HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.Castlewood Headgate Sub.1981-3 MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
RE: Castlewood/Headgate Final PUD/Subdivision Review
DATE: May 5, 1981 APPROVED AS TO FORM: K�'°",.! C
BACKGROUND
In view of the numerous reviews which this project has unde gone and facili-
tate your understanding of the applicants' Final PUD/Subdi ision submission, I
have briefly outlined below the most salient steps in the process to date and
the recommendations or the conditions that have ensued. Should you have any
questions or wish additional detail with respect to the outline, please contact
the Planning Office prior to your May 11, 1981 meeting.
1. On January 28, 1980, Council approved the annexation and rezoning of
the approximately 35 acre Marolt property. Based on the recommendation of
the Planning Office and P & Z, the property was rezoned from AF-2 to R-15A/
PUD/SPA, with the additional stipulation that at least 70% of the proposed
development consist of deed restricted employee units.
2. On July 22, 1980, P & Z approved the Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual
PUD/Subdivision application. The Commission moved to approve with modi-
fication the applicants' proposed development plan in view of the numerous
work sessions that proceeded P & Z review and to expedite further processing
of the application. The Commission, however, conditioned its motion to
approve upon the following:
A. 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 Cemetary Lane/Castle Creek connector,
B. That development of the project's free market housing be confined
to the area immediately south of the proposed Main Street extension
right-of-way,
C. Thatsiteconstraints within the development envelopes outlined
above determine development densities,
D. 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,
E. That recommendations with respect to parking requirements; the
Midland right-of-way; and open space, trails and road dedications also
be deferred until Preliminary Plat review, and
F. That all free market development be subject to the six (6) month
minimum lease requirements of Section 20-22 of the Municipal Code.
3. On August 11, 1980, Council approved the applicants' Conceptual PUD/
Subdivision submission. Council concurred with the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendations with the additional stipulations that the
proposed Cemetary Lane/Castle Creek connector be located so as to minimize
intrusions into the adjacent Thomas property and that the proposed right-
of-way be approved by the Engineering Department and the Planning Office.
4. On November 18, 1980, P & Z reviewed the applicants' Preliminary PUD/
Subdivision submission. All of the conditions attached by P & Z and Council
at the conceptual review stage with respect to design parameters were met by
Memo: Castlewood/Headgate Final PUD/Subdivision Review
May 5, 1981
Page Two
the applicants and incorporated into their Preliminary Plat application.
No formal action was taken by P & Z at this meeting. The Commission,
however, expressed considerable concern over the projected rental rates
of the employee housing portion of the project and the application was
tabled until December 2 in order to enable the applicants to reconsider
this aspect of their proposal .
5. The applicants submitted a revised employee housing proposal which
was reviewed by P & Z on December 2, 1980. While the revised employee
rental structure more closely approximated the City's employee housing
price guidelines. There was considerable public concern expressed at the
public hearing with regard to the size of the project, its density, its
location with respect to the entrance to Aspen, and their revised price
structure. A straw vote resulted in a 5 to 1 decision to deny the proposal
and the application was tabled to a date uncertain.
6. On December 8, 1980, an informal work session involving both the Planning
and Zoning Commission, City Council and the Planning Office was held to dis-
cuss the Commission' s concerns and the current status of the Castlewood/
Headgate project. After considerable discussion, it was the general con-
sensus of opinion of both P & Z and Council that the project could be approved
if certain revised design parameters were adhered to. These parameters were:
A. That the employee housing portion of the project be relocated to
the southernmost extremity of the site,
B. That the overall density of the project be reduced to approximately
100 units,
C. That the Main Street right-of-way be dedicated as the preferred
alignment for a revised entrance to Aspen,
D. That the project be subject to the six (6) month minimum lease
restriction of Section 20-22 of the Municipal Code, and
E. That all efforts be made to minimize to the extent possible the
projected rental rates of the employee portion of the project.
