HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.100 Marolt Pl.1991-PD-1VI. j
CIT~f~ ASPEN
130 ~g~ena Street
asp ~,s~si~orxdo $1611
x,t-r;: -.--
303-925-2020
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 9, 1991
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jed Caswall, City Attorney ~
~c_,
RE: Marolt Affordable Housing Project Recordation Deadline
Extension
This matter is on your consent agenda at the request of the
Housing Authority seeking an extension of the 180-day recordation
requirements as set forth in Sections 7-906 (PUD's) and 7-1005E
(subdivisions) of the Land Use Code (see attached).
Council gave final approval to the final development plan, PUD,
and subdivision for the Marolt Affordable Housing Project on
April 23, 1990, per Ordinance No. 25. In accordance with Sec-
tions 7-906 and 7-1005E of the Land Use Code, the final approvals
and a new plat were to have been recorded by October 20, 1990.
The development applicants (Housing Authority and the MAA) failed
to do so. Absent an extension in the recordation deadline, the
new plat cannot be recorded.
The Housing Authority is working on their agreements and the new
plat and it is expected the approvals and recording of same can
take place shortly.
EMC/mC
Attachment
cc: City Engineer
Liz Mason, Housing Authority
Kim Johnson, Planning Department
Housing Authority
City of Aspen/Pitkin County
3955'1 Highway 82
Aspen, Colorado 81 61 1
C3031 520-5050
Fax: [3037 520-5580
TO: City Council
FROM: Housing Authority ~/~~~
DATE: January 8, 1990
RE: MAROLT RANCH P.U.D.
The time allowed for the recordation of the P.U.D. for Marolt Ranch
has lapsed and we are respectfully requesting a retroactive
extension of 180 days. The current title commitment on Marolt
Ranch, held by the City of Aspen, must be updated prior to
recording a final plat. It is anticipated that an updated title
endorsement will be available within a few weeks and that a final
plat can be completed and recorded before the end of February. We
have obtained a temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the
residential units as all but the above requirement have been met.
We appreciate your consideration of this issue.
.. ~,
125 peak ,d per day spread out over a timh.,.,deriod of eight hours.
Based on a one hour time period per visitor, this translates to Iti
visitors per hour. Assuming two visitors per car, this would
generate a need for eight parking spaces. Staff demands might
account for two mare spaces. We also would like one space
dedicated for handicap parking. Total required parking would thus
amount to I1 spaces for museum use.
Ihere are several important characteristics of this museum which
we feel will greatly reduce demand for parking. Firstly, it is
located on a major intersection of important pedestrian and
` bicc'cls trails connecting toa+n, l:ereterg' Lane, Castle and Maroon
Creeks and eventually downvalley.
This, combined with the fact that there is no parking on site,
makes pedestrian, bike, and ski access easier for many people than
automobile access. Also, the Aspen Historical Society will
initiate many walking tours from their Stallard House facility.
Access by bus is available from stops near the hospital as well as
on Main Street. We feel these factors will provide a very real
auto disincentive.
On page 15 of the "larolt Ranch (Housing) Final PUD Application of
December 29, 1989, 22 parking spaces are allotted to park,
community garden, and museum use. Our proposal is that 11 of
these spaces be considered for museum use as follows:
1. Cisitor parking
2. Staff parking
3. Handicap parking
5. Open Space
8 spaces
2 spaces
1 spaces
Total 11 parking spaces
The percentage of open space is set as a part of this PUD process.
The existing open space constitutes 96X of the 1.9 acres. Our
proposal is to maintain this 96X figure.
ti. Landscape Plan
The existing shrubs, trees and significant landforms (contours)
will be retained. Open areas between the exhibit areas will be
seeded with native grasses and wildflowers. Additional trees for
shade and shrubs for visual screening and wind protection are
anticipated. Cultivated plants of the ranching era would be
introduced at selected exhibits and at the garden area.
One pond currently exists at the northwest off the pedestrian
trail. A pond with an irrigation gate might be located off the
west entry deck. This feature along with the planting of
cottonwoods for shade would provide a pleasant picnic area for the
museum.
The existing fencing at the south access near the workshop would
remain. The remaining fencing would be relocated to frame the
ranch yard area between the workshop and the museum. ~o other
-9-
b. TTL,,,,,plan is consistent with surrour.. ,,~g land uses. See II C
' for further explanation.
6 c. The minimal nature of this proposal should ensure that
development of surrounding properties is not adversely
affected.
d. Part IC of this application requests exemption of this
proposal from requirements of the GMQS process.
i
l 2. Density
a. General
Density is set as a part of this PUD application and
therefore is not greater than that allowed.
b. Not Applicable
r 3. Land Uses
A museum is an allowed use in the public zone.
4. A significant part of this package is that the parcel be rezoned
I to public (P) to allow the museum use. Section 5-221 of the Aspen
Code states that dimensional requirements and parking requirements
i be set as part of the P.U.D. process. Proposed dimensional
requirements for the project are as follows (assuming the west
property line as the front):
Lot size 1.9 acres
6 Minimum front yard:
Barn 100'
C Shop 80'
Minimum side yard:
Barn 100'
Shop til'
Minimum rear yard:
Barn 45'
Shop 46'
p Maximum height:
P Barn w/cupola 35'
Shop 20'
Z of open space 96i
pl External floor area ratio: .OS
r Internal floor area ratio: 1.1
4. Off Street Parking
4 The museum operation section of the minimum submission contents
portion of this application proposes a maximum visitor count of
-8-
<~~ t~$a
~Y
2 & 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 16 17 18 19 3 2 7 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 14 15 18 17
vva. r y~ ~lWw~ _ _ .. _ ~
4• t p ~
~~ - ; y
~ w ti
~ ~~zM T ~P ~ - --
_
ENY~f~N~ 1~~-Y
- cu ~ - - -
q-, ~kva~ IaG~ G;l~
'
(l Wal~,1'~~4-G- '
UJI~ ~r~-~`~ j
~J (^
~~i i~~i ~ll YY'i ~IYa f/,
I
c~n~~n~S S~RY•, ~ f ~ ~~, T
,~ . Loca~tvr ~Ca~c+h. - - ~
(~. Loa.as _ ~
'
~ . f
y
s,~, Gt~~
e :
, ~ ~ 1
'
~ ~
Y
`
S
'
,
f f1 r,o 1 ' S~ S
~ .
o
5
C
i
A,/
i
/ ~r
f
I
H +j~LTvr ~.
~
'
~J
(
1'2z LtivW
p Q ~ /~ ` rr ~.+ ~ i
c
ry? St r+ Y'L, ~' ,
~~
1
T
_.
I
^ t
.., plts.tcf . :~ _.
r~ ~ C~~ s~r.
,~/wc~~t~.., ~,
~~ ~ '
~ • Y~~ ~ PLC c °~ t' ~ ~ a _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
D~V ~ Mk1~~^~JsAT
-- ~ ~ ~
-
-
._
_
_
...
a
-
S
_ ~
,(.
~ .
C~i , ~ro3 ~ -- - - - _ L ~ ~1\ _ ~
i
n p
i . U~'yR.YG:i.UiY~ i
I
I
I
,.
i e: .. i
-. f
~~
10 14 15 16 1718 1 2 24 1 1 4 5' 6 7 8 11 12 18 1 ?7 7
> _ _ _
I III I III I IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I
i
I
i
Fl i ., -~ ~
r' ti ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ r ~ oc,
~ 0
i ~,
~~ t) ~' ._
i
t
i.
l„_
i
~iiii ~~
ii,i ii
sj
a ~~~~ OGZa E3~?'~..
Zg 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9101112131415161718192 21222324252627282 3031 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91011 1213141
t
II'Ilil l
~I~,~II li II~~I~'
r ,G
i i I~ it;;`l;#~t~~kthr
!~
Nov~.~
?5 27 2 11 234 567891
~4„i..la~i
i
~i
!, Fps,
fiA~
I ~
I1 Il~iill
r ~~
a
N l
J
t:
CL x.
d r f
~ 7
0 0 I
a
' a~c
I
i
-- ~~%~~~-9s ,~r~f~sc
P.U..D. AtdD SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
FOR
TfiE MAROLT F2ANCH
City of Aspen
State of Colorado
.;
,. .~~~
Y.U.U. ANll SUBUIVISIOIJ AGRdEMENT
F'OR
TE-E MAROLT RANCfi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pace
Section I. General Development Plan 2
Section II. Construction of Improvements 3
Section III. •Easements, Rights of Way, and Relocations 5
Section IV. Dedications 7
Section V. Open Space and Common Area Management,
Maintenance and Use 7
Section VI. Water Rights and Availability. 14
Section VII. Sewer Availability 14
Section VIII. Employee Development -Title 14
Section IX. Employee Housing - Price Guidelines 16
Section X. Financial Assurances 16
Section XI. Additional Parki~iy 17
Section XIZ. Restrictions on Short-Term Rentals 18
Section XIII. Deed RestrictionsF 18
Section XIV. Non-compliance and Request for Amendments or
Extensions by Owner 18
Section XV. Miscellaneous .. 20
Exhibit A Legal Description
Exhibit B Table of Site Data Tabulation
Exhibit C Construction and Development Schedule
Exhibit U _. Improvement Responsibility Schedule
Exhibit E Improvement Completion'Percenr_aye Schedule
Exhibit F Letter from Sanitation DisY.rict
Exhibit G Additional ParY,iny Schedule
~ o
M
P.U.D. AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
FOR
THE MAROLT RANCH
This P.U.D. nd Subdivisi n Agreement is made and entered
into this _~~ day of ~ac~ 1981, by
and between THE CITY OF ASPE[' 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, legal-
ly described on ~'xhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated here-
in by this reference, and designated as "The Marolt Ranch Subdi-
vision" ("The Plat"); and
WHEREAS, tare City has rezoned the real property covered by
the plat t.o R-15A/PUD/SPFf; and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the plat, the proposed
development and improvement of the land indicated thereon, and the
burdens to be iatposed upon other adjoining or neighboring proper-
ties by reason of the proposed development: and improvement of the
land inaicated on the plat; and '
WHEREAS, the City is willing to approve, execute, and accept
for recordation tlae plat upon the condition that. the Owner agree
to all matters contained in this Agreement, and subject to all of
the applicable requirements, teens and conditions of the City of
Aspen PUU and subdivision regulations now in e>:fecr. and other
applicable laws, rules and regulations; and
WHEI2EA5, the City desires to impose certain conditions and
requirements in connection with its approval, execution and
recordation of the plat, as are necessary to protect, pro,r,ote, and
enhance the public welfare; and
WHEREAS, the Uwner is willing to acknowledge, accept, abide
by and faithfully perfor~ri all of the conditions and reyuirernents
imposed by the City in approving the plat; and
WHEREAS",•pursuant to Sections 20-16(c) and 24-8.6 of the
Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, the Owner is required to pro-
vide assurances that it will faithfully perform the conditions and
T ~ ~
r
requirements hereinafter ay reed to prior to the City's acceptance
and approval of the final plat; NOW, THEREFORE,
IN CONSIllERATIUN OF TFIE 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 DEVELUPMEi~T PLAN
The Marolt Ranch development indicated on the plat includes
the following elements:
A. Lot 1 - Shall constitute the "employee housing" or "deed
restricted" development.
B. Lot 2 - Shall constitute the "free market development"
and shall be owned, improved, marketed and. sold by the Owner or
Owner's assigns;
C. Lot 3 - This parcel, as shown on the plat, shall be
dedicated to the City for its use, subject to an existing leasing
right by the current occupant„ Neil Beck;
U. Lots 4-6 - Shall be restricted for sale by the Owner t.o
the owners of the property adjacent to those respective lots. Any
conveyance doc wnent shall include restrictions in the nature of
covenants Yunniny with the land prohibiting any building improve-
ments on such lands and shall expressly stipulate that the adja-
cent property shall not receive a change or increase in develop-
ment rights by virture of the .added acreage resulting from such
conveyance. Any documents of conveyance _shal l be sub,:;itte:d t'.p tiae
City Attorney for approval as to form of the herein restriction
prior to recordation;
E. Open Space 1 - Shall be dedicated r_o'the City as open
space in perpetuity, with specific management, rnainr,enance and use
guidelines;
F. Open Space 2 - Constitutes the river corridor and shall
be dedicated to the City as open space in perpetuity with specific
management, maintenance and use guidelines wir_hin the context cf
maintaining river corridor conservation lands;
G. Cemetery Lane R.O.W. - Constitutes a l0U' right-of-way,
designated on ti,e plat. as "Holden Road", to be dedicated to t_he
City for a potential roadway aliynr,ent between Stare Highway No.
82 and Castle Creek Road;
H. Main Street R.O.W. - Constitutes a 15U' right of way to
be dedicatea to the City for a future road alignment of a poten-
tial Bain Street e:ctension, as indicated on the plat;
2
,'
,.
~,
I. City Parcel - For purposes of reference, the City cur-
rently owns a parcel conunonly known as the "Thomas Property",
located contiguous and inunediately to the west of the platted
property. It is the understanding of the parties khat the "Ttromas
Property" shall be utilized to accomplish the following general
improvements shown on the plat dos wnents.
a. Alignment of Cemetery Lane at the intersection of EIiyh-
way 82, its connection to the Cemetery Lane right-of-
way, and private roadway access to Lot 2.
b. Extension of the connection of- the Main Street right-of-
way.
The Table of Site Data Tabulations annexed hereto and incor-
porated herein by reference as Exhibit "Ei" provides a more speci-
fic allocation of the uses anticipated within the various parcels
indicated above.
The plat indicates the improvement•of the lands by the con-
struction of two distinct developments. One shall be deed or
covenant restricted 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 the other shall be
improved as a "free market" development-.. Although the land
beneath the two developments may evolve in separate ownersi~ip,
Owner expressly acknowledges and agrees that. construction and
ownership of all improvements for both developments will remain
under the auspices of the Owner or Owner's assigns. The "employee
housing" or "deed restricted" development shall constitute 70 per-
cent of the total number of units approved on the plat, and the
free marker. develop;nunt shall constitute 30 percent of t:h< t.or.a1
n wnber of units approved on the plat. In view of the dual nature
of ttre developments, tYie Owner represents that the cost allocation
and proration shall follow the relationship of each development.'s
nwnber of units ro the total nuu~ber of units approves! fur develop-
ment as indicated on the Improvement Responsibility Schedule
annexed hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "ll".
II.
CONSTRUCTIOPJ OF IMPROVEMENTS
A. Nature and Estimated Costs of Itnprovements: - Owner a.nd
its assigns shall be responsible for the construction and instal-
lation of all improvements conr_ained within the developments as
indicated on the plat, in accordance with t_he requiremenr_s of Sec-
tion 20-16(a) of the Municipal Code. The nature, extent and esti-
mated cost of such improvements shall substantially conform to the
schedule entitled Improvement Responsibility Schedule annexed
hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit."ll".
3'
4 l
B. Construction Schedule: - In accordance with the require-
ments of Sections 20-16(c)(i) and 24-8.9(b) of r_he Funicipal Code,
the construction of all development shall substantially conform to
the "Construction and Ueveloprnent Schedule" annexed hereto and
made a part hereof as r;xhibir. "C", which schedule includes the
dates of 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.
r
In connecr.ion with the aforesaid "Construction and Develop-
ment Schedule" (Exhibit "C"), the Owner represents that the con-
struction of the "free marker." development and ttre "employee hous-
ing" or "deed restricted" development will occur in a substan-
tially simultaneous manner. However, the Owner acknowledges that
any approval granted by this agreement is .expressly condir.ioned
upon the requirement t-.hat a number of employee units reflective of
the 70 precent "employee housing" or "deed restricted" to 30 per-
cent "free market" mix must be qualified for a permanent certifi-
cate of occupancy before a permanent certificar_e of occupancy may
issue for a "free market" unit. Thus, certificates of occupancy
will only be issued for the individual "free market" units as they
come ou board for courplet.ion and occupancy if there are a number
of "employee housing" or "deed restricted" units simultaneously
completed and qualified for permanent occupancy in ratio of the
70/30 percent unit: mix contemplated by the Growth Manaye:nent Quota
System exception set forth in Section 24-11.2(1) of the Municipal
Code, referenced herein as a condition of approval.
Nothing herein shall prevent the Owner or its successors and
assigns from construction and completion of the ':employee housing"
or "deed rescricr.ed" units iu advance of the "free [nar;c~r," units.
As a further express condition to any of- the approvals con-
tained herein, that Agreement and the to nas and conditions thereof
entered into by the parties, dated July 3, 1980, and recorded in
the Office of t:he Pitkin County Recorder at Book 391, Paye '143,
are hereby incorporated herein and made a part hereof by refer-
ence.
C. Landscaping Plan: - In accordance with the requirements
of Section 24-8.16 of the Municipal Code, all landscaping shall
substantially confona to the "Landscaping Plan" cons is tiny of
three pages labeled "A", "B" and "C" annexed to the plat and
incorporated herein by reference, which plan shows the extent and
location of all plant materials and or.her landscape features,
flower and shrub bed definition, proposed plant. material at. mature
sizes and appropriate relar.ion to scale, species and size of
existing plant material, proposed treatment of all ground surfaces
(e.g. paving, turf, gravel, etc.), location of water our.lets, and
a plant material schedule with conunon and botanical names, sizes,
quantities and method ot- transplant. Rr•ior to the yranti:ng of any
4
r
permits for construction and as an express condition of approval
of the plat, the Owner shall provide to the extent not covered by
the assurances required under Article X of this Agreement a yuar-
~ntee for no less than one hundred twenty-five percent (125 0 of
the current estimated cost of the landscapiny improvements as
estimated by the City Engineer to insure the installation of all
landscapiny shown on the Landscaping Plan and the continued main-
tenance and replacement of the same for a period of two (2) years
after installation. The guarantee shall be in the form specified
in Section 20-16(c)(1) of the Aspen Dlunicipal Code, and may be
withdrawn i;y the City as therei~i spec ifiea. As portions of the
landscapiny improvements are completed, the City Engineer shall
inspect them, and upon approval and acceptance, he shall authorize
the release o1 the agreed estimated cost for that portion of the
improvements except chat ten percent (10$) of the esr.imar-ed cost
shall be withheld until all proposed improvements are completed
and approved, and an additional twenty-five percent (258) rer-ained
until the improvements have been maintained in a sar.isfactory con-
dition for t~vo (l) years thereafter. St is the express under-
standing of the parties that the procedure set forth in Article
XIV of this Agreement regarding non-compliance shall not be
required with respect to the enforcement and i.;rplementation of the
financial assurances. set forth herein and required by Section 24-
8.16 of the Municipal Code: -
III.
EASEMENTS, RIGfiTS-OF-L9AY, ANU RELOCATIONS
The plat sets forth the following easements, rights-of-way,
and anticipated relocations which will be necessary to cause the
improvements:
A. Main Street Right-of_WaY.- As indicated on the plat, t_he
Owner shall and hereby dedicates to the City a 150' right-of-way
for the potential.extension oL Main Street as a transporr.ation
artery and those uses set forth in Article V B.3 of- this Agree-
ment. The exact locar_ion and legal description of such right-of-
way are as further set forth on the plat. In conjunction with
said dedication, ttre Owner and its successors and assiy~is hereby
specifically waives the right to and agrees not to protest or
enjoin the construction and placement of sidewalks and gutters
along Main Street in the event the same are contemplated or con-
structed.
B. Cemetery Lane Extension, Easements and Relocation - The
Owner agrees to relocate the intersection of Cemetery Lane with
State Highway No. 82~ to allow for Cemetery Lane's aliyn~aent with
the right-of-way indicated on the plat, and hereby dedicates to
the City (in conjunction with the City's restriction of the por-
tion of such•Cemetery Lane alignment as is included within the
Thomas Property) a one hundred foot (100') right-of-way ,f or tide
proposed future extension of Cemetery I:ane as indicated on the
5
~~
~,
r
plat. Such Cemetery Lane alignment and extension as provided by
both the City and Owner herein shall allow for such easements as
will satisfy the title insurability and access to the suu~ect
property over and across such realigned and extended Cemetery Lane
roadway and right-of-way (designared on the plat as "Holden
Road"). In connection herewith, the City shall grant to Uwner an
easement across a portion of khat property commonly known as the
"Thomas Property" for access purposes and for the purpose of the
installation and maintenance of the Highway 82 intersection with
the proposed tlolden Road which will be located on the "Thomas Pro-
perty", and the installation and ;naintenance of that portion of a
private roadway connecting Holden Road to Lot 2, all as indicated
on the unplatted portion of the plat.
C. Gas Company Building and Gas Line Easement - The City
and Owner hereby agree to an easement for the continued existence
and maintenance of the Gas Company buildiriy and gas line currently
indicated on the plat.
D. Cross Ease,nests - City and the Owner hereby specifically
agree to provide all necessary cross easements indicated on the
plat and such other cross easements as may be ;~,utually ay reed in
writing between i.he Owner and the City for the purpose of af-f-ord-
iny necessary access• to and from the public highways to the
respective parcels.
E. Ditch Relocations and Pondiny - The City hereby approves
the relocation andd pondiny of the water as indicated on the plat.
In connection therewith, the Owner and its successors and assigns
expressly recognizes the ex ist.ing rights-of-way for ditches and
the right. of the 'City to go onto and mainr_ain ttie same, as well as
the right of r.he City t_o direct water into the ditches and .~~ond
water for subsequent use on the golf course, principally through
temporary detention of the direct flow of water. Following such
temporary interruption or maintenance activity, the City shall
cause any disturbed property, improvements or landscaping to be
returned to its original state prior to such temporary interrup-
tion or maintenance activity.
F. Utilities and Drainage - The City and Owner agree to the
easements for tine relocation, installation and maintenance of
utilities and the establishment and maintenance of drainage speci-
fically set forth on the utility sheets, the utility relocation
sheets, and the drainage sheets which are appended to the plat.
G. Miscellaneous - All easements, rights of way and reloca-
tions indicated on the plat but not specifically referenced here-
inabove are Hereby established, authorized -and approved by the
City and agreed to by the Owner.
6
M
H. Reservation of Rids Reyardinc~asements_and Restric-
tions on the "Thomas Property" - Notwithstanding anyr.hiny herein-
. above to ttre contrary, any and all easements ro be granted to
Owner by the City shall be subject. to any and all existing ease-
ments and restrictions of record and such easements. and restric-
tions indicated in the deed conveying the "Thomas Property" to the
City, dated December 19, 1972, recorded in the Office of the Pit-
kin County Clerk and Recorder at Book 270 and Page 221. The Owner
and its successors and assigns hereby agree to defend, hold harm-
less and inde;nnify the City from any and all suits and claims
arising out of Uwner's use of the "Thomas Property" as set forth
in this Agreement to the extent that such use conflicts with or
'. encroaches upon the rights or those who are nor. partias to this
Agreement. The City will cooperage with the Owner to the extent
of read~ustiny any easements granted to Owner which conflict. with
existing easer;rents and restrictions on the "Thomas Property".
IV.
DEDICATIONS
In accordance with Section 20-18 of the Municipal Code, the
following dedications and/or exemptions apply:
A. Exemption
housing development
fide moderate income
City hereby agree to
tion of tE~e Park and
the Municipal Code.
- The "employee ho usin;" or "deed restricted"
~ont.ained within Lot 1 shall constir.ute a bona
housing. development, and the Owner and the
the exemption of the same from the applica-
Recreation requirements of Section 'LO-18 of
B. Park Dedi_cation_Pee -'The City recognizes that Owner has
agreed to dedicate ro the City for open space purposes those par=
eels designated on the plat as Upen Space 1 and Opeh Space 2.
With respect to that land to be used for "free market" development
(Lot 2) the City.recoynizes ttkar. the Owner is deuicar.iny a sub-
stantial portion of such land for open space and recreational pur-
poses. In consideration thereof, the City Council elects, pursu-
ant to Section 20-18 of the municipal Code, that a cash payment in
lieu of land dedication be made by Uwner on the .bas is of approxi-
mately twenty-two percent (22~) of the land contained in Lot 2,
which cash payment is deter;irined to be One Hundred Twenty-nine
Thousand Five Hundred Eighty llollars ($129,580.00).
Owner agrees to pay such park dedication fee via the execu-
tion of a promissory note in favor of the City at the tune of
issuance of a building permit, which note shall bear interest at
the rate of twelve percent (12~) per annum, and shall be due, on a
pro rata basis, upon the. issuance of a certificate of occupany on
each respective free market unit.
7
V.
OPEN SPACE AND COMh1UN AREA
MANHGEhIL•'NT, FSe1INTLNAPJCh: AND USE
A:.- General - It is the intent of this article to address
j s~p~c_t.~:,,e .le~-~~onGik>ilities, limitations, covenants, and mutual
agreements with respect to the management, maintenance and use of
the opPr soa.-e, rights of way, and common area parcels indicated
tin the o 1 ~ t
..R. - S]rle:~ ~Shace .anxi ,.Right of Wa~Use Lirnir_ations - With
•respec;t ~o t[~e open space and right of way parcels, the Owner's
dedication thereof to the City is expressly conditioned upon and
made subject to certain specified use limitations, as follows:
1. Open Space 1 Category: Those parcels designated on
the plat as "Open Space 1"shall be expressly limited to open
~: _ -spacf ~ies~nna±~rn to;_'-reryuires said parcels to retain their
i • . ::~+L+u-a1 .:,, x, a r; and vegetation, with no recreational or other
active use allowed which would interfere with or cause daliiage to
ttre natural growth and vegetation contained thereon. It is the
intent of this limitation that no disruption of the nar.ural growth
and vegetation contained within said parcels shall be allowed, and
that they shall be retained in-their natural state, with no i:a-
provernerlts, activity, or other action taY,en by the City or its
desi~;nse th:y*_ '•oul~',>~ilow for any interuption of such natural
~asitc, :rit:. ':'r:a v; ;:. e_-;.epr_ion of any necessary easements for the
j - _Lfls:.~illatiA,-,, .ui ._,..sr,ce, repair., and replace~aent of trails with-
• in the planned trail system, underground utilities, telephone or
other such underground servicirnl improvements ds may be necessary
to complete the improvements indicated on the plat and in this
Agrel'inOnt, aflU SUUII Other 115 e5 aS iilay U2 Speci~it;ally dppriJVE:U In
writing by the Owners of Lots 1 and 2.
• 2. Open Space 2 Cateyor~ Those parcels designated on
the plat as "Open'~pace 2" shall oe limited in use ro r.he extent
necessary to retain their natural state as a river corridor, with
no uses, improvements, activity or other action allowed which will
cause any interrupY_ion 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 sufficienr_ to allow for the installation,
maintenance, repair and replacement of any minimal trails and
' trail easements necessary and anticipated to allow for the connec-
tion of the trail system anticipated by the plar_ and, provided,
further, tha±.-tt•c:re shall be allowed such easements for the
...irstaJ.].,-:*_io::; maintenar,,~ ~. :-e pair and replacement of the under-
grouna s~rv"i,:e ,:<,cili: ~~ •, .<..,,:i systems necessary to cause the com-
pletion of the ixiprovemehts and developments indicated on the plat
8•
and in this Agreement, and such other uses as Wray be specifically
approved in writing by the Owners of Lots 1 and 2.
3. Main Street Right of Way: Ttre "i~[ain Street R.O.W. "
indicated on the plat shall be reserved for use as an extension of
Main Street as a transportation corridor, in the event such corri-
dor is actually constructed, along with any necessary lighting,
signaye, easements, paving, sidewalk, curb and yutter landscapiny,
and all other improvements ar_tendant ro a transportation artery.
Until the Main Street extension is actually constructed, ttre "hlain
Street R.O.W." shall be preserved and its use limited by the pro-
visions of sub-subparagraph 1 and sub-subparagraph 2 hereina~ove,
and those portions of such parcel which would gave been contained
within the cateyory indicated as Open Space 1 being limited by the
uses anticipated Lot such category, and that portion which would
have been contained within Open Space 2 being limited by the uses
anticipated for such cateyory.
4. Cemetery Lane R.O.W.: The "Cemetery Lane R.O.W."
(indicated on the plat as ilolden f:oad)~shall be limited in use
solely to improvements in the nature of extending Cemetery Lane
from its intersection with Sr.ate Highway 82 through and including
its connection with Castle Creek koad, along witn any necessary
liyhr.ing, signaye, easements, paving, sidewalk, curb and yutter
landscapiny, and all other improvements atr,endant t-.o a transporta-
tion artery to allow for the roadway extension's compliance with
necessary state, county and ,c,unicipal codes, as well as compliance
with the provisions of t-.he plat and this Agreement. until such
tune as the Cemetery Lane extension is constructed, the land con-
tained wiT.hin the."Cemetery Lane R.O.W." parcel shall be limited
in use to those uses indicated under the Open Space 1 cateyory
hereinabove defined wiT.h the exception of the interi,,, roadway
improvements for Holden Road indicated on ttre plat.
5. Lot 3 Use Limitations: Lot 3 shall be dedicated to
the City for itss use, subject to a leasing right by the current
occupant of the same, Neil Beck. For purposes of this Agreement,
such leasing right in Neil Beck shall and hereby does require the
City to grant to Neil Beck a right oL first refusal to lease the
property from the City for purposes previously anti currently util-
ized by Neil Beck, in the event. the City pursues a leasing or
rental of the property to outside users for other than City pur-
poses. The terms and conditions of such lease shall be no less
favorable than that offered by the City at the time of such leas-
ing/rental. The City further recognizes Neil Beck's current pos-
session of the property. and shall allow Mr. Beck's continued pos-
session of the same pursuant to mutually agreeable tends and con-
ditions. In the event the City desires ro t-.aice the land out of
the lease/rental marketplace and utilize the same for City pur-
poses, Mr. Beck shall be entitled to ninety (9U) days' prior writ:-
9•
_.
__ _ . ;
w
ten notice of such election by the City in which to vacate t-.he
premises.
6.' Lots 1 and 2: With respect to the parcels desig-
nated on the plat as Lor_s 1 and 2, respectively, the uses thereon
shall be limited to those uses allowed under the particular zone
category as applicable, the plat, and this Ayreement.
~. llefa_ult/Remedies: In the event the City, following
the dedication and reservations indicated on the plat and this
Agreement, shall as a result of matters within its control breach
any of the above-referenced use limitar_ions as to any specific
parcel, the Owner or the Owner's successors or assigns, shall have
the right upon thirty (3U) days' notice to tt,e City providing the
City with an opportunity to remedy the same within such period, to
cause an abatement of such breach by any ley al process allowable,
including injuncr.ive relief. In the event such abatement. is im-
practical or impossible and the City does not cure the breach
within thirty (30) days or the t.irue period set forth in r_he
notice, whichever is greater, the Owner or its successors or
assigns shall be enr.ir.led to reenter the property, and evict the
City or its designee from occupar.ion or possession ti;ereof-, and
receive a reconveyance of title to such parcel upon which the
breach of use has occurred along with the water riyirts previously
conveyed by Owner therewir_h. In such event, sucn reconveyance
will be subject to the use restrictions set forth in this A:lree-
ment, unless the City and the Owner or its successors or assigns
agree otherwise in wrir.iny.
C. Management - 'Phe management of tiie properties shall be
as follows
1. Open Space and Rights of Way_ Ydith respect to
those parcels des.iynated on the plat as Upen mace 1, Open Space
2, plain Street R.O.W., Cemetery Lane R.O.V1. aad Lot 3, the ,aanaye-
rnent and supervision thereof shall be the responsibility and cost
of the City pursuant to the ter:ns of this Ayreement.
2: Lot 1: As indicated on the plat, Lot 1 will be
improved by the construct-.ion of seventy (7U) °employee housing" or
"deed restricted dwelling units. Although doc wnents may be filed
against Lot 1 submitting said parcel to either the provisions of
the Colorado Condominium Ownership Act or to a cooperative form of
ownership, it is currently anticipated that the unir.s contained
within Lot 1 Trill be operated initially as "deed restricted" ren-
tal units. Such units may be converted to "deed 'rest.ricted" "for
sale" ownership units at such time as the marY.et dictates and the
City, in ita sole discretion, agrees in writing. T)uriny the t.i,ne
the units are operated as rental units, the condominium associa-
tion and condominium declaration or cooperative housing incorpora-
10
tion shall remain under the control and direction of the Owner or
the Owner's successor or assigns. The Uwner shall cause the
management of- the units pursuant. ro a professional property
management contract. Such manayement contract shall provide for
the management of- the units consistent with first class property
manayement policies, includiny such leases, rules, regulations,
fine systems, parking requirements, and other policies and pro-
cedures which will enhance the livability and quality of such
residential living environments. Such manayement contract shall
also provide for the proper manayement and supervision of the
common facilities, includiny the proper and ongoing maintenance
thereof, and necessary budgets and reserves shall be allocated to
provide for proper deferred maintenance and reserves for replace-
ments as necessary to. maintain a quality living environment. In
the event the units are converted to "Pot Sala" ownership status,
as approved by the City, the properly formed and activated condo-
minium association or cooperative association will assume manage-
ment responsibility.
