Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.an.Midland Park.Withdrawn.1976 , P I T X I N c o U N T Y ~"._".'~'" ,'-''';-'" .,',.-,;"",", ;!, ,,,,,..,.,, 1 1'''''''' , f "":. 506 E. Main DIRECTOR OF HOUSING . R.~ltm . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 . PHONE, (303) 925.6612 December 6, 1976 Aspen City Council Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Planning Office 1~0 South Galena Aspen, ~olorado 81611 Dear Commission and Council Members: a1 sub ivision and planned unit development presenta- tion for the Hidland Park Subdivislo, , owned by the Pitkin County Housing Authority. This presen a elng made in conjunction with the Housing Authority's conditional petition for annexation to the City of Aspen. The attached map presentation illustrates the proposed site plan, open ,space dedication, existing zoning, existing man-made features, existing street system, proposed street system, and common landmarks as required by Section 20-10 of ,the Subdivision Regulations. In addition, an analysis of topographic slope, utility service, and existing vegetation is presented. Exhibit #1 presents density and land use data for the proposed development in tabulative form. Exhibit #2 presents title and ohnership information prepared by Aspen Title Company ~o satisfy requirement 20-10 (4) of the City Subdivision Regulations. Exhibit #3 is the general submission presentation prepared for Pitkin County for the Midland Park Subdivision. Its purpose, in this presentation is to provide Commission and Council members with a detailed inventory of the planning effort which has been undertaken in designing thissi te plan. The remainder of this letter serves to answer Section 24-A.7 of the City Zoning Code which details the requirements for conceptual presentation for planned unit development. The overall planning objectives in arriving at this site plan for the Midland Park Subdivision include physical, environmental, aesthetic, and economic considerations. Economically, the project is planned as a break-even. This means that densities must be at least sufficient to fully amortize all project costs and still market the residential project to persons and families in the $10,000 to $20,000 income range. Physically, the projects impact upon the neighborhood traffic and utility systems must be considered as a limitation placed upon project density. Environmentally and aesthetically, the site characteristics suggest varying degrees of developability on different portions of the property. ""'J.:"',~ ._.,' ;_, ....,.~_..~-"' . ~l " . 1""\ ,.-.. . <' .. CC, P & Z,Commission, Planning Office Page Two December 6, 1976 A major consideration in planning the Midland Park Subdivision was to insure that the land uses prescribed for various portions of the site were in harmony with adjoining neighborhood land uses. The transition from the high density concentration on the western portion of the site to the lower density development prescribed for the eastern portion of the site is reflective of land uses on adjoining properties. By graduating densities on successively higher portions of the property, the visual impact of the proposed develop~ ment from the City of Aspen is minimized. As can be seen from the site plan, all development activity is concentrated on that area of the subject property which is below Salvation Ditch. The considerations regarding visual impact, topography-slope, utility service, and access prompted the decision to leave the upper portions of the property undeveloped. It is proposed that the 56,000 sq.ft. bench on the upper por- tion of the subject property be' integrated with a proposed county trail system running along the Salvation Ditch. The natural grade on the developable portion of the property suggests at least two development areas. The lowest of these benches is intended for the development of single family lots. The upper bench is planned for the construction of townhouse condominiums. In this manner, the viewplane is protected from both areas, and a natural separation between the two land uses is obtained. The most dense residential development proposed for the Midland Park Subdivi- sion is situated on two lots at the northwest corner of tge development area. This location was chosen because it offers the least visual impact of any location on the project and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. A central collector parking lot is proposed to serve the entire development with limited auto access to the single family lots and multi-family town- houses. It is anticipated that this arrangement will create an auto disin- centive because the direct convenience of the automobile relative to mass transit is diminished. Similarly, it is proposed that a connection between Midland and Park Avenues be completed and a public transit terminus be provided'there. Because of the due south orientation and gradient of the development area, the use of solar energy heating can be incorporated into individual building designs, To facilitate this, it may be necessary that the lot lines which are currently drahTI.to the southwest, be oriented north-south at the time of preliminary plat review. The marketing plan for the Midland Park Project enV1Slons the sale of three different residential products. The mini-lots, numbered from 1-13 on the site plan, average 4,000 sq. ft. in size and are intended for development into detached single family ~ousing or patio homes. Based upon current cost forecasts, it is anticipated that these lots will market for approximately $15,000 'each and thereby be affordable by families of moderate incomes. t""., ,-.., , <:. 'CC, P & Z Commission, Planning Office Page Three December 6, 1976 Strict architectural and land use covenants and controls will be applied to all construction within the subdivision. Multi-family townhouses are intended for development upon lots 14 and 15 as shown in the site plan; It is intended that these units be family oriented and available for sale within the PMH price guidelines. The high density rental housing. nature, but will lots, numbered 16 and 17 on the site plan, are intended as It is envisioned that these units may not be of a family be rented within the PMH price guidelines. The overall marketing plan for the Midland Park Subdivision considers giving priority to the school system, hospital, or other agencies to provide housing for their employees 0::1 th,~ multi-family lots. On the single family lots, priOrity will be given to families., Concurrently with the processing of the Midland Park development under City Subdivision Regulations and planned unit development zoning, the Housing Authority is seeking a rezoning of the developable area of this subdivision to a city P~~ zone category. In the event that the City has not adopted a PMH type zone district at the time of final plat approval for the Midland Park, it is anticipated that this property would be zoned residential multi- family and covenanted to a P~~ control by deed restriction. In any event, the Housing Authority's petition for annexation is conditioned upon approval of the subdivision and its rezoning. . As you can see from this presentation and the General Submission contents which were prepared for Pitkin County, the planning effort on the ~Iidland ~ark Subdivision has proceeded far beyond that required for conceptual pre- sentation under the City's regulations. In light of this, I ask that the Midland Park Subdivision receive your conceptual approval tonight so that we may proceed with preliminary plat preparation under the City Subdivision and planned unit development ordinances. Please feel free to contact me if I can provide clarification to or further, information beyond that presented in this submission package. Sincerely yours, ~~;[~~ Brian L. Goodheim Director of Housing EnclosuTes & Attachments: Six Map Planning Study and Site Plan - Exhibit I Population and Density Data - Exhibit 2 Title and Adjacent Ownerships - Exhibit 3 Midland Park General Submission, Pitkin County BLG:kals ,.. :i J' . ,\SI'E~; T IlI.I: ---- For the use CO:,II''\;''Y - Tit Il'''-''porr n6-07-39 ^ of: BriHll Goodhcim, Director lh"using ^uthorily. C':, We have examined the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado, and find: Legal description of ,subject property MASCOTTE LODE ~IINING CLAIH, United Stntes Mineral Survey No. 5867, according to the United States Patent therefor recorded in Book 175 at Page 170; and "99" LODE MINING CLAIH, United States Mineral Survey No. 6899, according to the United States Patent therefor recorded in Book '39 at Page 78; EXCEPT those portions of said claims'described in Book 212 at Page 322,'in' Book 208 at Page 84, in Book 264 at' Page 789, in Book 304 at Page 407 and in ,Book 195 at Page 11; EXCEPT minerals and mineral rights underlying a tract of land described in Book 190 at Page 325 by metes and bounds; and EXCEPT rights of way for ditches, roads, utilities and utility easements including but not limited to easement recorded in,Book 265 at Page 978. All of the above described being situated in the Roaring Fork ~lining District. Pitkin County, Colorado. Title vested in DONALD T. RANDALL 1212 U. W. Highway #1 Cove Plaza North Palm Beach, Florida 33408 . We find the names and address of adiacent. nroperty 01;mp.r~ to hp. ::!~ fnll m:.rq: Harold C. Whitcomb, Jr., and Philippa Bayless \~itcomb Box 660 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Luke W. Anthony 'Box 1271 Aspen, Colorado 81611 William H. Lane Box 346 Aspen, Colorado 81611 James M. Jenkins Box 4152 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Margaret McGavock Box 533 Aspen, Colorado 81611 John F. Campbell and Constnnce D. Campbell Box 4614 ' Aspen, Colorado 81611 Stacy Standley and Scott Bowie c/o City Hall Aspen, Colorado 81611 Page (1) ~ ,/,"\ . " ~ ..., CI> I:"" > "" 0 .... 0 n !oj ... ~ ::l rt !oj 0 CI> rt OQ (1) "" (1) .... ::r ... ~ l'> 0 (1) I 0 (1) OQ '" t.l' t: <1l (1) l'> ",' i <1l P. ... .S (1) '" ..... Z 0 ... .... l'> '< ... ~ (1) '< ~ ::;: .....' rt '" 0 .... I~ ...., " .... g. rn ... IV IV '" ~ 0 <1l rt !oj ... ... :s: .... '" IV .... <1' o. P. .... 0 ... ... l'> '" ~ n '" '" .... !oj l'> P. 0 '" ... ~ (1) 0 . . . '" !oj "" '" IV 0 (1) (1) l'> rn IV IV 0 !oj "" '" ~ X '" '" IV l'> !oj ::c OQ 0,"" ~ 0 0 er- <1l ""... CI> '" 0 0 \0 o . t: ..... CI> "'..... <1' ..., '" '" '" .... (1) \0 P. .. p.\O .... ..... ...., ...., ...., <1l < . ....,n ..... 0.... '" !oj .... .... '" p.'< 0 tIl ::l Z (1) I CI> < ~ (1)..... ..., rn "'0 -< >< o . ...... ",,00 "" (1) 3'" 0 IV ... ... n ""'" "" . ... ::l c:: '" 0 0 (1) rt n I:"" ..... P. 0 ~ >< >< 9 >< if ~ 00 ..... .... 0 ..... '" >< '< Z er- p. .... '-' p. i '" p. t: t: ~ t: > II "" II 0 " II t: ... 1>>' ... .... 0 ::l n ..... ~ IV '" '" '" ..... " IV IV 0 ::l "" "" "" "" (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) ::l !oj !oj !oj !oj rt '" '" '" '" 0 0 0 0 '8 ::l ::l ::l ::l '" '" '" '" "" t: ..... l'> ... ..... 