HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.Marolt Ranch Sub.1981-PD-1MEMO TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney
Sunny Vann, Planning Director
FROM: Carlyle Wood
DATE: June 25, 1981
RE: Marolt Ranch Park Dedication Fee
f_.~ ........ __. _.__ _. __ ...
~,
,~ O
desig wo~reshop;,na.O~i '= .
^415 s. spring
aspen, co 81611
~' ~ 303-925-8354 .: - __ ...,....
For purposes of completing the Marolt Ranch .Subdivision
Agreement, this memo will serve as documentation of 1) land value
and 2) fee calculation based on the discussion with City Council
at Final Plat approval on June 15, 1981.
Land Value
Based on research of recent comparables in the Aspen area, the
applicant assigned a per unit land 'value of $150,000 to each of
the 30 free market units. This yielded a total of $4,500,000.
Direct subsidies for the employee. unit construction are
calculated to be $500,000, which is then subtracted from the
total, leaving a net land value for the project at $4,000,000.
Fee Calculation
As per the formula in the City Code (Sec. 20-18) (Public
Dedications and Easements) the following calculations apply:
Current market value of land = $4,000,000
x Percent of total acreage (198) attributable to
free market Lot 2 (6.925 ac.) = 760,000
z One percent (1~) = 7,700
x Number of residents attributable to free market
portion of subdivision (75)* = 570,000
x Percent of free market lot (Lot 2) consumed by those
improvements which are not categorized as open
space or recreational amenities, specifically:
30 townhouses @ 1148 SF
per unit = 34,440 SF
Roadway to service these
dwellings = 33,360 SF
Total ground coverage = 67,800 SF
Total square footage of Lot 2
(6.925 ac.) = 301,653 SF
$ of lot coverage = .224
.?.24 x $570,000
Park Dedication Fee $127,680
*Note: Employee housing is classified as "moderate"
housing, and is therefore exempted from the
fee.
community development land planning landscape architecture
__ ~> £ ~
'she .Aspen `~irnes u cap-~.~.;-r~o~ I 1-~~~.~~~~-z~
Box E
Aspen, Colorado
PR®OF ®F PU~LlCATIOtd
STATF. of col,oaADO > Copy of Notice
) ss.
County of Pitkin )
I, 1~J; l.ii~lm R_ Tlnnaway do solemnly swear that ,
I am the -_p-y3i7-~1~eY' of THF. ASYEY TIn:ES; ~ -
that the same is a weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part,
and published in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and has '' ~ g ~ N E G ° a
d"s ~, ...~ Q'G ~n,
a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been pub- x ro m $°i ~~~ ^ ~- o~
lished continuously and tninte:xuptedly in said County of Pilkin, x ~ 6 dF g Ya eL
fora r
Period of more than tiftydwo consecutive weeks next prior ~ m ~ av~ ~ gQ;
to fire tirat publicatimr of the annexed legal notice or advertise- g~~~ ~ ~ ° ~
ment; that said newspaper has heen addmitted to the United States .,~ . v m ~ c ~N
mails as second-clnss matter under -the pr•oFisions ~ of the Act of m ~ ~ o ~v °~
March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof. and that said news- ~ o ~F'8 0 ~ v
a er is a weckl news a er dul ualificd for ublishin le al oa' ~ ~`" 'S
P P- Y P P Y 9 P g g 9, v ~-,~
notices and advertisements with the meaning of the laws of the °~a ~'-'".~o,
ti a>.3• u
State of Colorado. ~ v v a«YU ~, ~~
d
-,
That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published 'xd~~aw~c.~., a~
in the regular and entire issue of every number of said weekly
o °~.eca-°oev9'
newspaper for the period of ~ consecutive insertions; and .y r`., a~E 6~~:>~ ~ o
drat the first publication of said notice was in [he issue of said ,rl~ . g z d 6 m ~ ".~ > ; ^
newspaper dated Novgy~~~r 1vz_ A.ll., 19.~Q and that ~ m ~F ~ w ~N ~~~ a
the last Publication of said notice was in the issue of said news- O .~ ~ gN A~~°'~;b~ d
x : n i"="?
C m(oaye~
paper dated A.D., 19 _ . ~ ~ ~~ ~,~;~x. ;or
.gym $a~.c ~~-~~~' aJ o
/ /l ~ «m~U g"z'G-rm ~a~ c
Z~.-G7.G7.~~~/'i~ // /~ «~~C/~G"~'YL(/ I ~ ~ ~ Z n [St: -y ° ~ ~z yG i
iti w n¢ ~ h c:r
Subscribed and sworn to before me,. a notary public in and for
the C~oufnc~tyy//ojff/Fit~k/~i/nf,/fStale of Colorado, this ~_- day of
-~~~~rr~v-a-z4~L.~ A.D., 19 ~0
Notary Public ~~ ///
Tiy commission expires ~~~E~l~~~
NAMES M. MULLIGAN
PROPE SSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW
1x60 SEVENTEENTH STREET ~ SUITE 360
DENVER~COLO RADO 80202
1003)6>E~0800
JAMES M. MULLIGAN
Paul Taddune, Esq.
Aspen City Attorney
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
May 29, 1981
lj~~`~--~ ~~1
Yl. ~. ~ i
.~
~l~_.~uN ~ assn
ASPE~fV / Pi ~~K'lF~CO.
i~lANNtNG OFFiGE
CnRLe•MULLAW
te._..:.,,. _
Re: The Marolt Ranch PUD and Subdivision
Agreement
Dear Paul:
It was good to meet and further discuss with you the final-
ization of the PUD and Subdivision Agreement for the Marolt
Ranch Final Plat presentation scheduled for June 8, 1981.
Subsequent open work session meeting with City Council was
also of assistance in ascertaining the political perspective
and feedback as to concerns, approvals, and modifications that
may be required or desired for finalization of this agreement
and the plat.
To recap my understanding of matters covered at the meeting
that will require some attention in the current draft of the
PUD and Subdivision Agreement, I believe the following apply:
1. Zoning: In the recitation clauses on Page 1 of the
Agreement, the zoning should have reflected R-15A PUD SPA, in-
stead of just R-15A PUD.
2. City Parcel: The language on Page 3 should be suffi-
cient to indicate the intent of the parties with respect to the
access easements and restrictions necessary against the Thomas
property in order to allow for proper access to the platted
property. we had discussed your ascertaining what restric-
tions, if any, are currently against the Thomas property or at
least that portion of the Thomas property that is affected by
the alignment and extension of the Cemetery Lane Roadway across
i
Paul Taddune, Esq.
May 29, 1981
Page 2
82 to the newly named "Holden Road". we also discussed the
fact that there will need to be some form of easement document
drafted that will be placed against the Thomas property
creating the easement situation agreed to by the City in this
PUD Agreement.
3. Construction Scheduling: The original Exhibits C and
F were speaking to construction scheduling and percentage of
completion items, and those have been revised to contemplate
the changed construction scheduling discussed. Although you
did receive copies of these newly revised Exhibits, I further
enclose additional copies for your records. Additionally and
with respect to the assumption stated under the construction
schedule portion of the agreement (Page 5), you indicated a
desire to tie in those assumptions to the intent of the annex-
ation agreement, which allows for a time period within which
construction must be commenced, subject to delay based on the
financial market place. As you are aware, it is to our benefit
to pursue construction at the earliest possible time frame in
order to cap costs to the extent possible. All of the assump-
tions and the tying into the annexation agreement are in place
in order to clarify those items that can arise that would cause
justifiable deferrals in the construction schedule, and your
additional tie into the annexation agreement should not be
structured in a manner so as to interfere with the already
stated assumptions in the agreement.
Further and in connection with our concern to address the
completion of the employee units prior to the issuance of a
final certificate of occupancy on the free market units, we had
discussed the idea of placing temporary certificates of occu-
pancy against the free market units until such time as the em-
pldyee units are completed and ready for occupancy. Although
it is the intent of the owner and/or the owners assigns to
pursue this development on the basis of completing the employee
units first, as is shown by the construction schedule exhibit,
I had agreed to wayne's suggestion of placing a cancellation of
the temporary certificates of occupancy in the event the em-
ployee units are not completed by a date certain (i.e. April of
1983); provided, however, that such completion date will be
subject to extensions based upon events beyond the control of
the developer at the time. Although such extensions should be `"
allowed a normal circumstances, you indicated a concern that
this might be utilized as a vehicle to just continually defer
the completion of the employee units based on financial prob-
lems in the market place, while we complete the free market
units. Rather than attempt to put restrictions within
Paul Taddune, Esq.
May 29, 1981
Page 3
the build qut phase as to how many units must be completed in
each subproject at any particular time, it may be more appro-
priate to just pick a final date at which time the employee
units must be completed and only allow extensions at the sole
discretion of city council from that date.
4. Park Dedication Fees: It is my understanding that the
exemption from the park dedication fees as applied to the em-
ployee portion of the project still applies, but the City
Council does want the park dedication fee as applied to the
free market portion of the project to apply. With respect to
that fee amount, the utilization of the base formula derived
from Wayne Chapman's concept arrives at a dedication fee for
the free market portion of the project•of $16,666.66.
Discussions with Wayne indicated that this is the formula that
most likely would be applied to other smaller projects for
which the provision was originally drafted. In order to
prevent concerns with respect to equal protection, his formula
should be applied to the Marolt Ranch as well. For clarifi-
cation purposes, you may want to secure the details of the
formula as interpreted by Wayne from him, in order to just
place same within that same Article IV on Page 8 of the agree-
ment. I know that the formula is based on an assumption of a
$4 million value to the full tract, applying one sixth of that
value to the free market portion, and then utilizing the code
drafted formula as applicable to other projects to arrive at
the above park fee figure. I would expect that this fee and
its calculation will be included within Paragraph B of Article
IV on Page 8 of the agreement, and delete the necessity for an
additional Exhibit "G" as was originally anticipated in that
paragraph.
5. Open Space Preservation Management and Maintenance:
There was some discussion earlier in the day with respect to
the concern of active versus passive open space, since concept
of land in lieu of park dedication fee was being pursued at
that time. Since council is requiring a park dedication fee as
above referenced, there is no more concern with respect to the
"active versus passive" issue, and the requirements and re-
strictions placed upon the open space to be dedicated shall
remain. With respect to your concern about remedies accruing
to Marolt Associates or their assigns in the event the City
violates such open space restrictions, I would expect those to
remain, unless you can find other remedies with sufficient en-
forcement powers attached that will allow the proper safeguards
to the owners of the property.
Paul Taddune, Esq.
May 29, 1981
Page 4
6. Neil Beck (Lot 3): You indicated during the Council
work session that you did not understand the concept of
"leasing right of first refusal". That right was given to Neil
Beck in the event the City desired to utilize the property for
leasing purposes to outside parties. It is my understanding
from the work session that Council would not want to use the
property at all for any other leasing purposes but would allow
Neil Beck to remain on the property unless or until such time
as the City desires to take over the use of the property for
its own purposes. To my understanding, there is currently no
written lease in effect, and there may need to be some form of
signed letter of clarification either between Opal and Neil
Beck or between the City and fJeil Beck to further clarify the
rights of both parties initially addressed in this PUD and
Subdivision Agreement. The basic intent of the provision is to
allow Neil Beck the right to remain on the property unless and
until such time as City desires to utilize the property for its
own purposes. In the event you do not feel a leasing right of
first refusal is inappropriate here, then I would expect that
this paragraph will include further restrictions upon the City
leasiny the property through any other party outside of
Neil Beck, along with proper protections to the City that
Neil Beck does not have any rights to assign his interest in
his use of the property. For reference purposes, this matter
was brought up on Page 11 of the agreement.
7. water Rights and Availability: The work session
seemed to make clear the position of the City that no PIF fees
will be waived and are expected to be paid. There was an in-
dication of the City for us to pursue with them a request for a
deferral of the PIF fees for some predetermined period of time,
which deferral and payment terms could be evidenced in this
subdivision agreement itself. I will be attempting to contact
my clients to ascertain, from a cash flow standpoint, what
deferral plan might work best. Otherwise, I do understand that
the position of the City is not to waive any of the PIF fees or
tap fees in the project. The City does desire to receive suf-
ficient irrigation rights to take care of a portion of the open
space that requires irrigation, and I will be contacting our
water counsel with respect to the amount of such rights that
may be necessary. The remainder of the water rights accruing
to that ranch currently that will not be conveyed to the City,
will be retained by Marolt Associates and possibly ultimately
conveyed to third parties, as there is some value to those
rights.
Paul Taddune, Esq.
May 29, 1981
Page 5
8. Employee Developemnt-Title: Under Article VIII on
Page 17 of the agreement, language was inserted to attempt to
indicate to the City those circumstances under which the owner
may want-the City to hold title to the property, along with
sufficient protection language to the City to make it clear to
them they will not be liable for any concerns connected there-
with. Council indicated some concern that language be put in
there requiring further approval, at a later date, in the event
the employee units should be switched from rental to sale as
the event relates to the City taking title for property tax
purposes. This might be somewhat cumbersome to include, and I
am not sure that all parties understood the issue accurately.
The whole concept requiring the City to take title to the land
as that requirement applies to the property tax relief, is only
for the purpose of passing on that cost relief to the employee
who is renting or buying that unit. I am at a loss as to why
the concern was there, and possible clarifications by dis-
cussion might eliminate this concern, as a drafting of same not
only appears contrary to the City's goals with respect to the
cost of employee housing but also appeared quite cumbersome to
be able to properly place within the confines of the agreement
as desired.
9. Landscaping Assurances: As indicated, we will be
inserting into the agreement additional language with respect
to the landscaping assurances, to the extent necessary to meet
the provisions of the code requirements. You may want to draft
same yourself, but I will plan to have some provisions ready
when we meet next concerning this item.
In summary, the above appeared to be those items of dis-
cussion that occured requiring further attention to the PUD anc
Subdivision Agreement in terms of redrafting, amending, de-
leting, or changing. The above comments indicate the elim-
ination of Exhibit "G", which would result in a relettering of
those subsequent Exhibits. The Exhibit with respect to addi-
tional parking is available from Carly Wood at Design Workshop,
and the Exhibit with respect to the sewer tap figure is en-
closed herewith (letter from the Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation
District).
I trust the above covers the concerns, and I will look
forward to seeing you in the immediate future at which time we
may finalize the language of the agreement and move on to final
plat.
....
Paul Taddune, Esq.
May 29, 1981
Page 6
.r ..
v~
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me. Thank you for your attention.
Very truly yours,
JAMES M. MULLIGAN,
A Professional Corporation
Jame M. Mulligan
JMM:lap
Enclosures
cc: Bob Edmondson, ~~
/Sunny Vann
Cary Clark
Marolt Family
James w. Buchanan, III
Al Brandt
Jim Otis
Carly wood
-.
MEMO TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney
Sunny Vann, Planning Director
FROM: Carlyle Wood
DATE: June 25, 1981
RE: Marolt Ranch Park Dedication Fee
design
415 s. spring
aspen, co 81611
~" 30392b=8354•.._ :~..:....._.
!off
1 f )G~)~
/ PLTKIN CO.
H ,N(A.OFFICE
For purposes of completing the Marolt Ranch .Subdivision
Agreement, this memo will serve as documentation of 1) land value
and 2) fee calculation based on the discussion with City Council
at Final Plat approval on June 15, 1981.
Land Value
Based on research of recent comparables in the Aspen area, the
applicant assigned a per unit land value of $150,000 to each of
the 30 free market units. This yielded a total of $4,500,000.
Direct subsidies for the employee unit construction are
calculated to be $500,000, which is then subtracted from the
total, leaving a net land value for the project at $4,000,000.
Fee Calculation
As per the formula in the City Code (Sec. 20-18) (Public
Dedications and Easements) the following calculations apply:
Current market value of land = $4,000,000
x Percent of total acreage (198) attributable to
free market Lot 2 (6.925 ac.) = 760,000
x One percent (18) = 7,700
x Number of residents attributable to free market
portion of subdivision (75)* = 570,000
x Percent of free market lot (Lot 2) consumed by those
improvements which are not categorized as open
space or recreational amenities, specifically:
30 townhouses @ 1148 SF
per unit = 34,440 SF
Roadway to service these
dwellings = 33,360 SF
Total ground coverage = 67,800 SF
Total square footage of Lot 2
(6.925 ac.) = 301,653 SF
~ of lot coverage = .224
.224 x $570,000
Park Dedication Fee $127,680
*Note: Employee housing is classified as "moderate"
housing, and is therefore exempted from the
fee.
community development land planning landscape architecture
,,., ,..~
c ~ •cc: City Council
J~;rl 1981
TO: Paul Taddune CITY .4STOnFc',°- orir,F
FROM: Wayne Chapman
DATE: June 4~ 1981
SUBJECT: Park Dedication Fees - Marolt Project
After reviewing our history of Park Dedication fee collections
it is evident that the Marolt Project is the first of itsl~iaPPears
Park Dedication fact rrbasedeon thegnumbereofabedrooms,and
multiplied by s to figure the Park Dedication fees on
that there are two way data: Z
this project based on the fo~ ~~ng at $4000,000.
acres valued ~ ~~
1, The entire land area is ~- for Open
2Q.U gyres will be deeded over to the City
2• S~ s~ fees are assessed on that area.
X725 acres will be used for employee housing
3.
so no fees are accessed on that are
q, There will be thirty free market units each with three
. ~. 9z~
bedrooms built on 'ma'r ° - park Dedication fee, I would
oing to pay the
If the deve~eY lasgfollows:
calculate the fee = ~,~ ~ re
$ 4 ~ ~------ //3 ¢75
1, Value of Land =value/acre _~;.,f--
Total Acreage 35,25
acre X free market acreage = Land value of free market units
2. Value/ G 9Z 5
//~~~ x-CS = ~~~- 785, ~¢
free market units = base fee before bedroom
Multiplier
3. 1~ x La~~~ e of 7~~~
.O1 X ~ - \
q, 3 bedroom multiplier X base fee = Park Dedication Fee
_ $16,9n9
Z~x ~BSB ~ ~9, ~~
.u_.. .. ~~\..
`.n
~f
~. • \
If each individual unit owner were paying the fee, it would be
calculated slightly differently. Steps 1 and 2 would remain. the
same as if the developer were paying the fee. The rest of the
method would be as follows:
3. Land Value of Free Market Units = Land value per unit
number of free market units
7 _ 'S' 210 ~g¢
30
4. 1~ X land value per unit = base fee per unit before bedroom
multiplier
of x 2 _ ~ ZG/. 9¢
5. Base fee X Bedroom multiplier =park dedication fee per unit
Cy~pp CCCe nc
~Y~°.. ~.. X 2. 5 = v.~og ~ ~r
2~'/,9~ = G ~yC, S~'
6. Park dedication fee per unit X number of units = park dedication fee
~•~'~ ~ ~ ~~~~~. Sao
Since the fee is essentially the same under either method I would
use the figure 16,949 as the Park Dedication fee.
G"~
WC:ds
~~!Gt' 1~8~vC
~'s
X : ~~ X 2. S r'~•~•is '
/ ~~ X ~~
/
OZ5~~a„~U~s/~,~~
~_---
17.U,
s ~`,GfS
.~--
/~ v.
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
T0: PAUL TADDUNE-CITY ATTOP.NEY
FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS
SUBJECT: MAROLT RANCN PUD AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
DATE: APRIL 29, 1981
... Ai
5
•-~ "q 1 !
FJ~
~~1,~' ApR ~~ :a:.:~
`~ f ~~ _ _ , fl., ~,.
J
'"31y::~?~/iSi p ..i`a1%! 'Ji t 4 o~~i+ .: ,
I have reviewed the PUD and Subdivision Agreement for the Marolt Ranch and wish
to advise your office that we have never been consulted in regatds to any waiver
of PIF fees for PMH units and/or exchanges of the same for water rights. It is
my understanding that present City policy is that any proposed development is
required to dedicate those consumptive uses that would be associated with the
development project. And further, that any irrigation water needed for open space
associated with the project would be dedicated and reserved for this purpose.
Therefore, it seems to me that the developer is attempting, in this instance, to
trade off or exchange what he would normally be required to dedicate.
Secondly, the developer is given, by Muni Code, an in-city rate on his PIF fees
for bonifide PMH units. This property was recently annexed to the City and, in
effect, accomplishes the same thing. Therefore, the developer has already been
given a 50% credit on both PMH units and free market units by virtue of this
annexation. He has, in effect, saved $134,000. This $134,000 is money that
the Water Department will not realise for much needed improvements to the system.
Since the water rights in question are not useable by the Water Department, but
could be of use, perhaps, on the Golf Course or the Thomas property, it seems
appropriate that, should there be a consideration given for the water rights,
that the money for the acquisitions of said water rights come from Open Space
funds rather than Water Department funds.
In closing, it is my recommendation that prior to any further approvals of the
proposed PUD and 'Subdivision Agreement that further negotiations and discussions
be held in regards to this matter, I would appreciate having some input.
cc.~9unny Vann - Planning
Wayne Chapman - City Manager
John Musick - Musick, Williamson, Schwartz, Leavenworth and Cope, P.E.
Box 4579 Boulder, CO 80306
,.., ~-y-i ~, ..-
~S~Yd~ir~i ~.~~~lr~~ia~Y~ur .~arer~iilia~i'.•~iaGrul
565 NORTH MILL STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE M 925-2537
May 26, 1881
Carlie Wood
Design Work Shop
415 S. Spring
Aspen, Co 81611
To Whom it May Concern:
The estimated tap fee for the Marolt project based on 31 free market units
and 73 employee units plus a swimming pool and amenity building is $86,453-
These are current tap figures and can be subject to change in the future.
Sincerely
Heiko Kuhn, Manager
Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District
_- ~- ,
CLIENT: MAROLT ASSOCIATES )
MEMORANDUM
RE: WATER RIGHTS NEGOTIATIONS) OF
WITH CITY OF ASPEN ) POSITION
DATE: May 22, 1981 )
Within the on-going perspective of co-operative subsidy
between the City of Aspen and Marolt Associates in connection
with an attempt to provide employee housing within The Marolt
Ranch subdivision, have been discussions concerning the City's
willingness or non-willingness to apply the implementation of
its co-operative subsidy to assistance with the fees connected
with water-taps and plant investment fees. The basic premise
of Marolt Associates has been that waivers of such fees (water
tap and PIF) by the City through some allowed procedure will be
necessary in order for the employee housing project contemplated
within The Marolt Ranch to be successfully completed. To date,
discussions with personnel within the City, including varying
representatives of the City Attorney's office, the City Manag-
er's office, the City Planning Office, and the City Water
Department have indicated perspective that addresses the issue
of whether or not any water rights that The Marolt Ranch may
have appurtenant to it have any value, as opposed to the issue
of how can we accomplish a subsidy that will allow for a partial
~..
~. ,
or full waiver of these costs to the employee portion of the
project. Of course, this perspective does not allow for con-
structive discussion, but appears to place the context within
the inevitable "apples and oranges" status.
In an attempt to place a constructive perspective on the
issues, this office has done some further research with the
above-referenced personnel, the respective City Codes, and
herein will attempt to set forth The Marolt Associate's
approach, and some facts pertinent to the water situation.
1. CO-OPERATIVE SUBSIDY:
As indicated via previous discussions and correspond-
ence with City personnel, this water issue is being pursued
within the larger framework of a co-operative subsidy concept
originally discussed and agreed to between the City and Marolt
Associates. All parties were aware from the beginning that the
implementation of a quality employee housing project that would
fall within the pricing guidelines desired by the City required
the implementation of a "public-private partnership" that would
allow joint co-operation and subsidizing to allow for the
realization of such a project. The first stage of such co-op-
eration was the negotiation of adequate zoning densities to
allow Marolt Associates or assigns sufficient reasonable incen-
tive in purs~{it of the free market portion of the project to
justify an employee housing project that would itself be at
cost to the eventual developer
The oft quotetJ "Robin Hood"
-2-
~..~
i.../
concept of having the free market side of such a project "sub-
sidize" the employee side of such a project was a portion of
this contemplated arrangement, with the City's on-going commit-
ment to assist in this effort to the extent possible. Marolt
Associaties has pursued this effort throughout the platting
process, and via open space transfers, direct expenditures of
dollars for professionals to work with the City on a continuing
basis, direct cost subsidies projected for the project, land
transfers for the project itself at no cost, and related suo-
sidies has provided "Robin Hood" valued subsidies to the pro-
ject in excess of $2 Million. Much negotiation ensued to have
the City approving a free market site density that would allow
potential reasonable return to Marolt Associates, and tnis
density on the free market side has been a long and arduous
series of approvals, denials, reconsiderations, and justifica-
tions and ultimate reductions that make the above-referenced
"Robin Hood" subsidies questionable from an incentive stand-
point to Marolt Associates. Despite this, there has been an
indicated reluctance on the City's "part to provide any indirect
subsidies by way of waiver of fees, deferral of property tax
assistance, and related issues, requiring at the time of each
such request further negotiation, justification, and added
research that only encumbers Marolt Associates' subsidy by fur-
ther dollars and makes the free market incentive marginal at
best. It is within this context that Marolt Associates is
-3-
w~
~.r ,
regretably hearing again the City's reluctance to provide any
type of assistance in this cost-based area of water taps and
PIFs.
2. WATER ISSUE•
As above indicated, the request for partial or full
waiver of water taps or P_IFs is being pursued within the larger
perspective of cooperative subsidy, and in this context was
thought to be sufficient justification in and of itself.
Reluctance on the part of the City Water Department, the City
Planner's Office, the City Attorney's office and the City
Manager's uffice to address this as a viable issue has resulted
in the necessity to do further research in regard to this
particular issue. As a result, the following information is
provided:
A. Resolution No. 2, Series 1976 - This Resolution
appears to authorize the City Manager to acquire any water
rights which are appurtenant to land proposed for annexation,
subdivision; or development permit issuance. The method of
acquisition is left open to the City Manager, which may be by
gift, sale, lease, option, right of first refusal, or
otherwise. No provision is made for requiring land owners
without appurtenant water rights to purchase water rights for
dedication, or in lieu thereof to pay. cash. The City has
-4-
.-.
,~.,.
~#~
expanded this Resolution by interpretation, particularly when
considering the new water policy that has yet to be implemented
by the City. For example, in the event that the transferable
water rights are less than the anticipated consumptive use, the
City has required the developer to purchase other rights on the
open market and convey same to the City in order to make up a
deficit, or in the alternative, to do the same by way of cash
payment in lieu of water. There are some serious questions
about the viability of this approach, including the fact that
the policy is by resolution without the force and effect of an
ordinance, and the interpretation of such Resolution being
somewhat overbroad in nature. The method of acquisition in
such vague and indefinite format leaves open the possibility of
addressing the issue of "taking" of property without just
compensation.
B. Equal Treatment - With respect.to the PIF fees, we
have been informed that in-City units whether employee housing
or free market in nature, are charged a standard PIF rate.
Out-of-City free market units are assessed a 100% surcharge,
apparently because they do not contribute to the City's tax
basis. Opposed to this, however, is the fact that out-of-City
employee housing projects in the past have, at the discretion
of City Council, received a subsidy in the form of 50% credit
of fees. No such credit appears to apply to those units
located within the City. Does the reduced fee charged
-5-
~.
,~-
„~, .n
out-of-City employee housing units end up discriminating
against in-City employee housing units as to amount to a
violation of equal protection concepts?
Additionally, we have been informed that the City,
under certain limited circumstances in the past, has had the
City general fund pay the PIF fees Por a particular project,
thereby relieving the developer of such responsibility. The
specific instances have not been garnered yet, but requests for
research of same have been made and are being pursued. This is
a precedent setting issue and should be of import to the City
Council in determining direction.
Lastly, the City's own water plant housing project has
benefited from the City's awareness of the difficulties
associated with employee housing construction costs. The
project will pay no property taxes, and will be allowed to
defer the cost of its PIF fees over a number of years by note
execution or other appropriate arrangements. That project has
been substantially completed and is in the process of
occupancy, with no PIF fees paid and no specific arrangements
completed yet as to their deferred payment plan.
with the above facts in mind and the obvious "public
purpose" that is served by the construction of such employee
housing, there appears to me to be sufficient factual basis to
have the City address some assistance in this regard, even
beyond the previously committed co-operative subsidy approach
that the City has made to Marolt Associates in this project.
-6-
U
.~
In summary, the City has previously committed to Marolt
Associates to pursue a co-operative subsidy concept with this
project, and within that framework, Marolt Associates has
requested the City's assistance with the high cost of the water
related fees, since this is within the jurisdiction of the City
to pursue (i.e., as opposed to sewer tap fees). With such
perspective in mind, and the facts above enumerated, it appears
somewhat inconceivable for the City to be reluctant to approach
this concept in a co-operative posture.
-7-
r-„
n.-
y.._,
``Y EXHIBIT C
MAROLT RANCH
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Site Improvements
Employee Housing Units (Lot 1)
Free Market Units (Lot 2)
Site Work Aug. 1, 1981 - Oct. 1, 1 981
Mass Grading, Utilities Relocation,
Construction Access Roads
Employee Housing Units (Lot 1) Apr. 15, 1982 - Dec. 31, 1982
Site Utilities Apr. 15, 1982 - July 31, 1982
Building Excavation & Foundations May 1, 1 982 - June 3 0, 1 982
Superstructure & Exterior Closure June 1, 1982 - Oct. 15, 1982
Interior Construction & Finishes Aug. 1, 1982 - Dec. 31, 1982
Finished Site Development Aug. 1, 1982 - Oct. 31, 1982
Roads & Parking Areas,
Intersection Completion, Finish
Grading, Landscaping, Walks
Free Market Units (Lot 2) July 1, 1981 - July 31, 1983
Site Utilities May 1, 1982 -July 31, 1982
Building Phase 1 (11 Units) June 1, 1982 - Jan. 31, 1983
Building Excavation & foundations June 1, 1982 - June 30, 1982
Superstructure & Exterior Closure July 1, 1982 - Sep. 30, 1982
Interior Construction & Finishes Oct. 1, 1982 - Jan. 31, 1983
Finished Site Development Aug. 1, 1982 - Oct. 31, 1982
Roads & Parking Areas,
Finish Grading, Landscaping
Building Phase 2 (19 Units) Sep. 1, 1982 - July 31, 1983
Building Excavation & Foundations Sep. 1, 1982 - Sep. 30, 1982
Superstructure & Exterior Closure Oct. 1, 1982 - Dec. 31, 1982
Interior Construction & Finishes Jan. 1, 1983 - Apr. 30, 1983
Finished Grading, Landscaping May 1, 1983 - July 31, 1983
Roads & Parking Areas,
Finish Grading, Landscaping
,~.
i.r
- ~ EXHIBIT F
MAROLT RANCH ~''
SITE IMPROVEMENT PERCENTAGE COMPLETION SCHEDULE
Item
1. Approval of Final Plat
2. Advertise for Bids
3. Anticipated Award of
Site Improvements
Contracts
4. Notice to Proceed
Time Period
June 8, 1981
July 6, 1981
July 24, 1981
Aug. 1, 1981
5. Red Butte Cemetery
Pipeline Relocation
6. Construct .Temporary
Marolt Ditch
7. Rough Grading, Free
Aug. 1 - Aug. 10, 1981
Aug. 1 - Aug. 10, 1981
Market & Employee Aug. 1 - Sep. 30, 1981
8. Holden Road Rough
Grading & Placement of
24' Width of Base Course Aug. 1 - Aug. 31, 1981
9. Electric & Telephone
Relocation, Free Market July 1 - July 31, 1981
10. Remainder of Electric
& Telephone Relocation Aug. 1 - Aug. 31, 1981
11. Holden Ditch Relocation Sep. 1 - Oct. 1, 1981
12. Installation of Sewer &
Water, Free Market May 1 - June 30, 1982
13. Installation of Sewer &
Water, Employee Apr. 15 - May 31, 1982
14. Installation of Remainder
of Sewer & Water May 15 - July 31, 1982
15. Installation of Underground
Electric, Telephone, TV,
Gas Lines, Free Market 8
Employee June 1 - July 31, 1982
-.,,
~..i
Percentage of Guaranty,
Guaranty Release Date
11%, September 1981
3%, October 1981
31%, August 1982
f^
ir./
- a-~ EXHIBIT F
MAROLT RANCH
SITE IMPROVEMENT PERCENTAGE COMPLETION SCHEDULE (continued)
Item
16. Finish Grading &
Drainage Improvements,
Free Market Phase 1 &
Employee
17. Intersection Work
18. Finish Grading, Base
Course Placement & Paving:
Free Market Phase 1 &
Employee
Time Period
Aug. 1, 1982 - Aug. 31, 1982
Aug. 1, 1982 - Sep. 30, 1982
Percentage of Guaranty,
Guaranty Release Date
30%, October 1982
Aug. 1, 1982 - Sep. 30, 1982
19. Landscaping, Free Market
Phase 1 & Employee Oct. 1, 1982 - Oct. 31, 1982 15%, November 1982
20. Finish Grading, Base
Course Placement & Paving,
Free Market Phase 2 May 1, 1983 - June 30, 1983
21. Landscaping .
Free Market Phase 2 June 1, 1983 - July 31, 1983 10%, August 1983
r-+
\.r
s
JAMES H. NllLLIOAN
V ICEI JO ED WANDS
JAMES M. MULLIGAN
PROPESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW
1060 SEVENTEENTH ST REEi ~ SUiTE 360
DENVE R, COLORADO 00202
1000161E-0000
Paul Taddune, Esq.
Aspen City Attorney
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Paul:
May 20, 1981
,, f
ii: :"; O Q
i I ~, )) 7J 1. ~DLE MUL~W
, t., -.~
Re: The Marolt Ranch
Revisions to P.U.D. and
Subidivision Agreement
Pursuant to earlier discussions and meetings amongst your-
self, Bob Edmondson, Sonny Vann, Wayne Chapman, Jim Markalunas
and myself, I enclose herewith the revised "P.U.D. and Subdivi-
sion Agreement for The Marolt Ranch". The issues discussed and
changes agreed to have been attempted to be incorporated into
the Agreement, and attempts to address other issues have been
made in a manner that intends to either clarify the client's
position, or resolve matters discussed. Although the copy of
the enclosed Agreement is "red-lined" for ease of your review
in connection with the original draft, following is the think-
ing behind some of the issues amended, changed or retained in
the same fashion.
1. City Parcel: On Page 3, Article I (i) has been amended
to attempt to reflect the agreements of the City with respect
to that portion of the Thomas property that will be necessary
for the extension of Cemetery Lane, the extension of the Main
Street right-of-way, and the creation of necessary restrictions
against this property to insure access to the platted property.
