Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ex.Crystal Palace Subd.1980\ °\cb0 - C` l- \e? s C-" 11 E 0 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Dan McArthur, City Engineer Ron Stock, City Attorney FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office RE: Crystal Palace Subdivision Exemption - Preliminary Plat DATE: April 4, 1980 Attached please find resubmitted plat for the Crystal Palace Subdivision Exemption. The plat was not recorded within 90 days of the approval. This item is scheduled to come before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, April 22, 1980. Therefore, may I please have your written comments concerning this application no later than Wednesday, April 16, 1980. P.S. Dan, if you have problems with this schedule, let me know and we will change it to a later date -Carla. LAW OFFICES OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JORDAN 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LEONARD M. OATES ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 RONALD D. AUSTIN J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, JR. _March 25, 1980 WILLIAM R. JORDAN III ROBERT W. HUGHES RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH JAMES R. TRUE City Council City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Planning and Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen-Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Ladies and Gentlemen: AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 925-2600 We represent the Crystal Palace Corporation which is the owner of Lots 4, 5 and 6 of the Independence Subdivision. The property, which contains approximately 21,913 square feet is bounded by Dale, East Hopkins and Park Avenues. At the June 11, 1979 City Council meeting Council (a) adopted ordinance 31 series of 1979 which rezoned the property from R-15 to R-6 and (b) approved the recommen- dation of the Planning and Zoning Commission for a subdivision exemp- tion in connection with the creation of two larger parcels (Lots 4a and 5a) from the three smaller lots. This was done in order to enable the applicant to replace the existing single-family structure with a duplex to be used for employee housing purposes. By way of background we are enclosing a detailed staff memo prepared by Karen Smith of the Planning Office. The purpose of this application is to invite your reconsider- ation of the second of the two Council actions above -described (i.e., the subdivision exemption) as a result of Section 20-14(c) of the City Code, which provides: "Failure on the part of the subdivider to record the final plat within a period of ninety (90) days follow- ing approval by the city council shall render the plat invalid. Reconsideration and approval of the preliminary and final plat by the planning commission and city council respectively will be required before its accept- ance and recording." Due to several factors beyond the control of the applicant, including difficulty inlocating trust deed holders for purposes of obtaining their releases, the final plat showing the redrawn lot lines could not be recorded and, hence, was not recorded within the time period 0 0 OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH 8, JORDAN Aspen City Council Planning & Zoning Comm. Planning Office March 11, 1980 Page Two required under Section 20-14(e). The Agreement between the City and the applicant setting forth the terms pertaining to the use and occupancy of the proposed duplex has been recorded. We are enclosing copies of the proposed subdivision plat. Needless to say, the original mylar of the plat will have to be revised in order to reflect a more current signature block for the City approval. We would appreciate an early setting on your agenda. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, OATES, USTIN, KcGRATH & JORDAN 1 (' rl \ By Robert W. Hu es RWH:mcg Enclosure MEMORANDUM TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Office DATE: May 2, 1980 RE: Crystal Palace Subdivision Exception, Lots 4,5, and 6, Independence Subdivision As you know, this subdivision exception was previously reviewed and passed in conjunction with a rezoning from R-15 to R-6 a year ago. At that time Dan McArthur wrote a memo dated April 4, 1979 outlining seven conditions for approval. The revised plat dated April 23, 1979 includes most of the changes requested. There are a couple items, however, requiring action on the part of the owner/ applicant that appear not to have been completed which I will re- iterate: 1) The owner shall install a new water meter and remote meter reading register for the existing one-story frame house located on Lot 4A. 2) The owner shall install a new water meter and remote meter reading register for the existing two-story frame house located on lot 5A. 3) The owner shall remove or relocate the existing wooden fence along Park Avenue back to within the boundaries of lots 4A and 5A. 4) The owner/applicant shall record the new exception plat showing the new lot boundaries for lots 4A and 5A. The Engineering Department recommends approval of the above subdivision exception request subject to the applicant correcting the above conditions. CITY OF ASPEN CUS FINANCE DEPARTMENT CASHIER'S