~O~' the City agrees, and it shall, upon request of Marolt, dis-
'fi,cv>>L,' 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
//--~
/ ..,m '
/ ,Z) I
~/
units, maximize open space corriders and reduce intrusion into
l;r c i!JF/ /1-.
environmentally sensative areas,," 'j ,
The City and Marolt agree that the approP~~~~vJrocess C;}ISt-vd
0,)/ P1"<z
for the development of the property is through the Housingev<<:f)}) fx -
(,0;i it ill ,h)
Overlay Process. The parties are aware that final legiSlative~~~~,
authorization of such Housing Overlay Process will not be made '0 f~_
/f7 I,'r,-~
!~i("'-^)f'
until January 14, 1980. However, the parties agree in antici- ':S::::;:;;,/
L I 1l,:
~ UKjv~S.
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,
G
dwelling units will become available for occupancy in a por-
portion of 70% PMH units to 30% free market.
-2-
,
() lAd (?J\ leA '
~(
dl {f)i2;
{Iv t'
1
i ~
1""\
r-,
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.
t> '"'!tA" I ',.
( ! /1)/ ' 1.(.) PI ,I., '"
" - ('vi",,1 'h'~U",i[ 1':;
i
i,/I/( Ii:// C_C~ ,^",!",'/C' rS' ,/ /
'._:' L...I..... Y /t/ ..;.-,;, , -'
~.>
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
BY:
BY:
-3-
I""I"~'
:~;:
-4
r :~
.-- I
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF
MAROLT PROPERTIES
PITKIN COUNTY
COLORADO
.~_.__._.. -- .---'-""
PAR.CEL i
h, tract of land in Lot.13 (from ?ilP Plat by Hithers approved
July 10, 1009) Sec. 12 T10S H85:'; GP.H. being part,o'f the
"Stitzer Entry" described as f011o.....s:
'Beginning at a point, a fence co~r.er in place, being 202.41
f,t. N6GD19'15"h' from the 28" Yo: 1';" x ,10" rocl~ \'Iitness corn8r
monument set for the \...itness poi:;t for the S 1/-1 corner of
Sec. 12 (\1i mess corner mon. sho.,-;n in Cutslw,\... notes and plat
approved Nov. 8, 1880). l;:aid rock being 78.57 ft. N78D10'30"\cl
from an unapproved 195-1 Bureau 0:' Lanu ]'1c:magement Drass Cap
fitnmped as' \,:i tness corner,
.'
,thence N70D25 'E 132.33 ft. to line 2-3 MS tl2l1 HomestCtke
, '
Claim,
;-
thehce.SOgo37'E 200.25 ft.
criped in Book 2tl3 1'g. 895
along line 2-3 to property des-
Pitkin County records,
) . ,
thence S 82" 26 'w 312.13 ft. along Northerly line ,of property
'described in Bk.' 243 Pg. 895 to the corner of property des-
cribed in Bk. 182 1'g_ 183,
thence N23019'W 62.56 ft. along L2sterly line of prQperty
ue$cribedin ilk. 132 1'g. 133,
"
thence N71 D12' E ,151. 41 .f~. along a fence line to a. fence
corner,
, thence N61D02'15"E 8<1.61 ft. a10D:t il fence line to il fence
,~
corner,
thence N41D19'SO"!v 62.56 ft. . alo.nn i'\ fence line to ,the point
~
of beginning.
~'OGETHER \.,ith n perpetual 30 ft. right
cusement upon, over, along, across and
described as follows:
Beginning' at the above-described point of beginning,
of \...ay and utility
under .the rcal p!operty,
'.
..
thence N70" 25' E 30.35 it:,
thence N2D"20'55"W 154.30 ft.,
"
,thence 6Gl"56'10"H 30.00 ft.,
,
, '
thence 'S2!lo20' 55"!': 11\9.02 ft. to the point of beginning.
Pi tkin CO\Ul t:y, Colorado:
.,.... ..---
. ". . . ,. .............-...-......,- .'-'" ,-
',Page 1 of 4
,
I'J\.HC/::L 2
~ ~~!~+
., 1~~;~
:i.n Lots 9, 10, 13, SI'1 1/<1 [;\-1 1/1
1'.11. ",nc1 Lot ~ and Ijl-l lit! 1m l/ll
P.M. clcocri~ea ~u follows:
r-" ~,:"",.."
'~;'
~ trne!: of lnnd uituut~d
Sec. 12, '~lOS, nU5W, 6th
Sec. 13, T10S, nU5W, 6th
,
)
Bcginning at n point, in the center line of Cuut1c Creek
{the S\-I cor. J,ot 2 J\.dams Subc1ivid.on), being N15"21'1'I G8?.e7
'ft. f:r.O;;l' Ule 28" x 11\" ~: 10" rock \1itnesu cor.-ner ntonur.>.~nt
!..ct for the \1:i.tness point for the S 1/1 corn~r of Sec. 12
(snid rock being "'8.57 ft. N78"10'30"h' f:t:o!O nn unapproved
195<1 nurCelU of J,ond }lcmil~Jei\lent DnlSS Cilp Sl:ornpeu uS \-,itnE;sS
cD.l:-ner) ,- ",
thence Nl1\"40'E 149.97 ft. to corner [13 Dolden Tract,
th(~nce N1-1"35'W 172.00 ft. to corner i:ll\,lJolden Tract,
thence N 3 7" 50 ','I 31-1.72 ft. too corner ill Holden Trilct, being
identical with corner #4 North Texas Mill site NS 1328B,
thence .N54045'\~ 84.00 'ft. to the center line of Cas'tle Creek,
J
,
thence N26000'h' 94.00, ft. along the center'line of Castle
Creek,
thence N20010:E 294.00 ft. along the center line of Castle
Creek, . ,
thence N20"05 'E 115. -10' ft. along the cent.er line of Castle
Creek, to the South n.ight-of-I~ay line 0:[ Colorado ni9h\~ay
No. 82,
thence N75000'h' 360.26, ft. . along the Sou~h JUgl-it-of-Hay'line
of Colorado High\~ay No; B2, ~
: thence 63.52 ft. along. the arc of a curve to the left' (radius
of 905.00 ft. chord bears N77008'3B"W 63.51 ft.),'
thence S10D51'W 90.71 ft.,
thence 521"47'W 282.37 ft.,
thence 525"28'W 715.83 ft: to a point being 179~.G~ ft.
541"52' I5",E, from the 1954 Brass Cap marking the W 1/4.,
corner of Sec. 12,
thence 51801-1 '''I 1107.77 ft. .to the North ni.ght-of-Hay line
of Castle 'Cree};: noad,
, .,
thence 540000 \ E 114.98 ft. illong the North night-of-11ay line
of Custle Creek Hoad, !