2. Sharing of Maintenance: On Page 4, in the paragraph
immediately preceding Article II, additional language was added
to attempt to address the intent of the parties to have
on-going maintenance costs, unless specifically provided other-
wise in the contract, shared in the manner that is reflective
of the resulting use of such facilities to which the costs
apply. I understood one of the issues presented by yourself or
Bob was a concern that the costs of on-going maintenance of the
employee housing development may be such as to add a layer of
costs in excess of the pricing guidelines. As discussed, and
Paul Taddune, Esq.
Aspen City Attorney
May 20, 1981
Page 2
as the Agreement reflects, we understand that the employee
housing development is subject to the pricing guidelines, and
to the extent that said project can be built and operated with-
in said guidelines, it will be done. In the event that properly
allocated costs or charges should result in those pricing
guidelines being potentially breached, then, at that time,
either a reduction in the services or maintenance will be made
or a request to the City will be made to allow for an amendment
of the pricing guidelines in that particular respect. Although
it is everybody's intention to build and operate the project
within the pricing guidelines indicated, both the City and the
owner from either experience or research are aware that no
accurate "crystal balling" can be guaranteed.
3. Simultaneous Construction: On Page 6 in the paragraph
immediate preceding Article III, language was added to address
your concern with respect to the requirement of substantially
simultaneous construction of the employee units along with the
free market units. This was done in a manner to reflect the
intent of the parties to follow such simultaneous construction,
with the pragmatic allowance for minor variances to conform to
construction schedules and efficiencies. To insert a specific
number of days beyond which would breach the "minor variations"
issue only invites an arbitrary framework that is not in rela-
tion to any particular time that reflects experience in con-
struction scheduling or particular attention to the anticipated
structured management of this particular project.
4. Land Dedication/"Passive" Open Space: Although some
changes were made to Article IV on Page 8 to reflect the intent
of the parties to deem the employee housing development a mod-
erate income housing development, and to provide more specifics
by way of exhibit as to the value formula utilized for land
dedication purposes, the open space restrictions remain sub-
stantially the same as originally drafted, again with the
thought in mind that the City (both P&Z and Council) have pur-
sued the reservation of such open space in a manner that is
intended to reflect its passive nature. To the extent that any
internal agencies or staff within the City may disagree with
this policy, it would occur to me incumbent upon them to
resolve their own inconsistency internally in a manner that
would reflect a continuation of the City's overall consistent
policy with this particular project, which is to maintain the
largest amount of passive open space possible. This issue has
been a major issue in the project and resulted in an approxi-
mate one year delay because of constant relocation of the
. ..
Paul Taddune, Esq.
Aspen City Attorney
May 20, 1981
Page 3
employee housing development in
tion of the "entrance to Aspen"
and to allow the reservation of
possible. To attempt to amend
internal code justifications at
be inconsistent with the spirit
tives during this process.
a manner that allows the reten-
in the maximum manner possible
as much passive open space as
this philosophy because of some
this late date appears to me to
and letter of the City's direc-
5. Neil Beck Rights: Under Article V, Paragraph B 5, on
Pages 10-11, additional language was added to attempt to more
specifically address the nature of the rights that accrue to
Neil Beck in his current possession of•the Lot 3 land therein
referenced.
6. Roadwa Im rovement Maintenance: Under Article V,
Paragraph D 3 a a specific a location is made as to the
on-going maintenance and care of Holden Road (interim roadway
improvements) based upon the 70/30 housing mix. Although I do
add some language in there with respect to allowance to provide
a different formula reflecting equitable use, I would suggest
that any addressing of equitable use may result in more burdens
to the employee housing development. For example, a stretch of
Holden Road beginning with the entrance to the free market pro-
ject and running all the way down to the employee housing
development cul de sac should equitably be maintained 100% by
the employee housing development, and the stretch of roadway
beginning with the Cemetery Lane intersection with Highway 82
and running to the entrance to free market units should be
split on a 70/30 basis if one looks at the use allocation as it
should apply on a per unit basis. This would appear to be
somewhat more onerous than the 70/30 split indicated in the
Agreement, although it is probably more reflective of an equit-
able arrangement that addresses actual use.
7. Title to Employee Development Land: This issue has
been more particularly addressed under a new Article VIII on
Page 17 in an attempt to set the parameters around which the
City would accept title to such land to assist in the efforts
of improving and maintaining the employee housing project.
8. Price Guidelines: A new Article IX on Page 18 has been
added to attempt to address the pricing guideline restrictions
and how they would work with this particular project, along
with adjustments to such pricing guidelines that would be
reflective of at least the most recent adjustment formula
utilized with such guidelines.
. ~,
.~
Paul Taddune, Esq.
Aspen City Attorney
May 20, 1981
Page 4
In addition to the above more major items, the issues of
additional parking, short-term rental restrictions, and deed
restrictions are covered by adding new sections, XI, XII, and
XIII, respectively, to the Agreement on Page 20.
You will note that the provisions addressing water rights,
their value, and potential trading have remained the same. As
indicated earlier, it is the undersigned's firm and continuing
belief that those areas that allow for City subsidy should be
addressed in a substantive manner in order to allow the
employee housing development to move forward without greatly
sacrificing the quality of the resulting product. I have
enclosed herewith some additional material relative to the
water rights issue, and would again urge the City to consider
this issue as a material one to the success of the employee
project.
It will be appreciated if you will cause an expeditious
review of the enclosed Agreement. Upon your review, and should
you find any matters of material concern to you, please
re-draft that particular concern and submit to me for review.
As you are aware, we have a brief time within which to cause
the finalization of this Agreement, and the extent to which
same can be done in the immediate future will assist us in
pursuing the time schedules necessary to attempt cost-effective
pursuit of matters herein contained.
Thank you for your attention.
Very truly yours,
JAMES M. MULLIGAN,
A Professional Corporation
James M. Mulligan
JMM:cdw
Enclosures
cc: Bob Edmondson, Esq.
Sonny Vann
Cary D. Clark
The Marolt Family
James w. Buchanan, III
Al Brandt
James Otis, Jr.
f
d s
CLIENT: MAROLT ASSOCIATES )
RE: WATER RIGHTS NEGOTIATIONS)
WITH CITY OF ASPEN )
DATE: May 22, 1981 )
MEMORANDUM
OF
POSITION
within the on-going perspective of co-operative subsidy
between the City of Aspen and Marolt Associates in connection
with an attempt to provide employee housing within The Marolt
Ranch subdivision, have been discussions concerning the City's
willingness or non-willingness to apply the implementation of
its co-operative subsidy to assistance with the fees connected
with water taps and plant investment fees. The basic premise
of Marolt Associates has been that waivers of such fees (water
tap and PIF) by the City through some allowed procedure will be
necessary in order for the employee housing project contemplated
within The Marolt Ranch to be successfully completed. To date,
discussions with personnel within the City, including varying
representatives of the City Attorney's office, the City Manag-
er's office, the City Planning Office, and the City Water
Department have indicated perspective that addresses the issue
of whether or not any water rights that The Marolt Ranch may
have appurtenant to it have any value, as opposed to the issue
of how can we accomplish a subsidy that will allow for a partial
~.
_~
y
or full waiver of these costs to the employee portion of the
project. Of course, this perspective does not allow for con-
structive discussion, but appears to place the context within
the inevitable "apples and oranges" status.
In an attempt to place a constructive perspective on the
issues, this office has done some further research with the
aoove-referenced personnel, the respective City Codes, and
herein will attempt to set forth The Marolt Associate's
approach, and some facts pertinent to the water situation.
1. CO-OPERATIVE SUBSIDY:
As indicated via previous discussions and correspond-
ence with City personnel, this water issue is being pursued
within the larger framework of a co-operative subsidy concept
originally discussed and agreed to between the City and Marolt
Associates. All parties were aware from the beginning that the
implementation of a quality employee housing project that would
fall within the pricing guidelines desired by the City required
the implementation of a "public-private partnership" that would
allow joint co-operation and subsidizing to allow for the
realization of such a project. The first stage of such co-op-
eration was the negotiation of adequate zoning densities to
allow Marolt Associates or assigns sufficient reasonable incen-
tive in pursuit of the free market portion of the project to
justify an employee housing project that would itself be at
cost to the eventual developer. The oft quoted "Robin Hood"
-2-
. ,,,,
• ~. ,
concept of having the free market side of such a project "sub-
sidize" the employee side of such a project was a portion of
this contemplated arrangement, with the City's on-going commit-
ment to assist in this effort to the extent possible. Marolt
Associaties has pursued this effort throughout the platting
process, and via open space transfers, direct expenditures of
dollars for professionals to work with the City on a continuing
basis, direct cost subsidies projected for the project, land
transfers for the project itself at no cost, and related suo-
sidies has provided "Robin Hood" valued subsidies to the pro-
ject in excess of $2 Million. Much negotiation ensued to have
the City approving a free market site density that would allow
potential reasonable return to Marolt Associates, and this
density on the free market side has been a long and arduous
series of approvals, denials, reconsiderations, and justifica-
tions and ultimate reductions that make the above-referenced
"Robin Hood" subsidies questionable from an incentive stand-
point to Marolt Associates. Despite this, there has been an
indicated reluctance on the City's part to provide any indirect
subsidies by way of waiver of fees, deferral of property tax
assistance, and related issues, requiring at the time of each
such request further negotiation, justification, and added
research that only encumbers Marolt Associates' subsidy by fur-
ther dollars and makes the free market incentive marginal at
best. It is within this context that Marolt Associates is
-3-
.~..
4
regretably hearing again the City's reluctance to provide any
type of assistance in this cost-based area of water taps and
PIFs.
2. WATER ISSUE:
As above indicated, the request for partial or full
waiver of water taps or PIFs is being pursued within the larger
perspective of cooperative subsidy, and in this context was
thought to be sufficient justification in and of itself.
Reluctance on the part of the City water Department, the City
Planner's Office, the City Attorney's office and the City
Manager's Office to address this as a viable issue has resulted
in the necessity to do further research in regard to this
particular issue. As a result, the following information is
provided:
A. Resolution No. 2, Series 1976 - This Resolution
appears to authorize the City Manager to acquire any water
rights which are appurtenant to land proposed for annexation,
subdivision, or development permit issuance. The method of
acquisition is left open to the City Manager, which may be by
gift, sale, lease, option, right of first refusal, or
otherwise. No provision is made for requiring land owners
without appurtenant water rights to purchase water rights for
dedication, or in lieu thereof to pay cash. The City has
-4-
expanded this Resolution by interpretation, particularly when
considering the new water policy that has yet to be implemented
by the City. For example, in the event that the transferable
water rights are less than the anticipated consumptive use, the
City has required the developer to purchase other rights on the
open market and convey same to the City in order to make up a
deficit, or in the alternative, to do the same by way of cash
payment in lieu of water. There are some serious questions
about the viability of this approach, including the fact that
the policy is by resolution without the force and effect of an
ordi-Hance, and the interpretation of such Resolution being
somewhat overbroad in nature. The method of acquisition in
such vague and indefinite format leaves open the possibility of
addressing the issue of "taking" of property without just
compensation.
e. Equal Treatment - With respect to the PIF fees, we
have been informed that in-City units whether employee housing
or free market in nature, are charged a standard PIF rate.
Out-of-City free market units are assessed a 100% surcharge,
apparently because they do not contribute to the City's tax
basis. Opposed to this, however, is the fact that out-of-City
employee housing projects in the past have, at the discretion
of City Council, received a subsidy in the form of 50% credit
of fees. No such credit appears to apply to those units
located within the City. Does the reduced fee charged
-5-
,~.,
,~
.. y
out-of-City employee housing units end up discriminating
against in-City employee housing units as to amount to a
violation of equal protection concepts?
Additionally, we have been informed that the City,
under certain limited circumstances in the past, has had the
City general fund pay the PIF fees for a particular project,
thereby relieving the developer of such responsibility. The
specific instances have not been garnered yet, but requests for
research of same have been made and are being pursued. This is
a precedent setting issue and should be of import to the City
Council in determining direction.
Lastly, the City's own water plant housing project has
benefited from the City's awareness of the difficulties
associated with employee housing construction costs. The
project will pay no property taxes, and will be allowed to
defer the cost of its PIF fees over a number of years by note
execution or other appropriate arrangements. That project has
been substantially completed and is in the process of
occupancy, with no PIF fees paid and no specific arrangements
completed yet as to their deferred payment plan.
With the above facts in mind and the obvious "public
purpose" that is served by the construction of such employee
housing, there appears to me to be sufficient factual basis to
have the City address some assistance in this regard, even
beyond the previously committed co-operative subsidy approach
that the City has made to Marolt Associates in this project.
-6-
,~ _.
In summary, the City has previously committed to Marolt
Associates to pursue a co-operative subsidy concept with this
project, and within that framework, Marolt Associates has
requested the City's assistance with the high cost of the water
related fees, since this is within the jurisdiction of the City
to pursue (i.e., as opposed to sewer tap fees). with such
perspective in mind, and the facts above enumerated, it appears
somewhat inconceivable for the City to be reluctant to approach
this concept in a co-operative posture.
-7-
w,ww
P.U.D. AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
FOR
THE MAROLT RANCH
City of Aspen
State of Colorado
. .. .
,,.~
P.U.D. AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
FOR
THE MAROLT RANCH
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Section I. General Development Plan 2
Section II. Construction of Improvements 4
Section III. Easements, Rights of Way, and Relocations 6
Section IV. Dedications 8
Section V. Open Space and Common Area Management,
Maintenance and Use 8
Section VI. water Rights and Availability 16
Section VII. Sewer Availability 17
Section VIII Employee Development - Title 17
Section IX. Employee Ha using - Price Guidelines 18
Section X. Financial Assurances 19
Section XI. Additional Parking 20
Section XI I. Restrictions on Short-Term Rentals 20
Section XIII. Deed Restrictions 20
Section XIV. Miscellaneous 21
Exhibit A Legal Description
Exhibit B Table of Site Data Tabulation
Exhibit C Construction and Development Schedule
Exhibit D Improvement Responsibility Schedule
Exhibit E Relative Water Rights and Fee Values
Exhibit F Improvement Completion Percentage Schedule
. ' - F.~
..,~
P.U.D. AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
FOR
THE MAROLT RANCH
This P.U.D. and Subdivision Agreement is made and entered
into this day of 1981 by and between THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO, a Municipal Corporation, (hereinafter
referred to as "City"), and MAROLT ASSOCIATES, a Colorado
general partnership (hereinafter referred to as "the Owner").
W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, the Owner has submitted to the City for approval,
execution and recordation, the final plat and development plan
of a tract of land situate within the City of Aspen, Colorado,
legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference, and designated as "The Marolt Ranch
Subdivision" ("The Plat"); and
WHEREAS, the City has caused the rezoning of the real prop-
erty covered by said Plat so as to result in a zoning of R-15A
PUD and providing for certain exemptions and special review
processes; and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered said Plat, the pro-
posed development and the improvement of the land therein, and
the burdens to be imposed upon other adjoining or neighboring
properties by reason of the proposed development and improvement
of land included in the Plat; and
WHEREAS, the City is willing to approve, execute, and
accept for recordation that Plat upon agreement of the Owner to
the matters hereinafter described, and subject to all of the
requirements, terms and conditions of the City of Aspen PUD and
subdivision regulations now in effect and other laws, rules and
regulations as are applicable; and
WHEREAS, the City in a ordance _with thi~P U D anri S~~
division Agreem~~,,, has imposed certain conditions and require-
ments in connection with its approval, execution and recordation
of the Plat, and such matters are necessary to protect, promote,
and enhance the public welfare; and
WHEREAS, under the authority of Section 20-16 (C) and
24-8.6 of the Municipal Code of the City, the City is entitled
to assurance before accepting the final Drat that the matters
hereinafter agreed to will be faithfully performed by the
Owner; NOW, THEREFORE,
IN CONSIDERATION OF THE PREMISES, the mutual Covenants
herein contained, and the approval, execution and acceptance of
the Plat-for recordation by the City, it is mutually agreed as
follows:
I.
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The Marolt Ranch development as shown on the attached Plat
is composed of various elements comprising the total platted
area, and those elements include the following:
A. Lot 1 - Shall constitute the "employee housing" or
"deed restricted" development as is further referenced herein-
after, which parcel may at Owner's option, be transferred to
the City in conjunction with a long term lease-back of the
ground to Marolt Associates or assigns for improvement and
development, as more specifically ref@rgnGed under Sact;nn vTrr
herein:
B. Lot 2 - Shall constitute the "free market development"
as further referenced hereinafter, and shall be owned, improved,
marketed and sold by the Owner;
C. Lot 3 - This parcel, as shown on the Plat, Sha1L be
dedicated to the City for.,l S use, which use includes the pos-
sibility of leasing said parcel to Neil Beck by way of a leas-
ing right of first refusal; provided, however, that certain
use, maintenance and management standards are mutually agreed
to between the City and the Owner as further set forth under
Article_V herein;
D. Lots 4-6 - Shall be subject to restricted sale by thg,
Owner~o~ie free adjacent property owners.,. such restr~ctio~5
e~in~ded within the conveyance document. shall be in the
prohibition of a~ build_ng improvem~nt~_~_s~~rh tank, an.;
s~ia17 ~r~~er_s_EiQulate _that th~e___owner receiving. such lands
shall receive_no_chang_e_o_r increase n_d,eve~opmen~__riptitsbv
virtue of the added acreage resulting .from such conv~ance;
E. Open Space 1 - Shall be dedicated to the City for open
space in perpetuity, with specific management, maintenance and
-2-
use guidelines satifactory to the Owner as further set forth
herein;
F. Open Space 2 - Constitutes the river corridor and shall
be dedicated to the City for open space in perpetuity with
specific management, maintenance, and use guidelines within
the context of maintaining river corridor conservation lands,
as further set forth herein;
G. Cemetery Lane R.O.W. - Shall constitute the Cemetery
Lane extension providing for 100' right of way dedicated to the
City for a future roadway alignment between State Highway No.
82 and Castle Creek Road as further shown on the Plat;
H. Main Street R.O.W. - Shall constitute the Main Street
extension equalling a 150' right of way dedicated to the City
of Aspen for future road alignment of such possible Main Street
extension, as is further shown on the attached Plat.
I. City Parcel - The currently owned City parcel,_commonly
kno _ _ omes`-pioper~y';"located co'- n~iguous and immed-
ia~eTy to the west of the platted property, shall be made sub-
je~such easements and/or restrictions, as required, to
~w for-its use for the alignment of Cemetery Lane_at_the
n ersec~ibn of -Hi4~iway 82 ahd its extension for connectiorLt~
__
t~metery Lane right-of-way referenced_hereinabove~ the ,
necessary reservation of property to extend the connection_to
the above referenced Main Street right-of-way, and such addi-
i of nai-open space restrictions as amply to__O~en S_pace~_N_umber~
_ _~_____
hereinabove referenced o those portions oP_._s._aid_Cty parcel
that l~between the Cemetery Lane alignment, the Main Street
ri ht-of-way extension and the subject_~roperty Such
-
res r`ction shall be in a_form_and manner as to insstre_pro9g~
access_to the subje~ pproPer~y over and acr_o_s_s the__City_ parcel
or title insurance ur oses and to further allow_for_the con-
struction of the alignment of_Cemetery Lane and _t~__f__ui: tr~._
ex en~si as further referenced herein.
For further and more specific allocation of the uses antic-
ipated within the various parcels indicated above, reference is
hereby made to the "Table of Site Data Tabulations" attached
hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference.
The submitted Plat anticipates, in major part, the improve-
ment of the lands by the construction of two distinct develop-
ments, one of which shall be deed or covenant restrictive in
accordance with the provisions of Section 24-11.4(b)(3) of the
Municipal Code as those provisions apply to low, moderate and
middle income housing, and to the extent those provisions allow
for exceptions from the growth management quota system pursuant
-3-
to Section 24-11.2(i) of the Municipal Code, and the second
portion of said development shall be improved as a "free market"
development. It is further acknowledged that although the
ownership of the land beneath the two developments may be
distinct as referenced, the construction and ownership of the
improvements for both developments will be under the auspices
of the Owner.
In consideration of the dual nature of the two developments
which constitute a major portion of the improvements anticipated
on the enclosed plat, cost allocations for the projects will
need to be made for the improvements and resulting costs indi-
cated under this P.U.U. and Subdivision Agreement. The parties
hereto acknowledge that a general guideline for cost allocation
and proration shall follow the relationship of each develop-
ment's number of units to the total number of units approved
for development upon the Plat. In connection herewith, it is
currently understood and agreed that the deed or covenant
restricted development shall constitute units equaling 70 per-
cent of the total number of units approved on the Plat, and the
free market development shall constitute 30 percent of the
total number of units approved on the Plat. For purposes of
specificity, the cost allocations for the improvements required
hereunder are further set forth on Exhibit "D" attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference, and the parties
hereto mutually accept such allocations. Additionatty ;t ;s
anticipated that certain on-going costs of maintenance, repair,
anu replacement or certain or the im~royements_to_b_~ R13~d on
the subject will be appropriate for "sharing" bctJV~e~_T.l]e__t_wn_
developments above-referenced. Notwithstanding the~b,ove
guideline and unless specifically provided for otherwise
ments shall be based upon an equitable formula which_is reflec-
ive o e amount df usage normally attributable to each
eye_opmen as o suc 1mprOV2mE~
II.
CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS
A. Nature and Estimated Costs of Improvements: - Owner
hereby agrees to be responsible for the constructiIIiL and
installation of the improvements to be contained within the
developments indicated on the attached plat, to the extent
required by Section 20-16(A) of the Municipal Code, the nature,
extent and estimated cost of such improvements (along with
their allocation between the two developments contained on the
attached plat) being more specifically set forth on Exhibit
"D", entitled "Improvement Responsibility Schedule", attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The costs
-4-
~_ ,
...-
shown on Exhibit "U" as referenced, are based on certain
assumptions, including assumptions related to the timing of
final plat approval, expeditious and timely scheduling of con-
struction, no substantial delays based on acts of God and other
matters beyond the control of the owner or its assigns, avail-
ability of required labor and materials continuously throughout
the construction of improvements, non-interruption of the con-
struction operations through the 1981-82 winter season, and
sufficient premarketing and marketing activity to justify
timely construction of the improvements consistent with the
schedule referenced under paragraph B hereinbelow. S~ h o 5
may require amendment in the event any delay should occur as a
- --
result of said assumptions proving false despite good faith
efforts of the owner or assigns; provided, however, that such
cos a Jus men s s~iar~no~a~fe~he price guideline restric-
development as further set forth un
B. Construction Schedule - The development and construction
schedule required by Section 20-16(C)(1), and Section 24-8.9(B)
of the Municipal Code are more specifically set forth under
Exhibit "C", entitled "Construction and Development Schedule",
which schedule also includes the anticipated construction dates
for the beginning and completion of the improvements, the
sequence of construction and phasing, including the phasing of
the construction of public improvements, recreational, park,
and common space areas. Certain assumptions have been made in
connection with the projected and estimated scheduling set
forth in Exhibit "C" and said scheduling is subject to and con-
ditioned upon those assumptions being accurate, which assump-
tions include the following:
1) Final approval of the plat submitted herewith
along with all other documentation related thereto, and record-
ation of said final plat prior to July 1, 1981:
2) Negotiation, arrangement and completion of pre-
construction activity by owner or owner's assigns, including
bidding, contractor selection, and contractor mobilization
prior to the projected starting date of August 1. 1981:
3) Ratification of the estimated constuction and
development schedule by the selected contractors;
4) Immediate availability of the required labor
forces and construction materials at all necessary phases
throughout the project;
5) Non-interruption of the construction operations
through the 1981-1982 winter months; and
6) Pre-marketing and marketing activity with respect
to the free market units at a rate which would justify the con-
struction schedule indicated, without the necessity of con-
structing and completing units on speculation.
-5-
In the event the above assumptions are not met because of
any actions, direct or indirect, which are in any manner or
form not under the direct control of the owner or the owner's
assigns, then the estimated construction and development
schedules shall be deemed to be delayed for a time sufficient
to allow for the necessary assumptions to be met.
Further, and in connection with the above-referenced "con-
struction and development schedule", it is the intention and
agreement of the owner or assigns, and a material requirement
under this agreement, that the construction and development of
the free market development and the "employee housing" or "deed
restricted" development occur in a substantially simultaneous
fashion, so as to result, to the extent reasonably appropriate,
in a substantially simultaneous issuance of certificates of
occupancy as between the two developments. Minor variances
from such simultaneous construction and issuance of certificates
of occupancy shall be allowed in order to accommodate efficiency
of construction scheduling, individual building construction,
and related matters, but in no event shall a permanent certifi-
cate of occupancy be issued on all of the free market units
until such time as the "employee housing" or "deed restricted"
units have been completed to the point of allowing certificates
of occupancy to issue. Notwithstanding the above, and so long
as any phased construction allows for a substantial simultaneous
construction activity as between the two developments, based on
a formula reflective of the 70/30 housing mix, the City specif-
ically agrees to issue "temporary" certificates of occupancy on
individual free market units as they come on line for comple-
tion and occupancy. It is the intention of this paragraph to ii
require "substantial" compliance with a simultaneous construe-
tion schedule in line with the housing mix as referenced, I
recognizing that efficiency in building scheduling, material
supplies, and construction activity may dictate minor variances
from "technical" compliance with the letter of such simultan-
eous construction, and the parties hereto recognize and agree
to such variances. Nothing herein shall prevent the owner or
assigns from construction and completion of the "deed
restricted" units in advance of the "free market" units.
-- _ _.
III.
EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY, AND RELOCATIONS
The attached Plat sets forth certain easements, rights of
way, and anticipated relocations that will be necessary to
cause the improvements anticipated thereon, which easements,
rights of way and relocations include the following:
A. Main Street Right Of Way - As indicated under Section I
hereinabove, and as shown on the attached Plat, the Owner shall
dedicate to the City a 150' right of way for the potential
-6-
,~---
r,
future extension of Main Street. The exact location and legal
description of such right of way are as further set forth on
the Plat attached hereto.
B. Cemetery Lane Extension, Easements and Relocation - The
State ~tr-ghway- t~to .-~ 2 t~ a 11~o w- U=o r -Ce m ewe r y ~C a n e~' s __a i n
with-the right-of-way referenced on the attached plat and to
Yrrrt~r- de d3cate ~o Ewe-Cif-y in condunc ion with the City's
restriction of the portion of sudh Cemetery Lane a-lic~nme- nf-as
is included-within tF~e Thomas prdperty and as is further refer-
eTrc'e'd--he3~e~h~a-hover,- a one hundred fobt (100' ) right-of-way for
the proposed-future extension of Cemete~_Lahe as is ur her
-- --
shown bn fhe attached plat Such Cemetery Lane alignmEnt anti
----
extension as provided by both the City and owner herein shall
allow -for such easements as will satisfy thetit_1_e_in usability
a~dcess~~he aubject property over and across such te-
a igne an ex en a eme~ne roadway and right-o_f-way.
C. Gas Company Building and Gas Line Easement - The City
and the Owner hereby agree to an easement for the continued
existence of the Gas Company Building currently located on the
property covered by the Plat, together with an easement for the
maintenance of a gas line, both the easement for the building
and the gas line as further specifically referenced and located
on the attached Plat.
D. Cross Easements - The City and the Owner hereby specif-
ically agree to provide any and all necessary cross easements
for access over and across parcels to be respectively owned,
and such cross easements shall be deemed to include those shown
on the referenced Plat with the intent that the nature of such
easements shall be to afford necessary access to and from the
public highways to the respective parcels.
E. Ditch Relocations and Pondinq - The Cit hereb a prove
the r wa er as in ica e on he
attached plat.
F. Utilities and Drainage - There is hereby established
and agreed between the City and the Owner necessary easements
for the relocation, installation and maintenance of utilities
and the establishment and maintenance of drainage, as such
easements are specifically set forth on the utility sheets, the
utility relocation sheets, and the drainage sheets as appended
to the attached Plat.
G. Miscellanous - All easements, rights of way and reloca-
tions as are shown on the attached Plat but not specifically
-7-
-~.
,.
referenced hereinabove are hereby established, authorized and
approved by the City and agreed to by the Owner.
IV.
OTHER DEDICATIONS
In accordance with Section 20-18 of the Municipal Code, the
following dedications and/or exemptions apply:
A. Exemption - The "employee housing" or "deed restricted"
housing development contained within Lot 1 of the general
development plan, as referenced under Article I hereinabove,
and shown on the attached plat, is hereby..deemed_and agreed_to
constitute (for purposes,of_the__herein_agreement a bona fide
moderate income housing development, and the Owner and City
hereby agree to the exemption of same from the application of
Section 20-18 of the Municipal Code. For clarification pur-
poses, the City and owner, in their delibera ions over the
price guidelines referenced under Section IX hereinafter,
ome
resulted in the placing of said empl
"mo e~rafe income housing development
B. Land Dedication -with respect to the dwelling units
contained within the "free market development" referenced as
Lot 2 under Article I hereinabove, and as further shown on the
attached plat, the Owner elects to provide and City hereby
accepts, land dedications, by way of open space and right-
of-way transfers elsewhere herein referenced and City accepts
same as having a value sufficient to at least meet the require-
ments of Section 20-18 of the Municipal Code concerning the
requirement of the dedications therein referenced. Further
reference is hereby made to Exhibit "G" entitled "Land Uedica-
~ioh Sched~e" for the value formula arrived at.
V.
OPEN SPACE AND COMMON AREA
MANAGEMENT. MAINTENANCE AND USE
A. General - As referenced under Article I hereinabove,
the plat herein referenced consists of certain parcels which
include open space dedicated to the City, dedicated rights of
way for future alignment and current extension of roadways, and
two interior developments which will contain common areas and
cross-easements for access, ingress, and egress. It is the
-8-
intent of this Article to address respective responsii~ilities,
limitations, covenants, and mutual agreements with respect to
the management, maintenance and use of the open space, rights
of way, and common area parcels contained within the plat as
indicated.
8. Open Space And Right-of-Way Use Limitations -With
respect to the open space and right-of-way parcels referenced
under Article I hereinabove and further set forth on the
attached plat, the Owner's public dedication thereof to the
City is expressly conditioned upon and made subject to the
City's use of such open space and right-of-way parcels being
subject to certain specified use limitations, as follows:
1. Open Space 1 Cateqory: Those portions of the
attached plat which are designated as "Open Space 1" further
referenced under Article I hereinabove, shall be expressly
limited to an open space designation that requires said parcels
to retain their natural growth and vegetation, with no recrea-
tional or other active use allowed that would interfere with or
cause damage to the natural growth and vegetation contained
thereon. It is the intent of this limitation that no disrup-
tion of the natural growth and vegetation contained within the
open space parcel shall be allowed, and that said parcel shall
be retained in its natural state, with no improvements, activ-
ity, or other action taken by the City or its designee that
would allow for any interruption of such natural state, with
the sole exception of any necessary easements for the installa-
tion, maintenance, repair, and replacement of trails within the
planned trail system, underground utilities, telephone or other
such underground servicing improvements as may be necessary to
complete the improvements anticipated by the attached plat and
the herein agreement, and such other uses as may be specifical-
ly approved in writing by the owners of Lots 1 and 2 above-ref-
erenced from time to time.
2. Open Space 2 Cateqory: That portion of the
attached plat designated as "Open Space 2" further referenced
under Article I hereinabove, shall be limited in use to the
extent necessary to retain its natural state as a river corri-
dor, with no uses, improvements, activity, or other action
allowed that will cause any interruption or interference with
such natural river corridor state which currently exists; pro-
vided, however, that the City shall be allowed limited clearing
and improvement within this open space 2 category sufficient to
allow for the installation, maintenance, repair and replacem__ent
of any minimal~als and trail easements necessary and antici-
pated to allow for the inter-connection of the trails system
anticipated by the attached plat, and provided further, that
-9-
there shall be allowed such easements for the installation.
maintenance, repair and reelacement_of underground service
fiaciTi-Eies and systems necessary to cause the completion of the
improvements and developments anticipated by the attached plat
and the herein agreement, and such other uses as may be specif-
ically allowed from time to time, evidenced by written agree-
ment, by the owner of Lots 1 and 2 above-referenced.
3. Main Street Right-Of-Way: That portion of the
attached plat designated as "Main Street R.O.w." as further
referenced under Article I hereinabove, shall be reserved sole-
ly for use as an extension of the Main Street corridor, in the
event such corridor is actually approved and constructed. At
all other times during which such Main Street corridor shall
not be in existence, the property contained within the parcel
known as the "Main Street R.O.W." shall be preserved and its
use limited by the provisions of sub-subparagraph 1 and
sub-subparagraph 2 hereinabove, those portions of such parcel
which would normally be contained within the category known as
Open Space 1 being limited by the uses anticipated for such
category, and those portions of the Main Street R.O.W. parcel
that would otherwise be contained within Open Space 2 being
limited by such respective uses.
4. Cemetery Lane R.O.W.: That portion of the
attached plat categorized as "Cemetery Lane R.O.w." as further
referenced under Article I hereinabove, shall be limited in use
solely to improvements in the nature of extending Cemetery Lane
from its intersection with State Highway 82 through and includ-
ing its connection with Castle Creek Road, along with any
necessary lighting, signaye, easements, paving, curb and gutter
landscaping, and other necessary improvements to allow for the
roadway extension's compliance with necessary state, county,
and municipal codes, as well as compliance with the provisions
of the attached plat and the herein agreement. At all times
during which the Cemetery Lane extension improvements are not
required or necessary, the land contained within the "Cemetery
Lane R.O.W." parcel shall be limited in its use to those uses
consistent with the allowances provided under the Open Space 1
category hereinabove referenced.
5. Lot 3 Use Limitations - That portion of the
attached plat which is designated as "Lot 3" and as further
referenced under Article I hereinabove, shall be reserved and
used subject to the same limitations as those imposed upon
"Open Space 1" and "Open Space 2" categories above-referenced,
as portions of Lot 3 might have otherwise been included in
either of those two respective categories; provided, however,
the City shall be allowed to lease said property to the current
-10-
user of same, Neil Beck, and that such lease may allow for the
continuation of its current use as a "non-conforming use" so
long as the same tenant occupies the premises under such lease
for the same purposes. As referenced above, the leasing of_
said property to Neil Beck shall be_pursuant to a "leasing
rig o___irs_ re usal". For purposes of the herein_agreement,
such leasing right of first refusal in Neil Beck shall and
o grant unto Neil Beck a r
lease saiq property rrom the
urre~L i ize y Ne_i Bec
easing or rental of said oroo
users ror otner
of such lease shall be no less favorable than that offered by
or d"theCity aE Efie ~£me~ of~such leasing rental. The City
property, and shall allow Mr. Beck's continued p
same pursuan o mu ua v agreea a erms an co
the event the C:lt tleS.i reS t0 take Sald lands OUt Of
lease/rental marketplace and utilize same for Cit pu
Mr. ec s a a en e o nine y 90 days Qri_q_r.,:
nice of such election by the City in__whi_ch to vacat
premises and terminate any further possessory_rights.