7. The applicants revised their development proposal to essentially comply
with the December 8 directives and resubmitted it to City Council for Con-
ceptual PUD/Subdivision review on January 26, 1981. Council approved the
applicants' revised Conceptual submission subject to the following conditions:
A. That the overall project density not exceed the proposed 104 units,
B. That the rental rate on the employee housing portion of the project
not exceed 70C per sq. ft. ,
C. That the development plan provide for the provision of one parking
space per bedroom provided, however, that two parking spaces per dwelling
unit may be provided for the free market portion of the project until
such time as additional parking is determined to be required,
D. The dedication of the Main Street right-of-way and the open space
areas as depicted on the applicants' revised conceptual submission,
E. The prohibition against short-term rental of the free market portion
of the project,
F. That access to the development be provided via Highway 82 and the
proposed Cemebary Lane extension, and
Memo: Castlewood/Headgate Final PUD/Subdivision Review
May 5, 1981
Page Three
G. The relocation of the employee housing portion to the southern-
most extremity of the site.
8. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the applicants' revised
Preliminary PUD/Subdivision submission on February 10, 1981. Essentially
all of the conditions imposed by Council at its January 25 meeting were
met by the applicants and the revised submission was approved subject to
the following conditions:
A. Correction of a number of primarily Plat related issues identified
by the Engineering Department in their memorandum dated February 3, 1981,
B. The completion of all outstanding Final PUD/Subdivision submission
requirements prior to City Council review, and
C. Incorporation of a prohibition against short-term utilization of
the free market portion of the project in the PUD/Subdivision Agreement.
In addition to Preliminary PUD/Subdivision approval the applicants also
requested the following:
A. Rezoning to R-15A/PUD/Residential Bonus Overlay in order to permit
construction in excess of the underlying zone density,
B. Subdivision approval for purposes of condominiumization of the
free market units,
C. Exemption from Growth Management under the 70:30 provision for
the free market portion of the units, and
D. Exception from the six-month minimum lease requirements applicable
to condominiumization.
With respect to these requests, P & Z moved to recommend to Council that the
property be rezoned as requested; that the applicants' request for Growth
Management exemption and condominiumization be approved subject to the deed
restriction of the employee units to 70¢ per sq. ft. and compliance with the
six-month minimum lease provisions of Section 20-22; and that their request
for exception from lease restrictions be denied.
CURRENT PROJECT STATUS
On Monday, May 11th, you will be reviewing the applicants' Final PUD/Subdivision
submission. In addition, you will consider the applicants' requests for the
following related approvals:
1. Rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay in order to permit construction
in excess of the underlying zone density,
2. Exemption from Growth Management under the 70:30 provision for the free
market portion of the project, and
3. Subdivision approval for purposes of condominiumization of the free
market units.
Of the remaining outstanding approvals, only the rezoning to Residential Bonus
Overlay requires ordinance adoption. Inasmuch as the adoption of an appropriate
ordinance will require a first reading and a public hearing, the Planning Office
recommends that the additional required approvals (i .e. , Final PUD/Subdivision,
GMP Exemption and Condominiumization) be consolidated with the Residential Bonus
Overlay rezoning public hearing. Therefore, on May 11th the only action required
is first reading approval of the applicants' request for rezoning to Residential
Bonus Overlay.
Memo: Castlewood/Headgate Final PUD/Subdivision Review
May 5, 1981
Page Four
PLANNING OFFICE COMMENTS
The Planning Office's comments with respect to all of the remaining approvals
have been, where appropriate, excerpted from prior memoranda, revised as necessary,
and are summarized below.
1. Rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay. To accommodate any density in
excess of the approximately 102 units permitted by the underlying zone
district, the Marolt property must be rezoned as a Residential Bonus Overlay
District. The resulting reduction in the R-15A Minimum Lot Area requirements
is sufficient to permit the construction of approximately 136 dwelling units,
well in excess of the 104 units requested.
Should Council wish to recommend approval of the applicants' request for a
limited increase in density, the Planning Office feels that the proposed
development essentially complies with all rezoning review criteria. The
Planning Office is prepared to elaborate on these criteria at your Monday
meeting.
2. Exemption from Growth Management. The applicants are requesting Special
Review approval for the exemption of the free market portion of the project
from Growth Management. Such exemptions are applicable to projects in which
at least 70% of the total dwelling units are deed restricted as employee
housing and are subject to Council approval upon the recommendation of P & Z.
The applicants' proposed development program can be summarized as follows:
Employee 36 - two bedroom, two bath at 845 sq. ft.
19 - one bedroom, one bath at 637 sq. ft.
18 - studio, one bath at 484 sq. ft.
Free Market: 31 - three bedroom, four bath at 2,400 sq. ft.
To insure eligibility, applicants for exemption are encouraged to submit
proposals which maintain an average of 1.5 to 2 bedrooms per unit within
the employee portion of the project and where at least 50% of the total
residential floor area is devoted to deed restricted units.
The Castlewood/Headgate submission proposes a bedroom per unit average of
1.5 and 41% of the project's total floor area is devoted to employee housing.
While one of these indicators is well below the minimum size requirements,
their mix is acceptable, and the free market units are not overly excessive
in size. In the absence of any specific objections from the Housing Office,
the Planning Office has no objection to the proposed development program.
Rental rates for the employee units are 70t per sq. ft. which falls between
the City's moderate and middle income guidelines.
Project rental rates at the time of occupancy will be as follows :
Employee: two bedroom at $591.00/month
one bedroom at $446.00/month
studio/$338.00 month
3. Condominiumization. The applicants' are requesting approval to condo-
miniumize the multi-family free market portion of the project. As these
units are new construction, and therefore no employee displacement will
occur, the Planning Office has no problem with this proposal. Final condo-
minium documents will have to be submitted as required by the Engineering
Department, and the applicants are subject to the provision of Section 20-22
of the Municipal Code.
Memo: Castlewood/Headgate Final PUD/Subdivision Review
May 5, 1981
Page Five
4. Final PUD/Subdivision. This request for approval represents the
last step in the PUD/Subdivision process. Approval is normally followed
by recordation of the PUD/Subdivision Plat and execution of an appropriate
PUD/Subdivision Agreement. The Planning Office's comments with respect
to the applicants' Final Plat are outlined in the Engineering Department's
memorandum dated May 6, 1981 which, in the interests of brevity,we have
simply attached it for your review. The Department's comments are essentially
minor in nature and will have to be rectified by the applicants prior to
formal Council action.
With respect to the proposed PUD/Subdivision Agreement, the Planning Office,
the City Attorney and various other City Departments have identified a number
of areas of concern. Inasmuch as the only approval to be delt with by Council
at your May 11th meeting is first reading of the request for Residential
Bonus Overlay rezoning, the Planning Office and the City Attorney recommend
that an informal study session be scheduled with the applicants to discuss
our concerns in detail . Ample time exists between first reading of the
Residential Bonus Overlay and the public hearing to allow negotiation and
finalization of the PUD/Subdivision Agreement. The Planning Office, however,
is prepared to discuss the more major concerns at your Monday meeting.
PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Office recommends that you approve on first reading, the applicants'
request for rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay. We further recommend that
an informal study session, to include the Planning Office, the City Attorney,
the applicants and other affected City Departments, be scheduled for the purpose
of refining the proposed PUD/Subdivision Agreement.
Should you concur with the Planning Office recommendations, the appropriate
motions are as follows:
1. "I move to read Ordinance No. , Series of 1981."
2. "I move to adopt Ordinance No. _, Series of 1981 on first reading."
3. "I move that the Planning Office schedule a special study session for
purposes of refining the proposed Castlewood/Headgate PUD/Subdivision
Agreement. "
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
RE: Castlewood/Headgate Final PUD/Subdivision Review
DATE: May 20, 1981 APPROVED AS TO FORM: /21/2 ~ ( '"'
Background: On May 11 , 1981 , the consideration of the applicants' request
for rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay was tabled on first
reading to Tuesday, May 26, due to the absence of several
Councilmembers who supported the project. Those Councilmembers
present, however, questioned the necessity of the rezoning
inasmuch as only two additional dwelling units were proposed
to be constructed in excess of the permitted underlying
zone density. The applicants agreed to consider reducing the
projected density from 104 dwelling units to 100 dwelling
units, thus eliminating the need for rezoning.
The Planning Office has researched the Planning and Zoning
Commission's preliminary PUD/Subdivision Review of the
project and has determined that the proposed density could
be reduced consistent with the prior P & Z approval . The
applicants have agreed to reduce the density to 100 units
and are scheduled to appear before Council for final PUD/
Subdivision Review on June 8, 1981 .
The Planning Office and City Attorney have scheduled a work
session for Thursday, May 28 at 4:00 to review and discuss
the proposed PUD/Subdivision Agreement. Considerable time
has already been expended on our behalf in dealing with
some of the more perfunctory items of this agreement. A
number of issues, however, remain which fall within the area
of Council policy. We will be taking you through the entire
agreement as well as concentrating on these specific issues
which have yet to be resolved.
CITY OF ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen , colorado 81611
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
FROM: Jay Hammond, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: May 6, 1981
RE: Marolt Ranch Final Plat Submission
Having reviewed the above submission for final plat, the Engineering Depart-
has the following comments:
PLAT
1. It is not clear at this point what portion of the maps submitted for
final plat, comprising twenty-three (23) sheets, are intended for
recording. Most of the survey information referred to in this section
is contained on Sheets 1 through 4 although much of the information
appropriate to final plat approval is on other sheets within the set.
The applicant may wish to submit a somewhat more concise map set for
recording.
2. Two parcels, lots 3 and 4, were chosen as samples within the tract to
check bearings and distances for closure. Both lots failed to close
by distances in excess of five feet and the applicant should be required
to supply calculations supporting the closure of all internal lots.
3. Perimeter bearings and distances on the drawn plat do not correspond
with the bearings and distances of the written description. Since
the written description closes, the errors were probably a simple
transposition of numbers in drafting.
Bearing Number Sheet Number Written Drawn
9 2 N 77° 08' 38" W S 77° 08' 39" E
12 2 S 25° 28' W S 28° 25' W
20 4 280. 15' 280. 16'
24 4 117.35' 117.32'
37 3 N 81° 19' 21" E N 81° 19' 12" E
Marolt Ranch Final P1 Submission
May 6, 1981
PAGE TWO
PLAT - continued
4. The surveyor should include a bearing on the north line or centerline
of the Main Street extension rather than have us assume the north
line is parallel.
5. The recorded plat should include a clear vicinity map. The one on
the print we received is somewhat difficult to read.
6. The index indicates a number of symbols denoting survey monuments
found or set. The plat, however, does not seem to correspond, having
symbols not shown in the index and lacking some that are.
7. Proposed ditch realignments should be noted in the recorded plat to be
updated by as-built survey following construction.
8. As the legal description refers to the Castle Creek riverbed, it should
be shown on the plat.
9. An easement for a future water line on the northwest corner of the plat
should be removed and relocated per exhibit "A" attached.
AGREEMENT
1. The agreement as written would appear to limit the City's ability to
install improvements on its open space parcels. It is the opinion
of the Engineering Department that the City should be free to install
underground improvements such as water lines, electric lines, vaults,
sewers, and other utilities without having to obtain the permission
of the owners of lots 1 and 2. Additionally, any maintenance or
repair functions should be unencumbered by a need for permission.
It is also important at this time for the City to determine whether
it wishes to maintain the ability to provide recreational facilities
such as paths and playfields on these parcels or accommodate its
concern for possible transportation alignments other than Main Street.
It would seem unwise to allow the developer, who is supposedly dedicating
these parcels for public use, to place too many restrictions on them.
2. Escrow agreement in the amount of $1,050,000.00 appears proper as does
the stipulation regarding its release requiring approval by this office.
3. We would defer to comments from the Water and Parks Departments regarding
relative water rights and fee values as well as maintenance of the open
space parcels.
SITE PLAN
1. Drainage basins FM #1 and FM #3 both appear to be located within the
proposed Main Street extension right-of-way. Future construction within
the proposed alignment may not accommodate the basins and alternate
sites should be located.
•
::molt Ranch Final Plc ubmissiou
- May 6, 1981
PAGE THREE
SITE PLAN - continued
2: The suggestion was made in a March 11, 1981 correspondence to Design
Workshop that, in view of the deterioration we have experienced with
a number of bicycle paths in the area, a thicker asphalt mat or concrete
may be appropriate.
3. The landscape plan should include instructions regarding the fence
• through the proposed intersection paralleling Highway 82.
UTILITIES
1. The water line schematic includes a dead end eight-inch (8") line serving
the employee units. This dead end is an undesirable situation and we
would prefer to explore the possibility of looping the area. Jim
Markalunas is in contact with Eldorado Engineering.
2. All temporary kickblocks are to be concrete.
3. Valve thrustblocks as shown on Sheet 11 are not necessary.
4. Also, Sheet 11 has a note referring to plastic water mains. There should
be no plastic mains on the property as part of the City water system.
The contractor for Marolt should not be installing plastic water mains
and if he should find any we would wish to be informed.
5. Thrustblocks for reducers as shown on Sheet 11 are not required.
6. The fire hydrant detail, also on Sheet 11, should be revised to indicate
an MJ x MJ x FLG tee bolted directly to a FLG x MJ valve which would
then be tie-rodded to the hydrant as already shown. For hydrants located
less than about thirty (30) feet from the main, we find the detail suitable.
For situations involving longer runs to the main, the contractor should
locate the valve closer to the hydrant and tie back to the main as detailed
in the submission.
7. For situations involving sewer/water crossings, City of Aspen General
Water Pipeline Specifications states that the water main shall be a
minimum one-and-a-half feet (11/2') clear distance above the sewer. If
this cannot be obtained, the sewer shall be replaced with cast iron
pipe or encased with a minimum six inches (6") of concrete all around
extending ten feet from the water line in both directions. The water
crossing sewer detail on Sheet 11 should be modified accordingly.
8. Any water or sewer mains crossing under the twenty-inch (20") concrete
main shall be placed by boring or careful hand digging. Whenever the
contractor shall encounter or cross the twenty-inch (20") concrete
main he shall be required to contact the City Engineer or Water
Superintendent.
Marolt Ranch Final Plc_ Submission
May 6, 1981
PAGE FOUR
SPECIFICATIONS
1. General requirements paragraph 8.0 Interruption of services shall
read forty-eight (48) hours notice.
2. Section 02200, paragraph 3.05, Compaction, part B, Jetting, shall
include permission of the City Engineer as well as the project engineer.
3. Section 02221, paragraph 2.01, part B, shall include Ductile Iron Pipe as
requiring Class B bedding material.
4. Section 02221, paragraph 3.03, G. Jetting shall also require permission
of the City Engineer.
5. Section 02555, paragraph 2.02, A. Fire Hydrants shall be provided by
Mueller Company.
6. Section 02555, paragraph 3.04, part B, shall include Ductile Iron as
requiring Class B material.
7. The Specifications shall require the contractor to provide as-built
drawings for all utility installations as well as irrigation relocations.
We feel that most of these items are things that can be revised on the plat
documents as well as the agreements prior to recording. Engineering Depart-
ment staff continue to work with the applicant in resolving the above items.
-
I f !
oI I
i /
l• �
Y
I
w m1
1
• I Y ► yl
I 1
es
I ►
—17; F '► 1'
Ni r ►
co I NFa I ►
zo, co irrfl
e CA 1
rkl
11-D h
I \
cv I
I EXH%'SIT
1A/ATERs...16.1 F EASe&ic_ c
• I hJofL-r-iwas-r Cog.NER
MARC tzt I'<AN c.t-4
C�epLxcen vnmwJ.J eaoe-meatt
On lae . )
design workshop, inc.
415 s. spring
aspen, co 81611
303-925-8354
June 2, 1981
The attached pages have been revised and should replace the
corresponding originals in the text of the Marolt Ranch Final
PUD and Plat Submission, dated April 1 , 1981 .
\rA /—J\ \ I
( '&/t /Pled " (15/ &
i4,(efrik c'u
�U
(//722,: ,, ,/
��.. rte t .
o�i.t,ItL (LLP
& w ',-11 .
GG ;q ar
community development land planning landscape architecture
Revised 6/2/81
INTRODUCTION
A. Submission Request
The applicant, Marolt Associates, hereby submits this formal
request to the Aspen City Council for Final PUD and Subdivi-
sion approval. This approval is intended to be consistent
with the approved zoning category of R-15A, PUD/SPA, accom-
panied by a "special review" for the 70-30 unit mix approval.
In addition, the applicant requests the following:
1 . Exemptions
a. Exemption from the Growth Management Plan in acordance
with recent City ordinances that allow for certain lim-
ited exemptions where at least 70 percent of the units
contained in the project are properly deed or covenant
restricted as required therein;
b. A condominium exemption from the subdivision process;
c. A partial exemption from the parking requirements to
provide two parking spaces per unit within the free mar-
ket portion of the development until such time as addi-
tional parking may be required as determined by the
City.
•
Revised b/Z/oI
SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURE
A. Site Plan
The site plan has not changed in substance from that which
•
was submitted and approved by the Planning and Zoning
Commission at Preliminary Plat on February 10 , 1981 .
Detailed grading and building refinements and other minor
revisions are all indicated on the final landscape drawings .
In essence, this plan represents a distillation of a series
of plan alternatives discussed over the past two years.
Since a lengthy document was prepared for preliminary plat
addressing the design considerations of each alternative ,
this document will attempt to focus simply on the quanti-
tative aspects of the proposed plan , with a brief review
of some of the major plan components, such as land use,
open space, pathways, roads and rights-of-way , and land-
scaping.
1. Land Use (See Development Parcel Map)
The following 10 parcels of land are necessary to allow
separate ownership and/or use of the property, as described
below:
Lot 1 (4. 325 ac. ) - Development parcel to be dedicated to
the City of Aspen for 70 employee units and 104 parking
spaces.
Lot 2 (6.925 ac. ) - Development parcel for 30 free market
units, 60 covered parking spaces, management office, pool
and tennis court.
• .Lot 3 ( . 574 ac. ) - Parcel to be dedicated to the City of
Aspen for future expansion of maintenance operation, lease
to current user, or extension of open space.
Lots 4-6 (total 2. 209 ac. ) - Land across river for restricted
sale to 3 adjacent property owners.
Open Space 1 (8. 709 ac. ) - Parcel to be dedicated to the City
of Aspen for Open Space in perpetuity, with specific use
guidelines to maintain high quality meadowland.
Open Space 2 (7. 727 ac. ) - Parcel to be dedicated to the
City of Aspen for Open Space in perpetuity, with specific
use guidelines to maintain high quality river corridor conser-
vation land.
Holden Road (2. 656 ac. ) - 100' R.O.W. to be dedicated to
the City of Aspen for future road alignment between Highway 82
and Castle Creek Road.
CITY F Y ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen eolorado 81611
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
FROM: Jay Hammond, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: June 5, 1981
RE: Marolt Revised Final Plat
I met with Carlie Wood of Design Workshop and Brian Duff of Eldorado Engineering
last Monday to receive and discuss a revised final plat for the Marolt Ranch.
I have since reviewed the new plat in detail and find it addresses all of
the concerns in my memorandum of May 6 , 1981 , in terms of plat, site plan,
and utilities. Brian also supplied me with a revised set of specifications
that address our concerns in that area.
We are now satisfied with the revised plat and specifications as submitted;
however, in checking through the revised plat a minor item came up that we
would like to request be revised in the water system plan. On revised Sheet
10 of the water and sewer plan and profile, the south end of the waterline
shows an 8" x 6" reducer followed by a 6" x 6" x 6" tee, hydrant, valve, and
plug. While we are not asking the developer to complete the difficult looping
of this line, we would ask that the plan include an 8-inch tee and plug to
allow looping at the 8-inch diameter should the City wish to do so in the
future. We feel this is a minor item and will not result in substantial
cost to the developer, yet it anticipates desirable future expansion.
I will be in contact with the applicant and their engineers and should be
able to report on this item prior to Council.
cc: Carlie Wood, Design Workshop
Brian Duff, Eldorado Engineering
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Di.rectof
RE: Marolt Ranch Final PUD/Subdivision Review
DATE: June 8, 1981 APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BACKGROUND
On Monday, June 8, you will review the applicants' Final PUD/Subdivision Sub-
mission. In addition, you will consider the applicants' request for the
following related approvals:
1 . Exemption from Growth Management under the 70/30 provision of Section
24-11 .2(i ) of the Municipal Code for the free market portion of the
project, and
2. Subdivision approval for purposes of condominiumization of the free market
units.