'.
thence S530 34' E 12-1.61 ft. along the North nigh t-or-l~qy line
of CnptIc Creeknoud, .
thence ND1?56'E 254.45 ft.,
thence 506"<12'E300.07 ft.,
t:hencc N9 0" 0 0 'N 9.11. ft.,
thence S3j"OO'E 61.65 ft.,
thence N6a03S'E 280.15 ft. to line 1-2 Sllort Lime 1018 H610,
Page 2 of 4
,.
,.
r":,,;,,~)
. '~:~~~:..:'
-~
~~r;:'l-
~..."
,
thence NIC"OO'W ~~.G2 ft. olong line, 1-2 to cornar No.1
SharI: LilO{~ HS 11<16.10,
thence N71"00'J:: 23G.35 ft. nlons- Ene 1-<1 of Shalt J,i1l\e HS
!:1610,
thence N90"OO '\1 71;..04 ft.,
tll encc NIQ"12'E 11 7 . 32 ft_,
thence N12" 30 '\'1 329.09 ft., .-
thence N02"<13'\'1 221. 35 ft. ,
-?-
.'
81ence NIGo14'E 139.78 ~t.,
.-
thence S70"12'E 120.00 ft.,'
thence N360<15'E 2G8.63 ft. to the most Norlherly corner of
property described in Dk. 196 1'<;1. 376 1'.i. tl:in Co. lZecords,
thence N60046'W 261.04 ft. to the center line of Castle
C:x:eek,
thence Eusterly along the center line of Custle Creek oC\-Jn
the cl:eek 651 ft. more or less to the point of bcginning.
'Pitkin County, Colorado,
. ,
\
i
,
"l'OGETHER I,i tho perpetual easement over, E;long and ~acrosn the.
:oouther1y thirty, (30) feet of the real property cJescr..i.hea rin d'
.'. " l,1ntre.u.J :oun
pnt-ugrc:lph -1 hereof, for :l.ng:r:cs,s to, eg,<,css from ,and/Ul:Ln"t:\.cs :
to the portion of the property described in this paragri:1ph !
lying anc1 being westerly of the p:roperty described in pzrilgraph
I;. of, this Decree, but easterly of the centerline of Custle
CreeK, said eQsement bein9 for the benefit of said real
property above described and the pluintiff, its grantees,
c:lssignees, invitees and distributees only.
. .
'.rOGE'J'HER \'lith the following described property:
]I. tract of land being parts of L0tS Band 10, cll1d the S\V'l/<1
SlY 1/4 Sec. 12 TiOS RB5W, 6th r.M., being part of property
described in Dook 175, Page (;28 of thePitJ:in County .Records"
described us follow~:
ne~:b;ning '~t a point on the East line of the Thomas Entat~
prop~rty being lU23.79 feet S ~O"19' B. from the W 1/~ Corn~r
Section 12 '1'lOS RUSH, 6th 1'.1-1. (a 1954 Dureau of Lund t-lanage-
m'~nt nrilss Cap);' thence S Ill"l!" \1 66. t.4 feet 'along tht! East
line of the '.rhomas Estate property; Thence along a curve to
the left, radius of 308.10 feet, 11 distance of 51,0. -12 feet.
(chord bears S 18"51' W 173.76 feet)i thence S 31"21' E B.OO
feet to the East line of the 'rho~as E~tnte p,r.operty i t:Jlence
S 18"1'l' \1 131. 35 feet along the East line of the Tl'Iom.:!s
E~tate propertYi thence N' 3io?1' 1193.16 feet; thence along
il curve to the righ,t, nidi\!!; of 1,0[;.10 feet, a tli5ti.lnCe of
27.1. H feet (chord beam 1-1 1~oJ\9' 30" \~ 210. J\G feet) i .thence
ulong n curve to the right, 'r11dius of 663.65 feet, a distcmce
of 100.00 feet (chord bears N0-1001' E 99.91 feet).; thence
, Page 30f 4
"
..
r-At
...;~lin~~'~:r'
1"\ ~
.~-
. .. ",!!?:~;"
< .
N OU~2U' E 21;5'.00 feeti thence 1110119 a curve to tlw'lc:ft,
radius of 440.22 feet, a ai~tance of 235.01 feet (~Iord beDrs
lJ OG"4l' \~ 232.39 feet) to the SOIith tight 0'[ \~i1Y line of
{-,he I-lain line of the railroad; thence along a curve to the
;dght, racJius of 2964.0 feet, i1 distunce of 13G. 07 fC8t
(chord bears N 49011' W 136.07 fcet); thence N 17052' W
1)50.00 feet; thenoo S 00(21)' E 15t!.10 feet to a point on the
centerline'of the railroad l11aiI11:tne'llcin~f 2376 feet more OJ:
losi Northwesterly from the East line of Lot VI Seq. 12
(J:imberly Survey); thence S 00"21 I B 151\.10 fecti thence
S 47"S2! E 21S.pO feeti thence along a curve to the' left,
radius of 2764.8 feet, a distance a[,454.01 feet (chord
hears S' 52<> 34' E 453.50 feet) to the Bilst line of the 'J'homas
Estate propertYi thence S 25D28' ~~ 11'7.50 feet i1long .the Bast
line of the Thomi1s Estate property; thence S 18<>14' \-1 57.06
feet along the' East line of the, 'J'hornas Estate property to
the point of beginning.
~
Page 4 of 4
.
,
-
~.
'(I
July 11, 1979
.
, .
design workshop,inc. .
415s. sp,ing
aspen. co 81&11
303-925-8354
..,
CONCEPTUAL PLAN/OPAL MAROLT
QUANTITY TAKEOFFS
.''''...
.
.
ACRES
<1
'1.7
I~ads: 80' R.O.W./40' paved (2320')
60' R.O. W./~O' paved (1280')
Parcels: A/Elks
,10,000 sq. ft. building
80 parking spaces
,recreation field
pool/amenity area
B/City Maintenance Yard
C/M.arolt
House and Garage
Picnic ~rounds to river
Field
,
~
.
1
fi.fj
D/Market Housing
40-45 'units (14 DU/AC
72 parking spaces
pool area
3.5
.E/Emp19yee Housing
., ' 27 units (13 DU/AC) 1&2 B.R.
54 parking spaces
2.1
E/Employee Housing
27 units (18 DU/AC) 1~2 B.R.
, ,48 parking spaces
1.8
.
G/Employee Housing
12 units 2&3 B.R. (6DU/AC)
40 parking spac,es
2.4
H/Emp10yee Housing
14 units (20 DU/AC) 2B.~.
'28 parking spaces
I/Dedic~ted Open Space
Pool area.'
Contiguous open field
, River 'valley edge,
Links to existing pathways.
1
./
9.1
,:
community development
land planning
landscape architecture
"";'.:'" ;
. t' ,
..~\.'\.