6. Lots 1 and 2: with respect to the parcels indi-
cated on the attached plat and under Article I hereinabove as
Lots 1 and 2, respectively, the uses thereon shall be limited
to those uses allowed under the particular zone category as
applicable, the attached plat, and the herein PUD and subdivi-
sion agreement, with any breaches thereof to be remedied as is
currently provided by law.
7. Default/Remedies. In the event the City, follow-
ing the dedication-and reservation anticipated by the attached
plat and the herein agreement with respect to the above-refer-
enced categories, should allow, encourage, or participate in
any action which would result in a breach of the above-refer-
enced use limitations as to any specific parcel category, then
and in such event, the Owner or the Owner's successors or
assigns, shall have a right to re-enter upon the respective
parcel and cause an abatement of such breach by any legal
process allowable, including injunctive relief, and the costs
for such abatement, including court costs and reasonable attor-
ney's fees, shall be borne by the City. In the event such
abatement is impractical or impossible by reason of the nature
and extent of the action taken by the City in breach of the
above limitations, then the Owner, or its
shall be entitled to re-enter the property
its designee from occupation or possession
a re-conveyance of title to such parcel up
of use has occurred.
successors or assigns,
evict the City or
thereof, and receive
on which the breach
-11-
. d
C. Management - The management of the properties contained
within the attached plat shall be governed by the following:
1. Open Space, Rights of way and Lot 3: with respect
to the categories on the attached plat and under Article I
hereinabove labeled as Open Space 1, Open Space 2, Main Street
R.O.W., Cemetery Lane R.O.W. and Lot 3, the management and
supervision thereof shall be the responsibility and cost of
City, and shall be conducted pursuant to the provisions and
intent of the attached plat and the herein PUD and Subdivision
Agreement; provided however, that at all times such management
and supervision shall be subject to proper easements for
access, ingress and egress over, across, and through such cate-
gories of property to the benefit of the owners and occupants
of the units contained within Lots 1 and 2 on the attached plat.
2. Lot 1: As indicated, Lot 1 is anticipated to be
improved by the construction of s?y n y_ (7nl dwelling units,
pursuant to provisions elsewhere contained herein and on the
attached plat. Although documents are intended to be filed
against Lot 1 submitting same to either the provisions of the
Colorado Condominium Ownership Act or to a cooperative form of
ownership. it is currently anticipa ed that he units contained
within Lot 1 will be operated initially as deed restricted
rental units, with such units converted to "for sale" ownership
units at such time as the market dictates and the City agrees.
During such time as the units contained within Lot 1 are oper-
ated as rental units, the necessary condominium association and
condominium declaration or cooperative housing_cp_ rporation
shall be under the contro an erection of the Owner or the
Owner's successors or assigns. Pursuant thereto, the Owner
shall cause the management of the units contained within Lot 1
pursuant to a professional property management contract which
contract will allow for the private management of said units
consistent with first-class property management policies,
including such leases, rules, regulations, fine systems, park-
ing requirements, and other policies and procedures that will
enhance the liveability and quality of such residential living
environments. The responsibility for such management shall
rest with the Owner, or its successors or assigns during such
time as the property is retained as a rental community, and the
management shall be the responsibility of a properly-formed and
activated condominium or coo~er_ative assopiatiou.' at such time
as the units therein contained are converted to "for sale"
ownership status by separate deeds or stock. Such management
contract shall also provide for the proper management and
supervision of the common facilities, including the proper and
on-going maintenance thereof, and necessary budgets and reserves
shall be allocated to provide for proper deferred maintenance
and reserves for replacements as necessary to maintain a
quality living environment.
-12-
t b
3. Lot 2: As indicated elsewhere herein, Lot 2 shall
be improved by the construction of thirty_(30~ free market
dwelling units, which free market development shall be sub-
mitted to the provisions of the Colorado Condominium Ownership
Act. Pursuant thereto, a condominium association will be
formed by the filing of necessary Articles of Incorporation,
and the establishing of By-Laws, Condominium Declarations,
Association budget and Association Rules and Regulations suffi-
cient to meet the provisions of the Colorado Statutes applic-
able thereto, and to cause the adequate management and mainten-
ance of all common facilities included within Lot 2 in a manner
to reflect a first-class residential living community.
D. Maintenance - with respect to the maintenance of the
various parcels contained within the attached plat, and as
further referenced under Article I hereinabove, the followiny
shall apply:
1. Permanent Care and Maintenance of Open Spaces 1
and 2 and Lot 3: The permanent care and maintenance of those
categories known as Open Space 1, Open Space 2 and Lot 3 shall
be pursuant to a plan provided, implemented, and borne by the
City, such plan of permanent care and maintenance to be
consistent with the use limitations and management provisions
elsewhere contained herein and to the enhancement of the
development plan shown on the attached plat; including the
maintenance of the irrigated meadowlands contained within Open
Space 1 in a manner consistent with its current maintenance.
2. Permanent Care and Maintenance of Main Street
R.O.w.: The permanent care and maintenance of the Main Street
R.O.w shall be pursuant to a plan provided for, implemented,
paid for and borne by the City, and such plan shall be consist-
ent with the use limitations and management provisions else-
where contained herein.
3. Permanent Care and Maintenance of Cemetery Lane
R.U.W.: The permanent care and maintenance of the Cemetery
Lana R.O.w. shall be subject to the following:
a. Interim roadway improvements: With respect
to those portions of the Cemetery Lane R.O.W. that are antici-
pated to be improved at the cost of the Owner pursuant to the
attached plat and Exhibit "D" attached hereto, the permanent
care and maintenance thereof shall be maintained pursuant to a
maintenance sharing agreement entered into between the manage-
ment entity for Lot 1 and the management entity for Lot 2, with
the responsibility for implementation of the plan borne by the
management entity for Lot 2. The maintenance sharing agreement
-13-
shall provide for a sharing of the costs between the ownership
of Lot 1 and the ownership of Lot 2 that reflects 70% allocation
to Lot 1 and 30% allocation to Lot 2 of such costs or such
other allocation formula that is mutually agreed to between
respective assocafiohs that is reflective of an equita6l~,`
~strarsng~f-3uch costJ; and the assessments Therefor shall be
re`~ed in the respective condominium declarations or other
governing ~~d~o_c_u_m_e_nt~s for Lot 1 and Lot 2 as additional assess-
me~n s s`u Oe~propriate liens as provided by statute.
Such maintenance sharing agreement shall include the repair and
replacement of the paving and other improvements to be con-
structed by Owner as indicated, snow removal, landscape main-
tenance, and other related costs, expenses and tasks connected
with the on-going care and maintenance of said improved roadway
and related facilities.
b. Remainder of Parcel and Permanent Roadway -
with respect to the remainder of the Cemetery Lane R.O.W. not
included within the interim roadway area above-referenced, and
with further respect to the full Cemetery Lane R.O.w. in the
event of the full extension of the Cemetery Lane Roadway in a
manner that results in its connection to Castle Creek Road and
public dedication to the City, the permanent care and mainten-
ance thereof shall be pursuant to a plan provided, implemented,
and paid for by the City, such plan subject to the use limita-
tions and management provisions hereinabove set forth.
4. Lot 1: The permanent care and maintenance of any
recreational areas, common parking, common facilities and pri-
vate interior streets within Lot 1 shall be pursuant to a prop-
erty management contract entered into between the Owner, or its
successors or assigns, and a property management company that
will allow for sufficient funds and budget categories to pro-
vide snow removal services, building and grounds maintenance,
and other maintenance services normally provided by such pri-
vate professional management companies to allow for the proper
care, deferred maintenance, repair and replacement of the
facilities contained within Lot 1 during such time that the
units therein are operated as a rental development. At such
time as the units contained within Lot 1 shall be converted to
separate unit ownership by way of transfer of deed er ~ n k.
then the permanent care and maintenance thereof shall be pro-
vided pursuant to a plan that requires the condominium or co-
o erative association to establish a budget, and pursue main-
enance pursuant to proper covenants and assessment provisions
contained within the condominium declaration or other aovernina
documents allowing for same. The covenants and provisions
shall be contained within the condominium declaration or other,
governing document s. originally filed against the property at
-14-
..
inception, although not necessary to be incurred until such
time as the units are converted to separate ownership. The
plan shall include the appropriate filing of the necessary
documents pursuant to state statute, including the articles of
incorporation and by-laws for the condominium or coooerative_
association, and condominium declaration or other_appropria~e_
_governing documents. which documents shall meet at least the
following requirements:
a. The condominium or cooperative association
must be established before any of the units contained within
Lot 1 are transferred to separate ownership;
b. Membership in the condominium or cooperative
association will be mandatory for each unit or stock owner,
pursuant to the provisions of the Colorado Condominium Owner-
ship Act or cooperative housino statutes:
c. Any open space restrictions contained within
Lot 1 must and will be permanent and not for a period of years
(subject to long term ground lease, if any);
d. The condominium or cooperative association
shall be responsible for a blanket lability and hazard insur-
ance policy with respect to the common areas as well as main-
tenance of recreational and other facilities;
e. The condominium or cooperative association
shall have the power to levy assessments which will become a
lien or stock restriction on individual units or stock ce ;f;-
cates for the purpose of paying the cost of operating and main-
taining common facilities;
f. The board of managers for the condominium or
cooperative association shall consist of at least five (5)
members who shall be owners of units within Lot 1.
S. Lot 2: The permanent care and maintenance of the
commonly owned facilities, including recreational facilities,
parking and any private streets contained within Lot 2 shall be
pursuant to a property management agreement entered into
between the condominium association and either a professional
property management company or employment contracts with per-
sonnel of the condominium association. As indicated, Lot 2
shall be submitted to the provisions of the Colorado Condomin-
ium Ownership Act, by the filing of a condominium declaration
and condominium map, as appropriate, along with the filing of
articles of incorporation for the condominium association,
by-laws for the condominium association, establishment of a
condominium association budget for maintenance and operations,
-15-
and the initiation of rules and regulations with respect
thereto. The documents to be provided with such condominium
establishment shall meet at least the following requirements:
a. The condominium association will be estab-
lished before any of the individual units are sold within Lot 2;
b. Membership in the condominium association
will be mandatory for each unit owner;
c. Any common facility, common area, or open
space restrictions will be permanent in nature and not for a
period of years;
d. The condominium association will be respons-
ible for blanket liability and hazard insurance upon the common
elements, as well as the maintenance of all common elements
thereunder;
e. The condominium association shall have the
power to levy assessments which will become a lien on individ-
ual units for the purpose of paying the cost of operatiny and
maintaining common elements and facilities;
f. The board of managers of such condominium
association shall consist of at least five (5) members who
shall be owners of units within the condominium development.
VI.
WATER RIGHTS AND AVAILABILITY
Owner and City mutually acknowledge that certain water
rights accrue to the property which is the subject of the
attached plat, which rights have been adjudicated and are
titled in the Owner. Additionally, City and Owner recognize
that the attached plat will result in a demand for eleven (tt)
taps in order to allow for the proper servicing of the needs of
the improvements to be constructed thereon. In connection
therewith, Owner and City agree to assign an appropriate value
to the adjudicated water rights of the Owner, and to the taps
necessitated by the anticipated development herein, and pur-
suant to respective off-sets, result in a net fee to be paid by
Owner to City, which fee would be intended to cover all neces-
sary tap fees, plant investment fees, and other fees and
charges that may in any manner or form be connected with the
installation and hook-up of water service to the property
covered hereby. It is understood that these fees are exclusive
of any on-going service fees that would be required to continue
-16-
the water servicing to the units contained within Lots 1 and 2
and to the property generally covered hereby.
The respective values of the water rights and water taps
and fees are hereby acknowledged as equaling those set forth on
Exhibit "E", entitled "Relative water Rights and Fee Values"
which relative values, properly off-set, result in net fees
payable by the Owner to the City for water installation,
hook-up, and other related charges equal to Thirteen Thousand
VII.
SEWER AVAILABILITY
Sewer lines shall be installed consistent with the provi-
sions contained within the utility sheets, the utility reloca-
tion sheets and the drainage sheets as shown on the attached
plat, and the costs of such installation shall be those
estimated amounts as set forth on Exhibit D attached hereto.
The City agrees, upon approval of this agreement and the
attached plat by the Metropolitan Sanitation District that
sewer services are fully available far the development antici-
pated on the plat, and that the estimated costs for sewer taps
and related fees connected with the installation and hook-up of
such sewer services are estimated to be the sum of $86,453.00
.a$_further~f~~n~~d ~n_._letter labeled as Exhibit "H" and
attached hereto. The availability of such sewer services shall
e prove e y e Sanitation District in a manner that
conforms to the estimated construction and development schedule
as set forth on Exhibit C attached hereto.
EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT - TITLE
The land contained within Lot 1 above referenced, has been
approved by the City for development of seventy (70) "employee
housing" or "deed restricted" dwelling units, which dwelling
units shall be subject to the rental/sale guidelines
established by the City and further referenced hereunder. In
order to assist in the financing of the construction of the
improvements and/or in the potential deferral of real property
taxes to the extent allowable, the owner may be required or
desire to deed the ownership of said Lot 1 land to the City.
In the event the owner should be required or should desire to
cause the transfer of said lands to the City, the City hereby
agrees to accept such transfer of land so long as the
acceptance of such title shall in no way incur any direct
liability to the City for the maintenance or other costs
related to said lands. Further, such transfer to the City must
-17-
occur prior to or simultaneously with the commencement of con-
struction of the improvements upon the lands contained within
Lot 1, and must be accompanied by a simultaneous lease-back of
said lands from the City to the owner or assigns, the terms and
conditions of such lease requiring the owner or assigns to
cause the full maintenance and upkeep of the lands, and any
improvements thereon constructed by the owner or assigns, and
to further indemnify City against any costs and/or liability
connected with the ongoing use and operation of said lands and
any improvements thereon. The terms of such lease-back shall
be triple net in nature to further reflect all costs of the
property being borne by the lessee (owner or assigns), shall be
for such term as mutually agreed between City and owner or
assigns, but in no event, shall be less than the agreed to
useful life of the improvements to be constructed upon said
land, and the rental consideration to be paid to the City by
the owner or assigns shall be the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) per
year. Such lease-back shall further contain such other terms
and provisions as may be deemed necessary or required to effect
the intention of the parties in the original transfer of the
lands to the City by the owner or assigns, including the allow-
ance to construct the improvements anticipated, the creation of
such terms and conditions as to allow leasehold financing of
the improvements to be constructed, the co-operation of the
City in the execution of such documents and/or instruments, and
the doing of such acts and/or things as may be necessary or
desired to achieve the purposes of the herein agreement in the
improvement of said lands by the development and operation of
the anticipated "employee housing" or "deed restricted" dwell-
ing units.
IX.
EMPLOYEE HOUSING - PRICE GUIDELINES
The "employee housing" or "deed restricted" dwelling units
to be constructed upon the subject property within the lands
labeled as Lot 1 herein shall be subject to pricing guidelines
which will require a maximum rental rate for such units, upon
completion, reflecting no greater than seventy cents (70~) per
square foot, or in the event of the sale of individual units,
no greater sales price than Seventy-Six Dollars ($76.00) per
square foot. In the event said units or any of them shall not
be completed in a manner to allow for the issuance of a certif-
icate of occupancy by August 31, 1982, despite good faith dil-
igence on the part of owner or assigns in pursuing the con-
struction schedule referenced herein, then said pricing guide-
lines shall be amended to reflect the greater of the above-ref-
erenced guideline figures or the "moderate income" guideline
figures for rental or sale, as approved for the period that
begins subsequent to the issuance of such certificates of
occupancy as such figures are established by the City of Aspen.
-18-
.~
Notwithstanding the above-referenced "threshold pricing
guidelines" as adjusted by delays in occupancy as referenced,
said guidelines shall be subject to an annual adjustment
equalling the greater of eight percent (8%) per annum, or the
allowable annual adjustment approved by the City of Aspen as to
such restricted units from year to year, commencing with the
first year following the issuance of the certificate of occu-
pancy for the appropriately restricted unit.
X.
FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
Pursuant to Section 20-16(C) of the Municipal Code, Uwner
hereby agrees to provide a guaranty for no less than One Hun-
dred Percent (100%) of the estimated cost of the improvements
to be constructed, which estimated costs, as further set forth
and allocated under Exhibit "U" attached hereto total One
Million Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,0501000 as approved by the
City Engineer. The guaranty to be provided by Owner shall be
in the form of cash escrow with the City or a bank or savings
and loan association; or shall be in the form of an irrevocable
sight draft or letter of commitment from a financially
responsible lender; and such guaranty shall give the City the
unconditional right, upon default by the Owner, or its
successor or assign, to withdraw funds upon demand to partially
or fully complete and/or pay for any improvements or pay any
outstanding bills for work done thereon by any party. As
portions of the improvements required are completed, the City
Engineer shall inspect them, and upon approval and acceptance,
he shall authorize the release of the agreed estimated cost for
that portion of the improvements; provided, however, that ten
percent (10%) of the estimated cost shall be withheld until all
proposed irprovements are completed and approved by the City
Engineer. For purposes of clarity, the percentage attributable
to the estimated costs that are applicable to each stage of
completion are as further set forth on Exhibit "F", entitled
"Improvement Completion Percentage Schedule", which schedule
shall be binding upon the City and Owner with respect to
amounts to be released upon the City Engineer's approval of the
respective completion stage. To the extent portions of such
completion stages as set forth in Exhibit "F" are determinable
to be approved severally by the City Engineer, an equitable
allocation of funds to be released shall be applied as and when
such partial completions occur.
The Owner, its successors or assigns, hereby agrees to fur-
ther provide unto City a warranty as to all improvements for a
period of one (1) year from and after acceptance by the City as
to such improvements.
-19-
+ , _
The Owner shall further guaranty by a maintenance bond or
other suitable means, the repair of any existing improvements
damaged during the course of construction of new improvements
pursuant to the provisions hereof.
ADDITIONAL PARKING
In consideration of the City's willingness to accept two
(2) parking spaces per unit as approved parking allowances
within the free market development to be located on Lot 2 here-
in, owner, for itself and its assigns, hereby specifically
agrees to provide additional parking allowances up to a maximum
of one parking space per bedroom at such time as City shall
require same as a result of City's determination that such
additional parking is necessary to meet the on-going use
attributed to the Lot 1 units. In the event such additional
parking is deemed necessary, provisions for the location of
same have been made as shown under Schedule "I" entitled "Addi-
tional Parking Schedule". In the event the City determines
that such additional parking, or any portion thereof, is neces-
sitated by the on-going use of the Lot 1 units, such additional
parking spaces shall be provided within a period of one (1)
year from and after notice of such requirement to the owner
from the City, such notice to include the City's determination
of the need, and proper resolution promulgated by the City with
respect to such requirement.
XII.
RESTRICTIONS ON SHORT-TERM RENTALS
As further referenced hereunder, owner intends the improve-
ments to be located upon Lot 2 to be submitted to the provisions
of the Colorado Condominium Ownership Act, and in connection
therewith, the owner understands and acknowledges that such
units shall be subject to the provisions of Section 20-22 of
the City of Aspen Municipal Code related to restrictions on
short-term rentals. In consideration of this restriction, and
in the event the owner should pursue improvement of the units
contained within Lot 2 in a manner that is distinct from con-
dominium ownership, the intent, letter and spirit of the provi-
sions of Section 20-22 with respect to such resulting units
shall continue to apply against same, despite their form of
ownership and/or use.
XIII.
DEED RESTRICTIONS
The units to be constructed within Lot 1 shall be subject
to certain "deed restrictions" that are intended to restrict
-20-
the rental/sale of said units to fall within certain pricing
guidelines as further referenced herein. The nature, extent
and particulars of such deed restriction language shall be
required to be placed against Lot 1, or the respectively
resulting units, prior to the issuance of building permits in
manner that binds said lands contained within Lot 1.
XIV.
MISCELLANEOUS
A. The provisions hereof shall be binding upon and inure
to the benefit of the Owner and City and their respective
successors and assigns.
B. This agreement shall be subject to and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado.
C. If any of the provisions of this agreement or any
paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or section or the
application thereof in any circumstances is invalidated, such
invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of
this agreement, and the application of any such provision,
paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or section in any
other circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
D. This P.U.D. and Subidivison Agreement contains the
entire understanding between the parties herein with respect to
the transactions contemplated hereunder and may be altered or
amended from time to time only by written instruments executed
by all parties hereto.
E. Numerical and title headings contained in this contract
are far convenience purposes only, and shall not be deemed
determinative of the substance contained herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto
executed their hands and seals on the dates and year
respectively indicated, in full understanding and agreement to
the terms and conditions herein contained.
CITY OF ASPEN,
A Colorado Municipal Corporation
ey:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
yor
-21-
.•
Subdivision Agreement
Municipal Corporation
ral partnership was
_ day of ,
City
Municipal Corporation.
Notary Public
MARULT ASSOCIATES,
A Colorado General Partnership
Partner
rtner
rcner
rcner
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
COUNTY OF )
The above and foregoing P.U.D. and
between The City of Aspen, Colorado, a
and Marolt Associates, a Colorado gene
subscribed and sworn to before me this
1981 by Herman Edel, Mayor and
Clerk of the City of Aspen, A Colorado
witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires•
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
COUNTY OF )
The above and foregoing P.U.D. and Subdivision Agreement
between The City of Aspen, Colorado, a Municipal Corporation
and Marolt Associates, a Colorado general partnershipwas
subscribed and sworn to before me this day of ,
1981 by ,
,and ,
Partners of Marolt Associates, A Colorado General Partnership.
witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
_22_
~, r
EXHIBIT E
RELATIVE WATER RIGHTS AND FEE VALUES
Assumption del
Based on consumptive use standards applied by counsel to the
City, the related uses, current and upon completion, results as
follows:
a. Current: Owner currently has 2.0 CFS adjudicated rights to
the property, which translates to 2.4 acre feet per year,
per irrigated acre. The property has 11.78 irrigated
acres, resulting in 2.4 x 11.78, or 28.27 acre feet per
year worth of use value.
b. Upon Completion: Based upon consumptive use standard of .6
acre feet per dwelling unit per year, and multiplying this
times 104 units in the project, the completion project
consumptive use value would be 62.4 acre feet per year.
Result
Apply the above values on a comparative basis, the existing
value of water rights is equal to 45.3% of the needed value.
Assumption !i2
Owner's request for waiver of water tap and P.I.F. fees will be
granted as to PMH housing, based on cooperation in allowing
costs to remain within possible framework and still provide
quality housing.
Assumption ~k3
City figures on gross fees, prior to waiver credits, are
coirect in the amount of $134,116.00, of which $59,940.00
applies to PMH housing, and $74,176.00 applies to free market
units.
Numerical Calculations of Net Fees
1. $134,116 x 45.3% _ $60,754.55 = value of current rights in
existence that would be transferred to City.
2. $134,116 - $59,940 = $74,176 = Gross fees with credit for
waiver of PMH fees.
3. $74,176 - $60,754.55 = $13,421.45 = Net fees after waiver
and credit for existing rights to be transferred to City.
r
eIAMES M. MULLIGAN
PHOPESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW
I3E0 SEVENTEENTH STREET SUITE 360
DENVE R~COLORADO 9020P
(303)6]C-OBOO
JAMES M. MIILLIOAN
May 13, 1981
.,._
ice;:.
Cwsxa • MULL4W
Mr. Sonny Vann
City Planning Office
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81615
Dear Sonny:
,AIRY 1 5 198] +~
~+Elv i r1r -' .._..
~NMING KI ~ CO.
OFFtCE
~, .
Re: The Marolt Ranch
Co-operative Subsidy
I found our meeting on May 12, 1981 whereunder your concep-
tual concerns with respect to the PUD and Subdivision Agreement
were presented to be quite productive and helpful to me in
attempting to draft the finalized version of the Agreement for
approval by all parties.
In connection therewith, one issue did arise that presents
a grave concern of this office and this office's client with
respect to the validity of the ability to implement an employee
housing project without the "co-operative spirit" that was
indicated originally.
As you know, all of our discussions to date have revolved
around the necessity of both the owner and the City to pursue
the employee portion of the project in a manner that provides
benefits to both parties and requires actions and co-operation
from both parties to allow not only the potential of the
employee housing project, but its reality in terms of implemen-
tation. Such co-operative spirit requires both philosophical
and financial (direct or indirect) subsidies from both parties.
In an attempt to address this co-operation concept, it is prob-
ably important to review the "balance sheet" of benefit/subsidy
that accrues to the City and the owner respectively in pursuing
this concept.
1. "POTENTIAL" CO-OPERATION/SUBSIDY - ZONING
The initial balance sheet item that provides the
immediate potential for such employee housing project is the
,,
.. .
Mr. Sonny Vann
May 13, 1981
Page 2
zoning/density issue, and the owner receives the benefit of an
increased density of 13 units beyond the underlying original
zone category in terms of its free market housing (assuming
total unit count of 100). The City, in turn, benefits by a
density/zoning commitment to the owner that allows for seventy
employee housing units to be constructed on that site. This
balance sheet item appears to be even in that both parties
provide a "subsidy" (requirement of employee deed restricted
housing upon the owner, and requirement of increased density
allowance upon the City), in exchange for which they both
receive the respective benefits indicated.
2. "IMPLEMENTATION" OF CO-OPERATION/SUBSIDY
The above-referenced co-operative spirit in the phil-
osophical subsidizing of this endeavor must be followed up by
the same co-operative spirit in the actual subsidizing process
to allow the above "potential" to be "realized". In order for
this to be done, both parties will need to be addressing the
co-operative spirit in the approvals and requirements that will
allow the employee project that was approved to be actually
built in a manner that falls within the guidelines negotiated
at the same time as allowing quality to be retained within the
project itself. Along these lines, the owner has indicated a
willingness to provide the following:
a. Open Space - The owner has agreed to dedicate to
the City approximately 17 acres of open space, which, assuming
for example, an appraised value of $3.1 Million of the land
following final plat, would result in a dedicated value of
approximately $1.5 Million.
b. Employee Housing Pro,iect Land - In addition to the
above open space dedications, the owner is providing the land
upon which the employee housing project would be located at no
cost and a resulting value of this would equal approximately
$387,000.
c. Direct Construction Subsidy - Current estimates of
construction costs indicate that owner will additionally be
providing approximately $400,000 worth of direct cost subsidy
to the construction of the project.
d. Miscellaneous - The added costs incurred by the
owner in retention of professionals to assist in the creation
and implementation of the rather unique process over two years
(approximately $450,000), and the providing of trail system
Mr. Sonny Vann
May 13, 1981
Page 3
improvements and related items of benefit to the City which
will further increase the cost subsidy since these are not
built into the cost of the employee housing project, but will
be directly subsidized by the free market development.
We are sure that there will be other costs, both direct and
indirect, that will result in subsidization from the owner to
afford the ability of the above potential project to be built
in a manner that is consistent with our intended discussions.
In exchange for the extent of subsidy which the owner has
agreed to provide, beyond the initial subsidy of zoning/density
requirement, the co-operative nature of our endeavor will
require some subsidies by the City as well. Requested in the
Subdivision Agreement, for example only, are issues related to
the park dedication fee and issues related to the relative
water rights. The park dedication fee issue really does not
relate to a direct cost subsidy, but relates only to the issue
of "passive" versus "active" recreation use restriction, and
the issue of relative water rights only relates to a subsidy
with respect to the employee housing project portion, in
exchange for which, however, we are willing to transfer to the
City water rights currently located in the property that could
be utilized by the City for their purposes. Despite the some-
what diminished and indirect nature of the subsidy requests to
the City, our meeting on May 12 indicated to me some reluctance
on your part to recommend to the City that they follow this
co-operative spirit through to the implementation stage. This
is gravely disconcerting to me, since the unwillingness on the
part of the City to pursue such co-operative spirit into the
implementation stage will only result in one of two possible
occurrences: (1) the subtraction of such non-subsidized cost
from the cost of construction, resulting in less quality to the
development or (2) inability of the employee housing project to
be implemented.
I was, frankly, quite surprised by this attitude, since I
understood the City's perspective to be one of co-operation
with this project. we have discussed in the past the difference
between co-operation in spirit and co-operation in fact, and
such co-operation must be evidenced not only in terms of the
"potential" of the project, but also in terms of the actual
implementation of the product itself. The reluctance on the
part of the City to pursue such implementation co-operation
• ..~
Mr. Sonny Vann
May 13, 1981
Page 4
will directly affect the ability of this whole program to work,
and if the program does fail because of this, the City must be
willing to accept its responsibility in this regard.
I sincerely hope that you will give some time to reflect on
this issue so that further meetings and final negotiations of
matters in the coming week to week-and-a-half will result in an
understanding of the substantive necessity to mutually co-oper-
ate in the implementation of the project.
Looking forward to seeing you in the immediate future, I
remain
JMM:cdw
cc: Paul Taddune
Carlie Wood, Desigr
Cary D. Clark
The Marolt Family
James W. Buchanan,
Charles Fox, C.P.A.
James Otis, Jr.
Respectfully yours,
JAMES M. MULLIGAN,
A Professional Corporation
Wc~rksh
III
an
CIT'
130
aspe
PEl~
,reet
1611
M R M n
T0: SUNNY VANN, PLANNING
FROM: JIM HOLLAND, DIRECTOR OF PARKS
RE: MAROLT RANCH P.U.D. & SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
MAY ~ ~
4ee~~ ~'
May 4, 1981
The following comments are regarding Section V - Open Space And
Common Area Management, Maintenance and Use.
I am still opposed to the permanent use restrictions that they
keep including on OPEN SPACE CATEGORY 1 (page 8) - ''Shall be
expressly limited to an Open Space designation that requires
said parcels to retain their natural growth and vegetation,
with no recreational or other activity allowed that would inter-
fere with or cause damage to the natural growth and vegetation
contained thereon."... I am aware that the purpose of Aspen Code
Article VIII - P.U.D. is to preserve open space and natural features
as development occurs, but in this case I don't believe PERMANENT
use restriction is in the best interest of the public or future
City Councils.
On page 10, C.1. - OPEN SPACE, RIGHTS OF WAY AiQD LOT 3, I'm not
quite clear on the intent of the statement "at all times such
management and supervision shall be subject to proper easements
for access, ingress and egress over, across, and through such
categories of property to the benefit of the owners and occupants
of the units...'
My only other concern at this time is in regard to the irrigation
ditch steel culvert on the Holden Ditch. The 350 L.F. run from the
south property line northward under the parking lot is too long a
solid run without a manhole for a cleanout, especially since it has
angles in it. In my opinion, there should be one just before it
goes under the parking lot.
CITY
130 s
aspe
DATE: April 28, 1981
TU: Sunny Vann
FROM: Bob Edmondson
SPEN
treet
81611
~~ ~~ ~~
RE. Marolt Rancn PUD and Final Plat Subdivision Submission
1. There is reference to moderate and middle income housing
(last paragraph, p. 3). Marolt Ranch, I believe, is to be died
restricted to entirely moderate income.
2. Cost allocation, first full paragraph, p. 4. Has the alloca-
tion been agreed t_o by the City?
3. Please note paragraphs A and B, Article IV - Other Dedica-
tions. This paragraph means the Marolt Project is excepted from
Park Dedication Fees. Has this been agreed to?
4. Please note the last paragraph of p. 10 - paragraph V(C)(2).
This paragraph should contain language that if the units were ever
to be sold in Lot 1 that the individual dwelling units would be
arice restricted along PMH guidelines. It would also be necessary
that they be price restricted along the above-mentioned guidelines
by aeed restriction.
5. ~i'here is no language as to 6-month rental restrictions. The
Council intended the free market units not to be short-term renY.al
and considered the 6-month rental restrictions necessary.
6. Please note Article V(D)(3)(a). Was this paragraph concern-
ing roadway improvements agreed to?
7. The free market portion of the project is not condominiumized
at this time. When condominimization takes place it. must be in
full compliance with all the condominiumization provisions of the
code inciudiny 6-month rental restrictions, etc.
8. Article VI - Water Rights. Please have a comment from the
appropriate municipal division (Markalunas?). Is this a suffi-
cient number of taps? Is the City desirous of obtaining the water
rights? Has there been agreement as to the value of the rights as
set forth in this Article?
9. Please note also, the applicant must submit ail deed restric-
tions, covenants, easements, etc. prior to recording the final
plat.
RBE:mc
f 1
MEMORANDUM
T0: Aspen City Council
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
RE: Marolt Final Plat Submission
DATE: June 2, 1981
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~~G~~.: %~,~ ,.
The applicant and City Attorney are currently revising the~fin 1 PUD/Subd~v~ision
Agreement. The Planning Office will try to make this Agregme t as well a the
Planning Office's comments available to you prior to your Flu e 8 meeting.
It may be necessary, however, to table this item in the event staff is unable
to complete its review.
L~
Jnz~sx;s M. Mur,i,lcerr .~-~O -~,~
PItOCESSIO-.iA 1. COI:I'C11sA i'i Olr
ATTOHNL]'S AND CO1JXSl'S.U RS A1' LAK'
1160 SE]'E N'IB LN lIi PTH P. fiT SIiITP'. :160
D ENV L°F2~ COLORADO ti0II0_
¢iom ar::-oaoc
JAM P_5 M. MCLLIOAN
Bob Edmondson, Esq.
Grueter ~ Edmnndson
Attorneys at Law
430 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado
Dear Bob:
March 7, 1981
CwsF.a ~ D1 L~LLAw
Re: The Marolt Ranch
P.U.D. and Subdivision Agreement
Pursuant to earlier discussions, enclosed herewith pleasa
find draft of final "P.U.D. and Subdivision Agreement' for The
Marnit Ranch final plat submission. As indicated earlier, I
will be out of town from March 9 through March 20, and would
appreciate your review and referral of the enclosed in order to
alloy for commentary upon my return =_o that we may have a final
draft completed prior to the end of March.
You will note that there are certain Schedules which have
not been attached to the Agreement as of yet, as these Sched-
ules are currently being compiled by the appropriate members of
the development consulti-ng team, Marolt Associates. As these
Schedules are completed and confirmed, they will be submitted
as attachments to the Agreement. The absence of these
Schedules also dictates certain blanks within the Agreement
itself, which blanks will be filled in upon determination from
the completed Schedules.
• Should you have any questions, concerns or comments that
require additional input, please do not hesitate to contact
either Don Ensign or Car.lie Wood at Design Workshop, Inc.
,..
Bob Edmondson, Esq.
March 7, 1981
Page 2
either directly or through Sonny Vann sn that we may immediate-
ly begin pursuit of any refinements. Ot.heraiise, I will look
forward to hearing from you upon my return from out of town.
Thank you for your attention.
Very truly yours,
M. MULLIGAN,
Pro essional Coroorati.on
~% /
~~~ ~11~~L`~
Jam M~. Mulli ----'~-
JMM:cdw
Enclosures
cc: Cary D. Clark
Otis Associates
Eldorado Engineer
The Marolt Family
1
• Y~
P.U.D. AND SUEDIVISIOPJ AGREEMENT
FOR
THE MAROLT RANCH
City of Aspen
State of Colorado
P.U.D. ANU SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
FOR
THE MAROLT RANCH
ABLE OF CONTENTS
Section I. General Development Plan
Section II. Construction of Improvements
Section III. Easements, Rights of Way, and Relocations
Section IV. Dedications
Section V. Open Space and Common Area Management,
Maintenance and Use
Section VI. Water Rights and Availability
Section VII. Sewer Availability
Section VIII. Financial Assurances
Section IX. Miscellaneous
Exhibit A Legal Description
Exhibit B Table of Site Data Tabulation
Exhibit C Construction and Development Schedule
Exhibit D Improvement Responsibility Schedule
Exhibit E Relative Water Rights and Fee Values
Exhibit F Improvement Completion Percentage Schedule
Pale
2
4
4
5
6
12
13
13
14
~.
~..,~
P.U.D. A~~dD SUBDIVISION AGREEMEN
FOR
THE MAROL.T RANCH
This P.U.D. and Subdivision Agreement is made and entered
into this day of 1981 by and- between THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO, a Municipaa Corporation, (hereinafter
referred to as "City"), and MAROLT ASSOCIATES, a Colorado
general partnership (hereinafter referred to as "the Owner").
W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, the Owner has submitted to the City for approval,
execution and recordation, the final plat and development plan
of a tract of land situate within the City of Aspen, Colorado,
legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference, and designated as "The Marolt Ranch
Subdivision" ("The Plat"); and
WHEREAS, the City has caused the rezoning of the real prop-
erty covered by said Plat so as to result in a zoning of R-15A
PUD, such zoning in conjunction with the utilization of the
residential bonus overlay approved under Ordinance 16 Series
1980, and providing for certain exemptions and special review
processes; and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered said Plat, the pro-
posed development and the improvement of the land therein, and
the burdens to be imposed upon other adjoining or neighboring
properties by reason of the proposed development and improve-
ment of land included in the Plat; and
WHEREAS, the City is willing to approve, execute, and
accept for recordation that Plat upon agreement of the Owner to
the matters hereinafter described, and subject to all of the
requirements, terms and conditions of the City of Aspen PUD and
subdivision regulations now in effect and other laws, rules and
regulations as are applicable; and
WHEREAS, the City has imposed certain conditions and
requirements in connection with its approval, execution and
recordation of the Plat, and such matters are necessary to
protect, promote, and enhance the public welfare; and
YdHEREAS, under the authority of Section 20-16 (C) and
24-8.6 of the Municipal Code of the City, the City is entitled
to assurance that the matters hereinafter agreed to will be
faithfully performed by the Owner; NOW, THEREFORE,
a_,~
~,/
IN CONSIDERATIOfd OF TFIE ~'kEIdISES, the mutual covenants
herein contained, and the approval, execution and acceptance of
the Plat for. recordation by the City, i.t is mutually agreed as
follows:
I.
GENERP.L DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The Marolt Ranch development as shovm en the attache r; Plat
is composed of variou=_ element=. comprising the total platted
area, and those elements include the following:
A. Lot 1 - Shall constitute the "employee housing" or
"deed restricted" development as is further referenced herein-
after, which parcel may at Owner's option, be transferred to
the City in conjunr_tion with a long term lease-back to the
Owner of the ground for improvement and development, the
details of which shall be set forth in a separate sale and
lease back agreement;
B. Lot 2 - Shall constitute the "free mart<et development"
as further referenced hereinafter, and shall be owned,
improved, mari<eted and sold by the Owner;
C. Lot 3 - This parcel, as shown on the Plat, is antici-
pated to be dedicated to the City for their use, which use
includes the possibility of leasing said parcel to the current
user by way of a leasing right of first refusal; provided, how-
ever, that certain use, maintenance and management standards
are mutually agreed to between the City and the Owner as
further set forth herein;
D. Lots 5-7 - Shall he subject to restricted sale by the
Owner to the three adjacent property owners, such restricted
sale to include the prohibition of any building improvements on
such lands;
E. Open Snace 1 - Shall be dedicated to the City for open
space in perpetuity, with specific management, maintenance and
use guidelines satifactory to the Owner as further set forth
herein;
F. Open Space 2 - Constitutes the river corridor and shall
provide for dedication to the City for open space in perpetuity
with specific management, maintenance, and use guidelines with-
in the context of maintaining river corridor conservation
lands, a=_ further set forth herein;
G. Cemetery Lane R.O.W. - Shall constitute the Cemetery
Lane extension providing for 100' right of way dedicated to the
City for a future roadway alignment between State Highway No.
82 and Castle Creek Road as further shown on the Plat;
H. Main Street R.O.W. - Shall constitute the Main Street
extension egualling a 150' right of way dedicated to the City
_2_
r.~
.~., ,
of Aspen for future road alignment of such possible Main Street
extension, as is further shown on the attached Plat.
I. City Parcel - The curr^-.ntly owned City parcel, as
designated contiguous to the subject property nn the plat,
shall he properly dedicated or restri-cted, as renuired, to
allow for its use for the extensicn of Cemetery Lane as cur-
rently anticipated by the attached plat, future expansion of
such extension to provide for the later connection of State
Highway 82 with Castle Creek Road, as further shown nn the
plat, the necessary reservation of the Main Street right-of-way
extension as shoam on the attached plat, and the additional
open space de=_ignation with appropriate restrictions that apply
to Open Space Number 1 her.einabove referenced.
For further and more specific alloca'ion of the uses anti-
cipated vrithin the various parcels indicated above, reference
is herehy made to the "Table of Site Data Tabulations" attached
hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference.
The submitted Plat anticipates, in major part, the improve-
ment of the lands by the construction of two distinct develop-
ments, one of which shall be deed or covenant restrictive in
accordance with the provision= of Section 24-11.4(b)(3) of the
Municipal Code as those provisions apply to moderate and middle
income housing, and to the extent those provisions allow for
exceptions from the growth management quota system pursuant to
Section 24-11.2(1) of the Municipal Code, and the =_econd por-
tion of said development shall be improved as an unrestricted
or free market" development. It i= further acknowledged that
although the ownership of the land beneath the two developments
may be distinct as referenced, the construction and ownership
of the improvements for both developments will be under the
auspices of the Owner.
In consideration of the dual nature of the two developments
which constitute a major portion of the improvements antici-
pated on the enclosed plat, cost allocations for the projects
will need to he made for the improvements and resulting costs
indicated under. this P.U.D. and Subdivision Agreement. The
parties hereto acknowledge that a general guideline for cost
allocation and proration =hall follow the relationship of each
development's number of unit=_ to the total number of units
approved for development upon the Plat. In connection here-
with, it i=_ currently understood and agreed that the deed or
covenant restricted development shall constitute units equaling
70 percent of the total number of units approved on the Plat,
and the free market development shall constitute 30 percent of
the total number of units approved on the Plat. For purposes
of specificity, the cost allocations for the improvements
required hereunder are further set forth on Exhibit "D"
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and
the parties hereto mutually accept such allocations.
-3-
,~,.
`,Y 4
II.
CONSTRUCTION OF Ih1PR0\+Eh1ENT5
A. Nature and Estimated Cest~ of Im ~rovements: - Owner
hereby agrees to be responsible for the making and installation
of the improvements to be con±ained ~iithin the developments
indicated on the attached plat, to the extent required by
Section 20-16(A) of the Funicipal Code, the nature, extent and
estimated cost of such i.mproven~ents (along with their alloca-
tion between the two developments contained on the attached
plat) being more specifically set forth on Exhibit "D",
entitled "Improvement Responsibility Schedule", attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference.
B. Construction Schedule - The development and construc-
tion schedule required by Section 20-16(C)(1), and Section
24-8.9(B) of the Municipal Code are more specifically set forth
under Exhibit "C", entitled "Construction and Development
Schedule", which schedule also includes the anticipated con-
struction dates for the 6eginninq and completion of the
improvements, the seo,uence of construction and phasing, includ-
ing the phasing of the construction of public improvements,
recreational, park, and common space areas.
III.
EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY, RND RELOCATIONS
The attached P]at sets forth certain easement, rights of
way, and anticipated relocations that will be necessary to
cause the improvement=_ anticipated thereon, which easements,
rights of way and relocations include the following:
A. Main Street
hereinabove, and a=_
by dedicates to the
future extension of
description of such
the Plat attached h
Right Gf Way
shown on the
City a 150'
Main Street.
right of way
areto.
- As indicated under Section I
attached Plat, the Owner here-
right of way for the potential
The exact location and legal
are as further set forth on
B. CcmeterV Lane Exten=ion, Easements and Relocation - The
Owner agrees to cause the relocation of the intersection of
Cemetery Lane with State Highway No. 82 in the manner shown on
the attached Plat, and to further provirie a dedication to the
City (in conjunction v+i.th the City's re-dedication of the por-
tion of such extension included within its property as shown)
of a 100' right of way for the proposed future extension of
Cemetery Lane beginning from the referenced intersection with
Highway No. 82 over the portions of the extension owned by the
City through and across the platted property and ending with
it= intersection wi-th Castle Creek Road, al]. as further shov+n
on the attached Plat.
--4-
..~
C. Gas ComnanV Ruildi.no and_Gas Li-ne Easement - The City
and the Owner hereby agree tc, an e~isernciit. for the continued
existence of the Gas Company Pui.lding currently located on the
property r_overed by the Plat, together with an easement for the
maintenance of a gas line, both the easement for the building
and the gas ling as further specifically referenced and located
on the attached Plat.
D. Cross Easements - The City and the Owner hereby specif-
ically agree to provide any and all necessary cross easements
for access over and acro.=.= parr_ols to he respectively owned,
and such cross easements shall be deemed to include those shown
on the referenced Plat with the intent that the nature of such
easements shall be to afford Here=_sary access to and from the
public highways to the respective parcels.
E. Ditch Relocations and_Pondine - The City hereby allows
the relocation and pondrng of the water contained in those
certain ditches currently located on the lands covered by the
attached Plat, such relocation and ponding of the water con-
tained in such ditches to be as more specifically set forth on
the Plat attached hereto.
F. Utilities and Drainage - There i=_ hereby established
and agreed between the City and the Owner necessary easements
for the relocation, .installation and maintenance of utilities
and the establishment and maP{te~a~heoofthpaU~alityasheeth, the
easements are specifically
utility relocation _sheets, and the drainage sheets as appended
to the attached Plat.
G. Miscellanous - All easements, rights of way and reloca-
tions as are further shown on the attached Plat but not specif-
ically referenced hereinabove are hereby established, author-
ized and approved by the City and agreed to by the Owner..
IV.
OTHER DEDICATIOIJS
In accordance with Section 20-18 of the Municipal Code, the
following dedications and/or exemptions apply:
A. Exemption - The "employee housing" or "deed restricted"
housing development contained eaithin Lot 1 of the general
development plan, as referenced under Rrticle I hereinabove,
and shown on the attached plat, constitutes a bona fide
moderate income hou=_i.ng development, and the Owner and City
hereby agree to the exemption of same from the application of
Section 20-18 of the Municipal Code.
B. Land Dedication - With respect to the dwelling units
contained within the "free market development" referenced as
Lot 2 under Article I hereinahove, and as further shown on the
-5-
.~
attached plat, the Owner elects to provide and City hereby
accepts, land dodications, by way of open space and right-
of-way transfer= elsewhere her.ei.n referenced of value suffi-
cient to at least meet the requirements of Section 20-18 of the
Municipal Code concerninn the .requirement of the dedications
therein referenced.
V.
OPEN SPACE APJD COMi'~~ON AREA
MANAGEMENT, MAIM~~E_NAPJCE AND USE
A. General - As referenced under Article I hereinabove,
the plat herein referenced consists of c,er.tain parcel= which
include open space dedicated to the City, dedicated rights of
way for future alignment and current extension of roadways, and
two interior developments which vaill contain common areas and
cross-easements for acces=, ingress, and egress. It is the
intent of this Article to address respective responsibilities,
limitations, covenants, and mutual agreements with respect to
the management, maintenance and use of the open space, rights
of way, and common area parcels contained within the plat as
indicated.
B. Open Space And Right-of-4^lay Use Limitations - Plith
respect to the open space and right-of-way parcels referenced
under Article I hereinabove and further =_et forth on the
attached plat, the Owner's public dedication thereof to the
City is expressly conditioned upon and made subject to the
City's use of such open space and right-of-way parcels being
subject to certain specified use limitations, as follows:
1. Open Space 1 Category: Those portions of the
attached plat which are designated as "Open Space 1" further
referenced under .Article I hereinabove, shal]. be expressly
limited to an OpP,n space designation that requires said parcels
to retain their natural growth and vegetation, with no recrea-
tional or other activity allowed that would interfere with or
cause damage io the natural growth and vegetation contained
thereon. It i.s the intent of this limitation that no disrup-
tion of the natural growth and vegetation contained within the
open space p^rcel shall be allowed, and that said parcel shall
be retained in its natural state, with no improvements, activ-
ity, or other action taken by the City or its designee that
would allow for any interruption of such natural state. With
the sole exception of any necessary easements for the installa-
tion of trails within the planned trail system, underground
utilities, telephone or other such underground servicing
improvement=_ as may be necessary to complete the improvements
antir_ipated by the attached plat and the herein agreement.
2. Open Space 2 Cateao~: That portion of the
attached plat designated as "Open Space 2" further referenced
under Article I hereinabove, shall be limited in use to the
-6-
,.
extent necessary to retain its natu;~l state as a river corri-
dor, with no uses, improveir~ents, activity, or other action
allowed that will cause any interruption or interference with
such natural river corridor state which currently exists;
provided, however., that the City shall be allowed limited
clearing and improvement within this open space 2 category
sufficient to allow for tt~e completion of any minimal trails
and trail easements necessary and anticipated to allow for the
inter-connection of the trails system anticipated by the
attached plat, and provided further, that there shall be
allowed such easements for underground service facilities and
systems necessary to cause the completion of the improvements
and developments anticipated by the attached plat and the here-
in agreement.
3. Main Street Right-Of-Wav: That portion of the
attached plat designated as "P4ain Street R.O.W." as further
referenced under Article I hereinabove, shall be reserved
solely for use as an extension of the Main Street corridor, in
the event such corridor is actually approved and constructed.
At all other times during which such Main Street corridor sha].1
not be in existence, the property contained within the parce~
known as the "Main Street R.O.W." shall be preserved and its
use limited by the provision=_ of sub-subparagraph 1 and
sub-subparagraph 2 hereinabove, those portions of such parcel
which vrould normally be contained within the category known as
Open Space 1 being limited by the uses anticipated for such
cateoory, and those portions of the P4ain Street R.O.W. parcel
that would otherwise be contained a~ithin Open Space 2 being
limited by such respective uses.
4. Cemetery Lane R.O.W.: That portion of the
attached plat categorized as "Cemetery Lane R.O.W." as further
referenced under Article I hereinabove, shall be limited in use
solely to improvements in the nature of extending Cemetery Lane
from its intersection with State Highway 82 through and includ-
ing its connection with Castle Creek Road, a].onq with any
necessary lighting, signage, easements, pavinc, curb and
gutter, and other necessary improvements to allow for the
roadway extension's compliance with necessary state, county,
and muni.cipa]. code=_, as well as compliance with the provisions
of the attached plat and the herein agreement. At a].1 ti.mes
during which the Cemetery Lane extension improvements are not
required or necessary, the land contained vrithi.n the "Cemetery
Lane R.O.W." parcel shall he limited in its use to those uses
consistent with the allowances provided under the Open Space 1
category hereinabove referenced.
In the event the City, following the dedication and
reservation anticipated by the attached plat and the herein
agreement with respect to the above-referenced eategori.es,
should allow, encourage, or participate in any action vrhich
would re __=ult in a breach of the above-referenced use limita-
tions as to any specific parcel category, then and in such
-7-
event, the Owner or the Ovmer's successors or assigns, shall
have a right to re-enter upon the res[~ective parcel and cause
an abatement of such breach by any legal process allowable,
including injunctive relief, and the costs for such abatement,
including court costs and .reasonable attorney's fees, shaJ.J. be
borne by the City. In the event such abatement is impractical
or i.mpossi_ble by reason of the nature and extent of the action
taken by the City in breach of the above limitations, then the
Owner, or i.ts successors or assigns, shall be entitled tc
re-enter the property, evict the City or its designee from
occupation or possession thereof, and receive a re-conveyance
of title to such parcel upon which the breach of use has
occurred.
B. Lot 3 Use Limitations - That portion of the attached
plat which is designated as "Lot 3" and as further referenced
under Article I hereinabove, shall be reserved and used subject
to the same limitations as those imposed upon "Open Space 1"
and "Open Space 2" categories above-referenced, as portions of
Lot 3 might have otherwise been included in either of those two
resper_tive categories; provided, however, the City shall be
allowed to lease said property to t'ie current user of same,
Neil Beck, and that such lease may allow fur the continuation
of its current use as a "non-conforming use so long as the
same tenant occupies the premises under such lease for the same
purposes.
C. Lots ]. and ?: With respect to the parcels indicated on
the attached plat and under Article I hereinabove as Lots 1 and
2, resper_tiveJy, the uses thereon =_hall be limited to those
uses allowed under. the particular zone category as applicable,
the attached plat, and the herein PUD and subdivision agree-
ment, with any breaches thereof to be remedied as is currently
provided by law.
D. Management - The management_of the properties contained
within the attached plat shall be governed by the following:
1. Open Space Rights of Way and Lot 3: With respect
to the categories on the attached plat and under Article I
hereinabove labeled as Open Space 1, Open Space 2, Plain Street
R.O.W., Cemetery Lane R.O.W. and Lot 3, the management and
supervision thereof shall be the responsibility and cost of
City, and shall be conducted on pur=_uant to the provisions and
intent of the attached plat and the herein PUD and Subdivision
Agreement; provided however, that at all times such management
and supervision shall he subject to proper easements for
access, ingress and egress over, across, and through such cate-
gories of property to the benefit of the owners and occupants
of the units contained within Lots 1 and 2 on the attached plat.
2. Lot l: As indicated, Lot 1 is anticipated to be
improved by the construction of seventy-three (73) dwelling
-B-
....
units, pursuant, to provisions elsewhere contained herein and on
the attached plat. Although documents will be filed against
Lot 1 submitting same to the provisions of the Colorado Condo-
minium Ownership Act, it is c~.arrently anticipated that the
units contained within Lot 1 will be operated initially as deed
restricted rental units, with such units converted to "for
sale" owner=_hip units at such time; as the market dictates and
the City agrees. During such time as the units contained
within Lot 1 are operated as rental units, the necessary condo-
minium association and condominium declaration shall be under
the control and direction of the Owner or the Owner's succes-
sors or a=_signs=. Pursuant thereto, the Owner shall cause the
management of the unit= contained within Lot 1 pursuant to a
profes=_ional property management contract which contract will
allow for the private management of said units con=_istent with
first-class property management policies, including such
leases, rules, regulations, fine systems, parking requirements,
and other policies and procedures that will enhance the live-
abi.li.ty and quality of such residential living environments.
The responsibility for such management shall rest with the
Owner, or its successors or assigns during such time as the
property is retained as a rental community, and the management
shall be the responsibility °uch timeeasytheruntltsnthereinated
condominium association, at
contained are converted to "for sale" ownership status by sep-
arate deeds. Such management contract shall also provide for
the proper management and supervi.=ion of the common facilities,
including the proper and on-going maintenance thereof, and
necessary budgets and reserves shall be allocated to provide
for proper deferred maintenance and reserves for replacements
as necessary to maintain a quality living environment.
3. Lot 2: As indicated elsewhere herein, Lot 2 shall
be improved by the construction of thirty-one (31) free market
dwelling units, which free market development shall be sub-
mitted to the provisions of the Colorado Condominium Ownership
Act. Pursuant thereto, a condominium a=_sociation will be
formed by the filing of necessary Articles of Incorporation,
and the establishing of By-Laws, Condominium Declarations,
Association budget and As=_ociati.on Rules and P.equlations suffi-
cient to meet the provisions of the Colorado Statutes applic-
able thereto, and to cause the adequate management and mainten-
ance of all common facilities included within Lot 2 in a manner
to reflect a first-cla=_s residential living community.
D. Maintenance - With respect to the maintenance of the
various parcels contained within the attached plat, and as
further referenced under Article I hereinabove, the following
shall apply:
1. Permanent Care and t•iaintenance of Open Spares .~
and ?. and Lot 3: The permanent care and maintenance of those
categories known as Open Space 1, Open Space 2 and Lot 3 shall
-9-
.~
. _,,
be pursuant to a plan provided, i..^olcmented, and borne by the
City, such plan of permanent care and maintenance to be
consistent. with the use limitations and manager.;ent provisions
elsewhere contained herein and to the enhancement of the
development plan shown on t.hc attached plat.
2.
R.O.W.: The
R.O.W. shall
paid for and
ent with the
where contai
Permanent Care and Maint!>nance
permanent care and maintenance
be pursuant to a plan provided
borne by the City, and such pl
use limitaticns and management
ned herein.
of Main Street
of the Main Street
for, implemented,
an =hall be consist-
provisions else-
3. Permanent Care and Faintenance of Cemetery Lan
R.O.W.: The permanent care and maintenance of the Cemetery
Lane R.O.N1. shall be subject to the following:
a. Interim roadway improvements: With respect
to those portions of the Cemetery Lane R.O.W. that are antici-
pated to be improved at the cost of the Owner pursuant to the
attached plat and Exhibit "D" attached hereto, the permanent
care and maintenance thereof shall be maintained pursuant to a
maintenance sharing agreement entered into between the manage-
ment entity for Lot 1 and the management entity for Lot 2, with
the responsibility for implementation of the plan borne L-y the
management entity for Lot 2. The maintenance sharing agreement
shall provide for a sharing of the costs between the ownership
of Lot 1 and the ownership of Lot ?_ that reflects 70% alloca-
tion to Lot 1 and 30% allocation to Lot 2 of such costs, and
the assessments therefor shall be reflected in the respective
condominium declarations for Lot 1 and Lot 2 as additional
assessments subject to appropriate liens as provided by
statute. Such maintenance sharing agreement shall include the
repair and replacement of the paving and other improvements to
be constructed by Owner as indicated, snow removal, landscape
maintenance, and other related costs, expenses and tasks con-
nected with the on-going care and maintenance of said improved
roadway and related facilities.
b. Remainder of Parcel and Permanent Roadway -
With respect to the remainder of the Cemetery Lane R.O.W. not
included within the interim roadway area above-referenced, and
with further respect to the full Cemetery Lane R.O.W. in the
event of the full extension of the Cemetery Lane Roadway in a
manner that results in its connection to Castle Creek Road and
public dedication to the City, the permanent care and mainten-
ance thereof shall be pursuant to a plan provided, implemented,
and paid for by the City, such plan subject to the use limita-
tions and management provisions herei.nabove set forth.
4. Lot 1: The permanent care and maintenance of any
recreational areas, common parking, common facilities and pri-
vate interior streets within Lot 1 shall be pursuant to a
-10-
property management contract entered into hetv+een the Owner, or.
its successors or assigns, and a property management company
that will allow for sufficient funds and budget categories to
provide snow removal services, building and grounds mainten-
ance, and other maintenance services normally provided by such
private professional management companies to allow for the
proper care, deferred maintenance, repair and replacement of
the facilities contained witf-yin Lct 1 draring such time that the
units therein are operated as a rental development. At such
time as the units contained within Lot 1 shall he converted to
separate unit ownership by orav of transfer of deed, then the
permanent care and maintenance thereof shall be provided pur-
suant to a plan that ree,uires the condominium association to
establish a budget, and pursue maintenance pursuant to proper
covenants and assessment provisions contained within the condo-
minium declaration allowing for same. The covenants and provi-
sions shall be contained within the condominium declaration
originally filed against the property at inception, although
not necessary to be incurred until such time a= the units are
converted to separate ownership. The plan shall include the
appropriate fill_nq of the necessary documents pursuant to state
statute, including the article= of incorporation for the condo-
mihium association, by-la~~rs and condominium declaration, which
documents shall meet at least the following requirements:
a. The condominium association mu<_t be estab-
lished before any of the units contained within Lot 1 are
transferred to separate ownership:
b. Membership in the condominium association
will be mandatory for each unit owner, pursuant to the provi-
sions of the Colorado Condominium Ownership Act;
c. Any open space restrictions contained within
Lot 1 must and will be permanent and not for a period of years
(subject to long term ground lease,, if any);
d. The condominium association shall be respons-
ible for a blanket liability and hazard insurance policy with
respect to the common areas as well as maintenance of
recreational and other facilities;
• e. The condominium association shall have the
power to levy assessments which will become a lien on individ-
ual units for the purpose of paying the cost of operating and
maintaining common facilities;
f. The board of managers for the condominium
association shall consist of at least five (5) members who
shall. be owners of units within Lot 1.
5. Lot 2: The permanent care and maintenance of the
commonly owned facilities, including recreational facilities,
-11-
,.
parking and any private ~tre?ts conta9_ned within Lot ?_ shall be
pursuant to a property management agreement entered into
betvre;e:n the condominium association and either a professional
property management company or employment contracts with
personnel of the condominium association. As indicated, Lot 2
shall be submitted to the provisions of the Colorado Condomin-
ium Ownership .Act, by the filing of a condominium declaration
and condominium map, as appropriate, along with the filing of
articles of incorporation for the condor:~inium association,
by-laws for the condominium association, e=_tablishment of a
condominium association budget for mai.nienance and operations,
and the initiation of rules and regulation=_ ~vith respect there-
to. The document= to be provided with such condominium
establishment shall meet at least the following requirements:
a. The condominium association swill be estab-
lished before any of the individual units are sold within Lot 2;
b. Membership in the condominium association
will be mandatory for each unit owner;
c. Any common facility, common area, or open
space restrictions will be permanent in nature and not for a
period of years;
d. The condominium association vlill he re__=pons-
ible for blanket liability and hazard insurance upon the common
elements, as well as the maintenance of all common elements
thereunder;
e. The condominium association shall have the
power to levy assessments which will become a lien on individ-
ual units for the purpose of paying the cost of operating and
maintaining common element=_ and facilities;
f. The board of managers of such condominium
association shall consist of at least five (5) members who
shall be owners of units within the condominium development.
VI.
WATER RIGHTS AND AVAILABILITY
Owner and City mutually acknowledge that certain water
rights accrue to the property which is the subject of the
attached plat, which rights have been adjudicated and are
titled in the Owner. Additionally, City and Owner recognize
that the attached plat will result in a demand for taP`-
in order to allow for the proper servicing of the needs of the
improvements to he construr.ted thereon. In connection there-
with, Owner and City agree to assign an appropriate value to
the adjudicated water rights of the Owner, and to the taps
necessitated by the anticipated development herein, and pur-
suant to respective off-sets, result in a net fee to be paid by
-12-
.,~. . _
Owner to City, which fee would be intended to cover all neces-
sary tap fees, plant investment fens, and other fees and
charges that may in any manner, or form be connected with the
installation and hook-up of water service to the property
covered hereby. It is understood t'nat these fees are exclusive
of any on-going service fees that would be required to continue
the water servicing to the units contained within Lots 1 and 2
and to the property generally covered hereby.
The respective values of the water rights and water taps
and fees are hereby acknowledged as equaling those set forth on
Exhibit "E", entitled "Relative ~^Jater Rights and Fee Values"
which relative values, properly off-set, result in net fees
payable by the Owner to the City for water installation,
hook-up, and other related charges equal to
($ )•
VII.
SEWER AVRILABILITY
(To be inserted upon determination)
VIII.
FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
Pursuant to Section 20-16(C) of the Municipal Code, Ovaner
hereby agrees to provide a guaranty for no less than One
Hundred Percent (100%) of the estimated cost of the imorove-
ments to be constructed, which estimated costs, as further =_et
forth and allocated under Exhibit "D" attached hereto
total Dollars ($ ) as
approved by the City Engineer. The guaranty to be provided by
Owner shall be in the form of cash escrow with the City or a
bank or savings and loan association; or shall be in the form
of an irrevocable sight draft or letter of commitment from a
financially respcn=_ible lender; and such guaranty shall give
the City the unconditional right, upon default by the Owner, or
its successor or assign, to withdraw funds upon demand co
partially or fully complete and/or pay for any improvements or
pay any outstanding bills for wor4< done thereon by any party.
As portions of the improvements required are completed, the
City Engineer shall in=_pect them, and upon approval and accep-
tance, he shall authorize the release of the agreed estimated
cost for that portion of the improvements; provided, however,
that ten percent (109b) of the estimated cost shall be withheld
-13-
,~ - ~..
~.,.. . ;
until all proposed improvements are cor~?pleted and approved by
the City Engineer. For purposes of clarity, the percentage
attributable to the estimated costs that are applicable to each
stage of completion are as further set. forth on Exhibit "F",
entitled "Improvement Completion Percentage Schedule", which
schedule shall be binding upon the City and Owner with respect
to amounts to he released upon the City Engineer's approval of
the respective completion stage. To tf?e extent portions of
such completion stages a set forth in ~:_xhibit "F" are deter-
minable to be approved severally by the City Engineer, an
equitable allocation of funds to he released shall be applied
as and when such partial completions occur.
The Owner, its successor= or assigns, hereby agrees to
further provide unto City a warranty as to all improvements for
a period of one (1) year from and after acceptance by the City
as to such improvements.
The Owner shal] further guaranty by a maintenance bond or
other suitable means, the repair of any existing improvements
damaged during the course of construction of new improvements
pursuant to the provisions hereof.
IX.
MISCELLANEOUS
A. The provisions hereof shall be binding upon and inure
to the benefit of the Owner and City and their respective suc-
cessors and assigns.
B. This agreement shall be subject to and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado.
C. If any of the provisions of this agreement or any para-
graph, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or section or the
application thereof in any circumstances is invalidated, such
invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of
this agreement, and the application of any such provision,
paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or section in any
other circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
D. This P.U.D. and Subidivison Agreement contains the
entire understanding between the parties herein :vith respect to
the transactions contemplated hereunder and may be altered or
amended from time to time only by written instruments executed
by all parties hereto.
E. Numerica). and title headings contained in this contract
are for convenience purposes only, and shall not be deemed
determinative of the substance contained herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto
executed their hands and seals on the dates and year
-14-
~~
` es
respectively indicated, in hill un~!er~tanding and agreement to
the terms and conditions herein contained.
CITY GF ASPEN,
A Colorado Municipal Corporation
Oy:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
ayor
STATE OF COLORADO )
5S.
COUNTY OF )
The above and foregoing was sub9crib~d and sworn to before
me this day of '
Mayor and ,City Clerk of the City of
Aspen, A Colorado Punicipal Corporation.
Witness my hand and official. seal.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
MAROLT RSSOCIATES,
A Colorado General Partnership
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
COUNTY OF )
artner
artner
artner
'artner
The above and foregoing was subscribed and sworn to before
me this day of 19_ by
,
-15-
.Arv...
` ~yp~ !
and Partners of P1arolt associates, A
Colorado General Partnership.
Witness my hand and offScial. seal.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
-16-
o- i. .
'~ L=GAL OESCRIPTIOtJ
' EXHIBIT A
A tract of land situated in Lots 9, 10, 13, S;J 1/4 S:J 1/4 Sec. 12, T10S,
P.35iJ, 6th P.t•1. and Lot 5 and tJtJ• 1/4 tt:J 1/4 Sec. 13, T10S, P.35iJ, 6th P.tt,
described as follows:
Beginning at a point, in the center line of Castle Creek (the SW car.
Lot 2 Adams Subdivision), '
thence.tJ14°40'E 149.97 ft. to corner ;l3 Holden Tract,
thence ?114°35'1J 172.00 ft. to corner '14 Holden Tract,
thence tl37°50'4! 314.72 ft. to corner rl Holden Tract, being identical
with corner >4 ttorth Texas gill Site h1S n3288,
thence tJ54°45'41 84.00 ft. to the center line of Castle Creek,
thence tJ26°00'41 94.00 ft. along the center line of Castle Creek,
thence t128'10'E 294.00 ft. along the cente4- line of Castle Creek,. -
thence ti20°05'E 115.40 ft. along the center line of Castle Creek,
*_o the Snuth P.ight-of-4lay line of Colorado Higha:ay tto. 82,
thence ti75°03':1 360.26 ft. along the South Right-of-4lay line of Colo-
rado Highway Ho. 82,
ti:ence 63.52 ft. along the arc of a curve to the left (radius of 905.00
ft, chord bears iJ77°C3'38"41 63.51 ft. ).,
thence 810°51':J 90:71 ft.,
thence 821°47'4!282.37 ft.,
thence 825°23'41 715.83 ft. to a point being 1794.68 ft. 841°52'15" E,
from the 1954 Brass Cap marking the 41 1/4 corner of Sec. 12,
thence 518°14':J 1107.77 ft. to the fJorth Right-of-:day line of Castle
Creek Road,
thence 840°00'E 114.98•ft. along the north Right-of-4lay line of .
Castle Creek. P.oad,
thence 853°34'E 124.61 ft. along the Horth Right-of-;Jay line of Castle
Creek P.oad,
thence tJ31°56'E 254.45 ft.,
~- ~ thence 806°42'E 308.07 ft.,
' thence 1190°00':d 9.11 ft.,
thence 833°00'E 61.65 ft.,
thence tJ68°35'E 280.15 ft. to line 1-2Short Lime t1S `4610,
thence tt16°00'W 44.62 ft. along line 1-2 to corner tlo. 1 Short
Lime MS X4610,
thence 1174°00'E 236.35 ft. along line 1-4 of Short Lime h15 ,4610,
thence N90°00'i~! 74.04 ft.,
thence tt19°12'E 117.35 ft.,
thence .142°30'W 329.09 ft.,
thence tl02°43'tl 221.35 ft.,
thence til6°44'E 139.78 ft., •
thence S70°12'E 120.00 ft.,
thence td36°45'E 268.63 ft. to the most tlortherly corner of property
described in book 196 at Page 376, Pitkin County Records,
thence il60°46'1! 190 feet to the center line of Castle Creek,
thence along the center line of Castle Creek the follo~.aing courses:,
t112°33' 29"ld 154.72 feet,
thence td43°00'E 30.00 feet,
thence tt85°30'E 83.00 feet,
thence tl85°00'E 150.00 feet,
thence S68°00'E 30.00 feet,
thence 577°00'E 110.00 feet,
thence t:81°19'21"E 4D.17 feet to the point of beginning.
.containing 35.25 acres, more or less.