3. Lot 2: Lot 2 shall be improved by the construction of
thirty (30)"free market" dwelling units, which "free market"
development has been approved by the City for condonriniumizat.ion
and shall oe governed by~the provisions of the Colorado Condo-
minium Ownership Act and the applicable provisions o% the Aspen
Municipal Code. Pursuant thereto, a coiidominiu,n association will
be formed by the Liliny of t-,ne necessary articles of incortn~ra-
tion, and the establishment of bylaws, condominium declarations,
association budget, and association rules and regulations suffi-
cient to meek the provisions of r.he Colorado statutes and r.he
Aspen Municiial Code applicable thereto, and to cause the adequate
management and maintenance of all common facilities included
within Lot 2 in tha ;manner to reflect a first--class residential
living conizrunity.
p. Maintenance - Wir.h respect to the maintenance of r_he
various parcels indicated on the plat, the following shall apply:
1. Permanent Care and Maintenance of Open Spaces 1 and
2c The permanent care and maintenance o!'. those parcels designated
as Open Space 1 and Open Space 2 shall be born:: by~the City, con-.
sistent with the use liraitat:ions and manayement_ provisions else-
where contained in this Ayree,ucnt, includiny the maintenance of
the irrigated meadowlands contained wir_hin those parcels desig-
nated as 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 raaint:enance of t_he Main Street
R.O.W. shall be borne by the Cir_y, consistent with the use limita-
tions and management provisions contained in this Agreement.
r
11
3 Permanent Care and Maintenance of Cemetery Lane
k.U.W.: The permanent. care and mainT.enauce of the Cemetery Lane
R.O.W. (designated on the plat as "Holden Road") shall be subject
to the following.
a. Interim Roadway Improvements: Those portions
of the Cemetery Lane R.O.W to•be improved at tGe cost of the
Uwrter pursuant-_ to the plat and Exhibit "ll" (i.e. Holden Road),
shall be maintained pursuanr. to a maintenance sharing agreement
between the manayement enr,_ity for Lot 1 and the manayement entity
for Lot 2, with the responsibility for imple,nent.ation of r.he plan
borne oy the manayement entity for Lot-. 2. The maintenance sharing
agreement shall provide for a sharing of the cost between the own-
ership of Lot 1 and the ownership of Lo r. 2 that refiecr_s 70~ allo-
cation to Lot 1 and 30~ allocation to Lot 2 of such costs or such
other allocation formula that is mutually ay reed t-.o bet.ween the
respective owners which is reflective of an equitable sharing of
such costs, and the assessments therefor shall be reflected in the
respective condominium declarations or other governing documents
for Lot 1 and Lot 2 as additional assessments subject to appropri-
ate liens as provided by star.ute. Such maintenance sharing agree-
ment shall include the repair and replacement of the paving and
other improvements to ue construc'ted by Owner as irdicated,~snotr
removal, landscaping maintenance, and other related costs
expenses and tas:cs connected with the ongoing care and maim-__enance
of saki improved roadway and relar_ed facilities.
b. Re;nainder of Paroel and Permanent Roadway:
'Phe Cemetery Lane R.O.47. not incluued within file inr_erim roaaway
area above-referenced, and the full Cemetery Lane R.O.W. (in the
event of the full extension of the Cemetery Lane Roadway so as to
connect to Casr_le Cree;: Goad) shall be maintained C,y the C;.ty, at
its own cost, subject to the use lirnitat-.ions and manayement provi-
sions contained in this Agreement.
4. Lot 1: In fulfilling its resuonsibilities for the
permanent care and maintenance of all recreational areas, common
parking, conuaon facilities, and private interior street-.s within
Lot 1, it is the intent of the Owner during the period that: units
are operated as a rental development to enter into au agreement
with a property management company. Such agreement shall allow
fur sufficient funds and budget: categories to provide snow removal
services, building and grounds maintenance, and other maintenance
services normally provided by professional manayement companies to
allow f-or the proper care, deferred maintenance, repair and re-
placement of the facilities. During the time that the units are
operated as a rental development there shall be no surcharge on
the tenants,~in addition to rental payment-.s, for such care and
maintenance.
12
--~„
.,
r
In the event that the units contained within Lot 1
are coverted to "for sale" ownership, as approved by the City in
writing, the permanent care and maintenance ttrereof shall be pro-
vided pursuant to a plan that requires a condominium or coopera-
tive association to establistr a budget and pursue maintenance pur-
suant to proper covenants and assessment provisions contained
within .the condominium declaration or other yoverniny documents
allowing for same. The covenants and provisions shall be con-
tained within the condominium declaration or other governing docu-
ments originally filed against the property at inception, although
not necessary to be incurred until such time as the units are
actually converted to separate ownership. The plan shall include
the appropriate filing of the necessary documents pursuant to the
applicable ordinances of the City and state statutes, including
the articles of incorporation and bylaws f-or the condominium or
cooperative association, and condominium declaration and other
appropriate yoverniny documents, which documents shall meet at
least the following requirements:
a. 'Phe 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 asso-
ciation will be mandatory for each unit. or stock owner, pursuant
to the applicable provisions of the Aspen Municipal Code and the
Colorado Condominium Ownership Act or cooperative housing stat-
utes,
c. Any open space resr.rictions contained within Lot. 1
must ,and will be pen~tanent and not for a period of years (subject
to long term ground lease, if. anyy,
d. The condominium or cooi,erar.ive association shall be
responsible for a blanket liability and hazard insurance policy
with respect to the common areas as well as maintenance of recrea-
tional 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 certificates for
the purpose of paying the cost of operating and maintaining of
recreational and other facilities;
f. The board of managers for the condominium or co-
operative association shall consist of at leas r. five (5) members
wtro shall be owners of units wit-.hin Lot 1.
5. Lot 2: The permanent care and maintenance of the corn-
rnonly owned facilities, including recreational facilities, parking
and any private streets contained within Lot 2 has been approved
13
by the City for condominiuurization and shall be pursuant to a pro-
perty manayernent- agreement entered into between the condominium
association and either a professional property management company
or employment contracts with personnel of the condorniniu,n associ-
ation. As indicated, Lot 2 has been approved by the City for con-
dominiumization and shall be governed by the applicable provisions
of the Aspen Municipal Code and the Colorado Condominium Ownership
Act including the filiny of a'condonrinium declaration and condo-
minium map, as appropriate, along with the filiny of articles of
incorporation for the 'condominium association, bylaws for the con-
dominium association, establishment of a condominium association
budget for maintenance and operations, and the initiation of rules
and regulations with respect thereto. The docwnents to be pro-
vided with suckr condominium establish,nent shall meet at. least the
following requirements:
a. The condominium associations 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 cora;non facility, com,non area, or oven
space restrictions will be permanent in nature arid not for a
period of years;
d. The condorni.niurn association will be respon-
sible for blanket liability and hazard insurance upon the corm~ron
elements, as well as tire maintenance of all coounon elements there-
under;
e. Tf,c condominium association shall have !:he
power to levy assessments which will become a lien on individual
units for the purpose of paying the cost of operating and main-
taining 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 wir.hin the condominium development-.
VI.
WATER Rl'GHTS AND AVP.ILAllILITY
Owner warrants that certain water rights accrue to the pro-
perty whim is the subject of the plat, which rights have been
adjudicated and -are titled in the cwner. The Owner hereby dedi-
cates to the City the necessary water rights attendant and accru-
ing to those properties dedicated to the City for the purpose of
irrigating and maintaining those parcels dedicar_ed to the City
which are calcular.ed to be .5 c.f.s.
14
r
VII.
SEWER AVAII,AUILITY
' Sewer lines shall be installed, cons is tent with the utility
sheets, the utility relocation sheets and the drainage sheets
appended to the plat, and tiro costs of such inst_allar.ion shall be
those estimated arnounts set forth on Exhibit "D" attached hereto.
The City agrees, upon approval of this Agreement and the plat by
the Metropolitan Sanitation Districr_ that sewer services are fully
available for the development anticipated on the plat, and thar_
the estimated cost for sewer taps and related fees connected with
the installation and hook-up of such sewer services are estimated
to be the s wn of $86,453.00 as further referenced in that_ letter
from the Sanitation District annexed hereto and made a part hereof
as Exhibit "fl". 'Phe availability of such sewer services shall be
provided by the Sanitation Uistrict in a manner that conforms to
the estimated construcr.ion and development schedule as set forth
on Exhibit "C" annexed hereto.
• VIII.
EMPLOYEE DEVELOPh1ENT - TI'PLE
The land contained within Lot 1 has been approved by the City
for development of seventy (70) "employee housing" or "deed
restricted" dwelling units subject to fire rental/sale price guide-
lines established by the City as referenced in Article I}: of this
Agreement. As a cooperative effort on the part of tha City to
assist the Owner in oryaniainy and issuing such industrial devel-
opment bonds as the Owner deems necessary or appropriar.e to facil-
ifate financing of the improvements contained within Lot 1 for
purposes of sale or rental of the individual units the Cir.y
agrees that it '•~ill accept title to the property desi-gn<a:ed on the
plat as Lot 1 upon conveyance by the Owner and lease oacic r.he saute
in accordance with the lease-back provisions set_ forth herein-
after., provided r_h.at the Cit-.y shall incur no liability wir_h
respect to such industrial development bonJ program nor shall
incur any direct or indirect liability for the maintenance or
other costs related to said parcel.
Additionally, as a cooperative effort, the City will also
accept title to Lot 1 upon conveyance by the Owner and lease-back
the same in accordance with the lease-back provisions set forth
hereinafter for the purpose of deferral of real property taxes ro
the extent allowable by law, provided the following conditions are
met:
1. The City will incur no liabilit-.y with respect to such
industrial deve~opmerit bond program nor shall incur any direct or
indirect liability for the maintenance or other costs related to
said parcel. ~ ,
i~
w _i
2. The City will hold title only during such time as the
units are operated as a renr_al development.
r
Any deeds to the City shall occur prior to or simultaneously
with the commencement. of construction of the improvements upon the
lands contained within Lo r. 1, and will be accompanied by a simul-
taneous lease-back of the lands from the City to the Owner or its
assigns. Tire t-.ernrs and conditions of such lease shall include the
following terms and conditions:
1. 'Phe Owner and its succesors or assigns shall be
required to cause the full maintenance and upkeep of the lands and
any improvements constructed thereon by the Owner or its assigns.
2. The Owner and its successors or assigns shall agree
to indemnify the City against. any costs and/or liability connecr.ed
with the ongoing use and operation of said lands and any improve-
ments thereon.
3. The terms of such lease=back shall be triple net in
nature to further reflect that all costs of the property shall be
borne by the Owner and its succesors or assigns as lessee.
4. The terms of such lease-back shall' be as mutually
agreed to between the City and the Owner and it_s successors or
assigns, but in no event, shall be less than the ay reed to useful
life of the improvements to be constructed upon said land, so luny
as the Owner complies with the express conditions above under
which the City will accept title to said lands.
5. 'Fire rental consideration to be paid to the City by
the Owner or its successors and -assigns s}:ali be in t},u :;u,;r of O:rc,
Dollar ($1.00) per year. The terms of the lease-bacx will allow
the construction of t}ie improvements anticipated on r_he plat for
said parcel, leasehold financing of the improvements to be con-
structed, and ttre cooperation of r_he Cir.y in the execution of such
documents and/or instruments and the doing of such acts as ,nay be
necessary to achieve the purposes of r_his A3 reeraenr, in the
' improvement of the lands by the development, and operation of
"employee housing" or "deed restricted" dwelling units.
IX.
EMPLOYEI; HOUSING - PRICE GUIDELINES
7'he "er,iployee housing" or "deed restricted" dwelling units to
bP eonstr~cted within the lands labeled as Lot 1 shall be subject
Lo•~..•~u,.~..,n;;; rc:aal rate for such unites, ut>on completion, reflect-
iuy no yreaccr'v;ar. Seventy Cents ($.70) put square foot, or in
the event of the sale of individual units, no greater sales price
t,}~:aa~ Seyr~!t_y-six t',llars ($76.00) per square foot. In the event
~,
that a unit shall not be completed in a manner to allow for tl~e
issuance of a certificate of occupancy by llecer:iber 31, 1982,
despite good faith diligence on the part of the Oc~ner or its
assigns in pursuing the construction schedule annexed hereto, then
the rental/price restrictions applicable to said unit shall be
adjusted to reflect the greater of the above-referenced rental/
price figures or the "moderate income" yuideiines figures for
rental/sale, as approved for and in effect at the tit:ie of issuance
of such certificates of occupancy as suci~ figures are established
by the City of Aspen.
The rental/price guidelines applicable to any unit. shall be
subject to an annual adjustment equaling the greater of eight per-
cent (8~) per annum, or the allowable annual ad~usr~nent approved
by the City of Aspen as to such restricted.units from year to
year, conamenciny with the first year following the issuance of the
certificate of occupancy for the appropriately restricted unit.
X.
FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
Pursuant. to Section 20-16(c) of the Municipal Code and prior
to the issuance of any permits for construction, Owner shall pro-
vide a guarantee for no less than one hundred percent (100°s) of
the est,imared costs, as further set forth and allocated under
Exhibit "ll" att-.ached hereto to tailing One hiillion Fifty `ilrousand
llollars ($1,OSU,UOU.OU) as approved by the City Engineer. The
guaranty to be provided Uy Owner shall be in the form oL- cash
escrow with the City or a bank or savings and loam association; or
shall be in the form of an irrevocable sight draft or letter of
conunitmert from a financially responsible lendc~r;~and such guar-
anty shall give the City the unconditional right., upon default oy
the Owner, or its successor or assigns, to withdraw funds upon
demand to partially or fully complete and/or pay for any improve-
ments or pay any outstanding bills for work done thereon by any
party. As portions of the improvement. required are completed, the
City Engineer shall inspect thorn, and upon approval and accep-
tance, he shall authorize the release of the agreed estimated cost
for that portion of t_he improvements; provided, i~owever, that_ ten
percent (10~) of the estimated cost shall be withheld until all
proposed improvements 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 comple-
tion are as further set forth on Exhibit "E", entitled "Improve-
ment comp.Letion Yercent.aye 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 com-
pletion stage. To the extent portions of such cornplet:ion stages
as set forth in Exhibit: "E" are deteniiinable to be approved sever-
ally 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 the City a warranty as to all improvements for a
period of one (1) year frow and after accepr.ance by the City of
such improvements.
The Owner shall further guarantee by a maintenance bond or
other suitable means, the repair of any existing improvements
damaged during the course of construction of new improvements
pursuank to the provisions hereof.
It is the express understanding of the parties that t-.he pro-
cedure set forth in Article XIV of. this Agreement shall not be
required with respect to the enforcement and i,nplertentar_ion of
financial assurances and guarantees to be provided by Owner as set
forth above and required by Secr.ion 20-16(c) of the Municipal
Code.
XI.
AllllITIOiIAL PARKING
In consideration of the City's willingness to accept two (2)
parY.ing spaces per unit as approved parking allowances within the
free tnarY,et developt,tent to be located on Lot[, Owner, for ir.self
and its assigns, hereby specifically agrees to provide additional
parking allowances up to a ntaximmn of one parY.iny space per bed-
room at such time as City shall require same as a result of City's
determination that such additional parking is necessary ro meet
the ongoing use attributed to the Lot 2 unit. Ih the event-. such
additional parking is deemed necessary, provisions far the loca-
tion of same have been made as shown under Schedule "G" entitled
"Addir.ional Parking Schedule". In the event the City dote nnines
that such additional parking, or any portion thereof, is neces-
sitated by the ongoing use of the Lot 2 units, such additional
parking spaces shall be provided within a period of one (1) year
from and after notice of such reyuirement to the owner or. its
successors or assiclns from the City, such notice to include the
City's determination of the need, and proper resolution promul-
gated by the City with respect to such reyuirement.
XII.
RESTRICTIONS ON SHORT-TERM RENTALS
Owner agrees that all units constructed and contained within
Lot 2, regardless of their form of- ownership or use, shall be
restricted with respect to short-term rentals to six (6) month
minimum leases with no more than two (2) shorter tenancies per
year.
,~, , .
~./ 4,,,d
XIII.
DEED RESTkICTIUNS
r
The units to be constructed within Lot 1 shall be subject to
certain "deed restrictions" that are intended to restrict the
rental/sale of said units to fall within the moderate income
pricing guidelines as furtkrer° referenced tie re in. The nature,
extent and particulars of such deed restriction language shall be
regiured to be placed against Lot 1, or the respectively resulting
units, prior to the issuance of building permits in a manner that
binds said lands conr.ained within Lot 1 in accordance with the
current requirements of Section 24-11.4(b)(3) of the Municipal
Code.
XIV.
NON-COMPLIANCE AYdDY'.EQUEST E'OR AMEIdDIMENTS OR EXTENSIONS EiY OWNER
In the event_ that the City Council determines that the Owner
or its successors or assigns is not acr.iny in substantial compli-
ance with the terms of this Agreement, the City Council may issue
and serve upon the Owner or its successors or assigns a wrir_ten
order specifying the alleged non-co~,tpliance and requiring the
Owner or i.ts successors or assigns to cease and desist from such
non-compliance and rectify the same within such reasonaule time as
the City Council may determine. Within twenty (20) days of the
receipt of such order, the Owner or its successors or assigns may
file with the City Council either a notice advising the Ciry Coun-
cil that ir. is in compliance or a written petition reyuestiny a
hearing to detenaine any one or both of the following matters:
(i) Whether the alleged non-compliance exists or did
exist, or
(ii) Whether a variance,'extension of time or amendment
to-this Agreement. should be granted with respect to any such non-
compliance whici~ is determined to exist.
Upon the receipt_ of such petition, the City Council shall
proruptly scnedule a hearing to consider the matters set forth in
the cease and desist order and in the petition. The hearing shall
be convened and conducted pursuant to the procedures normally
established by the City Council for other hearings. If the City
Council determines by a preponderance of the evidence drat a non-
compliance exists which has not-_ been remedied, it may issue such
orders as may be appropriate; provided, however, no order termin-
ating any approval granted herein shall be granted wi-r_hout a find-
ing of the Cir.y Council that substantial evidence warrants such
action and,aff~rding the Owner and its successors or assigns a
reasonable Buie to remedy such non-caapliance. A final dote nnina-
tion of non-compliance which iias not been remedied or for which no
ro
.~
variance has been granted shall, at the option of the City Coun-
cil, and upon written notice to the Uwner or its successors or
assiyns, terminate any of the approval contained herein.
In addition to the foregoing, the Owner or its successors or
assiyns may, on its own initiative, petition the City Council for
an amendment to this Agreement and the exhibits annexed hereto or
to extend .any of the time periods required for performance. With
respect to the Construction Schedule (Exhibit "C") and the
Improve;aent Responsibility Schedule (Exhibit "ll") the Owner has
made various assumptions, including the following:
r
1. Final approval of the plat and related docurnenta-
Lion prior to Juiy 1, 1981.
2. Negotiation, arranyernent and completion of pre-con-
struction activity by Uwner or Owner's assiyns, including bidding,
contractor selection and contractor mobilization prior to the pro-
~ected starting date of August 1, 1981.
3. Ratification of the estimated construction and
development schedule by the selected contractors.
4. I;nmediar.e availability of the required labor forces
and construction materials at all necessary phases throughout: r.he
project.
5. ido interruption in the construction operations
through the 1982/1983 winter months by acts of God or other mat-
- ters beyond the control of the Uwner or its successors or assiyns.
6. Fre-marketing activity with re~pecr to the free
market units at. a rate which would justify the construction
schedule indicated, withour. the necessity of constructing and
completing units•on specification.
r•
The City Council shall not unreasonably. ref use to extend the
time periods for performance indicated in the construction
schedule (Exhii.~it "C") or allow reasonable adjustments. to the
Improvement Responsibility Schedule (Exhibit "ll") if Uwner de;non-
strates by a preponderance of the evidence that the reasons for
said extension or said ad3ustments are beyond the control of r.he
Uwner or its successors or assigns, despite good faith efforts on
their part to accomplish the same.
2U
xv.
MISCELLANEOUS
A. The provisions hereof shall be binding upon and inure to
the benefit of the Owner and City and their respective successors
and ass igns .
B. Ttris agreement mall be subject to and cor~st.rued in
accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and the Munici-
pal Code of•the City of Aspen.
C. If any of the provisions of this Agreement or any para-
graph, sentence,' clause, phrase, word, or secr.ion or ttte applica-
tion 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.U. and Subdivision 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 inst.r wnents executed by
all parties hereto.
E. Nu;nerical and title headings contained in this contract
are for convenience purposes only, and shall not be deemed deter-
minative of the substance contained herein.
F. Notices to be given to the parties to this Agreement are
considered to be given if personally delivered or if deposited in
the United States ..aii to the parties by "registered or certified
mail at the addresses indicated below, or such other addresses as
may ire substituted upon written notice by the parties or their
successors or assigns:
CITY OF ASPEN:
City Manager
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
OWNER or its Successors and Assigns.
Marolt I~sociates
c/o James M. Mulligan, Esq.
1350 Seventeenth Street, Suite 36U
Denver, Colorado 80202
IN WITNL'SS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto executed
their hands and seals on the dates and year respectively indi-
cated, in full understanding and ayreeement to the terms and condi-
tions herein contained.
21
a.,-
r
CITY OF ASPEN,
A Colorado Municipal Corporation
B3, _/ ~~ -
Her„an Edel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S Koch, Ci~erk
APPROVEll AS TO FORM:
`~ /1 1, w ~---~-
Yaul J. Taddune
City Attorney
S'lAi'E OF COLORAUO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
fine above and foreyoiny P.U.U. and Subdivision Ayreen,ent
between the City of Aspen, Colorado, a Municipal Corporation and
DlarolL Associates. a Colorado general p:atner.~ tiL~ w,us .,uuscribc-d
and sworn to before ,ne this /~ day of ~~-_-Co ~, .1ti.~~
1451 by Her,nan Edel, Mayor, anU Kathryn S. Koc~f, City Clerk, of
the City of Aspen, a Municipal Corporation.
WITNESS MY HANU ANU OFFICIAL SEA . ?
My com,,,ission expires: ~~y?(orgd _,
_ /.l.Pitcf2 ___~
ota y Public
MAROL'i' ASSOCIA'1'ES,
A Colorado General Partnership
_l~! ,~..
Partner
2l
~,y/~w~..! r
Par -~'~f"-
STATE OF COLORADO
County of C~~~a=~r+
ss.
Partner`
Pa tner ~ ~ ~!
l~~i ~i~Z~`-~~
The above and foreyoiny P.U.D. and Subdivision Agreement
between the City of Aspen, Colorado, a•Municipal Corporation and
•Marolt Associates, a Colorado yeneral partnership was subscribed
and sworn to be ore me thi ~ da of
1981 u~ _` ~. ~ ~ ~
and ~ , , ~~~~~ ~~7,y~,
P the of Marolt Associates, A Colorado G neral Partnership. ,,_.~, C2V
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICE L SEA
My commission e::pires: -gal ¢ /~^A~
~GL...C ~O P J_._J--F-~ ~ _' _
Nokary Public
I3UCHANA"J. THUMBS i•:..: ~JhidSGJJ
PROFES.JfONAi. CO~iF'ORATION
12499 WEST COLFAX AVE., SUITE A
LAKEWOOD, COLORADO 80215
23
L~GaL OESCRIPTI011
• EXHI6IT A
A tract of land situated in Lots 9, 10, 13, S:J 1/4 S'.~! 1/4 Sec. 12, T10S,
I?351d, 6tfi P.hl. and Lot 5 and tilt 1/4 ti:J 1/4 Sec. 13, T10S, P.35!J, Gth P.tl.
d~seribed as follows:
Beginning at a point, in the center line of Castle Creek (the SW cot.
Lot 2 Adams Subdivision), '
thence.ttl4°40'E 149.97 ft. to corner .'13 Holden Tract,
thence tf14°s5'lJ 172.00 ft. to corner 14 Holden Tract,
thence 1137°50'ld 314:72 ft. to corner rl Holden Tract; being identical
with corner >4 tlorth Texas hill Site t•1S .-,3288,
thence L54°45't•1 34.00 ft. to the center line of Castle Creek,
. thence tt26°00'41 94.00 ft. along the center line of Castle Creek,
thence N28'10'E 294.00 ft. along the center line. of Castle Creek ,•
(hence ti20°05'E 115.40 ft. along the center line of Castle Creek,
to the South Right-of-}lay 1 ine of Colorado tli,;h~:ay tlo. 82,
~. , thence ti75°03'!1 360.26 ft. along the South Right-of-}lay line of Colo-
rado highway t;o. 32,
thence 63.52 ft. along the arc of a curve t0 the left (radius of 905.00
• ft. chord bears i177°C3'33"41 63.51 ft. ).,
thence S10°5i':I 90.71 ft.,
thence•S21°47`}!282.37 ft.,
thence S25°23'}1 715.31 ft. to a point being 179.1.68 ft. 541°52'15" E,
fron ih~ 195: 5rass Cap marking t'r~e !•1 1/4 corner of Sec. 12,
thence S18°14'!J 1107.77 ft. to the tlorth Right-of-:day line of Castle
Cree'< Road, - .
thence 540°00'E 114.98 ft. along the north Right-of-}fay line of ,
~astle Creel; F.oad,
thence S53°34'E 1~4,G1 ft. along the tlorth Ri9fit-of--:lay line of Castle
Creek Road,
thence t:81°5G'E 254.45 ft.>
,-~ thence SC6°~:7-'E 30II.07 ft„ •
-~
thence 1190°00':d 9.11 ft.,
thence. 533°00'E Gl.GS ft..
thence 1163°35'E 7-80.15 ft. to lint. 1-2Short Lime t1S `~iG10,
thence t116°00'ld 44.62 ft. along line 1-2 to corner tlo; 1 Short
Lire h1S 34610, r
thence 1174°00'E 236.35 ft. along line 1-4 of Short Lime t•!S .,"4610,
thence 1190°00' :d 74.04 ft. ,
thence 1119°12' E 117.35 ft. , . .
thence .142°30'41 329.09 ft. ,
thence tI02°43';d 221.35 ft.,
thence 1116°~=4' E 139.7II ft. , .
thence S70°12'E 120.00 ft., •
thence !135°45'E 263.63 ft. to the rsost tlortherly corner of property
.described in f>oot: 196 at Page 376, PitY,in County Records,
" thence il60°46'11 19'1 feet to tF.e center lint of Castle CreeY.,
thence along the center line of Castle Cree}•.'the follo~.aing courses:..
1112°33'29":I 154.72 feet,
thence tJ43°00'E 30.00 feet,
;~ .
1
thence 1135°30'E 33.00 feet,
thence ti35°00'E 150.00 feet, '
thence S6E°UO'E 30.00 feet, •
thence S7'/°00'E 110.00 feet,
thence t:II1°19'21"E 40.11 feet to the point of beginning..
containing 35.25 acres, more or less. ,,
l _,}
EXFIIBIT R
SITF. DATA TADULATION (Bl' PARCEL)
Total Acreage: 35.25 Acres
Lot 1
Acreage: 9.325
No. of Units: 70 Employee
g~.ze"-'- & Tv.pe: ~ 39 - 2 bedroo m 2 bath @ 845 S.F.
19 - 1 bedroo m 1 bath @ 637 S.F.
17 -Studios, 1 bath @ 484 S.F.
Parking: 104 spaces (1 per bedro om)
Parcel Uensity: 1G.8 UU/Acre
Ground Coverage: Units
_ ~ Building A - 3880 S.F.
B - 6486 S.F.
C - 6486 S.F.
D -- 3243 S.F. = 20,095 s.r•.
Parking
704 spaces @ 180 S.F. = 19,G20 S.F.
Road
90(l L.F. @ 24' width = 21,600 S.F.
900 L.F. @ 10' width = _4,_000 S.F.
TOTAL COVERAGE/LOT 1 65,315 S.F.
Projected Monthly
Rental Pates
Lo't 2
Acreage:
No. of Units:
Size & 'ape:
AmeniY.ies:
Parking:
Parcel Densi~:
Ground Coverage:
2 bedroom $591/monti; (70{'/S.F.)
1 bedroom $446/month
Studio $33II/mw~tir
6.925
30 Free mar}:et
30 - 3 bedroom 4 bath @ 2400 S.F.
The Granary - storage ~ Clubhouse
amenities
P:arolt }Iomestead - ,4anag ement. Of f: ice
Landscape plaza and pool @ 1500 S.F.
Tennis Court- @ 7200 S.F.
60 Covered (2 per unit)
9.5 DU/Acre
Units
3 bedrooms 35,5£18 S.F.
Granary s Homestead 9,850 S.F.
Poo]. Plaza 1, 500 S. i~ .
Tennis Court 7,200 S.F.
Parking ..52,060 S.F.
Road - 1390 L.F.@ 25' width 33,360 S.F.
Paths - t15o r,. F. @ tt,soo s_r•.
TOTAL COVERAGt/L.O7.' 2 l OG , 058 S • 1'.
EXHIBIT C
f1AROlT R11NCH
PROPOSED DEVCLOPItENT ACID CONSTRUCTION SC{IEDULE ~ ~ .
Site Lnprovcments
Employee Housing Units (Lot 1)
free fiart:et Units (Lot •2)
Site 41ork Aug. 1, 1981 - Oct. 1, 1 981
:Mass Grading, Utilities Relocation,
Construction Access Roads
Employee ffousin9 Units (Lot 1) Apr. 15, 1932 - Dec. 31, 1932
Site Utilities ~ Apr. 15, 1982 - July 31, 1932
Buildiny_Excavation & Foundations hiay 1 , 1 982 - June 3 0, 1 982
Superstructure~& Exterior Closure June 1, 1982 - Oct. 15, 1932
Interior~Construction"& Finishes ~ Aug. 1, 1937. - Dec. 31, 1982
Finished Site Development Aug. 1, 1982 - Oct. 31, 1982
• ,
Roads & Parking Areas,
Intersection Completion, Finish
Grading, Landscapiny, 4!alks
Free fiar{:et Units (Lot 2) - July "1, 1931 - July 31, 1923
Site Utilities flay 1, 192 - July 31, 1 982
.. Building Phase 1 (11 Units) ~ ~ June 1, 1932 - Jan. 31, ]983
Building Excavation & Foundations June 1, 1982 •~ June 30, 1932
Superstructure & Exterior Closure July 1', 1932 - Sen. 30, 1~2
Interior Construction P~ Finishes Oct. 1, 1982 - Jan. 31, Li3
Finished Site Development Aug. 1, 1922 - Oct. 31, 1922
' Roads £~ Parking Areas,
Finish Gradiny, Landscagring
Building Phase 2 (19 Unitsj Sep. 1, 1922 - July 31, 1983
6uildiny Excavation & Foundations Sep. 1, .198'1. - Sep. 30, 1982
Superstructure R Exterior Closure Oct. 1, 1982 - Uec. 31, 1982
Interior Construction & Finishes Jan. 1', 1983 - Apr. 30, 1923
Finished Grading, Landscapiny May 1, 1983 - July 31, 1983
koads & Parking Areas,
Finish Gradiny, Landscapiny
EXNIDIT D
IMROLT RAtIC.H
It4PROVEt1El1T RESPONSIBILITY SCFIEDULE
Employee Housing Free Market Units
Item Total Cost Percentage Share R Cost Percentage Share R Cost
' Seo-rer
Existing Manhole
to Manhole 1f8
t~anl~oles
$ 9,600.00
$ 6,720.00
(70N)
$ 2,880.00
(30")
8" Sevrer 34,925.00 24,447.50 (707,) 10,477.50 (30"a)
Manhole ff8 to
Manhole N11
Manholes •
3,600.00
-
3,600.00
(100 m')
8" Sewer 8;900.00 - 8,900.00 (100A)
Manhole L8 to "12 R
Manhole f(12 to fl17
•
Manholes 7,200.00 7,200.00 (100%) -
8" Sewer 36,325.00 36,325.00 (100%) -
Sewer Tap
14,250.00
2,700.00 ,
11,550.00
Connections
Sewer Totals $114,800.00 $77,392.50 $37,407.50
4tater
Interconnection
12" D.I.F'ipe $ 16,<<15.00 $11,490.50 (70) $ 4,924.50 (3C':)
12" Valve 2,500.00 1,750.00 (70%) 750.00 (30~)
Free Market Water
12" D.I. Pipe Service
11,27.1.00
-
11,221.00
(100x)
10" D.I. Pipe 42,770.00 - 42,770.00 (lOG`„)
8" D.I. Pipe 15,21.5.00 - 15,225.00 (100;0
12" Valve 2,500.00 - 2,500.00 (100")
Fire Hydrants 5,250.00 - 5,250.00 (1003:)
• 12" Water Servic e 2,700.00 - F 2,700.00 (100".)
3/4" Water Servi ce 300.00 - 300.00 (l0U%)
Employee Housing
Water Service
8" D.I. Pipe 14,875.00 14,875.00 (100%) -
8" 1'alve 500.00 500.UG (100N) -
Fire Hydrants 5,250.00 5,250.00 (100N) -
2" Water Service 3,000.00 3,000.00 (lOL'%) -
Water Totals $12.2,506.00 $36,865.50 $85,640.50
i
•
t ,)
• ",
EXHI817 D
1•il~ROLT RAt1CH
ItdPROVEMENT RESPOtlSI81LITY SCHEDULE (continued).
• Employee housing
Item Total Cost Percent~ace Siiare & Cost
Draina c
Employee Housing
Drainage 6as~ns 1,2 ,3
12" C.M.P. $ 3,225.00
3' Standpipe 2,000.00
Concrete 2,250.00 .