0 ::s ~ / ~\\!','.:; 'j,I'I!.!. C/':W,\:;Y - Titli..' EI'iJ,H"t F/u-O/.;;) (\',':lti.IPi..d) f""", ^' The C()nt'.r(,,'s~ 10nal Curl'. c/o Arthur C. Hyde Co. Suite 201 Bethesda, ~laryland 20011. ~ Top of Aspen c/o Hr. .John P. O'Driscoll, tax agent 10880 Hilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, California ~lcCulloch Consolidated ~lining Company c/o Mr. .John P. O'Driscoll 10880 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, California Smuggler-Durant Mining Company C 4 West. 58th Street - Suite 1101 New York, N. Y. 10001 James C. Blanning, ,Jr. ?? Box 43 Aspen, Colorado 81611 The County of Pitkin State of Colorado. The City of Aspen Pitkin County, Colorado. United States of America Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Hanagement . There is an established 'easement at least 30 feet in width for public right of way as dedicated to the City of Aspen on plat recorded in Plat Book 4 at Page 560. NOTE: Although we believe the facts stated herein are true, it is understood and agreed that the liability of Aspen Title Company will be limited to'the amount of the fee charged hereunder. Dated: August 6, 1976 at 8:00 A. M. ASPEN TITLE COMP~IT By J{h p u ~LC",J ': Address information obtained from tax rolls and instruments of record. ASl'i.:: HIU; el':::',,:;" - ITCh. ).:"p<lrt '.i76-01-J9 (contilllld) Aspen ,P,<:"t.1Ilrant, Incorporatr Box 11\438 Wichita, Kansas Fred Mostrom and Daniel McCarty , Box 4051 c: Aspen, Colorado 81611 -Kenneth Arthur Heininger and Jeanne Heininger 3535 Daleview Dr. Ann Arbor, Michigan Countryside Associates Box 256 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Richard E. Lindner and Julia A. Lindner Box 2191 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Kenneth R. Sterling Box 1366 . Aspen, Colorado 81611 Barbara'Burgess (~olf) 424 South Main Street Pennington, New Jersey 08534 Perry H. Pollack Box 950 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Neil Ross and Ronni L. Ross Box 2075 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lucile C. Hurst Box 786 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Wilton E. O'Neal and Roberta L. O'Neal Box 3880 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Erich Zeller and lnge Zeller Box 1161 Aspen, Colorado 81611 William D. Staley Pitkin County, Colorado. (no other address information available) Michael John Drew and Ingetraut Drew French's Long Wittenham near Abigdon Berkshire, England Gertrude Bibbig 101 North Park Ave. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Alan J. Goldstein 571 Lye11 Avenue Roche~ter, N. Y. 14606 Alexander NcGOI;in l%rman and Adele R. Horman 180 Park Circle Aspen, Colorado 81611 Jack H. Jenkins and Eleanor A. Jenkins Box 588 Aspen, Colorado 81611 . Page (2), .,-., . ,t""', ^ MEMO TOI HAL CLARK DAVE EI,:,LIS :DE- DECEMBER 16, 1976 FROM: DATE: RE: ' MIDLAND PARK SUBDIVISION ~ CONCEPTUAL REVIEW The material submitted is essentially the same as that reviewed for the earlier county general submission, Since that time annexation of the property has been initiated and the problem of water service has been resolved pending the sale of bonds for construction of new storage facilities. . I,tems noted earlier include the inclusion of city right~of~way ,as part of the project prop.rty, inadequate internal circulation for emergency and service vehicles, and less a'rea in .the single family lots than indicated. The latter problem places the average lot size below 4000 sf. Assuming that there will be no parking in the single family area there is a parking capacity of only 42 spaces, With good diversion to mass transit and non~motorized modes of personal transportation there still must be provision for long term storage of vehicles. Employees always have more vehicles per capita than tourists. The minimum number of spaces should be, 65 which is less than currently required by code. This number represents 1 space/bedroom for multi~family and 1 space/single family unit~ The adjacent ownership list does not appear to have the individual owners listed for the Tailings Condominiums (recorded 10/13/761, The engineering department recommends conceptual approval of the project so that the above comments can be addressed in further de~ tail at the preliminary stage. DE/pab /' /' ./ . / " / J '. "i'. ~---. , \ --' I""" ^ MEMORANDUM ~ TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Planning Staff (HC) RE: Midland Park Subdivision - Conceptual Review and Rezoning to R.M.F. - P.U.D. and Conservation DATE: January 6, 1977 This is a request by the Pitkin County Housing Authority for Conceptual Subdivision and Rezoning to R.M;F. - P.U.D. and C-Conservation zoning for the Midland Park Subdivision. The project is a P.U.D. and is appropriately designed to cluster the building sites on the generally flat slopes below the Salvation Ditch. Trail and road dedications to the City are incorporated in the proposal. Land above the Salvation Ditch will be deed restricted as open space. The project consists of the following: Single-family lots Two Townhouse of 4 units each Two Multi-faimly bldg. of 8 units each 13 units 8 units 16 units 37 TOTAL UNITS The property contains 12.05 acres (1.199 City + 10.855 County) with approximately 4.0 acres proposed for development. A conditioned petition for annexation has, been accepted by the City of Aspen for the entire parcel. The Planning Office had previously recommended annexation prior to development of the parcel. The project is designed in conjunction with the employee housing program of the Pitkin County Housing Authority and will be developed according to the P.M.H. guidelines. It is proposed that the Housing Authority will develop the property through subdivision approval and sell the individual sites to qualified parties for development under the P.M.H. guidelines. The City Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a site inspection on October 21, 1976, and recommended conceptual subdivision and P.U.D. approval on December 21, 1976. The delay in consideration was a result of the necessity for consideration of the annexation petition by Council. The Planning and Zoning Commission set a hearing date of January 25 for consider- ation of rezoning to R.M.F. The comments of the City Engineer are attached to this memorandum for your review. The comments of the Planning Office are as follows: 1. We recommend the R.M.F.-P.U.D. boundary to line of the Salvation Ditch to the south. Ditch should be zoned C, Conservation. be the center- Above the 2. The Pitkin County Colorado State University Environmental Resource maps show minimal development constraints on the developed portions of the property. Preliminary geologic reviews show no serious geologic constraints on the property. 3. Water availability: The Planning Office has received letters dated September 7, 1976 and October 4, 1976 from the City Water Department and Engineering Department which express reservations concerning water extensions to the Smuggler Mountain area particul.arly in regard to the storage capacities of the present water system and potential transmission difficulties to this Smuggl.er area. We understand that a significant expansion of water storage capacity is underway on Red Mountain to be completed in the Spring, 1977. We wish " . .,- ... .~ ~ MEMO COUNCIL MIDLAND PARK January 6, 1977 <: to have further written comment ,from the Water and Engin- eering 'Departments prior to Preliminary Plat approvals. 4. The .proposal includes the granting of a road right-of-way between Midland and Park ,Avenues to improve road circulation which would facilitate implementation of the Smuggler Mountain Circulation Plan recommended by the Planning Office. This plan called for Midland and Park Avenues to be one way streets in alternate directions. We wish to receive additional comment from the City Council and City Engineering Department on the specifics of this road circulation plan. 5. The plan shows an interior road of 20 foot width. We recommend a 30 foot minimum easement width with construction of a smaller dimensioned street subject to final Engineering acceptance. The interior road system should be a privately maintained system. 6. Specific building sites should be located so as to preserve view corridors and solar easements. The Meadow Ranch system (at Snowmass) of small building sites should be explored to insure proper building siting and encourage a more uniform treatment of land contiguous to the building sites. Due to the small lot configurations stringent building design covenants must be imposed. 7. Two buildings are shown encroaching on the parking spaces. The area to the west of the parking lot should be reserved as common open space and landscaping shown. 8. Transit stops should be shown on the plat and approved by City and County Transportation Departments. Also, auto disincentives should be thoroughly detailed in the proposal. 9. The calculations of the City Engineer show certain lots to be smaller than actually shown. In addition, the City will recommend a wider road width for emergency service to the lots. These constrictions may reduce the eventual number of lots platted, or indicate more clustering of units into multi-family buildings. 10. The City and County are proposing limitations on fireplaces. Regulating provisions should be included in the P.D.D. proposal in conformance with these proposed restrictions. In summary, the Planning Office recommends approval of the conceptual subdivision and P.U.D. and the setting of a hearing to review the rezoning 'proposal. The above concerns should be addressed at the preliminary plat submittal. I ."."'.- .. ,-.., ,-, BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO In re Petition of the Pitkin ) County Housing Authority and ) the Board of County Commissioners ) of Pitkin County, for Annexation ) of Certain Territory ) PETITION TO THE CITY CLERK, THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO The PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY, a housing authority corporation and non-profit corporation under the laws of the state of Colorado, and the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, hereby petition the City Council of the City of Aspen for a,nnexation of certain territory to the City of Aspen, and as grounds therefor state as follows: 1. It is' desirable and necessary that the territory below described be annexed to the City of Aspen. 