..>
EXHIBIT B
SITE DATA TABULATION (BY PARCEL)
Total Acreage: 35.25 Acres
Lot 1
Acreage: 4.325
No. of Units: 70 Employee
Size & Type: 34 - 2 bedroo m 2 bath @ 845 S.F.
19 - 1 bedroo m 1 bath @ 637 S.F.
17 -Studios, 1 b ath @ 484 S.F.
Parking: 104 spaces (1 per bedroom)
Parcel Density: 16.8 DU/Acre
Ground Coverage: Units
Bu li ding A - 3880 S.F.
B - 6486 S.F.
C - 6486 S.F.
D - 3243 S.F. = 20,095 S.F.
Parking '
104 spaces @ 180 S.F. = 19,620 S.F.
Road
900 .L.F. @ 24' width = 21,600 S.F.
400 L.F. @ 10' width = 4,000 S.F.
TOTAL COVERAGE/LOT 1 65,315 S.F.
Projected Dfonthly
Rental Rates 2 bedroom $591/month (70~/S.F.)
1 bedroom $446/month
Studio $338/month
Lot 2
Acreage: 6.925
No. of Units: 30 Free market
Size & Type:
- 30 - 3 bedroom 4 bath @ 2400 S.F.
Amenitie The Granary - storage &
- Clubhouse
amen
sties
Marolt Homestead - Manag ement Office
Landscape plaza and pool @ 1500 S.F.
Tennis Court @ 7200 S.F.
Parking: 60 Covered (2 per unit)
Parcel Density: 4.5 DU/Acre
Ground Coverage: Units
3 bedrooms 35,588 S.F.
Granary & Homestead 4,850 S.F.
Pool Plaza 1,500 S.F.
Tennis Court 7,200 S.F.
Parking 12,060 S.F.
Road - 1390 L.F.@ 25' wi dth 33,360 S.F.
Paths - 1150 L.F. @ 11,500 S. F.
TOTAL COVERAGE/LOT 2 106,058 S.F.
EXHIBIT C
MAROLT RANCH
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Site Improvements
Employee Housing Units (Lot 1)
Free Market Units (Lot 2)
Site Work
Mass Grading, Utilities Reloration,
Construction Access Roads
Employee Housing Units (Lot 1)
Site Utilities
Building Excavation & Foundations
Superstructure & Exterior Closure
Interior Construction & Finishes
Finished Site Development
Roads & Parking Areas,
Intersection Completion, Finish
Grading, Landscaping, Walks
Free Market .Units (Lot 2)
Site Utilities
Building Phase 1 (11 Units)
Building Excavation & Foundations
Superstructure & Exterior Closure
Interior Construction & Finishes
Finished Site Development
' Roads & Parking Areas,
Finish Grading, Landscaping
Building Phase 2 (19 Units)
building Excavation & Foundations
Superstructure & Exterior Closure
Interior Construction & Finishes
Finished Grading, Landscaping
Roads & Parking Areas,
Fir;ish Grading, Landscaping
.~.
Aug. 1, 1981 - Oct. 1, 1981
Apr. 15, 1982
Apr. 15, 1982
May 1, 1982 -
June 1, 1982
Aug. 1, 1982
Aug. 1, 1982
- Dec. 31, 1982
- July 31, 1982
June 30, 1982
Oct. 15, 1982
Dec. 31, 1982
Oct. 31, 1982
July 1, 1981 - July 31, 1983
May 1, 1982 - July 31, 1982
June 1, 1982 - Jan. 31, 1983
June 1, 1982 - June 30, 1982
July 1, 1982 - Sep. 30, 1982
Oct. 1, 1982 - Jan. 31, 1983
Aug. 1, 1982 - Oct. 31, 1982
Sep. 1, 1982 - July 31, 1983
Sep. 1, 1982 - Sep. 30, 19II2
Oct. 1, 1982 - Dec. 31, 1982
Jan. 1, 1983 - Apr. 30, 1983
May 1, 1983 - July 31, 1983
..,
"``J EXHIBIT D `"'
MAROLT RANCH
IMPROVEMENT RESPONSIBILITY SCHEDULE
Item Total Cost
Sewer
Existing Manhole
to Manhole #8
Manholes $ 9,600.00
8" Sewer. 34,925.00
Manhole #8 to
Manhole #11
Manholes 3;600.00
8" Sewer 8,900.00
Manhole #8 to #12 &
Manhole #12 to #17
Manholes 7,200.00
8" Sewer 36,325.00
Sewer Tap
Connections
Sewer Totals
14,250.00
$114,800.00
$ 6,720.00 (70%)
24,447.50 (70%)
7,200.00 (100%}
36,325.00 (100%)
2,700.00
$77,392.50
Free Market Units
Percentage Share & Cost
$ 2,880.00 (30%)
10,477.50 (30%)
3,600.00 (100%)
8,900.00 (100%)
11,550.00'
$37,407.50
` Water
Interconnection
12" D.I.Pipe $ 16,415.00 $11,490,50 (70%) $ 4,924.50 (30%)
12" Valve 2,500.00 1,750.00 (70%) 750.00 (30%)
Free Market Water Service
12" D.I. Pipe 11,221.00 - 11,221.00 (100%)
10" D.I. Pipe 42,770.00 - 42,770.00 (100%)
8" D.I. Pipe 15,225.00 - 15,225.00 (100%)
12" Valve 2,500.00 - 2,500.00 (100%)
Fire Hydrants 5,250.00 - 5,250.00 (100%)
12" Water Service 2,700.00 - 2,700.00 (100%)
3/4" Water Service 300.00- - 300.00 (100%)
Employee Housing
Water Service
8" D.I. Pipe 14,875 'OU 14,875.00 (100%) -
8" Valve 501),00 500.00 (100%) -
Fire Hydrants 5,250.00 5,250.00 (100%) -
2" Water Service 3,00,0.00,..:. __. 3,000.00 (100%) _ -
Water Totals $122,506.00 . $36,865.50
Employee Housing
Percentage Share & Cost
$85,640.50
-,
,, ,.
-= EXHIBIT D ~...
MAROLT RANCH
IMPROVEMENT RESPONSIBILITY SCHEDULE (continued)
Item Total Cost
Drainage
Employee Housing
Drainage Basins 1,2,3
12" C.M.P. $ 3,225.00
3' Standpipe 2,000.00
Concrete 2,250.00
Excavation & 8,000.00
Embankment
Employee Housing
Percentage Share & Cost
Free Market Units
Percentage Share & Cost
Free Market
Drainage Basins 1,2,3
21" C.M.P. 4,320.00
15" C.M.P. 1,320.00
3' Standpipe 5,000.00
Excavation & 9,600.00
Embankment
Tennis Courts 1,500.00
Improvements
Rock Channel 1,500.00
Check Dams
Free Market Units 1,950.00
Cemetery Lane 1,050.00
Holden Road 1.800.00
Drainage Totals $43,515,00
Irrigation Relocation
Holden Ditch
50x31 Arch Pipe .$30,750.00
Channel Excava. 1,050.00
Headwall 1,000.00
Marolt Ditch
30 mil.hypalon
liner 7,200.00
Red Butte Cemetery
8" Irrigation gate 800.00
Headwall 500.00
8" P.V.C. Pipe &
Fittings 4,080.00
Irrigation Totals $45,380.00
f,
$ 3,225.00 (100%)
2,000.00 (100%)
2,250.00 (100%)
8,000.00 (100%)
735.00 (70%)
1,800.00 (100%)
$18,010.00
$ 4,320.00 (100%)
1,320.00 (100%)
5,000.00 (100%)
.9,600.00 (100%)
1,500.00 (100%)
1,500.00 (100%)
1,950.00 (100%)
315.00 (30%)
$25,505.00
$30,750.00 (100%
1,050.00 (100%
1,000.00 (100%
$32,800.00
$ 7,200.00 (100%)
800.00 (100%)
500.00 (100%)
4,080.00 (100%)
$12,580.00
EXHIBIT D ~~`
<.~
MAROLT RANCH
IMPROVEMENT RESPONSIBILITY SCHEDULE (continued)
Employee Housing Free Market Units
Item Total Cost Percentage Share & Cost Percentage Share & Cost
Roads, Driveways,
Parking Areas &
Bike Paths
Hwy. 82-Holden Rd.
Intersection to
Station 3+00
Asphalt $15,000.00 $10,500.00 (70%) $4,500.00 (30%)
Base Course 13,300.00 9,310.00 (70%) 3,990.00 (30%)
Excavation &
Embankment 18,600.00 13,020.00 (70%) 5,580.00 (30%)
Traffic Light
Controls 30,000.00 21,000.00 (70%) 9,000.00 (30%)
Concrete 1,000.00 700.00 (70%) 300.00 (30%)
Painting 1,500.00 1,050.00 (70%) 450.00 (30%)
Traffic Control 3,000.00 2,100.00 (70%) 900.00 (30%)
(during construction)
Irrigation Ditch
Relocation 990.00 693.00 (70%) 297.00' (30%)
Drainage Swales 800.00 560.00 (70%) 240.00 (30%)
18" C.M.P. 5,075.00 3,552.50 (70%) 1,522.50 (30%)
Subtotal $89,265.00
Holden Road -
Station 3+00 to
Station 7+66 (Free Market
Entrance)
Asphalt $13,200.00
Base Course 12,040.00
Excavation &
Embankment 3,000.00
Subtotal $28,240.00
Holden Road -
Station 7+66 to
Station 16+69 (Employee
Housing Entrance)
Asphalt $25,500.00
Base Course 23,240.00
Excavation &
Embankment 6,000.00
Subtotal $54,740.00
$62,485.50 $26,779.50
$ 9,240.00 (70%) $ 3,960.00 (30%)
8,428.00 (70) 3,612.00 (30%)
21,000.00 (70%) 900.00 (30%)
$19,768.00 $ 8,472.00
$25,500.00 (100%) ~ -
23,240.00 (100%) -
6,000.00 (100%) -
$54,740.00
EXHIBIT D
.,
MAROLT RANCH
IMPROVEMENT RESPONSIBILITY SCHEDULE (continued)
i
Employee Housing
Item Total Cost Percentage Share & Cost
Employee Housing
Drive & Parking
Station 7+66 to End
Asphalt $42,000.00 $42,000.00 (100%)
Base Course 28,420.00 28,420.00 (100%)
Excavation &
Embankment 45,000.00 45,000.00 (100%)
Subtotal $115,420.00 $115,420.00
Free Market Drives,
Parking & Access Lo op
Asphalt $ 35,280.00 _
Base Course 24,696.00 _
Excavation &
Embankment 38,000.00 _
Subtotal $ 97,976.00 _
Roads Total $385,641.00 $252,413.50
Electric
Relocate overhead $ 8,250.00 _
lines in free
market area
Relocate overhead 2,250.00 $ 2,250.00 (100%)
lines in employee
area
Underground service 40,000.00 -
to free market units
Underground service 40,000.00 40,000.00 (100%)
to employee units
Electric Total $ 90,500.00 - $ 42,250.00
Telephone
Relocate existing $ 8,800.00 $ 4,400.00 (50%)
overhead lines
Telephone Total $ 8,800.00 $ 4,400.00
Natural Gas
2" Steel main $ 8,240.00
3/4" Service con-
nections 2.700.00
Natural Gas Total $ 10,940.00
Free Market Units
Percentage Share & Cost
$ 35,280.00 (100%)
24,696.00 (100%)
38,000.00 (100%)
$ 97,976.00
$133,227.50
$ 8,250.00 (100%)
40,000.00 (100%)
$ 48,250.00
$ 4,400.00 (50%)
$ 4,400.00
- $ 8,240.00 (100%)
- $ 2,700.00 (100%)
- $ 10,940.00
EXHIBIT 0
MAROLT RANCH
IMPROVEMENT RESPONSIBILITY SCHEDULE (continued)
1
Employee Housing Free Market Units
Item Total Cost Percentage Share & Cost Percentage Share & Cost
Landscaping
Fine grading,
trees & plants,
site accessories $225,000.00
SITE IMPROVEMENTS
TOTALS $1,047,082.00
SITE IMPROVEMENTS
TOTALS (ROUNDED) $1,050,000.00
$ 75,000.00
$539,131.50
$540,000.00
`_
$150,000.00
$507,950.50
$510,000.00
EXHIBIT E
k
MAROLT RANCH .. ~ ,.
SITE It4PROVEt4ENT PERCENTAGE COMPLETION SCHEDULE
Item
1. Approval of Final Plat
2. Advertise for Bids
3. Anticipated Award of
Site Improvements
Contracts
4. Notice to Proceed
5. Red butte Cemetery
Pipeline Relocation
6. Construct .Temporary
Marolt Ditch
Time Period
June 8, 1981
July 6, 1981
Percentage of Guaranty,
Guaranty Release Date
July 24, 1981
Aug. 1, 1981
Aug. 1 - Aug. 10, 1981
Aug. 1 - Aug. 10, 1981
7. Rough Grading, Free
Market & Employee Aug. 1 - Sep. ~ 0, 1981
8. Holden Road Rough
Grading & Placement of
24' Width of Base Course Aug. 1 - Aug. 31, 1981
9. Electric & Telephone
Relocation, Free tlarket July 1 - July 31, 1981
10. Remainder of Electric
& Telephone Relocation Aug. 1 - Aug. 31, 1981
11. Holden Ditch Relocation Sep. 1 - Oct. 1, 1981
12. Installation of Sewer &
Water, Free Market May 1 - June 30, 1982
13. Installation of Sewer &
Water, Employee Apr. 15 - May 31, 1982
14. Installation of Remainder
of Sewer & Water May 15 - July 31, 1982
15. Installation of Underground
Electric, Telephone, TV,
Gas Lines, Free Market ~
Employee June 1 - July 31, 1982
11%, September 1981
3%; October 1981
31%, August 1982
._
~.,
EXHIBIT F .
MAROLT RANCH
SITE IMPROVEMENT PERCENTAGE COMPLETION SCHEDULE (continued)
Percentage of Guaranty,
Time Period Guaranty Release Date
Item
16. Finish Grading &
Drainage Improvements, .
Free Market Phase 1 &
Aug.
1982 -
1
Aug. 31, 1982
Employee ,
17. Intersection Work Aug. 1, 1982 - Sep. 30, 1982
30%, October 1982
18. Finish Grading, Base
Course Placement & Paving,
Free Market Phase 1 &
Employee Aug. 1, 1982 - Sep. 30, 1982
19. Landscaping, Free Plarket 15%, November 1982
Phase 1 & Employee Oct. 1, 1982 - Oct. 31, 1982
20. Finish Grading, Base
Course Placement & Paving,
Free Market Phase 2 May 1, 1983 - June 30, 1983
21. Landscaping 10%, Au ust 1983
Free Market Phase 2 June 1, 1983 - July 31, 1983 9
. t
<>7Jff Nf . {(('l!'I~f•/(~(!I! •~!!f ((Q r(R if ./(JGr(Cr!
565 NORTH MILL STREET
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE d 925-2(337
May 26, 1981
Carlie Wood
Design Work Shop
415 S, Spring
Aspen, Co 81611
To Whom it May Concern:
The estimated tap fee for the Marolt project based on 31 free market units
and 73 employee units plus a switmning pool and amenity building is 86,453•
These are current tap figures and can be subject to change in the future.
Sincerely
Heiko Kuhn, Manager
Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District
EXIIIBIT ~,-- Additional harking Schedule
v ~ ;;
,`
I. , `, ~t _~ __ _ .... .. ..
` t
This plan indicates the areas reserved for additional parking in the
Free Market Cluster, which can be constructed at such time as the City
deems it necessary. The covered parking shown on the plan allows for
two cars per unit. The applicant has asked for a partial exemption
from parking requirements, providing two-thirds of the parking required
by Code.
MP~ROLT
•.p.. cm.m
ADDITIONAL PARKING
FREE MARKET CLUSTER
,~.,
z„ ,~~
Filed for record December 27, 1972 at 3:02 P.H, f1UUA',y+'~r~, i, r1i~
Reception No. 156167 Peggy E. Miklich, Recorder ~~'`tG•R~
i
~ i
f
EXECUTORS' DEED
F
This Indenture, Made this ~7~day of sec ~.++~ ~"~C~' , ;
in the year of our Lord One Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy
Two between First Pennsylvania Banking and Trust Company, Win-
field A. Huppuch II and William fi. Clark, as executors of the ~
Estate of Leonard M. Thomas, deceased, parties of the first part '
and The City of Aspea, a Colorado municlpal corporaticn, County
f
of Pitkin and State of Colorado, party of tho second part,
Witnesseth that
Whereas, the said parties of the first part did, on
the 17th day of November A,D, 1972, sell at private sale to the
party of the second part, the hereinafter described real estate
pursuant to and in full compliance with the power of sale con-
tamed in the will of said eecedent, which is as follows:
"TENTH: 1 hereby grant to my executors, with
respect to any and all property, whether real or
personal, of which I am the owner at the time of
my death, or which shall at any time constitute a
part of my estate, and to my trustees, with respect
to any and all property, whether real or personal,
which shall at any time constitute part of any
trust created hereunder, the following powers, in
addition to those conferred by Law:
ssr
^(b) To sell such property at either public
or private gale for cash or on credit, to exchange
such property, and to grant options for the
purchase thereof;"
Now, Therefore, This Indenture Witnesseth, That the
said parties of the first part for more than Ten Dollars and
other con4lderation have sold and conveyed, and by these presents
da sc21 and convoy unto the said party o° the socond part, its
• successors and assigns forever; all the right, title, interest
and•estato rhich the said Leonard Et. Thos had in his•lifetime
and at the timo of his dentU in and to the follow+.ng dar:cribed
real esfiate, situate, lying and boing in tho County of PitkS.r~
and State of Colorado as described in l.xhibits A-1, A-'l and A-3
attac:cact hereto ant lncorporatod herein; together with all
...
mater and mater x°ighte, ditches and ditch rights, appurtena:~
to or used in connection with said lands, in the ratio or
~~ proportion of ?9.38/110,38 of the total water and ditch
rights appurtenant to the 110,38 acres encompassed in the
Marolt Ranch at the time of closing of the within sale.
To }{ave and To Hold the Same, •ith all appurtenances
thereunto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, to the proper
use, benefit and behoof of the said party of the second part,
its successors and assigns fox'ever,~ except liens, assessments
!, and easements of record,
The parties of the first part reserve unto therselvcs,
their successors and assigns:
;.;~ ,- .
~1.)y an irrevocable easement for a mater transmission
line and '
~"~,,.
-2.'.;lan irrevocable right of user of a roadway as said
~~J
easement and right of user are Bore sully des_
\ cribed in the Agreement For Sale sad purchase
\ between the parties hereto dated t:ovenber 17,
1972.
.,
.~ .~
:< _, : v... ~.
..
. • • Ituun ~ ! (~ rat.t a~ ~>n#
in t'tilttuNn A}~t+r`nar, thu He~id parties: of tho Ci:`wC pa~•t,
ea F'xc+rutoee of xnid e~r>1taCe~ as arorat~Aid have c+xnoulod thix CranC ~
Chp day and year heroinabova wriCCan,
'1'tIG FIRIT PC;NN9YLVANIA {}ANKINd
AND TRUST CONI'ANY
Arrtr~T
1 ~ ~ r~~ ~ s
.~ ,~
r
1
~},
.i •.
~
t ~ k. ~ ,
..
` ~ ,
( \\ ~ • .I ~d I
•~
5
.
. •»~
~
;`• tV ne to ,u a au~
!
.
,
. ~ .~ .~
,, .a~ , ~., ~ , ~ ~
1
~
,
,, .~
r
, ,
,
•
.
~ ~
C
( 1 .. ~_~ N~~I' i
'~
~
'' A
~'nr
' i
. ThQ ExeouCora o! Cha Lar,aCO of
Leonard N, Thomawr d@o@$ood,
9Cato o! Fannaylvania ?
3 ) ra, i
County of Philadal}~hia) ~
Tha for®poinQ inahrumnnC was eaknowlodgnd bofora ms Chia'
day o!..,L,'~ , 1972 by ~ ail ,1 ' 1 ,, ~
a® -- ~......;.:~,.:,... and by ,. , ~ ,
~~~
as ~. f ' ~ ,\ ,: 1.1 , of eh@ FiraC Pannnylvania Aankinq and
Trust Company, one of Che\'ex,~outora of Cho @acaCa o! Leonard MI
ThomArar deeua~ed. ,\,.1.q11•uull
ttyr tommieaiai axpiraas ~/ ~ I ~ r } . rt•,~~: ;`„",,,`.,
Witneao my hand and offioial aoai, t~ j7 I't ~`
s. ` ~ ,t.
. , .,....., .~..~...«~ w~.,ti:.;.
\ ~,al l ul,~,. ® ary U U If;l 7.11..LI,iil ~c~
\
~, ~ R
I' (\~~ I "~IIPIIU dI PI'1`I 1; 1 .
~1 I. .. ,~~pm..I ..d?, e.. i. . lie I
dCaC® of N®w York
1 ~ a®. ~ i
County of , , ,' r l 1 ;
Tha for@poinQ inaCrumonC waa aoknowledgod bafor® ma Chi®.
f ,,. •,.
day of •• •• ';~ r 3972 by Winfield A. Ituppuah tI ae
on@ of hha oxeoutoru of Cha Aaid ®aCaC® of t.eon@rd M• Thrmaa,
• 1 `\ ,~~1•n `qtr+l,.~,
dacraaed. `. ., '
}Zy oomrnie0lon @x~iraal /ilcf 1 1 ~l • 11': ~ 1/ ! ~'rl. {•:?1 '~~~'~"~.~~•' ~.
~tl
.n
biilnoaa my hand and offlairal w®al. k; ~t`~`f>„~!}}, ~;~:
•' •, Ir .
,,
~.at,..~r S°1~'~a~lU ~"r ,1 1 1'
\^
4.r~. _.,w tas ,H ff .rvS „•,f¢Y)
f
M '~ae
,•~
,~
,;
i'x',4'
~5~+t~ >.-~~,,,
i 9~i9tes Cl£ ~'t~lpt',eif®
CoUtt~y pt' I+,~tkitl j aA,
'd'he~ tas~~,~r~1ny ,~na~Gxum;~n~ waa Ac+~e~~rs~~.~. ;,;,.:,,.r 1 ,; . , ., <~.;
~ „~, ~
~, clay uP ~ .,~-'~. ,',.~.~,~ 12~a try it~lltNr,1 t1, t~~:,<:tt ,K: ;fir,
thA ~x~puruuYA pa ~ia~ Aai+,i ~;HGa~a <tP LQC~sleil,~ rl, 5'lt~ra.~~, ~3. r.•,~ _~,
~~„~Iq1HI~IIk~p, ~,' ~ My C~+ft~S'11~~i~,~Q11 &'aq.~~,*,'~~?~) ~{e~
4V~ ~~, f• ~ ~e ."S. A'-pt~yS:W,<Q '.5.ik!1 5i 1P>{
,\ p~~, ~~Pn,f ~,M~4 f K
~~`,;' ,. ',~.I`at, Witnn~a 1~y hnnci A~ci p~'io.i.r~l euAi, - r
a ~ ~
cr Q~~,~z~`,,, , ,~
x.11 .
1~ 1
j!
1
I
j
51
F
1
1
t
' t t
a
i
i
I
i
t
r
i
.,r {
f
.~ . ... .-,,,,--n
~p•~ .=w
j ~ tlUtM~~1 ~~ IAyt As r~~
Narember 29, 1972
Jab Yo. 2334A
'Phaata Estate IJeacripLim
Land Sale to City of Aepeae
~• r 830fIeIT Art
A tract of Lrd bring parts of Lote 8, 9, 610, seed the S7f}y7t} Sec. 12
T1O3 lts35?( 6YY deeecribed ar fallowse
Be~}nning aL a point being the intareeetion oI the South right of way lino at
State Him 1io. 82, and the Esat ri~ct of way lisee oS Lhs Castle Creek Road,
being 332.91 tt. S1Oo32'2O•Fr frca the ~} ear. Sea. 12 T1O3 N85'B 6F2i (a 1954
Bu:'oace of Larsd BanagoaenL Brass Cap),
Lhonco S16o36~S L`•87 ft. along thca Bast rift of wry Y~eee,
thanca S2Oo54'B 2006.31 it. along the Beat right of *~' tueae,
thonce S32°3O'8 67.10 tt. alaaeg thr Eaet rightr of ~7 twsce,
Lhemce AilB°11.x& 1107.77 ft.,
thence t125o28~S 715.$3 tL.,
thence $21o47'E 282.37 ft.,
thence FlIO°51eB SY1.71 tL. to Lhe Swath right of wAy 1Lae of Colo. State
BSgtcway Mo. 82,
thoneo aloaA a Burro to tho 1etL, radius at 905.0 tt., a distance of
416.88 SL. (chord boars a8'Jo41*'.i 413.21 tL.) along tree 9auth right ~
way lino of Colo. State Bighgy Sta. 82,
thence S74o27etp 272.30 ft. alms tho Saetb right of X67 line of Colo. Slate liib'~k9
ko. 82,
thence slang a etuwe to the rig?cL, radices of IS4+"i.O ft., a distance oY 919.Sb
ft: (chord baasa Ali}o32e~ 897,E.3 it.), along the South right of way linz+
of Colo. Strte iii~tc!say Ko. B2, to the paint of bagiifeiing, aub3eet to to2rphogr,
power, water, and ditch lines in place,
EXCF.: T A tract of land foreoer7,p being Colo. Yiidland Fail $oad Rirjet of !ay
in Lot+ 8 and 10, and the 5;~d Sec. 12, dnwcriood in B'c 175 - Pg. 628
Pitkin County Records, atoro particul:x•ily deacrlbod as tollowa:
Beginning at a point on the Beat line of rho iT.axiaa Harare proporLy being
1823.79 rt. S4Oo19eS iron tiwe ~;} eer. See. 12 t1A3 R85n 6i'l? (a 1954 Burwa
of Land itanaComont Brans Cap),
thence 518~14eYf 66.44 tL. along tho SaaL Line of the 'fim7a Estate proporty,
Lhonce elan . a ctuwo to the loft, radius of 308.10 tt., a distance c3
$l~0.42 ft. (chow boars SlSo54et7 4i'3.?u tLe), •
~~
=•. _ I~
~ ~ ~ .~ ~ `I
~,
~ ~ ~ ~ ai
. • ~ ~ ~ ! ~I
. .• ltoresbsr 29, 1972 ~ II
..
Job ltoe 2334A
s ~ ' •tif.. ' . ~ Shows Fsetaty oosCription ~~
''~ '' LaOd fidla to City at Aapa~ k ~
. 1 ~~
~ ` is
a . ~ ~ s.
~ ti
- F.ItIIBIT A-1
. z
A tract of land beinga'•part of Lot 11 Sec. 11 T10.4 tt854 6pst described i
' ~ ;, as follows: ~ ~ ~'
i
' Beginning at a poinE being the intersection of the South right of wa' j
line of Colo. State Nirtno-ay t2o. 62 and the West 21tfs Lot 11 See. 11, r
being S31a31~R 234.85 ft. from the F,F eor. Sea. 11 T103 R85W bPH,
' . (1954 El3I Braes Cap)
thence S03a00~B 289.34 it. along the West liue Lot 11 to the Northasl7 t
t
3 ~ right of rny• line of idaro~ Greek Bond, ~
' Thence N32o30'~ 123.E ft. along Maroon Greek Bond right d wsT, ~ I
Thenee t~13'Y ?29.24 tt. along the Maroon Creek Bosd right oP ~
Lo the South right of say luxe of Colo. Stste Ftig1~W tio. 82, ~
1
E
• S"tsance- SSOa43'W ]S~4's2b Yt. a].eng tho Bantle riabt of asy liha o2
' Colo. State tiig;xany t8a. 82 to tt» paint of Eo&3mix8, coutataint j
0.347 aerQa sore os laaa.• .. .. ~ ( '
• I
• ~: ~.
~,
• .. ~ •~ a
' ~~ ~ I
• ,..
f
i
~..~
,.. ;~
4
t .. _.. ^' f .'±. {
p 4"]0 u.t"i ~~'fR 65 <~'~:+f'68 .„-:r~l~+'11 MQ
_ ,., _-i ra;'r
_. _ _~.~ 2 _t i ,. 6 .. ,~ _.:..' L4:, ~ .~~ ~~ta~~ ~arfgp
'a t
{' ._ . .. _ .~ .'.1 ^i"' ~,a ;. n £. `:`'r ~7 dap fd 4'.'.'.B$Rd'_C~ G,t
i3 a~Gsfp
^., _
~. `c' ~ 'c } ° y .` C.s S''fid;'~r~i .i". arp A `C.'t 8i~.fiTN+.`~
~ i
3' _„ _~r~ s _„c2;;'_a ~ -
_ ',: ~.'!PT ~.'Y `c i Yae3 '."p 2`~tti~}.:i9 Ce° G .1bf~ f~rp @ G~:O.Ca -'..<;3 Gi .z.:`v,9' r~1,( a~.eo
Qty. ~ i~i1`i4Y6~. ~Ht~~as~' ~.Lrp •
- i.ilc.'~ '£ Po L'.ia ~7 e'.f a..a C•-i L:b;r a fi n 4n
a c u d'~~• ti.' t5 s Cf.Ti~f?Y x Ylt9 ti]' ~i-.30 S'~i:.r~f '44~~:,,:.':`$R
. L~~ r, ",.r ... .'4 .. ?::.-.Y Fd ..._>...~..C+'33 J' c.'u'a°t 4e:e~ p'.._',tv .~.s~ia" L°s a"~os ~~,~'
f
~tT'-.c ;i:aat `; ~:_,rlcrC) axa~:.rp
. .. -.A,
... r~crr # ,~~„.•, Pn ...,,,y _"~? F`^~!`uA C.' ~:sx.~~` f?c.r 6 ~"iaitme8 G'Y E"'.+sl j
`_
a;;.s it:'C."C°i Li. ..i i~~<..t,°~ d: ..~,j 31,«af & ~ E'ia'3 ~isS'". ~ F$ 4~i~ ta. :'$ k,',;.`v?'ei~
..;:~:
' .. l.+-: ~ ::i'. y.+:l,'4:i;~y~'+~91 r~1u,{~~1 (y~u~"~y ~•11_:~ IY64}A l wr~~ .y~~.. p4,i~YB(aF!_i'3~ ~~u¢r LiJu¢L YR'. ~w "~.~MY (~:~f , .r
. ~}~ ~~~ ~~ S /'.~~i a XyH@ ?r[.~.~a~y b.tIDi ~i~ian~ dG,e~ ("}8 F43~ kl~ ~iY#2Wa ~~~'~5 t!~
• _ :. t.
e., .~.} A Ti..,;a, rt`..':'ti'~ ~~"a~ 'rW i.~~'t~ ~ f. S"\~ ~Y d.`rF: ~' FV iJii CY.S SE~r <'~aCijr ~ i
at
r
• .. e
~4
•l
~..
4~,,;;
>, ..
,..
.,;s; : ~ . :;, ;.:
;F ° ' 7,__ to C..?v c ~ . =;'t
.r }„ OC ' ~ -;. ?at 1 it:`id 1r=?• fi ct" :e ~ •iR~
,;>
f a z~i ' ..ca A8 Z~~1 t5i
:,;' ' ;
• £S$
" - r ~,,~ x " ; Rr+~~i F i'z~ hF`~f1 ~~ 8 a:u a 6 :,. _ iCr'z
:.~ ~'~~-
...e ~ ~ ..+i ~,-~:-Ad ~'a~c~ a~~:a `e~ Azc '~ ~a~~tr~
r'': ..a +tt l'i 4.^ C-~+i G.R LF,tti ~._ -_. G+.'iSi. &.~9a ~a~
. _ ~ ,
~~, ~^
.. J a .~ < S ~ y
•' ~• +-JD
;;- ~° ,,i.,,';~ S't:%•DO ft. ~1~±n$ the ~vct 1,#zte P:~3, .,~o:
#.?;atec ~~+%~~0`L 7).t°.7~J fto,~
t?:e.;cu Ev0*4?0` 2.s^:~.L fL.,
t=::1es:'.tr. 20u~J`F+ 1~+J.°73 ft.i ,
t?ienoe 5~30ci.'0° 1'i0.00 ft.,
thence SgO~'0"A .160.00 ft.a
thence &?Do00` 3~.7J. ft.,
ther°c4 6'90°00`E 85.21 ft.~
tt~'"!co ::JO°00` 526.89 ft..
tho:zze 1.~OQ00`L 24.79 ft.~
thence 1AbW0` ]20.W it.~
thsn:® 1.90°00°~ 213.00 ft.,
the~rco ~?O;'00` 300.00 ft.,
tlieneo S``~u00i19 480.00 ft" .
thence is90e.00` 1.41.89 ft.~
thence 590~`J':3 557.E ft. to the R line of Lot b Rio. ~3,
r
t._.
u . .,< . , _
s _.
~.
:...
. <<
~y
u
f F~ p `~
fir. _:.~~.au~ ~na
' ~
'
`~
.
''
„_
ai.. ~
t~ x
«
~ O H
9
f
• ,. .~
• o w n ~ y y
~. t~,i T11.~4 ft.
~~
'
:.,
Pr.
" E
' ra ~.~.,
c:~ c
,4~~ c,l f4.. Uv xe°.3 Sd L
.,1.£ ~ < <~ ..~~
SLR ^=;.~3 3.~.kSz9_rE.
Y
S
p ._Ja -.S
a
ii D
ia?s
~; ._ ~
~
a8 ..3 •
r i. i i 4 - .~',i zs .,.
_,
t-
+~ A ~ ~ is S
>1
$
4
..
. N Y F' µ
,
~ f
~
+
t s ' s r
r 4 .,
~
'
_
a s. ~
Ri 'b i ! y
V i
[ t x.. .. ~ ~i~ ~ 2 t
Y
' ~~
.' }5 l ~..i~~e ~ v ... ..
~.: 44J
a
~ 0
y ; ^_ .
'• _.
~.i;.
i ...
~1
~
p
q
yN
f
It
r
e
MEMORANDUM
t
T0: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Director
RE: Rezoning on Opal tlarolt Property and Additional Comments on Celia tlarolt
Rezoning Application
DATE: November 13 1979
The Planning Office has received an application for annexation and rezoning of
the property known as the Opal Marolt property west of the Castle Creek River.
The property comprises approximately thirty five acres of land generally between
the Highway 82 entrance to town and Castle Creek Road. The property is bounded
on the west by conservation zoning and the City limits extended during the Thomas
property annexation several years ago. The City's ldater Plant site, now zoned
SPA, is immediately to the south. A small parcel (36,000 square feet) owned by
Celia Marolt is also located on the southern portion of the property. Across the
river to the east the land is held in many separate private ownerships and is
zoned R-15. The property itself is currently zoned AF-2 as is property to the
southwest, AF-1 property surrounds the City's SPA zoning to the south and south-
east. To the north of the property across Highway 82 the valley floor is zoned
R-30. The application in your packet originally requested SPA zoning to allow
maximum flexibility to develop a unique land use configuration designed to proviae
a mixed employee/free market project. The applicant changed that request to an
R-6 zone density and that is the zone that was published for the Public Hearing
to be held on Tuesday, November 20.