Excavation & 8,000.00
Embankment
Free 41arl:et
Drainage Basins 1,2,3
21" C.M.P. 4,320.00
15" C. hi. P. 1,320.00
3' Standpipe 5,000.00
Excavation & 9,600.00
Embankment
Tennis Courts 1,500.00
Jmprovements
Rock Channel 1,500.00
Check Dams
free liarket Units 1,950.00
Cemetery Lane 1,050.00
Hal den P,oad 1~ 800.00
Drainage Totals $43,515.00
Irrigation Relocation
Bolden Ditich
50x31.~rch Pipe .$30,750.00
Channel Er.cava. 1,050.00
headwall 1,000.00
Fiarolt Ditch
30 mil.hypalon
liner 7,200.00
Red Butte Cemetery
8" Irrigation ga te 800.00
Headwall 500.00
8" P.V.C. Pipe &
fittings 4,080.00
Irrigation Totals $45,3II0.00
$ 3,225.00 (100%)
2,000.00 (100%)
2,250.00 (100,",)
8,000.00 (100%)
'.
735.00 (709)
1,II00.00 (1002;)
$l8,O10.0U
$30,750.00(1009)
1,050.00 (100%)
1,000.00 (100 N)
$32,II00.00
Free Market Units
Percentage Share R Cost
$ 4,37.0.00 (1009)
1,37.0.00 (100")
5,000.00 (1009)
9,000.UO (1009)
1,500.OD (100N)
1,500.00 (1009)
1,950.00 (1009)
315.00 (309)
$25,505.00
$•7,200.00 (100%)
800.00 (100%)
500.00 (1009)
A,080.00 (lUON)
$12,5II0.00
EXHIBIT D
tMROLT RANCH
' It4PROVEI.IENT RESPONSIBILITY SCHEDULE '(continue d)
Employee Ho using
Item Total Cost Percentage Share & Cost
Roads, Qriveways,
Parking Areas &
Bike Paths
Hwy. 82-Holden Rd.
Intersection to
Station 3+00
Asphalt $15,000.00 $10,500.00 (70%)
Base Course 13,300.00 ~ 9,310.00 (70%)
Excavation &
Embankment 18,600.00 13,020.00 (70%)
Traffic Liylrt
Controls 30,000.00 21,000.00 (70%)
Concrete 1,000.00 700.00 (70%)
Painting 1,500.00 1,050.00 (70%)
Traffic Control 3,000.00 2,100.00 (70%)
(during construction) .
Irrigation Ditch '
P,elocation 490.00 643.00 (70%)
Drainage Swales 800.00 560.00 (70%)
18" C. Pi. P. 5,075.C0 3,552.50 (707)
Subtotal $89,265.00 $62,485.50
Holden Road -
Station 3+00 to
Station 7+6G (Free i~iarket
Entrance) '
Asphalt $13,200.00 $ 9,240.00 (70%)
Base Course 12,U~i0.00 8,428.00 (70)
Excavation &
Embanl:mciit 3,000.00 21 ,000.00 (70%)
Subtotal $28,240.00 $19,768.00
ilol den Road -
Station 7iGG to
Station 16+69 (Emp loyee
Housing Entrance)
Asphalt $25,500.00 $25,500.00 (100%)
Base Course 23,240.00 23,240.00 (100%)
Excavation &
Embankment 6,000.00 6,000.00 (100%j
Subtotal $5q,740.00' $54,740.00
Free 1•farl:et Units
Percentage Sl,are & Cost
$ 4,500.00 (30%)
3,990.00 (30M)
5,580.00 (30%)
9,000.00 (30%)
300.00 (3G%)
450.00 (30")
900.00 (307)
?.47.00 (30%)
240.00 (30")
1 ,522.50 (30;x;)
$26,779.50
$ 3,960.00 (30i'>>)
.3,612.00 (30)
900.00 (30%)
$ 8,472.00
l '
• ERHIBIT D
MAROLT RANCH
]MPROVEMEt{T'RESPOHSIBILITY SCHEDULE (continued). '
• Employee Housing
Item Total Cost Percentage Share & Cost
. Employee housing
Drive & Parking
Station 7+66 to End
Asphalt $42,000.00
8a se Course 28,420.00
Excavation &
Embanknicnt 45,000.00
Subtotal $115,420.00
Free 14arket Drives,
Parking & Access Loop
Aspfralt $ 35,280.00
Base Course 24,696.00
Excavation &
Embankment 38,000.00
Subtotal $ 97,976.00
Roads Total $385,G41.00
Electric
Relocate overhead $ 8,250.00
lines in free
market area
Relocate overhead 2,250,00
lines in employee
area
Underground service 40,000.00
to free market units
Underground service 40,000.00
to employee units
Electric Total $ 90,500.00
Telephone
Relocate existing $ 8,800.00.
overhead lines
Telephone Total $ 8,800.00
t{atural C,as
2"Steel main $ 8,240.00
3/4" Service con- •
nections 2,700.00
Ratural Gas Total $ 10,940,00
$42,000.00 (100°0
28,420.00 (100%)
45,000.00 (100%)
$115,420.00
$252,413.50
$ 2,250.00 (100N)
40,000.00 (1000
F
$ 42,250.00
$ 4,400.00 (50%)
$ 4,400.00
Free Market Units
Percentage Share R Cost
$ 35,280.00 (100Y)
.. 24,696.00 (100"}
38,000.00 (100 ~)
$ 97,976.00'
$133,227.50
$ 8,250.00 (100%)
40,000.00 (l0U%)
$ 48,250.00
$ 4,400.00 (50%)
$ 4,400.00
- $ 2,%00.00 (1000
• $ 10,940.00
• ERHI(iIT n
tMROL7 RANCH
114PROVEIdENT RESPOPISIESILITY SCHEDULE (continued)
Employee housing Free Market Units
Item Total Cost Percentage Slrare & Cost Percentage Strare & Cost
• Landscaping
Fine grading,
trees & plants,
site accessories
$225,000.00
$ 75,000.00
$150,000.00
SITE It1PROV[t1ENTS
TOTALS
$1,Or}7,OFi2.00
$539,131.50
$507,950.50
SITE IhiPROVEhiENTS
TOTALS (ROUiJDED)
$1,050,000.00
$540,000.00
$510,000.00
i
a
r ~>
~ ,; .
t•1nRO~T•Rnricft
SITE IIIPROVEI•fEPtT PERCEP;TP~E COt•iPLETI0F1 SCHEDULE .
.. . • ,. •
• G t
Item nmr renou
1. Approval of Einal Plat Jurlc 8, 19IIi
2. Advertise for Bids July G, 1981
3. Anticipated n~•~ard of •
Site Improvements
Contracts July 24, 1981
4. Motice to Proceed Aug. 1, 1981
5. Red Butte Cemetery
Pipeline Relocation Aug. 1 - Aug. 10, 1981
6. Construct .Temporary
I•tarolt Ditch Aug. 1 - Aug. 10, 1931
7. Rough Grading, Free
• t•farket E Employee Aug. 1 - Sep. 30, 1981
8.' Holden P.oad Rough
Grading L Placement of
24' 4lidth of Base Course Aug. 1 - Aug. 31, 1981
9. Electric & Telephone
Relocation, Free hurl:et July 1 - July 31, 1931
10. Remainder of Electric
& Telephone Relocation Aug. 1 - Aug. 31, 1981
11. Holden Ditch Relocation Sep. 1 Oct. 1, 1981
12, Installation of Seo-rer L
Water, Free 1•tarket May 1 - June 30, 1.982
13. Installation of Seger &
Water, Fniployee Apr. 15 - play 31, 1982
14. Installation of Remainder
of Sewer £~ Water May 15 - July 31, 1982
15. Installation of Underground
Electric, Telephone, TV,,
Gas Lines, Frce t•farket R
Gnployee June 1 - July 31, 19II2
percentage of uaran y,
Guaranty Release Oatc
11%, September 1981
3%, October 1921
31%, August 1982
• ' EXH18I7 F - ,,
1•U.ROc7 RANCH w
517E IFIPftOVCt•IEN7 PERCENTAGE COPIPLE7IUN SCHEDULE (contirt~^. d) ,
Percentage of Guaranty,
Time Period Guaranty Release OaC'e
Item
1G. Finish Grading &
Drainage Improvements, .
Free t•Farket Ptrase 1 &
• Aug.
1, 1982 -
Aug.
31, 1982
Employee
1). Intersection A'ork Aug. 1, 1982 - Sep. 30, 1982
• 30%, October 1982
18. Finish Grading, Base
Course Placement E Paving,
• free t•larhet Phase 1 &
Employee Aug.
1,•1982
- Sep.
30, 1932
19. Landscaping, Free 1•larket 1,~, November 1982
Phase 1 & Employee Oct. 1, 1982 - Oct.. 31; 1982
. J
20: Finish Grading, Base
Course Placement & Paving, '
Free t•tarl:et Phase 2 hiay 1, 1983 - June 30, 1983
21. Landscaping ~ 10":, August 193
Free I;arket Phase 2 June 1, 1933 - July 31; 1983
' _,.
.. ,.,
5G5 NORTfI A7ILL STREL"T
ASP[N. COLORADO O 161 1
TELE~'YIONE , 925~25J7
May ?~, 1981
Carli.e Wood
Design Work Si1op
415 S. Spring
Aspen, Co X7.611
To 41hom it b".ay Concern:
The esti.metcd tap fee for the tQarolt project based on 31 free market units
and 7.', employee units plus a sl:immirt<; pool and amenity building is y,35,453•
These are current tap figures and can be sub~ect'to change in the future.
Sin/,~c1/cr~cl~y
/ y
Heiko Kuhn, tQara.~er
Aspen 6letropal.itan San'_t~tior. District
__
1;X111BZT ~r- Adaition:ll T~arlcinr, Sc\hc\dn e ~'
~_ .,, ,
.t~•. ..
lift: ~;'~_ t~--_~-~ --, '~ / y _ ~`~~.
_:/7~ _ ij''i~l,~ r.~~ r.,~ rr`. ~ 'cam '~~ •~l1/ j." ft ~.\
i ~ .../ , y: of ~ __ ~~. r ~ , \ •~ \
a Y~ 7'~ I d
f f yN//f ..f.~ ~ \I l~/r y ~ \ l 's' 1 ll,\~..: 1 =./
l j/f~\ . ~ ` / 1
r _7 '' 1 , /
f .. _-. ~ v.~=---- - - = --"-_ : _ 1,,.x.'.4 ,`~. •'
,~ This plan indicates ahe -areas reserved for additional parY.in~ in the
Yree Market Cluster, which can he constructed at such time as the City
deems it necessary. The covered parking shown on the plan alJ.ows for
two cars per unit. The applicant has asked fora partial exemption
from parkiu~ requirements, provi.aing t~/o-thirds of the par}:ing required
by Code.
~
r-~,,
~uF~ti~
- .
~ J
~
-~~
.
_
i~~oiTio~~~.~ nn-~c;t~o
rizl_c 1l,nnl:cr c~usT~i3
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
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
Page
2
4
4
5
6
12
13
13
14
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 Munici-pal 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 de=_ignated 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
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 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, i.t 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 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 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, 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 refu=_al; 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 be 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 Space 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, 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
-2-
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, as
designated contiguous to the subject property on the plat,
shall be properly dedicated or restricted, as reouired, to
allow for its use for the extension 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 on the
plat, the necessary reservation of the Main Street right-of-way
extension as shown on the attached plat, and the additional
open space designation with appropriate restrictions that apply
to Open Space Number 1 hereinabove referenced.
For further and more specific allocation of the uses anti-
cipated 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 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 second por-
tion of said development shall be improved as an unrestricted
or "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 antici-
pated on the enclosed plat, cost allocations for the projects
will need to be 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 shall follow the relationship of each
development's number of units to the total number of units
approved for development upon the Plat. In connection here-
with, it is 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-
II.
CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS
A. Nature and E=_timated Costs of Improvements: - Owner
hereby agrees to be responsible for the making 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 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 beginning 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, AND RELOCATIONS
The attached Plat sets forth certain easement, rights of
way, and anticipated relocations that will he necessary to
cause the improvement=_ anticipated thereon, which easements,
rights of way and relocations include the following:
A. Main Street
hereinabove, and as
by dedicates to the
future extension of
description of sur_h
the Plat attached h
Right Of Way
shown on the
City a 150'
Main Street.
right of way
=_reto.
- 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
8. Cemeter Lane Extension Easements and Relocation - The
Owner agrees o 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 provide a dedication to the
City (in conjunction with 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
its intersection with Castle Creek Road, all. as further shown
on the attached Plat.
-4-
C. Gas Com an Buildin and Gas Line Easement - The City
and the Owner ere y agree o an easement for the continued
exi=_tence 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 bui.ldi.ng
and the gas line as further specifically referenced and located
on the attached Plat.
D. Cro__=s Easements - The City and the Owner hereby specif-
ically agree o provide any and all neces=_ary cross easements
for access over and across parcels 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 necessary access to and from the
public highways to the respective parcels.
E. Ditch Relocations and Ponding - The City hereby allows
the relocation and ponding 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 is hereby established
and agreed be ween 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 ea__=ements, 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 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, constitutes 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.
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
-5-
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 of value suffi-
cient to at least meet the requirements of Section 20-18 of the
Municipal Code concerning the requirement of the dedications
therein referenced.
V.
OPEN SPACE AND COMMON AREA
MANAGEMENT, MAINTENANCE AND USE
A. General - As referenced under Article I hereinabove,
the plat herein referenned 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, i.ngres=_, 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-Way Use Limitations - With
respect o the open space and rig
under Article I hereinabove and f
attached plat, the Owner's public
City is expressly conditioned upo
City's use of such open space and
subject to certain specified use
ht-of-way parcels referenced
urther set forth on the
dedication thereof to the
n and made subject to the
right-of-way parcels being
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, 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 activity 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 he 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 in__=talla-
tion 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.
2. Open Space 2 Category: 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 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;
provided, however, that the City shall be allowed limited
clearing and improvement within this open space 2 category
sufficient to allow for the 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-Way: That portion of the
attached plat~esignated as "Main Street R.O.W." as further
referenced under Article I hereinabove, shall he reserved
solely far 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 provision=_ 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
lim.i.ted 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, signage, easements, paving, curb and
gutter, 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.
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 categories,
should allow, encourage, or participate in any action which
would result in a breach of the above-referenced use limita-
tions 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 attorney'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 successors or assigns, shall be entitled to
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 re __served and used subject
to the same limitations as those imposed upon "Open Space 1"
and "Open Space ?" 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 J.ease said property to the current 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.
C. Lots l and 2: With respect to the parcels indicated on
the attached plat and under Article I hereinabove as Lots 1 and
2, respectively, the u=_es thereon shall 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 thehe at~ched plat shall be governed by the following:
1. Open Space Ri hts of Wa and Lot 3: With respect
to the categories on t e 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 re __=ponsibility and cost of
City, and shall be conducted on 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 seventy-three (73) dwelling
-R-
units, pursuant to provision= elsewhere contained herein and on
the attached plat. Although documents will be filed against
Lot 1 submitting same to the provision=_ of the Colorado Condo-
minium Ownership Act, it is currently anticipated that the
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 operated as rental unit=, 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 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, parking requirements,
and other policies and procedures that will enhance the live-
ab.ili.ty and quality of such residential living environments.
The responsibility for such management shall rest with the
Owner, or its successors or a=_signs 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 association, at such time as the units therein
contained are converted to "for sale" ownership status by sep-
arate deeds. 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.
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 association will be
formed by the filing of necessary Articles of Incorporation,
and the establishing of By-Laws, Condominium Declarations,
Rssociation 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-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:
rmanent Care ani
and 2 and Lot 3: The permanen
categories known as Open Space
Maintenance of Open Spaces 1
care and maintenance of those
1, Open Space 2 and Lot 3 shall
-9-
he 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.
2.
R.O.W.: The
R.O.W. shall
paid for and
ent with the
where conta~.
Permanent Care and Maintenance
permanent care and maintenance
be pursuant to a plan provided
borne by the City, and such pl
use limitations and management
red herein.
of Main Street
o the Main Street
for, implemented,
an shall be consist-
provisions else-
3. Permanent Care and Maintenance of Cemetery Lane
R.O.W.: The permanent care and maintenance of the Cemetery
Lane 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 "0" 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
shall provide for a sharing of the costs between the ownership
of Lot 1 and the ownership of Lot 2 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, ?.and=_cape
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 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
-10-
property 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
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 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, then the
permanent care and maintenance thereof shall be provided pur-
suant to a plan that requires 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 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 article=_ of incorporation for the condo-
minium association, by-laws and condominium declaration, which
documents shall meet at least the following requirements:
a. The condominium association must 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 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
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 condominium association,
by-laws for the condominium association, establishment of a
condominium association budget for maintenance and operations,
and the initiation of rules and regulations with respect there-
to. The documents to be provided with such condomin;um
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 operating and
maintaining common elements and facilities;
f. The board of managers of such condominium
association shall consist of at least five (5) member=_ 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 taps
in order to allow for the proper servicing of the needs of the
improvements to be constructed 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, re__=ul.t 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 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
the water servicing to the units contained within Lots 1 and 2
and to the property generally covered hereby.
The
and fees
Exhibit
which re
payable
hook-up,
($
respective values of the water rights and water taps
are hereby acknowledged as equaling those set forth
"E", entitled "Relative Water Rights and Fee Values"
lative values, properly off-set, result in net fees
by the Owner to the City for water installation,
and other related charges equal to
VII.
SEWER AVAILABILITY
(To be inserted upon determination)
VIII.
FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
Pursuant to Section 20-16(C) of the Municipal Code, Owner
hereby agrees to provide a guaranty for no less than One
Hundred Percent (100%) of the estimated cast of the improve-
ments to be constructed, which estimated costs, as further set
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 respon=_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 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 accep-
tance, 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
on
-13-
until all proposed improvements 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 deter-
minable to be approved severally by the City Engineer, an
equitable allocation of funds to be relea__=ed shall be applied
as and when such partial completions occur.
The Owner, its =_uccessors 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 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.
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 he 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 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-
respectively indicated, in full understanding and agreement to
the terms and conditions herein contained.
CITY OF ASPEN,
A Colorado Municipal Corporation
ATTEST:
City Clerk
By:
ayor
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
COUNTheOabove and foregoing was subscribed and sworn to before
me this day of 19 by ,
Mayor and City Clerk of the City of
Aspen, A Co ora o Municipal Corporation.
Witness my hand and official. seal.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
MAROLT ASSOCIATES,
A Colorado General Partnership
artner
artner
artner
artner
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
COUNTY OF )
The above and foregoing was subscribed and sworn to before
me this day of 19_ by
-15-
and Partners of Plarolt Associates, A
Colorado General Partnership.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
-16-
_.___
••
^rni [',i al` O.pPrtuarf7 antl Corr"111npr; M.~~.nn G Dlursc Guihhng • 915 CuV Hyman AeCnun, Ciuitc 90U MPrn, Gdorrd., G1G11 •:t09rYJ%S GPS:
A PR'rZI:1INARY OFINO}7 CF ~'~LU% FOR
THE MA^.OLT }:Ai:C}I
LOCATED ON }IIGIC•J~Y &2 snci CySTLE CREEI:
PITnIN COllN?Y> CO
October 17, 1977
FOR:
PSr. Lanny Oates and '
Mr. Mick Ma'.:an~;!
c/o Ga`:es, Austin, P:cGr<.tit and Jozdaa
60C East 1lop::ins Avenue
• Aspen., CO' 81611
/"~~ .
YF.1;Pi11:E1) }:Y: James ,T, i~lolll.ca, R:1
Rcal Ec..~te 4pprai,:; r
1..,,. ~
~ L..-. ~ ,iamcs J. i:4o!lica, F.fJi.
., ..., ,.
I i - t, ! n...~;>••At:.. Inn
• lC(c i.~~ .~I, IiCC!"I:.iriil ~l ...i.Ilrl( ia:I `y il;l'. '
W:al G^ilnlc n(ItJIL1.Y.rs :uul Cuusull:rnl5 Ida•.uu V Mor,c BuilJing • 318 Coal HVnwn Avenue, Suiln 708 A,ik`n, Colorado B1G11 •303<".!75 8987
{v.µ.L Cn!.rta~bl . .
October 17, 1977
• a
rlr. henry Oatc and
PIr. Pick idahoney
c/o Oatc~, Austin, ;lcGrath and Jordan
60U 1?. Hopi^.s Avcnua ,
Aspen, CO 81611 '
Re:' A prelioinary "Opinion of value" for fhe PL•trolt P.anch located on
Higtraay 82 sad Castle Creek, Pitkin County, CO
ben tlelaen
At your co;:.birecI requests, I have personally inspected the subject property,
have gathered and analyzed applicable market data and development' cots, for
the purpose of estimating the raw land value of the subject's appro7:imately
38 acres. ,
This analysis has been offered in a brief letter form at this time, since
both diet?t's are•local persons, and very familiar with the subject property
as well as the local Aspen econo:ry. However, I have contained in rIy files
ail of the suppozting data and exhibits from cinich I have based my opinion
and from which I could prepare a formal appraisal at a future date if so
desired. r
The valuation stated herein is based upon the fdllowinr, assur!p.ti.ons. If
any one of these assunpti.ons is not considere3 reliable by the clients or
if tl:cy chan;e at: a future datF, prior to purchase negotiations, your apnraisex•
reservas the right to reanalyse the property under the alternate situation.
These assumptions are as follows:
1) Tile subject is currently zoned AI'-2 P.U.D. under the Pitkin County
• Zoning Code. Under these requirements, the subject can be developed
with 19 residential units.
2) Curre:ltly, under Yithin County regulations, all acreage on a parcel
can be used for delsity allo:aance. This sugge~es that althou;,ht no
• develop:!`=r.t ceu].d take place on topo,-;raphy over 30 ~ grade, it can be
used for density requirem.,nts.
~3) The direct espe.nses used in the analysis reLlect total road and
utili.tics c•s:r~r.:;ions not to exceed one-half mile ('L,G~tiO Liueal foct).
])spending epos the dnvel.cl>:nent proi;ram and I'.U.P, Zegitll'C:Cnt.^., t1Cls
may vary coasidcae'±1}•.
~1) Indi.rect e\pi'.nSC:~ Of mana;,cmcn t,.^.ul`Cr Vi510t1, O\•CrhC?d, is tCYCfa: anti
rani FS Cai i` C4F:!1S;i On';; AFC COnii ~iCrcd aVC1:~~C tUr [".113:: S17.C Of
devel~p:arnt. D_vclop:ai:nt irroi.'i.C oC '0% of Chc tot'.Il :::c]c: price also
•
' l~...
i:.-::,: James J. M1".ollic7, tt.fA.
. , ,.
~.~
October. 1'!, 1977
Uatc~ i•k{hnucy
1I;u'olt 1:auoi!
Pad C 4tio
.~
. is considered average for the Aspen area'.
5) 'l'ap fees and e;aensiou anprovals arc not easily deteru{ine.i'at this
ti{ae. There ore, your appraiser rounded thu ne[ value docanward to
, include these costs.
6) Much of the information supplied in the direct expense section was
supplied by the developers of the 45-unit subdivision located on
the Ilubbard Property in Basalt. further veriLication of expenses
were selecl-ed from the Plashall-Scaift Residential Cost idanual, 1977.
These expenses are subject to cha:{~e, depending upon the topography,
development program, and soil types.
7) The current improvements on the property include a small single family
'residence, garage, and old historic outbuildings and miscellaneous
• landscaping. Although. these improvements are basically in sound
condition, your appraiser gives them little or no toeight in the
analysis of a 19-unit P.U.D. project. The only value considered
applicable is for rental space and/or project office to help defer'
.the interim costs of tales and/or management.
Based upon my analysis of the accumulated data, and considering the above
mentioned assumptions, I'have concluded that the Fair Piarket Value of the
subject property as of October 17, 1977 is:,
' - One Piillion Dollars
$ 52,632 per raw site
$ 26,316 per acre '
.Attached to this letter are four charts which were used .in the analysis of
the subject property.
_ 1) Recent comparable sales chart for building site at one acre or less
which reflect market values for single unit building sites.
2) Current listings of similar building sites in the-area as an alter-
native to tt{e prospective purchc{sers. ,
3) Recent sales of large traces of land similar to the subject`s which
'_ could be usnd far development purposes. Also listed are two current.
listings, one nearly adjacenE r.o the snbject_([dardweil) and another
very coriparahlc being; the 1>rosto Property on R{'d Pfountain. .
4) A preliminary devclopuunr. pro~ra;u which lists direct expenses, in-
direct e~:pcn::c~, dcvelopr.r's prwFit reflecCing net value of the
sub;irct. pt'o~ crt)'. d 1
~lflilt{II .Y. ~lir':,(i4a~}~~~~~i~.~19~.
~ '
Rvd {-,:rob, ~., pr.•:.~ r:. and COnaulhmt.
•
• h
October 17, 1977 •
Oates:-111110^t•y
MaCO1C .fl~nCll
rake ThT~~
• •If I can },~ of further assistance in the application or. interpretation of.
the findings cuntancd iu [his letter I will be available to It~ect c+ith both'
garties upon your request.
Thank you fur this opportunity to be of service.
• I hereby certify that I have ro present or future contemplated interest in
the subject property; that to the best of my knowled~,e the informatiot: con-
tained harcin is true and accurate; that my fee is not based upon the valua-
• tion stated herein. - - - - - - -
Respectfully submitte3,
~/t ~rL~~. - - _ __
/ ame~J :follica, R`[ ~ - - _ -_ .
Real 'state Appraiser
JJ;i:sfy
._
_ _ _
'+~Ll:l•.I
' ~ ml Int. l,ti,. pr!,; .. •;,:,,.., I'1•r Art•..• U+*:~ij ~... ~,rrA ~'~c,.~,1 ~.
..
2z' /.:p.'n ,
1'0, 17 ~''rI)G ; 7), SnU ,33 ac 2:.2,)!7/nr r!/H E:` )l9/b Ih ,
2eJ Aspen Cu. l4 ll/7G %/,0;10 ,3] 2)],)17 S, u, E 3t9/G35
tad Mp•u G.. lG 5/!/ lOU,f!Ih) .5 20U, COU t7, 1: 727/SCS
P.SLyz o: CeJ 27 7/71 90,000 .74 121,621 S, G, E 32f/481
tarn to to
2:1.1 A~.; :n
l}.,
B
3/77
90,000
,75
120,000
S, U,
E
t7/P. ,
2rd Aspen Ge. 9 5177 199,000 .75 177,17] S, U, E 327/504
. 2rd Acp,m co. 10 7/77 90,000 ,7S 120,000 5, H, E N/Y
- 2r.d Aspen Co. 11 ll/7G E0, 000 .75 ~ 106, G4G S, H, E 319/629
'., 2rd Aspen Co. 12 11/76 E0, 0^.0 .75 'lOG,fi56 S, H, E 719/625
2n,'. /sp.n Co: 1 11/Ifi - 125,000 1 ac "125,9;0 S, H, E U/R
' 2ro1 lspen Co. 2 11/74 125,000 1 125,000 8, H, F. ~ N/R
2nd Aspen Co. .3 G/77 125,000 1 125,000 S, H, E 337./327 ~ ,
REeesl ca;a%.e>r.LE sa:•s
(L to 3 Ac rus) •
~Suid lvls?o~ . 7,nt U-ae Pricz Sta_as Ycr Aere Uttlitics EerA 3..eo rds
nS,a~y c.` p,d 1 4/77 $ E5, 600 1.23 ac $G7 ,656/ac S, H, Et 326/903
rau_~taln -
Castle Crczi 6 1/77 110,000 2 55,000 8, it, E 329/J49
ScxrrooJ R-3%i S/77 107,500 2.8 15,392 H, E x1R
U.C.
• ~ Statc:ood R-100 8/77 125,000 2.877. (:3,417 H, E 333/381
U.C. ,
Red 21rn, Trxct 11/75 95,000 4.52 21,018 U, F. 306/513
R:nc4 III '
Stxr•.'ood P.-27 7/76 120,000" 4.59 26,163„ , U,'E 31r~/241
~ ..
F.ed rFtn. Tact II
. 4
3177
000
119
8
4
24,792 -
{7, E,
326/512
R:ncn 31.1 , :
ra; ooa C:czi Id G B 6/77 78,000 ~ 5 1S,000~ H, E L:/R
U.C.
• Rvct^.~ For: Y S B 7/17 235,000 2.7 87,037 ~ . S, H, E !I/;
a: Eontcr Cd: U, C.
•• ~ R^:C1':T CO>^e:\2\R i:: 5?tE4 -
(i to 20 i.c re )
' _ Suid ivlsion Lot Dace Frie-. Si:.es Ycr Arre Uiittt iec Ceed_Record;
Castle Ccee:: )I 6 S 12/76 $71,500 5.146 at $13,3%'rs E= 322/305
E~:cemilk !I & 3 5/77 101,000 S.GS 15,456 E 328/275
fo se lc Crr«:< rt F. 9 ~ 8/77 123,000 30 12,800 E !1/:i '
U.C.
F'`.:_c`.u;;z it F. D 1:)/li 140,OJJ 1~ - 14,000 ~ H, F. JO4/SJ7
Sr :s
Castl. Cr.e:: I! F, 0 1J71 15'%, Oi'r0 LS LJ,i100 ~ E 333/:t30
F.ut [cc:.ii i'>: :1 ;. it S/76 70,OOJ 11 G,3G} E Sll/JSG
.. , ,. ..; is %
•.... .., .•
. ..~ _. ~ i.: ..
~ ...~:•.. :;,.; .; ...1i ,.. .. fi' .r,! ... : ~•. ..,I .1:~ l:u. :f L.~~~~~.:~I:~li,i,
'~
•I I~~n Hr.A i'r.t.ne APpr ai:crs enJ Cnn-~L.onls
.~ I~~ il.• . ~ r
.
•
' -
(A~ of c:urt.},irr I.1.s~rlt•,cs
FI1~'77, /v;pen t4utt:iplc .'
Li:.kin~•. P.ook) ~ .
div~.^,ion
Sut
?
Lot I'ra.ce 5:i.zc:; Pc•r A~:rc
- Uti.]-itic:s_
-'
_
_
2nd A::pral Co.
14
$130,000
.33 ac 393,:39/1c
$- S, [1, i::t
guttcrmi.llc
[•1 ~. M & B 105 , OGO 5..?_E6
19,£64
E
.
ttaroon Creek rt & B 127,500 5
• 25,500
W. T
rieadowood 117,500 .7
167,857
S, [1, E
Blk 3
_
• Fil 3 ••
rteadowood 1
B 120,000 .6 200,000 S, W, E
lk 3 -
Fil 1
'
Red riountain
r[ & B
70,000
.97 .72,165 E
Red mountain Blk ~ 95,000 .765 -
•124,183
S, W,~E
Ranch
Fed Mountain Lot 7
' 105,000 .85 - 123,529 W; E
Ranch 1
Blk _ - •
Red ttountain Lot 8 110,000 3. 36,666 S, W, E
•
Ranch Blk 3 ' -
Red Mountain, - Lot 4 150,000 2.5. 60,000 S, W, E
.Ranch. Blk 3 .
Ridge of Red 26 .90,000 .7 128,571 _ S, W, E
riountain •
Red Mountain
8-A
75,000
1.205 62,241 ~ [3, E
.
Ridge of Red
29
105,000
'.76 138,158
. S, W, E
Mountain
Starc•;ood R-71 125,000 2.26 55,309 W, E
-
Starc•:ood R-55 128,500 4.37 ~ 29,405 [~,
Starwood R-23A 149,600 4.03 37.122 W,,E
Starcaood R-101 132,500 5.33 'l/+,859 W, L'
.: [d - ~;at.cr
Idc~: b:T:n P.VVwip~rs :.'d Cmc.u:mn,.
• - .~
q1 •:1 1- of
V U • 1 tV O is %: Y-. w -
• L-1 b a1 rl .a
p' ~l r) /+ 'O
U
N
w
/.:
w
-- \ ar - w
-,~ m ti to .n rn to n y
[: o to ro r- ea r~ M P.
r; U V of +O u r: tt _ _
_ ~ ~
' - u O r- O~ N r1 M l1
al H s
N
~.
• - V _ ~ rl
-
-t
-'
u _
_
' __ .' _ A 12
w n ~. d
4 'U O U n n P. '
O N N w .-1 .-1 n O
H++ t M 1 t n rl H
.-I to m N G. L•r N 1 11
~` u v p v C
v ~ __ A _
- .... 6'1•.t ~ H 6 v u - -
---- '-- ----- G G o ~-2 N N ~+ o -
of [] N O O O A
G
\
.-1
H
.+
N
.-t _
-
• O r-1 O \ \ \ \ u - -
. N .-1 M vJ .T J ~ w
x
u
_- _._ ~ •rt U u
'- - fA }t Q N ••I M h M N O
M _ .t N r-I DU G
' A N N G
' % U C7 M N '
w r a b 3
-I
.
U V- ~O b H U +1
H u rt r.~ w h rn w ~ u
U N ' H A •'1
~ N ~ v ~ O ~
F t N -
~~...r
N '
~ '
_.. .. N - u
~
.__. - _. z i~
.