'~'y;'~'~::'r,f:r
. I,"
..,....~..
, .
-.-~~' .
1'....
}'.
'---, ....
~.,
,
-.<t."" ."...
'"
~'''-T
~..... .
, "'fM'"
\ ~ ..~
F,
.~_..
r.
',"':\'P:"""-.r . ~
. '\ / ",'~
.~{
. ,',..
_..."...,.."...,."."""~,,
q' I/;' I:':l;';.
~~
. .,.;.
',.~"!.-.~
. ,
I ~
1
,
i
, "
I.
,
,
.
I
,- ~. (
"\"(, .
'<i.
i '.~'
,'" ,
.. ,"
. .,~',~ e".
,: ,t',
;~ .'~ ~
',~: .
1--'
i .::t),.
, .
i
, "
"
,.1
....1
. .
t .: .~. .
.
"
. ~
.:.f
.~1, :
.
,
t ..
j
!
,.',
~', .
. ,
ft:~~~;~~ ':?';,~~~,~.:~~~~~r~'~~.~~.~~7~ ,.-: ~~". ."~:?~
!II: ,'~' .--, ','~ ':... ",l;j.."1 . , ,".,.>
~.. ....~..~n;..... \".*... .'L.
'- -.
. {,..- ,\ -'[-'''''
. .,- ..,.. ..~...' -- :........ 1 - < ':!) i
. . _. ; ~. .' ",~'
. . .
. ~:
. . ~ . .
.. !. ../'.., I
- . ~ t;....;.t
..
"
.
~,.
,........,
'.
.
\3.
'.
.
't.,. - \
"'1'1
.
~
'~',' J'" 1)- ·
! ~:~ 4..tit( .' , ' " .' :,
!',/, ' " '
~ r:.; ", . , ,'- , ..~';' .'
'~~:::"--':> p '.. --~-- ' , ' .~ .
'.:;
, '.
.
.
~.~
"
".
,
....:....-........
'<:/.
~ k.. ....
H.-
". ...,:ic::'.,~~"
,........
,
'.
.'
'sa.Io-e t'SS,
es)
S'~
..
, .
....'..-.
.',
,
:,;4':.~~
.
,~
.
.
. ,..' ....~_._'.....;...
"
. .~., rl,
.
.,
..
,.-.
..... ....- -
..
..
I,'
..
f)'
; ~.
.
.
,~
.'
,
.j#....-.-.......
~
:"'1
:'. Y:.
" S'
~ .,
. ',"
'r
~ , . :~. ~
...~
'.
.
"
i\.
..... .
'.
.:--1. "'. ',\ : ." ,-;...~,.. . .J..:~
,. :"'..~t:,>: .~:r~~~:'~~r~..~:..:~~-,.:~,~J ~: ' '""
:.'-'- .'S' ,.,t.,....... ~'".,,'~;.....,.".,...1..,i:"~.t.;..~-
; .....~"-~'.....'. ..~~~1~r:"'.:(.. ~~""r.,t,.:.~. ; '.''Ji '.t:~.
.".
'1"
:~. ',.
( t
",' I
,
"
"
, \
-;~T
7., , ~
" ....
,~........:.L
I':
.!'
'j
,'r;'
...
. ~" I,' >,t.
'," l
..,t ,;-t;.
.~;::. :~~t~~.
.,\'{i'
, ','
"
~.
.
.
....
." ~ .
"
, "'. I
. 'i.~~' -". " ..~~~L!
,..~.._..J..I1L
. .
,.
'.
'.
PUUt UO.~'eh.IaSUOO ^~.O q~no.Iq~
'/.\:0<1 '.08 .IO'; pasn -ea.xv
. I
~aa.IJ at~s~J ';0 ~s-e~
puu~ u01sua~x~ ~01/r
(p.~UOO)
~~OUVW/MV~d ~Vn~d~~NO~
,--.
,;.."
i.
"1 ."
.
~ "
". \. '...
"
~.,=~~\~" ..--.;.......
'"""~-_...
i
'-
"
:..' ,f
.
.,..
Roben J. Jcryoe
.f-e..M.M.ulIig4Jl
AU... G. Re""".
Do.R.re""I';7'
.MuIIigdIl & Reeves. P. C.
AtllmJ.eysand CoW\selors at Law
Suite 300
. E.rnt.oble BwlJing
730 Seventeenth Street
.
Denver. Colorado 80202
.
July 17, 1979
Telej>1.ODe
(303)572-0600
Gable
lillWlEEVES
.
. '
lCaren Smith
Director of Planning
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Karen:
Please find enclosed a Petition requesting that
the ~~rolt 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.
Z would appreciate your assistance in processing
these applications and will of courSe be avail-
able to you for discussion or further informa-
tion.
.
As we discussed, by phone today, since the exact
p;ocedures necesF(iry for approval of the Marolt
deVelopment have not been settled upon by all of
the officials involved, we have also submitted un-
der separate cover an application for rezoning, to
. Pitkin County. Obviously when we col~ectively de-
cide the best course of action to undertake one or
the other of these applications will be withdrawn.
I will call you after you've had a chance to view
this material to arrange some. time with you and
. .
~,
~:r. ,-',' ':'"J7.it:";
",he
.'. !
. '.. ~..... .
, ~ ': : --- ~,~ :
, 'f:,}~;oo.~.,,~:'t:-~
. ,.f.::'....~, ":~', . ~'. .
t -:\' ~; ; .
. , 't' . .- ~
:.
7~~:~ r~," :!..~.T:~'..~
"":.....-r. " .
..~.;,i. '.:"
.. ~':
~-
.- iY:!'.
..........
.' ,1.
~. .-
-...~.
"'
....~ .
._~_..
'OJ..;: r ".,.--.
...... ~ ~
.~;:'l
,~
:". .
"
r... "!I!. -
;t. .~,;.
,I,t
..L-..
l'
, ,
f '.:'
t"~. 't
.,'
:,' .
".;,L.. 'j
,
"
:: i ~.
. ~
j
, ,
r ,'Y
'.
, ',.
'.
, ;"
.. ~:';:.\
1',.)";
._1'.
~ ~:
... :
y,
,\ 'I
>t')"
.~ :0' ~
L
'. , . ....
....: I':':'~ ",~.....;. ,~.. ~."'t',/lO;,....:t...~"";'.;,.....\~......,....~.'>;\""
.i~.:~~~.j.~jk~?:~~..7.!,::P!''''.~.:~.~~''' ,.:~:,.':;~:'!~::' :':, .. "-:-
~ ,I~-,-"_..."'t.,,, '......fJl'.'y , ... fl.' " .
~"J ". .~~...~...".... -~.."...'L. .
, .
~ . ~ . ......
-" .
:/ ", .
I ...,
.. ,.,'~,. '-~, ,:, ' . ~ .......r.. ~-:r---l" --, r--...,'. -)~ ;:
. ..~.: . :-~.. .' .. ,,-.;1,
, .~. .~ t
, ~ ~...; ~
tI!I 0. ''-;'' l. .,
. . ,~ '....~
...
, I
........
.. .~~.;
, ~ " ,
.'
. '
, ,
,;
, '"
"
.'
-,
,~
- .
.
1'=5
.'\ .~
'..;;.'''';'.,,
'1'~'':'
1"'.;
,
\.. -\\.
c;/
.
';.'
-
....-,.. J. '}' - .
~ "'" ~.1 .' . . 1
~ _ l._.t...~ " ' , _.
. "'; .' .
:~.'~ .' '. . . .
'~.' .... . .' ... ,',
t"" " ..,. ),...~...__-
!..:,~- . . \ " "- '.' . .
_~v ...__~_..' .'.
.
......~-,~,,;.~
..
........
,'-
. -t" .. '. . .'-, .-.' J,.~
. ....,.. ... .~. lIIIr'" '. \,..
'. '\.#'" ,"",". .'''''.'. ~ ';'<-..'. '-"1
~I;~: _"t:~.~~~~~~:~~~t~~~~..~:~~.i, ~J;~:~~;::'"
.
...<-;...............
..
.J'
.
..
"'&1'
I.'
: j' ,~:
,;
:'
.'
I
....
,
"
.' ~ '..
;
, .i'
. f ~_; .t
.
t.!!
.' I,
>
.:
.....
.Of
'.
"'1 '\
~ .
.;
~. . I
:' ~ .
,.'
, .
.. 'r
-,
.,~ .... j
'~
,.\:.' ;:k
\
..----......
;)
::-.,t\
.: :~ i
,:,,:~l-,a" ..J.!
':':} ,
."
',"
.;..',
. .1.: '-."
" .
"
t:- .
, - .
....~...~:..;..--..:.:;.........
, ,
'. ~ .'
'0' .....,.
.J',i...~.:,.',
. . . . .
.:','1}, ;..;,
_ J~! . ,. .. .
.J 'f''':..I_,\ _.... ..;.L'_~~ ......;...,_, .. ,"Iad' )
". ,.oJ'
, ~~,,~u,~~:,~~~,"L~_. . " ~~aL. .
.... '.
-r ~,
. ....~ .. " ;110 .
. ~. 10 .... '.' .": f..~ "~ j.~.
",~~,,,,,,,,,,,,~~_,-,",~iioJJi'~'
..
.- ~
".,~~ '.:~::'~" .. ',',
. .. ..
~10.7~W 'P[::>'M.
~10.71:1W l~dO :::>x
~
sa.7nsOt::>ua
'.7a~~Em s~~~ u~ u01~~~adooo .7nOh .70; nOh ~u~q~
.
'l~sodO.7d a~~ ssno
-StP .7aq~In; o~ ~oa.7tP nOA S1:1 st~~o~;;o h~~o..7aq~o AUV
.
6L6t 'Ll A'tnL'
-~-
.
q~ ~ms ua.zq
,"",
/"-
,
"....,.
'.''''
,..
..,I
'j
:'1
'ij
~""'" '" e. r. ll'lfCKfL a. 8. ll- L. C,l.
/""
I
'v/ () "-It,?
j~~
,~
Special Requests
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
;j
I
d
~l
~l;
I
',;-j
,
Ii
,.j
d
~, 1
[tf
.,it
"!
~':i
';1
..,,"
,I,';
"'1
.1','=
.~. 'j
:(j'
"I
:tr~
, ..
;:t;,1
,~:. 1
-,
\f,'<
<,I
Regular Meeting
Opal Marolt,
Annexation and
Rezoning
Commissionmember
Comments
s"j
';1
:t1
.'
."":
:;*
"" .
~
'I
II
s
,~j
'~-1
~~l
~i
<l
~
.....~
'~1'
/f;<
"'J
tl
;(;1
,1
~t<(
~1
'1:;1
f~
:~ii
"1
l!
,
j
.~
'T'
''I; .,
,; ~!
~,
, 1lP,: . ~ ,:",. ;:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission December 4, 1979
Closing of Public Hearing and' Discussion of said pro-
posal and Decisions made concerning such:
Anderson closed the public hearing:
~lar questioned Smith on zoning Sf A, and concerned with
L 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 agreeIllent, 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 co~~unity,
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 determ~ned
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
purl?oses of development of primarily employee, housing
that we cou~d except a maximum number of units.
"'-"~:."':~ -'r-.-' ,
>',,;;'~;r~~'" "'~;1':'<'~r~:'
n
(1
I
"":!r~:r."''''"' ..... .---.",.-..'
J
~~
-vI:'l
,.:C - I rO'UI\1 ,c. r. Hn~CKrl,; lJ. B.a L. C,l.
I""'
~
)
"
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
'~j Regular Meeting
(I'
I'll
t'.:
~,;L
-"I
, j
1.,
:~:~i
;',j
I.J
\z,' ,~
::,i
?i-I
i J
!:t
1/'"j
. j
:"'1
,h:: ,~
.,1
d
;-\
11
fl
-,',
;t~::,~i
j
'I
, ~
tol
"1
:'1
fj
f!
"~:.i
". ..
~: 1
H
;j
.~ ,1
", ~
'. I,
,'t.- ;
,.o;"!,:J
"'il .1
'.- "
r'~ '1
'! !
i ti
;, i
;;~-:,j
c.:,.,']
!,j
<{\:j
..',
. ~ ~l'
:1'
~,' "
~
'1l('}"
," ':
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 ~ question that has to be decided,
with the PUD gives you mo~e 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
t~at 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
~e 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' RlSA, one of the conditions
days it.
.
Anderson, can I poll each member, as to how their feeling
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.
',,",:~--",'~
~...<.. ~
""}
~-j -
.
:/"
\
I
1""1
^
~.
i
,
{I
j
FORM l~. e.~. IU)(eIfEL8. e.... L. c.).
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leave!!
Aspen Planning ,an,d,Zoning C.omll1Jss:i.on
December 4, 1979
I Regular Meeting
'"1
,.j
~l
~'.!.
J"
't.!
;,
1:;1
r~
Anderson, how about saying, it says with a maximum te 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.
;j
i~i,j
.~H
J;;J
'.."
,,;"!."":
31
Anderson, there is two years from the approval of the
development pla~, which is after all the bureaucracy
that goes in here gives them 2 years te get financing
and start construction. '
~," J
'~l
~':2
Hunt, One of the biggest problems with the Institute's
SPA, was we gave them nothing to go by.