The question for the P & Z is a recommendation to the City Council regarding
appropriate zoning for the site which is proposed for annexation. The Council
has not entertained or reviewed the annexation proposal as yet until the P & Z
makes its recommendation. A related question is the recommendation of zoning
for the Celia Marolt parcel.
Conceptual Plan
In order to facilitate the Commission's understanding of the proposal and the
merits of the zoning request, the applicant has prepared a conceptual development:
plan. It is too large far your packet, but is in uur office for your inspection.
Your packet does include a summary of the land use and densities included as par-:
of that plan. The primary thrust of the plan is to develop the Marolt property
in a primarily residential development comprised substantially of deed restricted
employee housing. Free market housing is included in order to generate the
revenues to subsidizE, the employee housing portion. As currently proposed, the
application breaks down into approximately 80 deed restricted employee units
which are provided irr both a townhouse and multi-family configuration en the
southernmost half o~r the property and into a free-market portion which is appro::-
imately 40 to 45 uni s of clustered townhouses on the site of the old mine factor°y
on the northernmost ~~ortion of the property. The development plan reserves a
parcel for the exist~ng single-family house of Opal Marolt. The plan also pro-
poses to relocate thf~ Elk's Club to this site on the northernmost portion closest
to Highway 82. A final element of the plan is to •eserve a parcel on the Castle
Creek Valley floor on the northeast portion of the site for a City maintenance
building. Anew access road would parallel the western border oP the site and
run north/south between Highway 82 and Castle Cree!< Road. The site is generally
flat except for steeply sloping portions on the easternmost border which descend .
to the Castle Creek !/alley floor. In some areas the site extends across Castle
Creek to the hillside on the eastern portion.
Relevant Considerations in Recommending Upon Rezoning
In recommending any rezoning the Planning and Zoning Commission must take into
account the followincj•relevant factors:
1. Are there conditions which have changed which might warrant the rezoning?
2. Is the zoning proposed consistent both in terms of land uses permitted
r. \.
. /
and densities allowed with surrounding existing land uses as well as
zoning patterns?
3. Is the land use and density allowable as a result of the proposed zoning
consistent with the natural features of the site, available public facil-
ities and services, transportation and access?
4. Is the proposal consistent with the adopteei Master Plan?
Comments and Input from Referral Agencies
With respect to the above mentioned relevant considerations, the Planning Office
offers the following comments which are based on referral agency comments, comments
of adjacent landowners, and analysis of the issues:
1. The County has commented as an adjacent landowner that it supports a re-
zoning which would facilitate employee housing in this location because
of its location with respect to transportation, utilities and services,
and natural characteristics of the sight which offer opportunities to
cluster the development. The County did state that because R-6 zoning
would allow more density than had been applied for and recommended that
R-15 zoning would be more appropriate given adjacent R-15 zoning on the
Aspen side and AF-2 zoning on the County side. The County went on to
recommend that the site be designated witty a mandatory PUD and/or perhaps
an SPA overlay which would facilitate development in accordance with a
site plan thtrt could best be geared to re~ievant site characteristics.
The County recommended against the location of the Elk's Club at this
site although it did approve of perhaps some minimal neighborhood com-
mercial or community facilities orientation.
2. The application was referred to the Open Space Advisory Board which has
not as yet made a formal comment pending an inspection of the site on
November 20. However, they did reiterate that this site was high on
the list of priorities for acquisition ,for open space as it is located
at the entrance to Aspen and adjacent to ;valuable piece of open space,
the Thomas parcel. •
3. The Aspen Land Use Plan of 1973 recommends single-family land use for this
site with a fairly large open space greenbelt paralleling Castle Creek.
It appears to us from the moo that the greenbelt does cover the portion:
of the property which is proposed for the free-market clusters.
4. The Planning Office has prepared a map which will be partially xeroxed
for your packet and which demonstrates tP,e surrounding zoning patterns
in both the City and the County. The site is adjacent to R-15 and lesser
density zoning categories with the exception of the specially planned
areas zoned for the employee water paint site to the south.
5. Current AF-2 zoning would allow aoproxim~tely 17 units if there were no
slope reduction (i.e., one third or more of the property would have to
be covered by slopes in excess of 45%). This density might be further
reduced by dedication of roads. If the property were zoned with City's
R-6 zone category, and if there were no slope reduction formula applying
(this is more likely to apply, however, n the City), single-family develop-
ment would' yield 254 units at 6,000 square feet apiece. A duplex or
multi-family development (if developed through a PUD row houses are
permitted) would yield 338 units. Under the City's R-15 zone category
on the other hand, a single-family development at 15,000 square feet
per unit would yield 101 dwelling units, again, no density reduction
for slope factors. A duplex or multi-family development at 10,000 square
feet per unit would yield 152 units. Under the R-15-A and whether the
same restriction would apply to multi-family type •structures, although
that certainly was the intent.
There is little development to compare• with the Marolt property west of
Castle Creek. The Water Plant proposes 80 units on over one hundred acres.
6. In the matter of changed conditions, we point out identified employee
-2-
housing needs. Recent market data indicate that there is a demand for
anywhere between 250 to 500 units just to solve an existing employee
housing deficit. This does not estimate the need over future years if
certain trends in the market continue to reduce the supply available
to employees even further while generating new employees. This argues
for selective upzoning to create density bonuses to motivate the pro-
duction of deed restricted employee housing. The housing overlay district
as proposed offers a review mechanism for identifying appropriate sites.
Among the review criteria is a preference for sites which are open and
which offer opportunities to cluster development, buffer with greenbelt,
and mitigate impact on surrounding neighborhoods. This site offers those
characteristics.
7. It is appropriate to compare alternative sites for employee housing de-
velopment. Among the ones that have recently been discussed are:
a. The Pfister site. It was recently approved for some 40 units
of deed restricted employee housing. It is more distant, but
would develop at a lower overall density under the current plan.
b. The Benedict proposal for the Rio Grande property. This proposes
to locate up to 200 units of employee housing on the Rio Grande
site. It is complicated by the necessity for public vote in
order to approve an alternative housing use for land purchased
with sixth and seventh penny funds (competing uses for that
property have always been an issue). Location of the jail
facility, performing arts, playing fields, greenbelt park, parking
structure, and other transportation functions have all been pro-
posed. The advantages include the benefit of a public land sub-
sidy (if it is possible) as well as its proximity to the urban
core. It would also provide an interesting if not originally
contemplated redevelopment of the Rio Grande property and river
front area for the community..
c. Various areas on Smuggler.P1ountain. There are a couple of vacant
parcels which could accomodate fairly high densities consistent
with the neighborhood development. The problem with the Smuggler
Mountain area has always been an inadequate circulation system
and confusing traffic pattern. Further development would onl;~
complicate that. The advantages of the area include its rela•
tively close proximity to town ar.d adequate bus transportation.
The area is obviously excellent for solar purposes.
d. Benedict Gravel Pit Site. This site has the advantage of being
well-hidden from surrounding areas. Like the Smuggler area, rro
specific proposals have been received on this site and the problems
of access and greater distance from town are among those that
are likely to crop up.
e. "Under the~Bridge" housing, which is the 200 to 300 unit proposal,
pyramid structure proposed to be located under Castle Creek B~idge.
The structure proposes an innovative solution to the employee
housing problem in close proximity to town. The site is just to the
no~,theast of the Marolt property. In fact it incorporates laud
owned by Opal Marolt as well as several other ownerships belonging
to the State/City/County and other private individuals. It is
also proposed as and energy-conserving structure. However, its
major problems include the difficulties of negotiating the land
acquisitions and approvals necessary from various levels of govern-
ments and private individuals.
f. 'The Water Plant Housing. A serious proposal is being pursued on
this property. The City has determined that it must go to a
General Obligation bond Issue, however, before proceeding. Tne
site is at a further distance from the Marolt Property and would
be aided by any access going across that property.
8.. There is adequate utility service to the site.
9. Bus service in this area has greatly improved since originalzzomm~g.
-3-
,a S
w/
Planning Office Recommendation
The City of Aspen heretofore has established a fairly well-defined policy against
zoning to higher densities based on its land use and growth management plans and
zoning implementation developed in response to the rapid growth of the early 1970's.
This is true for the County as well. {iowever, in view of the developing policy
regarding the need to produce employee housing, areas must be found which are
suitable for rezoning for development at higher densities in order to promote
housing at an affordable cost. Both the City and the County have considered
measures which would permit such housing development. These are the County's
PMH zone district and the City's proposed Housing Overlay District which both
grant a density bonus in return for deed restricted units within the low, moderate,
and middle income ranges. Among the review criteria which the City is considering
in its Housing Overlay proposal is that sites be looked to for increased densities
which are not primarily developed with uniform neighborhood characteristics. We
believe that the Marolt property fits in this category. The site appears to be
among the best for employee housing development. In view of other proposed
review criteria: it is yet close to town, served by utilities and bus transportation,
and offers an opportunity to cluster. 41e agree that the Smuggler Mountain area
is probably the best area for employee housing. However, it has a disadvantage
of being the primary repository of employee housing proposals. The Marolt prop-
erty has the advantage of dispersing employee housing to a different area of the
community. We acknowledge that the open space characteristics of this site have
long had a high priority. We would argue, however, that there is .an appropriate
density on this parcel that would allow for preservation of the open space amenities
of that land.
One hundred and fifty units is too dense for the property. It would generate
approximately 1,050 more automobile trips over Castle Creek per day. An evaluai:ion
of the development plan indicates that 120 units, even when clustered; has,•riot
acheived maximum benefits of greenbelt and clustering and might more likely do
so with a lower number of units. This would be more consistent with the pattern
of development across Castle Creek. The density reduction formula is very likely
to reduce the maximum allowable density under the R-15-A category. We recommend
somewhere in the order of 70 to 100 units be developed on the property, and will
work with the applicant to refine the development plan. We are highly favorable
toward the generali:.ed location of free market and employee units.
The Planning Office does recommend the R-15-A zon•~ district as the appropriate
zone given surround ng zoning patterns. The greater density is legitimate give
the changed conditions noted. R-15-A is consistent with previous annexation
policy.
A further recommendation is that any SPA overlay ~e attached to the parcel that
would facilitate the mixed uses and clustered densities contemplated by the
development plan. 1landatory PUD is also warranted by the size and topographic
nature of portions of the site.
While the R-15-A/PU)/SPA is a complicated zoning scheme, it is necessary in view
of the uncertain future of the housing overlay`zone. Should that district pass
in the near future, this project would most suitably be developed under an R-15-A/
Housing Overlay. This scheme would offer the review process and exemption from
GMP Quota competition. Selective SPA zoning, might still be necessary to accomodate
any community facilities.
We, too, recommend against any commercial orientation near the highway. The Elks
facility seems to lead to that and is unlikely either to facilitate economically
or complement the employee housing use. Other community facilities may be appropriate
near the highway; or some small neighborhood commercial located in the interior
of the site would serve the needs of this and the Water Plant development._SPA
zoning would facilitate development of such uses while-the review process is the
same as that for implementation of the housing overlay.
The P & Z should alsp recommend that annexation be contingent on a development plan
that is at least 70"o deed restricted employee units.
Given this recommendation, the previous proposal to zone the Celia Marolt property
" R-15-A is consistent with the zoning proposed here.
-4-
~,
Comments Regarding Development Plan
We will comment verbally at the meeting as these comrnents will be useful for back-
ground information and in anticipation of the development proposal. However, they
are not clearly relevant to 'the rezoning question.
-5-
. ~~,
;~ -~ i ~ ,
~.. ~ ~
,.
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Open Space Advisory Board
P.E: Opal Marolt Property--Zoning Recommendation
DATE: November 29, 1979
The Open Space Advisory Board has reviewed the
Opal Marolt annexation and zon:.ng application and the
conceptual development plan, in the light of the preliminary
draft of the Open Space Master Plan. This property is
included in the OSAB list of desireable open areas for
preservation.
The OSAB believes that the Marolt property'sati.sfies
the tdaster Plan criteria for open space preservation as
follows:
~- "
[ ~ _.
' A. Natural area and rural character of landscape
(river bottom, river edge, irrigated meadow and
farm land); _
8. Areas which have (a) unusual variety in near and
far views (views of Shadow Mountain," town, .Smuggler
Mountain, Red Mountain, Roarinc Fork vallav.
Buttermilk, Maroo~ ^~~~'~ ^-__--- ..,: ~ast:lr
-1 , --J ~. ~.r ~,
Creek Valley); (b) nati~~e or unique flora (riparian
flora on Castle .!'reek; Oak-Brush slopes, stands of
cottonwood trees); and (c)•frontages on river(indluc.es
or horders Cast?.e Creek s.lor_g .i_ts er..rire eastern
boundary);
C. Agricultural land. (irrigated meadow and farm
land);
D. Lands which may be utilized for shaping urban,
neighborhood, and rural areas such that building
;~r.d population are concentrated in urban modes
.(the property lies between the existing urban
• ~ border aY:d the Thomas property open space purchase
and includes the geographic. boundaries of the
Castle Creek ravine and flat irrigated lands
adjacent to steeply rising "valley slopes);
,E. Undeveloped land along transportation corridors
(the property lies between major roads located on
the north and south, namely State Highway No. 82
and the Castle Creek .road, and lies directly in
the path of a proposed transit corridor, and
would be separated from the adjacent Thomas property
' by a proposed new road linking the Cemetery Lane-
Fiighway 82 intersection with the Castle Creek Road
- at the entrance to the Aspen Valley FIospital)
s . ..
t.
___ __ _
..
~... s
F. Areas accessible to population centers, especially
those areas where non-motorized modes of travel
(walking, bicycling, equestrian) a public transit
provide access (the property lies adjacent to and
is surrounded on three sides by the incorporated
limits of the~City of Aspen and the property
itself marks the westerly boundary of and the end
of the urban area);
G. Areas for passive oY active recreational use, with
more intense activity encouraged in close proximity
to population centers (flat, irrigated land within
walking distance of town lends itself to development
as playing fields and the steep slopes and deed
ravine of Castle Creek Lends itself to passive
recreational pursuits such as fishing and picnicing);
H. Areas of historic and cultural interest (property
is the site of the Aspen Union Smelting Company,
is bisected by the Old Diidland Railroad right of
way, includes the westerly end of the now demolished
Midland Railroad trestle, is occupied by farm
buildings bearing witness to the farm uses of the
surrounding land and being. in themselves historic
examples of good work-a-day authentic rural wooden
architecture never to be replaced, and is historically
the place where the farmed valley began at the
edge of the original Aspen townsite);
The City of Aspen and Pitkin County have purchased
lands lying easterly and westerly of the urbanized area of
Aspen for the express purpose of protectiing open spact at
the entrances to Aspen and for the 'express purpose of confining
and concentrating development within an area closely identified
with Aspen':; urban core. .The Open Space Advisory Board
therefore recommends to the City. of. Aspen that:
a. The city seek to purchase all or part of the Opal
Marolt property for open space purposes;
b. The property be zoned with a PUD overlay. reflecting
the criteria for open space as stated herein and in the
Open Space Master Plan;
c. The City seek to secure the-open space areas
permanently by dedications, conservation easements.or by
other appropriate means.
i
)
1
t
~r~ 3~~
Special Meeting
Aspen City Council
June 15, 1981
Mulligan pointed out the developer is already dedicating 24 acres of land, plus this
other space-is for the common use of the project not just for one individual's use.
Mayor Edel rebutted it was not for the entire city population. Mulligan said the way
the Code is written, it is not required that the active and passive recreational area be
for public use. Councilwoman Michael noted the park dedication fee started at $589,000
and is-now down to $70,000. City Manager Chapman said there are so many 3ifferent ways
to interpret this and calculate it, the park dedication fee can go from $16,000 to
$3,000,000. Council had told staff to work through calculations and come up with a
method that wi'_1 work for this project and also for other projects. Chapman said what
the applicant is requesting, in the opinion of staff, the Code permits. Mayor Edel said
this is based on an arbitrary figure of 88 per cent of the 6.9 acres. Mulligan said he
did not feel this was arbitrary.
Mayor Edel asked if the Code addresses accepting land for the general city. Chapman ij
answered the Code just says land dedication. Mayor Edel asked if he wanted to have a '
picnic on this land, could he do that. Mulligan answered no. Mayor Edel explained to
him land dedication means dedication to the city, not to a private enclave. Chapman I.
pointed out it could also mean that there was intended to be open space just for visual '
purposes, aesthetic purposes, not necessarily use purposes. Vann said another way to
look at this is that the intent was to use the money, the cash fee, to purchase necessary'
active and passive park lands that the additional people associated with the project
would impact. The applicant, in this case, is arguing that he. is providing for that
on-site, through the provision of land for his people. The new tenants will not necess-
arily impact the parks as much as they would have had he not provided this open space;
therefore, this is a reasonable exchange in lieu for a portion of his park dedication fee.
Mayor Edel said he Followed the theory and agrees to some extent; however, it is out of
proportion in terms of dollar return and dollar purchase amuur.t. Mulligan sa i.d the
developer and the staff are trying to come up with a zeali.s tic exercise; many things in
this project are unique, such as 62 per cent of the land includes open space already, and
the free market portion is being utilized to suffice for active and passive recreation
purposes. Mayor Edel sa i.d he felt it should be a lot more than 12 pear. cen`_ of the free
market portion that the formula for park dedication fee is based on.
Mulligan pointed out the formula for park dedication fee is a relationship to the size of
the dwelling units, the number of bedrooms and residents - not necessarily the value of '
the units. Mulligan said if one takes that concept and applies it to the strictures of
what the code seems to be saying, and a developer provides sufficient active and passive
recreation use for all the additional residents under the formu 1, the purpose of the code
has been me*_. Mulligan stated to Council that they are giving a lot of open space and
providing intense active and passive recreation area, the only property that should be
penalized for purposes of the park dedication fee is that land that is not used. ~.
City Attorney Taddune pointed out the code references land dedication, it does not
indicate that it has to be dedicated specifically to the city. The code stags, "the
subdivision shall dedicate that amount of land the current value equals the amount of
cash payment computed above". The code does not refer directly a dedication to the city
for public park purposes. Taddune said when the staff calculated the park dedication
fees they came to about 85 per cent of the estimated value of the land or $670,000.
Also in a PUD, which is a bit different from a subdivision application, the city requires.
a certain amount of open space.
Councilwoman Michael stated though the theory is good, she has trouble justifying that
the open space fund get only 570,000 out of this whole project. Mulligan said this
project is already giving $2,000,000 on that value formula worth of open space to the
city. Councilwoman Michael said the Marolt project represents growth, and one of the
reasons for the park dedication fee and for the desire on the part of the city to acquire.
land as growth occurs is open space for the people whom this project will generate and
' the kinds of public uses of public land that they need.
Councilman Parry said the developer is putting money into creating the fac i.i ities and '
paying a park dedication fee on top of that. Mayor Edel said the developer is putting ~,
the money in to make it as enticing as possible, to make the amenities nice and to bocst I.
up the cost of the individual units. The developer then comes to the city and say we
are doing this to make the units sell at a higher price, but they also want a lower park
dedication fee. Mayor Edel said he felt the $67,000 is out of line based on the fact
that most of the 80 per cent of the land is for the accommodation and convenience anr.;
saleability of the units. Mayor Edel said he is looking for a compromise between the
three million or $580,000 and the $67,000. Councilman Parry agreed to look for a com-
promise, but how is one arrived at. Mulligan suggested they could handle $96,000 without
hurting the project. Councilman Knecht said he agreed the 29 acres of dedicated land is
a Lot of land; on the other hand $2,000 per unit isn't very much. Mayor Edel sugaes ted
the applicant and staff caucus and come up with an acceptable formula. Vann told Council
the 88 per cent used was based only on the parking sheds and the buildings. If tine
parking lot and roads were taken out, the percentage would change.
Vann went on with the agreement, Section 5 deals with the open space and maintenance agre~
ments. When Council decided not to take the 24 acres in lieu of the park dedication fee,
the applicant agreed to dedicate it to open space with some specific conditions.
Essentially, this land can be used for passiveopen. space. Vann said if the city were
to accept is in lieu of a fee, the city would want it unencumbered. The agreement is
that the city will not put ball fields and horticultural centers on this open space.
Taddune explained to Council that in the event this is not maintained as passive open
space, the applicant wants the right to have this land back. Section 7 sets forth the
procedure by which the applicant can be reconveyed the land if not maintained as passive
open space. Taddune said the agreement is written in such a way that if the applicant
takes the land back, it is still limitedto the purpose the city is intending to use it
for. Mayor~Edel said was responsibility costs pursuant to terms of this agreement mean.
Vann said whatever it takes to maintain the land as is is the 'c ity's responsibility.
31i~
Special Meeting Aspen City Council June 15, 1981
Vann told Council that Lot 1 is the employee portion and contains 70 units. This will be
condominiumized; however, the conversion to sale is subject to Council approval. While
the project is a rental project, it will have a management entity. Vann told Council the
agreement provides this management contract is subject to Council approval, which is not
an important issue to staff. Council agreed to delete that provision. Vann pointed out
lot 2 is for the 30 free market units. These will be condominiumized for separate sale;
this is one of the approvals. The agreement deals with the responsibility of maintenance
for facilities, facilities in common for both of the projects will be shared on a 70/30
basis.
In section 6, it says that the applicant will convey such water rights for maintenance
of open space to the city. Taddune told Council this will be between .25 and .5 cfs,
which is acceptable to the water department. Mulligan told Council these will be low
priority water rights. Mayor Edel asked what percentage of the water rights this is.
Mulligan said about one-fourth. Mayor Edel asked if there discussions about getting more
of the water rights. Taddune said this is still in discussion. Vann told Council that
section 7 deals with sewer, refers to the plant investment fees, etc. Section 8 deals with
the issuance of industrial revenue bonds or the concept that the city would accept title
to the employee portion of the project for issuance of IRBS. It also says that as long
as the property is rental, the city will accept ownership with lease back provisions for
the purposes of deferral of real estate taxes. The Council must review if this comes up
as a sale project and there are conditions.
Section 9 is price guidelines; it will be 5.70 per square foot for occupancy at December
1982. If they do not meet that deadline, and there is some justification, they will
either meet $.70 per square foot or the moderate guidelines i.n place at that time.
Mulligan told Council they would have to submit a request for extension if they cannot
meet the deadline. There is a paragraph which provides for an annual adjustment after
the date of occupancy, either at 8 per cent or the annual adjustment in effect at that
time, the greater of the two.
Section 10 deals with assurances required by the subdivision regulations. There will be
escrowed $1,050,000 for water, sewer, roads, etc. Section 11 deals with additional
parking. P & Z recommended Council approve a reduction in the required parking for the
free market portion of the project from one parking space per bedroom to two parking
spaces per units. The applicant has indicated on the plat provision for additional park-
ing to meet the Code should the city determint that the two space per unit is inadequate.
Section 12 deals with the six month minimum leases with no more than two shorter tenancies
per year. Vann said that P & Z and Council were concerned about this being a tourist-
oriented project; it was intended as a permanent-type project. The original conditions of
the annexation did not address short-term tourist uses in this location. The R-15 zone
is inappropriate location for tourist use. The City's master plan has tourist uses
located close to the mountain. Mulligan reminded Council he had presented an exemption
requested from the six month minimum restrictions, which was denied by Council. This
request was .based on the fact that the condominiumi ordinances applies to conversions, in
the original intent, and not to new projects that are supplying additional employee hous-
ing with no displacement. Mulligan said they also addressed this on the basis that the
underlying zone category did not, in fact, require short term rental restrictions.
Mulligan said they have accepted this condition although under protest.
Section 13 is the deed restrictions for the employee portion. There will be a deed
restriction for 50 years setting up prices, etc. consistent with guidelines established
by Code. Section 14 is non-compliance and a provision for extensions and sets up the
mechanisms whereby extensions from the time frame can be applied for the by applicant.
Taddune pointed out there are six assumptions that are made which give a little flexibility
to the applicant in terms of asking for extensions. There is also a procedure if the
city feels they are not complying notice can be given and approval withdrawn. Vann told
Council the last sections deals with miscellaneous and other agreements to be entered
into. The housing mix is outlined, which is 39 two-bedrooms, 19 one-bedrooms and 17
studios. Vann told Council the applicant is requesting sufficient flexibility, if the
housing office recommends and Council approves, the mix may be changed within the overall
total of 70 units to reflect what the demand is at the time. Mulligan said rather than
try to get this into the agreement to do a separate resolution regarding what the housing
office will come out with as a result of the study as to housing demand. Taddune suggested
work out a modification to this agreement and have the applicant come in and ask for an
amendment to PUD.
Vann told Council the size of the units are within the guidelines established by growth
management. Vann told Council there are guidelines associated with the 70/30 ordinance,
and that is that the project maintain an average of 1-1/2 to 2 bedrooms per unit for
the employee portion of the project; and at least 50 per cent of the total floor area
is devoted to deed restricted units. The Marolt project does :na intain a bedroom average
of 1.5, subject to change as discussed above. Approximately 41 per cent of the total
project floor area is currently devoted to employee housing. This was reviewed with the
housing office; it was felt the free market units are excessive in size and that the
mix is acceptable. There was, no objection to this.
Vann said the third approval being requested is condominiumization for the free market
portion of the project. The request and application are consistent with the guidelines;
the planning office has no problem with the request for condominiumization. Appropriate
documents will have to be submitted. The planning office recommends that the applicant's
request for growth management exemption and condominiumization be approved subject to '
compliance with the six month minimum lease provisions and subject to the deed restrictions
of the employee portion of the project at a rental rate of $.70 per square foot or sales
price of $76 per square foot as provided for in the agreement. _ ,
Council recessed for applicant and staff to discuss the park dedication fees.
3113
~,
Special Meeting Aspen City Council June 15, 1981
Mulligan told Council he and staff have gone back through the park dedication fee formula ~,I
and tried to relate it to a number. When they went through the calculations, taking
everything but the units and come up with a percentage to figure the park dedication fee
on. They percentage came up from 11 per cent to 22 per cent, which comes too figure of j
$129,580. Mulligan said this straps the budget for the project. Mulligan said the city
does allow a note for park dedication fees to be executed at building permit and paid out ~~
of the c/o's of each unit. Mulligan requested to take a note out but not to accrue any ~,
interest. Mayor Edel said Council had arrived at a figureof 25 per cent for the park
dedication fee, rather than 22 per cent; this comes to a park dedication fee of $147,000.
City Manager Chapman told Council he would have to check of the consistency of charging
12 per cent interest. Chapman said he did not think the city has been doing this in an
even manner. Chapman said if the Council wanted to do this, the applicant would pay the
park dedication fee when the certificate of occupancy is issued and not pay any interest.
The Code lets the director of finance use his discretion in this circumstance. Council
decided as a compromise to use 22 per cent for the formula and charge 12 per cent interest.
Jeffrey Sachs said he felt this project was inappropriate for Aspen. It was upzoned when
the land was annexed at a time when there was more urgency to the employee housing problem
> than there is now. This urgency has been abated; 100 units is not needed on this land.
There would have been 17 units on this land had it been zoned appropriately. Sachs stated
'. the growth management plan is being undermined; it was never intended for a project like
~I this. In a single year, this is basically two and a half times the growth rate which was
originally established at the 3-1/2 annual rate. Sachs said with regards to the park
dedication fee there is a set formula and it has always been applied fairly with respect
to the value of the property and type of development; this is specified in the Code.
If the same formula was applied to 30 single family dwellings, the park dedication fee wool
' be in the neighborhood of $600,000. The Council is establishing a precedent and cheating
the City of Aspen out of 76 per cent of what the true correct totally practicable park
dedication fee has been in the pasta This developer is asking the city for a five times
density increase and then asking to waive 78 per cent of the park dedication fee. The
concept of dedicating pzivate land as open area and calling that land in lieu of park
'~ dedication fee is incredible. Citizens cannot go out there and use that land; it is not
„ a public park.
Francis Whitaker said this project will add several hundred people to the population of
the city all at one time. This means more cars, more air pollution, etc. The City has
taken property that belongs to people who are not residents of the city, annexed it and
upzoned it five times. All that is heard this evening is exemptions; exemption from growth
management, exemptions from park dedication, exemptions from floor space ratio, reduction
in the parking requirements. As far as cluster development, the purpose was to allow
cluster development so there aren't so many roads, to reduce constructions costs, and to
leave some of the land for all of the people to enjoy. In no way was that intended for
community public use. That would be a sad mistake to consider that area in any way as a
reason for reducing the park dedication fee. Ellie Bealmer, Ed Czacky, Jerry Fels and
Bob Francis opposed the project.
Mulligan reiterated the applicant had accepted the six month minimum lease restriction
under protest; they had to agree to it to get the approvals. Taddune told Council the
applicant is agreeing to the six month minimum lease but they have their fingers crossed.
Mulligan said by signing this agreement, they will adhere to the six month minimum lease;
the applicant does not agree with the clause but does agree to it. Mulligan pointed out
this process was started in recognition of employee housing needs. This will contain
2.8 units per acre; this is less overall density than much of the surrounding land. The
property has been private property and never was dedicated to the city for park.
Councilman Parry moved to approve the revised Marolt Ranch final PUD subdivision applica-
tion as submitted subject to the following conditions; (1) the engineering department's
conditions outlined in the attached memorandum dated June 8, 1981, and (2) the exec utior.
of final PUD/subdivision agreement prior to issuance of a building permit; seconded by
Councilwoman Michael.
Councilman Knecht said he likes this project because the city has gained 24 acres of open
space. He also like the 30 units clustered rather than 17 single family dwellings all
over. Councilman Knecht said he would like to swap with Jay Kuhen over at Silverking for
the employee units. The area at Marolt where the employee units are is some of the most
beautiful property in the entire project. Councilman Knecht said he felt it would be bette
for employee housing not to be next to $600,000 houses. Councilman Knecht said not all
employee housing should be the lowest rate; there are a lot of middle income employees in
town and the employee housing should be a mix. Councilman Knecht said he would like the
staff to look into switching this housing approval to the east side of town. Vann said
there would be a process to amend this; the 70/30 ordinance would not preclude moving to
a separate site so long as the conditions were maintained. Mulligan said he has dis r_ussed
the idea of moving the employee housing with the applicant; they feel the idea has a lot
of merit. One of the problems, however, is what would that do to the construction schedule
Mulligan said the idea is very sketchy at this point.
All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Knecht. Motion carried.
Councilman Parry moved to approve the applicant's request for growth management exemption
and condominiumization subject to the compliance with six month minimum lease provisions as
currently set forth in section 20-22 of the Municipal Code; and subject to the deed
restriction to the employee portion of the project to a rental rate of $.70 per sguai_e
foot and a sales price of $76 per square foot as provided for in the final PUD/subdivision
agreement; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, motion carried.
Jim Mulligan expressed appreciation during a lengthy process; the applicant has expended
much energy and sums; the city staff spent a lOt of time and effort with the applicant.
3114 ~ _
Special Meeting Aspen City Council June15, 1981
j MUNICIPAL JUDGE ~ I
Mayor Edel requested, on behalf of Brooke Peterson, that in Municipal Court in the '
Councilman Knecht issue that a new judge be appointed. Council requested this be put on
the next regular Council agenda.
BOND ISSUE £OR WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN ',
City Manager Chapman reminded Council he had wanted to research the short-term versus
long term funding and give Council a recommendation. Chapman said it would cost $67,000
for 60 days, based on 70 per cent of prime, which is 19.35 per cent' over the last two
months. Chapman told Council the city would be required to reinvest the unused portion
of the borrowed amount with the lender, who will pay the city the federal funds rate.
Chapman said he then took an average of the federal funds and figured out the return and
based on 19 per cent federal rate and a 20 per cent prime rate, the city would lose
about $5,000. The decision of short term versus long term is predicated on what the
city thinks the market will do in the next 30 to 45 days.
Mayor Ed el said he did not agree with the logic of this memorandum. Mayor Edel said the
feeling of accountants and investors is that the prime will be Sown substantially in two
months, and he would not like to go with the $2,700,000 bond issue. Chapman told Council
what the city is trying to do in the short term market is get just enough money to get
through the first 60 days of payments. Chapman explained short term borrowing at
$1,200,000 was predicated on Council's request that staff go out for proposals for an
underwriter. That would get through the first phase, then the city would go with the
bonds. The first phase of the program, which will last more than 60 days, will cost
more than $1,200,000.
Counc il.woman Michael moved the City issue $2,700,000 in long term bonds; seconded by
Councilman Parry.
All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Knecht and Mayor Eder. Motion NOT carried.
Councilman Knect said he felt short-term money is the best way to go on this; everything
is so up in the air. Councilman Knecht said whenever one can do short-term and then
renegotiate, it is a better situation. Councilwoman Michael said perhaps Councilman
Collins should be in on this vote. City Manager Chapman said the staff would inform
Council to both sides of the issue. t4ayor Edel said he had no problem with having the
whole Council vote on this. Councilman Knecht said he would sit with the staff to go
over this because the issue is new to him.
Councilwoman Michael moved to continue the meeting to Tuesday, June 16, 1981, at noon;
seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried.
Continued Meeti
~~~ ,~,~~•t~
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
City Council
Mayor Edel called the meeting to order at 12:10 p.m. with Councilmembers Collins, Knecht
Michael and Parry present.
Councilman Knecht moved to reconsider the previous vote; seconded by Councilman Parry.
All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Parry moved to approve the issuance of a maximum of $2,700,000 in bonds for
the water project; seconded by Councilman Knecht. All in favor, with the exception of
Mayor Edel. Motion carried.
Councilwoman Michael moved to adjourn at 12:15 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Parry. All
in favor, motion carried.
~Q.J ,d.Eoe,C~
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
Regular b]eeting Aspen City Council June 22 1987.
Mayor Edel called the meeting to order at 5:25 with Co uncilmembers Collins, Knecht,
Michael and Parry present.
MINUTES
Councilman Parry moved to approve the minutes for March 9, and 17, 1981; seconded by
Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried.
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
Councilman Parry moved to approve the accounts payable for tfay; seconded by Councilman
Knecht. All in favor, motion carried.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
i
There were no comments.
~,~
311
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 22, 1981
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
1. Councilman Collins asked if there was a special permit for the big party the Design 'I
Conference held. City Manager Chapman told Council there was a permit issued for the '
fireworks by the fire chief. The building inspector is working with the fire chief on these
fireworks events. The fire chief and building department are trying to work out a system
they can agree on. Chapman said he and the city attorney do not like the way the Code '
is written. Councilwoman Michael said she felt the design conference was a very exciting ~',
event.