~
• ~ y .,
~ H
.. - H V o rn n h 41 o N ~ ..+
7-. •.1 m J
- . _ .._ kl H o .-t 4'1 ~ N .r1 G 6 P ~ .
U P+ h N .-1 N U O OD 7
. r-j ~ vl CJ M N N c0 is G n
'O E: W
' U .-1 u O
' O M e-1
• a u G
O r~ .O V.1 n n n A as O
• u n n r. n n n w •rt
r, ~ \ \ \ \ \ d U u
p n M vt n co co H w
7 ^J .r
O L: ~
' ,C w V
V LL
u u x u w ou
C U y .+ i+ u ~ ;s
' O }i C •.a ~ U T' h a! O
H ~ O N la
' tr %. C U N i-1 •~ M
~ o o u o v U 8
. u b n
~
r- a u u n w u H u n
:< :.a so U H x . ,r. u .
uu
G q M
w O !7 N
n h r.w
~ i
V O s
?. C
i+ U O tS •-1 1+ V
}+ ;t •,~ O U V O OBI
1 {' O N u J N 6
- :+ I:0 r: n a+ t+ O n C ••I -
U r! O q U 1+ N r 1 N
- 4) W ii. U n .-1 N
. .1 F:v.i' La.n., A,.~w.~....:_und Pons+,l ......
~,' 1_STI:L1Ti;q U!3V1'LUPidL_PP Y~,fnCRAhP'
~ . `.rn per Lot: $90,000 :: 19 ?.-acre sites under AP-2 P.U.D. _
' $1,710,000
'.~!iq~eht Co..^.t
r_
_ J' (18' paved) r. $22/LinFal. ft ~ $ 53,080
. r.~;tension: 264U' (b:' alatcr line) x $13/lined ft 34,320
~...~ 5 t.irc itydrau\ts ($G00/aa) m 3,000
*~'" ::dc~rground- -.,,$5.50/lineal ft x 2660' ~ 14,520
_~~ ' ;'r develap_,~.i`,r pctic+;i, estimated a 1,000
' - 9,500
~r. ,:. uxzin2erin>;: (est ;x$500/lot) ° _
... ,
- '.:
r.:airlated lllfect Cost $ 120,420
r xnr.nses
rupervisi.on E overhead: (est. 10% 'of direce
' _ costs) ~ $ 12,047.
-' .:n develop-.ent monay (10`/. x $120,420, 1 yr period) = 12,0'12
- _ ,s: (10% a $].,710,000) 171,000
i:c.Cimated Indirect Cost $ 1951034
's Profit
'al sales prase - - - _ $ 342,000
. .~_ 710,000
- $1
s price Per Lot ,
•\vlopnenl' Cost:
$120,42.0
'-:, ....,~.. ,:ct: 195,084
- ,i: 342,000
-- ($ 557,500
$657,504
$3_,052496
:Crd Value o;: Baca Land: $1,000,OOU_(Round~d)
' $ 52,632/rr::a lot .
y ~'~1
F ~ -~ .~
r i ~~.~ ,s.
L
Ufll
i
I,t U*
dJ`a.IRCC l1~ rU:1~iN FI^.(1
llialitiQ+:,
.
.
c....Ti`
uli ~rtr cl ~l ,rlo Gro:a Sal... Prin ~ b a:;c:l oa
- - - ',), (~~.1 Itl. ltl~'.•i V:a ih1S 1111.1.\'•ir~ hac'Cd l:jtba :: 1.'!. (:
,• ..-
.,~a:, ~ ~; !P t. llrlrr•n/ntl... v`rl• ...
~stCr~i E'1~ ,l, lilll:t cl-f~ ~( ,11`.1111 it:E~ ,1, lLi~c
pr•ul EsUac gt,Praiscrs antl Cunxrhdnt, Mawn f~ Mursa Uuildulg • 315 Cast Hyman Avnmc, Suite 7W Aalxn, Colorado O1G11" • JD'lPJ25~R9a7
!ea•;q Cdurarlo
' QUGLIF'ICA'CIO;IS UF' APPitAISL:I'a
James J. tlollica
Residential Mer.:her (R.tL) DcsiEnati.on of the American Institute of Paeal
EstaCe'Apprais~rs, .197G •
Licensed I;cal Estate Ero'.;er in the State of Colorado
Member of Asp,an Board of P.~altors
timber of I]atio^al Association of the F.oard of P.zalters
Instructor University of Colorado Continuing Education Division
EDUCI:CIOV
Business and Advertising, ESJ, Ohio University
Real Estate Lava, Ohio L'aiversity
Course 1-A, A.^eerican Institute of Peal Estate Appraisers
Course d, A...ericaa Institute of Real Estar_ Appraisers
Course 201, Society of Real Estate Appraisers
Course 2, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers
B=tCi:GF.OU?1J :_~"D EYPE'n.IE~CE ,
Ircorporatd James J. tiollica & Associates, Inc., February 1977
Independent Fee Appraiser and Peal Estate Broker, associated with tiason &
]yip"rse, January 1974 to present.
Appraiser Intern -Associated Consultants and"Appraisers,"inc., June 1972
through 2:ove~ber 197:,.
Construct*.on, Deffett Coapanies, Ohio (during college)
tL~1JOR CLIE\fiS SE^.~'ED
Aspen Hi~illands S':i Corp.
Aspan Industrial Banl:
Aspen Savings and Loan Association
Bank of Aspen
Banc of Sno;-lass
City of Aspan
County of Pitkin
First ATational Bark of Aspen
First F:estcrn ?fortga~e Corp.
Holland & Hart, Attorneys
tlajestic Savings and Loan
Oates, Austin, ?IcGrath, Attorneys
TYPES OF F~:OPr.RTY AP2^AISED
Col,raercial Lodges
Cor•.doriniuma Ranches
Fi'~'OSES 0?' APP iISAI,S
6cElu isition E]:Chai:;,c
CC11`.Ci E9lna tlOn Insurance
Fa Late Pla:uliu Liquidation
tiortgnl;~
Fesidential
Vacant .Land
Partition
Sales
Tax Planning
f.,..,
~ i,...•••,3 James J. A9o!licn, ft.f.1.
A{'.`~d:+er inn'.. ~Idnt
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 Relocation,
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,
Finish 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, 1982
Oct. 1, 1982 - Dec. 31, 1982
Jan. 1, 1983 - Apr. 30, 1983
May 1, 1983 - July 31, 1983
EXHIBIT F
MAROLT RANCH
SITE IMPROVEMENT PERCENTAGE COMPLETION SCHEDULE
Item Time Period
1. Approval of Final Plat June 8, 1981
2. Advertise for Bids July 6, 1981
3. Anticipated Award of
Site Improvements
Contracts July 24, 1981
4. Notice to Proceed Aug. 1, 1981
5. Red Butte Cemetery
Pipeline Relocation Aug. 1 - Aug. 10, 1981
6. Construct .Temporary '
Marolt Ditch Aug. 1 - Aug. 10, 1981
7. Rough Grading, Free
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 &
Employee June 1 - July 31, 1982
Percentage of Guaranty,
Guaranty Release Date
11%, September 1981
3%, October 1981
31%, August 1982
EXHIBIT F
MAROLT RANCH
SITE IMPROVEMENT PERCENTAGE COMPLETION SCHEDULE (continued)
Item
Time Period
Percentage of Guaranty,
Guaranty Release Date
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
Aug. 1, 1982 - Aug. 31, 1982
Aug. 1, 1982 - Sep. 30, 1982
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
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 Relocation,
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,
Finish 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, 1982
Oct. 1, 1982 - Dec. 31, 1982
Jan. 1, 1983 - Apr. 30, 1983
May 1, 1983 - July 31, 1983
EXHIBIT A
L=GaL OESCRIPTI01!
A tract of land situated in Lots 9, 10, 13, SlJ 1/4 S:•1 1/4 Sec. 12, T105,
t?361J, 6th P.hf. and Lot 5 and t!W 1/4 t{W 1/4 Sec. 13, TIOS, P.35W, 6th P.11,
described as follows:
Beginning at a point, in the center line of Castle Creek (the SW co r.
Lot 2 Adams Subdivision),
thence tJ14°40'E 149.97 ft. to corner ;13 Holden Tract,
thence tl14°35'W 172.00 ft. to corner '14 Holden Tract,
thence tl37°50'W 314.72 ft. to corner ~1 Holden Tract, being identical
with corner ~4 tlorth Texas t4i11 Site P1S ;.3288,
thence t{54°45'lJ 84.00 ft. to the center line of Castle Creek,
thence tt26°00'W 94.00 ft. along the center line of Castle Creek,
thence t128'10'E 294.00 ft. along the center line of Castle Creek, -
thence ti20°05'E 115.40 ft. along the center line of Castle Creek,
*_o the South Right-of-4lay line of Colorado Highway tlo. 82,
thence t{75°03':1 360.26 ft. along the South Right-of-4lay line of Colo-
rado Highway Ho. 82,
thence 63.52 ft. along the arc of a curve to the left (radius of 905.00
ft, chord bears tl77°C3'38"l•! 63.51 ft.),
:hence S10°51':1 90.71 ft.,
thence S21°47'4!282.37 ft.,
thence S25°23'lJ 715.83 ft. to a point being 1794.68 ft. 541°52'15" E,
from the 1954 Brass Cap marking the W 1/4 corner of Sec. 12,
thence S18°14'W 1107.77 ft. to the PJorth Right-of-:Jay line of Castle
Creek Road,
thence S40°00'E 114.98~ft. along the 1Jorth Right-of-Way line of .
Castle Creek P.oad,
thence S53°34'E 124.61 ft. along the tlorth Right-of !day line of Castle
Creek P.oad,
thence tl31°56'E 254.45 ft.,
-~ thence S06°42'E 308.07 ft.,
thence 1190°00':J 9.11 ft.,
thence S33°00'E 61.65 ft..
thence 1163°35'E 280.15 ft. to line 1-2Short Li;~e t1S =4610,
a,
thence p16°00'W 44.62 ft. along line 1-2 to corner tlo. l Short
Lime MS 14610,
thence tl74°00'E 236.35 ft. along line 1-4 of Short Lime P15 ;4610,
thence tJ90°00':•! 74.04 ft.,
thence tl19°12'E 117.35 ft.,
thence 1142°30'W 329.09 ft.,
thence ;102°43'.•1 221.35 ft.,
thence 1116°44'E 139.78 ft.,
thence S70°12'E 120.00 ft.,
thence N36°45'E 268.63 ft. to the most tlortherly corner of property
described in Book 196 at Page 376, Pitkin County Records,
thence tI60°46'11 190 feet to the center line of Castle CreeY.,
thence along the center line of Castle Creek the follo~.~ing courses:
tl12°33'29"l•I 154.72 feet,
thence tJ43°00'E 30.00 feet,
thence it85°30'E 83.00 feet,
thence 1185°00'E 150.00 feet,
thence S68°00'E 30.00 feet,
thence S77°00'E 110.00 feet,
thence t;81°19'21"E 40.17 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
Building 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 Monthly
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.
Ameniti
eso The Granary - storage & Clubhouse
amenitie
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 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
~~,
EXHIBIT D
MAROLT RANCH
IMPROVEMENT RESPONSIBILITY SCHEDULE
Item
Sewer
Existing Manhole
to Manhole #8
Manholes
8" Sewer
Manhole #8 to
Manhole #11
Manholes
8" Sewer
Employee Housing Free Market Units
Total Cost Percentaoe Share & Cost Percentage Share & Cost
$ 9,600.00
34,925.00
3,600.00
8,900.00
$ 6,720.00 (70%)
24,447.50 (70%)
$ 2,880.00 (30%)
10,477.50 (30%)
3,600.00 (100%)
8,900.00 (100%)
11,550.00
$37,407.50
$ 4,924.50 (30%)
750.00 (30%)
Manhole #8 to #12 &
Manhole #12 to #17
Manholes 7,200.00
8" Sewer 36,325.00
Sewer Tap 14,250.00
Connections
Sewer Totals $114,800.00
Water
Interconnection
12" D.I.Pipe $ 16,415.00
12" Valve 2,500.00
7,200.00 (100%)
36,325.00 (100%)
2,700.00
$77,392.50
$11,490.50 (70%)
1,750.00 (70%)
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%)
1'~" 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 14,875.00
8" Valve 500.00
Fire Hydrants 5,250.00
2" Water Service 3,000.00
14,875.00 (100%)
500.00 (100%)
5,250.00 (100%)
3,000.00 (100%)
Water Totals $122,506.00 $36,865.50
$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 Relocati on
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
$ 3,225.00 (100%)
2,000.00 (100%)
2,250.00 (100%)
8,000.00 (100%)
- $ 4,320.00 (100%)
- 1,320.00 (100%)
- 5,000.00 (100%)
- .9,600.00 (100%)
1,500.00 (100%)
1,500.00 (100%)
735.00 (70%)
1,800.00 (100%)
$18,010.00
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+p0
Asphalt $15,000.00
Base Course 13,300.00
Excavation &
Embankment 18,600.00
Traffic Light
Controls 30,000.00
Concrete 1,000.00
Painting 1,500.00
Traffic Control 3,000.00
(during construction)
Irrigation Oitch
Relocation 990.00
Drainage Swales 800.00
18" C.M.P. 5,075.00
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
$10,500.00 (70%) $ 4,500.00 (30%)
9,310.00 (70%) 3,990.00 (30%)
13,020.00 (70%) 5,580.00 (30%)
21,000.00 (70%) 9,000.00 (30%)
700.00 (70%) 300.00 (30%)
1,050.00 (70%) 450.00 (30%)
2,100.00 (70%) 900.00 (30%)
693.00 (70%) 297.00 (30%)
560.00 (70%) 240.00 (30%)
3,552.50 (70%) 1,522.50 (30%)
$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)
Employee Housing Free Market Units
Item Total Cost Percentage Share & Cost Percentage Share & Cost
Employee Housing
Drive & Parking
Station 7+66 to End
Asphalt $42,000.00
Base Course 28,420.00
Excavation &
Embankment 45,000.00
Subtotal $115,420.00
Free Market Drives,
Parking & Access Loop
Asphalt $ 35,280.00
Base Course 24,696.00
Excavation &
Embankment 38,000.00
Subtotal $ 97,976.00
Roads Total $385,641.00
Electric
Relocate overhead $ 8,250.00
lines in free
market area
Relocate overhead 2,250.00
lines in employee
area
Underground service 40,000.00
to free market units
Underground service 40,000.00
to employee units
Electric Total $ 90,500.00
Telephone
Relocate existing $ 8,800.00
overhead lines
Telephone Total $ 8,800.00
Natural Gas
2" Steel main $ 8,240.00
3/4" Service con-
nections 2,700.00
Natural Gas Total $ 10,940.00
$42,000.00 (100%)
28,420.00 (100%)
45,000.00 (100%)
$115,420.00
$252,413.50
$ 2,250.00 (100%)
40,000.00 (100%)
$ 42,250.00
$ 4,400.00 (50%)
$ 4,400.00
$ 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 D
$225,000.00 $ 75,000.00
MAROLT RANCH
IMPROVEMENT RESPONSIBILITY SCHEDULE (continued)
Employee Housing Free Market Units
Item Total Cost Percentage Share & Cost Percentaoe Share & Cost
Landscaping
Fine grading,
trees & plants,
site accessories
SITE IMPROVEMENTS
TOTALS $1,047,082.00
SITE IMPROVEMENTS
TOTALS (ROUNDED) $1,050,000.00
-x~,
$150,000.00
$539,131.50 $507,950.50
$540,000.00 $510,000.00
EXHIBIT f
~•
MAROLT RANCH
SITE IMPROVEMENT PERCENTAGE COMPLETION SCHEDULE
Percentage of Guaranty,
Item Time Period Guaranty Release Date
1. Approval of Final Plat June 8, 1981 -
2. Advertise for Bids July 6, 1981 -
3. Anticipated Award of
Site Improvements
Contracts July 24, 1981 _
4. Notice to Proceed Aug. 1, 1981 _
5. Red Butte Cemetery
Pipeline Relocation Aug. 1 - Aug. 10, 1981
6. Construct Temporary
Marolt Ditch Aug. 1 - Aug. 10, 1981
7. Rough Grading, Free
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%, September 1981
11. Holden Ditch Relocation Sep. 1 - Oct. 1, 1981 ~ 3%, October 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 8 Water May 15 - July 31, 1982
15. Installation of Underground 31%, August 1982
Electric, Telephone, TV,
Gas Lines, Free Market &
Employee June 1 - July 31, 1982
EXIIIBIT F
MAROLT RANCH
SITE IMPROVEMENT PERCENTAGE COMPLETION SCHEDULE
Item Time Period
1. Approval of Final Plat June 8, 1981
2. Advertise for Bids July 6, 1981
3. Anticipated Award of
Site Improvements
Contracts July 24, 1981
4. Notice to Proceed Aug. 1, 1981
5. Red Butte Cemetery
Pipeline Relocation Aug. 1 - Aug. 10, 1981
6. Construct .Temporary '
Marolt Ditch Aug. 1 - Aug. 10, 1981
7. Rough Grading, Free
Idarket & Employee Aug. 1 - Sep. 30, 1981
8. Holden Road Rough
Grading & Placement of
24' 4lidth 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
13. Installation of Sewer &
Water, Employee
14. Installation of Remainder
of Sewer & Water
May 1 - June 30, 1982
Apr. 15 - May 31, 1982
May 15 - July 31, 1982
15. Installation of Underground
Electric, Telephone, TV,
Gas Lines, Free Ftarket &
Employee June 1 - July 31, 1982
Percentage of Guaranty,
Guaranty Release Date
11°~, September 1981
3%, October 1981
31%, August 1982
~.~..~..
~" EXHIBIT F ^"'~
~.~ w
MAROLT RANCH
SITE IMPROVEMENT PERCENTAGE COMPLETION SCHEDULE (continued) ,
Percentage of Guaranty,
Item Time Period Guaranty Release Date
16. Finish Grading &
Drainage Improvements, ,
Free Market Phase 1 &
Employee Aug. 1, 1982 - Aug. 31, 1982
17. Intersection Work Aug. 1, 1982 - Sep. 30, 1982
18. Finish Grading, Base 30%, October 1982
Course Placement & Paving,
Free Market Phase i &
Employee Aug. 1, 1982 - Sep. 30, 1982
19. Landscaping, Free Market 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%, August 1983
Free Market Phase 2 June 1, 1983 - July 31, 1983
EXIIIBIT fir- Additional. Parking Schedule
~~ ~~ ;~ ~
_ _
ti ~i r
' i '.t'. .' -..c- .. '- -- 8 i~~' ~;
~ ~ -j ,~ 1.=' .. ...:.. ..... , I! I ~ ~' .
•~
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.
MAROLT
rv.. ua..eo
ADDITIONAL PARKING
FREE MARKET CLUSTER
~, , `~
V A
i ; \~~
_~ ~ ~ . t _5
!fl L'
~ y <v
a) o ~~;
'{) {7 s:
s' @ i
1.4~ } p A
~ , C_'
i!R t. /'
1 ~.,,
is ~Q
~ ~~:
4'.
,~~~
s
'~.,.
w~
w~~
H {~ a0
W U1
O ~ O
z~ m
Hrtla
,Z C7 O
F7-C~ ~
~l ~ U
ao
o
z~~
w o
a o R,
U] M W
y' H Q,'
8
^~ ~ ~
~C ddy~
~ej ~ CJ Z C p
~.~~~~d
~ ~ e ~~A
C
l:.I
it ^.J
t:J
,'' 111
~`' ~7
aJ n
9
1If J~,
~ r l:?
I ' ;o ~r
:d,'\~/~
sue- _~
/~
~ `~''J
C C/
~" p ~l «
bp ma+e ~do
~
j ~ ~~
~
~
~
~ ~ ~ CJ
~~
~ ~ Q
W
ti . ~ ~
y
w
U
H
G,
GW
z
H
z
a awi
a ~
~ ~
'J N H
z a~iroCO
H {], C7
E~,~O
H 1~ U
aw p
moo
z cn a
w ~ ~
a+~o a
U1 •.-I M UI
FC U r-I r•C
~,
_r
p
~..
C
rt
r•
:f'
C
O
O
H
E
W
E
.. i:.i:.. _.. ~~` _.
Z. .. z ~~:~ ~ G
'% ~ /~~'~
~~ ~~ ~ ,e~~~ ~~
i i
~ , , ~~~
¢ ~-~ 1
~~ , ,,
,/5 . ~ -~~~.1r, ,~ .~
~~
~~ l
~/~- ~/,
/'~
----
„ - -:~-
~~ ~ ~ ~ L~~~ ~~~
o~ . ~ .~~ ~ ,~ __--
f/ / ~
~~~
J~~ L /" S n
~~
,~
~/C' _ a' 1~~~~ ~~/3, i~d~ ~
~ r~ ~ ~
,,
` /~
~~ ~% ~ ~l
~ (/X'~ /7
~~ , ~ ~2JCa ~ ~~~~
~~
/ i
/~ /mil, _ // /~~°~~ ~ I,~-/ ~ Z
~ /
~ ~ ~~
~< _ ~ <~
~i ~l~`3d l~y.~~7~1-~c~ra~,~ co~
// ~T //'~G~~~ ,~ ;Gv~zrc% it
~.
~~ ~ _ ~ ~y
,GGL~7 ~~~ ~ s f ~ ~ ~~~ ~~
G~iraGg'
s
~~~~~~ti~ G~,~'~ti2~-~ ~ ~
~~ ~
A, ~~.
r.
L.
~!
~j
,~,f ~;>„
~~.~~~~
n
e
0
design workshop, inc.
415 s. spring
aspen, co 81611
303-925-8354
MEMO TO: Marolt Ranch Team
FROM: Carlie Wood, Design Workshop
DATE: March 13, 1981
Attached is a summary list of requirements to satisfy
Final Plat Submission. Please review.
community development land planning landscape architecture
MAROLT RANCH
,.
Requirements for Final Plat ~~
Mapping Scale B~
Plat (24" x 36")
(Subdivision)
a. Index Sheet ED/DWI
b. Dimension Plan 1"=50'
. Lots
. Boundaries
. Easements
. Dedicated Lands
. Street Names
. Adjoining Properties
. Total Acreage
. Survey Monuments
. Bearing Determination
. Certification by Surveyor and
Attorney or Title Insurer
. Plat Approval Certificates by City
Engineer, Parks, Planning Commission
. Certificate of Filing
c. Engineering Plans & Specifications 1"= 20' ED
. Water
. Sewer
. Streets and Related Improvements
. Trails
. Storm Drainage Improvements
d. Landscape Plan 1" = 50' DWI
. Location, Size, Type of Landscape
Features
(PUD)
e. Preliminary Evaluation and Perspective Otis
Drawings of Proposed Structures
Text
(Subdivision)
1. Copies of Monument Records ED
2. Agreements with Utility or Ditch Companies Mulligan
3. Subdivision Agreement Mulligan
(PUD)
4. Development Schedule Otis
. Construction Phasing
~,i,,
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
Engineering Department
Parks Department
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
RE: Marolt Ranch PUD and Final Plat Subdivision Submission
DATE: April 13, 1981
The attached application is a PUD and final plat subdivision submission by
Marolt Ranch (previously referred to as Castlewood/Ileadgate). They are
requesting a rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay and an exemption from
GMP under the 70:30 provision, The property known as the Marolt Annexation
is located immediately west of Castle Creek and soutfi of Highway 82. This
item is scheduled for review at City Council on tray 11, 1981; please
review this application and return any comments to the Planning Office by
Tuesday, April 28. Thank you,
MEMORANDUM
T0: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
RE: Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual PUO/Subdivision Review
DATE: July 18, 1980
On January 28, 1980, City Council approved the annexation and rezoning of an
approximately 35 acre parcel of land which is generally referred to as the
Opal Marolt property. Based on the recommendations of the Planning Office
and the Planning and Zoning Commission, the property was rezoned from AF-2
to R-15A/PUD/SPA, with the additional stipulation that at least 70 percent
of the proposed development consist of deed restricted employee units.
To refresh your memory, R-15A was recommended as the underlying zone district
in view of surrounding zoning patterns and to ensure consistency with previous .
annexation policy (R-15A requires 50% deed restricted un ts). This zone
classification would allow the development of approximately 150 dwelling
units in a multi-family configuration if no reduction in density were
required for such factors as existing right-of-way, easements, steep slopes,
etc. However, given topographical constraints, visual vulnerability and
unique open space characteristics of the property, mandatory PUD designation
was also recommended to provide sufficient flexibility in site design and
as an appropriate project review mechanism. The application of mandatory
PUD density reduction criteria (i.e., slope reduction, land under water and
existing easements) to the Marolt property resulted in a net developable land
area of approximately 20 to 25 acres, which in turn would allow the development
of approximately 90 to 110 dwelling units, a density which the Planning Office
generally felt to be appropriate for the project. The applicant, however, con-
tended that preliminary financial investigations necessitated a minimum den-
sity of at least 125 units in order to produce an economically viable project.
In the interest of compromise, the Planning Office and City Council reluc-
tantly agreed to this figure as a maximum permissible density with the under-
standing that the appropriateness of 125 dwelling units would be determined
via the PUD review process based on siting considerations. In the absence of
Ordinance #16, Series 1980 (Residential Bonus), SPA designation was recom-
mended to accommodate the requested increase in density and to permit mixed
use development (i.e., townhouses), two requirements which could not be accom-
plished under existing PUD regulations. With the subsequent adoption of
Ordinance 16, however, any request on behalf of the applicant for density in
excess of the approximately 90 to 1t0 units permitted by the underlying zone
will require rezoning to R-15A/PUD/Residential Bonus, a step which should
occur at the preliminary and final plat stages of the PUD/subdivision review
process in the event an increase in allowable density is deemed appropriate.
The attached application for conceptual PUD/subdivision review represents
the first step in the development process following annexation and rezoning.
Subsequent steps will involve: 1) Council conceptual PUD/subdivision review,
2) Planning and Zoning Commission preliminary plat review, 3) special review
by P & Z for purposes of GMP exemption under the 70:30 provision, 4) P & Z
approval for rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay in the event increased
density is approved, and 5) Council approval of final PUD/subdivision plat,
70:30 special. review and Residential Bonus rezoning. In addition, subdivision
exception review for purposes of condominiumization will most likely be
required to enable the sale of individual dwelling units. Special review,
subdivision exception, and overlay approval will be consolidated with the
preliminary and final plat review in order to streamline the process.
Proposed Development Concept
The property in question, which is currently owned by Marolt Associates,
is subject to a contract of sale to a development group, Castlewood
Development Company, of which the Marolt family members are the major
.-.~ Memo: Ca alewood/He:' "ate
July 18, 1960
Page Two
shareholders. This transaction is intended to allow Marolt Associates to
secure a development partner who can provide development management and
consulting functions for the project. The attached application for concep-
tual PUD/subdivison approval was submitted by Marolt Associates on June 18,
1980. In response to various problems identified by the Engineering Depart-
ment, the Planning Office and the Open Space Advisory Board with respect to
the proposed development plan, informal work sessions were held with the
applicants, OSAB, City staff and, subsequently, the Planning and Zoning Com-
mission in an attempt to resolve potential issues prior to formal P & Z
review. Specific design parameters resulting from these sessions were as
follows:
1. Vehicular access to free market and employee housing sites should be
via the proposed extension of Cemetery Lane. No vehicular access
from the project to Castle,Creek Road should be provided.
2. Open space should not be fragmented; rather, a significant parcel
should be provided, visually,-as well as physically contiguous to
both the Thomas porperty and the Castle Creek corridor.
3: The development of employee housing should be confined to the area north
of the proposed Main Street extension and south of Highway 82. P & Z
further indicated a preference for restricting development to the
area east of the proposed Cemetery Lane.
The applicants have revised their original submission to incorporate all of
the above criteria with the exception of restricting employee housing devel-
opment to the east of Cemetery Lane. The revised development plan (Alterna-
tive #2) and the original plan (Alternative #1)are contained in the attached
material.
For the purposes of discussion, the Marolt property and revised development
plan can be subdivided into four principal areas or parcels. Parcel #1,
located between Highway 82 and the proposed Main Street extension, contains
approximately three acres of Marolt property and an unspecified amount of
the adjacent Thomas parcel. As shown on Alternative #2, 88 employee housing
units are proposed for this area with the majority located east of the pro-
posed Cemetery Lane extension. The development of the area west of Cemetery
Lane contemplates an open space land trade or rights-of-way dedication in
exchange for use of a portion of the Thomas property. Parcel #2 contains
approximately six acres and is located immediately south of the Main Street
extension. This parcel includes the proposed Midland right-of-way alignment
and is earmarked for the development of 37 free market units and their asso-
ciated amenity package. Parcel #3, which totals eleven acres, consists of
the remaining pasture land south of Parcel #2 and is reserved as open space.
Finally, Parcel #4, which is geographically separated from the majority of
the Marolt property by Castle Creek, totals approximately two acres and is
being considered for possible sale to contiguous land owners. The remainder
of the project's approximately 35 acres consists of portions of Castle Creek
and a steeply sloping strip of land which parallels the Creek along its
western boundary.
Architecturally, the employee units are envisioned as two story, gable roofed
buildings with common entryways, exterior stairwells and wood siding. The
free market units are envisioned with flat roofs and wood siding. The
proposed employee units mix consists of 14.1-bedroom, 65.2-bedroom, 9'3-bedroom
units, while the free market portion consists of 12.2-bedroom, 20.3-bedroom,
and 5.4-bedroom units. One parking space per bedroom, or a total of 171
spaces, will be provided for the employee units, while two spaces per dwelling
unit, or 74 parking spaces, are proposed for the free market portion of the
project.
With respect to ownership intentions, the applicants are considering split-
ting off the employee site and selling it to a City Housing Authority with
a lease-back and development agreement for the improvements with the owner/
developer. The employee units will either be sold i~nediately upon comple-
tion or lease for an interim period. The free market units will be developed
-• Memo: Castlewood/He }ate
July 18, 1980
Page Three
for individual sale and possible short-term rental through a common manage-
ment structure. To ensure this flexibility, the applicants are requesting
exemption the six-month minimum lease restrictions of the City's condo-
miniumization regulations. The applicants have agreed to phase construction
of the employee units consistent with the development of the free market
portion of the project.
Planning Office Comments
The Planning Office concurs with the design parameters which have evolved
as a result of numerous work sessions with the applicants, Open Space
Advisory Board, the Engineering Department and the Planning and Zoning Com-
mission. The concepts of clustering development on the northern portion
of the property; limiting vehicular access to Highway 82 and the proposed
Main Street extension via Cemetery Lane; and maintaining a significant,
well-defined open space area which is both physically and visually linked
to the Thomas property go a long way toward balancing the objectives of all
concerned. The location of development as proposed provided convenient
access to utilities, bus routes and bikeways, as well as potentially reduces
site development costs, an essential factor to the construction of affordable
employee housing. In addition, the utilization of that portion of Parcel #1
located east of the proposed Cemetery Lane extension for employee housing takes
~~ • ~~
advantage of a potentially isolated parcel resulting from the extension of
Main Street while the confinement of free market units to the area above
the Castle Creek embankment reduces visual impact on neighboring property
owners. Finally, the proposed development configuration is basically con-
sistent with the adopted CSU "land suitability" and "visual vulnerability"
maps, as well as the Castle Creek Greenway identified in the 1973 Aspen Land
Use Plan.
The Planning Office, however, concurs with P & Z in its recommendation that the
development of employee housing be restricted to the area east of the Cemetery
Lane extension to maintain open space vistas to the golf course and to reduce
the scale and impact of development around the new "entrance" to Aspen. The
applicants argue that the resulting employee site is inadequate in size to
accommodate the requested 88 dwelling units and associated parking require-
ments and precludes the consideration of alternative access points to
the free market parcel. In response, it is the opinion of the Planning Office,
consistent with agreements made at time of annexation, that open space and
transportation constraints should dictate development envelopes and that
resulting density should be determined by sound site planning principles. An
attempt to force-fit a predetermined density in violation of overall develop-
ment objectives and constraints represents at best a backwards approach. To
maximize the number of employee units which the applicants could develop on
the recommended site, and thus maximize the number of free market units under
the 70:30 GMP exemption provision, the Planning Office would recommend that
the City cooperate with the applicants in determining the most favorable
alignment of the Cemretery Lane extension so as to provide the largest possible
.development envelope. The slight reduction (approximately 15 to ZO percent)
in the number of employee units that would occur and the concurrent reduction
in free market units would result in a probable overall project density con-
sistent with the underlying zone classification, as well as remove the need
for Residential Bonus rezoning. The resulting project density would most
likely still exceed that which would be allowed were the project to be
developed after the proposed transportation improvements were in place (after
reduction in gross site area for new rights-of-way).