Andersen, 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-
'Gnemeveto adopt a SPA-PUD zoning designation for the
~rpperty ~pown as the Opal Marolt Property, should it
be annexed into the City ,.of ,Aspen based on a generally
'$avbrable reaciton of this commission, should the pre-
liminary plan as presented to this cemmission in ruff
'a!:loconceptual form without this approval being restric-
,.ted to specific numbers and specific site designs, .
which shall ,be dl3termined during SPA and PUD precesses.
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 te, with a maximum to' be determined during
SPA process with no less than a 70%/30% mix .of employee
and free market units.
.J
->g,
~i~
~', ;
:d'j
~;'j,
,~':i
'~:1
f:l
t,.,
ii
:1
:!
~
".~,':"
~j
k1
;"'J
~t~
;J
i
"';-;4
~J
,.q
li
1,.4:
'1-1
~
':1
1:~
'1
'I.
~j
~,
~
t
t
f
~
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
Z~ning would revert to RR and to add to that condition,
( .) that serious study and design work be formulated
i regards to access to and from this property.
Klar, se moved. Pardee, seconded.
All in favor; Hunt, aye. Klar, aye. Pardee, aye.
Anderson, aye. McDonnell, nay.
Motion approveq.
.
"",'-,""
n~
::t,:,""",,:;, '",,:~"~
"I
,
I
,I
1
,
I
I
I
Ifl
<.;
,
'\
"'4
'_:~,
':'
""l:!, ".)
!""""
,-,
"
.J
,
,
,_.... ,'..
Special Requests
.,
I
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
'CRlllO. C.r.HOFCKFLlJ.D.o\l.C,l.
Regular Meeting
Aspen Planning and Zoninq Commission December 4, 1979
Closing of Public Hearing and Discussion of said pro-
posal ahd Decisions made concerning such:
,
,
i
, J
I
, I
i'!
~.,
;\
".t!
i
t
Opal Marolt,
Annexation and
Rezoning
Anderson closed the public hearing:
.
Klar questioned Smith on zoning SPA, and concerned with
: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
~inds are we legally liable. Pardee thought not, but
the problem with the Institute was with tremendous de-
~ays 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
~xtent 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 llteir 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
~ook at this and have more community involvement and
~ith these programs that we are going to be developing,
I zeally don't want to create anymore red tape or post-
pone things, but we are getting ina 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 y€ars.
,'Hunt felt a problem 'exist of as soon as recommendation
,-of zoning on the property is done there is no assurance
thai: Opal Marolt will do asspeci,fied 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
can increase 'in density by vurtueof its annexation,
'that means legitimately we should zone it RR and there
is certain presidence for that. vlliat 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 pos~ible to say RRand then indicate for the
purposes of development of primarily employee housing
that we could except a maximum number of units.
Commissionmember
,Comments
"'(l~".
',,:i-Y:;'" ",~'~';'
"'~"<;:l'
'.
~~",f"
.".'~'~' ~~?'~'
"',!':"f':""':'~""" '-. .. '.
~. ~
~,
',,-, ";
1""1
,~
)
'.
,
.
'RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
,0ItM \~C. " ~lJrCll'rLB, t." t. (;.~
"1 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 RRcomes 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,
$pecial 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 witb
~he 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-,
keto Hunt, well it better be SPA with conversion only
'1;0 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 mo~e 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 ~eaction of this commission to the pre-
liminary plans as presented to this commission in ruff
4nd 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.
~he approval shall contain the seven (7) conditions of
>the Planning Office Memo, dated Dec. 3, 1979.
Pardee, I'm generally in favo,r, except with the seven (']
''Conditions, I'm not sure, butdon'tvilantly 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 R15Aand 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, -feelin~
about this motion;
.
'Xlar, 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. .
'~ ';1"
"~'}'t
i~:~"
. -'~,
,.......~""r
~._....,-~
-"""'~n
,-
.
r",
.~
)
~
>
.
,
'1
:j
.j
\ "0Illi,, e.'.IlQ[Clfft....-'t.(;.l.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
./\spen Planning and, Zoning COIl\lllis,s,i,on
December 4, 1979
:j Regular Meeting
fj'
~(~l
,,;1
~;"'!
:\f:
,
,I;
>'.:...:-,
r.,\
d:;
","J
;,{.1
t;,~,~
',.,
"j
j..J
.,',:.
./\nderson,how about saying, it says with a maximum to be
set during PUD procedure with at least with a 70%/30%
maximum.
~ -j
",~,.
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. '
~,D
;:,-.,:
",';
Hunt, One of the biggest problems with the Institute's
SP./\, was we gave them nothing to go by.
~i
3"')1
;-.,,;
"\>1.
.;;;
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.
j..-:'i
.;:.',-.i
:;.~> i
~,;: {
~',' "
'd
~:.' !
, !
',1
~i
::J
,-~.~
'#t:rj
o;j
~"".,j
:~;
l;!
:~;J
~.1
'\':j
:~~
,.~
}?l
"'j
."
.~~
~
1;\
.~
6;
,:"~1
Ii
'~\j
;,;,]
iiI
.#'
"1
"
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
O'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.
.
\
i
~
".,
OJ
~
"
.--,....~. "","~':
''II.]. ',)
.
.~,
t""""\
James 1. Mollica [ Associates, Inc.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
Aspen, Colorado
Mason & Morse Building. 315 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 209 Aspen, Colorado 81611 .303/925-8987
A PRELIHINARY OPINON OF VALUE FOR
THE }lAROLT RfJ,CH
LCCATED ON HIGHHAY 82 and CASTLE CREEK
PITKIN COUNTY, CO
Octob,er 17, 1977
FOR:
Nr. Lenny Oates and
Mr. }lick Mahoney
c/o Oates, Austin, McGrath and Jorc1au
600 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 8161.1
PREPARED BY: James.J. Hollie'?") RH
Real Esta~e Appraiser
II
James J. Mollica, R.M.
Appraiser-Consultant
~
~
James], Mollica It Associates, Inc.
Heal Estate Appraisers and Consultants
Aspen~ CoIcrado
Mason & Morse 'Suildfng.. 315 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 209 Aspen, Colorado 81611 .303/925-8987
O~tober 17, 1977
Mr. Lenny Oates and
Mr. Hick Mahoney
cia Oates, Austin, NcGrath and Jordan
600 E. Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: A preliIJ.inary tIOpinion of Value" for the Harolt Ranch located on
Highway 82 and Castle Creek, Pitkin County, CO
Cen tleiilen:
At your cOi11.bined requests, I have personally inspected the subject property,
have gathered and analyzed applicahle market data and development 'costs, for
the purpose of estimating the raw land value of the subject's approximately
38 acres.
This analysis has b~en offered in a brief letter forn at this time, since
both client's are local persons, and very familiar \.]ith 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 \'Ihich I could prepare a formal appraisal at a future date if' so
desired.
The valuation stated herein is based upon the following assumptions. If
anyone of thase assumptions is not considered reliable by the clients or
if they change at a future date, prior to purchase negotiations) your appraiser
reserves the right to reanalyze the property under, the alternate situatio~.
These assumptions are as follows:
1) The subject is currently zoned AF-2 P.D.D. un~er the Pitkin County
Zoning Code. Under these requirements" the s'.loject can be developed
with 19. residential units.
2) Currently, under Pitkin County regulations, all acreage on a paree:l
can be used for density allowance. This sugg2sts that: althought no
deve~Op3ent could take place on topography over 30% grade, it can be
used ror density requirements.
3) The direct expenses used in the analysis refl~ct total road and
utilitie3 ext:(:r!.sions not to exceed one.-:-half r:ile (2,,6!.0 l:lneal feet).
Depending UpOl.l. the development program and P~U.D. requirements, this
~ay vary considerably.
4) Indire.ct expens2s of m':::ln2.gem'~nt, supervision,. o\rerhe2.d, 'interes"t and
reo.l E.st2te CO>1.lLr:issions are considered average. .for this size of
develQps.ent. Development profit of 20% of tn.~ total sales price also
'II; James J. Mollica, R.M.
Appraiser-Consultant
,-,
~
October 17, 1977
Oates-Nahoney
Narolt Ranch
PageT1vo
is considered average for the Aspen area.
5) Tap fees and extension approvals are not easily determined at this
time. Therefore, your appraiser rounded the net value downward to
include these costs.
6) Much of the information supplied in the direct expense section was
supplied by the developers of the 4S-unit subdivision located on
the Hubbard Property in Basalt. Further verification of expenses
"ere selected from the Nashall-Swift Residential Cost Hanual, 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.D.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 asslli"ptions, I have concluded that the Fair Narket 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 (Uardwell) and another
very comparable being the Droste Property on Red Hountain.
4) A preliminary development program which lists direct expenses, ,in-
direct e}~enses, developer's profit reflecting net value of the
subject property.
James J. Mollica [.\ssorlatrs.lnr.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
,-..,
,r-"
October 17, 1977
Oates-Nahoney
Narolt Ranch
Page Three
If I can be or further assistance in the application or interpretation of
the fi~dings contained in this letter I will be available to meet with both
parties upon your request.
Thank you for this opportunity to be oI service.
I hereby certify that I have no present or future contemplated interest in
the subject property; that to the best of my knm.rleclge the information con-
tained herein is true and accurate; that BY fee is not based upon the valua-
tion stated herein.
Respectfully submitted,
~--., ..
( ) -', u::::;:;;?; -- /
, ' -'. - ---...r7. / ,/
".~., \.// Yi~,_.-
h am~~/; Hollica, R>1
I ' .
I' Real state Appraiser
JJ}1; sfy
James 1 Mollicil (r ,\sso('lal~& 11Il'.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
S'~::::Ji...i"t.:'):1
--"--
2:,,:= ;'~::?~:"i. Co.
2:-.:!- As?~:1. Co.
2:-.~ As??n Co.
?.;~~~,!:~~nR~d
2:-~::i /~si"~:i. Co.
2::'5. AS?en Co.
2;;:' ;'.S?,:':1 Co.
2:'".1 ;'.s?=n Co.
2,,0. }.$?E:n Co.
2;')..:' .~.S?i;:;;"'.. Co.
2".:' AS?<:':1 Co.
L::d A$;>:::1. Co.
!::.~
1)
14
16
23
3
9
10
11
12
1
S~~1~vi~i0:1 Let
~iC3~ of Red 1
Y..:l~;.\:i3.i:l.
Cas~le C~e~~ 6
St'ar:.;oo:1 R-34
Sta~~ooc. R-lca
Re::. :&:'~':n. 'l'rect
~,ch III
.$;:a:::-.:::>oa R-23
Red ~:n. ~r~c;: II
S..ancQ. z U:: t.
}~=oo~ Cre~~ X & B
R::=~:\g.:o~~...,.
~_ ..l.l':l...",r c.....
S1.:.~divistc:\
C23tl~ Cre~~->:
E".l.:ce:";:-:::"l~
C2.:;t:le C~E.'",;.e.
~":.i.:;~hor5e
s?::..:1gs
Ces;:l~ C::2e~~
S!J.~-;::,.:n;"::1nk
* 1,: _ ........t...:
'S :,e.~...:r
... .~ 1..:,: ':" ~i.: i t:r
}1 & B
(
R:::Cr::i'f C():~,';\;::':'.!.I': SM.!':S
(1. /,c~.l: ~I:~d t.:nr.!c.:)
,~
I Pde,; Si:~(;:~;
!~..s.::.
1\./76 $ 73,500
U/7O 77.0~O
5/77 LOO.000
3177 90.000
3/77 90,OeO
5/77 100,000
3177
U176
90,000
eo.ooo
2
11/7 6 80.000
11/76 125,000
11176 125.0eO
6/77 125,000
3
.3] ac 222,727/oc
.33 233,333
.5 200,000
.74 121,621
.75 120.000
.75 133.333
.75
.75
120,000
106,606
.75 106,666
1 ac 12S,OCO
1
1
125,000
125,000
REC:::~l CO~2A?~;r.U: SALES
(1 t;o 5 Acres)
~ P::ic~ ~!: Per Ac~e
(
'..~,.
~':.~ :.:.~
$. H, E*
S, '.-t, E.
S. H, E
S. l';. E
S, W, E
S, l-l. r:
S. \01, E.
S, H. r:
S. H. t
S, W, E
S, t-l. E
s ~ 1~, t.
P.,::C'd ~~~
319/630
319/635
3271506
3Z6/l,Sl
Nip,
327/50r+-
t-l/R
319/620
319/625
N/R
?:l/R
3321327
4/77 $ 86,600 1.28 ac $67.656/0c
pl=ilities Deed Recocds.
5177 110.COO 2 55.000
8/77 107.500 2.8 33.392
U.C.
8/77 125.000 2.879 43.417
U.C.
11175 95',000 4.52 21.013
7/76 120.000 4.59 26.1'3
3/77 119,000 4.8 24,792
8/77 73.000 5 15,600
U.C.
7177
U.C.
235,000
2.7
87,037
RECE$T CO:-2A:l\Sr.r:: SALES
(5 co 20 Acrt:!s)
~ ~ ~~~
$71.500 5.146 ec $13.81~/4c
105,000 5.68 18,485
128.000 10 12,800
Lot: ~
:'1' 6: B 12/76
1-1 & B 5/77
'X &. B 8/77
U.C..
H & J'\ 10/75
t-~ ~. '3
H t. B
:;f?,.