~~ 2. Councilwoman Michael said there was a celebration of the incorporation of the City of ''~
~'i~, 100 years and it went very well. Councilwoman Michael thanked Ramona Markalunas, Jane j
~'! Jenkins and Lois Butterbaugh for their help. Lois Butterbaugh told Council she would ';
'.I report on the cost to the city later.
6 3. Mayor Edel pointed out the signs have gone up on Lake avenue saying "This is a i
P, Pedestrian thoroughfare". Mayor Edel said if this works it will be amazing. It is a well '.
'.. intended concept; Mayor Edel suggested that it be monitored very carefully. Mayor Edel
said he had thought this was just for the Sunday afternoon concerts. Chapman said the I
', people who presented this to the city were talking about anytime during the concert season.,
Mayor Edel said unless barriers are put up, this will probably not work and requested the '
~. staff come back to Council with a report on this. !i
4. Mayor Edel said the city has a person interested in purchasing the water plant housing '
project. Councilman Parry moved to put this issue on the agenda; seconded by Councilwoman ~,
Michael. All in favor, motion carried. ',
5. Mayor Edel said Council had met to come up with an Aspen Meadows Advisory Commission
Councilman Parry moved to put this on the agenda; seconded by Councilman Knecht. All
in favor, motion carried.
6. Mayor Edel said he had received a phone call from an irate citizen having to do with
noise at Little Nell's. Tom Dunlop, environmental health officer, told Council he had
been working with this person for about a year; Dunlop has taken all the non-enforcement
actions he can. Dunlop told Council he has a meeting with the police department to
instruct them in the use of the sound level meter reader so that the police department can
cite Little Nell's into court, if they are over the allowable decible level.
UPDATE ON COG PROGRAMS
Gary Martinez was present to give a brief update on the variety of program operated
through COG. One is CETA, which COG is a sponsor. The locally elected offical dictate
the use of CETA resources; approximately $174,000 was spent in Pitkin County during the
first six months of this year. There is an emergency medical services program, $35,000
will be spent in Pitkin County for EMS communications equipment. COG is also involved
in training programs for EMS persons. COG has a natural resources staff. COG held a
~.. housing conference which was in Aspen. Martinez told Council that COG is trying to get
money to fund a transportation study to improve transportation between all points in
Colorado. COG is negotiating with Moffatt tunnell commission to see if they will fund
this study. There is an energy impact program which is the state's attempt to offset
impacts in energy related towns. COG also conduct a senior citizens program; Aspen and
Pitkin County will be represented by Budge Bingham. COG is also involved in the 208
water program. Martinez reported on the Williams Fork issue, in which a Federal judge
ruled in favor of COG's position on this. Denver wanted to divert water without what the
local jurisdictions said. This is a fairly significant decision, which will probably
be appealed. COG's legal staff has worked with the city's staff on all these various
projects.
ORDINANCE #36, SERIES OF 1981 - Water Management Plan/Water Rates
City Manager Chapman told Council this ordinance increases the monthly charges by 10 per ,
cent. This is the first step of the water management plan; the staff wants to do this
now because it is the watering season. Chapman said the city is doing this in anticipation
of building a surplus to pay the debt service on the water bond issue.
Councilwoman Michael moved to read Ordinance #36, Series of 1961; seconded by Councilman
I Parry. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #36
(Series of 1961)
III
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING DIVISION 3 OF ARTICLE III OF CHAPTER 23 OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE OE THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, ENTITLED "WATER RATES AND CHARGES" was
read by the city clerk
Councilwoman Michael moved to adopt Ordinance #36, Series of 1961, on first reading;
I~, seconded by Councilman Collins. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Knecht, aye; Parry, aye;
ii, Michael, aye; .Collins, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried.
RESOLUTION #34, SERIES OF 1981 - Rea, Cassins Contract
Councilwoman Michael moved to read Resolution #39, Series o£ 1981; seconded by Councilman
Parry. All in favor, motion carried.
RESOLUTION #34
(Series of 1981)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND REA, CASSENS
ANU ASSOCIATES, INC. PROVIDING FOR THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
FOR WATER CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, ALL AS MORE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED HEREIN
311~~
ar Meet
,..~.
~,..
Aspen City Council
June 22, 1981
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract agreement
between the City of Aspen and Rea, Cassens and Assoicates, Inc. providing for the
professional engineering services for certain water system construction projects,
which agreement the Council wishes to approve, adn
WHEREAS, Section 9.13(b) of the Home Rule Charter of the City o£ Aspen,
Colorado, authorizes the City to execute such agreements,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF .ASPEN,
COLORADO:
Section 1
That it does ratify and approve that certain contract between the City of
Aspen and Rea, Cassens and Associates, Inc. attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and
incorporated herein by this reference, and the Mayor is hereby authority and
directed to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Aspen.
was read by the city clerk
Councilwoman Michael moved to approve Resolution #34, Series of 1981; seconded by Council-
man Parry. All in favor, motion carried.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENT
Councilman Collins stated he was not at the special meeting last week at which the vote
was taken on the Marolt subdivision application. Councilman Collins asked that his vote
be shown as a no on that particular question. This will not change the outcome of the
vote but does reflect his position.
MAROON BELLS BUS PROGRAM
City Manager Chapman told Council this is a status report on the feasibility of the
Maroon He11s bus service. The city staff has worked on arrangements with the County.
The city will bill the program at $.57 per mile, which will cover the additional costs of
the program; the county is agreeable to that. The forest service and CETA worked the
program last year; however, funds are not available from them for this year. The forest
service is providing interns free of cost and the City is putting them up at the Plum
Tree. Mayor Edel asked if the city was covering any costs for this at the Plum Tree.
Chapman said there would only be a minimal amount of electricty. There will be four
interns to greet people, handle traffic and answer questions. Councilwoman Michael said
her big problem is if there is a deficit the Aspen Skiing Corporation indicated a wi11-
ingness to pick up the insurance; the Highlands indicated they would give free sky rides.
None of these are firm promises. Chapman said he felt they were firmed up. Councilman
Knecht said the staff did a very nice job putting this together.
Councilman Collins moved to instruct the transportation director to organize, budget and
direct a summer bus service to Maroon Bells for the summer of 1981; seconded by Council-
man Knecht. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #34, SERIES OF 1981 - Appropriations
Councilwoman Michael moved to read Ordinance #34, Series of 198J.; seconded by Councilman
Knecht. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #34
(Series of 1981)
AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,880
FROM FUND BALANCE, APPROPRIATING WATER FUND EXPENDITURES OF $3,400 FROP1 FUND
BALANCE was read by the city clerk
Councilwoman Michael moved to adopt Ordinance #34, Series of 1981, on first reading;
seconded by Councilman Collins.
Councilwoman Michael stated she would like to see that the baby pool is never, ever
closed again.
Roll call vote; Councilmembers Parry, aye; Michael, aye; Knecht, aye; Collins, aye;
Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried.
SALE OF CASTLE RIDGE
City Manager Chapman told Council that Lois Butterbaugh had found people interested in
the city's housing project. The investors were in town and toured Castle Ridge and have
said they are interested. There are time consideration on theiz part. Chapman said he
needs feedback from Council on whether they are interested in having staff pursue this.
Mayor Edel said he did not think the staff had the expertise to understand the financial
problems and perhaps a tax accounting expert should be asked to look into this. Mayor
Edel told Council he knew an excellent tax accountant and perhaps he could come to
Aspen to discuss the tax ramifications and problems. Chapman agreed; the obvious reason
for the interest in Castle Ridge is that is represents a good tax shelter. Chapman said
in order for the city to get fair value out of the project, the city should get advice
of a tax expert.
Jeff Sachs asked if this had to go to the electorate. Councilman Knecht asked how much
was known about the interested investors. Chapman said that would be part of the work
of staff if Council was interested at all. Councilman Collins said as far as the tax
laws, this is something the. investors will present to Council. Also the city should be
looking at other proposals. Chapman said there are a number of variables the city will
have to consider in any sale and the staff and Council will be better off having more
information. Councilman Parry said the city should pursue this and he is in favor o£
a tax expert.
'l
j
~i
.~
3
3~ 1(o-p
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 22, 1981
RESOLUTION #35, SERIES OF 1981 - Creating and Appoint Members to the Aspen Meadows I~
Advisory Board
Councilwoman Michael requested that a member from ACIIC be added to the committee. They
worked so hard when the Institute was turned down to get a solution.
Councilwoman Michael moved to read Resolution #35, Series of 1981; seconded by Counci'_man
Parry. All in favor, motion carried.
~,
RESULUTION ~~~ _
(Se r.ies of 1981)
A RESOLUTION CREATING ANU APPOINTING MEMBER5 'PO
AN ADVIBOk2Y COMMITTEE TO BE KNUWN AS THE ASPHN
- h1EADUWS ADVISORY BOAktll
W t1E REA5, that grope r.ty located in the West End of the Cif.y of
Aspen historically known as the Aspen Institute Property and here-
inafter. des iy oared as the "Aspen Meadows" exists as one of the
largest undeveloped tracts of land within the present boundaries
of the City of Aspenand its development will have a srynif leant
impact. on the City, and
WHEREAS, historically said tract oL land has been used by [he
Aspen Ins r.i r.u to for. kl ulnanis tic Sr.udies which has rendered an in-
valuable academic and cultural service to the citizens of the City
of Aspen and has provided a site for. the Aspen htus is Festival and
Physics Ins r.itute, and
Wk1EREAS, the City Council is aware that Mr. ^ans Cantrup has
purchased or placed under. contract. for pu rohase either a po r.tion
or. all of the Aspen Meadows and intends ro propose plans for con-
tinued re re orlon and support of the above academic and cultural
ser.v ices, as well as development, and
W Hk:REAS, in view Of the size, location and historical use of
[he Aspen Meadows Property, the City Council deems it, to be In the
besC interest of the City that any and all pro; osed uses or devel-
opment be yiven the closest scrutiny to assure that the yual it.y of
the enviromae nt ne maintained and that any use or developmen r.
remain co mpat.iule with the West End res tdent tal area of the City,
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has been revues red to appoint an
ad ivs ory couw:ittee to be known as the Aspen Meadows Advisory Board
ro review and recommend any and all proposed plans for develo p:,:e nt
and uses of the Aspen Meadows Property by Mr. Cantrup and nia suc-
cessors and ass iy ns, and
W11ERt:AS, the City Council desires to. crear.e and appoint :uem-
bers to such adv s ory conmlittee to be known as the Aspen Meadows
Advisory Board.
[JOW, Tli E12Ef012E, BG IT' KESULVEU UY THE l]IYY COUNCIL OF TtIB
C I'PY OE AB YEN, CULORA UU:
1. 'Phere is hereby created an advisory couun it r.ee to be
known as rile Aspen Meadows Advisory Hoard for the purpose of
reviewing and recom:end my any and all proposed plans and uses of
the Aspen [4eadows Property by Mr. Hans Cantrup, his successors and
ass iyns. Tue Board shall establish lts own rules and suaii serve
in an advisory capacity only, and its actions shall nor. be con-
strued in any way to cons tir.ut.e City app royal oL any proposed
plans for develo pwent or uses of the Aspen Meadows Property.
2. The followiny individuals are hereby reyuested ro serve
as members of the Aspen Meadows Advisory Hoard and their. williny-
RBSS t0 Se rVe Shall and hereby dOeS COn5 tlt.Ute the it dppOfRt,pe^t
to the Hoard:
1. Governor Richard Lamm or., in his absence, Lt.
Governor Nancy Uick
2. A representative to be selected by the Board of
County Coruaissioners of the County of Pitk in
3. Chairman of the Aspen Institute for Human is t.ic
Studies, Robe rt O. Ande rs on
4. Music Associates of Aspen Chairman, Edgar Stern
5. Elizabeth Paepcke
6. Hans B. Cant r. up
7. A presidenT. of one of the local batiks or. savinys
and loan companies (to be designated by the pres i-
dents of the local banks or. savinys and loan com-
panies)
8. President of the Chamber of Commerce
9. President of VOICE, Mort Heller
10. President of the Aspen Valley Improvement Associa-
tion
g.~
Regular Meeting
Council
11. Pees ident of the Aspen Arts Council (ionnb r.ty the
Aspen Foundation for. the Arts)
12. A representative to be des iy Hated oy the Inter-
national Design Conf erence
13. James Hopkins smith
14. A representative to be des iy Hated by the Aspen Cen-
ter for Physics
15. Mr.. John Kelly
16. Mr.. Belton Fleisher, as a rep r. es entative of the
Concerned Citizens of the West End
17. President of the West End Improvement. Association,
John Schumacher
18. The president of the Aspen Lody my Ass oc iar.ion
19. A representative to be desiy Hated by the Aspen
Skiing Co r. p.
20. A repres en[ative from the Aspen Couuau nity Instir.u to
Inte r.ac tion Committee
June 22, 1981
Councilman Parry moved to adopt Resolution #35, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman
Knecht.
Councilwoman Michael asked if a time limit should be suggested in the resolution. Mayor
Edel said if the Advisory Board hasn't come to Council by September 1st, then the Council
can say something to them. Mayor Edel,reguested staff contact all members on the Advisory
Board to set up a meeting for Thursday at noon in Council Chambers.
A11 in favor, with the exception of Councilman Collins. Motion carried.
LIQDOR LICENSE RENEWALS
Councilman Parry moved to approve the liquor license renewals for the Crystal Palace,
Paragon and Sgt. Pepper's; seconded by Councilman Knecht. All in favor, motion carried.
Council recessed to an executive session.
ORDINANCE #35, SERIES OF 1961 - Water Bonds
Councilwoman Michael moved to read Ordinance #35, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman
Collins. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE. #35
(Series of 1981)
Councilwoman Michael moved to adopt Ordinance #35,, Series o£ 1981, on first reading;
seconded by Councilman Collins.
D7ayor Edel asked what the city was realizing with the issuance and how much is it going
to cost the city to realize that. Chapman told Council generally what the city has done
with Kirchner/MOOre is to negotiate the fee. Chapman said he could separate the two bond
issues and bring back to Council what the feeds. Mayor Edel said he felt this bond issue
was the wrong way to go from a financial point of view.
Roll call vote; Councilmembers Michael, aye; Knecht, aye; Collins, aye; Parry, aye; Mayor
Edel, nay. Motion carried.
~~
311
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 22, 1481
FINAL PLAT PUD - Park Place
Jack Johnson, planning office, told Council this project is located on the Cooper avenue ~
mall and has been before Council to consider a GMP allotment of 8,600 square feet of
commercial space. There are other approvals necessary such as waivers to the Wheeler j
Opera hous and Wagner park view planes. This is a two-story structure-with ground floor ',
commercial and second story employee housing units which will penetrate 6 feet into the '
view plane. Johnson told Council this building is not out of scale with the surrounding
buildings and the planning office does not object to the view plane penetration. '
Johnson told Council there is another request for the reduction of open space. The
applicant is requesting an additional .5 FAR which he envisions all the bonus '.
will go to employee housing. Another approval request is a total waiver of parking needs
for the employee units; they request no parking be imposed. The final approval is for
exemption of the four employee units from GMP pursuant to density bonus of the Code. I.
Johnson told Council the attorney's office notes there shall be a final plat required '.
prior to issuance of a building permit and there shall be a subdivision/PUD agreement i
required. The engineering department has no particular problems with the variances
necessary for the project. ~~
This application is for 8,800 square feet of commercial space and 3,032 square feet of
employee housing, which will be four one-bedroom units at approximately 750 square feet '.
each. The applicant is requesting middle income guidelines. Mayor Edel said there are ',
three applications tonight, two are for middle and one is for low. Mayor Edel stated he
is distressed about higher rental rates being charged and would implore the developer to ~.
re-examine the level of rent. Johnson pointed out the P S Z has recommended moderate. ~~
Andrew Dracopoli, representing the applicant, said there position is that the commercial ~..
core is the most expensive part of the city in which to build and middle income housing
is appropriate in the commercial core. Dracopoli told Council in this project they have
committed the entire bonus to employee housing and did not take any for commercial.
Dracopoli said in their GMP application they spelled out the housing would be middle
income housing. Johnson pointed out in the conunercial GMP competition there are no ~',
points given on low, moderate or middle levels only on the fact that emplo}~ee housi.ng is
given.
Johnson told Council the planning office has no objections to the waivers of the heighth
into the view plans; there are many obstructions in the vicinity. Dracopoli pointed out
the developer has stepped the second floor back so that it appears less large from the
mall. The planning office encourages anadditional .5 FAR for employee housing and are '
in support of that request. The planning office also recommends the waiver of the 25
per cent open space and supports the exemption from GMP for the four one-bedroom units.
P & Z recommended approval of these four requests subject, however, to the moderate income
restrictions. Dracopoli told Council in a subsequent meeting the P s Z approve middle
income guidelines for the Epicure project.
Councilman Knecht asked about the parking issue. Dracopoli pointed out these units are
right next to Rubey Park which is the transportation center, and are in the downtown ~.
area. The are guidelines as set out in the Code for special review for parking exemption.
Regarding the income level guidelines, Lennie Oates said the confusion through the
process is compounded because there is no provision in the commercial section which ~
addresses the three levels of housing. City Attorney Taddune said he felt it was within '~
the prerogative of Council to determine that, the question is when that prerogative is ~~,
exercised. Dracopoli said the Codes sets out guidelines to qet the best commercial, '..
residential or lodging projects through the GMP. The developer followed these criteria ',
to get a score. In the commercial section there is not reference to the three levels as
there is in the residential section. Dracopoli told Council this project has sta*_ed all
through the process, these units would be middle income housing. The developer has
devoted the entire PAR bonus to employee housing. Lennie Oates said he did not feel the ~,
income guideline classification should be first addressed at the final plat stage of the j
process. Councilman Parry said when people design a building, they determine what people '~
are going in that building, they design the apartment accordingly. If these are low '~
income, they will be too crummy for middle management. Councilman Collins said he agreed
these should be middle; it is difficult to determine unless the Council has established '
a policy. The applicant has gone through the entire review process. I
Councilman Collins moved to approve the final plat PUD including waivers to the Wheeler
Operas House and Wagner Park view planes, and a waiver to the 25 per cent open space
requirement in the CC zone, and approval of special review to utilize additional .5:1
FAR bonus in the CC zone for four deed restricted employee housing units, approval of
review to waiver parking needs of the four one-bedroom employee units proivded employee
units are restricted to middle income guidelines, and approval of exemption of four
one-bedroom employee housing units from GMP subject to the following conditions; (1)
prior to acceptance o£ final plat, applicant must enter into a subdivision/PUD agreement
as required by Sections 24-8.6 and 20-16(c), including an open space and common ',
facilities maintenance agreement required by Section 24-8.19,-if applicable, and (2) '.
recordation of the final plat prior to issuance of a building permit; seconded by Council-.
man Parry. All in favor, with the exception of Mayor Edel. Motion carried. '~..
SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION - park Place Development '~
Councilman Parry moved to approve of the Park Place Development subdivision exception for
the purposes of lot line adjustment subject to the following conditions; (1) submi~~sion
of a final plat indicating the new lot line between lots B and C;'(2) engineering depart-
ment review of the new meter and utility locations and the associated maintenance and
access easement, and (3) conveyance of the 227 square foot parcel to the Aspen Skiing
Corporation and not to a third party; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor,
motion carried.
3118
Regular Meeting
Aspen City Council
June 22, 1981
i
SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION - Epicurean !~
~ I
;.~ Jack~JOhnson, planning office, told Council this is a request to condominiumize 21 spaces ~.
ii in the Epicure building. The Epicurean received a commercial GMP allotment for 10,041
square feet in 1979. This allotment will expire in September if the applicant does not
submit plans sufficient for a building permit issuance. The engineering department has
noted this is not an adequate condominiumization plat, and the applicant will need to
~. resubmit a plat. Johnson told Council there is additionally 1,959 square feet of employee
housing space divided into three units. The applicant is proposing this housing be
restricted to the middle income category.
Johnson told Council the planning office has reviewed this and has recommended that six
month minimum leases apply to the three housing units. The P & Z reviewed this and
recommended middle income guidelines. The applicant is requesting that the three parking
spaces that would be required for the employee units be waived per the review criteria on
the basis of the _proximity to public transport and the closeness of the downtown core.
The two studios will rent for $412 and the one bedroom for $635. These are 550 square
feet and 850 square feet respectively. Johnson told Council the basement will probably
be used as restaurant space; the second floor will be 8 units; the third floor 9 units and
the top floor. the employee housing.
The is special review required for the waiving of the parking requirements. Johnson to ld
Council the engineering and planning departments are in support of auto disincentive in the
commercial cial and support this application; however, they would like to bring to the
attention of Council, as the city continues to exempt the residential component of the
commercial core, this is compounding the parking problems in the downtown. Johnson said
as future applications come through, the staff will start looking more critically at
parking association with the residential aspects of the downtown. Councilman Parry said
he would like agreement from applicants to join in a parking structure sort of like a
sidewalk district.
The planning office recommends exemption of the employee units and approval of the no
parking request. The employee units should be restricted to the middle income guidelines
with a six month minimum lease restriction. Mayor Edel again strongly opposed the
middle income guidelines; the city is getting no affordable units if they are all to
be middle income.
Councilman Parry moved to approve the application for subdivision exception for the
purposes of condominiumizing theEpic ure Plaza building subject to the following conditions:
(1) compliance with the engineering department comments, (2) deed restrictions of the
three employee units at the middle income price guidelines, (3) restrictions to six month
minimum leases with no more than two shorter tenancies per year on the three employee
housing units; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, with the exception of Mayor
Ed el. Motion carried.
Councilman Parry moved to approve the Epicure Plaza request for exception from GMP for the
three employee housing units and approve the recuest that no parking be required for these
units subject to the following condition: employee units restricted at the middle income
guidelines with six month minimum leases and no more than two shorter tenancies; seconded
by Councilman Collins. All in favor, with the exception of Mayor Edel. Motion carried.
SUBDIVISION F.XCEP'I`ION- Brandt
Councilwoman moved to approve the Hrandt subdivision exception for purposes of condomini.-
umization subject to the following conditions: (1) submission of a condominium plat showing
each units, common elements, pa rk inq, etc., to be signed and recorded following wnstruc-
tion of the second unit; (2) deed restriction on both halves of the duplex to six month
minimum leases with no more than two shorter tenancies per year; seconded by Councilman
Collins. All in favor, motion carried.
Mayor Edel requested a work session to discuss the issue of the pricing of employee units.
This was scheduled for June 24, 1981, at noon.
EXEMPTION FROM GMP FOR EMPLOYEE HOUSING - Mill Street Shopping Plaza
Colette Penne, planning office, told Council this is a request to use a .5 FAR bonus for
employee housing; exemption from GMP for employee housing and exemption from the parking
requirements for the employee housing. This is located in the CC zone. This project
went through GMP in September 1980 and was alloted 20,500 square feet in addition to the
retention of 6500 existing square feet. Three employee apartment are included in the plan
and are part of the FAR. One of these units will be substandard in size. Ms. Penne told
Council the present plan reflects Borne changes, one is that the existino_ Mill street
station is being removed.- This has been reviewed and approved by HPC. There will be
three studios, two at 546 square feet and one at 530 squafe feet. The employee units
are part of the -.. 5~; 1-r.,R-bonus and<~t.he applicant did not select to take advantage of the
bonne. for the nnmmercial square footage. P 6 Z rac o;mended approval of the exemption of
the employee units from GMP, conditioned upon them being deed restricted, and voted to '
waive the parking requirements.
Counci l-woman Michael moved to exempt from GMP the employee units in the Mill Street Shop-
ping Plaza subject to the following conditions: (1) deed restricting the employee hous-
in~ units as per Section 20-22 of the Aspen Municipal Code, (2) that these deed restrictions
b= for the low income category of the housing authority guidelines, (3) that these deed
restrictions be recorded prior to the receipt of a building permit; (9) that the parking
requirements for the employee units be waived; seconded by Councilman Parry.
Co uncilmaa Farry pointed out these should be middle income units like the previous applica-
tions. Tony Mazza, representing the applicant, agreed he would like to receive what the
other applicants have gotten. Ms. Penne explained she had taken this application to P & Z~'
with no guidelines recommendations. P & Z recommended low and said they wanted to recom-
mend low quit elines from now on. Mayor Edel requested that P S 2 attend the study session
on June 24.
All in favor, motion carried.
4 a
3115
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 22, 1981
SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION - Behrendt
Colette Penne, planning office, told Council this is f`_ve cor;tignous lets zc:ned 'R~6.
The applicant is requesi:i nc sutd iv is ion o.xctption to f~;rm !:wo parcels, pa rce'. one is
lots K, L, M, and parcel two is lots N and O. Ms. Penne told Council the Code say's that
nothing can be done which will increase the non-conformity of a structure or a parcel.
Zn this application, if the land is split along the or i.g final lots lines, there will be a
side yard that is not adequate. The applicant's attorney feels it is important to keep
the lots at 6,000 and 9,000 square feet. The planning office came up with a compromise
of an easement granted for the affected section. Ms. Penne suggested the easement be
granted along the edge of the wood frame house and a covenant not to build within 5 feet
of the house.
Councilwoman Michael moved to approve the requested lot split for Behrendt conditioned
upon; (1) the granting of an easement, from the southeasterly corner of the house 15.8
feet to the northeasterly corner of. that section of the structure along the newly-
outlined lot line of 1.4 feet so that the minimum side yard of 5 feet is maintained and
nonconformity is not increased, (2) in additions, a covenant should be attached with a
commitment from the owner not to build within 5 feet of that easement on lot M; (3) that
if either of the present non-conforming uses ceases to exist for any reason for a period
of more than a year, any subsequent use of such land shall conform to ttte regulations
specified by the Code for the R-6 zone; seconded by Councilman Parry.
All in favor, motion carried.
APPOINTMENTS TO HPC AND MUNICIPAL JUDGE
Councilwoman Michael moved to nominate at regular members to the fIPC Lary Groen and tha*_
the current alternate, Marjorie Brenner, be appointed as a regular member; and that as
alternates Steve Marcus and Nick Pasquarella be appointed; that Brooke Peterson be
appointed Municipal Judge, and William ttodges III appointed as deputy Municipal Judge;
seconded by Councilman Collins. A11 in favor, motion carried. Mayor Edel noted there
were superb candidates for both positions.
ORDINANCE #31, SERIES OF 1981 - Single transfer of fuel
Mayor F.d el opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Edel closed the
public hearing.
Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #31, Series of 1981, on second reading; seconde3
by Councilwoman Michael. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Michael, aye; Collins, aye;
Knecht, aye; Parry, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried.
CENTRAL RESERVATIONS LEAS F.
Councilman Collins said he felt this lease should come under Council's annual review of
donations and contributions. Chapman pointed out the lease had been changed to expire on
December 31, 1981, so that it will be ren euaed.
Councilwoman Michael moved to adjourn at 8:20 p. m.; seconded by •Jou~:c'.7 man Parry. All in
favor, motion cart ied. %~.'//
~thryn Koch City
Special Meeting Aspen City Council July 2, 1981
Mayor F.del called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. with Counci Lnembers Collins, Knecht
and Parry present.
THRIFT SHOP - GIft of House
Assistant City Manager Butterbaugh expla i.ned Council has asked staff to investigate sites ',
available on which to move a Victorian house for the Thrift Shop to use. The staff has
narrowed these to the east of city hall and next to the fire station. There are no ''~
restrictions that cannot be handled; however, either parcel would have to be rezoned.
They are both zoned P, park. The Thrift Shop ladies have several build i.ngs available to
them; some are not suitable. The Thrift Shop ladies hope to be able to determine if ary
of these are feasiable.
t
There is a Victorian house that is avail.abl.e to the ladies, and it will be moved to this
site. The person donating the house needs a let±er from Council stating that a site is
available to use. The person needs to get this deal firmed up so that he knows he can qe t'.'
atax deduction. Ms. Butterbaugh told Council she has measured the building and it appears
it would fit on the site. Ms. Bu tt.erbaugh has asked the fire chief to come to show
Council the plans of the fire department future build out to see how the donated building
might fit there. Also, the engineer and building inspector are present to answer questions
on the problems of renovating the building and moving it from a residential zone to a
commercial zone.
~,'.
Mayor Edel said it is nice to have, ih^_~ house moved znd °_onjte~ to the t'hr`ft Shop, bn.t
d^ they went ko stra:'d lc themselves with $100,000 to fi° it r.p.- Itar~*n Kas h: nsl-i srid ~:.he^
ha~~e nn chs~i a:. Mayo- F.d-1 .said `-e ttromth the Tlzift Shop should have some leverage from :.
the man donating this house to see if they can get money towards renovation. The man
donating the house is getting a large tax write-off. Herb Paddock, building inspection,
told Council the basic problem of moving the house from fire zone 3 to fire zone 1 is i. t
changes the occupancy and use of the building; theCOde requirements are far more s[ringent.
Paddock toldCouncilhe has done a site inspection of the house. The roof is inadequate
and will have to be replaced with a one-hour roof. Depending on the setbacks, the house
will have to have 1 or 2 hour fire walls throughout.
-
3120 - - _ _ _ - - - -_
City Council .July 2, 1981
li out; Mitrwill~haveytonbentorn down touthelbare studdingtwwillhhave tto beginsuaatedideThed ~i
interior walls. have to come out. Paddock reiterated the problem is taking an R-1 occupancy
I~ and turning it into B-2 and the codes are more stringent. Councilman Parry said it seems
one cannot survive with a Victorian in town. Ms. Butterbaugh said there is an exception
for older buildings, there is discretion up to the building inspector on what must be don e.
Mayor Edel asked where the money for this building would come from. Ms. Kashinski said
in the event of a sale of the Wheeler Opera HOUSe, since the Thrift Shop is losing their
space, perhaps the new owners would underwrite the costs for them. Ms. Butterbaugh told
Council if Andy Hecht, representing the Victorian owner, knows there is interest on the
part of Council but that they are hung up with approvals, they do not have any problems
holding. Ms. Butterbaugh said today the Council should address the problems of this
Victorian building. Ms. Kashinski said it did not seem feasible to tear out the entire
building and repair and renovate it.
Willard Clapper, fire chief, showed Council the proposed expansion for the fire department,
which is approximately a ten year project. This year the fire department is putting an
extension on the top of this; probably not for the apartments, just the lower, the exten-
sion out to the property line. The fire department has gotten a ten year lease with the
city so that they can build out. The main reascn for this is the fire deportment will have
paid people within a few years. To do that, the fire department will have to have
available space. The fire department will have to have a little area over here where the
parking area is shown this year to build, for staging and for packing equipment, etc. The
fire department will need part of this area this year. Presently, the fire department has
three bays; they want to add a fourth bay so they will have four bays opening onto Hyman
Avenue. This expansion will give them a shop area in the rear and total frontage on to
town.
Clapper explained with the future of paid fire marshal and fire chief, there will be an
office there for the person responsible for fire inspections and living quarters above.
Councilman Parry asked why not go total second story above the fire station. Clapper
answered the main reason is the view plane. Mayor Edel said he thought the Council. has
the right to void that. Councilman Parry said he felt it would be much better to go with
a second story. Clapper told Council when they des igned their expansion plans, there
was elookingato improve Tthefpark~p MayorsF.delhsaidoin torder rto ehelp theefireedepa rtmentt
with their plans, the Council could address the view plane. Clapper showed Council the
back area slants and they designed it to cut the height. Mayo Edel asked staff to
investigate the view plane problem to see if more space on top could be utilized. City
attorney Taddune told Council if they void the view plane for this, it can apply to other
buildings. Councilman Yarry said the new Epicure building will be much higher. Lou
Buettner, engineering department, told Council that building is outside the view plane.
Mayor hdel. requested staff to look at this.
wholeeareala ndhalso rto dhavepa tf iceman'soparkeY Co uncilmanpParrt~nsuand fits in with the
meet could incorporate a new building for the Thrift Shop and the firetdepa rtmentesdneeds.
Mayer F.del asked Clapper if he had any problems working with the Thri-ft Shop; Clapper
said he had no problems. Ms. Butterbaugh showed cut outs of how buildings would fit on
the lot. They could have a basement and fit within the FAR in tha*_ zone. mhe planning
department has some concerns about moving into an historic district. The HPC wil]. have
to al pro ce b_th the bu i..-.d i.~g a':d its p.'-a cement on th_ lot. Plan'.inq fe: is this Victorian
would be incompatible with the :surrounding buildings. BotT staff and the Thrift ?hoo
have put the lot east of city hall as low priority. Too many trees would have to be
renovrd• rla oper t:o :d Coun^il t:he firs decor r.me a in tr^inc to cet z fort i.- the do~: r,
:hoa inc whet they -rill nc=d i;t the fu~`-urea, They have to -•k er at ~ah•:r area s~; a-- a district
it is difficult tc furd 1z nd. CLtpp>r s;id the, do not ;rant to stet ~vs`ed ~:ut. pla+or
Eifel .jai? the ci'cy i; no'=~ tr~~inq to push them o.tt.
city Attorney Taddune told Council they wot,ld have to :e z:~ne '::h i:: property ':o c_mm:-rcial.
Thty miy d•~ this w~th ut of;g tr: thc~. voter:. Councilman Parry suygested the Thrift
Shop ladies go back to the owner to see if he will put in a basemen t_ for. them; he will
renovationWr~Counc ilman phe~i should see if he will he willing to put some moo.=.y into the
bui-l ding for the Thrift Shopy aCOOUn^.i lman+Knechtlsa irlo}re ifeltoit owastop dt~i~Conncil wto
preserve a Viotorian like this at all costs. Sunny Vann, planning director, told ^ounci7.
there are some guide7.ines for the down t-own core and buildings. Tf Council i.s consf.
ac•^.eptina th i.s b•.tilding, the building an3 sitewi.ll t~.aw to he acce-~t ~.
de~in>
pa.rticu'.ar building may have some problems with HPD; scale e<? by 3PC. Th is
.^.onc erns with i.n the g•.tid clines for that. distri.et. Vann told lrouncilnthefplznni.ngtnffice
does not. encourage dunlioating Victorians.
Mayo: Edel slid i.n order to max i.mi?e Land usage and solve problems, it is fine -.ci th the
fire department to put a second story in for- their needs over the next 10 Tears, ~,ch i'h
frees up land to acconunodate parking, a park and =. spot far the Thrift Sbop. Th=t is
Council's ~objec *.iv^- C?unci Lnan :!nee^ht said this Victorian is an important building.
ofyreno+rel ^a ir? this Victorian may enhance the whole block; hewe.ver. with the expense
ration, it is p-ob3blp not feasible. Councilman Parr., said the firs ~. step is for.
the Thr i.ft Ship ladies tr, find-oat what 7he7 can. get from the o•aner of the wilding.
Then they shou'.d go to 9PC and see what they would like.
Taddune asked ;'" Cc~uuci:- was i~~' '~i
lease Taddune said 7he':e i;ga rne5this 1=nd awar. Coun ^i l~,.an ^ar°y said it would be n
^ti':u t~~s a sale Th:.s m.~ r, o .q, 1O~ about s long-terT le,ese and 'ahe`.her this coo-
tie up the property. Mayor Edelrasked ~to ainstruct~thehstaffsthat thisois thedin tent ofct 1
Council; they want to w6 rk this out whatever the n;echanism is. pls. Butterbaugh said
staff will have to return asking for specific permission. Councilman Collins questioned
putting a house on that site, and locking at the needs of a volunteer fire department
plus the fact there are little amount of parks in this area. Councilman Collins said he
would like to hear back from HPC. Councilman Collins said he would like to see more
planning for this area, and until Council sees that, they should not take any action.
.,
312
Special Mee*_ing Aspen City Council Jvly 2, 1981
Councilman Collins said he likes the idea of a park where it is. Ms. Kashinski said in ~,~
regards to leaving it a park, the Thrift Shop could work with the fire department for a
new building. They need a basement and a first floor. It is conceivable they could ~
build this building where it sits in the fire department plans; then when needed, the
ii fire department could build a second story. They would still have a parking lot and a
park in the front.
i
t
Mayor Edel said there are a lot of problems, zoning, the building, working with the fire ~
Ii department. Today Council should say they are willing to realize that the Thrift Shop ~'
must go somewhere and this is an appropriate spot. Councilman Collins asked about the
' traffic and parking problems. Ms. Kashinski said they could unload in the alley where they
parking is. The Thrift Shop does not prefer the park east of city ahll; there would be
public outcry if the huge spruce is moved. There is no parking with all the police cars.-.~
~. Next to the fire station, people can go through the alley and drop off their items; there
would be parking for the Thrift Shop. ,
Councilman Knecht moved to instruct staff to proceed with the Thrift Shop proposal; seconded
by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried.
Taddune asked if Council was going to do anything with respect to Hecht. Ms. Butterbaugh
said this is now up to the Thrift Shop ladies. '
i
ORDINANCE #35, SERIES OF ].981 - Issuance of general obligation water bonds
Ms. Butterbaugh told Council this has been passed on first reading. The city needs the
second readiny to obtain money by next Monday to make initial payout on the contract.
Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Edel closed t}re
public hearing.,
Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #35, Series of 1981, on second reading; seconded
by Councilman Collins. Ro 11 call vote; Cou ncilmembers Parry, aye; Knecht, aye; Collins,
aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried.
Councilman Parry moved to adjourn at 5:15; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor,
motion carried.
Kathryn S <oc City C~~
Regu ].ar Meeting Aspen City Council ~ _ iuu~ 13, 1981
-rOINT MEF,T ING WITH CCUHTY COMMISSIOtiF:4:-:
M eycr lid e). cai.l ..? th.~ mee tiny to order „f. 1 :~G F.m. wi~.:h C,:uncilmembe r:~. Knect, Parry, and
Coll. ins and Conuniss'oners Kinsley, Klanderud, Child, Madsen and 61ake present.
1. Consolidation of Police Functions. County Attorney Sandra SCUller presented a proposed
consolidation of city county poli-cefunction. There are two issues; whether the government:
arc interested and, if so, how to go about this. The sher i.ff can contin ue in his existing
capacity and ncgoation a contract an an annual basis. The city charter could be changed
to establish the sheriff as a municipal officer. Another issue is whether the sheriff
would be appointed or elected. Another point is who pays for the law enforcement and how
is it paid for. Don Davis, sheriff's department, said their department did not have a
specific position other than i.f it is to be done, in what manner does the community •.ea nt
it done, i.e. appointment versus election. Davis said he did not think the consolidation
approach would be a big money saver; all the police work could not be done by the
sheriff's office without adding a force about the size of the present police department.
In the long run, the savings could be significant in th.e administration end. '.
Rob McClung, police chief, said he felt over time the co nsolidati.on will prove tobe more
effective; it will provide more consistency in the style of law enforcement. McClung
said he felt an appointed department head would be preferable. The Commissioners and
Council are elected; they are responsible to the electorate. McClung pointed out an '
elected sheriff is politically autonomous from the people who 'are elected and who run his '
budget. Having a sheriff run for election every four years can change the person and
the policy ofthe department. Commissioner Kinsley stated the question is whether to
submit this to the voters, and do the Boards th irg there is enough potention for j
benefit. from this oha nge.
Mayor Edel. s_a ''-.e.~i he l.ik :~ tha co--.ce^t, F~ut felt. th ere :ho~: ld 'c•e mere 7ac'•gr~u n' infor ration
end '.is :us =io -~ wi th staf` an~i wi'h t!e B-tar~',s. The ?epsr t^en`s o`. law e^f :•-crime-ra s`~u'_d
campile '.nf crmation on the cost effectiveness of eliminating the duplication and how to
combine the two departments. Cliff Brown i.ng, FBI - Glenwood Springs, told the Boards he
has had experience in consolidations. In Florida, Browning put together a city and coentyl~
department, which became an effective law enforcement agency at considerable saving.
Browning stated it is his experience in law enforcement that there are conflicts with city
police department and county sheriff's department; if these conflicts are taken away,
there can be a more effective law enforcement.: Browning told the Boards that Craig,
Colorado, tried consolidation For three years. They did separate because of political
conflicts. Browning said he felt consolidation with one agency is much more effective.
bia yor Edel said if the Boards created a joint department with an appointed head, does -
this become a reporting problem. County Manager Stewart noted an elected department head
allows the public to determine every fours years what the politics of the department
should ba. City Manager Chapman said he felt stzongly that law enforcement officials
should be appointed; with elected law officials ^Ften there is no accountability. If
there are appointed law enforcement officials responsible to elected officials, there is
a clear line of accountability.
31'?3
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 13, 1981
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
1. Councilman Knecht asked whose jurisdiction is it to keep clean the area from the last l~.
bridge to the dump. City Manager Chapman said beyond the bridge it is the responsibility
of the County; Chapman said he was not sure what program the county has for cleaning :~
along the roadsides. Councilman Knecht said he felt this was a problem that should be
addressed. Tom Dunlop pointed cut that the people administering the dump are not to allow'
anyone inwho has trucks with lose debris; this is a $20 fine. Dunlop said to his
knowledge this has been working. Dunlop told Council that highway clean up is one of the
major programs of the Chamber of Commerce, they do it twice a year.
ii
2. Councilman Parry moved to add to the agenda the industrial revenue bond question for
Little Annie; seconded by Councilman Knecht. All in favor, motion carried. ~
~~! 3. Councilman Parry brought up a request from P & Z for Council to meet with them in a
~ study session. Council requested staff to schedule this.
4. Councilman Parry commented on a letter from Monroe Summers regarding the Rubey Park
transportation center. Councilman Parry said this is an excellent Letter and requested ~~
a meeting with Summers to work on this important item. Mayor Edel agrees the subject of ~
a transportation center deserves comment. The meeting was set for Wednesday, July 15. '.
i
5. Mayor Edel announced on July 24 there will be a CAST meeting at the Plum Tree. At
' this meeting there will be a member of Exxon to discuss the impact of oil shale or. the
Western Slope.
6. Mayor Edel said he would like on the agenda an appointment of special counsel in the
~. case of People vs. Knecht. Councilman Parry moved to put this on the agenda; seconded
by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried.
7. Mayor Edel said he has had serious complaints from merchants on the mall that the ',
ma 11 is being neglected as far as cleanliness. Mayor Edel said he rea li.zed there have
been problems with lack of personnel. Mayor Edel said the ci-ty needs to do whatever
possible to maintain the mall and asked for a report back from staff.
'. A. Mayor F.del said he has talked to golfers who are saying that the approach on the golf '
course is a little slovenly; people are getting in without getting their tickets punched
or getting carts without paying for them. There have been complaints that the city is ~.
not supervising the golf course; it is sloppy and neglected. Mayor Edel said he would
like a reporC on this.
BMX TRACK REQUEST
Ian Murray told Council this is becoming a very popular sport. The closest EMX track is
in Grand Junction and the kids would like to have a track put in Aspen. Murray presented ~,
a drawing of a track located between the impound lot and the P,o arinq Fork river. 6la yor
Edel asked how much this would cost. Murray told Council that Dooger Digger has agreed
to supply help moving the dirt and smoothing out the track. Councilman Parry sa i.d this
area proposed for the track is completely bare and has no trees. Councilman Parry said
he would work with the boys and that Monroe Summers had agreed to work and to supervise.
Mayor f:d el pointed out this entire area is under study and Benedict is doing a plan for ~_
it. This should be brought to 6enedict's attention. Councilman Parry said this is a
temporary track and could be graded off in an hour. This is just a place for kids to '~
ride bicycles; there are no motorized vehicles. Murray brought in a BhiX bicycle and
showed the required padding and safety features. ~
Councilman Knecht moved to approve the site for a temporary BbIX track; seconded by
Councilman Collins. ~,
Mayor Edcl said he would agree to this temporary situation because it is important to the
kids. Ms. Butterbaugh suggested the city draw up an agreement that the city would be
held harmless. City Attorney Taddune said he did not know how this could be handled I
because the boys do not represent an organization. City Manager Chapman suggested giving
this a try to see how it will work. Chapman said if the city or the kids are not
satisfied, they can get back together.
All in favor, motion carried.
LITTLF. ANNIE - INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS
City Manager Chapman told Council this is an inducement resolution for the city to issue
industrial revenue bonds for Little Annie Development. Chapman said there is a need to
put this on the agenda because there is legislation in Washington concerning IRBS and
what they may be issued for. Chapman told Council the concern of Little Annie is that
the recreation area may be closed to IRBS. Little Annie would like the opportunity to
remain open to have IRBS issued by the city.
Ron Garfield, representing I,i the Annie, told Council they are working with a firm in
Denver to help with the financing for the deve Lopmert and this is a phase they would like
included. Mayor Edel said he was bothered by the rush and where Little Annie is in the
aoprovai process. h;ayor Edel suggested this be put on the next agenda so that Council
and staff will have an opportunity to look over this and report back. Chapman agreed
staff has not reviewed this; however, the city's bond counsel prepared this resolution -
at the expense of Little Annie. They have assured Chapman this inducement resolution has
no reliance in the future. Chapman said he is comfortable that all this is doing is
keeping the door open.
3124
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 13, 1981 _. T
Garfield told Council he has reliable and accurate information from their consultants
that there are changes coming from the legislature that may affect sports facilities in
regards to IRBS. It is important for Little Annie in putting together its packaging for
investors to identify IRBS as a potential element of financing. The total financing will
be $35,000,000. Garfield said that Little Annie may not even avail themselves of this
option for financing. By this resolution, Council is only indicating t}reir intention.
Little Annie must come back with ordinances to put out the bond documents. Garfield said
Little Annie does not gain any more in approvals by this resolution. Rick Boothe, Sherman
& Howard, told Council the bonds cannot be issued or sold until Little Annie comes back
with financing documents and a formal ordinance. The Council asked for a statement on
non-reliance.
"This statement is being made in connection with City Council deliberations on a proposed
resolution for Little Annie development revenue bond. My name is Ron Garfield and I am
the attorney for Little Annie Limited Partnership and represent the Little Annie project.
On behalf of my client who is sitting here with me this evening, we represent to the
City, first, that no action under this resolution would be construed by us or relied
upon by us an any additional approval of the Little Annie Ski Area or any other matters
over which the City has jurisdiction of this application. This resolution is limited
solely to an expression of intent on behalf of City Council with respect to the bonds.
Number two, that should City Council act on the resolution this evening, this would not
give rise to any reliance on our part nor would we ever assert that we could specifically
enforce this resolution or compel the City to issue industrial revenue bonds should it
decline at a future date to pass the enabling ordinances which are required for such
bonds."
Councilman Parry moved to read Resolution #36, Series of 1981, by title; seconded by
Councilman Knecht. All in favor, motion carried.
RESOLUTION #36
(Seri.es of 1981)
A RESOLUTION AGREEING TO ISSUE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPM.EN1'
RF.VENU F. BONDS TO FINANCE SPORTS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES FOR LITTLE ANNIE,
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DF.VLI F.RY OF A MEMORANDUM
OF AGREE:MF;NT IN CONNECTION THERF:W ITH BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLO RAD, AND
LITTLI: ANNIE, LIMITED PA RTNERSHZP was read by the city clerk
Councilman Parry moved to adopt Resolution #36, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman
Knecht. All i.n favor, with the exception of Councilman Collins. Motion carried.
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEi.
Councilman Parry moved that Thomas T. Crumpacker be employed as special counsel in the
matter of People vs Richard Knecht currently pending in Municipal. Court as outlined in
Paul Taddune's letter of July 9, 1981; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor,
motion carried. Councilman Knecht abstained.
MANAGEMENT ORDINANCES
Assistant City Manager Lois Butterbaugh told Council all ordinances have been reviewed by
staff and John Musick, the city water counsel. These six ordinances are to implement the
city's water management plan. Ordinance 39 is for general provisions and establishes the
operation of the city's water utility. Ordinance 40 outlines the service districts of
the city's water system; goes through the connection fees and gives the equivalent units
for calculating water fees. Ordinance 41 is a housekeeping ordinance, changing titles
and a determination of whether the service is inside or outside of the city. Ordinance
92 deals with procedures to be dealt with during water shortages. Ordinance 43 is the
water plumbing and advisory ordinance.
Tom Dunlop told Council Ordinance #44 deal more explicitly with water quality and specific
violations and definition which did not exist before. Councilman Parry asked in Section
11-11 who determines what are weeds and rubbish. Dunlop told Council this has always been
included in the ordinance; when there are complaints, either he or the fire chief inves-
tigate. Dunlop said not once in 6 years had he asked someone to trim weeds because of a
fire hazard.
Ms. Butterbaugh explained the new approach to the connect charge dealt with in Ordinance
90. The city's water service has been divided into size areas because the cost of
delivery of water to each area is quite different. The staff has taken the servi-ce areas,
taken the new construction and allocated to each area the cost and how many EARS are in
the area and how many will be built and divided this up and came up with a charge that
should be for new connects in each area. Ms. Butterbaugh told Council the water system
within the city of Aspen is in fairly good shape; the water system outside the city is not
in as good shape.
Ms. Butterbaugh showed a demonstration of comparative water rates and connect fees in
the water service areas of Aspen. The city only increased their water rate 10 per cent.
The table of equivalents was worked on with Rea, Cassensand John Musick. Some of these
will have to be modified by Council. Ms. Au tterbaugh pointed out in Section 23-59 that
all monies for connects will go into special funds to be used for the district they are
collected in. There will be a surcharge on connect fees for any place outside the city.
The utility hookup charge is the same structure as present except it has been increased.
Councilman Parry moved to read Ordinance #39, Series of 1961; seconded by Councilman
Collins. All in favor, motion carried.
Jl~~eJ
..,
...'
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 13, 1981
_.. ___ .. _. _..-__- _..___ --- ___-1
ii
ORDINANCE #39
(Series of 19611 it
4
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE WATER UTILITY CODE," ~~
REPEALING DIVISION 1 OF ARTICLE III OF CHAPTE )23 OF THE MUNIC IYAL CODE j'
~. OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORAUO, AND EIACTING A NEW DIVISION 1 THEREOF p~
~ IN ITS PLACE, ENTITLED "GENERAL PROVISIONS:' PROVIDING FOR T}IE ESTABLISH
MENT AND OPERATION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN FIATER UTILITY was read by the city
~!i clerk
Councilman Knecht moved to adopt Ordinance #39, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman
Collins. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Knecht, aye; Collins, aye; Parry, aye; Mayor
Edel, aye. Motion carried.
Councilman Parry moved to read Ordinance #40, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman
Knecht. All in favor. motion carried.
ORDINANCE #90
(Series of 1981)
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "THE UTILITY SERVICE CONNECTION ORDINANCE OF 1981,
REPEALING DIVISION 2 OF ARTICLF, III OF CHAPTER 23 OF TFiE MUNICIPAL CODE
OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, ENTITLED "TAP PERMITS ANU PLANT INVESTMENT
FEE", AND ENACTING A NEW DIVISION 2 THEREOF ENTITLED "UTILITY CONNECTION
CHARGE", PROVIDING FOR APPLICATION PROCEDURES FOR CONNECTION TO THE CITY
OF ASPEN WATER UTILITY, CONNECTION CIIARG ES THERETO, SIZE OF CONNECTIONS,
AND DISCONNECTIONS FROM THE UTILITY was read by the city clerk
Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #40, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman
Knecht. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Collins, aye; Parry, aye; Knecht, aye; Mayor
Edel, aye. Motion carried.
Councilman Parry moved to read Ordinance #91, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman
Knecht. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #41
(Series of 1981)
:AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTIN, IN FART, DIVISION 4 OF ARTICLE III
OF CHAPTER 23 OF THE MUNICIPAL. CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, ENTITLED
"MISCEhLANEOUS PROVZSONS", CHANGING THE TITLE OF TILE "SUYE FINTENDEN'P OF
WATER WORKS" TO "DIRECTOR OF TILE WATER TR F.A'PP1F.NT AND SUPPLY" AND CHANG I^:G
TFiE TERM "WATER WORKS" TO "WATER UTILITY" AND AMENDING SF.C TION 23-I.iG
THEREOF, EN'P IT LE "DETERMINA'PION AS TO WHETHE (INSIDE OR OUTSIDE OF' CITY"
was read by the city clerk
Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #41, Series of 1981; seconded b}' Councilman
Knecht. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Parry, aye; Knect, aye; Collins, ay r, M.a yor
Edel, aye. Motion carried.
Councilman Parry moved to read Ordinance #42, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman
Knecht. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #42
(Series of 1.981)
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "THE COM PR EFIENSIVE WATER SHORTAGE ORDINANC F. OF 1981",
ENAC'1'I NG A NEW DIVISION 5 TO ARTICLE III OF' THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO, ENTITLED "WATER SFIO RTAGE", PROVIDING FOR PROC F.DURES TO
BE FOLLOWED DURING WATER SIlORTAGES was read by the city clerk
Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #92, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman
Knecht. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Collins, aye; Y.necht, aye; Parry, aye; M.a yor
Ed el, aye. Motion carried.
Councilman Parry moved to read Ordinance #93, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman
Knecht. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #93
(Series of 1981)
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "TFIE WATER CONSERVATION AND PLUMBING ADVISORY ORDINANCE
OF 1981", ENACING A NEW ARTICLE X TO CHAPTER 7 OF TI{E MUNICIPAL COD F. OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, ENTITLED "WATER CONSERVATION AND PLUMBING ADVISORY
CODE," PROVIDING FOR THE INSTALLATION OF WATER CONSERVING FIXTURES, LAND_
SOAPING, AND IRRIGATION METHODS was read by the city clerk
Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #43, Series of 1981, on first reading; seconded '
by Councilman Knecht. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Parry, aye; Collins, aye; Knecht,
aye;, Mayor Edel, aye. hlo tion carried. I.
Councilman Parry moved to read Ordinance #44, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman
Knecht. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #94
(Series of 1981)
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "TILE WATER QUALITY ORDINANCE OF 1981," REPEALING AND
REENACTING CHAPTEI 11 OF THE ML'N ICIPP.L CODECF THE CITY OF' ASPEN, COLORADO,
ENTITLED "HEALTH", AND ENACTING A NE47 CHAPTER 1.1 ENTITLED "HEALTH AND WATER
QUALITY", PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION OF ACTIVITIES IN AND AROUND THE CITY
AND ITS VARIOUS SOURCES OF WATER SUPPLY, IN ORDER TO PREVENT WATER QUALITY
DEGRADATION, AND REGULATING ON-S I'PE INCIV KCAL WASTER DISPOSAL SYSTEMS,
DISPOSAI. OF ANIM PL CARCASSES, RE?1OVAL OF FUBBUSH, S;'EEDS AND BRUSH AND OTHEF.
SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES CAUSING POLLUTION was read by the city clerk
312f~
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 13, 1981
Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #99, Series of 1981, on first reading; seconded
by Councilman Knecht. Roil call vote; Councilmembers Knecht, aye; Collins, aye; Parry,
aye; Mayor Ed el, aye. Motion carried.
TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Mayor Edel reported to Council at the last CAST meeting it was noted they have most of
their monies towards making COG's transportation study and implementation. They went to
all cities on the wester slope for funds towards this study. This study is to develop
and improve transportation between Denver and Aspen/Glenwood and Denver and the western
slope and all Colorado. Moffatt Tunnel is funding 515,000. COG would like $2,000 from
Aspen; $1,000 in 1961 and the rest in 1982. Councilman Knecht asked where the money would
come from. Chapman told Council there are some monies in the general fund.
Councilman Collins moved to approve an expenditure of $2,000; $1,000 in 1981 and $1,000
in 1982 for the purpose of a transpora tion study of alternate modes by NWCCOG: seconded
by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried.
APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM PAF.K DEDICATION FEE - Aspen Sanitation District Employee
Housing
Councilman Parry moved to waive the park dedication fee for the Aspen Sanitation District
Employee Housing. Motion DIES for lack of a second.
City Manager Chapman reminded Council they have been dealing with this on a case by case
basis. Perhaps a stronger policy should be outlined.
VENDING CONTRACT - Peppermint Pattie's Popsicle Palace
Mayor Edel said last year Council requested the city publish to allow ^ome sort of
competition for this vending contract. Councilman Parry noted the city receives no
revenue from this, nor do they have a guarantee ott the kind of performance a vendor will
give. City Manager Chapman suggested extending the term of this contract for one month
so the staff can get the procedure in place and give notice. Councilman Collins said at
this late date, the Council should approve the renewal of the agreement for one year and
have the staff work on the procedure for next summer. Councilman Parry agreed.
Counc il.man Colli-ns moved that the contract between Patricia Fto lbrook and the City of
Aspen be approved; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Collins moved to table the request for exemption from park dedication fee for
Aspen Sanitation District employee housing; there was no representative; seconded by
Councilman Knecht. All in favor, motion carried.
Council took a 10 minute recess
SUHDIVISION EXCEPTION
Colette Penne, planning office, explained to Council this is a duplex located a 1135
Cemetery Lane; it is zoned R-15 and is 15,000 plus square footlot. The first application
for condomini.mni.zation was in May 1979; this did not go through the process. The structure
has since then been remodelled to 3138 square feet. The lower unit. has been ownner-
occupied for the past three years and neither has been offerred for rental. This condo-
rniniumization will not reduce the supply of housi nq and should not have price restrictions
on the units. The planning off ice recommends approval with the condition the condominium
plat be fully revised to meet the engineering departments request and that the six month
minimum lease restriction appl.ics. P s Z requested that the non-conformity be noted on
the plat.
Councilman Collins moved to approve the condominiumization of the Valley duplex located
on loC 11, block 1, Pitkin Mesa subdivision, with the following conditions; (1) full
revision of the condominium plat to meet the requirements outlined by the engin eeri ny
department, and recordation of this plat; (2) compliance with lease restriction of six=
month minimum leases with no more than two shorter tenancies per year; (3) non-conformity
to be noted on final plat.
ORDINANC F. #37, SERIES OF 1981 - Lot line adjustment
Alan Richman, planning office, told Council this code amendment came from the request
from P & Z to review the procedure for lot line adjustments. P & Z recognized there is
criteria to evaluate this but the code does not have specific criteria and also requested
a clarification of the overall intent. P & Z requested the staff outline more specific.
criteria for eligibility for a lot line adjustment. P & Z came up with a resolution of
approval defining the purpose of lot line adjustment; secondly, the adjustment will not
directly or indirectly affect the development rights or permitted density on the property
by providing the opportunity to create a new lot. The third point the P & 7, gave was
that the parcels or lots will continue to conform to the underlying area and bulk
requirements of the zone. Also the applicant for a lot line adjustment must comply with
all applicable land use regulations of the Code. Councilman Parry said he felt two
adjacent property o~mers should have a choice; they may want to move the lot line for
view purposes or mutual. agreement. Richman suggested adding language to the ordinance to
the ef.f ec t, "so that it does not result in additional development rights in either area".
Councilman Collins moved to read Ordinance #37, Seriers of 1981, as amended; seconded by ,_
Councilman Knecht. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #37
(Series o: 1981)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 20-19 AND 20-5(d) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN BY THE ADDITION OF CRITERIA FOR GRANTING EXCEPTION FROM THE '
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR THE PURPOSF. OF ADJCSTING A LOT LINE BETWEEN ADJACENT
PARCELS OR LOTS WHICH MAY RF. UNDER INDIVIDUAL OR SEPARATE Ot4NERSHIP was read
by the city clerk
31?`
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council _ July 13, 1981
Councilman Collins moved to adopt Ordinance #37, Series of 198]., as amended; seconded by
Councilman Kne dit. Roll call vote; Councilmemb ors Collins, aye; Knecht, aye; Parry, aye;
Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried.
SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION - Vicenti
Alan Richman, planning of f.ice, told Council. this is a request for condominiumization of a I
duplex which is next door to property which received a residential GMP allocation for ',
' 1981, located at 1015 East Hyman. This is in the R/MF zone on a 9000 square foot lot.
This duplex has not been occupied. The engineering department made comments about the
resubmission of the plat. There are four bedrooms and only three parking spaces. The
applicant should provide one parking space per bedroom, and therefore, should be required '
to regrade the space on the side of the building for parking, or add an additional space
in the alley. Richman told Council a rental unit was located on this property; it has
'. been revised and determined it was rented at a price which exceeded the housing price
guidelines. The house was donated and moved to ACL•'S to be used as employee housing. The
planning office recommends the six month minimum lease restriction be a condition. Council-
man Knecht said he felt this restriction was impossible to enforce. '~
Councilman Knecht moved to approve the Vicenti Building Company subdivision exception for
' the purposes of condominiumization, subject to the following conditions; (1) the aoplic ant
agreeing to revise the condominium plat to meet the specifications of the engineering
department memoradnum of May 26, 1981, and resubmitting theplat prior to recordation;
(2) the applicant providing four usable parking spaces for the four bedroom duplex by
either regarding the space on the side of the building so that it is usable or providing '
a second space in the alley behind the building; (3) the applicant agreeing to provide
an electrical/communica ti.ons easement at the southeast corner of the parcel; and (4) the
app licant restricting all units to six month minimum leases with no more than two shorter
tenancies per year; seconded by Councilman Collins. A1.1 i.n favor, motion carried.
SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION - Vicenzi/Goldstein
Alan Richman told Council this is a request to cendominiumize an office/commer cial structure
located at 300 South Spring in the O, office zone. This is on 6,000 square feet with
nine units and has been known a5 the Hanna-Dustin building. Since this is a Commercial
building most of the requirements of Section 20-22 do not apply. There are comments from
the engineering department. The applicant should obtain an encroachment license for the
intrusion of the building into the right-ot-way; the applicant should construct a five
foot wide sidewalk; the applicant should revise their plat.
Richman told Council there are comments from the building inspector as to numerous life,
health and safety violation at the build iny. Richman reminded Council a life, health and
safety ordinance relating to condomi.n iumization was enacted earlier this year requi.r i.ng the
building inspector to conduct inspections of structure prior to co ndomini.umization to
determine life, health and safety violations. Richman told Council the report from the
building inspector to P & Z was complicated and two problems arose because of this. P S Z
made a statement that they were looking, from this ordinance, to yet a report; they were
not looking to be a review body for building violations. The building inspector has his
own mechanism for compliance. The pla nn my office and P & 7. feel for the staff to place
compliance on the building inspector's report as an aspect of approval is redundant and
is not as strong a mechanism as the building inspector has for code viola Lions. Richman
said the staff did not want to put the building inspector compliance as part of either
the P 6 Z recommendation or the staff to Council. Richman said P & 7. felt they did not
have the expertise to say which violations were not life, health safety violation s
Richman said P & Z did not want to put these as a conditions because if they are condi2 ions
then the applicant has to sit and argue on a due process consideration and have the P b Z
decide who is right and who is wrong.
Paul Taddune told Council the P & Z dial not want to act as an appe~a is board; there is one.
P & Z's position is that they do not have jurisd i.ction to make rulings on determinations
made by the building department; the building dcpar trnent has its own mechanism for tail.
Mayor Edel said one of the conditions for approval i.s to conform to the building code;
if an applicant does not conform to it, they go to the Board of Appeals. Gideon Kaufman
told Council he is concerned because the oriyina 7. intent of this was to look at life,
health and safety violations was could cause serious problems, with the understanding that ii
some old buildings cannot be brought up to Code. Kaufman pointed out that when the ',
building inspector goes into a building he makes a list of all violations; the initial ',
request for health and safety inspections has gotten to a larger degree. Kaufman said he
felt the Counc i.l should listen if an applicant feels aggrieved because this has gotten
outside of the intent of the ordinance. Kaufman told Council this building went before
the Board of Appeals in 1969 and received a variance. The building department is now
asking them to undo the variance they received. Mayor Edel said if an applicant gets the
privilege of condominiumization, they should conform with the building code. The building
codes are different in 1981 than they were in 1969. Kaufman said the only change when
condominiumizing is the possible ownership, not the use of the building. Richma r. said
the best avenue to determine whether or not these are life, health and safety issues is
to appeal to the Board of Appeals. Councilman Collins suggested going to the Board of
Appeals with this and then come back to Council.
Councilman Collins moved to table this item; seconded by Councilman Knecht; All in favor,
with the exception of Councilman Parry. Motior, carried.
ORDINANCE #38, SERIES OF 1981 - Utg City Place Rezoning to RBO
r~ Alan Richman told Council. this project received a residential GMP allocation; it is
j located in the R/MF zone on 15,000 square feet on Cooper avenue east of West end street.
'. One lot is vacant; one lot has a unit cn it. Council !:eard this applica tioa in March at
~~ conceptual stage. P & Z has heard this at preliminary plat for rezoning to RBO; also
~i for request from exemption from GMP for the employee units; for condominiumization. P s
'~ approved all requests. This presentation is only for rezoning to RBO as it is an
ordinance process; the other requests will be heard at second reading of this ordinance.
,S
au lar Meeting Aspen City Council July 13,.1981
chman told Council-this request is for 22 units; 12 units deed restricted to low income ~!
idelines, two units at moderate, and R free market units. In the RBO review criteria,
ere are underlying area~and bulk requirements which are required by this ordinance. The'
t meets the minimum requirndsize.; multi-family dwelling units are allowed in the R/MF- ;I `~
O if at least half of the units are deed restricted to employee housing. Richman said
at basically all of the permitted density under the RBO is being requested. The applicant
meeting the requirements of yard width, heighth, etc. and not asking for any waiver
any of these requirements. There is no open space requirements. The FAR for~the site
der the RDO is 1:1 normally and is increasable to 1.25: 1; th is 15,000 square foot site
s an allowable FAR of 18,750 square feet. The applicant is proposing an FAR of 15,876 ~~
ware feet. ',
.e applicant has made a proposal for the price of the units based on the housing price
.idelines and presented rent or sale prices for the units. Richman told Council he has
,und in the Code a section which states if an applicant exceeds the maximum square foot-
~e for employee housing, it can only be rented on the basis of the maximum size outlined
the Code. Another issue is exactly how the units get deed restricted. Ttic normal
'ocedure would be deed restriction on the units as new units under the housing price
,idelines, existing when the units are approved. There is a two-tiered hous in9 guidelines;
:c ing for new units and pricing for existing units. These units would be deed restricted
new units. In October of each year, the housing price guidelines are revised.
:hman told Council in 1979 the new units were increased by 17 per cent and for existing
:struction by 9 per cent; in 1980 new units were increased by 14.5 :,er cent and 8 per
it for existing structures. This applicant is being approved now b:i t. will not be
:upied until the new guidelines are in effect. The planning office is siggesting that
__ units. be deed restricted as new units under the new unit guidelines ar.3 in October,
zy be eligible for an annual price increase as existing units despite tY~.e fact they are
t occupied and not totally in existence yet; an unit is not normally increased as a new
it. Allowing an .a pplicant to get increases for new units, rather than existing units,
encouraging them to hold the units down the line.
m La Salle, representing the developers, understood the city would not want people to
ld off units and keep getting increases. La Salle pointed out the review process is so
zgthy; they started at the beginning of the year and have done everything they could to
ve this along. La Salle said the guidelines set in 1980 were set with what happened in
e previous year in mind and should not apply to a project that may Have occupancy in
azuary 1962. By the time these un i.ts are occupied, the rents will be a yeac and four
nths out of date. La Salle told Council that 14 of these units are employee housing and
those 12 are low income. These units are larger than the guidelines and the developer
n only charge for the maximum size of the guidelines. Richman pointed out the applicant
at comes in for a GMP allocation on January 1 of any year is aware of the existing price
idelines for new and cri sting housing; that should be the year to which the deed restric-
pn applies. La Salle suggested these should be established later in the year. ha Salle
guested that the 1981 price guidelines be applied to this project; the project is be my
ilt in 1981. Richman sa id~the 1981 guidelines will be applied; however, they will be
plied as existing units.
uncilman Knecht said what he liked about both this project and~the bta ro It project is that
ivate developers are building employee housing. The precedent for employee pricing was
de with the Marolt project and the Council should stick with that. Councilman Parry said
the Council star t.s cutting people down, there won't be any private sector building
-,loyee units. Mayor Ed el said he wanted to adhere to the recommendation of. the planning
'ice as far as the pricing guidelines. Richman requested that the planning office
:d it ions in the memorandum be included in the ordinance.
uncilman Co ].lins moved to read Ordinance #38, Series of 1981, with the amendment of
ding conditions 1 and 2 from the planning office memorandum to the ordinance; seconded
Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #38
(Series of 1981)
AN ORDINANCE REZONING LOPS C, D, E, F, AND G, BLOCS: 118, IN TEIE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO, FROM R/MF to R/MF/RBO was read by the city clerk
uncilman Knecht moved to adopt Ordinance #38, Series of 1981, as emended, on first read-
~.g; seconded by Councilman Parry. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Collins, nay; Parry,
'e; Knecht, aye; Mayor Edel ,, aye. Motion carried. '
iNSENT AGENDA ,
:yor Edel opened the public hearing on Ordinance #34, Series of 1981, Appropriations; '
~dinancc #32, Adoption of the Uniform Auilding Code; Ordinance #33, Adoption of the Uniform
:c hanical Code; Ordinance #36, water Rates; Lane Correction Deeds, and Special Event
~rmit Requests. There were no comments. Mayor Edel closed the public hearing.
suncilman Parry moved to adopt the consent agenda; seconded by Councilman Collins. All ~'
i favor, motion carried. ~ {
I
uncilman Collins moved to adjourn at 6:20 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in ,I
Ivor, motion carried. .I
_ _J
Kathryn Ro~t~ !~
u
~~