With respect to the applicants' request for exemption from the six-month
minimum lease restrictions of Section 20-22, which are applicable to all
condominiuinizations, the Planning Office offers the following comments:
1. The 1973 update of the Aspen Land Use Plan established the base of
Aspen Mountain and area south of Main Street as the appropriate
location for short-term, tourist-oriented development. The City
was subsequently rezoned in 1975 to facilitate implementation of
the 1973 land use policies, while Section 24-3.7(0) "Rental
Limitations" and Section 20-22 "Condorniniumization" were later
Memo: CastlewoociHe~ late
July 18, 1980
Page Four
adopted to supplement and strengthen zone district regulations. The
intent of Section 24-3.7(0) was to prohibit short-term utilization
of multi-family housing in inappropriate zones, specifically the
R/MF, 0 and C-1 zone districts. A proposal initiated by Council
more recently to extend this regulation to the remaining resi-
dential zones, however, was not adopted. The argument then was
that these zones were never intended for short-term use and the
proposal would make explicit that which was implicit in the City's
updated land use and zone districts policies. Similarly, Section
20-22 was intended primarily to mitigate the depletion of employee
housing resulting from the condominiumization of existing dwelling
units. However, the application of the regulation to both existing
and new construction serves to supplement Section 24-3.7(0) by res-
- tricting short-term use and prohibiting the intrusion of tourist,
.high-turnover usage in non-tourist oriented areas.
2. The applicants argue that exemption from the six-month minimum lease
restriction is consistent with the spirit of Council's relaxation of
GMP policy in order to stimulate employee housing development. While
the Planning Office has enthusiastically supported such code amend-
- ments as the 50:50 Residential Bonus and 70:30 GMP Exemption, we
have never supported a relaxation of our land use policies. To
permit short-term use of a residential project in this location would
be inconsistent with the 1973 Land Use Plan, the 1975 rezoning and
all subsequent attempts to strengthen these policies.
3. The applicant argues that "so long as additional inventory is created
for the local market, those free market units created ... should not
be limited ... but would provide a reasonable and non-excessive addi-
tion to the tourist accommodations to reflect annual demand." In
response, we would argue that the appropriate rate of tourist accom-
modations development has already been determined and is strictly
regulated by the Growth Management Plan.
4. No mention of anticipated short-term utilization occurred at the time
of annexation or rezoning. Had the applicants indicated their
intentions, the Planning Office would have strenuously objected and
recommended that any annexation agreement preclude such usage.
5. While the City Attorney concurs with the Planning Office's position
with respect to short-term use, the Housing Director is of the
opinion that no restriction should be attached to the free market
units which would limit their marketability or affect their financing.
The Housing Director's memorandum is attached for your review.
Summarizing, the Planning Office strongly feels that the City's residential
zones should be limited to permanent residential usage and not for short-term
higher impact, tourist-oriented utilization. This policy is implicit in the
1973 Land Use update, the 1975 rezoning and in all subsequent rental limi-
tation and condominiumization legislation adopted by the City. While pro-
posed amendments to Section 24-3.7(0) for purposes of strengthening the
City's land use policies were not adopted, Council support for the concept is
evidenced by the application of six-month minimum lease restrictions to all
condominiumizations regardless of zone district. There exists both legis-
lative restrictions against short-term utilization in the R/MF, 0 and C-1
districts, as well as tacit approval for restricting such usage in the
City's remaining residential zones.
The issues of development west of the proposed Cemetery Lane extension,
overall project density and short-term utilization of free market units
represent the major concerns of the Planning Office with regard to the
aplicants' conceptual PUD/subdivision submission. Additional issues, however,
which we would like P & Z to consider, and which we are prepared to discuss
in greater detail at your July 22, 1980 meeting include:
Merno; Cast',?wooA;Hea'gate
' July la, 19,0
Page Five
1. The desirability of restricting development in the proposed Midland
right-of-way,
Exemption of the one parking space per bedroom requirement for the
free market portion of the project,
Right-of-way alignment and dedication of Cemetery Lane/Castle Creek
Road extension,
4. Trails and open space dedication as required by the subdivision regu-
lations,
The possibility of a land trade fora portion of the Thomas parcel
located between the applicants' western property line and the proposed
Cemetery Lane extension, and
6. The question of separate sale of Parcel #4.
Recommendation
In summary, the Planning Office recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Commission informally approve the general development concept presented
by the applicants, withholding formal conceptual PUD/subdivision approval
pending resubmission of a revised site plan. The revised plan should limit
employee housing and associated parking to the area east of a mutually
agreed-upon Cemetery Lane alignment between Highway 82 and the proposed Main
Street extension. The conceptual submission narrative should also be revised
to reflect resulting development densities and to incorporate all other
revisions necessitated by the Commission's July 22, 1980 review. Final
disposition by P & Z should be predicated upon the extent to which the
applicants satisfactorily comply with these conditions. In the event the
applicants feel that compliance is untenable, then any generalized concep-
tual approval by P & Z should include the comments outlined above. In view
of the fact that decisions with regard to density were postponed at the
time of annexation until PUD review, the Planning Office feels that it
would be remiss if these questions were not satisfactorily resolved at this
time. Any recommendation to Council should carry a specific recommendation
with respect to the appropriate density for this project. Should P & Z fail
to specifically ad~r~ess density at this time, no further opportunity would be
available to the Commission until the preliminary plat stage of review.
F
~ .Cf
~' €
~ u
i' F t ~, `7 j se .k 4:'
~ R~
~
~ C a~
Q
~
L
pp~~
rfyy {
~ /
w®
S^
ry
~
rlr•r1ot:Ar~no~t
DATP: August 2U, 19II0
TO City Council
~ `"~~ ~~L
PROEt r Ronk Stock ~~
tie: Thomas Property
I have reviewed the deeds transferring the Thomas Property
to the City of Aspen. There are no limitations within these deeds
on use, sale, or transfer.
The property was zoned by Ordinance tdo. 91, Series of 1975,
to "C" - Conservation. The intention of said zone, according to
the Code, is to provide areas cf low density development to en-
Nance pui~lic recreation, conserve natural resources, encourage the
production of crops and animals, and to contain and structure
urban development. The per;aitted uses include single family
dwellings, public elementary and senior high schools, hospital.,
church, park playfield, playground and golf course, riding stable,
cemetary, croT> production, orchards; nurseries, flower production
and forest land, pasture and grazing land, dairy, fishery, animal
production, husbandry services and other farm and agricultural
uses, a railroad right-of-way but not a railway yard. The condi-
tional uses include guest ranches, recreational uses including
riding academy, stable or_ club, country club and golf course, ski
lift and other sl:i facilities, sewage disposal area, water treat-
nrent Filant and storage reservoir, electric substations and gas
regulation stations.
The future use of the Thomas Property has been heavily
debated by the City Council. In 1973, the City Council approved
the utilization of the Therms Property for the keeping of horses,
and in 1974, a motion was carried recornmendiny to the City I4anager
that the area he used for pasture. A councilmember, later in the
same year, requested further action to preserve the Thomas Pro-
perty as pasture land but no action was taken. In 1974, the. Ruy-
yerf_est garues were held on the Thomas Property but concern was
voiced by tine Council that this would set a precedent for use.
Subsequently, the property has been used by the Hang Gliding Asso-
ciation as a landing location. At the time of this approval, the
members of the Council indicated that they were not interested in
seeing any developed recreation. Consistent with this policy, tl.e
Council has turned doc~n a request to use the property for a race
track.
-,
.,
Memo to City Council
August 20, 19£30
Page 2
Discussions during of tyre anneratioh of the property centered
on the question of use. It was L>ointcd out that the property was
not purchased solely for open space but also for some form of_
transY%ortation use as well. When considering Ordinance No. 91,
the Council was told that the "C" - Conservation zone providec] for
active 'recreational uses and that highway relocation was not
specifically excluded. One councilmernber had misgivings about the
zoning and desired an open space zone. however,. another council-
member said that such zoning would be too restrictive.
FUrJDS USED FOR PCiRCifASE
The original Thomas Property purchase of 1972 was financed by
bonds and payable from the Gth gentry land fund. The Midland
Riyirt-of-way was purchased with 7ti~ penny transportation funds.
These funds limit the use of property.
The 6th penny land fund is restricted and earmarked for the
purposes of "land acquisition including open space and the con-
struction of capital improvements for municipal purposes". As a
result land purchased with 6th penny funds may only be used for
par)c; open space,. recreational uses and as sites for the construc-
tion of municipal facilities. The 7th penny transportation fund
is restricted and earraarY,ed for the purposes of "land acquisition
and the construction of capital improvements". These uses have
been further limited by the adoption of Resolution ;JO. 19, Series
of 1972, crherein the Council pledged that all 7th penny revenues
would be used to implement tyre Aspen Area Transportation Pian.
Land purchased with 7th penny funds may only be used for transpor-
tation facilities including, but not limited to, streets, parking
lots, parking structures, terminals, etc.
The limitations on use may be removed by repayment to the 6th
and 7th penny funds of the cost of acquisition. The limitations
may be modified by either Council action to repeal or amend Reso-
lution No. 19 or by the electorate to amend the sales tax ordin-
ances.
RESTI2ICTIOIJ AS A RESULT OF ShLES TA1. REVEPdUE BONllI1dG
To acquire the Thomas Property, the City issued refunding and
acquisition sales tax revenue bonds in 1972 in the principal
amount of $915,000 caith the bonds payable from the proceeds of the
one percent (1~) municipal sales ta>; (6th penny) and, if neces-
sary, from the City share of the Pitkin County-wide sales tax. In
i97II, the 1972 revenue bonds were refunded. These 197E refunding
bonds contain a lllnltatlOtl on the sale of the Thomas Property.
Memo to city council
nugust 20, 19II0
Page 3
Specif i.cally:
~.~
"in the event ., that such a sale or other disposition of
any of the land or improvement should occur, any and all
monies received as proceeds from such sale or other disposi-
tion shall be deposited to the Bond Fund and applied. toward
the payment and redemption of the then outstanding Fonds at
the earliest possible date."
As a result of this condition, it is not possible to sell the
Thomas Property, or a portion of it, and reinvest the taoney
received into other open si>ace i~roperty. It is not clear what
limitation exists, if any, on the transfer or trade of the pro-
perty. If a trade is considered likely, I would recommend that we
obtain an opinion of bond counsel.
RE,4TRICTIU.JS IMPUSLD FY T11L CI'PY C1iARTER
Section 13-4 of the Charter of the City, restricts the sale
or trade of this property. This section provides titat the
"Council shall not sell, exchange or di:>pose of public utili-
ties, or either public buildings or real property currently
in use for public purposes without first obtaining the
approval of a majority of the electors voting thereon."
The Thomas Property is in use for a public purpose and may
not be sold or transferred without the vote of the public.
1:P] S = me
ro
Date ( ~ __ Time ~',t,Y_ ~
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
M _.- _ - ~ -
of APP ~ ~Q ~~ ,.'
Ph
TELEPHONED
MODERN SERVICE OFFICE SUPPLY CO. - FORM 1009
''r,
~ dudn r K,u,~
haw-J~
~h~~W~
~.-9 ~-.
s~ ~t w~~
n ,~ o. an ~.,. ~'40~ sa
J A~ _ ~ _ n~
d~~-
uYY V_Y _Y _Y _I i.
~J _
"
..1 ;
1
x. I ~I ~I a.(
~ i
:~YYYYY~~VV
. I
~~'
_ ~. :.. .
i iil
`~
trl
_~ ~.~ ~.4 1R~ (`~ ~._
. q'. (:~ lid V1r~
' Y
"' f;i ri
_~i _ CI ~
-i
.a _, /
i.
o Y~l /
\ ../
i
. ~~`.~/
N
~--I
u1 YD
/~ i N
/ i e
~
O t
/ ~
~ ~
~t
~/
N 3
7..
C
G~
1-~-
t-x
~~
6~
V y ,~ ~.
w r'I W ~+ P"I ~1
0 H O ~ ~ ,~
bA ~
~
~ rl
~
CA ~ \Q
r~+ rl
~
~ ~ ~ h
... ...
QI ~ ~
c r°~ ~"
a'-' ee
C M ~
a r, ee
r-i
N r1
t[f • t0
NCO
d
~ +~O
•1~ U
W
to N C
N
d
7 M Q
i
r
,..._
CITY OF ASPEN
MEMO FROM KATHLEEN McCORMICK
~1'~~
'~kltw~~
fio~~
~o Inc.
~~~ IM~i~1.Eot,
~2?a
$?.Sbg
t 2718
S1z~d.u.
MEMO FROM AUDREY N. STORBECK
-~pp
~ ~ 1~~~1~na~c~
~3a~~ ~ ~ a~~~, ~
<, ~ J'a~ ~~ , ~
P ~Ga -~o~dK~ ; K ~~ ~~~
~/Ylecvh~r~~~~
~~, alp 19,~a ~- ~~ tea, l9~'0
`~ ~Qon-F ~Kv~e-co c~ha,~- ~~ ~or, ba~`-
~ Fr~u~e ~t ~ ~~ ~Q~,
~~~~~~~~
_L C~ CUid~1 ~12g., ~
S ~~ ~ ~
Q~~~ ~~ ~e~ ~ -
CITY OF ASPEN
GYNECOLOGY and OBSTETRICS, M.D.'s P.C.
Milton S. Mark, M.D.
Michael R. Hirsch, M. D.
William J. Burke, M.D.
Grant L. Paulsen, M.D.
July 23, 1981
Mr. Sunny Vann
Aspen Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Mr. Vann:
1212 Pleasant Street, Suite 207
Des Moines, Iowa 50309
Telephone 288-7251
r. t r ' ~~+~~z~l
~~
~ u~ r r t
~'~
a. ~ 7 1~$1
a
--._.:
V~, ASPEN / PiTKIN CU.
~i PLANNING Ui=FICE
;„
Many thanks for seeing Audrey and me last week. We needed all
the information possible to try to reach a decision on whether or
not to sell our Villa.
At least for now we'va decided to wait. The house is perfect for
us and we were unable to find a satisfactory replacement.
The uncertainty of the time the road will be built, in addition to
the incredible prices added to our decision.
I would appreciate either a phone call or a note from you, if you
have additional information which might influence our decision.
Thanks again.
Sincerely,
Michael R. >rsch, M. D.
MRH:bjp
cc: David Belin
~~~ - 1
~ °'-~ ~ ~~
~...
-_~- ~;~I
\ o
h~
3
~~
~\ ,~ ,~,
r.. ~
~ ~,
`~
,~} J
~.
V_
f
`~.
~%
',';~
~/
v{
~ ,~
.~`
~~
}~
~~ ~
~,
~.
V-I ~
0
~Z
~ ~~
~N
e
~~~~:~
~~
II `~~ ``.
~; ~
i ~.~
x
~~?
~ ~
,~
L
w~ `~ ?.
~\
\i ;
~. V.
~. ~..
~, 5
~. ~~
5 J ~
\. (/1
1-'~
-f-
V~
S V
y `may
`- `.
rt
Y
~~
1 ~ ~
~~ ,_ __
~~
L
~~
may`) ~,, '~~.
L
J Y •~
~.
_~S \
\..l ~
s
~~ ~ ~
~N ~ 2
d ~~
~~
~~
~b ~ ~
~~
r
~ Jy ~a
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~~y ~ ~
~ ~ ~. (~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~
d ..J
~ J
~ ~ ~~~~~
~ ~ n ~~
o ~ ~ ~ ~~
° $ ~ ~l
~~
ti ~~ ~ ~
~~
~ ~ ~~~ ~
~ ~ ~
S a , ,~ ~
a
~~ ^~ ~
N ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ l
• d
d ~ ~ J~ I J
UrI~~S QE ~'S~~~1
-~ ~,~.i Cj,,,z ~x ~U ~5~
~Ci~i~~~I,~~a(3m~1~. (~~o:~~~,1 6~'~r~5u'~~~i~~ l~bl~,~
- ~~iL.<~ ~x 1222,
h~d^av3.a ~~~c~ ~ey~. 3711 Ft~stl,2~ ~, b~s1~, jX ~6Z31
^-'~~~vu5 Ca1~,ria~' ~ ~(azl~~i~^ ~f ~ ~t~r.m~' ~14~~
T uer~ El~s6°q 32~ ca Ps~,,~~
Fails ~~~ v~~9 . ~~3
~~
f~~~ Di ~l~lLn^~os, 2.~ 6 I2 ~~~~~1 wa~~ ~~ ~°i
ila p~rueSS
~oS2~ ~~, ~ U~IiIW~~ S~FCst'p Oll3 Pac.;('ir, #~
G,S~ ld C~l~~~„~ ~~~cl~, ti~~ t~' l~l~j
'' Bel\~e S~ ~c Il ~~
K~il1r~ ~ aaaxs ~x~ 21~(
+,~b~ E~~: 8~~~ ~ ~~~.~~~_~~M~n~~ sc~yZ
~1'~l~ Q-SG1,n~,~ J~'U,'68~'W ~1`j S ~'~~/~
I'~~~~a ~- Ka-~~~. tN~~L ~ ~i~ 4 3~k F C'-
~o~n Sws~w~, ~~ ~ w r~~~1
~` ~ 1a uJo.~l ~oX 4r~-
~~~l~y ~~ ~x ~ X33 ~~
_"'~."
Gzi le Ue.l Rya ~-1 N~ci ~ 2~ ~ Q,~
~j~3 ~.~ }~w~ ~Z lY~~~~ A`~ f~,~.
I~aulca~-o. C~~ ~{s~j
~<< a n~~.~~ (~1,~5~~ ~z~ ~ ~ ~ r~l~, ~b~~ ~~t~
(.1c~ ~te;I ~~ 3qi~- A~~
l~~ ~~ chrs~ (3~ 4~N~1
. ~, ,,,,,
.. ../
No. 27-80
CASELOAD SUMMARY SfIEET
City of Aspen
I. DATE SUBf4ITTED: 6/19L0 __ STAFF: Karen Smith Sunny Vann
2. APPLICANT: Marolt Associates
3. REPRESENTATIVE: Design Ftor[csh
Le4a1- James Mulligan Esq Suite 300 Equitable B1 dg , 73n.-t7th S rPPt_ nPnver 80202
4. PROJECT NAME: Castlewood~`Headgate P U D and Subdivision Applica inn
5. LOCATION: 35 4 acres directly west of Castle Creek and directly ~nnth of
SH 82 '
6. TYPE OF APPLICATION:
7. REFERRALS:
Rezoning
x P.U.D.
Special Review
Growth Management
HPC
Stream Margin
_8040 Greenline
View Plane
Conditional Use
Other
x Attorney
x Engineering Dept
Housing
_ ~+ia~ter
City Electric
x Subdivision
Exception
Exemption
__70:30
Residential Bonus
Sanitation District
fire Marshal
Parks
_ _Holy Cross Electric
Mountain Bell
School District
Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas
State Highway Dept.
Other
ies of aaplication to all P & Z members, referral to Open Space Advisory
Board.
8. REVIEiJ REQUIREMENTS:
4 VN/
9. DISPOSITION:
P & Z Approved Denied Date
Council Approved Denied Date
10. ROUTING:
Attorney Building Engineering Other
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ron Stock, City Attorney
Dan McArthur, City Engineer
Jim Breasted, Open Space Advisory Board
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
RE: Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual P.U.D. Application (Marolt Property)
DATE: June 19, 1980
The attached application requests conceptual approval for a P.U.D. plan
for the Castlewood/Headgate proposal, to be located on the Opal Marolt
property on Castle Creek. It is scheduled to be reviewed by the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission on July 8, 1980; acknowledging the short
time allowance, we request that you return your written comments concerning
this application no later than June 27, 1980. Thanks for your cooperation.
MEMORANDUM
T0: Ron Stock, Cit orney
r, City Engineer
Jim Breasted, Open Space Advisory Board
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
RE: Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual P.U.D. Application (Marolt Property)
DATE: June 19, 1980
The attached application requests conceptual approval for a P.U.D. plan
for the Castlewood/Headgate proposal, to be located on the Opal Marolt
property on Castle Creek. It is scheduled to be reviewed by the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission on July 8, 1980; acknowledging the short
time allowance, we request that you return your written comments concerning
this application no later than June 27, 1980. Thanks for your cooperation.
~-yo.r rsc-~ ,, ~~
MEMORANDUM
T0: Castlewood/Headgate Referrals
FROM: Sunny Vann
RE: Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual P.U.D. Submission
DATE: June 25, 1980
The attached sheet outlines additional information and corrections to the
Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual P.U.D. Submission, which you have already
received.
,.~
0
design worKshop, inc.
415 s. spring
MEMO TO: Sunny Vann aspen, co 81611
City of Aspen 303-925-8354
FROM: Carlie Wood
Design Workshop
RE: Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual Submission/Corrections
Title Page
Financial C & S Financial Technology, Inc.
Page 9 (not numbered)
Development Summary
Projected Population: Employee Portion 205 (1.2 people/bedroom)
Size of Units: (Free Market portion)
12 - 2 bedroom @ 1700 s.f.
20 - 3 bedroom @ 2000- s.f.
5 - 4 bedroom @ 2200 s.f.
Appendix
Statement of Intentions of Future Ownership:
(between Title Policy and Annexation Agreement)
2. Last line should read "condominium regime, and..."
community development land planning landscape architecture
Open Space Advisory Board
c/o Jim Breasted
Box 1730
Aspen, CO 81611
June 27, 1980
Sunny Vann
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual P.U.D. Application (Marolt Property)
Dear Sunny:
The Open Space Advisory Board held a special meeting on June 24, 1980
to consider your request for a referral comment on the Marolt property
conceptual P.U.D. application. With a quorum present, we arrived at
a consensus on the points which follow.
The key concern is to maintain contiguity with the City-owned Thomas
property. The primary factors affecting this contiguity are the north/
south road and the location of the dwelling unit clusters. This board
was more favorable to the tighter clustering of the free market units
on the old mill site than to the spread-out configuration of this P.U.D.
plan. At a minimum, we would prefer a tighter concentration of free-
market units which uses the slopes to shield visibility across the
Thomas property and leaves more than a token amount of meadowland
between the two dwelling unit clusters.
The group would prefer, however, to see the buildingssited in a linear
fashion along, and defining, the edge of the embankment above Castle
Creek. This squeezing of the structure toward the creek would leave a
larger, more integrated meadow area, particularly if the north/south
extension of Cemetery Lane to Castle Creek Road were shifted to the east.
In any case, the north/south road should be designed to integrate general
circulation from Highway 82 to Castle Creek and the specific circulation
for the Marolt project. It is not acceptable to cut the Thomas property
open space and to incidentally access this project.
The proposed access road does not appear to be feasible according to City
and County road design standards. The grade of the section from the
south edge of the meadow to the Castle Creek Road intersection would
be greater than ten percent.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment again so that open space con-
Sunny Vann
June 27, 1980
Page Two
o-.~
cerns are considered in the development of the important parcel of land.
Sincerely,
~~ `~
Jim Breasted, Chairman
Open Space Advisory Board
MEMORANDUM
T0:
FROM
RE:
DATE
Sunny Vann, Planning Office
Daniel A. McArthur, City Engineer
Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual PUD Application (Marolt Pro-
perty)
July 3, 1980
After reviewing the above conceptual PUD application and having made
a site inspection, the Engineering Department would like to recommend
the following.
I. Entry/Access Road to the Above Project
A. The developers shall provide one road for access to this new
development only.. This road should line up with the Cemetary
Lane stop lights.
B. As per the land use schematic as submitted the PM11 clusters,
we cannot allow the impact of an additional 200 people to the
Castle Creek Road and create further traffic problems at the
Castle Creek/Maroon Creek intersection.
C. Existing entry 'road into the Opal Marolt property as to date
will not be acceptable as an entry road for the new development
because of short turning movements between Highway 82 and the
Castle Creek bridge.
D. The alternate roadway which circulates traffic underneath
the new Main Street bridge is acceptable as an alternate route
to bypass Highway 82.
E. The PMH clustered units located on the southern part of the
new development shall have direct access to Highway 82 bypassing
' the free market units within the Marolt property. The PMH units
and the free market units shall use a common road to enter High-
way 82 at the Cemetary Lane stoplights.
F. The developer should grant the City of Aspen a 100' right-
of-way easement aI~•,~g the western property line of the Marolt
property for future alignment of a Castle Creek Road.
G. The developer should provide a road/trail pedestrian access
• - its::.• i:.~ PMR u S.S-~, ~:L units to the hospital, water plant housing
Castle Creek intersection.
II. Mida•:3 Right-of-wwy
A. Engineerinr,,..:;;,rtment agrees with Design Workshop and Company
_.
_.
'page 2
Re: Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual PUD Application (Marolt Property)
that the Midland right-of-way alignment is not a feasible bus
route and that the Midland right-of-way should be dropped in
the event that the bus right-of-way is incorporated in the Main
Street extension. However, due to the uncertainties of the
bus route being incorporated in the Main Street extension the
Engineering Department recommends that the Midland right-of-way
be left as a possible bus route and used as open space for this
development.
III.Design Analysis
A. Engineerin; ::~~'•y~>ir i ment feels that under the conceptual PUD
phase the developer should describe how the title of the land
wil' run with r^^ards to both the free market units and the em-
ployee units.
B.~ The developer should also distinguish what areas are being
.used for common use for both the free market units and the
PMH units.
C. In the event the developer wants to sell off parcel 4 to
~; contiguous lot owners on the east side of Castle Creek they
must address this issue during the PUD subdivision review.
One reason we are addressing it during the subdivision review
is that parcel 4 may be used in the calculation for the densit y
of this development.
D. Under the development summary on page 9 under Free Market
Units, they must provide two parking spaces per unit as per
section 24-4.5 of fhe code and not provide two parking spaces
per unit as stated in their submission.
E. The developer shall provide a description of the parcels
to be used for both the free market and the PMH units.
F. Under roads, open space, etc. the Engineering Department
feels that the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council
should know exactly what we are getting in regards to dedication
and easements for-,:~:,a.ds, open space, etc.
., ;., ,,r;:..,Tip. Drawing Updates
A. Vicinity map shall include the following:
1) Include a legend for various solid and dash lines as
shown on the vicinity map.
2) Show city: ~.rd county owned lands.
,, ;., .-• $. Wining msp t-...:fin=.':tide the following:
1'~ ° Show` :.~..:~~ ~=:•ing on adjacent properties on both the
east and west sidP.of this new development.
2) Show zoning or axisting parcel to be developed.
C. Land use schematic drawing to include the following:
page 3
Re: Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual PUD Application (Marolt Property)
1) Identify property lines for this development.
2) Identify solid and dash lines.
3) Under the Main Street extension this should be labeled
"Possible Highway 82 Main Street Extension".
4) Show Highway 82 right-of-way.
V. Site Planning
A. The developer should address the parking and snow removal
problem with the regards to the developer taking responsibility
or the city taking responsibility.
MEMORANDUM
T0: File
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
RE: Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual PUD/Subdivision Review
DATE: July 24, 1980
On July 22, 1980, the Planning and Zoning Commission formally approved
the Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual PUD/Subdivision application. The
Commission moved to approve the applicants submission in view of the
numerous work sessions that preceeded P & Z review and to expedite further
processing of the Castlewood/Headgate application. The Commission, however,
conditioned its motion to approve upon the following:
1. That the development of employee housing be confined to that portion
of the Marolt property located north of the proposed Main Street
extension right-of-way, south of Highway 82, and east of a mutually
agreed-upon right-of-way for the proposed Cemetery Lane/Castle Creek
connector,
2. That the development of the project's free market housing be confined
to the area immediately south of the proposed Main Stree right-of-
way,
3. That site constraints within the development envelopes outlined above
determine development densities,
4. That no indication as to the appropriateness of an overall density of
125 dwelling units be given at this time but, rather, deferred until
Preliminary Plat review,
5. That recommendations with respect to parking requirements, the Midland
right-of-way, and open space, trails and road dedications also be
deferred to Preliminary Plat review, and
6. That all free market development be subject to the six month minimum
lease requirements of Section 20-22.
0 o v
MEMORANDUM
T0: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission ',
_ ~ ,~~„-.
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office ~ 1 ~ ^'"~~~
~ ~ '':
RE: Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual-~PYa~ (Marolt P-rc~ert~~-
DATE: July 18, 1980
On January 28, 1980, City Council approved the annexation and rezoning of an
approximately 35 acre parcel of land which is generally referred to as the
Opal Marolt property. Based on the recommendations +~f the Pryanriing Office
an~~ the Planning and Zoning Commission, the property was rezoned from AF-2
to R-15A/PUD/SPA, with the additional stipulation that at least 70 percent
~.
of the project consist of deed restricted employee units,~'To refresh your
memory, R-15A was re.;ummEnded as the underlying zone district in view of
surrounding zoning patterns ~1 to ensure consistency with previous annex-
ation policy'; /This zone classification would allow the development of
approx imately 150 dwelling unit; in a mul~~i-family configuration if no
reduction in density were required for such factors as existing rights-of-
ways easements, steep slopes, etc. However, given tNe topographical
--restraints, visual vulnerability and unique open space characteristics of
the property, mandatory PUD designation was also recommended to provide suffi-
cient flexibility in t~e site design and as an appropriate project review
/~'
mechanism. The application ~ mandatory density reduction criteria (i.e.,
slope reduction, land under water and existing easements) to the Marolt
property resulted in a net developable land area of approximately 25 acres,
~ /1
which in turn would allow the development of approximate1~110 dwelling units.
%~ The applicant, however, contended that preliminary financial investigations
necessitated a minimum denstiy of at least 125 units in order to produce a~~~
viable project. In the interest of compromise, the Planning Office and
City Council reluctantly agreed to this figure as a maximum permissible
density with the understanding that the appropriateneSS of 125 dwelling units
would be determined via the PUD review processl.\ In the absence of Ordinance
#16, Series 1980 (Residential Bonus), SPA designation was recommended to acco~~-
modate the '~~~ increase in denst;iy and to permit mixed u~ (i.e.,
__
townhouses)~developmer~t, two requirements which could not be accomplished
under existing PUD regulations. With the subsequent adoption of Ordinance 16,
~~ t Memo: Castlewood, zadgate
~, July 18, 1980
`,~ Page Two
'~
L, ~~'
~ ~ _ however, any request on behalf of the applicant for density in excess of the
J~
~y~ ~~ units permitted by the underlying zone will require rezoning to R-15A/
~~`'C ~ PUD/Residential Bonus, a step which should occur at the preliminary and final
~ ~
plat stages of the PUD/Subdivision review process in the event an increase
,;
h ~~~ in allowable density~we+~e-deemed appropriate.
c ~ ~.
:~ The attached application for~,~onceptual PUD/subdivision review represents
the first step in the development process following annexation and
~~~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~~~ rezoning. Subsequent steps will involve: 1) Council~onceptual PUD/~ ubdi-
S ~ tt
vision review, 2) Planning and Zoning Commissior~,.~Preliminary plat review,
\, ~.
~- 3),~pecial~eview by P & Z for purposes of GMP exemption under the 70:30
S "~~~ provision, 4)rrezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay in the event increased
~~ ~~~
ice ,,~ ~ density is approved, and 5) Council approval of ~inal PUD~ubdivision~lat,
~~
~. 70:30~pecialeview and Residential Bonus rezoning. In addition,.~ubdivision
~.. exception review for purposes of condominiumization will most likely be .;. 1
~ t~ .acQq~e~ to enabl e the sal e of i ndi viidual dwel 1 i ng units . ~ . ~ ( % ~-V ~-G~U
t ~r % /
~~ r Pro osed Develo ment Conce t
~ ~ application ford,~onceptual PUD/subdivision approval was submitted by
,~ ~ _ .
c ~e•a~pplicant on June 18, 1980. In response to various problems identified
by the Engineering Department, Planning Office and Open Space Advisory Board
with respect to the proposed development plan, informal work sessions were
held with the applicants, OSAB, City staff and, subsequently, the Planning
and Zoning Commission in an attempt to resolve potential issues prior to
formal P & Z review. Specific design parameters resulting from these
sessions ~.' ~ ~ " '
1. Vehicular access to -~et~r free market and employee housing sites should
be via the extension of Cemetery Lane. No vehicular access.to Castle
Creek Road should be provided.
2. Open space should not be fragmented; rather, a significant parcel should
be provided, visually as well as physically contiguous to both the
Thomas property and the -I~~rter corridor.
3. The development of employee housing should be confined to the area north
of the proposed Main Streefextension and south of Highway 82. P & Z
further indicated a preference for restricting development to the area
Memo: Castlewood ~adgate "'~
July 18, 1980
Page Three
~` ;tir>, O east of the proposed Cemetery Lane extensi_ony~' The applicants have
~~ ~ .
ti ~ _ .:.
\~~ d~ revised their original submission to incorporate all of the above
i
~, criteria with the exception of restricting employee housing devel-
opment to the east of Cemetery Lane. The revised development plan
(Alternative #2) and the original plan (Alternative #1) are contained
in the attached material.
For the purposes of discussion, the Marolt property and revised development
plan can be subdivided into four principal areas or parcels. Parcel #l,
located between Highway 82 and the proposed Main Street extension, contains
approximately three acres of Marolt property and an unspecified amount of
the adjacent Thomas parcel. As shown on Alternative #2, y~~etg~rt (88)
employee housing units are proposed for this area with the majority located
east of the proposed Cemetery Lane extension. The development of the area
west of Cemetery Lane contemplates an open space land trade or rights-of-
way dedication in exchange for use of a portion of the Thomas property.
Parcel #2 contains approximately six acres and is located immediately south
of the Main Street extension. This parcel includes the proposed Midland
right-of-way alignment and is earmarked for the development of 37 free
market units and their associated amy~enity package. Parcel #3, which totals
eleven acres, consists of the r//emaining pasture land south of Parcel #2
and is reserved as open space. Fianlly, Parcel #4, which is geographically
separated from the majority of the Marolt property by Castle Creek, totals
approximately two acres and is being considered for possible sale to con-
tiguous land owners. The remainder of the project's approximately 35 acres
consists of portions of Castle Creek and a steeply sloping strip of land
which parallels the Creek along its western boundary.