The applicants' request for rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay in order to
permit construction in excess of the underlying zone density has been withdrawn.
PLANNING OFFICE COMMENTS
The Planning Office's comments with respect to the applicants' remaining approvals
have been, where appropriate, excerpted from prior memoranda, revised as
necessary, and are summarized below.
1 . Final PUD/Subdivision. This request for approval represents the last step
in the PUD/Subdivision process. Approval is normally followed by recorda-
tion of the PUD/Subdivision plat, and execution and recordation of an
appropriate PUD/Subdivision agreement. The applicant has essentially
complied with all plat-related conditions identified at preliminary plat
review with the exception of several minor details outlined in the attached
Engineering Department memorandum dated June 8, 1981 . The applicants are
prepared to correct these minor details prior to recordation.
With respect to the proposed PUD/Subdivision Agreement, the Planning Office
and the City Attorney have amended the Agreement to clarify those issues
identified at your Thursday, May 28 work session. The applicants, however,
may choose to further address a number of issues contained in this Agree-
ment at your Monday, June 8 meeting. The Planning Office and City Attorney
are prepared to discuss these issues in detail should the need arise.
2. Exemption from Growth Management. The applicants are requesting Special
Review approval for the Exemption of the free market portion of the project
from Growth Management. Such exemptions are applicable to projects in
which at least seventy percent of the total dwelling units are deed re-
stricted as employee housing and are subject to Council approval upon the
recommendation of P & Z. The applicants' proposed development program,
as amended, can be summarized as follows:
Employee: 34 - two bedroom, two bath at 845 sq. ft.
19 - one bedroom, one bath at 630 sq. ft.
17 - studios, one bath at 484 sq. ft.
Free Market: 30 - three bedroom, four bath at 2,400 sq. ft.
To insure eligibility, applicants for exemption are encouraged to submit
proposals which maintain an average of 1 .5 to 2 bedrooms per unit within
the employee portion of the project at where at least fifty percent of a
total residential floor area is devoted to deed restricted units.
While one of these indicators is well below the minimum requirement,
the project mix is acceptable, and the free market units are not overly
excessive in size. In the absence of any specific objections from the
Housing Office, the Planning Office has no objection to the proposed
development program.
3. Condominiumization. The applicants are requesting approval to condomin-
iumize the multi-family free market portion of the project. As these
units are new construction, and therefore no employee displacement will
occur, the Planning Office has no problem with this proposal . Final
condominium documents will have to be submitted as required by the
Engineering Department, and the applicants are subject to the provisions
of Section 20-22 of the Municipal Code.
The Planning and Zoning Commission's Resolution with respect to the above
requests is attached for your review.
PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION
In summary, the Planning Office recommends approval of the applicants' revised
Final PUD/Subdivision application as submitted subject to the following:
1 . The Engineering Department's conditions outlined in their attached memo-
randum dated June 8, 1981 , and
2. Execution of the Final PUD/Subdivision Agreement prior to issuance of a
building permit.
The Planning Office further recommends that the applicants' request for Growth
Management Exemption and Condominiumization be approved subject to compliance
with the six-month minimum lease provisions as currently set forth in Section
20-22 of the Municipal Code and subject to the deed restriction of the employee
portion of the project to a rental rate of 70¢ per square foot and a sales
price of $76.00 per square foot as provided for in the Final PUD/Subdivision
Agreement.
Should you concur with the Planning Office's recommendations, the appropriate
motions are as follows:
1 . "I move to approve the revised Marolt Ranch Final PUD/Subdivision
application as submitted subject to the following conditions:
a. The Engineering Department's conditions outlined in the attached
memorandum dated June 8, 1981 .
b. Execution of the Final PUD/Subdivision Agreement prior to issuance
of a building permit."
2. "I move to approve the applicants' request for Growth Management Exemption
and Condominiumization subject to the compliance with the six-month mini-
mum lease provisions as currently set forth in Section 20-22 of the
Municipal Code and subject to the deed restriction of the employee
portion of the project to a rental rate of 70¢ per square foot and a
sales price of $76.00 per square foot as provided for in the Final
PUD/Subdivision Agreement. "