2. The requirements of Sections 31-8-104 and 31-8-105, C.R.S. 1973, exist and have been met in that: (a) not less than one sixth of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is contiguous with the City of Aspen; (b) a community of interest exists between the territory proposed to be annexed and the City of Aspen beca,use the territory proposed to be annexed will be urbanized in the near future by the development proposed by the Pitkin County Housing Authority and the territory proposed is capable of being integrated with the City of Aspen; (c) the territory proposed to be annexed consti- tutes the entire ownership of the pitkin County Housing Authority in that area and the annexation would not constitute a division into separate parts or parcels of territory owned by the Pitkin County Housing Authority; ,-, .-, (d) the territory proposed to be annexed has not been the subject of annexation proceedings to any other municipality; (e) the proposed annexation will not result in the detachment of the territory from any school district and attachment to a different school district; it remains in Aspen School District RE-l. 3. The signers of the petition comprise 100% of the landowners of the territory proposed to be annexed. The land is owned in the name of the Pitkin County Housing Authority, which is a housing corporation formed under the laws of the state of Colorado, and which is also a non-profit Colorado corporation under applicable statutes. Since the Board of County Commissioners also at present constitutes the Board of the Housing Authority, and since the Board of County Commissioners might be viewed as having some direct financial interest as a public body in the activities of the pitkin County Housing Authority, it has also joined in this petition. 4. The territory proposed to be annexed is an approximately 10.855 acre tract, on Smuggler Mountain, more fully described in Exhibit A hereto. 5. The mailing address of petitioners are as follows: The Board of County commissioners of Pitkin County 506 E. Main St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 The pitkin County Housing Authority 506 E. Main St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 6. Accompanying this petition are the required annexation maps. The date of this petition and affidavit of its circulators are contained below. The signatures on the petition are dated less than 180 days prior to the date of filing of this petition. -2- ."--..-' """'" """'" 7. Petitioners request that the annexation be conditioned upon petitioners receiving favorable consideration and approval of their zoning application to zone the property to the category "RMF," their subdivision application substantially to permit the density of approximately 19 separate parcels, appropriate for approximately 13 single family dwellings, two fourplexes and two eightplexes, or a total of 37 units, and approval of a planned unit development zoning proposal accompanying the rezoning and subdivision applications. 8. This is a petition for annexation without an election pursuant to Section 31-8-111 and 31-8-107(2). Dated: 11/'lZ!,)?" THE PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY By J,6sep ~ ATTEST: ATTEST: THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY STATE OF COLORADO ss COUNTY OF PITKIN I hereby certify I circulated the within Petition as Secretary to The Boards who are petitioners and that each signature herein is the signature of the person whose name it purports to be and for the entity stated. Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~ day of -1) av e YYl \'.1' V , 1976 by Julie Hane. My commission expires: ,/ A -q, '7' '-ha- n 07 s. \t ~~~ fG " Notary Publ~c , ' -3- .....,.. "'"', l~. EXHIBIT A TO PETITION FOR ANNEXATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SOUTH ONE-HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, BEING ALL THAT PORTION OF THE MASCOTTE LODE MINING CLAIM, U.S.M.S. 5867, LYING EASTERLY OF THE ANTHONY BERUMEN ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN AND NORTHERLY OF THE RIVERSIDE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN AND ALL THAT PORTION OF THE "99" LODE MINING CLAIM, U.S.M.S. 6899, LYING EASTERLY OF THE RIVERSIDE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN AND EASTERLY OF THE ASPEN HILLS ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT CORNER NO. 5 OF SAID MASCOTTE LODE, A GRANITE STONE; THENCE S 45030'00" E 152.40 FEET ALONG LINE 2-1 OF THE SILVER BRICK LODE., U.S .M. S. 3952, TO CORNER NO. 1 OF SAID SILVER BRICK LODE; THENCE N 56032'00" E 15.37 FEET ALONG LINE 1-4 OF SAID SILVER BRICK LODE TO THE INTERSECTION WITH LINE 4-3 OF SAID MASCOTTE LODE; THENCE'S 44048'03" E 140.74 FEET ALONG LINE 4-3 OF SAID ~mSCOTTE LODE TO CORNER NO. 3 OF SAID MASCOTTE LODE, A GRANITE STONE; THENCE S 45010' 48" W 331. 32 FEET ALONG LINE 3-2 OF SAID MASCbTTE LODE TO CORNER NO. 1 OF SAID "99" LODE, A GRANITE STONE; THENCE S 89038'31" E 16.33 FEET ALONG ,LINE 1-5 OF SAID "99" LODE TO THE INTERSECTION WITH LINE 8-7 OF THE ROBERT EMMET LODE, U.S.M.S. 6044; THENCE S 66015'00" E 144.22 FEET ALONG LINE 8-7 OF SAID ROBERT EMMET LODE TO THE INTERSECTION WITH LINE 5-4 OF SAID "99" LODE; THENCE S 15012'39" W 241.33 FEET ALONG SAID LINE 5-4 OF SAID "99" LODE TO CORNER NO. 4 OF SAID "99" LODE, A U. S. BRASS CAP; , ).Jr-., '" .<"'" ,-., -2- THENCE S 44039'40" W 458.55 FEET ALONG LINE 4-3 OF SAID "99" LODE TO CORNER NO.3 OF SAID "99" LODE, A U. S. BRASS CAP; THENCE N 89044'35"W 255.50 FEET ALONG LINE 3-2 OF SAID "99" LODE TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE ASPEN HILLS ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN; THENCE N 06023'00" Wl13.95 FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID ASPEN HILLS ANNEXATION TO THE INTERSECTION WITH LINE 10-9 OF THE RIVERSIDE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN; THENCE N 45009'00" E 187.59 FEET ALONG SAID LINE 10-9 TO CORNER NO, 9 OF SAID RIVERSIDE, ANNEXATION; THENCE N 77035'00" W 357.38 FEET ALONG LINE 9-8 TO CORNER NO. 8 OF SAID RIVERSIDE ANNEXATION, SAID CORNER NO. 8 BEING ALSO ON LINE 1-5 OF SA,ID MASCOTTE LODE AND ON LINE 1-2 OF THE ANTHONY BERUMEN ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN; THENCE N 45024'29" E 509.78 FEET ALONG SAID LINE 1-5 OF SAID MASCOTTE LODE AND ALONG SAID LINE 1-2 OF SAID ANTHONY BERUMEN ANNEXATION TO CORNER NO. 2 OF SAID ANTHONY BERUMEN ANNEXATION; THENCE N 45024'29" E 523.52 FEET ALONG SAID LINE 1-5' OF SAID MASCOTTE LODE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 10.,855 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. , ,-.., r- , '" ~ PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY AUGUST 30, 1976 APPLICATION FOR REZONING TO PERMANENT MODERATE HOUSING AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOp~reNT SUBDIVISION GENERAL SUBMISSION: MIDLAND PARK SUBDIVISION Pursuant to the General Submission procedure and'contents out- lined by the Pitkin County Land Use Code, and addressing the information requirements prescribed in the pre-application conference with the Planning Office, the Pitkin County Housing Authority is submitting this general . submission for approval by Pitkin County. This land use application proposes the rezoning and concurrent subdivision of an 11.34 acre tract owned by the Pitkin County Housing Authority and located on Smuggler Mountain. Midland Park is the name pro- . posed for this subdivision and refers to the subject property's situation " between Midland and Park Avenues as well as the creation of an elevated passive recreation park on Smuggler Mountain. In brief, this development proposal would create building sites yielding.a total of 37 dwelling units. ,A mix of 13 single family detached, 2 fourplex, and 2 eight plex lots is indicated by the accompanying site plan. Although the Housing Authority contemplates engaging in no construction , activity itself, strict buyer qualification criteria and resale price control will insure that the Midland Park Subdivision will be a continuing source of moderately-priced housing available only to locals. Strict ~rchitectural controls and land maintenance covenants will insure that this development will be a credit to the Smuggler Mountain neighborhood in times to come. ;.. .i '" ./ ,I"""'-. ^ .. '" Midland Park Subdivision: General Submission In conformance with Section 6.03.02, the information contents of this general submission are included as text, exhibits, or maps. As required by 6.03.02 (a), Pitkin County's Land Use Application Form has been completed at a pre-application conference and is included as Exhibit 1 to this general submission. Midland Park Subdivision: General Submission As required in code Section 6.03.02(b), ownership information pertaining to the subject'and adjacent'properties has been prepared by Aspen Title Company and is included as Exhibit 4. This exhibit also contains Aspen Title Company's certification of legal access to the subject property. Map Exhibit 5 depicts the geographic relationship of these owners relative 'to the subject property. A copy of the general warranty deed from Donald T. Randall to the Pitkin County Housing Authority is submitted as Exhibit 6 to evidence the applicants' ownership interest in the subject property. A vicinity-topography map is included as Exhibit 7 which locates the subject property in relation to neighboring land' uses as required by Section 6.03.02 (c) under general submission. A detailed site plan illustrating this proposed land use and accompanying planning studies have been prepared by Joe Wells to the speci- fications of 6.03.03 of the Pitkin County L~nd Use Code. This information is submitted to satisfy the information contents of'Section 6.03.02 (d) of general submission. -2- . ~. r ......,.....;' ;.. .; ..f' - f"""\ r-, / ~ Midland Park Subdivision: ,General Submission In addressing Midland Park Subdivision's conformance (6.03~02 (e)) to Pitkin County's land use policies (Section 2) and regulations (Section 5) the contents of this general submission are keyed to the outline prescribed by the planning office in its summary of findings required by review phase. This section of Pitkin County's Land Use Application Form is attached as Exhibit 1 to this submission. Specific study references to policy factors are addressed by the following: 1. This land use proposal is in conformance with the Aspen Land Use Plan (July 1973 as amended). The area of the proposed development is designated Residential-Multi Family by this master plan. Assuming a two year buildout for this project, conformance with the Pitkin County Growth Management Plan is within one unit of attainment. The growth management plan allots 18 units per year to the Red and Smuggler Mountain planning district and this proposal uses up two years of allotmen4 at this rate. There. exists a strong argument, however, that PMH housing production, under occupancy and apprecia~ion control of the Housing Authority, should be exempted from growth management plan compliance, and a separate schedule be adopted expressly for the purpose of planning the rate of moderate-cost housing construction. An annual production rate of 150 units was prescribed by the Pitkin County/City of Aspen Housing Assistance Plan (working paper) and this proposal is well within this annual rate. 2. The Colorado State University Environmental Resources Analysis classifies the development area of this proposal as "occupancy lands - suited for uses involving long term human occupancy". This classification -3- '" - I"- ~ , Midland Pa~k Subdivision: General Submission is a composite analysis of specific development constraints affecting the property. These are: Geologic Hazards: No potential geologic hazard~ are indicated to exist under the subject property by the CSU maps. Floodplains: 'The subject property does not lie within any defined floodplain. Riparian Areas: The subject property does not lie within any defined reparian area except for being in the Roaring Fork drainage basin. Wildlife: The CSU analysis of critical wildlife habitat identifies no interference with either game range or migration caused by this development of the subject property. Wildfire: The CSU wildfire area hazard map classifies the subject property to possess a low wildfire hazard. Radiation: No mining activity or evidence of tailings deposits exists on the area of the subject property..which.is proposed for development. Soils/Erosion: The area of the subject property which is proposed for development lies external to the area for which SCS soils mapping is available. A preliminary assessment of prevailing soils, erosion, and drainage conditions has been prepared by Lincoln DeVore Testing Labora- 'tories, Inc., and is included as Exhibit 2 to this submission. After this preliminary reconnaisance, Lincoln DeVore has identified no major geologic constraints to the development of this site. Additional natural development constraints for which informa- .tion is available include: Vegetation: The CSU Environmental Resource Analysis classifies the vegetation prevailing upon the subject property to be "Mountain Shrub". -4- -......,-..- "...U. ,_ ". :... ,'. ..1" JI' . ",...... 1"""1' .. C'; Midland Park Subdivision: General Submission Sage, scrub oak, and native grasses flourish on all ~arts of the property with a significant grove of aspen trees to be found on the upper bench proposed as a passive recreation park. Snow Avaianche: The CSU analysis identifies no snow avalanche threats to the subject property. Slope: The CSU slope analysis identifies natural gradients of 0-10%, 10-30%, and 30-45% successively higher elevations on the property. All proposed building construction will be on slopes of less than 30% gra- dient. Pedestrian access to Midland Park, which is slightly higher on Smuggler Mountain, will affect some slopes in excess of 30% grade. This ,is detailed on the 1":100' scale slope analysis which accompanies the site pl.an. 3. The subject property contains no known extractable mineral or vegetable. resources. There is a mineshaft and associated tailings near the upper property boundary and it is proposed that this be permanently sealed for the safety of children and other adventurers. . 4. The proposed land use possesses no identifiable relationship ,to Pitkin County's agricultural conservation poncies. . . 5. Compliance with Pitkin County's scenic quality standards and policies is evidenced by reference to CSU environmental resource analysis "The Visual Resource". This assessment identifies areas of low, moderate, and high visual vulnerability at successively more elevated portions of the subject property~ The proposed building area, however, is limited to that portion classified by CSU as exhibiting the lowest visual vulnerability. Further evidence o~ compliance with this pdlicy results from a reduction in planned,lot densities on successively more elevated portions of the buildable area. The most visually prominent building sites are - -5- ---"; .,- "r.""';- .. .j )' . 1"", ^ ; c;: Midland Park Subdivision: General Submission proposed to be occupied by single family detached housing. The fourplex and eightplex structures are located upon lots which are less conspicuous on the site. In addition, architectural control is proposed to provide integration between the profile of the site and it~ improvements as well as harmony in exterior materials and elevations among individual buildings. Maintenance covenants and a homeowners association is proposed to regulate exterior appearance as well as storage of matter and land use within lot boundaries. 6. The subject property lies within the City of Aspen Water Service Area and would be served by an extension of the City Water Department's lines. Demand requirements may be estimated by reference to Exhibit 3 to this general submission. This exhibit also reflects the estimated population increment and expected unit sizes. . It is understood that the City Water Department is contemplating system expansion within this service area. The development of the subject property may provide an additional site for an elevated storage tank on the upper portion of the property. This alternative is under consideration by the City Water Department. 7. The subject property lies within the Aspen ~wtropolitan Sewer District and service is proposed from this entity. Sewage flow estimates are presented in Exhibit 3 to this general submission. 8. This residential land use proposal will neither create a , source of noise pollution nor be located in an area where this would be a problem for the residents. Onsi~e automobile noise is minimized by the use of auto-free zones in the residential areas (drop-off only), and other . -6- ;.. ., . , ~ ^ .. "", Midland Park Subdivision: General Submission noise sources will be controlled by subdivision covenants. Substantial neighborhood noise abatement will result from the elimination of motorcycle access to Smuggler Mountain across the subject property. 9. Compliance with Pitkin County's air quality policy is evidenced by the auto disincentive situation created by the onsite auto-free zones. . By reducing the convenience of the automobile to the point where mass transit is equally convenient, it is expected that most residents will opt for the mass transit alternative. In practice, after having walked over two hundred feet to the central parking area, the resident will be confronted with a decision whether to board the bus and ride'to the center of town, or start, drive, and park his car in the Rio Grande Lot, then walk up to town. Confronted with these two alternatives, a substantial modal diversion can be expected. Referring to particulate pollution, it is expected that almost 50% of the proposed dwelling units will not have fireplac.,es (the single family and townhouse units may have fireplaces). 10. There are no known conflicts between 'the proposed land use and Pitkin County's Historic or Archaeological Resources policies. 11. The interior road access, parking, and drop-off system will be completed and paved to Pitkin County Specifications. Cul-de-sacs will provide an adequate turnaround for snow removal vehicles. The Park and Midland Avenue road system has been experiencing significant increases in thru traffic especially in relation to available pavement, shoulder, and right-of-way width. The situation of the subject property at the end of Midland Avenue would normally pose a serious density constraint upon the property because of ' the trip impact upon this already .-7- . )> ~, ,......... , ~- .Midland Park Subdivision'; 'General Submission overloaded street system. The development of the subject property a~ proposed by the accompanying site plan, however, minimizes traffic impact on this system by; (1) proposing a total density of less than half that allowable under PMB zoning for' this site; and (2) allowing a connection petween Park and Midland Avenues to become one way streets (in alternate directions) and facilitate implementation of the Smuggler Mountain Circula- . tion Plan which has been recommended by the Planning Office. Therefore, the net effect of this development proposal would be to improve traffic circulation patterns in the Smuggler Mountain System between the subject property and Highway 82. Maintenance for the interior road system and parking area will be either by the homeowners association or by the County, at the County's option. Maintenance of the Midland to Park Avenue connection, however, will be at the expense of the"County. Pitkin County's approv~i'of this land use proposal will result in the donation of land to create Midland Park, a passive recreation area located on a 56,000 square foot bench at the 8,050 foot elevation on Smuggler Mountain. From this relatively low vantage, views of the Roaring Fork Valley from Difficult to Mount Sopris are afforded. bevelopment of this area may include primitive shelter, picnic and barbeque facilities, as well as the construction of a pedestrian trail to connect this park with the subject development and the Pitkin County Trail System. The donation of a twenty foot trail. easement along the Salvation Ditch is proposed to be an integration with the Pitkin County Bicyclel Pedestrian trail system. 12. The currently vacant subject property drains to the southwest ~8" '..~ _. .' .~.," . -: . . ,. ^ , .1"""\ , ~ .Midland Park Subdivision: Gen'eral Submission onto the Aspen View property and onto Midland Avenue. The question ~f drainage engineering is addressed in Lincoln DeVore's letter which is attached as Exhibit 2 to this general submission. 13. It is anticipatea that this proposed land use will cause an jmprovement over the current transportation , situation in the Smuggler Mountain area. This statement is based upon the circulation improvements cited above and the modal diversion expected in the population increment from the Midland Park development. Certain deviations in bus system routes, however, are necessary to reflect the closure of the Gibson-Park Avenue collector. Pedestrian travel to Aspen will be facilitated by the construc- tion of the Riverside pedestrian trail which is expected by. 1977. The Salvation bicycle and pedestrian trail which transverses the subject property will improve the recreational trail system, but have little effect on commuter traffic because of the indirect route it offers to employment centers. . 14. The Midland Park Subdivision, because it is designed for persons with proven employment tenure in the Community, will have little marginal effect upon public facilities and services. Property taxes will be assessed and paid for all public and quasi-public districts in which the subject property lies. The provision of water service from the City of Aspen consti- tutes a logical extension of the City's Midland Avenue main. Furthermore, service to this site would not tend to leapfrog further development in the area since the subject property is the last developable site with access from ~lidland Avenue. The proposed land use would augment the City recreation program -.!l- . , ~ r--. , ", <: Midland Park Subdivision: General Submission by providing Midland Park as a passive recreation area which would be incorporated into the County recreational trail system. 15. The most important aspect of this land use proposal is its contribution to the stock of moderate income housing. The Housing Authority strategy as owner of this project is to create improved low-cost building ~ites which can be sold to individuals ,and builders for occupancy by qualified purchasers or renters at predetermined moderate prices. Resales' and rent escalations will be controlled to avoid investment speculation. Both purchasers and renters will be scrutinized to insure that this residen- tial development continues to be available as a housing alternative for fully employed local persons of moderate incomes. The phenomenon of the owner-built home is considered a valuable goal by housing experts around the world and has played a signifi- ,cant historical role in the development and redevelopment of all types of housing in Aspen. lfuen residents' efforts are involved in the design and construction of their housing, a pride of ownership and sense of community is instilled which is notably absent from housing programs where the tenants provide no such input. Counterbalancing the benefits of the owner-built home are drawbacks not the least of which is a non-conformity of appearance and finish quality due to differences in builder competence. To ameliorate the negative aspects of owner construction, a minimum level of building experience will be established, and, along with strict architectural controls, a quality finished neighborhood will be insured. 16. This proposed land use will not create or contribute to an increase in man-made hazards to public safety. 17. This proposed land use will not have an adverse effect upon wildlife preservation in Pitkin County. -10- .., ,,",,~.'" ,,,,~,,,,,,..,,.~...,,. ........."''"''-... ....-.. ......-. . ~ .. ., '" ,1""'\ ~ or: Midland Park Subdivision: General' Submission 18. Because of its elevated and due south exposure, the subject property has great potential for the construction of passive and active solar heating systems, and is therefore in conformance with County policies tq promote the use of alternative energy systems for residential heating. 19. This proposed land use has no direct water resources impact. 20. At this time, the only forseeable final plat condition would be: architectural and homeowners association covenants; anu right of refusal documents which would control rental and resale of the proposed housing. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 6.03.02 (f), the following Assessment and ~mrketability Information is provided: 1. The most recent sale of the subject property occurred on August 24, 1976 from Donald T. Randall to the Pitkin County Housing Authority for consideration of$160,000. The Housing Authority purchased the property ,under threat of condemnation for' less than 10 percent downpayment, 7 percent interest only for one year. 2. No additional sums have been expended to date to develop the subject property, although a planning budget of approximately $10,000 has been approved for expenditure during 1976. 3. MI analysis of the subject property's residential buildout is pro~ided in Exhibit 3. These figures are estimates only because the app~icant contemplates no construction activity of its own. 4., Buildout of all three phases is expected by Autumn 1978. S. All multifamily residential housing constructed on the subject property will be in ~onformance with the Moderate Cost Housing Price Guide- -11- " _.. ;~-"7 ,.......-- "'--"-' . ;'" t"""\ ,"""" ~ Midland Park Subdivision: General Submission lines as specified in PMH Zone: A Proposed Amendment to the Pitkin County Land Use Code. These limits will apply whether the housing will be rental or ownership in nature. In the case of ownership housing (which would give the best assessment information), the following prices would apply: I 12 three bedroom, 2 bath apartments @ $38,875 4 two bedroom,.2 bath apartments @ $30,700 4 one bedroom, one bath apartments @ $29,525 Multi-family Total $466,500 122,800 118,100 $707,400 The single family residences,will be more expensive than their multifamily counterparts, but like the multifamily units, the single family houses will be valued below open market comparables. For purposes of 'analysis, the value of lot and improvements can be estimated by applying a 2:1 improvement ratio to the $15,000 expected selling price of an improved lot. The'single family detached homes, valued at $45,000 each, would imply a $585,000 actual value for this land use. The total actual value for the entire subdivision then, would be $1,292,400. . 6. A certified appraisal of the subject property does not accompany this general submission because a waiver of , this requirement from both the Pitkin County Planning Office and the Pitkin County Assessor's Office has been indicated. The Permanent Moderate Housing (PMH) zone category prescribes that all development occuring within this zone be mandatory Planned Unit Development (PUD). The subject property is an excellent example of how the PUD process allows for better residential projects and is explained (6.03.02 (g)): The topography of the subject property is divided into developable -12- ' . J' r, ,.-". , ~ Midland Park Subdivision: General Submission and marginally-developable sections by the Salvation' Ditch bench. The upper portions of the marginally-developable section suffer from a high degree of visual vulnerability and high slopes. The amount of excavation and resulting scarring would cause an eyesore if the upper, marginally- aevelopable area were utilized residentially. The visual resource from this area, however, should be developed to some degree. The proposed site plan, by concentrating residential densities on the lowest, most buildable benches, preserves the sensitive regions of the property from emasculation. while allowing development of this area's valuable scenic resource with the construction of pedestrian access to the upper area where a primitive park may be developed. The panorama offered from the park vantage is made available to travelers of the County trail system, a complimentary addition to the already aesthetic trail experience. . Finally, the proposed variation in residential land use intensities within the site has the effect of minimizing the offsite visual impact of the buildings themselves. The eightplex structures are the largest proposed for the site and are concentrated to the westerly end of the property where their impact is diluted by similar neighboring apartment buildings. Towards the easterly property boundary the site is more visible and the proposed construction is the relatively less intense single family homes. Hence, the visual resource is preserved. 2. The Midland Park Subdivision is proposed as a moderate income housing project sponsored by a non-profit agency. There are no recreational amenities proposed except for the land donation to the County trail system -13- . ,- ,.-.., !""'\, ,. ~:', Midland Park Subdivision: General Submission and park donation to the City recreation department.. The project philosophy centers upon a minimization of costs to the consumer. On the other hand, the Housing Authority must break even financially on the project since it does not enjoy the luxury of large annual budgets and does not expect to do so in the future. Therefore, it is proposed that the project commit land for the purposes of providing the park and trail amenities, but no cash or construction contribution be made. 3. Financing for land development and site improvement will be obtained from the Farmer's Home Administration under Section 523 and 524. Construction financing for individuals and agencies purchasing improved sites will be the responsibility of the purchaser with technical assistance available from the Housing Authority. Permanent financing will also be the responsibility of the owner with technical assistance available from the Housing Authority. Pursuant to 6.03.02 (h): . Construction on the first phase of Midland Park Subdivision will begin in the spring of 1977 with total project buildout expected by Autu9n 1978 at the latest. It is intended that construction will commence with the single family phase and progress through the townhouses and eightplexes, although all construction could conceivably begin at once and be completed by autumn 1977. With the exception of the parking area, common areas will be limited to individual lot areas. Pursuant to 6.03.02 (i): The most prominent agreement pertaining to the Midland Park Sub- ,division is the mandatory subscription of original and subsequent purchasers to. the Pitkin County Right of ,First Refusal. This agreement gives the County -14- ~"'"'-~.,., , . "..... ~ , ~: Midland Park Subdivision; General Submission an option to repurchase property within the subdivision at a predeterminable price with the repurchase option exercisable upon the occurance, of agreed upon events. The right of first refusal will be used to regulate the resale, rental, and occupancy of Midland Park Subdivision to insure compliance with Pitkin County Housing Policy. Subsequent agreements will take the form of architectural control 'documents to insure an integrity of design and relative conformance of exterior appearance and materials. A homeowners' association will be formed and will contain covenants regulating not only buildings, but all forms of land use within the subdivision. Special reference will be made to onsite storage of matter, exterior building maintenance, and parking regulations. . . .' ~,.,;.'''.'.'.':.'' .. ,~ ,~ ~ / ": \.. ( ~ MtDLAND PARK SUBDIVISION: GENERAL SUBMISSION EXHIBIT 1 ";" -.'~jo".' ~."-' , ,,~,,~,~~.,- f ~r PITEm COUNTY PROJECT NUHBER Section/Parcel LAND USE APPLICATION FORM DATE SUBMITTED -,- TO BE C011PLETED BY APPLICANT: NAME Pitkin County Housing Authority' ADDRESS 506 East Main Street PHONE 925-6612 N~re OF PROJECT Midland Park Subdivision PROJECT LOCATION: (On attached sheet, locate on zoning map, showing boundaries of any natural hazard and resource areas, any other special regulatory districts, Section 5, Land Use Code; and locate' on appropriate CSU/ERA Maps any areas not covered by the above .J TOTAL AREA 11.34 acres ."EXISTING USE (S) vacant PROPOSED USE(S) single family (approximate square footage for each) detached and multifamily residence~ . . SF-52.000 MF( to','mhollse) -?O ,000 MF( apartmpnt) -::lO. 000 PRESENT ZONING OF SITE City- R-M/F;R-15 Count,y- R-l 'i j AF- 1 DESCRIPTION OF LAND US):: PROPOSAL creation of ur to 60 singlp family inn multi-familv residential units for sale as moner;d:p in~omp h()ll~ing under countv occupancy and price controls TO BE COXPLETED BY THE PLANNING OFFICE IUWIEN PHASE: . ~ REZONING gJ SUBDIVISION P. U. D. EXEMPTION ' SPECIAL REVIEW 35-acre + SUBDIVISION . D BUILDING PERMI.T REVIEW PRE-APPLICA'l'ION (iJ,.L~ /)6/ /1.'7!, Ik.."DATE COHPLETED GENERAL SUBMISSION V P.C. ACTION' DATE BOARD ACTION DATE P.C. ACTION DATE BOAr~ ACTION DATE BOARD AC'l'ION DATE TYPE OF APPLICATION: DETAILED SUBMISSION FINAL PLAT --,"_.~;-,._., ," -"--.~." ~- . .' ,-., ,-., , , <: APpendix !l fITKIN COUNTY LAND USE APPLICATION FORM SUM!11\RY OF FINDINGS REQUIRED IlY REVIEW PHASE Directions: Any applicant for a development requiring a permit under this code shall be responsible for showing conformance with any applicable policies of Section 2 as listed below. The applicant shall submit those requirements necessary to show conformance with these policies and the related general regulations of Section 5. Upon submission of the applica- tion and all submission contents, the Planning Office. shall distribute same to appropriate referral agencies which shall indicate its certifica- tion or non-certification of the proposal as being in conformance with policies and as satisfying submission requirements and review guidelines of relevant general regulations. Referral agencies shall also indicate whether further study in a later review phase is required and any further recommendations or conditions, attaching comments and returning same to the Planning Office. 1. ,",OCAL REVIEW- CERTIFICATION I CONDITION STUDY REQUIRED POLICY FACTOR ~NG STAFF YES NO AND INITIALS DATE RECO~'II1END TrONS GS.'DS FP* Not inconsistant Planning 1113 - A . PA VeS ~c., fY/ IF .1L'_ with Master Plan !I Office - - Rate of Growth fh . - - - - Hazard,& Resourc Planning Areas office " Geologic f'lO Hazard-s . FLoodplains/X Riparian ";0 Areas Wildlife ,.)0 "fl't'i-. (l'o Wildfire "ie' Radia tion /JCI 1vC'r a /.-(;(, Soil;/Erosion County Ex- cct G,S, 1Je> tension . Agent . Extractable Planning - - - - Resources Office {.Jv Mineral , {VI A . Vegetable . Other I ! s A- nt,A 2. I' .>-lJ site> 3. * PA '" Pre-Application GS '" General Submission DS '" Detailed Submission FP '" Final Plat .,..... ..... -- ~., ,., ~i J1' , . .~ ,I"'" / . \ "" <,:, " l\ppcndixB PITKIN COmITY LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1 , . STUDY REQUIRED POLICY FACTOR LOCAL REVIEW- CERTIFICATION CONDITIONS lNG, STAFF YES NO AND . INITIALS DATE RECOI1NENDA- . TIONS I . 4. PA GS DS FP Agricultural Planning Conservatio'(\ Office - - - - IV / Pr, Ih;" .. " - " 5: ~- Scenic Planning up(J(i- C/..:I'A - - Quality Office ,vc. f)?t:Jl...; L~ "\.>. 6. ~- Water Supply Environ- - - mental Health '. . 7. ./ Sewage Dis- Environ- - - - posal mental . Health , 8. Noise, Environ- - - - - mental rv I ~ I Health ~ . 9. L Air Quality Environ- - - - mental . Health '. O. Historic/ Historical' - - - Archaeological Society IIv . ,v,A, Resources- 1f -., ,.~.,. _.~---. ..-...,.". .........'-~.,.. , ' .. .i' . ^ <<:: . , Appendix B PITKIN COUNTY LAND USE APPLICATION FORM ^' . STUDY REQUIRED POLICY FACTOR LOCAL REVIElv- ING STAFF PA CS DS FP 11. Roads/Trails De- County sign & Construc- Engine~r tion Impact on Road system Maintenance pro- visions 12. ()>, Drainage. County Engineer 13. ~,5: Impact on Trans- portation County Engineer CERTIFICATION YES NO INITIALS DATE 14. {,;1'3> Impact on Public Planning Office . Facilities/ Services Solid \"aste County Engin- .Disposal & eer Collection Fire & Police Sheriff/ Protection, Fire Response District Service Land County Engin- eer Hosptial Board Sub- Library Site Board . Office Postal Post Substation Service Site . CONDITIONS AND RECO:.r:'lENDA- TIONS IV-6 to ~l.r'/.Jl-~- Uf'1 fd.,6. U e.... 6/v t-, , , f{ZON;' p,\? " ,,,....,, ~ , ~ .' I ! . Appendix D ' PITKI~ COUNTY L~1D USE APPLICATION FOPJl STUDY REQUIRED POLICY FACTOR LOCAL REVIEW- CERTIFICATION CONDgIONS ING STAFF "ES NO AND INITIAL DATE RECOH!1ENDA- - TIONS . I FA GS DS FP , Extension of Rocky Mtn. - - - - / utilities, Natural Gas \. water and Aspen/Holy sewer Cross Electric Mountain Bell Municipal Water & Sewer Districts " , V Public shops, County garages, yards Hanager " / Recreation Sites City Recreation pirector flJlfJ. General Tax costl County Finance }4-v ' - Benefit Officer 15. - /~ - Contribution to Housing Housing Stock Coordinator . , 16. Man-made Hazards Building , , - - -- - S.afety Official , fJ/~1 , If(/' , I\),p t 0"1 C;;. 17. . JL- wildlife Colorado Div. ,,' '- - Preservation of wildlife - 18._ i_ - Energy Building Conservation Official 19., , Distict Water Resources Water - - - - /Iv tJ I Ph Impact, Court . / 20. ' _kt Final Plat County Engineer, - Contents I Attorney, Plan- I niiig Office ({. . NO " ._~. .- ; . .,: l' # .....--. I"'" ,'...-,.." , c: MIDLAND PARK SUBDIVISION: GENERAL SUBMISSION EXHIBIT 2 THE LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LABORATORY George D. Morris, P.E. MEMBER. A.S.T.M. A.S.e.E. eEe Atl Soil Mecho,ni,cs Foundotion Eva luetion Moteriols Tests Concrete Mix Design Asphalt Mix Qesign Geologic Interpretation Groundwater Hydrology by Registered Professional Engineers & Geologists Colorado Springs, CalolCldo Pueblo, Colorod~ Glenwood Springs, Colorado Gunnison, Colorado Montrol. Coloroda Rock Springs, Wyoming 25tOGI.f1 "".1110. Glenwood SpI'lllg.. Col.Nd. 81601 945.6020 August 26, 1976 Yr. Brian Goo<:1heim, Pitkin County housire: Director . Pitkin County Housin" Authority Court House Building Aspen, CO 81611 ' . Re: Job Number GS-324 11idland Park Sub1ivision Propos en Fmployee Housing Pitkin County; Aspen, CO Dear Mr. Goodheim: A -prelimina,!'V ",eolo,;ical and soils em!ineerin" reconna,issance .~as corr.1ucted on ;,eclne~clay, Al1Qust 24, 1976, a,t the abo'le-referenced sHe at your req11est by perso!"!"el of t'lis l-'lc,ora,tory ir> omer to defiM t'le p;p.ol- ogical envircl"~ert of the site and to, ~ake reco~me~lations fo~ further investi~atiol"s, which would cOI"Sorm to Fitktn Coul"ty La~ Use Codes. It is the understal"0ing of the labora,tO!"J tha.t this lett"r is to be cOl"sidered quite preliminary in nature a,rd tha.t fira1 details 8S to a,ctual methods ar)(:l proceec1ures ..rill be decidP.d U1'OI" b,T the project mana,,;er in cor>junction with the soils en'i7ineer, at a ],a,ter date. The proposod 1'!uJ.ti-family am sinde family employee housin,: units are to be loca.ted il" Pitkin County at ~~~,; T10S north of Color...do StAte Hi~h,my 82 alon" the lo'.rer slopes of Smu"der's ;'!ounhin. The study a~ea is in the Roar:i.l"<: Fork Va11ey ,'ithin the Southern Rocky ':ountain Province. The entire study area, appe"rs, initi:tlly, to' consist of la,ter'l.l mora.ine (i.e. poorly sorted "lP.cia.,1 mora.ine deposits ra,nr;:ing froM silt to boulders). Locally the mo~aine appears to consist of pr:i.ma.rily Anp;ular to subrounded. Doorly sortP.Cl oobble and boulder-sizP.d fr"g1'!ents "hich are :;:ra.nitic a,nd/or ~,.,e;ssic in COMposition ."Uhin a silty and sandYl'la.trix which could be oui te n."rmeable. From a, sta,ndroint of soilsenO'ineerinO' this material a,ppears' to be quite dense and st.able and ..shouldreflect a fa.,irly hb:h 1o",ar1n'" va,lues. Eo.,!ever, due to its composition ard mode of deposition, it coulel be quite p~Meable and also quite-susceptible to erosion. ' .:...." ","-... - 1""", -., / ":: ~ . . ,Mr. Bria~ Goodhnim Pa~e 2 The slopes to the rear (north to northeast) of the site presently appea,rs to be quite stable, howe"er, due to the presence of theSa.lvation Ditch ',;hi"h !'Ill'S essnntially' from east to west above the site, dre.inage and erosion control vill be imperative. , After rede;rin1" in dehil at your request, the Pit1dn County Lan:l Use Code-specifica,Uy secticns 5.02, 5.03, arYl 5.1)1+ coverin~ potential soils a,nd geolosic hazllms a.m dr!l.inao;e a,nd erosion controls respectfully, r would recommend the foUoHing progrllm: 1. Further ,~eolo"ical reconnaissance in oreler to identifJ' and -define '(by mappinF:') any pOter>tial C':eolegic or soils ha,za,rds which might imp.air or .effect the proposer1 dffiTelopment. 2. The exca.va,tion of a series of test trenches to acquir.. 58.",ples for labora,tory testing. Thpse trerches ;rill be lOE'"ed ard classified in t.'1e field by a, qualified en"ineering "eoloqist. Samples will be used to both verify the field classifica,tions and to define the en~ireering p!'opertiss of the on-site mate~als.' 3. The incorporation by a qualified soils engineer of all of the above data into a comnrehsnsive soils report as dictated by the Pitkin County rEnd Use Code ;'s guidelioG(l by Coiorado Senate Bill" lb35. This renort ,.rill conta,in conclusions am recommema,tions a,s to fOl1rdation systems for ea,ch of the proposed structures tha,t ,rill hke the on-site soils i'~to airect considera.tion; identify am ma.p !!:cologic haze,rds and B;i'le miti'Olltion techniques whenever neceSSIl.I"Jl al'd give r"co!'l!nem~.tions aL; to c1rail'arre and erosion controls to ensure the sllfety of the proposed structures. It is believed that. an pertinent points required at this sta,,?e of the plannjng process hllve been covered in this letter. If questions arise or further infom.a:tion is desired, please feel free to contact the La,bora.- to,ry at. your convenienoe. Respectfuny submitted, THE mICCU:-D~~ORE TESTIa LAPO~1\~ORY ~M~~" j?, ~\)O-J~' Joseph R. Infa,scel1i Professional Geologist State of Colorado JRr/kIne .. '.,".', , - 1""'\ i-' ~. . . -;' MIDLAND PARK SUBDIVISION~ GENERAL SUBMISSION EXHIBIT 3 ESTIMATED POPULATION INCREMENT, UNIT SIZES, WATER AND SEWER FACTORS OCC EST POP GPO UNIT UPA # # SQ. # UlA PER WATER DEMAND c PHASE TYPE NCY BR BA fL.- UNITS TION POP SEWAGE FLOl.J - 1 SF 4.0 3 2 1500 13 52 55(1) 2860 gpd 2 TH 4.0 3 2 1300 8 32 60(2) 1920 9Pd 3 MF 1.3 1 1 600 8 10 70(3) 700 gpd 2.7 2 2 900 4 11 65(4) 715 gpd 4.0 3 2 1200 4 --.1&. 65(4) 1040 gpd 37 121 7235 gpd -- --- ----- TOTAL BEDROOMS= 91 TOTAL SQUARE FEET OF CONSTRUCTION= 43,100 - ..... FOOTNOTES: (1) Phase 1 consists entirely of single family dwellings and a large percentage of the total population is assumed to be children. Therefore, a substantial deviation from the av- erage adult water demand/sewage flow of 70 gallons per day* per person is warranted. A rate of 55 gpd is assumed. '(2) Phase 2 consists entirely of townhouse units designed for families, however a smaller percentage of children is ass- umed. (3) Phase 3 consists entirely of apartment units designed pri- marily for adults. The one bedroom units are assumed to service only adults. (4) The larger apartments in phase 3 may service some families with children as well as experience less than design occup- ancy. * water demand and sewage flow rates were obtained from Bob Nelson, Pitkin County Environmental Health Officer. ," ..-",' -'.~ .. '....,.. .,. ..... ....,~,...,. ,. . f"".. 1""\ <;. .\Sl'm TITU; C(l~II'NIY - Titl~ ~"port i!76-07-39 For the W.o(! of: UrJml Goodhcim. Di.n~ctor H"using. Authority. MIDLAND PARK SUBDIVISION: GENERAL SUBMISSION We have c:<amincd the rcc()I;ds of the Clerk and Rcco.rc!cr of Pitkln County. Co~or.ado? and find: Legal dcsc.r iption of sub.is.ct propcrEL_ . ttASCOl'TE tODE HUrING CLAl:-l. Uoited StD.tes Hineral Survc>y No. 5867 , according to tbe. United SCiltes Patent the:rt.~for recora.~d in nook 175 a.t Page 170;. and 1t99t1 LODE NINH:C CL..\1:.It United States Nineral Survey No. 6899. according to .the 'United States Patent therefor recorded in Book 39 at Page,78; EXCEPT th~se portions of said claims described in Book 212 at Page 322, in Book 203 at Page 84, in Book 264 at Page 789, in Book 304 at Page 407 and in Book 195 at Page 11; EXCEPT minerals and mine::r.:tl rights underlying a tract of larrd described in Book 190 at Page 325 by nletes and bounds; and EXCEPT rights of 't-lay for ditches, roads, utilities and utility easements including but not limited to easement recorded in Book 265 at Page 978. All of the above described b.eipg s'ituated in the Roaring Fork lUning "District.. Pitkin County, Colorado. Title vested in DONALD T. RANDALL .1212 U.' W. Uighvay IiI Cove Plaza North Palm Beach, Florida 33408 We find .t.he nj.Hnes and 3ddrc'R~ of 3di;'l~TLLP.J:..Q..pf'.....~Pr~ t"n hI? ~o::; fnllo'"'",: Harold c. ~~litcomb, Jr.~ and Philippa Bayless Hhitcomb f Box 660 Aspen, Colorado 81611 . ~ Luke W. Anthony Box 1271 . Aspen, Colorado 81611 3 William II. Lane Box 346 Aspen, Colorado 81611 James H. Jenkins ~ Box 4152 Aspen, Colorado 81611 l-fClrgarcc:" NcGavock BOl< 533 Aspen, ColoradoB1611 John F. Calilph(,~lJ and Const:lOCf.,! D. C,'lmpheJ 1 80" 4614 Aspen, Co1orndn 81611 , Stiley Stttndlc'ynnd Scott Bouie cIa Cit}. 11,,11 A~p('nl' C010Qldn 8Ud,l P"c" (J) . / EXHIBIT 4 " ,,"", , ~. . ~ .... ". . ' . ".,...., <: 'H"O"-' \. . ,',....~ ,',,, :... J Th.e Congn.':->~ (emol Corp. ~/o Arthur' C. Hyde Co. .suite 201 liathcsdaJ :.taryl;jnc! 20011. :Cop'of Aspen ::'/0 ?-Ir. .Jo!tn P. OtDriscolL, t'nx agent 103SQ 11ilshlrc Blvd. 1.0$ ^ngclcs~ CaliCornia. .!-l~Culloch Consolida.tc.d Ninine Company c/o Hr. Joher P. 0' Dr is coIl 10880 Wilshire Blvd. LosAngel~s, California Smuggler-Durant Mining Com?any Ii 4 West 58th Street - Suite 1101 New York, N. Y. 10001 ~ames c. Blanning~ Jr. ?? Box 43 , ,.Aspen, Colorado 816'11 ~he County of Pitkin ::.'state of Colorado. jhe City of Aspen _.Jl'itkin County, Colorado. ...:.Dnited States of A!l1erica ::.Departlnent of the Interior .::..Burcau of Land Nanagement . ~ :.._There is an established' casement at least 30 feet in \o7idth for. public ri.ght of way ~s dedic.:J.ted to the City of Aspen on pla.t recorded in Plat Bool~ 4 at Page 560. __~OTE: Although ~.;e believe tbcfacts stated herein are true, it is understood ~andagreed that the liability of Aspen Title Company will be limited to the amount ::;",.of the fee charged hereunder.. ,-Dated: August 6, 1976 at 8:00 A. M. ::ASPEN TITLE co:n'~'lY ._By1-e-f..~~ ~=::J~) ...Address information obtained from tax rolls Clnd ins.truffients of record.. " " ~., ..." . , , ~, .. ." i . I"'" ot: ASPE~: Tn'Li-: CO~U'l\~:Y - T!tlc R~'r>ort li76-07-39 (continu~~) Aspen'R('st;\ur;lnt, Incorporntcd Box 18488 Wichita, Kan~as Fred t-fo~tror.l and n,anicl l'~cCnrty ; Box 4051 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Kenneth Arthur Heininger and Jeanne Hcinlnzer S- 3535 Dalcvicw Dr. Ann Arbor, Hichigan Countryside Associates (" Box 256 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Richard E. Lindner and Julia A. Lindner 7 Box 2191 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Kenneth R. Sterling '& Box 1366 Aspen, Colorado 81611 "" , . Barbara Burgess (Wolf) 424 South f:ain Street Pennington, New Jersey 08534 Perry H. Pollack I D Box 950 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Neil Ross"and Ronni .L. Ross Box 2075 Aspen, Colorado 81611 1I ,Lucile C. Hurst .2 Box 786 Aspen, Colorado 81611 'Wilton E. O'Neal aqd Roberta L. O'Neal 13 Box 3880 Aspen, Colorado 81611 ~+ Erich Zeller and lnge Zellcr Box 1161 Aspen, Colorado 81611 William D~ Stal~y !~ Pitkin 'County, Colorado. (nQ other address information available) Michael John Drew and IngetrautDrew .:t.. French's Long l.:ittcnham near Abigdon Berkshi.re) Englund Gertrude Bibbi,g :., 101 North Park Ave.. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Alan J. Coldstein 'S 571' Lycll Avenue Rochester, N. Y, 14606 '1 Al cxander NeGo'.olin t-lorman :md Adele R. Hormdfl 180 Park Circle Aspen, Colorado 81611 . Jack lJ. Jcnking.and Eleanor A. Jcnkinl~ _0 Bll" 588 Aspen") Co.tor.1do 81611 T':I\'I' (?) , . ,-, "' ,;: ..... . . i i. .. . , :i J' ! ^ 1""'\ ~ ," 1.":'1', .. " , , " ' , .'. , , ".. -' '/(1,1) ':'-----~---', MIDLAND/PARK " ~_.. ~ ....... 1...) \ .. /.j .' <> '. J. , .' '\ ') '~ -_._~- --- - . , '.~ " 13, ],4 : I ' \ , " \16\, 1lfiJ, '-., t i , .' l":rt:; ! " ! /. "./ \,." I,.c '\ i,' .. ~ i \'.111.. " ...........,.. ,:, \, , .. "., ~".. ~, ~.. ," ," " , , r '. \ \ - " - ','., ,"'" ~ <t' Jeecordt..J at........ Rec.i'ptioo N,o... "".JI ...o'c10t.k.... t~..... ~t, .........~.~~.. ~~~.l. ,;, ~..~:,~.!. ~ ;.t , 'J "! !~.: ',.,'...,.,',.~,., ;..., J 1 f 11 _ ~r ~ . .. ........................:. U' "e.. ,'loc.. ...,Rt'cordl'r. MrtJuiiil'T PARK SUBD-IVfSTi:iN:GENERAL -SUBMISSTOrr- TillS ))J:1-:D, .~l.:\dc tbi~ 2Jrd dny ot August .1.976 between DO~Ar...D T. RA..':DALL . 7l"- ~ :l.....'t. ~ ." ;"~'\"':.";_'~~} ...'....v.. U ~ STATt DCCr::rHU..\Y IT! 01 the County of Palm Beach and State or Floridao! the :f'ir-st part,and PITKIN COG1,n HOUSING AUTHORITY of the Countyof Pitkin and' State of AUG 2.; PAlO tJ/(P.OO s~ Colorado, of the s'ccond ~art: WITNESSETU. Th:.t the said p:U1Y ot the first part, fur :ind in consid(lrMion ot the sum of TEN DOLLARS and ochc:r good and val uabl'e consideration DOLLARS to the s:::.id ptt.rt y of the t:rst p::.:-t in b..."!.d paid by s3.id p:lrt Y of i~e second part. the. receipt whereo.f is hereby, ccrJesscd and lldmvwlcdgcd, has granted, b:u-gained, sold tlr.d conveyed, and by these presents dOoes grant, ba.rg;:d.n,s~H, com'e)' ar.d confirm,unto the said p:lrty of the sccond }.I3rt, its hein e.nd a.ssir:ns for. ever. 'all the foUowing c:!esc..i~ed Ivt or parcel of land, situa~e,lying .and being in the County of pj,tkin and St.'\tc oi Colorado. to v.'it: }~SCOTTE LODE ~IIXIXG CLAIM, Unit~sStates Min~ral Survey ~o. 5867, according to the United States Patent therefor recorded in Book liS at Page 170; and "99" LODE ~!nnNG CLAD!, 'United States Nineral Survey ~o. 6899, according to the United. States Patent therefor recorded in Book 39 at Page 78; EXCEPT those portions of said claims ,described in Book 212 at Page 322, in Book 208 at Page 84, in Book 264 at Page 789, in Book 304 at Page 407 and in Book 195 at Page 11; and.L~CEPT minerals and mineral rights underlying a tract of land described in Book 190 at Page 325 by metes and bounds; and EXCEPT rights of way ,for ditches, roads, utilities and utility easements including but not limited to easement recorded in Book 265 at Page 978. All of the' above dasc~ibed being situated in the Roaring Fork Mining District. also known as street nnd number 'j'OGETUER '\I.ith :lon alld singu13r the. hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging, or in anywise apnert.aini::g, a..'1.d the re,'crsion m1d rC"E.>r::::o:!s, remainder and rcm<lir.ders, rents. issues and profits thereof'. al~d 2.11 the E:statc, right, title, intercst, <:!aim and dc:nand what!Soc\'cr of the !<lid part Y of the first part, either in 1:1...... or equ.;ty, oi, in and to the abo"c barg'air.ed premises, with thc r.ercditament3 and appurte:lanccs. . TO SA VI:: AXD TO nOLD the s:lid p:'cmhc3 3boyg bo1rgaincd atid described with th~ appurtenanccs, unto the &aid p:u-ty of the se-cond part, its heirs and tlSsigns fo:'ever. And the s:l.id part y oithe first p::\.rt, for himse1 f ,. 'his heirs, exe-cutl"lrs, r.nd :i.dministrators, dt> es' eoyenar.t, grar.t, bargain, and agree to and ",ith'the s:tid pa~Y of the second part, its hci::-s and llssib'"nS, that at the time of the cnsealing 01:,& delivcry of th<:lse presents, he is. well seized of the premises l1ho\'c convcyed, as or good, sure, perfect. absolute and indefeasible ii:state of inheritance, in J.:m~, in tee simple; and ho\ s good rir,ht, ful1po\.cr and b~i'ul :lut.horit}. to grnnt, bargain, sell :\nd com'~y the S:lme in manner ~::d form :!os :1foresaid, :lnd th:lt the same :!ore- free and cl..:l:lor from nIl former and other g:r:mts, bargliins, sales, liens, ta.'i:CS, as.sess:nents and encumbrances of 'w}:atc"\'er kind 0: nature soe....er., except the lien for. generi!l taxes for 1976, and exceot for easements . or ]'\ (""stan-" . and q.ghcs o.f way of record/, anct mJ:~+.?:rcn. '-clxceptions and reservations of record~ and the abo...e ba.rg::lined prcmises in the q~iet and pc:u:eablc posscssion of the s::U"d pllrt y of the sccond part, its heir::: ~.nd assigns 3s-air.st..11 and eyer:,' pcrson or persons lawiull:;' dai:ning or to claim tho whole or any p5!"t thereof, the said part y of the first part sr.n.ll:lJld \\.m WAltHAXT A~D FORE\'ER DEI-'F.~D. IN WIT~ESS WHE1~EOF, the said p~rt. y of the fir;;l part ha s hereunto set his hand and ..01 the dn,' .ad year (irst .hove written. til ' ~ ~ . ...........-................- ..-....-.............................-.......,....,..............,) :~~~~~~...:..~:=::...:.~.~:::~; n.. , ....."........ ............ ,................. ................'.'....'.......... .'......... ...,....... ..............: ...... .. ..................................._(SF..AL) }so. . STATE OF FLORIDA, Countyof P;tlm ll(,<l.ch. 'l"he f(lreg-oing instromc:1f l\'a~ acknowlh'l,l-":N hefore lIle lhi~ 19 76 ,by D"n,~ld 1'. R"nd"ll. ..... "'.. My COtllnljst;;ion.e~pires 2/25/78 , :':.:' "".""'j,'19 . \\'itll{,$smyh:lond and oWcinl se:ll. <5:';""';:'::':"'::':"'"'' . . .~'7:.'0.,J.)...."t/.,'~~:1. ....7..7:l.....a...-c(,<..,(.,L.:...c.1:..,........ , .:. '!~: . ~ h) '., ,". .,' , Ntol.at', 1'\11011". .: ~ (/ , .... : "..: 18th d3Y of August :; - , EXtlIBlT 6 'Yt'~ .< .0 IV ~, ',' " .... . II"'- .1""'\ . " / , . \\ , , , , . , , I ~ I ..':: , c \ , P I T K I N c o '[J' N T Y -,.