Architecturally, the employee units are envisioned as two story, gable roofed
buildings with common entryways, exterior stairwells and wood siding. The
free market units are envisioned in adjoining two and three story townhouse
configuration with flat roofs and wood siding. The proposed employee unit
mix consists of 14.1-bedroom, 65.2-bedroom, and 9.3-bedroom units, while the
free market portion consists of l2.2-bedroom, 20.3-bedroom and 5.4-bedroom
units. One parking space per bedroom, or a total of 171 spaces,fr~ provided
for the employee`un~ ts, two spaces per dwelling unit, or 74 parking
.,
spaces,~~cl for the free market portion of the project.
3
Memo: Castlewooc ~adgate
July 18, 1980
Page Four
With respect to ownership intentions, the applicants are considering
splitting off the employee site and selling it to a City Housing Authority
with a lease-back and development agreement for the improvements with the
owner/developer. The employee units will either be sold immediately upon
completion or leased for an interim period. The free market units will be
developed for individual sale and possible short-term rental through a
common management structure. To ensure this flexibility, the applicants are
~-
requesting exemption from the six-month minimum lease restrictions of the
~~.
,. -;,
City's condominiumization o~ane~e. '%
/'.. ~ fir. ~~%~ `~'. f ~' f" Cl ,~'+r-.''Er l2 ~
Planning Office Comments ,~~
;z
The Planning Office concurs with the design parameters which have evolved-a~•ter
numerous work sessions with the applicants, Open Space Advisory Board, the
Engineering Department and the Planning and Zoning Commission. The concepts
of clustering development on the northern portion of the property; limiting
vehicular access to Highway 82 and the proposed Main Street extension via
Cemetery Lane; and maintaining a significant, well-defined open space area
which is both physically and visually linked to the Thomas property go a long
way toward balancing the objectives of all concerned. The location of devel-
opment as proposed provides convenient access to utilities, bus routes and
bikeways, as well as potentially reduc~rtg site development costs „,factor
`~~nt,`a1~to the construction of affordable employee housing. In addition,
the utilization of ~e-•portion of Parcel #1 located east of the proposed
Cemetery Lane extension for employee housing takes advantage~of a potentially
"isolated" parcel resulting from the extension of P•1ain Stree~while the
confinement of free market units to the area above the Castle Creek embank-
ment reduces visual impact on ad~aeerrt, property owners. Finally, the pro-
posed development configuration is eral~r consistent with the adopted
CSU "land suitability and "visual vulnerability" maps, as well as the
o.bj_ectr of the Castle Creek Gree~way Play. ~ ~''
The Planning Office, however, ~a concurs with P & Z in #~re recommendation
that ~h~e'development of employee housing be restricted to the area east of
the Cemetery Lane extension iro maintain open space vistas to the golf
.,
course and to reduce 'the impact of development around thel"entrance" to
Aspen. The applicants argue that the resulting employee site is inadequate
Memo: Castlewood"'~adgate
July 18, 1980
Page Five
~l
to accommodate the requested 88 dwelling units and associated parking require-
ments and precludes the consideration of alternative access points to the
free market parcel. In response, it is the opinion of the Planning Office.,
. , i ; :~ `_
that open space and transportation constraints should dictate ~re'develop-
ment envelopejand that resulting density should be determined by sound site
planning principles. An attempt to force-fit a predetermined density in
violation of overall development objectives and constraints represents ar'
backwards approach. To maximize the number of employee units which the
applicant could develop on the recommended site, and thus maximize the
number of free market~r~~ts under the 70:30 GMP exemption provision, the
~'
Planning Office ~l~t recommencthat the City cooperate with the applicant~in
s
determining the most favorable alignment of the Cemetery Lane extension so as
to provide the largest possible development envelope. The slight reduction
~ .-
(approximately to~.Y~ percent) in the number of employee units that would
occur and the concurrent reduction in free market units would result in a
probable overall project density consistent with the underlying zone classi-
fication anal reir~ove the need for Residential Bonus rezoning. The resulting
project density would most likely still exceed that which would be allowed were
the project to be developed after the proposed transportation improvements were
in place / ~ ~ ~ ~~
With respect to the applicantr'..~ request for exemption from the six month
minimum lease restrictions of Section 20-22, which are applicable to all
condominiumizations, the Planning Office offers the following comments:
1. The 1973 update of the Aspen Land Use Plan established the base of
Aspen Mountain~as the appropriate location for short-term, tourist-
oriented development. The City was subsequently rezoned in 1975 to
facilitate implementation of the 1973 land use policies ac~ Section
,.
24-3.7(0) "Rental Limitations" and Section 20-22 "Condominiumization"
were later adopted to supplement and strengthen zone district regu-
. -~
lations. The intent of Section 24-3.7(0) was to ~~~ short-term
utilization of multi-family housing in inappropriate zones, speci-
fically the R/MF, 0 and C-1 zone districts. ~'An attempt on behalf
of -the Planning Offices t ~ extend this regulation to the remaining
~_
residential zones , however, was ~ u~nst+e-Bess€ul . err argument,, was that
Memo: Castlewood, ~adgate
July 18, 1980
Page Six
s G
these zones were intended for short-term use and we wished to
make explicit that which was implicit in our updated land use and
zone district policies. Similarly, Section 20-22 was intended pri-
~.
marily to mitigate the depletion of employee housing resulting from
condominiumization, However, the~$pplication of the regulation to
both existing and new construction serves to supplement Section 24-3.7(0)
by restricting short-term utilization and prohibiting the intrusion
of tourist, high turnover usage in non-tourist oriented areas.
~'
2. The applicants argue that exemption-Srf the six-month minimum lease res-
triction is consistent with the spirit of Council's relaxation of
GMP policy in order to stimulate employee housing development. While
the Planning Office has wlt~fie-h~a~''tedly supported such code amendments
as the 50:50 Residential Bonus and 70:30 Exemption , we have never
supported a relaxation of our land use policies.
To permit short-term usage of a residential project in this location
~~
would be inconsistent with e+~w 1973 Land Use Plan, ottr 1975 rezoning
and all c~trr subsequent attempts to strengthen these policies.
3. The applicant argue that "so long as additional inventory is created
for the local market, those free market units created ... should not
be limited ... but would provide a reasonable and non-excessive addi-
tion to the tourist accommodations to reflect annual demand." In
response, we would argue that the appropriate rate of tourist accom-
modations development has already been determined and is strictly
regulated by the Growth Management Plan.
4. No mention of anticipated short-term utilization occurred at the
time of annexation or rezoning. Had the applicant indicated their
intentions, the Planning Office would have strenuously objected and
recommended that ~~annexation agreement preclude ~ such usage.
5. While the City Attorney concurs with the Planning Office's position
with respect to short-term utilization, the Housing Director is of
the opinion that no restriction should be attached to the free mar-
ket units which would limit their marketability or affect their
financing. The Housing Director's memorandum is attached for your
review.
Memo: Castlewood"'~adgate
July 18, 1980
Page Seven
Summarizing, the Planning Office strongly feels that the City s residential
zones should be limited to permanent residential usage and not for short-term
high impact, tourist-oriented utilization. This policy is implicit in the
1973 Land Use update, the 1975 rezoning and in all subsequent rental limi-
tation and condominiumization legislation adopted by the City. While
proposed amendments to Section 24-3.7(0) for purposes of strengthening
the City's land use policies were not adopted, Council support for the con-
cept is evidenced by the application of six-month lease restrictions to all
condominiumizations regardless of zone dist7
:~...•I~a s~t~°. t~rc ~~a~~~~+~d• ~e~- tk~e f a n~men ~
.ZLlJJe diStT"fiCtS. ~ `
.~~ ;Zs-,~tl~rn.-lid,' /~~%~~~-~'`"
~t. There a{~pe~arrs ~ exist' ' ~
,: , ,_
F-~e~t-~t~*rm uses to touri-st
~ ` .
/f -'
The issues of development west of the proposed Cemetery Lane extension ;J
overall project density and short-term utilization of free market units
~~sed ab~~e-~4. represent the major concerns of the Planning Office with
0 ~
regard to the applicanl~:Conceptual PUD/r~ubdivision submission. Additional
issues, however, which we would like P & Z to consider, and which we are
prepared to discuss in greater detail at your July 22, 1980 meeting include:
1. The desirability of restricting development in the proposed Midland
right-of-way,
2. Exemption of the one parking space per bedroom requirement for the
free market ~ ' - ~ `,
3. Right-of-Way alignment and dedication of Cemetery Land/Castle Creek
r
Road ee+~aecti~.,
~,
4. Trails and open space dedication., ~ / //~~' ~ J ~
5./~~nd trade for portion of Thomas parcel located between: "t~fT"~
~~~ C
~' ~ property line and proposed Cemetery Lane extension1
i1
// ~.
:/, _ `x ~
Recommendation ~'
In summary, the Planning Office recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Commission informally approve the general development concept presented by
the applicants, withholding ~inair,~onceptual PUD/subdivision approval pending
resubmission of a revised site plan. The revised plan should limit employee
housing and associated parking to the area east of a mutually agreed upon
Cemetery Lane alignment between Highway 82 and the proposed Main Street
extension. The conceptual submission narrative should also be revised to
Memo: Castlewood"'~adgate
July 18, 1980
Page Eight
reflect resulting development densities and to incorporate all other nevi-
,
sions necessitated by the Commission's July 22, 1980 review. ~~--- ~',< ~a~~=_~
//'/
i
/ ~ ~' /
is - ~ / ~ may,,,/~~Ji~-`iC-~ •
,•' / . ~ /
~ ~ ~ C~t~t ~~ ~
y~ ~~ ~ ' , ~
~~,~
~1 /
/ ~ ,
- ,_ /~~ .2l~L • ~>> c-~ '~• plc-t~~.:v ~J
f / nr.
f ~ ( ~y_
/ ~ ~~C.I r "" _ ~
z ' ~ /~ ,,/f~J///~
/~ ~ `
~~ ~/~ ~' - ~, V
/ `
i~ ~ , /~ ,,yyr
dip/~ ~ ,(J//~~- r. 7 6V~/ ~ ~ ~/
~f / ~ ~~ / / //~f
/ ~Y
~ f (• ~. ,
~~ ~~~~ ~ ~
~~- ~ ~ ~
~J
~" ~ ~ ~
e
MEMORANDUM
T0: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
RE: Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual PUD/Subdivision Review
DATE: July 18, 1980
On January 28, 1980, City Council approved the annexation and rezoning of an
approximately 35 acre parcel of land which is generally referred to as the
Opal Marolt property. Based on the recommendations of the Planning Office
and the Planning and Zoning Commission, the property was rezoned from AF-2
to R-15A/PUD/SPA, with the additional stipulation that at least 70 percent
of the proposed development consist of deed restricted employee units.
To refresh your memory, R-15A was recommended as the underlying zone district
in view of surrounding zoning patterns and to ensure consistency with previous
annexation policy (R-15A requires 50~ deed restricted un ts). This zone
classification would allow the development of approximately 150 dwelling
units in a multi-family configuration if no reduction in density were
required for such factors as existing right-of-way, easements, steep slopes,
etc. However, given topographical constraints, visual vulnerability and
unique open space characteristics of the property, mandatory PUD designation
was also recommended to provide sufficient flexibility in site design and
as an appropriate project review mechanism. The application of mandatory
PUD density reduction criteria (i.e., slope reduction, land under water and
existing easements) to the Marolt property resulted in a net developable land
area of approximately 20 to 25 acres, which in turn would allow the development
of approximately 90 to 110 dwelling units, a density. which the Planning Office
generally felt to be appropriate for the project. The applicant, however, con-
tended that preliminary financial investigations necessitated a minimum den-
sity of at least 125 units in order to produce an economically viable project.
In the interest of compromise, the Planning Office and City Council reluc-
tantly agreed to this figure as a maximum permissible density with the under-
standing that the appropriateness of 125 dwelling units would be determined
via the PUD review process based on siting considerations. In the absence of
Ordinance #16, Series 1980 (.Residential Bonus), SPA designation was recom-
mended to accommodate the requested increase in density and to permit mixed
use development (i.e., townhouses), two requirements which could not be accom-
plished under existing PUD regulations. With the subsequent adoption of
Ordinance 16, however, any request on behalf of the applicant for density in
excess of the approximately 90 to 110 units permitted by the underlying zone
will require rezoning to R-15A/PUD/Residential Bonus, a step which should
occur at the preliminary and final plat stages of the PUD/subdivision review
process in the event an increase in allowable density is deemed appropriate.
The attached application for conceptual PUD/subdivision review represents
the first step in the development process following annexation and rezoning.
Subsequent steps will involve: 1) Council conceptual PUD/subdivision review,
2) Planning and Zoning Commission preliminary plat review, 3) special review
by P & Z for purposes of GMP exemption under the 70:30 provision, 4) P & Z
approval for rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay in the event increased
density is approved, and 5) Council approval of final PUD/subdivision plat,
70:30 special review and Residential Bonus rezoning. In addition, subdivision
exception review for purposes of condominiumization will most likely be
required to enable the sale of individual dwelling units. Special review,
subdivision exception, and overlay approval will be consolidated with the
preliminary and final plat review in order to streamline the process.
Proposed Development Concept
The property in question, which is currently owned by Marolt Associates,
is subject to a contract of sale to a development group, Castlewood
Development Company, of which the Marolt family members are the major
Memo: Castlewood'~•adgate
' July 18, 1980
• Pd9e Two
shareholders. This transaction is intended to allow Marolt Associates to
secure a development partner who can provide development management and
consulting functions for the project. The attached application for concep-
tual PUD/subdivison approval was submitted by Marolt Associates on June 18,
1980. In response to various problems identified by the Engineering Depart-
ment, the Planning Office and the Open Space Advisory Board with respect to
the proposed development plan, informal work sessions were held with the
applicants, OSAB, City staff and, subsequently, the Planning and Zoning Com-
mission in an attempt to resolve potential issues prior to formal P & Z
review. Specific design parameters resulting from these sessions were as
follows:
1. Vehicular access to free market and employee housing sites should be
via the proposed extension of Cemetery Lane. No vehicular access
from the project to Castle Creek Road should be provided.
2. Open space should not be fragmented; rather, a significant parcel
should be provided, visually,-as well as physically contiguous to
both the Thomas porperty and the Castle Creek corridor.
3. The development of employee housing should be confined to the area north
of the proposed Main Street extension and south of Highway 82. P & Z
further indicated a preference for restricting development to the
area east of the proposed Cemetery Lane.
The applicants have revised their original submission to incorporate all of
the above criteria with the exception of restricting employee housing devel-
opment to the east of Cemetery Lane. The revised development plan (Alterna-
tive #2) and the original plan (.Alternative #1)are contained in the attached
material.
For the purposes of discussion, the Marolt property and revised development
plan can be subdivided into four principal areas or parcels. Parcel #1,
located between Highway 82 and the proposed Main Street extension, contains
approximately three acres of Marolt property and an unspecified amount of
the adjacent Thomas parcel. As shown on Alternative #2, 88 employee housing
units are proposed for this area with the majority located east of the pro-
posed Cemetery Lane extension. The development of the area west of Cemetery
Lane contemplates an open space land trade or rights-of-way dedication in
exchange for use of a portion of the Thomas property. Parcel #2 contains
approximately six acres and is located immediately south of the Main Street
extension. This parcel includes the proposed Midland right-of-way alignment
and is earmarked for the development of 37 free market units and their asso-
ciated amenity package. Parcel #3, which totals eleven acres, consists of
the remaining pasture land south of Parcel #2 and is reserved as open space.
Finally, Parcel #4, which is geographically separated from the majority of
the Marolt property by Castle Creek, totals approximately two acres and is
being considered for possible sale to contiguous land owners. The remainder
of the project's approximately 35 acres consists of portions of Castle Creek
and a steeply sloping strip of land which parallels the Creek along its
western boundary.
Architecturally, the employee units are envisioned as two story, gable roofed
buildings with common entryways, exterior stairwells and wood siding. The
free market units are envisioned with flat roofs and wood siding. The
proposed employee units mix consists of 14.1-bedroom, 65.2-bedroom, 9'3-bedroom
units, while the free market portion consists of 12.2-bedroom, 20.3-bedroom,
and 5.4-bedroom units. One parking space per bedroom, or a total of 171
spaces, will be provided for the employee units, while two spaces per dwelling
unit, or 74 parking spaces, are proposed for the free market portion of the
project.
With respect to ownership intentions, the applicants are considering split-
ting off the employee site and selling it to a City Housing Authority with
a lease-back and development agreement for the improvements with the owner/
developer. The employee units will either be sold immediately upon comple-
tion or lease for an interim period. The free market units will be developed
~~
Memo: Castlewooo,.~eadgate
July 18, 1980
Page Three
for individual sale and possible short-term rental through a common manage-
ment structure. To ensure this flexibility, the applicants are requesting
exemption the six-month minimum lease restrictions of the City's condo-
miniumization regulations. The applicants have agreed to phase construction
of the employee units consistent with the development of the free market
portion of the project.
Planning Office Comments
The Planning Office concurs with the design parameters which have evolved
as a result of numerous work sessions with the applicants, Open Space
Advisory Board, the Engineering Department and the Planning and Zoning Com-
mission. The concepts of clustering development on the northern portion
of the property; limiting vehicular access to Highway 82 and the proposed
Main Street extension via Cemetery Lane; and maintaining a significant,
well-defined open space area which is both physically and visually linked
to the Thomas property go a long way toward balancing the objectives of all
concerned. The location of development as proposed provided convenient
access to utilities, bus routes and bikeways, as well as potentially reduces
site development costs, an essential factor to the construction of affordable
employee housing. In addition, the utilization of that portion of Parcel #1
located east of the proposed Cemetery Lane extension for employee housing takes
advantage of a potentially "isolated" parcel resulting from the extension of
Main Street while the confinement of free market units to the area above
the Castle Creek embankment reduces visual impact on neighboring property
owners. Finally, the proposed development configuration is basically con-
sistent with the adopted CSU "land suitability" and "visual vulnerability"
maps, as well as the Castle Creek Greenway identified in the 1973 Aspen Land
Use Plan.
The Planning Office, however, concurs with P & Z in its recommendation that the
development of employee housing be restricted to the area east of the Cemetery
Lane extension to maintain open space vistas to the golf course and to reduce
the scale and impact of development around the new "entrance" to Aspen. The
applicants argue that the resulting employee site is inadequate in size to
accommodate the requested 88 dwelling units and associated parking require-
ments and precludes the consideration of alternative access points to
the free market parcel. In response, it is the opinion of the Planning Office,
consistent with agreements made at time of annexation, that open space and
transportation constraints should dictate development envelopes and that
resulting density should be determined by sound site planning principles. An
attempt to force-fit a predetermined density in violation of overall develop-
ment objectives and constraints represents at best a backwards approach. To
maximize the number of employee units which the applicants could develop on
the recommended site, and thus maximize the number of free market units under
the 70:30 GMP exemption provision, the Planning Office would recommend that
the City cooperate with the applicants in determining the most favorable
alignment of the Cemetery Lane extension so as to provide the largest possible
development envelope. The slight reduction (approximately 15 to 20 percent)
in the number of employee units that would occur and the concurrent reduction
in free market units would result in a probable overall project density con-
sistent with the underlying zone classification, as well as remove the need
for Residential Bonus rezoning. The resulting project density would most
likely still exceed that which would be allowed were the project to be
developed after the proposed transportation improvements were in place (after
reduction in gross site area for new rights-of-way).
With respect to the applicants' request for exemption from the six-month
minimum lease restrictions of Section 20-22, which are applicable to all
condominiumizations, the Planning Office offers the following comments:
1. The 1973 update of the Aspen Land Use Plan established the base of
Aspen Mountain and area south of Main Street as the appropriate
location for short-term, tourist-oriented development. The City
was subsequently rezoned in 1975 to facilitate implementation of
the 1973 land use policies, while Section 24-3.7(0) "Rental
Limitations" and Section 20-22 "Condominiumization" were later
. Memo: Castlewooc,^eadgate
.. July 18, 1980
Page Four
adopted to supplement and strengthen zone district regulations. The
intent of Section 24-3.7(0) was to prohibit short-term utilization
of multi-family housing in inappropriate zones, specifically the
R/MF, 0 and C-1 zone districts. A proposal initiated by Council
more recently to extend this regulation to the remaining resi-
dential zones, however, was not adopted. The argument then was
that these zones were never intended for short-term use and the
proposal would make explicit that which was implicit in the City's
updated land use and zone districts policies. Similarly, Section
20-22 was intended primarily to mitigate the depletion of employee
housing resulting from the condominiumization of existing dwelling
units. However, the application of the regulation to both existing
and new construction serves to supplement Section 24-3.7(0) by res-
tricting short-term use and prohibiting the intrusion of tourist,
high-turnover usage in non-tourist oriented areas.
2. The applicants argue that exemption from the six-month minimum lease
restriction is consistent with the spirit of Council's relaxation of
GMP policy in order to stimulate employee housing development. While
the Planning Office has enthusiastically supported such code amend-
ments as the 50:50 Residential Bonus and 70:30 GMP Exemption, we
have never supported a relaxation of our land use policies. To
permit short-term use of a residential project in this location would
be inconsistent with the 1973 Land Use Plan, the 1975 rezoning and
all subsequent attempts to strengthen these policies.
3. The applicant argues that so long as additional inventory is created
for the local market, those free market units created ... should not
be limited ... but would provide a reasonable and non-excessive addi-
tion to the tourist accommodations to reflect annual demand." In
response, we would argue that the appropriate rate of tourist accom-
modations development has already been determined and is strictly
regulated by the Growth Management Plan.
4. No mention of anticipated short-term utilization occurred at the time
of annexation or rezoning. Had the applicants indicated their
intentions, the Planning Office would have strenuously objected and
recommended that any annexation agreement preclude such usage.
5. While the City Attorney concurs with the Planning Office's position
with respect to short-term use, the Housing Director is of the
opinion that no restriction should be attached to the free market
units which would limit their marketability or affect their financing.
The Housing Director's memorandum is attached for your review.
Summarizing, the Planning Office strongly feels that the City's residential
zones should be limited to permanent residential usage and not for short-term
higher impact, tourist-oriented utilization. This policy is implicit in the
1973 Land Use update, the 1975 rezoning and in all subsequent rental limi-
tation and condominiumization legislation adopted by the City. While pro-
posed amendments to Section 24-3.7(0) for purposes of strengthening the
City's land use policies were not adopted, Council support for the concept is
evidenced by the application of six-month minimum lease restrictions to all
condominiumizations regardless of zone district. There exists both legis-
lative restrictions against short-term utilization in the R/MF, 0 and C-1
districts, as well as tacit approval for restricting such usage in the
City's remaining residential zones.
The issues of development west of the proposed Cemetery Lane extension,
overall project density and short-term utilization of free market units
represent the major concerns of the Planning Office with regard to the
aplicants' conceptual PUD/subdivision submission. Additional issues, however,
which we would like P & Z to consider, and which we are prepared to discuss
in greater detail at your July 22, 1980 meeting include:
Memo; Castlewooc ~adgate
July 18, 1980
Page Five
1. The desirability of restricting developmeht in the proposed Midland
right-of-way,
2. Exemption of the one parking space per bedroom requirement for the
free market portion of the project,
3. Right-of-way alignment and dedication of Cemetery Lane/Castle Creek
Road extension,
4. Trails and open space dedication as required by the subdivision regu-
lations,
5. The possibility of a land trade for a portion of the Thomas parcel
located between the applicants' western property line and the proposed
Cemetery Lane extension, and
6. The question of separate sale of Parcel #4.
Recommendation
In summary, the Planning Office recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Commission informally approve the general development concept presented
by the applicants, withholding formal conceptual PUD/subdivision approval
pending resubmission of a revised site plan. The revised plan should limit
employee housing and associated parking to the area east of a mutually
agreed-upon Cemetery Lane alignment between Highway 82 and the proposed Main
Street extension. The conceptual submission narrative should also be revised
to reflect resulting development densities and to incorporate all other
revisions necessitated by the Commission's July 22, 1980 review. Final
disposition by P & Z should be predicated upon the extent to which the
applicants satisfactorily comply with these conditions. In the event the
applicants feel that compliance is untenable, then any generalized concep-
tual approval by P & Z should include the comments outlined above. In view
of the fact that decisions with regard to density were postponed at the
time of annexation until PUD review, the Planning Office feels that it
would be remiss if these questions were not satisfactorily resolved at this
time. Any recommendation to Council should carry a specific recommendation
with respect to the appropriate density for this project. Should P & Z fail
to specifically address density at this time, no further opportunity would be
available to the Commission until the preliminary plat stage of review.
MEMORANDUM
T0: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
RE: Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual PUD/Subdivision. Review
DATE: July 18, 1980
On January 28, 1980, City Council approved the annexat,__i.o_,yr an_d. rezoning__of an
approximately 35 acre parcel of land which is generally referred to as l:he
Opal Marolt property. -based on the recommendations of the Planning Office
and the Planning and Zoning Commission, the property was rezoned from_AF-2 _
to R-15A PUD S.P.A, with the additional stipulation that at least_~0_percent
of the proposed development consist of deed restricted employee units. J
To refresh your memory, R-15A was recommended as the underlying zone district
in view of surrounding zoning patterns and to ensure consistency with previous
annexation policy (R-15A requires 50% deed restricted ur, ts). This zone
classification would allow the development of approximately_ i50 dwelling
units in a multi-family configuration if no reduction in density were
required for such factors as existing right-of-way, easements, steep slopes,
etc. However, given topographical constraints, visual vulnerability and
unique open space characteristics of the property,_mandatory_.PUD designation
was also recommended to provide sufficient flexibility in site design and
as an appropriate project review mechanism. The application of mandatory
PUD density reduction criteria (i.e., slope reduction, land under water and
existing easements) to the Marolt property resulted in a net developable land
~~ area of approximately 20 to 25__acres, which in turn would allow the development
~" of approximately 90 to 110 dwelling units, a density which the Planning Office
generally felt to he appropriate for the project. The applicant, however, con-
,I~f ~`. tended that preliminary financial investigations necessitated a minimum den-
1 A~~/ sity of at least 12.5 units in order to produce an ec_onomica_lly viable_,project.
1~'~~' In the interest of compromise, the Planning Office and City Counc~~ reluc-
r/ tautly agreed to this figure as a maximum permissible density with the under-
standing that the appropriateness _of._i2`~~~11ing units wnuld..be__determi_ned _
via the PUD review prtce~ss_ based on siting considerations. In the absence of
Ordinance #T6~ ~e`ries 1980 (Residential Bonus), SPA designation was recom-
mended to accommodate the requested increase in density and to permit mixed
use development (i.e., townhouses), two requirements which could not be accom-
plished under existing PUD regulations. With the subsequent adoption of
Ordinance 16, ho4dever, any ~~.que~t~1'r behalf of the applicant for density in
excess.of the ap~roximately_9.0_to_110_units permitted_by__the underlying zone
~yri i 1 require rezoning to R-I5A/FL;~/Res i denti a_~_~.n~s,, a step which should ~'
~/~ occur a~-the preTim~nary__and-fina__p_f~.~.~ stakes.. of the PUD/subd~v~s~on review
.d!" process in the event an increase in allowable density is deemed appropriate.
~,~~2~
~'~
~~~~~~
~`~'~
attached application for conceptual PL'D/subdivision review represents
he first step in the development process following annexation and rezoning.
Subsequent steps will involve: 1) Council conceptual PUD/subdivision review,
2) Planning and Zoning Commission preliminary plat review, 3) special review
by P & Z for purposes of GMP exemption under the 70:30 provision, 4) P & Z
approval for rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay in the event increased
density is approved, and 5) Council approval of final PUD/subdivision plat,
70:30 special review and Residential Bonus rezoning. In addition, subdivision
exception review for purposes of condominiurnization will most likely be
required to enable the sale of individual dwelling units. Special review,
subdivision exception, and overlay approval will be consolidated with the
preliminary and final plat review in. order to streamline the process.
y in que~ti n, which is currently wned by Marc~]t Associa
to a co trac of sa e to a devel~opm~(rt grouq, Caul ew~--
Compan,~, of l~hich~the Mar'~Qlt~familyl~iembe sp are the majo
Memo: Castlewood/Nr,dgate
July 18, 1980
Page Two
shareholders. This transaction is intended to 1 ova Marolt Associates to ' ~
secure a development partner who can provide~,,d~~/~l'opment management annce - ~
consulting functions for the project. -~'+e-attae#~ed application for co p
_ . _ ~ L.. ~A-......~+ n~~.,.-; ~+oc nn .lung '1 R.
In
dentified by the
N
J
~'
~1!
,~
~~ N
,
ienL_s~e~rix r~ awe-4,.~.~-~.L~-~.-._ ..~_~= ,.w... .. _
,~._ -
;he proposed developmellt~l-an, informal work_session~ were held with t e
~ppticants, O~AB, City staff and, subsequently, the Planning and Zoning_Com-
~ission •n an attempt to resolve potential issues prior to formal P & Z
•eview. pecific design parameters resulting from these sessions were as
=011 ows • J- - --
~•==~_;° 1. Vehicular access to free market and employee housing sites should be
via the proposed extension of Cemetery Lane. No vehicular access
from the project to Castle Creek Road should be provided.
~,~`= 2. Open space should not be fragmented; rather, a significant parcel
'"~ should be provided, visually,-as well as physically contiguous to
both the Thomas porperty and the Castle Creek corridor.
3. The development of employee housing should be confined to the area north
of the proposed Main Street extension and south of Highway 82. P & Z
further indicated a preference for restricting development to_the
_ __ _
-- -
--- ~,e=~n~ +L,o nrnnncar~ rPI71Pt.Prv Lane.
have revised their
ria with the exc.ep
tive #2) and the original plan (Alternative #1) are containe in the attac e
material. f
,.~~~ ~- ~
For the_p~rRc~s-e-&-ef-his-cu.s~-inn, the Marolt property and r-e
plan ca[~. be subdivided into four Qrincip'-_a1-area~''or parcels. _Parcel #1,
located between Highway 82 and t-Fie ro~osed Main Street extension- r_con~a°i.ns
approximately ,theee_ acres of , M~1r~._p~r'~2e.Cty and an unspecified .mount of
the adjacent Thomas parcel. As shown on Alternative #2, $8_employee housing
uni t~ are proposefif-or -tlii s area with the majori ty l ocated east of the pro=
posed Cemeter~y_Lane extension. The development of the4area west of Ceme er
Lane contemplates an open space 1_and trade or rights_-_of-way dedication in_
exchange for use o~~a portion o ~ the Thomas. property. Parcel #2 contains
_~.
`approximate Ty x_acres and is located immediately_ south of th~H~.an ~t-r~~-..--
_...
extension. This parcel includes the-p~~oposed Mid"rand right-of-wa^_alignment
_~ r
---
and i s earmarked for ~~ dwel ~~m~. of _37 free market units _and t ei r asso-
ciated amenity package. Parcel #3, which. totals eleven_acres, consists of
the remaining pasture land south of Parcel.,,#2, and is reserved as open space.
Finally,~Parc~1 #4, which i`s eo raphcally separated from the majority of
the Marolt property by Castle Creek, totals approximately two acres and is
being considered for__~os~i_bl,e sale to contiguous 1 and owneP'S: ~-1-he remainder
of the_pr~ect .•~ a~.~roximately 35 acres consists_ of portiflns ~of Castle_Creek
and a stee ly_slopin strip of land which parallels the ree"k al-ong its
wester boundary:
Architecturally, the employee units are envisioned as two story, gable roofed
`~ buildings with common entryways, exterior stairwells-and wood sidi}~q. The_ __
free market units are envisioned with flat roofs and wood siding ~ The
"proposed employee units mix consists of ~~~1.-bedroom, 65.2-bedroom, 9'3-bedroom
units, while the free market portion consists of 12.2-bedroom, 20.3-bedroom,
and 5.4-bedroom units. One parking space per bedroom, or a total of 171
spaces, will be provided for the employee units,. while two spaces per dwelling
'~, unit, or 74 narking spaces, are proposed for the free market portion of the i
With respect to ownership intentions, the applicants are
opment
t
d immediately upon comple-
1
Memo: Castlewoodj~._adgate
July 18, 1930
Page Three
for individual sale and possible short-term rental_throu h_a common manage-
ment structure.~~To ensure this flexibility, the applicants are requesting
exemption tfie si.x-month ma.irsu~m-=base- res ri~.ii~9n~_ of th.e City's condo-
miniumization regulations. The applicants have agreed to phase construction
of the employee units consistent with the development of the free market
portion of the project.