RECEIPT 01-111 LICENSES & PERMITS 01-111 FINES & FORFEITS 511 ❑ BUSINESS LICENSES 561 ❑ COURT FINES 512 Cl SALES TAX LICENSES 562 ❑ COURT BONDS - FORFEIT 513 ❑ BEER - WINE - LIQUOR LICENSES 563-01 ❑ TOWING FINES - IMPOUND 514 ❑ CONTRACTOR'S LICENSES 563-02 ❑ TOWING FINES - NOT IMPOUND 516 ❑ LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION 564 ❑ TRAFFIC FINES 517 ❑ DOG LICENSE 566 ❑ FALSE ALARM FINES 518 ❑ CENTRAL ALARM LICENSE 568 ❑ DOG IMPOUND FINES 519 ❑ BICYCLE LICENSES 569 ❑ OTHER FINES & FORFEITS 520 ❑ EXCAVATION PERMITS 521 ❑ CONSTRUCTION PERMITS 01-111 OTHER MISC. REVENUES 522 ❑ ELECTRICAL PERMITS 579 ❑ MAPS, CODES, ZONING REGS. 523 ❑ PLUMBING PERMITS 589 ❑ OTHERS (DESCRIBE) 524 ❑ HEATING PERMITS 525 ❑ SEPTIC TANK PERMITS 01-988-632-03 ❑ XEROXING (DESCRIBE) [:]OTHER - ACCT. NO DESCRIPTION: (NAME, NUMBER, ETC.): CASHIER VALIDATION RECEIVED FROM MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office RE: Independence Rezoning and Subdivision Approval DATE: April 16, 1980 On June 11, 1979, the Aspen City Council adopted Ordinance 31, Series of 1979, which rezoned Lots 4, 5, and 6 of the Independence Subdivision from R-15 to R-6. In addition, the Council approved the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission for a subdivision exception in connection with the creation of two larger parcels (Lots 4A and 5A) from the three smaller lots. This was done in order to enable the applicant to replace an existing single family structure with a duplex to be used for employee housing purposes. The applicant, however, upon receipt of Council approval for subdivision exception, failed to record the final plat within the spe- cified time frame. Section 20-14(c) states: "Failure on the part of the subdivider to record the final plat within a period of 90 days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid. Reconsideration and approval of the preliminary and final plat by the Planning Commission and City Council respectively will be required before its acceptance and recording." The Engineering Department has reviewed the applicant's re -submitted plat and recommends approval subject to the applicant complying with the stipu- lations outlined in the Department's memorandum dated May 2, 1960. The Department will also require that the plat be revised to include updated signature blocks and a surveyor's signature and seal prior to recording. The Planning Office concurs with the Engineering Department's stipulations and recommends approval subject to the above conditions. The Engineering Department's memoranda are attached for your review. _ a MEMORANDUM !� TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Office RE: Lot 4, 5 and 6, Independence Subdivision - Subdivision Exception DATE: April 13, 1979 As the attached letter from Bob Hughes describes, this is a request for subdivision exception for the replatting of three lots in the Independence Subdivision to t.-ro lots which are larger in size. Actually their request is for subdivision exemption, however, we feel it is more appropriate that it not. be exempted from definition of subdivision, but rather that the P and Z recommend it be excepted from the full review procedures. Since the plat amendments may be accomplished fairly easily and do not require the three stage review with full public hearings. This is concomitant with a request to amend the zoning on these lots from the current R-15 zone to R-6. That proposal was submitted over a year ago and went all the way to City Council which tabled the request pending - the applicant's showing that indeed the units would serve an employee housing purpose as was mentioned as justification for the request. The Council specifically mentioned that there should be some controls similar to a PMH type zone. Needless to say, our* regulations and guidelines for these matters have evolved substantially since the.time of the original request and the agreement which is attached attempts to set forth stipulations which the applicant is willing to enter into in order to satisfy Council's concerns that this remain employee housing over the longer term. The Planning Office has worked with the applicant and expressed reservations over an earlier draft. This draft gets closer to what we think is a realistic rental rate and time period for duration of the employee housing restrictions. It does not, however, comply with the type of restrictions that we would impose if, for example, this were to be an employee housing overlay zone. The time period would be longer for the restrictions and the per tenancy rental rate would be a per square foot rental rate instead. We remain somewhat concerned that this is a rather plush duplex that is being proposed and that while it serves Meed Metcalf's employees - very well, it will become a luxury unit once it is no longer in the employee housing market (no longer owned by Mr. Metcalf). This, however, is all by way of background and is not the matter that is now up for review before the Planning and -Zoning Commission. The review of P and Z is rather on the subject of the subdivision platting requirements. We note that the new lots would meet the minimum square footages for duplex lots if the property is rezoned to R-6 and any approval of the subdivision plat should be conditioned on the rezoning taking place. I have also attached the comments of Dan McArthur, Assistant City Engineer. The requested plat corrections, we understand, are underway and should be prepared for your Tuesday night meeting. With those qualifications, we would recommend that the application be excepted from the full subdivision review procedures, that it proceed to City Council for final plat review. t � ` t MEMORANDUM TO: ttAREN SMITH, PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: DANIEL A. fiicARTHUR, ASST. CITY ENGINEER DATE: April 4, 1979 RE: Independence Subdivision, Lots 4, 5 & 6 - Subdivision Exemption Request After reviewing the improvement survey for the above project and having made a site inspection, the engineering department finds that there are several items which need correction. They are as follows: 1) The owner shall revise and resubmit a new recent improvement survey which shall include the following: a. Description of survey monuments found in set. mob, Show existing fire hydrants. tic. Call -out type of fence. Show parking spaces for Lot 4A. (e.Signature and seal of surveyor. L--f A ten -foot wide power line easement running north and south over the existing two-story frame house. �) The owner shall install a new water meter and remote meter reading register for the existing one-story frame house located on Lot 4A. C\,3); The owner shall install a new water meter and remote meter reading register for the existing two-story frame house located on Lot 5A. v4) The owner shall provide a ten -foot wide power line easement for existing overhead power line running north and south over existing two-story frame house. } Relocate existing wooden face fence located on Park Avenue back to within the property boundaries of Lots 4A and 5A. �6) The owner must record the new subdivision exemption plat showing the new lot boundaries for Lot 4A and 5A. �/7) Provide a certificate for dedication of power line easements with certificates for the Mayor and the City Engineer. The Engineering Department's recommendation will be for approval for the above subdivision exemption request subject to the applicant correcting the above conditions. MEMORANDUM TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering officeA�- DATE: April 9, 1980 RE: Crystal Palace Subdivision Exemption, Lots 4,5, and 6, Independence Subdivision As you know, this subdivision was previously reviewed and passed in conjunction with a rezoning from R-15 to R-6 nearly a year ago. At that time Dan McArthur wrote a memo dated April 4, 1979 requiring correction of 7 items, a copy of which is attached. I would ask that the owner/applicant be held to those items as previously required paying particular attention to items 2,3, and 5. Having reviewed the resubmitted survey plat, the Engineering Department recommends approval of the Crystal Palace subdivision exemption subject to the owner/applicant correcting items outlined in Dan McArthur's memo of 4-4-79. We will also require that two (2) mylar copies of the exemption plat with updated signature blocks and a surveyor's signature and seal be submitted to this office for recording. MEM0RAN`DUM TO: KAREN SMITH, PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: DANIEL A. McARTHUR, ASST. CITY ENGINEER DATE: April 4, 1979 RE: Independence Subdivision, Lots 4, 5 & 6 - Subdivision Exemption Request After reviewing the improvement survey for the above project and having made a site inspection, the engineering department finds that there are several items which need correction. They are as follows: 1) The owner shall revise and resubmit a new recent improvement survey which shall include the following: a. Description of survey monuments found in set. b. Show existing fire hydrants. C. Call -out type of fence. d. Show parking spaces for Lot 4A. e. Signature and seal of surveyor. f. A ten -foot wide power line easement running north and south over the existing two-story frame house. 2) The owner, shall install a new water meter and remote meter reading register for the existing one-story frame house located on Lot 4A. 3) The owner shall install a new water meter and remote meter reading register for the existing two-story frame house located on Lot 5A. 4) The owner shall provide a ten -foot wide power line easement for existing overhead power line running north and south over existing two-story frame house. 5) Relocate existing wooden face fence located on Park Avenue back to within the property boundaries of Lots 4A and 5A. 6) The owner must record the new subdivision exemption plat showing the new lot boundaries for Lot 4A and 5A. 7) Provide a certificate for dedication of power line easements with certificates for the Mayor and the City Engineer. The Engineering Department's recommendation will be for approval for the above subdivision exemption request subject to the applicant correcting the above conditions. 0 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Dag McArthur, City Engineer -tftbn Stock, City Attorney FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office RE: Crystal Palace Subdivision Exemption - Preliminary Plat DATE: April 4, 1980 Attached please find resubmitted plat for the Crystal Palace Subdivision Exemption. The plat was not recorded within 90 days of the approval. This item is scheduled to come before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, April 22, 1980. Therefore, may I please have your written comments concerning this application no later than Wednesday, April 16, 1980. P.S. Dan, if you have problems with this schedule, let me know and we will change it to a later date -Carla. • • LAW OFFICES OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JORDAN LEONARD M. OATES RONALD D. AUSTIN J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, JR. WILLIAM R. JORDAN III ROBERT W. HUGHES RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH JAMES R. TRUE City Council City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 _march 25, 1980 Planning and Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen-Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Ladies and Gentlemen: AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 925-2600 We represent the Crystal Palace Corporation which is the owner of Lots 4, 5 and 6 of the Independence Subdivision. The property, which contains approximately 21,913 square feet is bounded by Dale, East Hopkins and Park Avenues. At the June 11, 1979 City Council meeting Council (a) adopted ordinance 31 series of 1979 which rezoned the property from R-15 to R-6 and (b) approved the recommen- dation of the Planning and Zoning Commission for a subdivision exemp- tion in connection with the creation of two larger parcels (Lots 4a and 5a) from the three smaller lots. This was done in order to enable the applicant to replace the existing single-family structure with a duplex to be used for employee housing purposes. By way of background we are enclosing a detailed staff memo prepared by Karen Smith of the Planning Office. The purpose of this application is to invite your reconsider- ation of the second of the two Council actions above -described (i.e., the subdivision exemption) as a result of Section 20-14(c) of the City Code, which provides: "Failure on the part of the subdivider to record the final plat within a period of ninety (90) days follow- ing approval by the city council shall render the plat invalid. Reconsideration and approval of the preliminary and final plat by the planning commission and city council respectively will be required before its accept- ance and recording." Due to several factors beyond the control of the applicant, including difficulty inlocating trust deed holders for purposes of obtaining their releases, the final plat showing the redrawn lot lines could not be recorded and, hence, was not recorded within the time period • 0 OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN Aspen City Council Planning & Zoning Comm. Planning Office March 11, 1980 Page Two required under Section 20-14(e). The Agreement between the City and the applicant setting forth the terms pertaining to the use and occupancy of the proposed duplex has been recorded. We are enclosing copies of the proposed subdivision plat. Needless to say, the original mylar of the plat will have to be revised in order to reflect a more current signature block for the City approval. We would appreciate an early setting on your agenda. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, OATES, �%USTIN, t By )4, RWH:mcg Enclosure GRATH & JORDAN .es MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Office RE: Independence Rezoning and Subdivision Approval DATE: May 10, 1979 There are two parts of this application. The first is a followup of the request for rezoning of Lots 4, 5 and 6 within the Independence Subdivision on Park Avenue. This matter was before you at a meeting on November 14, 1977, in the form of Ordinance 59, Series of 1977. The rezoning request was to change the zoning from R-15 to R-6, a more dense zone. It was brought by Mead Metcalf and was for the purpose of providing housing to accommodate his employees. The second part of this application involves a request for subdivision approval (given successful adoption of the rezoning) Under the subdivision request, Lots 4, 5 and 6 would be consoli- dated and reconfigured into two lots, Lot 4A and Lot 5A. The subdivision request is a simpler matter and therefore I will address it first, remembering, however, that the rezoning should be approved first. The Planning and Zoning Commission,,at their meeting on April 17, recommended approval of an exception from the full subdivision procedure and that a final plat be prepared incorporating the City Engineer's concerns and that that plat be forwarded to Council for final review. We anticipate comment from the City Engineer who is still reviewing the sufficiency of the final plat requirements. His preliminary comment has been that he has worked closely with the applicant and believes that the. plat will be certified ready for approval on Monday. The rezoning request has a much longer history which I will sum- 1977, the City Council tabled the marize briefly. On November 14, ordinance accomplishing the rezoning from R-15 to R-6. As mm }}yb���ack- ground, the Planning Office had originally rQcoQ d ar st the rezoning on the grounds that additional density in the area would aggravate the deficient circulation pattern in the Midland/Park Avenue area and that it would motivate adjacent proerty owners, particularly along the river. It warms generally thought that that area was unsuitable for higher density because of flood potential and because of the number of ponds located within that block. The Planning Office had argued that, although the surrounding zoning was R-6, that this particular block had been zoned to R-15 because it had been platted with larger lots and because of the unique natural characteristics previously mentioned. The Planning and Zoning Commission, however, responded to testimony by the applicant regarding his intent to provide employee housing and his record of having done so in the past. The P&Z felt that the impacts that would result on the neighborhood were e iL"7 a when contrasted with the spc,a 4 fit of providing additional oUs' for employees in the high quality tradition as has been character- istic of Mr. Metcalf's projects. Therefore, they recommended ap- proval to the City Council. They also felt that even if the adja- cent properties were zoned to R-6, that the effect of the floodplain and land under water provisions of the code would result in there not being substantial additional density anyway. Council was also sympathetic to the employee housing aspect of the program, but felt there was a need to ensure the employee housing characteristics would remain. tiAt that__t_in;e, the City was first exploring employee housin_ ari e and resale restr'ctions but had not settled on a definitive policy. In voting on the motion to table, the mayor commented that what Council was really trying to do was to define a PMH R-6, not a simple R-6. Aspen City Council Indcpendence Rezoning and Subdivision Approval May 10, 1979 The attached letter, dated February 28, 1979, from Bob Hughes, along with the draft agreement, is the result of considerable discussion among the applicant, the City Attorney, and myself. The agreement proposes restrictions on a new duplex to be built on Lot 4A. That duplex would involve three bedrooms and three baths per unit for a total of 1544 square feet of floor area per unit. occupancy is limited to persons of Low, Moderate and Middle Income as defined by the City's now defined housing income -eligi- bility guidelines provided that Metcalf's employees have first right of refusal to occupy the duplex. A unique proposal is then made that second right to use is reserved for faculty and/or students of the Aspen Music School. The rents are limited as well. They are limited to $270/month/tenancy with the tenancies being limited in number to six (or one per bedroom). Therefore, the maximum rental per unit will be $810 or $1620 for the entire duplex. This is consistent with the Middle Income Housing price uidelines. The appl� scant will also be able to raise the rents in accordance with the adopted housing price guidelines. The duration of time during which these price and occupancy restrictions shall apply is for a period of no less than ten years or for as long as the applicant shall own thee lan , whic ever is longer. The period of effect, therefore, is longer than that period of five years for which we have been typically conditioning approval of condominium conversions. These provisions have been reviewed and recommended for approval by the City Attorney. The Planning office has worked with the applicant to reduce the size of the duplex from the previous proposal of four bedrooms and four baths per unit, which we felt was too dense for the neighborhood and too luxurious for the ultimate date when the units would become free market units. Vole -also thought that the rental provisions in the previous proposal were too high having been proposed at a higher rate per tenancy with more tenancies allowed. while this__proposal does not comply with the t would pertain i this were a roved t o os n ov a zone, we do think that it goes a long way toward meeting the concerns that Council originally stated in November of 1977 and which the applicant has been working on since then. While this u_zit will eventually become a free market unit, it will not do so for the duration of the Metcalf's ownership and at a minimum for ten years, regardless of ownership. We recommend approval. KS/ss I r.' Recorded 11:30 AM April 11, 1980 Reception# Loretta Banner Recorder 22.321176 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this day of 1 , 1979, by and between the CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "City") and CRYSTAL PALACE CORPORATION, a Colorado corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "applicant"). W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the applicant is the owner of Lots 4, 5 and 6, Independence Subdivision, City of Aspen, Colorado upon which there are currently situate one (1) residential duplex and one (1) single family residence; and WHEREAS, the owner has applied to the City for the rezon- ing of the property above -described from R-15 to R-6 in order to permit the construction thereupon, in place of the single family residence, of a residential duplex in order to house a greater number of its employees; and WHEREAS, following the recommendation for approval of the application by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its meeting held November 1, 1977, the City has considered the rezon- ing application and is willing to grant the application, subject to the terms and conditions hereinbelow set forth; and, WHEREAS, the applicant is willing to accept the terms and conditions hereinbelow set forth and to enter into this agreement with the City. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties hereto stipulate and agree as follows: 1. Restrictions Upon Use, Occupancy and Rental. The residential duplex proposed to be constructed in conjunction with the rezoning of the property above -described shall, subject to CJ r: picoK 38 7 = 4 3 the remaining provisions of this agreement, be used, occupied and rented only as follows: a. Use and Occupancy. The duplex shall be used and occupied solely by low, moderate and middle income individual: as defined by Housing Income -Eligibility Guidelines established by the City Council of the City of Aspen within the provisions of Section 24-10.4(b)(3) of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen; PROVIDED HOWEVER, that employees of the applicant shall have the right first to use and occupy the duplex and faculty members and/or students of the Aspen Music School shall have the right second to use and occupy the duplex. b. Rental Structure. The rent payable under each tenancy created in the duplex shall not exceed $270.00 per month excluding utilities. The maximum number of tenancies that may be created in the duplex shall not exceed six, being the maximum number of bedrooms that may be constructed. Each year the applicant shall be entitled to adjust the monthly rent payable for a tenancy in the duplex in accordance with the provisions of Section 24-10.4(b)(3) of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. 2. Right to Monitor Use and Occupancy and Rental Restrictions. The City, through its duly appointed housing administrator, shall have the right periodically to inspect the duplex following its completion in order to insure that the premises are being used and occupied as set forth in para- gran 1(a) hereinabove, and the right periodically to request and receive from the applicant a list depicting the names, the names and addresses of their employers, the date upon which each of their respective tenancies commenced and are to expire, and confirmation of the rent they are paying, of each of the occupants of the duplex for the period set forth in such request. The provisions of this Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into each tenancy created in the duplex during the term hereof; and each tenant shall at the inception of his or her tenancy, be furnished with a copy of the executed original of this Agreement along with his or her lease agreement. -2- E 0 ;J. • NI G, J387 454 3. Minimum Period of Use, Occupancy and Rental Restric- tions. Anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding contained, the parties agree that the restrictions and covenants hereinabove set forth shall be a burden upon the land upon which the duplex is to be built for so long as the applicant shall own the land and, in any event, for a period of no less than ten years, regardless of who may own the land. 4. Binding Effect. The covenants and agreements of the applicant herein shall, to the extent hereinabove provided, be deemed covenants that run with the land upon which the duplex is to be built, shall burden the same and shall bind and be specif- ically enforceable against all present and subsequent owners thereof. Additionally, in the event of any violation or failure to perform under the terms of this Agreement for the period hereof the City shall have the right to treat each such violation or failure to perform as a violation of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen subject to the sanctions set forth in Section 24-13.5 thereof as, from time to time, it may be amended, in addition to any other remedies it may have at the time. 5. Approval of Rezoning. Upon execution and recording of this Agreement, and payment by the applicant of necessary recording fees, the City agrees to approve the applicant's appli- cation for the rezoning of Lots 4, 5 and 6, Independence Subdivi- sion from R-15 to R-6 and to execute any and all instruments or documents as may be required in connection therewith. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agree- ment the day and year first above written. JLTUST : Kathryn S och City' Cl.e THE CITY OF A�PEN -t By Stacy Standley, III, May r -3- 9 is � A87 4A55 ATTEST: STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) THE CRYSTAL PALACE CORPORATION, a Colorado corporation The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1979, by Stacy Standley, III, Mayor and 'Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk of THE CITY OF ASPEN. WITNESS my hand and official seal. r5 My Commission expires: Notary P blic STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,Lu1mbe*- 1979, by F. Mead Metcalf, President and l po yN L. Y1' P—Lo l , Secretary of THE CRYSTAL PALACE CORPORATION, a Colorado corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal. H �3 My Commission expires: �L) .� Notary /Public -4-