::c' ~ y_:t :t~t.:"::t!,~d
1/71
15.0,000
HO.OOO 10 It...aoo
15
10.000
",363
5/70
70.000
;\1.l :;'\~.'.: :l'~'~.L: h:i::i
::..:;.;:
l' -' t':;, \!~'; ! 1 )"
11
S. >T. P 326/903
S. H, E 329/389
~1. E N/R
>T. E 333/381
II. E, 306/513
>T, E 314/211
W. E, 326/512
". E l'/R.
S. H. E
'N/R
y::i t~i.es ~ed R..eco'cds
E* 3221305
E 3213/294
E N/i?.
II, E 304/807
E
333/3!.O
E
3.111936
i'.',j" :'~'(':'.';:" ;'1,d/.,to t.,:::.,t".:":~}",, 1'1 I fh' t r;'ll!~,I':1 r'~>n.
!\~~::,,:.,:tV\! b:! ;'l_'lI. ic. ;l:d
,." JnmeSl Jlollicil It ASSOfltlle~ IiK,
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
\ \
~, CUR...1'{ENT LISTINGS ~,
( As of 8/1U/77, Aspen Hultiple Listing Book)
Sv.od:L,jision Lot Price Sizes Per Acre Utilities
--
2nd Aspen Co. 14 $130,000 .33 ac $393,939/ac S, \v, EJ.
"
\<1. Butte:cm~lk 1'1 & B 105,000 5.286 19,864 E
Haroon Creek 1-1 & B 127,500 5 25,500 H, E
Heedo,.;-ood Lot 8 117,500 .7 167,857 S, \-1, E
Elk 3
Eil 3
Heedm.;-ood Lot 11 120,000 .6 200,000 S, H, E
Blk 3
Fil 1
Red Hou,.'"1tein 1-1 & B 70,000 .97 72,165 E
Red Hov.ntain Lot 8 95,000 .765 124,183 S, VI, F.
Ranch Elk 4
Red Eountain Lot 7 105,000 ,.85 123,529 H E
,
-Ranch Elk 1
Red Hountain Lot 8 HO,OOO 3 36,666 S . \oJ, E
,
'Ranch Blk 3
Red I-fountain Lot 4 150,000 2.5 60,000 S., \oJ, E
,
Ranch Blk 3
Ridge of Red 26 90,000 .7 128,571 S, H, E
Hou,.---.tain
Red Hountain 8-A 75,000 1.205 62,2,41 H, E
Rido-e of Red 29 105,000 .76 138,158 S, H, E
' C>
>}~oun,tain
StaD-lOod R-71 125,000 2.26 55,309 H, E
Star,'lOod R-55 128 500 4.37 29,405 ii, E
,
, Sten'lOod R-23A 149,600 4.03 37,122 W, E
StarHood R-IOl 132,500 5.33 24,859 \~ ) E
>', H - 'dater
.s - seHer
E - electricity
James 1 Jlollica & \SSOfialrs.loc.
Real- Estate ApPraisers and Consultants
r"'\ ,-.,
.
0'> ,... ....
-0 " .... ,"
"'0 ~-l r--- ..., ..... '" << ~
CJ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <n
'-' <) ..... N 0 Z Z Z '"
A " 00 ..... .....
'" 0) C') 0) -0
"
"
rJ
""
"
~" ><
'-,j c.'j 0 '" '" '" u-, C') :J
f:~ 0 0 C> r--- N r--- "" co.
,"0 0 C') 0) -0 0) ""
,.., '-'
'-' 0 .... 0'> '" ..... "" ><
:::....-l' ,.'") N '" '" '" "" CJ
t'j cj <f}- ..... :<
p::<;:':':'
"
CJ
" oM
..., '-'
.0 ><
" ~ ~ "
:3 CJ 0 '-' ~ ~ p.
0'" N ,.) ..... ..... ~ 0
.....-.-< , .M . , ~ ..... l<
~W, '" >< ... ... N I co.
~~ '" :J -< <: I ...
'-' ~ 0 ~ ~ ... ~ ""
""'M E-< ~ ~ -U
" " 0 ~ N N ~ 0
'M~ N 0 0 0 .0
" ~ ..... ..... ..... N .....
0 ..... 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ '-'
N ..., '" '" ..q ...,. '" "
""
-U
'" -- '" '" N -0 0'> r---
'" CJ " .-< .... "' N C> 0 "Cl
,.., " >< ...,. 0 r--- ...,. 0 "" CJ
-< 'M" '-'
'" ...~ N .-< '" "' '" N 0
p., ...,. N .-< "" "
A -'J:r '" "
Z " '--" 'M "
j '" Z CJ "Cl '"
H '" .-< :3
CJ " '" " E-< " 'M
E-< CJ '" " c-. " '" 0'> " :J '-'
U '" H .0 .M
;;i OM C> 0 '" ..... ,.., ro u-,
'" N N C> ...,. '" "
E-< N E-< 0 "
Z oM CJ
'" ~ -U ...,,,
~ " (:'j.O
'" CJ [;~ -,-I
j ~ >< <n
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 " "M
'-' 0 r--- 0 0 0 0 CJ ,,:>
E-< '-' 0 u-, 0 u-, u-, 0 l< (I)-of
Z 'M <n'Cl
'" ... 0 ..... '" ' N u-, 0 <<.0
U p., '" N ..... N 0 0 bl) :J
El '" CO '" N N eo ;j I':::' t;)
-'J:r CJ
"Cl E4-I
U ..., CJO
~ -.-< ,...,
:J '-'"
'-' r--- -0 '" r--- r--- r--- .0 '-'0
~l r--- r--- .... r--- r--- r--- ".M
-- ~ ~ ~ ~ -- CJ U'-'
A' .... '" '" r--- eo eo <n "
" -0.....
~ ,,:J
""
.0 CJ
:J op.
-" " ,..., " "
-" " 'r! " :J
0 " -" CJ " 0'-'
" " :J ,..., ... '-' .c:J
0 ... " -.-< U g <n '-'0
OM U " E '-' '-'.c
'-' :> >< " " 0 0 ,,'-'
" >> <: " ,..., -.-< ;;: .-< ~'.-1
'-' --C -U " ,..., u:3
0 0 0 '-' <n CJ -0 0
,.., 0 '-' :J " " " ,..., 0"
;;; ~ ., U H '" .c"
-u'-'
" " 'r!
" " bO <n
" " ""
<: :J -.-<E
0 ~ :>'0
<n " l.H,.G
'-' " CJ ,..., E! oM
... " 0 E ..-l is ...'"
... :J -.-< .c 0 " " 0"'"
CJ 0 'Cl '-' ..... ~ '-' -U :>'-"
.-< ", 0 ... '-' " "
,..., e) " " '-' ... 0 0 ".M
" ~ CJ .c " " >< N H<n
'" >- '" u u ;? A ,..., N
"
I
Jilmes 1 Mollicil & \ssociOlrs.lr..
Re~) Estate Appraisers .and ConsultantS
,/,*,\
,-,..
ESTINATED DEVELOP?:fE~T PROGP~A}l* '
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 $22/1ineal ft
Hater line extension: 2640' (8" ,mter line) x $13/lineal
5 fire hydrants ($600/ea)
Electric underground: $5.50/1inea1 it x 2640'
Taxes: 1 yr development period, estimated
Survey and engineering: (est. $500/10t)
Total Estimated Direct Cost
= $ 58,080
ft = 34,320
= 3,000
= 14,520
= : 1,000
= 9,500
$ 120,420
Indirect Expenses
Management, supervlslon & overhead: (est. 10% of direct
costs)
Interest on development money (10% x $120,420, 1 yr period)
Commissions: (10% x $1,710,000)
Total Estimated Indirect Cost
= $ 12,04.2
= 12,042
= 171,000
$ 195,084
Developer's Profit
20% of total sales price
= .L 342,000
Summary ,
Gross Sales Price Per Lot
$1,710,000
Estimated Development Cost:
Direct:
Indirect:
Profit:
$120,420
195,084
342,000
$657,504
($ 657,504)
$1,052,496
Indicated Value of Raw Land: $1,000,000 (Rounded)
$ 52,632/raw lot
$ 26,316/acre
* 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.
James 1 Mollica ~\~sO\lalfS. me.
Real Es;:ate Appraisers and Consultants
,-..,
. James J. Mollicil & Associates, lfir.
~
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
'Aspen, Colorado
Mason & MOfse Building. 315 East Hyman Avenue. Suite 209 Aspen, Cotorado816t 1 .303/925.8987
QUALEICATIOliS OF APPRAISER
J28es J. Nolli.ca
R2sidential Her1ber (R.~'L) Designation of the American Ins::itute of Real
Estate Appraisers, 1976
Lic.ensed Real Estate Broker in the State of Colorado
He:uber of Aspen Board of Rea.ltors
Nembar of Na.tional Assoc.iationoi the Board of Realtor's
Instructor University of Colorado Continuing Education Division
EDUCATION
Business and Advertising, B-3J,. Ohio University
Real Estate LaiJ, Ohio University
Course I-A, l~erican Institute of Real Estate Appraisers
Course 8, P~aric2n Institute of Real Estate l~p~aisers
Course 201~ Society of Real Estate App~aisers
Course 2, A~erican Institute of Real Estate Appraisers
BACKGROU",--n AND EXPERIENCE
Incorporated JaQes J. }lollica & Associates, Inc., February 1977
Independent Fee Appraiser a~d Real Estate Brok2r~ associated with ~rason&
Morse, January 1974 to present.
Appraiser Intern - Assoc.iated Consultants and Appraisers,. Inc~~ June 1972
through NoveQber 1973.
COilstruction~ Deffett C08?9.n.ies~ ohio (during college)
}L~JOR CLIENTS SERVED
As?en Highlands Ski Corp.
Aspen Industrial Bank
Aspen Savings and Loan Association
Bank. of Aspen
Bank of Sno~vmass
City of Aspen
County of Pitkin
First National Bank. of Aspen
First Hestern Hortgage Corp.
Holland & Hart, Attorneys
Hajestic Savings and Loan
Oates, Austin, BcGrath, Attorneys
TYPES OF PROPERTY APP?~~ISED
COl!llnercial
CondominiuBs
Lodges
Rsr.ches
Res~idential
Vacant Land
PURPOSES OF APPP.AISALS
...lI...cquisition
Condemnation
Estate Planning
Exchange
Insuranc.e
Liquidation
Hortgag,e
P2.rtition
Sales
TEX Pl?_nning
/11\ James J. Mollica, R.M.
....___.,' Appraiser-Consultant
r-,
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,
~..::..- ~
JIM ADAMS
JA;mn
1"""'\
.--
) ~ A" ~ L
Y{~~rv j ~
~.? ( J' "-..,:.:J
"< I s-.-
i'
1
z
o
1:;'
~
~
i
III
~ F'ROP"~r("
5lTlS 5CCTION
,
..., <50""5
M1C"""",- GA_"",,"
~m<c.T , '
~7"\O ' '"
, ~.!::<. o:>u::>ro:A!X> b1<.oll
~''''='~!3> '
~.JECT
WEST END NEIGHBORHO:::>O CENTErs.
5'-l=ET No.
5
NOV,;)O, J<:};t.o
--
~ d' "="'."'_..,___,.""""'""W""'_"~.~"'
J '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 cqmplex.
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 mannatory 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 souths ide 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,. wilLcon-",
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
everyone 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. I delineates the West End Service Area.
5. PROJECT TIMING- for the fo llowing 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.
Sincerely,
4~ HcL~
JIM ADAMS
cc: Mayor Stacey Standley
Mr. Albert A. Peter, Jr.
Facilities Director
U.S. Postal Service
Mr. Keith Oswald
Real Estate and
Bldg. Dept.
U.S. Postal Servi<
Enclosures
JA:mn
'-"',
~
Jim 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-
prqvement 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
r-,
~,
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,
_\~.:-. P\ eo\-<~~~
JIM ADAMS
cc: Bill Kane
Aspen City/County Planner
Mr. Keith Oswald
Real Estate & Building Dept.
U.S. Postal Service
EncTosures
JA:mn
: '';: ,':i',~\~?s ,_;;i<:
':r:/,i
"~~::';
~f'_MAN
~~~I
~; '.~!)
,,- , <':\:~~;:';':~'!
,::L:,i:
;~gy::>~
~. ~ !'
,,] .;
.
.
..
,
N
5cALe '.#4001 .
MIC""""t._...
R" '
. - ,)..,
~. _"~ at...",
fiiT., '
~,~
. ~R
, ":f' \
~T~;, "
2. ,',
, ' ..,'. ~ ",~(<, '
:.- ',,',:': ,<,""'''''.'
, -,," ",,;",' ',.>",'
.: ' """,,-,_0
~~~;'
"," , :-~,-~ j,' '.
1"""'\
~
III
~
III
~
t
""""ce~s
5rTE. 5E-CT10N
""-....
~'~'.~~
~....
""" 740 .
~~ADO -'c,u
5Q6...,..=.-.s ' ~ ,
~,
~
i/J
j
f'Il!<>...lIiCr
WE5r END NE~I4OOD~'
. 5Hl!6l'" ~,
'-t;,;.0;;;'~L~",:
-'.,", '," ","'" > ,''':-''."
~..,.,....~.,'
jj},.!""r::'",:;'::,>:~<""
'.......:..... ..,..... ,":"''.0' '.,'
....,~~~!:'