P1 anni n Office Comments ~ ~C ~.~.~-~ ~~~~-- ~~-T'
The Planning Office concurs with the desi.g ~~
as a result-e~f numerous-work sessions with the applicants, Open Space
Advisory;'~oard, the Engineering Department and the Planning and Zoning Com-
mission.w~The concepts of clustering development on the northern portion
_ _ . _ _ _ J
1-
i~
~,
~a~~~
. or
~~
area which is
~.ts , an es se
In addition,
he proposed Ce
t
~; an~~„ maintaining a significant,
oth physicaTly_and visually 'finked
war3~baTancing the objectives of -aTl
at racLo
e utiliz
ery Lune
ed'~arc
__.
Q.f-f_r.~._
s visual
s well as potentially reduces
the construction of affordable
of that portion of Parcel #_1_
nei
"visual vu
The Planning Office, however, Eet~~ttr-~ with ~.~_Z__i~n its recommendati
development of employee housing be restricted to the area east of th
Lane extension to maintain open space vistas to the_golf_cours
~h,e scal_e_ andim ac o eve lo_pmei~t~.~around..._thP nPw. "~.otrdnce" to_ Asp
applicants argu = t the resulting~em_ployee site is inadequate in s
accommodate the requested ~8 _dd~lLlll.g_1tliLts--an-d-associated parking r
merits and precludes the consideration of alternative access points-t
the free market parcel. In response, it is the opinion of the_Plann
- - -
~~onaistent_with agreements made at time of annexation, that open spa
transportation constraints should dictate ~8evelopment envelopes ,and
employee housing.
located east of t
advantaq~yof a..po
Main Street while
t_he Castle Creek
owners. Final Ty,
sistent with the
maps, as weTh"as
Use Plan.
__....
resulting_densi~ sfiou d be determined by spun si e p ann~ng pr n
attempt to force-fit a predetermined density in violation of ,overall
ze the number of employee un
so as to provide
~ that the
~e"metery
re duce
~. The_
__
ze to
quire=
n~Office,~,~~Z
e and
hat
les. An
develop-
cfi : ~Q_
1.4~p on
is under
ble
eossible
deveTopment_.envelone~ The slig re uction (approximately 15 zo cu percer~~~
tn. a num erg-em oyee units that would occur and the concurrent reduction
in free market units would result in a probable overall project density con-
sistent with the underlying zone classification, as well as remove the need
for Residential Bonus rezoning. The resulting project density would most
likely still exceed that which would be allowed were the project to be
developed after the proposed transportation improvements were in place (after
reduction i n gross site area for new ri_ghts-~_f^w.a~c.~.~--------------`-
With respect to the applicants' request for exemption from the six-month
minimum lease restrictions of Section 20-22, which are applicable to all
condominiumizations, the ~P~lanning Office effe~r~s'x~e~f~o~l.lo~+i~~~comme ~tsc ~~,~~~ r~~~~
1. The 1973 update Jof the_As~ n and 1 e.~LdJ1 establ i_shed the base of
As en Mountai and area south of sin Street as tho.appropria~e~-
p ~.
'location for short-terms,,, tourist-oriented development. The C~tY.
the 1973 1 and uS~.p..Q.lLC~7.QS, whi 1e Section 24-3.7 (o "Rents
limitations" and Section .20-22 "Condominiumization"^were laser
Memo: Castlewood/,._adgate
July 1s, 1980
Page Four
-family housing in inap~pprl_,~~~.~r_te..~.-.~peci.ri_c~
and"C=I zone dfisl:ricts. A proposal initiated by
2. The applicants argue that exemption from the six-month minimum lease
restriction is~ ~rynt with the spirit of Council's relaxation of
GMP p,~lic in oor~der to stimulate employee housing developmen _J~ e
the Planning-Office has enthusiast ally supported suc~code amend-
ments as_the__59;~4. ~ _.B.Qn~;_~,_and 70:_30 GMP Exemption,_weL~7~~,v
eve never supported_a relaxation of our land use policies. To
permit sFiort-term use of a residential project in this locati~~n would
----_.
t;P ~m-nrrsTStent with the -I~73 Land-Use Plan-,--the 2975 rezoning_ and__
3. The applicant argues that "so long as additional inventory is created
for the local market, those free market units created ... should not
be limited ... but would provide a reasonable and non-excessive addi-
tion to the tourist accommodations to reflect annual demand." ~In.
response, we would argue that the appropriate rate of tourist accom-
- --
modations development has already been determined=an --
rPOll~~ltPd hV the Growth Management Plan.
4. Noj ment' on of ~ti ci pA~ed shart~-term u~i l i z~ i ono urre at
o~ ann~ation ot~ rezpni~,ng. Had',, the app icarit ind c ted 't ei
ir~tentiohs, the Plarinin~ Ofl:ice`~wouyd ve s renwou ly ,bb~ee
rarnmmPnftPC1 that` ara''v annexation ~agreeme pre .1_.~de s~uc)/i usag
5. While the City Attorney concurs with the Planning Office's position
with respect to short-term use, the Housing Director is of the
opinion that no restriction should be attached to the free market
units which would limit their marketability or affect their financing.
The Housing Director's me~nora~dum i s at~tact~ed for your review.
r`= -~ ~ ..2."
Summarizing, the Planning Office strongly feel that the City's residential
zones should be limited to permanent residential usage and not for short-term
higher impact, tourist-oriented utilization. This policy is implicit in the
1973 Land Use update, the 1975 rezoning and in all subsequent rental limi-
tation and condominiumization legislation adopted by the City. While pro-
posed amendments to Section 24-3.7(0) for purposes of strengthening the
City's land use policies were not adopted, Council support for the concept_is
~r------- ~ - - y - - , ,
condominiumizations regardless of zone district. There exists both legis-
lative restric ions agains s or - erm u i ization in the R/MF, 0 and C-1
districts, as well as tacit approval for restricting such usage in the
City's remaining residential zones.
~ r ~ ..., ~ . ~ .. .. ~ ... p,,.v.-.-----~: - - -
plicants~ conceptual PUD/subdivision submission. Additional_issy,~s,~hRwevers
hich,we would like P & Z to consider, and which we are prepared to discuss
n greeter detail at your July 22, 1980 meeting include:
~ t
,tee ~Y.s ~~ ~H~v~~..
BPntial Zones. however, WdS noL dQOpLea, lne .q.L~~uiiie~i~ wic~i uva~
Memo; Castlewood) idgate
July 18, 1980
Page Five
1. The desirability of restricting development in the proposed Midland
right-of-way,
2. Exemption of the one parking space per bedroom requirement for the
free market portion of the project,
3. Right-of-way alignment and dedication of Cemetery Lane/Castle Creek
Road extension,
4. Trails and open space dedication as required by the subdivision regu-
lations,
5. The possibility of a land trade for a portion
located between the applicants' western proper
Cemetery Lane extension, and
~ 6. Tie q stion~of separate ale of Parc 1
/' r 7 1~1~-c-v
/ .~ecomm~n~da ~ `~~~~
J
In summary, the Planning Office recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Commission informally approve the general development concept presented
by the applicants, withholding formal conceptual PUD/subdivision approval
pending resubmission of a revised site plan. The revised plan should limit
employee housing and associated parking to the area east of a mutually
agreed-upon Cemetery Lane alignment between Highway 82 and the proposed Main
Street extension. The conceptual submission narrative should also be revised
to reflect resulting development densities and to incorporate all other
revisions necessitated by the Commission's July 22, 1980 review. Final
disposition by P & Z should be predicated upon the extent to which the
applicants satisfactorily comply with these conditions. In the event the
applicants feel that compliance is untenable, then any generalized conceF-
tual approval by P & Z should include the comments outlined above. In view
of the fact that decisions with regard to density were postponed at the
time of annexation until PUD review, the Planning Office feels that it
would be remiss if these questions were not satisfactorily resolved at this
time. Any recommendation to Council should carry a specific recommendation
with respect to the appropriate density for this project. Should P & Z fail
to specifically adc:ress density at this time, no further opportunity would be
available to the Commission until the preliminary plat stage of review.
~~
,..~ CITY OF A` t'EN
MEMO FROM SUNNY VANN
~. __ ~~.;
~, <~
/_
/ ~ ( /
~ _ ~ ~ i
Q J,,
~, ~~ .
r
~-
_i,. ,
' l' /
L' /
/' 1
MEMORANDUM
~~
TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
FROM: Daniel A. McArthur, City Engineer ~~
,1--
DATE: August 5, 1980
RE: Castle Wood - Headgate Conceptual P.U.D. Subdivision
After reviewing the above Conceptual P.U.D. Subdivision
submission dated 8/1/80, the Engineering Department would
like to add the following comments to the earlier letter
dated 7/3/80.
Alternative #1 - The Engineering Department has two basic
problems with Alternative #l, having a parking lot on the
opposite side of the street on employee housing units.
In the event the Castle Creek Road is ever realigned
to tie into the existing Cemetery Lane--Highway
82 intersection, this would create a major pedes-
trian safety hazard with regards to pedestrian
movements from the parking lot to the employee
housing units.
In the event the proposed Highway 82-Main Street
extension is ever developed, this would direct
all existing traffic from the Cemetery Lane Road
to pass through and divide the employee parking lot
from employee housing units. The above would
also create a major pedestrian safety hazard with
regards to pedestrian movements from the parking
lot to employee housing units.
In summary, the Engineering Department would not
recommend allowing the parking lot to be separated from the
employee housing units by division of a major street.
r
MEMORANDUM
T0: Aspen City Council
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
RE: Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual PUD/Subdivision Review
DATE: August 6, 1980
On July 22, 1980, the Planning and Zoning Commission formally approved the
Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual PUD/Subdivision application. The Commission
moved to approve with modifications the applicants' proposed development plan
(referred to as Alternative #2 in the attached document) in view of the numer-
ous work sessions that preceeded P & Z review and to expedite further proces-
sing of the Castlewood/Headgate application. The Commission, however,
conditioned its motion to approve upon the following:
That development of employee housing be confined to that portion of the
Marolt property located north of the proposed Main Street right-of-way,
south of Highway 82, and east of a mutually agreed-upon right-of-way
for the proposed Cemetery Lane/Castle Creek connector,
That the development of the project's free market housing be confined to
the area immediately south of the proposed Main Street extension right-
of-way,
3. That site constraints within the development envelopes outlined above
determine development densities,
4, That no indication as to the appropriateness of an overall density of
125 dwelling units be given at this time, but, rather, deferred until
Prelim~r,nary Plat review,
That recommendations with respect to
right-of-way; and open space, trails
deferred to Preliminary Plat review,
parking requirements; the Midland
and road dedications also be
and
6. That all free market development be subject to the six-month minimum
lease requirements of Section 20-22 of the Aspen Code.
The above conditions generally reflect the Planning Office's recommendations
with respect to the applicants.` July 22, 1980 P & Z submission. Our comments
are summarized in our memorandum dated July 18, 1980, which is attached for
your review.
In response to the condition attached by P & Z in its approval, the applicants
have modified their Conceptual submission. The revised development plan, which
is referred to as Alternative #1 in the attached document, clusters all of the
project's employee units east of the proposed Cemetery Lane/Castle Creek con-
nector as requested by P & Z. In order to maintain an overall project density
of 125 units, the employee unit mix has been revised and a portion of the
required employee parking allocated to an area west of the proposed Cemetery
Lane/Castle Creek connector. However, the Planning Office, in conjunction
with the Engineering Department and the applicant, is currently investigating
a more favorable alignment for the Cemetery Lane/Castle Creek connector to
enable all employee parking to be accommodated within the preferred employee housing
development envelope. In view of this ongoing investigation, the Planning Office
wo~!ld like to reserve its comments and recommendation with regard to the revised
development plan until the August 11, 1980 Council meeting.
With the exception of the relocation of the project's employee housing units
east of the Cemetery Lane/Castle Creek connector and the revision of the
employee housing unit mix, the applicants' Conceptual Submission is essentially
the same as that presented to P & Z.
. ~1
~ ~v
t~ ~ ~
c ~- ~~
~~~
11~~ T0: AsfSen
~~
FROM: Sunny
D d
MEMORANDUM
City Council
Vann, Planning Office
Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual PUD/Subdivision Review
August 6, 1980
On July 22, 1980, the Planning and Zoning Commission formally approved the
Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual PUD/Subdivision application. The Commission
moved to approve with modifications the applicants' proposed development plan
(referred to as Alternative #2 in the attached document) in view of the numer-
ous work sessions that preceeded P & Z review and to expedite further proces-
sing of the Castlewood/Headgate application. The Commission, however,
conditioned its motion to approve upon the following:
I, That development of employee housing be confined to that portion of the
~~ Marolt property located north of the proposed h1ain Street right-of-way,
south of Highway 82, and east of a mutually agreed-upon right-of-way
for the proposed Cemetery Lane/Castle Creek connector,
2. That the development of the project's free market housing be confined to
the area immediately south of the proposed Main Street extension right-
of-way,
3, That site constraints within the development envelopes outlined above
determine development densities,
4, That no indication as to the appropriateness of an overall density of
125 dwe7li.ng units be given at this time, but, rather, deferred until
Preliminary Plat review,
.~
~~ 5, That recommendations with respect to parking requirements; the Midland
` ~~ , ~ right-of-way; and open space, trails and road dedications also be
~~,~ ~,~~'`, deferred to Preliminary Plat review, and
~~,~~~'~ 6, That all free market development be subject to the six-month minimum
lease requirements of Section 20-22 of the Aspen Code.
The above conditions generally reflect the Planning Office's recommendations
with respect to the applicants.` July 22, 1980 P & Z submission. Our comments
are summarized in our memorandum dated July 18, 1980, which is attached for
your review.
tached by P & Z_in its approval, the applicants
submission. Tice revised development plan, which
units
is
a portion
Lane_/castle Creek connector. However, the Manning Uffice, in con~unct~~
v7fitfi the Engineering Department and the applicant, is currently investigating
a more favorable alignment for the Cemetery Lane/Castle Creek connector to
enable all employee parking to be accommodated within the preferred employee housing
development envelope. In view of this ongoing investigation, the Planning Office
would like to reserve its comments and recommendation with regard to the revised
development plan until the August 11, 1980 Council meeting.
With the exception of the relocation of the project's employee housing units
east of the Cemetery Lane/Castle Creek connector and the revision of the
employee housing unit mix, the applicants' Conceptual Submission is essentially
the same as that presented to P & Z.
~/G , f~Et°~ /~O ,~10% ~~i /~' ~i5 5GLlJ71G:n1
~'~'''°G~. ~
6 /°~• °/°
f LJ ~~ ~ ~ ~~'`~~~~G
`~ ~i-~ To G~iS~lG /-4L~7~ ~H~ .As
~ ~ ~G N
O _ O
Z
~ ~~
m~~~ ~~
~~~m~.~~~ ~~
~`-v~.~- ~~_
~ ~ ,~.~..
~.
~-
_ _ --. _ _ .._ ...i r.. _ __ _ ,
2
--
,~.~ ~~
---
1 II .r
"__- ~ - ~
~w .,__.... .-,____,
< ~" 1
~ l/ ~ "~ V
J
..~~~~'.._ ... rrr
"--~ ` y
~'''}''" + ~ c
._ ~; i ~ 4t
!.~„' ~
~ <~
6`
I-~ND CbY~A
v~ir-rn~ 5~z~ . ~#- -ro-rr~
t
S~vwo
to
i 3, o4C
CITY OF ASPEN LOW-MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING
RENTAL RATES
COMPARATIVE CHART
DECEMBER 2, 1980
DEED RESTRICTED UNITS (Total 75)
Unit Type
Castleridge
(Water & sewer paid)
Hunter Longhouse
(No utilities)
Creekside (Snowmass)
(Water & sewer paid)
Headgate (rep=ised
architecture)
(Construction 1981;
occupancy 1982)
(Plan 1)
NON-RESTRICTED UNITS
Silverking
(Utilities paid)
Studio
1 BR
2 BR
1 BR
2 BR
Studio
1 BR
2 BR
Studio
1 BR
2 BR
Studio
1 BR
2 BR
Studio
1 BR
2 BR
Size Monthly
Sq.Ft. Rent
482 $310
768 490
924 590
560 $340
812 495
250 $228
750 378
970 462
484 $338
637 445
845 591
516 $361
740 518
930 651
382 $425
595 490
800 650
Price per
Sq. Ft.
$.64
.63
.63
$.60
.60
$.91
.50
.47
$.70
.70
.70
$.70
.70
.70
$1.11
.93
.81
Week of November 23-29 Aspen Times listed 100 units for rent.
Only 5 were long term, with prices of generally $750 for a
1 bedroom unit and $1,050 for 3 bedrooms.
0
November 28, 1980
MEMO
TO: Sunny Vann, City of Aspen Planning Dept.
From: Carlie Wood
design workshop, inc.
415 s. spring
aspen, co 81611
303-925-8354
Attached are: 1) Prints with zipatone cross-hatch pattern
indicating the additional parking spaces necessary to full-
fill parking ratio requirements of the zoning code. As
was requested by the planning office and P&Z, we have shown
5 additional spaces in the Employee area which will be provided,
and 31 additional spaces in the Free Market area which will not be
built immediately but provided at a later date if deemed necessary
either from a traffic or marketing point of view.
2) Revised architecture for employee studio,
1 bedroom and 2 bedroom units. The new unit mix and sizes are
as follows:
36 - 2 bedroom
24 - 1 bedroom
20 - Studios
@ 845 SF each
@ 637 SF each
@ 484 SF each,
Below is a comparative chart showing rental r in Plan 1
(as submitted in preliminary Plat submission f tober 15,
and Plan 2 with the revised architecture:
i -
i
Plan 1 ~ Plan 2 9o reduction
Studio 361.00 f'j ~-. 00 Q 12%
i 1
1 bedroom 518.00 ~ 445.00 t 14%
2 bedroom 651.00 591.00 990
1980)
The building configurations ave Chang d in order to maximize
efficiency of construction a d thereb lower rental rates as
much as possible.
2 bedroom buildings (see rende '
There are six units per building in a 2~-3 story structure.
A central stair for circulation divides the building in two
and provides private entries for each unit. The site plan
would accomodate three of these 2 bedroom buildings easily.
1 bedroom/Studio units
These four buildings each contait, six - 1 bedroom units and
5 studio units (utility and storage areas account for one
studio in each building).
community development land planning landscape architecture
,
I ~
I. i ~ ~
~ ~~ -i ,
~
; l i
1 j !
_,
'
i I
f
J
J
~
G C
0 0
O
O
.tee I Z i
~ W 'i
D
~--
~,
~~c .~ i'
', i'''''
I I
!~:
i
t ~
' ~
i:_II, I
~, i I
I~ '
~ .
i ~ ~
~ Q I
~~ f
j'
I., ~~.
,,,
~I
0
~---- ~
0
_
o ,~
N
~ ~.
H N
...........
__ -' _ ~ y
M
--~ < J ~
/~ o
/ ~f - 1~
._.- ~.~.-- ~ p
i ~
r
~~ ~ ~ ~
~~ i
Q y
'L _.~. .
f Z
i '~ z ~'' ~
t-----.-1 ", ~ Q
--_ +'~' Ids
~ Q
w ~
Z I
V i
~--
Z
Z J
,,
;;
i ~ i. ~~
,, ,~i
!i
I ~ ,~
ij
i
,',i
.~
;,
~ N
z
~ ~
~ ~
0
m
O
L~
r
~I~
j~
i
i
MEMORANDUM
T0: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Jay Hammond, Engineering Department
January 20, 1981
Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual Subdivision
Having reviewed the amended conceptual application for the
Castlewood/Headgate project, and having made a site inspection,
the Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. It should be noted that most of the comments in my
memorandum of November 14, 1980, remain in effect
with the exception of Number 6 under Circulation,
which has been rectified.
2. Special note should be made of comment Number 4 under
Plat regarding the proximity of the free market access
easement to the Main Street right-of-way.
3. The applicant has suggested an alternate access
alignment to the employee units from Castle Creek
Road. I would reiterate our desire to develop
the alignment to the Cemetery Lane intersection
while avoiding any further loads on the Castle/Maroon
intersection as discussed in the work session with
Council on January 15, 1981.
4. During the January 15, 1981 session with the Planning
and Zoning Commission and Council, there was consider-
able discussion of the status of the Midland right-of-
way alignment. Consensus at the time appeared to
be a desire to preserve some capacity to utilize an
alignment to the south of the proposed free market
units while not necessarily requiring a rigid adherence
to the old Midland line. The following comments
should be noted:
a) The Castlewood free market units as
proposed would completely obstruct
the 60-foot right-of-way investigated
for possible use by this office in 1975.
b) It would appear possible to adjust the
bridge and right-of-way locations to
avoid the proposed units and utilize the
parcel proposed for dedication to the
City as open space. This would result
''~ Castlewood/He, Sate
January 20, 1981
PAGE T?90
in a shorter bridge span and a different
curve alignment to the west requiring more
interference with the Thomas open space.
c) In view of the status of the Midland right-
of-way (non-existent) and the applicant's
willingness to deed the parcel to the
south of the free market units knowing the
land could be used as a transportation
corridor, the possibility of having to
shift the alignment would not present any
real problems beyond those inherent in the
Midland plan.
While we are inclined to view the new conceptual submission as
a more difficult site plan in terms of utility extension and
access needs, none of the problems are insurmountable. Re-
location of the employee units also provides a better oppor-
tunity to require that a large development assist in the
provision and construction of a new road alignment servicing
the Castle Creek corridor.
MEMORANDUM
T0:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Aspen City Council
Sunny Vann, Planning Office
Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual P.U.D./Subdivision~Review
January 20, 1981 /.'~,.,~~~ ~' %G~.,... I~ ~~~/i,,a„~~c:~
Background
On November 18, 1980, the Planning and Zoh~ng Commissi~~fi reviewed the appli-
cants' preliminary PUD/subdivision submission. As the Planning Office's
attached memorandum dated November 13, 1980 indicates, all of the conditions
attached by P & Z and Council at the conceptual review stage with respect to
design parameters were met by the applicants and were incorporated in their
preliminary plat submission.. No formal action was taken by P & Z in its
initial review of the applicants" preliminary submission. A straw vote,
however, was taken with respect to the Planning Office's recommendations,
the rQsults of which are summarized in our memoranda dated December 1, 1980,
which is attached for your review.. The Commission expressed considerable
concern over the projected rental rates of the employee housing portion of
the project and the application was tabled until December 2, 1980 in order
to enable the applicants to reconsider this aspect of the project.
The applicants subsequently submitted a revised employee housing proposal,
which was reviewed by P & Z at a December 2 public hearing. While the revised
employee rental structure more closely approximated the City's employee
housing price guidelines, there was considerable public concern with regard
to the size of the project, its density, its location with respect to the
entrance of Aspen, and the revised price structure. A second straw vote
resulted in a 5 to 1 decision to deny and the application was once again
tabled to a date uncertain.
On December 8, 1980, an informal work session involving both the Planning
and Zoning Commission and City Council was held to discuss the Commission's
concerns and the current status of the Castlewood/Headgate project. After
considerable discussion, it was the general consensus of opinion of both
P & Z and Council that the nroiect could be approved if certain parameters
were adhered to. Specifically,l)that the employee housing portion of the
project be relocated to the southern-most portion of the site; 2) that the
overall density of the project be reduced to approximately 100 units; 3).that
the Main Street right-of-way be dedicated as the preferred alignment for a
revised entrance to Aspen; 4) that the project be subject to the six-month
lease restriction of the Municipal Code; and 5) that all efforts be made to
minimize the projected rental rates of the employee portion of the project
to the extent possible.
The applicants have revised their development plan to essentially comply
with the above directives. The employee portion of the project has been
relocated to the southern-most extremity of the site. The overall density
has been reduced to 104 units, 73 employee and 31 free market. In addition,
the Main Street right-of-way is proposed for dedication and the projected
rental rates for the employee portion of the project have been reduced
through a re-design of the units. The applicants, however, are still
requesting exemption from the six-month minimum lease restriction of the
Municipal Code.
Inasmuch as we have attempted to accommodate the applicants by placing this
conceptual review on the first available Council agenda, the Planning Office
is unable to provide you with detailed comments at this time. Both the
Planning Office and the applicants, however, are prepared to discuss the
project in detail at your January 26, 1981 meeting.
r ~.
T0: City Council, Wayne Chapman, Sunny Vann
FROM: Jim Reents
DATL: January 21, 1981
SUBJECT: Six Dionth Minimum Lease Provision
The six month minimum lease provision is applied in two distinct
cases in the City's code.
1. In the RMF, C1, and O office districts, the six month
minimum lease is incorporated into the zoning code. This
allows no housing to be constructed except (in theory) long
term housing.
2. Under the condominiumization section of the subdivision code,
a 6 month minimum lease restriction is a requirement for
condominiumization.
In both cases, two shorter terms are allowed per year, each of two
week duration. There are certain problems inherent within this part
of the code. There is currently no provision to disallow subleases
under a master lease nor is there any way to police the shorter
terms. At the present time, enforcement of the six month lease
provision is on a complaint only basis. Unless the City is willing
to institute unit checks on a periodic basis, the whole provision
relies on good will compliance by each owner.
There appears to be dual intent with the six month lease. One is
to preserve long term rental housing within the community and the
other is preservation of the residential character of neighborhoods.
While both might be worthy goals, the short term seems to be in conflict
with both. In the case of preservation of long term housing, if an
individual must vacate or relocate every six months, it hardly seems
the case. In the preservation of the residential character of neigh-
borhoods, allowing short term usage at all seems a conflict.
It would be my suggest~nn that the City Council consider dropping the
shorter term section. 1 feel that there would be less of an enforce-
ment problem without't~r shorter term and address more directly the
intent of the regula`_~cn I feel then that the administration could
police the deed restzirt---:.units through a periodic advertising pro-
gram to inform tenants of she provisions of the six month minimum
lease and have it t-zs~~onr;_: ;r.~ slant enforced.
An alternative coul%;.'Y~es-~-~•~ be to require a business license and tax
collection for any ;-;;o>t ~- rm unit in the community. However, this
would also present its o::., enforcement problem.
Y
The disadvantage of this action woulri be. Lo put an undetermined
strain on the lodging community during the .peak season. This
could~be addressed more directly by some adjustment to the lodging
section cf the growth management section of chapter 24.
The six month lease provision has come to the lore front with the
Castlewood/Aeadgate proposal. The philosophy behind the 70/30
ordinance was to provide a Ftobin Rood situation in which the free
market units offset some costs on thc, restricted units. In this
particular case; the zone district (R 1571) does not disallow short
term usage, but rather the condominiumization section of the code
requires it (Sec. 20-22), the intent, being to prevent displacement
and to preserve long term housing.
With a 70/30 project, we are requiring the developer to develop long
term housing and expecting him to off-set costs through the marketing
of hi s. free market units. To limit the marketability of these units
by imposing the six month minimum lease, it seems we have a conflict
of intent: -
My recommendation to Council would be to seriously consider the waiver
of the six month minimum lease provision, (Sac. 20-19). It might
be noted, although the condominiumization section of the code does not
differenciate between commercial and residential. property, most
commercial applications have not had the six month lease imposed.
If the concern of Council is to preserve the residential character of
this area, perhaps a more direct way to go about it would be a code
amendment applying the six month lease to all residential zones
(primarily Rn, R15 and R30).
RECORD OF PROCEEDi(~GS 100 Leaves
I2E5vi~UTION NO.
(Scri.es of 14&1)
WHEREAS, there is concern on the part of Marolt that it may
jeopardize ley al rights which may have accrued by virtue of
actions by the City of- Aspen during the heretofore subdivision
process, and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has requested Marolt to choose
between two alternative methods in continuing the subdivision
process, that is, Marolt may submit an amended Preliminary Plat,
or go back to City Council at conce~rtual phase, and
WHEREAS, the City, through its staff has stated its prefer-
ence that Marolt go back to City Council at conceptual phase, and
WHEREAS, it is the position of the, City of A:~pen that Marolt,
by going back to City Council at conceptual phase, shall not waive
any rights which may have accrued during the heretofore subdivi-
sion process.
NOW, THEREL'URE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, that the City of Aspen hereby covenants
agrees that Marolt will not waive any legal rights which may have
accrued during the heretofore subdivision proceedings, and that by
going back to City Council at conceptual phase, Marolt shall not
be deemed to have waived any rights, legal or otherwise, with
respect to any prior actions on the part of Marolt or the City of
Aspen in connection with the subdivision. process for the subject
property and the Annexation Ayreerment executed in contemplation
thereof and that Marolt shall retain the same rights, remedies and
claims as may have accrued and which may have been asserted if
Marolt did not agree to qo back to Council at the conceptual
phase.
Dated:
Herman Edel
Mayor
RECORD OE PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
I, Kathryn 5. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk of
the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby certify that the foregoing is
a true and accurate copy of. that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the
day of -, 19kS1.
Kathryn S. Koch
City Clerk
COUNCIL MEETING January 26, 1980
Councilwoman Michael moved to approve the Castlewood/Headgate conceptual
PUD/subdivision review with the following conditions:
1. That the development include 104 living units, that being 73 employee
housing units and 31 free market units
2. That rentals on the employee housing units conform to middle income
guidelines of $.70 per square foot '
3. That the development provide two parking spaces per dwelling unit
with the provision of one parking space per bedroom in the event it
is determined it is required.
4. The provision of right-of-way for possible Main street extension;
dedication of two major open space areas, the land along the Castle
Creek corridor and the undeveloped area south of the free market
portion of the project.
5. Frohibition against short term rentals in the development.
6. Access to the development to be off highway.82 in the Cemetery Lane
area
7. Location of the employee housing units to the southernmost portion
of the property
seconded by Councilman-Van Ness
Councilmembers Michael, Van Ness, Behrendt and Mayor Edel in favor;
Councilmembers Isaac and Collins opposed.
~ ~ ~~ ... i'. ~,_._.
r t
l ~ 4 ,
~..
i{
_~_ .}
~. fl ,
~~ ~ ,~ ~-
,
,,
r, ; ._ ~
~,,
~~
~~~
~9 ~~~
~~~,r~~
J 'N/
~~ ~
~~~~u~`
~'c~f~
~.
~ - ~ . ,ate-;/~O ~~
=~ ~~~
~~~ ~~ ~~
~~
Session City Council and P 6 Z December 8, 1990
.f
Council and P 6 Z met at noon to discuss the Castlewood/Headgate subdivision application.
Present were Councilmembers Behrendt, Michael, Parry and Van Ness; P s Z members Hedstrom P
Harvey, Pardee, Blomauist, Tygre, Anderson and Hunt. Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt stated there !;
have been problems with this application. It is the first 70/30 residential bonus project~~
of any size. The P & Z has strong feelings about this project. The Council would like I
to hear from the applicant and the P 6 Z. ;~
Sun ni' Vann, planning office, reviewed the application from the beginning. The property =-
was annexed and zezoned with a revision provision in the event a development solution could
not be reached. The annexation agreement was written with the tone to infer this would
be an appropriate location for a 70/30 density bonus project, if the variety of concerns Ij
of staff, P & Z and Council could be met. A maximum density of 125 units was set; the !;
criteria was ability of site to carry the units, open space, etc. These issues could be
addressed through t PUD process as the residential bonus had not been passed. The under-
lying zone, R-l5A would have permitted about 150 units ignoring site constraints - slope j
reduction, rights-of-way, access. PUD would give the mechanism of a review process. I~
Vann stated if the net acreage of the parcel is reduced down £rom 35 acres to 20 to 25 ~I
acres for these site constraints, it would result in a net density of 90 to 110 units. ~!
At the time of annexation, the applicant contended financial investigations indicated a '~
density of 125 units would be necessary. The planning office and City Council reluctantly ~i
agreed to go ahead with this figure with the understanding that through the PUD process,
the applicant would show whether this was realistic and if 125 units was required. The ~',j
property was rezoned to R-15A/PUD/SPA because before the residential bonus, multi-family '~'
could not be permitted without SPA. Since then, any more units over the underlying zone
district would require rezoning to residential bonus overlay. (,
i
The applicant put together a conceptual PUD subdivision based on the annexation constraints.
Several alternatives were submitted to the planning office. These were referred to in-
house agencies, Open Space Advisory Board and some citizens' groups. A number of issues
arose and the applicant was notified in an effort to resolve some potential problems. In i~,
the meetings with OSAB and the P & Z, three parameters came out. (1) vehicular access to .~.
employee and free market sites should be via a Cemetery Lane extension - engineering and ,i
P & Z felt Castle Creek could not take the added traffic. (2) Another concern from OSAB
and concurred by P & Z was that open space should not be fragmented but a significant
open space parcel should be created by the development and should be contiguous to the
Thomas property. (3) From review of all proposals, it was found the employee housing units
should be located south of the Main street extension to maintain a significant open space
parcel, proximity to transportation and the constraints of adding additional employee !~,
traffic to Castle Creek. l
Based on these parameters, the applicant came up with a zevised plan to incorporate these.!