- ("'\ ~ 506 E. Main DIRECTOR OF HOUSING . Jl'xX>XJl~~~ -ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 - PHONE, (303) 925-6612 MEMORANDUM 'October 12, 1976 TO: Aspen City Council , " FROM: Brian Goodheim RE: The Midland Park Subdivision The last appearance of the Housing Authority before City Council was to present our initial development concept for the Randall property and to ask the City to join uS in condemnation for the purpose of lowering the purchase price. The City's subsequent alliance with the County enabled the Housing Authority to purchase the property for $160,000 and to proceed with site planning and development of the project. Since the time of our last meeting, the Housing Authority has begun to address in detail some of the concepts, questions, and planning constraints only generally known to exist at the time of property acquisition. This planning process has been in complete conformance with the procedures prescribed by the Pitkin County Land Use Code for General Submission. A detailed assessment and definition of physical planning factors known only generally at the time of land acquisition, as well as County reaction to community feedback regarding public involvement in construction has caused us to redesign our site plan to provide for a substantially lower density and ' site coverage while also redefining the role of the Housing Authority to be one of a subdivider with purchasers arranging for or performing their own construction. The resulting concept is truly unique and may have substantial application to similar sites both in the City and the County. The purpose of this appearance and study session is to acquaint the Council with the Midland Park Subdivision and the Housing Authority's development concept and strategy in an effort to begin discussion of the City's role in this project. The Midland Park Subdivision is so-called because of its location between Midland and Park Avenues and also because the public purchase of the property allows the creation of a one acre elevated park on Smuggler Mountain which offers a spectacular panorama of Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley. The site plan provides for 37 total dwelling units configured as 13 single family detached, 2 four-plex and 2 eight-plex sites. TIIis arrangement is designed T - .,~: """."C' ". "'Ii'''''' Aspen City coun~,' October 12, 197',. Page Two ..-, to minimize the visual impact of the subdivision from the City as well as to graduate densities in accordance with surrounding land uses. All develop- ment is restricted to the lowest major bench and lies entirely below the Salvation Ditch level on the property. Within this area, variations in natural topography are used to maximize the view and solar orientation of each site. The two eight-plex lots are, at this stage, defined to contain four one- bedroom apartments, two two-bedroom apartments, and two three-bedroom apart- ments. It is anticipated that these buildings will be stacked apartments oriented towards rental to singles, couples and a limited number of families. The four-plex structures are envisioned to be townhouse units of approxi- mately three-bedroom, two-bath profile, for ownership by local families. The single family detached units are to be constructed upon thirteen mini- lots. This concept has the advantage of significantly reducing land cost per unit while at the same time allowing product alternatives which may range from carefully planned single family detached homes to a zero lot line patio home concept. It is our position that through careful planning and precise architectural, construction, and land use controls, the negative implications of this concept can be minimized. Chuck Vidal is currently in the process of designing these convenants and regulations to insure that the appearance of the subdivision is not degraded. With regard to the County involvement in the Midland Park project, the County's strategy is to create an example for private industry to follow of the housing possibilities which exist within the PMH Incentive Zone. Reflecting the community desire for the County to refrain from direct involvement in housing construction, the County has assumed the role of both facilitator and initiator in making the PMH Zone available to private industry, and through its purchase of the Randall Property, set an example for the use of the PMH Zone. The financial strategy of the County is to completely recover all project costs as well as absorbing some of the Housing Authority overhead costs in , the pricing of the project. Within this framework, it is anticipated that a higher percentage of the direct and indirect project costs be allocated towards the single family homesites whereby allowing a per unit reduction ,on the multi-family sites. Assuming an entire project budget of $300,000, individual homesites could be marketed at below $15,000 and reducing multi- family costs below $5,000 per unit, As an example of the housing opportunity afforded by this pricing strategy, it would be possible for a single family home to be built by a contractor within a budget of $45,000 including land costs, while a three-bedroom, two-bath townhouse could be built and sold at below $38,000 including land costs. To date, much interest has been expressed in both the single family and multi-family sites. I am especially excited with the prospect of selling the [ . .- Aspen City Coun~ October 12, 1976 Page Three ~ multi-family sites to public agencies such as the school system and the hospital. The concept was well received by the School Board while the Hospital District has indicated need for further study. Having spoken with local bankers regarding financing on the Midland Park Project, it appears that the project is financible at much less of a County budget impact than currently exists. We are envisioning a financing package which would consist of a land development' loan which would payoff Donald Randall and provide financing for the required site improvements. The second element in the financing package is a commitment for site loans to qual ified purchasers. These loans would partially release the County from its land development loan obligation and interest in the property. The third element of the financing package is a program of construction loans for purchasers of Midland Park sites. This would be in conjunction with a commit- ment for permanent financing on the lots and improvements. For those council members who wish further detail on the Midland Park Sub- division, our General Submission has been sent to the City for your referral comments. To summarize, and as a beginning point for discussion, the County has sub- stantially altered its physical plan and program strategy for the Randall Property. It should be clear that although this property lies predominantly in the County, project completion is dependant upon the City's posture as well as the County's commitment towards a housing program. The imminent decision is one of continuing development processing in the County or initia- ting annexation and development review by the City. Each alternative has its merits and its risks. Through communication and discussion with Council it is my hope that we may arrive, at a strategy which will promote the best possible project. t"""\ r-. MEMORANDUM January 31, 1977 TO: Board FROM: Sandy of County Commissioners Stuller pi;? /;J .r RE: Midland Park The Colorado statutes provide that any owner of land "within and adjacent to the boundary of a city" may apply to the governing body of the city to have enacted an ordinance disconnecting the tract, and it is the duty of this governing body to disconnect if "the city. . . will not be pre- judiced by the disconnection." Brian Goodheim has requested that I initiate procedure to have disconnected the approximately 1.2 acres of land within the Midland Park project and lyihg within the city limits. The disconnection should not only expedite the processing of the PUD/subdivision/rezoning process, but eliminate the road maintenance and utility charges problems that result from having a unified housing project lying within two different jurisdictions. If you agree with his approach an appropriate petition is attached for your consideration. There has been drafted a corresponding ordinance to be placed on the City Council agenda of February 14th. Note that any property taxes or ,improvement assessments levied before disconnection must be paid to, the city, and liability for these is not e~nguished by reason of disconnection. .. ~ r-, ~ '. PITKIN COUNTY Resolution No. 77- RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PETITIONING THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO TO DISCONNECT APPROXIMATELY 1.2 ACRES OF COUNTY OWNED LAND AND DOING SO PURSUANT TO SECTION 31-12-501, ET SEQ. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners is the owner of land adjacent to the Aspen City limits commonly called th6 Midland Park Project lands, an area proposed for the development of a housing complex under the PM!! zoning category o'f the Pitkin County Land Use Code, and WHEREAS, approximately 1.2 acres of the project area lies within' the Aspen city limits, and WHEREAS, the Board, as owners of the project lands, wishes to' disconnect these 1.2 acres, inasmuch as a. the development of the project as proposed cannot occur if subject to ,city zoning code provisions applicable to the site; b. the development of the project will be greatly expedited if under the exclusive jurisdiction of the County rather than requiring the duplication of processes for subdivision, Pu~ and rezoning approval in each the City and County; c. the housing project proposes a unified street and utility system, the maintenance and servicing of which will be less cumbersome under one jurisdiction; and d. the area proposed to be disconnected has not previously been platted into townsite lots, been approved as a subdivision within the city, nor been extensively serviced with city streets or utilities, all of which indicate that the area has not been integrated into the city of Aspen making disconnection appropriate; and 0 WHEREAS, the procedures outlined in C.R.S. 1973, Section 31-12-501 (as amended) require that disconnection procedures may be ini- tiated by application for disconnection being made to the governing body of the city in which the subject lands lie, and the Board wishes to so proceed, ,,......, ,~ . .... NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of County Commis- sioners of pitkin County, Colorado, that is does hereby petition the City Council of the City of Aspen ~o disconnect from said city the following described property located in Pitkin County, Colorado, to wit: A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SOUTH ONE HALF OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84, WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, BEING A PORTION OF THE RIVERSIDE ANNEXATION TO SAID CITY OF APSEN, AND BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT CORNER NO. 9 OF SAID RIVERSIDE ANNEXATION; THENCE S 450 09' 00" W 187.59 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE ASPEN HILLS ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN;' THENCE N 060 23' 00" W 90.61 FEET; THENCE N 890 37' 36" W 214.93 FEET; ,THENCE S 060 23' 00" E 110.60 FEET; THENCE S 850 44' 33" W 38.73 FEET; THENCE N 040 54' 42" W 19.15 FEET; THENCE N 890 43' 10" W144.89 FEET; ,THENCE N 380 00' 00" E 144.73 FEET; THENCE N 540 07' 00" E 37.14 FEET; THENCE N 350 53' 00" W 9.46 FEET; THENCE N 450 24' 29" E 95.74 FEET TO CORNER NO.8 OF SAID RIVERSIDE ANNEXATION; THENCE S 770 35' 00" E 357.38 FEET TO THE POINT OF BE- GINNING, CONTAINING 1.199 ACRES, MORE OF LESS. Approved by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting held , 1977. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN .COUNTY, COLORADO BY Chairman ATTEST: .. Pitkin County Clerk ~~~ a.-. ,,7) y,z..p-v: ~~wa/?~~L4~ b"'L-?ZZ. "',"<7/4' v-- /'v~..-,::".'~/.:"..c.$'- ~~