There was an additional plan to show the employee housing on the southernmost part of ,
the property. P S Z reviewed this, and at conceptual approval came up with six criteria. '
(1) development of employee housing confined north of Main street right-of-way and south of
Highway 82 and east of a mutually agreed upon right-of-way for the Castle Creek/Cemetery 'I
Lane connector. (2) development of the free market housing be south of the Main street
extension right-of-way. (3) that site constraints determine development densities. (4) ;i
no indication of appropriate density of 125 units be given at conceptual review but be 4
deferred to P s Z preliminary plat review. ~ (5) recommendations regarding parking, Midland',
right-of-way, open space, trails and road dedication be deferred to preliminary at the
request of the applicant. (6) all free market units be subject to six month rental ",
restrictions. The applicants had requested exemption from the six month rental restrictions
This is the way the application left P & Z. Council essentially concurred with the
additional condition that the Castle Creek/Cemetery Lane extension right-of-way be located
to maximize the size of the parcel for employee housing. ~I
I
The application then went to preliminary plat. The planning office memorandum at that
time states the applicant had concurred with the paramemters imposed on it in the con-
ceptual process. The engineering department had site specific conditions, technical in
nature. Vann told Council a new feature. at the preliminary stage was a separate one acre ~~!.
parcel for relocation of Mrs. Dtarolt's house. It was argued this would create further
intrusion into the option space on the southern portion of the property. P & Z did not `;
agree with the planning office and had no problem with this. The parking issue was dealt ~:
with at preliminary, and P 5 Z stated the applicant must meet one space requirement for j
residential development. However, P & Z was willing to waive an initial provision in the ~!
free .market portion with flexibility to provide this at final plat. ~I
The planning office recommended the integrity of the Midland right-of-way be maintained - ',,j
no development be allowed in this right-of-way until a final disposition was made. P & Z '
did not concur with this and felt it was appropriate to take a stand and pass their ~j
recommendation to Council. P S Z recommended the P4ain street right-of-way should be a
dedicated right-of-way. P s Z approved the applicant's site plan, which shows developmenh;~..
in the Midland right-of-way. P s Z reaff fired their commitment to the six month rental
restrictions.
I~
Vann told the Boards density is at 114 units, including Mrs. Marolt's relocated structure.~~'
Vann said the applicant pray ided detailed information regarding the slope reducatior„ and
the planning office computed the underlying zone density to be 100 units on the PUD find-
ings. The planning office argued, given the parameters of where the units were to be
located and the conditons put on at conceptual stage, that the applicant would have to use'
the residential bonus to get the density to 114 units over the underlying 100 units. Vann'
explained a reduction of 14 units would not significantly reduce the visual or physical '.
impact of the project. A substantial reducation to 80 units would make a change. it
Study Session City Council and P S_Z _~r _December•S, 1980
P & Z, in reviewing preliminary plat, had a problem with the employee units - they were all
over the minimum size of City Code, which resulted in the rents falling close to middle
income guidelines. P 6 Z felt to approve this project and at this location, it should be
providing more affordable employee housing. P & Z tabled the application for the applicant
to change the size of the employee units so that the rents would be closer to moderate
income range. Vann said the applicants then submitted revised drawings for the employee
portion, slight change in mix, smaller units, with rents about at the moderate range in
1982. There were some other changes, and the planning office was reserving comments for a
site plan.
Vann told Council not all P & Z members agreed with the location of the units. At the
public hearing, there was considerable input that the project was too big, too dense, on
the entrance to Aspen, too expensive. At the last P & Z meeting, the P S Z tabled action
with a straw vote -- if the applicant submitted changes, could the Commission approve the
project -- and a 5 to 1 vote against.
Al Blomquist asked to what extent the City had a contractual obligation through the annexa-
tion agreement. Acting City Attorney Bob Edmondson sai3 the agreement speaks to that with
the revision clause. Lee Pardee asked taht upon conceptual approval with three conditions,
which the applicant has met, what reliance does the applicant have. Edmondson said the
process is three-pronged, conceptual, preliminary, and final, and there is never any agree-
ment an applicant is "in". Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt asked that P & Z and Council go over
the areas of concern - siting, density, easements, costs of the units.
Olof Hed Strom said at the beginning there was the goal o£ employee housing; this was a '~
developer that listended to ali concerns. Hedstrom said at the first public he acing of ;~
preliminary plat there was areal sincerity and devotion to Aspen rather tpan personal ~'
concerns . Hedstrom stated "density is forever", and people will always Have to look at
this project on the entrance to town. Hedstrom agreed with the OSAB original recommendation
that the entire parcel remain open space; however, he disagrees with the compromise that ''
the project be clustered at the bridge and Highway. Hedstrom stated he feels the open ~
space should be preserved on both sides of the Highway to the Castle Creek bridge. Hedstrom
said he felt the density is too great, and whatever it is, it should be as far back and II
out of sight as possible. Hedstrom said he doubted in the end this project would provide I~
affordable employee housing. ~
Lee Pardee stated he has always been in favor of the project. The developer has been coop-
erative; the City gave parameters, which they met. Pardeed stated he liked the 70/30
policy. Pardee said he felt .the P & 2 was swayed by the OSAB, and he would prefer the units
in the corner away from Highway 82 where they can be hidden. Pardee said his problem was
the cost of the units. Pardee stated density should be a function of location, site plan, '~~~
etc. Pardee said he does not mind density but does mind bulk and massing. ~j
Welton Anderson said he did not know enough about financial feasibility to determihe den
under the "Robin Hood" theory. Anderson said this project may be too dense. Anderson
stated his problem is the location and the siting. Anderson said hewould prefer the si
as originally presented; the density is, perhaps, an economic problem.
Roger Hunt said, given the decision there will be development here, the choice is now what
is the next best thing to occur. Hunt stated he felt now is the wrong time to be denying
a project. Hunt pointed out, on the basis of inspections, it was decided to cluster
development near accesses and leave everything else open. Hunt said he preferred concen-
trated development, however at a slightly less density, where it is on the preliminary pla
On the right-of-way question, Hunt wants the Main street extension. Hunt stated the
employee housing is still too high in cost, but what isn't. fIUnt reiterated it is too lat
to say no.
Jasmine Tygre stated her initial concern was the cost of employee housing; the idea of
extra density or overlay bonus is an exchange to get employee housing, which was perceived
as a community need. 70/30 bonus is not appropriate to get moderate or middle income hous~
ing but should produce low income housing. Ms. Tygre said she is not in favor of the
siting with the employee units close to Highway 82. If a relocation is possible, she woul~
prefer them farther from view. Regarding overall density, Ms. Tygre stated this is much tc
dense but could not give a specific number of units. Ms. Tygre said the impact of this
many more people on the west side of town has to be looked at with respect to Main street
and the transportation system. T'he traffic patterns will change.
Al Blomquist said he felt there is a contractual obligation through the annexation agree-
ment. Blomquist demonstrated on a map where he felt the employee housing should be moved.
Blomquist stated the open space corridor along the river is priceless, and a big issue is
that the parcels across the river not be sold and be kept as part of the open space.
Secondly, the open space connector across to the golf course and onto the Zoline property
a great planning opportunity for continuous open .space.
Perry Harvey concurred that the entrance to town should not be built upon. Harvey stated
the density is approximately 20 to 25 per cent too great. The easements are all right;
trails will be worked out. Harvey pointed out this project is making a trade with a
developer - he gets 30 per cent free market housing in exchange for 70 per cent good
employee housing. Harvey stated, although this is not the city's concern, the 30 per cent
has to work economically. The six month r~tal restriction cannot be applied to these
free market units; the}' have to be able to be sold for the maximum amount bf money. If
not, this will compromise the quality of the employee units.
Hedstrom stated the density is too high by 20 to 25 per cent; the developer has to work
out finances to achieve density the P & Z and Council can support for the people of Aspen. ~~
Hedstrom reiterated ne would accept siting as far back as possible from the highway. ~~
Regarding the six month rental restriction, Hedstrom is in favor of it but would accept a ~~.
waiver to make the project work. Pardee stated he favored no restriction. Hunt said if ~,~
the city wanted to take off the six month rental restrictions, then rezone the property ~!~
L-1 and L-2; if they want it residential, keep it residential which requires six month ''
rental restrictions.
~~
~~
Session City Council and P & Z December 6, '_980
~~
Vann told the Boards the project has been designed with short-term receiver areas and j
uses. The planning office arguement is that this is an R-15 zone district and app ropriate~'.
for long term residential uses and should be restricted. Ms. Tygre said she felt it ~j
important to uphold the six month ~r esntal restrictions in this area to retain it as a
residential area. Blomquist said no to six month rental restrictions. Anderson stated
he saw no answer to this question as the units could be vacant 10 or 11 months a year. !'
Vann restated the issue whether this should be a residential area by definition and what '~
happens to that concept to provide a mechanism to short term the units. If *_he six month ~,!
lease restriction is ignored here and a different project comes in, where dces one draw j
the line. Pardee pointed out with the new i0/30 ordinance and special review procedures,
on of the procedures can be to review whether or not the six month rental restrictions ii
should apply. This would require a minor Code amendment.
Councilman Van Ness stated he preferred the 3ensity toward the read and has no problem
with the 114 unit density. Van Ness said the cost of the employee units seems reasonable "~.
and yes, there should be six month rental restrictions on the units. Van Ness said it is ',
important that something should be built on this property as the City is committed by ~,;
contract. Behrendt stated the City is not committedby contract as pointed out by the ',i
Acting City Attorney. ~
i
Councilwoman Michael said she felt all through the process siting of employee housing should
be at Castle Creek. This did not come to Council as an option. Ms. Michael pointed out, '~.'!
whether this project is done or not, Castle Creek is going to be inadequate. The ~'I
community will have to come to a conclusion, Marolt project or not, that something will !~
have to be done about Castle Creek. Ms. Michael stated she preferred the siting of the
employee housing on Caslte Creek with the understanding the inadequacy of Castle Creek
road will have to be dealt with. Ms. Michael agreed with the right-of-way as proposed.
The density should be around 100 or as low as practical; the six month rental restrictions'
should stay. ~
!
!
Councilman Parry said he preferred siting of the original map; the density is okay. Parry ,.
said he preferred Main street right-of-way and does not care about the Midland-right-of-1
way. The cost of employee housing is fine. Parry said he does not think the six month ;
rental restrictions is necessary. Behrendt told the Boards that Mayor Edel had said a ,
project is necessary but would like to see the density reduced. Behrendt stated the public
sector has to recognize with this project, Castleridge, county project, the hospital, etc.';
something has to be done about the roads. Behrendt said he wanted the siting of the
project at the rear of the site. Behrendt said he would go as far as 90 units for l;_
density. The Main street right-of-way has to stay and Behrendt would appeal to leave the ~!
Midland right-of-way open or 30 years away, the next technology will have no place to go. ",
Behrendt stated the narrow Midland strip should remain open and everything should be built'.
back of that to the maximum density allowed. Behrendt said, regarding the cost of employee
housing, to expect the developer to build quality units, the moderate category should be
considered. Behrendt said given the location of the £ree market units and the residentia lj
character of the neighborhood, he would not want to see the units short-termed and wants II
the six month rental restriction to remain.
I~
Jim Mulligan, representing the applicant, told the Boards they did not expect the units
to generally be used as short-term rentals; however, from marketability this is a buyer ;i
choice. Also permanent financing with a six month restriction is very difficult. Carly !
Woods said the designers of the project felt the units should be at the south. ill
Vann stated he felt this meeting indicated this. project isback at conceptual stage. ~~
Considering the cost involved in going to preliminary stage, the applicant will not want ~i
to go back to preliminary stage until they get a conceptual approvalfrom P & Z and '~~
Council. Vann outlined the issues and the general consensus. (1) new conceptual approva l'~!
with the employee housing at the southernmost part of the property. (2) density - the
feeling is split but most in favor of a reduction from 80 to 100 units with *_he minority
members saying the existing density is all right. The underlying zone density is 100 ~,
units, and some members say an increase above the underlying density may be inappropriate .:~
(3) the question of access to Castle Creek is subject to discussion with a tendency
that improvement to Castle Creek is required. There are alternatives on the location of "~;!~~
this alignment. (4) The Main street right-of-way should be a dedicated right-of-way. '~
Behrendt and Hedstrom want the Midland right-of-way to be preserved. Vann said this '~,j
issue may become moot if the density goes down and it is not necessary to develop into
the right-of-way itself. Ms. Michael stated the majority of people do not feel the is
Midland important enough to change the site design in that area.
l
Vann brought up the six month minimum lease - which he felt the Boards are generally in
favor of keeping. The general feeling of the Hoards is to keep the cost of the employee
housing low to moderate. The applicant asked if there was any predisposition against the ~~
apartment-type housing. P & Z and Council said no. Behrendt asked now where this is in
the process. Vann said the P & Z cannot take action on the plat as submitted. Vann said '~'
the applicant will have to go back to conceptual approval before P & Z, unless Council
wants to defer that step and have the conceptual come straight to Council. Mulligan said ~,
this application has bees approved at conceptual with certain parameters. Chang"i ng those '~'
pre-approved parameters, they are no longer in the same plat mode procedurally. T'.:ey ~
have to go back and start at conceptual again. What has caused this is the relocation
of the building envelope for the employee project; that is the only change. Mulligan -~
said the applicant has spent time, energy and money trying to solve the issue regarding ~~
the Castle Creek road. It bas the city engineering department said that the employee
units could not be there just because of that road. They relocated the employee units !.
up by highway 82 for that reason. Wayne Chapman, city manager, said the Council seems to ~:~.
be saying they are willing to bite the bullet, temporarily, with the traffic problems
that are created by putting the employee envelope on the 'back. Zf the units are left at
the front, they are there forever and no matter what traffic improvements are made, which
will have to be made irrespective of that, the units will be there forever. Council is ~~.
saying they will trade off the hopefully temporary traffic problem in the hopes of getting
a clear portal at the bridge. i,l
Study Session City Council and P & Z December 8, 1960
Behrendt reiterated he felt the Midland right-of-way should be designed around or there
will be problems in the future. Behrendt asked where this application was in terms of
process. Vann said there is a preliminary plat pending before P 6 Z, which has been
tabled. This plat has to be approved, app rove3 with conditions, or disapproved. Given
the change ih the conceptual format, the applicant is back at square one. Vann said the
applicant could redesign the preliminary plat; however, with the cost of details required
the applicant may not to risk that exposure without getting some conceptual approval from
the Boards along these new guidelines. The applicant can have this flexibility if they
want to take the chance. The applicant can also submit a new conceptual to P s 2 and this
will be fast tracked to Council; it is up to the applicant.
Mulligan said going back to conceputal and fast tracking may be all right; however, all
construction figures are based on starting May 1981. If the applicant does go back to
the start, something has to be done with the preliminary plat submission. If the intent
is to let the plat die, it is with the stipulation that the intent of everyone is not to
let the project die.. Vann said the planning o£f ice would fast track this to the extent
possible; however, there are minimum review requirements to he met. There will be a time
delay and more than one P 6 Z and Council meeting before P & Z sees this as a preliminary
plat. Varn reiterated it is up to the applicant to choose how they wish to proceed; they
may simply redesign their preliminary plat. Behrendt suggested the developer, city attornE
and planning staff get together and work out a solution for taking this project back
through P & Z. Hedstrom welcomed that and said they would like to see this project move
forward to some kind of solution. Hedstrom said he would prefer them going back to con-
ceptual and finding ways to expedite the movement of the application. Vann told Council
if the applicant comes in with a revised preliminary plat, when Council sees the project
it will be final plat. Vann said P & Z could waive their conceptual review and the
applicant could revise their plan along the guidelines outlined here and go straight to
Council with the conceptual plan. If this is done, P 5 2 will have no input to conceptual
and will only see this at preliminary stage. Council and P & Z agreed they would try to
expedite the matter.
Meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
Kathryn S. ~KOCh, City Clerk
Study Session __ City Council and P s Z _ _-- __ __ December 8, 1980 __~
Council and P & Z met at noon to discuss the Castlewood/Headgate subdivision application. '
Present were Councilmembers Behrendt, Michael, Parry and Van Ness; P 6 Z members Hedstrom ~~
Harvey, Pardee, Blomcuist, Tygre, Anderson and Hunt. Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt stated there '.~
have been problems with this application. It is the first 70/30 residential bonus projec t.'i
of any size. The P & Z has strong feelings about this project. The Council would like
to hear from the applicant and the P & Z. ~
Sun M Vann, planning office, reviewed the application f rom the beginning. The property '~.~.
was annexed and rezoned with a revision provision in the event a development solution could
not be reached. The annexation agreement was written with the tone to infer this would
be an appropriate location for a '70/30 density bonus project, if the variety o£ concerns
of staff, P & Z and Council could he met. A maximum density of 125 units was set; the
criteria was ability of site to carry the units, open space, etc. These issues could be
addressed through t PUD process as the residential bonus had not been passed. The under- ~~
lying zone, R-15A would have permitted about 150 units, ignoring site constraints - slope
reduction, rights-of-way, access. PUD would give the mechanism of a review process.
~I
Vann stated if the net acreage of the parcel is reduced down from 35 acres to 20 to 25 i~,
acres for these site constraints, it would result in a net density of 90 to 110 units. '~,~
At the time of annexation, the applicant contended financial investigations indicated a
density of 125 units would be necessary. The planning office and City Council reluctantly.
agreed to go ahead with this figure with the understanding that through the PUD process,
the applicant would show whether this was realistic and if 125 units was required. The '
property was rezoned to R-15A/PUD/SPA because before the residential bonus, multi-family ~,
could not be permitted without SPA. Since then, any more units over the underlying zone
district would req_u ire rezoning to residential bonus overlay.. I~
The applicant put together a conceptual PUD subdivision based on the annexation constraints.
Several alternatives were submitted to the planning office. These were referred to in-
house agencies, Open Space Advisory Board and some citizens' groups. A number of issues ,~
arose and the applicant was notified in an effort to resolve some potential problems. In ~;
the meetings with OSAB and the P & Z, three parameters came out. (1) vehicular access to ~'~.
employee and free market sites should be via a Cemetery Lane extension - engineering and
P s 2 felt Castle Creek could not take the added traffic. (2) Another concern from OSAB
and concurred by P & Z was that open space shculd not be fragmented but a significant I,
open space parcel should be created by the development and should be contiguous to the
Thomas property. (3) From review of all proposals, it was found the employee housing units
should be located south of the Main street extension to maintain a significant open space
parcel, proximity to transportation and the constraints of adding additional employee II
traffic to Castle Creek.
Based on these parameters, the applicant came up with a revised plan to incorporate these .I
There was an additional plan to show the employee housing on the southernmost part of
the property. P & Z reviewed this, and at conceptual appioval came up with six criteria. '.'
(1) development of employee housing confined north of Main street right-of-way and south of
Highway 82 and east of a mutually agreed upon right-of-way for the Castle Creek/Cemetery
Lane connector. (2) development of the free market housing be south of the Main street '~~
extension right-of-way. (3) that site constraints determine development densities. (4)
no indication of appropriate density of 125 units be given at conceptual review but be
deferred to P & Z preliminary plat review. (5) recommendations regarding parking, Midlandi
right-of-way, open space, trails and road dedication be deferred to preliminary at the
request of the applicant. (6) all free market units be subject to six month rental ',I
restrictions. The applicants had requested exemption from the six month rental restrictions
~I
This is the way the application left P & Z. Council essentially concurred with the
additional condition that the Castle Creek/Cemetery Lane extension right-of-way be located".
to maximize the size of the parcel for employee housing. ~I
The application then went to preliminary plat. The planning office memorandum at that !I
time states the applicant had concurred with the paramemters imposed on it in the con-
ceptual process. The engineering department had site specific conditions, technical in
nature. Vann told Council a new feature at the preliminary stage was a separate one acre F
parcel for relocation of Mrs. Marolt's house. St was argued this would create further
intrusion into the option space on the southern portion of the property. P & Z did not
agree with the planning office and had no problem with this. The parking issue was dealt ~',~
with at preliminary, and P s Z stated the applicant must meet one space requirement for
residential development. However, P & Z was willing to waive an initial provision in the ~':
free marketportion with flexibility to provide this at final plat. 'I!
The planning office recommended the integrity of the Midland right-of-way be maintained -
no development be allowed in this right-of-way until a final disposition was made. P & Z !;~
did not concur with this and felt it was appropriate to take a stand and pass their
recommendation to Council. P s Z recommended the Main street right-of-way should be a
dedicated right-of-way. P & Z approved the applicant's site plan, which shows developmentr.
in -the Midland right-of-way. P & Z reaffired their commitment .to the six month rental ;i
restrictions. - -
-Vann told the Boards density is at 114 units, including Mrs. Ma rolt's relocated structure.,'.
Vann said the applicant provided detailed information regarding the slope reducation, and °
the planning of £ice computed the underlying zone density to be 100 units on the PUD find- ',-
ings. The planning office argued, given the parameters o£ where the units were to be
located and the conditons put on at conceptual stage, that the applicant would have to use'.
the residential bonus to get the density to 114 units over the underlying 100 units. Vann.
explained a reduction of 14 units would not significantly reduce the visual or physical ~~
impact of the project. A substantial reducation to 80 units would make a change.
\, f
Study Session City Council and P & S December 8, 1980
P S Z, in reviewing preliminary plat, had a problem with the employee units - they were all',
over the minimum size of, City Code, which resulted in the rents falling close to middle ',
income guidelines. P & Z felt to approve this project and at this location, it should be
providing more affordable employee housing. P 6 Z tabled the application for the applicant
to change the size of the employee units so that the rents would be closer to moderate
income range. Vann said the applicants then submitted revised drawings for the employee
portion, slight change in mix, smaller units, with rents about at the moderate range in
1982. There were some other changes, and the planning office was reserving comments for a
site plan.
Vann told Council not all P s Z members agreed with the location of the units. At the
public hearing; there was considerable input that the project was too big, too dense, on
the entrance to Aspen, too expensive. At the last P & Z meeting, the P & Z tabled action
with a straw vote -- if the applicant submitted changes, could the Commission approve the
project -- and a 5 to 1 vote against.
Al Blomquist asked to what extent the City had a contractual obligation through the annexa-
tion agreement. Acting City Attorney Bob Edmondson said the agreement speaks to that with
the revision Clause. Lee Pardee asked taht upon conceptual approval with three conditions,
which the applicant has met, what reliance does the applicant have. Edmondson said the
process is three-pronged, conceptual, preliminary, and final, and there is never any agree-
ment an applicant~is "in". Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt asked that P & Z and Council go over
the areas of concern - siting, density, easements, costs of the units.
Olof Hedstrom said at the beginning there was the goal of employee housing; this was a
developer that listended to all concerns. Hedstrom said at the first public hearing of
preliminary plat there was areal sincerity and devotion to Aspen rather than personal
cone erns. Hedstrom stated "density is forever", and people will always have to look at
this project on the entrance to town. Hedstrom agreed with the OSAB original recommendatio
that the entire parcel remain open space; however, he disagrees with the compromise that
the project be clustered at the bridge and Highway. Hedstrom stated he feels the open
space should be preserved-on both sides of the Highway to the Castle Creek bridge. Hedstro
said he felt the density is too great, and whatever it is, it should be as far back and
out of sight as possible. Hedstrom said he doubted in the end this project would provide
affordable employee housing.
Lee Pardee stated he has .always been in favor of the project. The developer has been coop-
erative; the City gave parameters, which 'they met. Pardeed stated he liked the 70/30
policy. Pardee said he felt the P & Z was swayed by the OSAB, and he would prefer the unit
in the corner away from. Highway 82 where they can be hidden. Pardee said his problem was
the cost ofthe units. Pardee stated density should be a function of location, site plan,
etc. Pardee said he does not mind-density but does mind bulk and massing.
Welton Anderson said he did~not know enough about financial feasibility to determine densit
under the "Robin Hood" theory. Anderson said this project may be too dense. Anderson
stated his problem is the location and the siting. Anderson said he would prefer the sitin
as originally presented; the density is, perhaps, an economic problem.
Roger Hunt said, given the decision there will be development here, the choice is now what
is the next best thing to occur. Hunt stated he felt now is the wrong time to be denying
a project. Hunt pointed out, on the basis of inspections, it was decided to cluster
development near accesses and leave everything else open. Hunt said he preferred concen-
trated development, however at a slightly less density, where it is on the preliminary plat
On the right-of-way question, Hunt wants the Main street extension. Hunt stated the
employee housing is still too high in cost, but what isn't. Hunt reiterated it. is too late
to say no.
Sasmine Tygre stated her initial concern 'was the cost of employee housing; the idea of
extra density or overlay bonus is an exchange to get employee housing, which was perceived
as a community need. 70/30 bonus is not appropriate to get moderate or middle income hous-
ing but should produce low income housing. Ms. Tygre said she is not in favor of the
siting with the employee units close to Highway 82. If a relocation is possible, she woulc
prefer them farther from view. Regarding overall density, Ms. Tygre stated this is much tc
dense but could not give a~specific number of units. Ms. Tygre said the impact of this
many more people on the west side of town has to be looked at with respect to Main street
and the transportation system. The traffic patterns will change.
Al Blomquist said he felt there is a contractual obligation through the annexation agree-
ment. Blomquist demonstrated on a map where he felt the employee housing should be moved.
Blomquist stated the open space corridor along the river is priceless, and a big issue is
that the parcels across the river not be sold and be kept as part of the open space.
Secondly, the open space connector across to the golf course and onto the Zoline property ~i
a great planning opportunity forcontinuous open space.
Perry Harvey concurred that the entrance to town should not be built upon. Harvey stated
the density is approximately 20 to 25 per cent too great. The easements are all right;
trails will be worked out. Harvey pointed out this project is making a trade with a
developer - he gets 30 per rent free market housing in exchange for 70 per cent good
employee housing. Harvey stated, although this is not the city's concern, the 30 per cent
has to work economically.. The six month rental restriction cannot be appliedto these
free market units; they have to be able to be sold for the maximum amount o£ money. If
not, this will compromise the quality of the employee units.
Hedstrom stated the density is too high by 20 to 25 per cent; the developer has to work
out finances to achieve density the P & Z and Council can support for the people of Aspen.
Hedstrom reiterated he would accept siting as far back as possible from the highway.
Regarding the six month rental restriction, Hedstrom is in Favor of it but would accept a
waiver to make the project work. Pardee stated he favored no restriction. Hunt said if
the city wanted to take off the six month rental restrictions, then rezone the property
L-1 and L-2; if they want it residential, keep it residential which requires six month
rental restrictions.
Session City Council and P & Z December 8,_1980
--- q ---- --- -
~ Vann told the Boards the proj ect has been design ed with short-term receiver areas and
uses. The planning office arguement is that this is an R-15 zone district and appropriate:.
for longterm residential uses and should be restricted. Ms. Tygre said she felt it „i
important to uphold the six month resntal restrictions in this area to retain it as a
residential area. Blomquist said no to six month rental restrictions. Anderson stated
he saw no answer to this question as the units could be vacant 10 or 11 months ayear.
Vann restated the issue whether this should be a residential area by definition and what
happens to that concept to provide a mechanism to short term the units. If the six month ''.
lease restriction is ignored here and a different project comes in, where does one draw
the line. Pardee pointed out with the new 70/30 ordinance and special review procedures, ~„
on of the procedures can be to review whether or not the six month rental restrictions ;;
should apply. This would require a minor Code amendment.
Councilman Van Ness stated he preferred the density toward the read and has no problem '~j
with the 114 unit density. Van Ness said the cost of the employee units seems reasonable
and yes, there should be six month rental restrictions on the units. Van Ness said it is ','~
important that something should be built on this property as the City is committed by ~i
contract. Behrendt stated the City is not committed by contract as pointed out by the
Acting City Attorney. I~
Councilwoman Michael said she felt all through the process siting of employee housing shoujd
be at Castle Creek. This did not come to Council as an option. Ms. Michael pointed ovt, '~
whether this project is done or not, Castle Creek is going to be inadequate. The
community will have to come to a conclusion, Marolt project or not, that something will
have to be done about Castle Creek. Ms. Michael stated she preferred the siting of the ,
employee housing on Caslte Creek with the understanding the inadequacy of Castle Creek ~~~
road will have to be dealt with. Ms. Michael agreed with the right-of-way as proposed. '!
The density should be around 100 or as low as practical; the six month rental restrictions.
should stay, I~~
Councilman Parry said he preferred siting of the original map; the density is okay. Parry
said he preferred Main street right-of-way and does not care about the Midland-right-of -~'~
way. The cost of employee housing is fine. Parry said he does not think the six month
rental restrictions is necessary. Behrendt told the Boards that Mayor Edel had said a .!
project is necessary but would like to see the density reduced. Behrendt stated the publib
' sector has to recognize with this project, Castleridge, county project, the hospital, etc..
something has to be done about the roads. Behrendt said he wanted the siting of the
project at the rear of the site. Behrendt said he would go as far as 90 units for 'i~
density. The Main street right-of-way has to stay and Behrendt would appeal to leave the ~~
Midland right-of-way open or 30 years away, the next technology will have no place to go. '.
- Behrendt stated the narrow Midland strip should remain open and everything should be built~~,
back of that to the maximum density allowed. Behrendt said, regarding the cost of employee
housing, to expect the developer to build quality units, the moderate category should be ;
considered. Behrendt said giver. the location of the free market units and the residential.
.. character of the neighborhood, he would not want to see the units short-termed and wants
the six month rental restriction to remain. ~~
Jim Mulligan, representing the applicant, told the Boards they did not expect the units
to generally be used as short-term rentals; however, from marketability this is a buyer
choice. Also permanent financing with a six month restriction is very difficult. Carly
Woods said the designers of the project felt the units should be at the south.
Vann stated he felt this meeting ind ieated this project is back at conceptual stage.
Considering the cost involved in going to preliminary stage, the applicant will not want
to go back to preliminary stage until they get a conceptual approval from P & Z and
Council. Vann outlined the issues and the general consensus. (1) new conceptual approval'.
with the employee housing at the southernmost part of the property. (2) density - the
Feeling is split but most in favor of a reduction from 80 to 100 units with the minority
members saying the existing density is all right. The underlying zone density is 100
units, and some members say an increase above the underlying density may be inappropriate .'~
(3) the question of access to Castle Creek is subject to discussion with a tendency
that improvement to Castle Creek is required. There are alternatives on the location of ~'~,'
this alignment. (4) The Main street right-of-way should be a dedicated right-of-way.
Behrendt and Hedstrom want the Midland right-of-way to be pzeserved. Vann said this :I
issue may become moot if the density goes down and it is not necessary to develop into' '
the right-of-way itself. Ms. Michael stated the majority of people do not feel the 'i~
Midland important enough to change the site design in that area. i
Vann brought up the six month minimum lease - which he felt the Boards are generally in ~.~,
favor of keeping. The general feeling of the Boards is to keep the cost of the employee
housing low to moderate. The applicant asked if there was any predisposition against the ';
apartment-type housing. P 6 2 and Council said no. Behrendt asked now where this is in ii
the process. Vann said the P & Z cannot take action on the plat as submitted. Vann said ~.~,
the applicant will have to go back to conceptual approval before P 5 Z, unless Council
wants to defer that step and have the conceptual come straight to Council. Mulligan said !~,
this application has been approved at conceptual with certain parameters. Changing those ~i
pre-approved parameters, they are no longer in the same plat mode procedurally. They ~,'
have to go back and start at conceptual again. What has caused this is the relocation
of the building envelope for the employee project; that is the only change. Mulligan III
said the applicant has spent time, energy and money trying to solve the issue regarding
the Castle Creek road. It was the city engineering department said that the employee ~~,
units could not be there just because of that road. They relocated the employee units
up by highway 82 for that reason. Wayne Chapman, city manager, said the Council seems to ~~.
be saying they are willing to bite the bullet, temporarily, with the traffic problems
that are created by putting the employee envelope on the back. If the units are left at
the front, they are there forever and no matter what traffic improvements are made, which ',
will have to be made irrespective of that, the units will be there forever. Council is I~-,
saying they will trade off the hopefully temporary traffic problem in the hopes of getting
a clear portal at the bridge. _
Study Session City Council and P & Z December B, 1980
Behrendt reiterated he felt the Midland right-of-way should be designed around or there
will be problems in the future. Behrendt asked where this application was in terms of
process. Vann said there is a preliminary plat pending before P b Z, which has been
tabled. This plat has to be approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved. Given
thechange in the conceptual format, the applicant is back at square one. Vann said the
applicant could redesign the preliminary plat; however, with the cost of details required
the applicant may not to risk that exposure without getting some conceptual approval from
the Boards along these new guidelines. The applicant can have this flexibility if they
want to take the chance. The applicant can also submit a new conceptual to P & Z and this
will be fast tracked to Council; it is up to the applicant.
Mulligan said going back to conceputal and fast tracking may be all right; however, all
construction figures are based on starting May 1981. If the applicant does go back to
the start, something has to be done cuith the preliminary plat submission. if the intent
is to let the plat die, it is with the stipulation that the intent of everyone is not to
let the project die. Vann said the planning office would fast track this to the extent
possible; however, there are minimum review requirements to be met. There will be a time
delay andmore than one P & Z and Council meeting before P & Z sees this as a preliminary
plat. Vann reiterated it is up to the applicant to choose how they wish to proceed; they
may simply redesign their preliminary plat. Behrendt suggested the developer, city attorn~
and planning staff get together and work out a solution for taking this project back
through P b Z. Hedstrom welcomed that and said they would like to see this project move
forward to some kind of solution. Hedstrom said he would prefer them going back to con-
ceptual and finding ways to expedite the movement of the application. Vann told Council
if the applicant comes in with a revised preliminary plat, when Council sees the project
it will be final plat. Vann said P & Z could waive their conceptual review and the
applicant could revise their plan along the guidelines outlined here and go straight to
`.Council with the conceptual plan. If this is done, P & Z will have no input to conceptual
and will only see this at preliminary stage. Council and P & Z agreed they would try to
expedite the matter.
Meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk