No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutC81-032 Aspen Mountain View Subdivision_SIABook 321 217989 F„e 621 Recorded r 1:00 PAL April 14, 1981 Recorder .lb hnette Phillips 7 Eag1� County r Fee $52.00pd v AGREEMENT FOR OFF SITE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS ASPEN MOUNTAIN VIEW SUBDIVISION THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 1981, between BASALT MOUNTAIN ASSOCIATES, 04 hereinafter referred to as "Subdivider" e and THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, hereinafter referred to as "County" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, pursuant to § 5.02.15 of the Subdivision Regulations of Eagle County, Colorado, 1972, as amended, when a proposed subdivision is located in an area serviced by an existing county road and the County determines that the traffic generated by such subdivision will result in safety hazards for vehicle drivers, pedestrians and/or adjacent residents, or will result in substantially increased maintenance costs to the County, the County is empowered to determine the amount of work necessary to bring the affected county road to acceptable standards to provide adequate safe service to present owners, to the proposed subdivision and to other probable subdivisions, and to require the Subdivider to develop and agree to a cost sharing program with the County to bring such road up to an acceptable safe condition; and WHEREAS, the County has determined that the traffic which will be generated by the Aspen, *!fountain View Subdivision, along with other potential subdivisions in the area, will result in safety hazards and substantially increased maintenance costs 0 relative to Eagle Councy Road No. S13; and Whereas, as a condition of approval of the final plat Aspen Mountain View Subdivision, the County has required the Subdivider to develop and agree upon a cost sharing program to bring Eagle County Road No. S13 up to an acceptable safe con- dition and to accomodate the incremental increase in traffic burden -to said road resulting from the development of Aspen, M� 6untain View; and WHEREAS, pursuant thereto,Sub divider has, in conjunction with other potential subdividers in the area, caused an engineer- ing study of said road to be accomplished and a report based thereon to be submitted to the County, which report sets forth specific design objectives which include eliminating existing hazards, increasing vehicle capacity, minimizing costs and constructing a roadway that will not require excessive future maintenance, and which contains an engineered estimate of the costs necessary to complete construction of the various phases of work - required to be done; said report entitled "El Jebel Road Improvement Study for Eagle County Secondary Road Thirteen by David W. Grounds, Professional Engineer", is set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the County has accepted such study and report, and the cost estimates and estimates of incremental increase in useage resulting from the development of Aspen, Mountain View to be accurate and valid; and WHEREAS, the County and Subdivider have agreed upon a cost sharing program to upgrade said road as set forth in the "Proposal for Cost Sharing of Heeded Improvements to Eagle County Secondary Road 13 (The E1 Jebel Road)", attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference, upon -2- the terms and conditions herein after set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the covenants and agreements herein contained to be kept and performed by the parties hereto, it is hereby understood and agreed as follows: 1. That the work necessary to be performed upon Eagle County Road No. S13 isas outlined and described in Exhibit A attached hereto, in the various phases and at the estimated costs therein set forth. 2. That the proportionate share of Basalt Mountain Associates in the total cost of improving such road is the sum of $ 85,112.00, as set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto. `wo/ 3. That the proportionate share of the total sum of $ 85,112.00 referred to in the paragraph next above relative to the final plat of the first filing of Aspen, Mountain View is the sum of $ 21,279.00, which sum is to be payable upon the following schedule: a. Upon approval of Final Plat, $ 6,373.00 First Filing. b. Upon issuance of building permits for 75 lots of the total of 471 lots described in Exhibit B, or one year and six months from approval of final plat, first filing, whichever occurs first $ 6,368.00 c. Upon issuance of building permits for 150 lots of the total of 471 lots described in Exhibit B. or five years from approval of final plat, first filing, whichever first occurs $ 4,074.00 d. Upon issuance of building permits for 250 lots of the total of 471 lots described in Exhibit B. or seven years from approval of final plat, first filing, whichever first occurs $ 4,464.00 4. That all of the work of improving said road as set forth on Exhibit A hereto shall be performed or contacted lkft� by the County, and Subdivider shall ha—e no responsibility in connection with the construction and/or completion of such work other than payment of the sums set forth in paragraph 3 above. 5. That Subdivider shall be credited with payment of $ 1,000.00 of the first sums due under paragraph 3 above, as the amount expended by Subdivider relative to the final plat. of the first filing of Aspen, Mountain View Subdivision, in. connection with the road study set forth in Exhibit B hereto. 6. That the County shall complete all of the various, phases of road improvement work described in Exhibit- A not later `*� than eight (8) years from the date of this agreement. Notwith- standing the foregoing provision, if the County is unable to complete all of the various phases of said road improvement work on or before said completion date by reason of acts or events beyond the control of the County or by reason of S-ob- divider's breach of the terms of this agreement, such delay shall not be deemed a breach or violation of this agreement on the part of the County. 7. That all of such road improvement work will be accomplished in a good and workmanlike manner by the County in accordance with present and future County road standards. lv� In the event County fails to complete such work pursuant to Section 6 hereinabove, then County shall forthwith refund to Subdivider the sums paid by Subdivider hereunder which have not been used by the County in such road improvement work, and Subdivider shall be relieved of any further obligations under this agreement only as it relates to the final plat of the first filing of Aspen, Mountain View Subdivision. The foregoing shall be Subdivider's sole remedy in such event. 8. The Subdivider shall not, nor shall any principal or employee thereof, be liable or responsible for any accident, loss or damage happening or occurring to the works specified in this agreement, nor shall the Subdivider, nor any principal or employee thereof, be liable for any persons or property injured by reason of the nature of said work, but all of said liabilities shall be and are hereby assumed by the County. The County hereby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Subdivider and any of its principals, agents and employees, against any losses, claims, damages or liabilities to which the Subdivider or any of its principals, agents or employees may become subject to, insofar as any such losses, ,%WO' claims, damages or liabilities (or actions in respect thereof) that arise out of or are based upon any performance by the County hereunder; and the County shall reimburse the Subdivider for any and all legal or other expenses reasonable incurred by the Subdivider in connection with investigating or defending any such loss, claim, damage, liability or action. This indemnity provision shall be in addition to any other liability which the County may have: 9. The County agrees to approval of the final plat, first filing, of the Aspen, Mountain View Subdivision, upon execution of this agreement and the Subdivision Improvements Agreement for the final plat, first filing, of the Aspen, Mountain View Subdivision. 10. Any substantive modification of this agreement shall be made in writing, mutually agreed to and executed by both parties hereto, and shall not affect any unmodified portions of this agreement. 11. That if the Subdivider fails or refuses to pay those certain sums set forth in paragraph 3 hereinabove when due -5- according to the schedule therein, the County shall have the following remedies in addition to any further remedies avail- 1* . able to the County in law or equity: a. In the event that building permits have been issued for less than fifty (50) percent of the platted lots within the first filing of the Aspen Mountain View Subdivision, the County shall have the right to revoke and otherwise invalidate the final plat, first filing, of said subdivision as it pertains to those remaining lots which have not been issued building permits. The revocation of said final plat, first filing, shall not in any way whatsoever terminate, annul or otherwise dispose of the obligations and responsibilities of the Sub - ,%no,/ divider pursuant to that certain Subdivision Improvements ,*4WW1 Agreement executed concurrently with this agreement, and the County shall have the right to withhold the security or collateral originally submitted by the Subdivider to guarantee the faithful performance of said Subdivision Improvements Agreement; or b. In the event that building permits have been issued for greater than fifty (50) percent of the platted lots within the first filing of Aspen, Mountain View Subdivision, the County shall have the right to withhold issuance of further building permits for the remaining lots of the first filing of said subdivision. Pursuant to this paragraph 11, the Subdivider hereby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the County and any of its officers, agents and employees, against any losses, claims, damages or liabilities to which the County or any of its officers, agents or employees may become subject to, insofar as any such losses, claims, damages or liabilities (or actions in respect thereof) that arise out of or are based upon the failure of Subdivider to pay such sums here- under and by reason thereof, the County's revocation of the 10 final plat, first filing, of the Aspen Mountain View Subdivision or the County's withholding issuance of further building permits; and the Subdivider shall reimburse the County for any and all legal or other expenses reasonably incurred by the County in connection with investigating or defending any such loss, claim, damage, liability or action. This indemnity provision shall be in addition to any other liability which the Subdivider may have. 12. Subdivider shall use all due diligence and without unnecessary delay to obtain final plat approval from the County of the remaining filings of the Aspen, Mountain View Subdivision. As a condition of said final plat approval of the remaining filings, a separate Off Site Subdivision Improvements Agree- 1`1001 ment shall be entered into by the parties hereto. In the event that such final plat approval is obtained within six months from the date of execution of this agreement, the Subdivider, upon approval of the County, shall be entitled to incorporate the engineering study and cost sharing program set forth in Exhibits A and B, respectively, of this agree- ment relative to the proportionate share of Basalt Mountain Associates remaining to be paid in the total cost of improving Eagle County Road No. S13 ($ 63,833.00) and the schedule of payment thereto, and the relevant provisions of this agreement. In the event that such final plat approval is not obtained within six months from the date of execution of this agree- ment, the County, in its sole discretion, may require the Subdivider to agree to a new cost sharing program which reflects an inflationary factor in the proportionate share of Basalt Mountain Associates remaining to be paid in the total cost of improving Eagle County Road No. S13, and in addition, shall be entitled to execute a separate Off Site Subdivision Improve- ments agreement which may be totally different and distinct -7- 0 `%Wool from the provisions of this agreement. 13. In the event of any irreconcilable conflict, incon- sistency, or incongruity between the provisions contained in this agreement document and any of the provisions contained in any of the exhibits incorporated herein by reference, the provisions contained in this agreement document shall in all respects govern and control. 14. The Subdivider shall not assign, transfer, convey, pledge, sublet or otherwise dispose of this contract without prior written consent of the County. Notwithstanding the foregoing provision, the transfer, assignment, conveyance or otherwise disposal of this contract by the Subdivider to any corporation, partnership, or limited partnership of which the Subdivider is the owner of at least fifty (50) percent interest shall not require the prior written consent of the County. 15. This agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto, their respective succes- sors and assigns. 16. Financial obligations of the County payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made available. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement as of the date first above written. ATTES/V.&V 7 the and o oun �Cornmissioners COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO By and Through its BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By: Dale F. Grant - Chairman SUBDIVIDER ef �7• 7=_ Richard M. Je i s Managing Part Basalt Mountain Associates -10- STATE OF COLORADO ) ) s s . COUNTY OF EAGLE ) The foregoing Agreement for Off Site Subdivision Improvements was acknowledged before me this W q/day of �2 aj.c�� , 1981 by Richard M. Jennings. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: * v=W= 4x*w Ap#i1 A 1Dji Notary Public 50 n _..- ts..•-• v d i `�Y Aw- fV..ct= •f.T- �~ _. .tNi- ~-.y:Y � - '- l.w' �. -4 .i4'` _ _ w+.. .. - .._ ��� LY ah.I. 'rii K. .�' 'R "/, i`'� y.•"�. �'j. � wlr-� '{w' JI'fr •.T.. -t`' .1. r: J' .1� .�"' .' _ ..'(q. Ya���n,•''�...Vtiild!`r'4_�,•75''$::yr(I'xl��. i, ..t �k'?�4'Fl�:}:i�'�1rr.-j'o- ,� .'11;3i'.•a�.•_i,!Y•��b+.4.1�i �.i •'A �'�7v•i��.'}a k?:P �r �� ♦'!t. I'. "!'��''i° �t� t'•�'s r mountain -engineering bland oul. cloying too p.o. box 14 gypsum, colorado 81637 524-9414 945-8356 406 S. Hyland Square, Suite A-1 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 945-2045 EL JEBEL ROAD IMPROVEMENT STUDY FOR EAGLE COUNTY SECONDARY ROAD THIRTEEN BY DAVI D W . GROUNDS PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction. . . . . . . . . . Study Objectives. . . . . . . . Summary and Recommendations . . Existing Conditions . . . . . . Design Standard . . . . . . . . Benefits. . . . . . . . . . . . u . 1 . 1 2 5 6 7 .. - +�r-y �y ��•//y�.�� �j[�c 'Sly, ,�.y 1{,� ��y�{1�01y��1�•.��•� .i �Cl •j /�'bL f�.T�inl''� ��^•T1:tf:�"F{011!i:�•.7,'� �l�/Pd7i-A�!R'r�''}r��• ..�,4.��rT;.�'?T��•.�'.�`l .. .1 . J, ..Awn. ♦�,. 1 f '.� 1 ��/ r: .d . N .:1. � +:.j' �Jrr:• ' �...:," . .r.�� •ii Y .!!'.. •i�•.:,f.i � .Y: �+ �. i !'4'rri.�..C: •. 1..•K� :F M? •.�• .,n"s. .a 1....,;ti >•#t..n ;,i .. „t �: du � .Lif�.s, a-�:.,:'r is .2^t�,,,. �'yy�� yr ^�'r,,. fc�:. :�",".,� ,.f",U; ,5t', ;�e!�;- ,��ti.2'y1�;�t �,i�y "'!! :�!3 .r'a' �,�`l�•S,. u T}'Cp, • "', <•... "� ',a' [}.f,- ;yr., ?-t+�i..u..: "�7'.. �M`-'-.,—.ic:;t_ .,v; T i ,. .. '•{'".., : �•e . -..i.• • . r INTRODUCTION In granting approval to the Preliminary Plans of Aspen Mountain View and Blue Creek Ranch Subdivisions, the Eagle 1_1%w� County Commissioners requested that an engineering study be conducted on a portion of County Road 13. The section to be studied is from the end of the improved section northward approximately two miles to the northern property line of the Aspen Mountain View Subdivision. The Commissioners requested that this study (1) indicate improvements necessary for this section of roadway to adequately serve the existing traffic, as well as traffic generated by future development, and (2) provide the cost of these improvements. STUDY OBJECTIVES 1*"� The primary objective, of course, is to provide the information requested by the County Commissioners as stated above. Specific design objectives, however, include elimina- ting existing hazards, increasing vehicle capacity, minimizing costs, and constructing a roadway that will not require excessive future maintenance. The design objectives of safety and capacity have been obtained by upgrading the road to meet County "Local Street" standards. A detailed discussion of why this standard was selected appears later in this report. . cS Al, Through precise fitting of the new alignment, costs were minimized by utilizing existing pavement, aggregate, and reducing right-of-way acquisition. Pavement, aggregate, and right-of-way are high -cost construction items. The new alignment was also carefully chosen to prevent future maintenance problems, such as settlement. For example, in some areas the existing road exhibits high and steep fill slopes; an effort was made to avoid widening by the addition of fill, as it is'extremely difficult to prevent shoulder settlement under these circumstances. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The general recommendation is that the study portion of the El Jebel Road be improved to County "Local Street" L../ standards. It is possible for these improvements to be com- pleted in one construction project or phased over a several - year period. It would seem that a phasing or the project would be more appropriate since all improvements are not needed at the present time, particularly in the upper one - mile portion of the road where buildout-will not occur for several years. Another important consideration or project phasing is the fact that total cost would be spread over a several -year period. This would be beneficial in meeting budget requirements. `�•� The following is the phasing that appears most logical based on safety, current capacity needs, and future growth: - 2 - e Phase 1 `.� Phase 1 consists of the purchase of all needed right- of-way throughout the project. There will be approximately three acres of right-of-way needed. Assuming right-of-way will cost approximately $20,000 per acre, the total cost of Phase 1 is approximately $60,000. Phase 2 The relocation of all utility lines would be completed in Phase 2. The cost for these relocations will be approximate- ly $5,000. Phase 1 and Phase 2 clear the way for future construction work which might begin at any time and at any location. These phases also eliminate the possibility of oversights leading to construction delays and claims. r 1_ — _ _ 19 The highest priority is the reduction of existing safety hazards. The greatest safety problems which are now present exist in that portion of County Road 13 that lies south of the Fender Lane intersection. This segment is narrow with several sharp curves which, in conjunction with poor sight distance and heavy usage, create significant safety hazards. The Fender Lane intersection is also hazardous. Phase 3 would, therefore, improve the safety aspects of this section of roadway. The actual construction would consist of completing all earthwork and related items from -Station 0+ - 3 - to Station 54+. (See enclosed Plan and Profile sheets.) Aggregate and pavement would be placed only in the areas of alignment shifts, i.e., curves at Stations 10+, 18+, and 45+. The existing pavement would be utilized throughout the remainder of the section as the new alignment closely matches the existing alignment. Flatter curves, better sight distance, and six-foot shoulders would be the result of this work. The County Road 13 and Fender Lane intersection would also be improved. The County Road is completely re -aligned in this area, eliminating several very tight curves. Fender Lane would be re -aligned at the intersection with an approx- imate perpendicular tie-in. An acceleration and left turn lane would be provided at the intersection for Fender Lane traffic. The total cost of Phase 3 would be approximately $161,000. Phase 4 entails the completion of all excavation and related items on the remaining north portion of County Road 13. Flattening the curve and relocating the irrigation ditch on Fender Lane near the southwest corner of Aspen Mountain View Subdivision would also be completed in Phase 4. Approx- imately four to six, inches of aggregate base course would be required on County Road 13 to provide an adequate riding surface until this section is paved. - 4 ` 1 r �i■r� It is felt Phase 4 can be delayed several years until enough development occurs that warrants improvements. Kings Row began marketing six years ago and presently has a total of eight homes, five of which are occupied. As Kings Row 1%.01 is similar to and located near the two subject subdivisions, it can be anticipated that Aspen Mountain View and Blue Creek Ranch would have a similar buildout. Phase 4, with a cost of $103,0001 could speculatively be delayed five years. Phase 5 A paving and surfacing contract which encompasses the total project length would make up the final phase. The lower portion of the project, the section that is currently paved, would require graveling the shoulders and a bituminous mat. The upper portion would require some additional aggregate N../ and three inches of pavement. `..r" Phase 5 would complete all work necessary for upgrading County Road 13 to the "Local Street" standard. The total cost for Phase 5 is approximately $194,000. This phase could be delayed five or more years. EXISTING CONDITIONS The section of County Road 13 that is to be improved consists of two distinct sections. Beginning at the northern end of the recently improved section to approximately 1/4 mile northeast of the Fender Lane intersection, the roadway is approximately 24 feet wide with 22 feet of paved surface. - 5 - In many locations, shoulders are very narrow or nonexistent.. There are several areas that make driving hazardous, especially in winter months, due to the sharp horizontal curvature, poor sight distance, and grade of the roadway. The remaining section of roadway from approximately 1/4 mile north of the Fender Lane intersection to the northern property line of the Aspen Mountain View Subdivision is typically 20 feet in width with a substandard gravel surface. It has also been requested that a curve on Fender Lane be improved and a section of the irrigation ditch be relocated. This curve is located at the southeast corner of the Aspen Mountain View Subdivision. Continuing west on Fender Lane, all telephone poles currently placed in the roadway will be relocated on a utility easement on Aspen Mountain View properties. DESIGN STANDARD The County "Local Street" standard is the selected upgrading standard. There are several factors that justify this selection. A "higher" design standard would require major shifts away from the present alignment at several of the existing curves. Due to excessive cost, it is not feasible to deviate substantially from the existing alignment. These excessive costs would result from additional pavement, aggregate, and right-of-way requirements. The existing alignment generally conforms to the horizontal curvature requirements of the "Local Street" standard; thus, minimizing alignment shifts. Several curves will require flattening,however; the most notable area being at the f intersection with Fender Lane. The segment of County Road 13 to be improved will generally conform to the 8% maximum grade requirement. How- ever, there will be approximately one-half mile of the new alignment that requires grades in excess of 8%. The worse grade sections will still be considerably less than the 12% to 13% grades that exist on the recently improved lower section. It is felt that the "Local Street" standard will adequate- ly and safely handle the current, as well as the projected, traffic needs. I%Mlo� BENEFITS The greatest resulting benefit is that of safety. The present and future homeowners that must traverse this section of roadway each day will have a much safer trip. Improved alignment, better sight distance, and adequate shoulders will provide a much greater margin of safety. Another major benefit is that of increased traffic capacity which is needed for future growth. In a report authored by myself in 1979 entitled "Vehicle Capacity Study of Eagle County, Secondary Road 13 Leading North From El Jebel," it was stated that with the improvements and con- struction suggested in the proceeding pages, i.e., improving - 7 - the road to the "Local Street" standard, the road could serve 445 single-family dwellings. This total capacity is not necessary for the Aspen Mountain View and Blue Creek Ranch Subdivisions but the safety improvements are certainly 1.%� warranted. This earlier report also stated that increased capacity through improved passing sight distance was doubtful. In reviewing the Plan and Profile sheets, it can be seen that there can be no increase in capacity as there are no signif- icant changes in passing sight distance. M 6 ►1 i I PROPOSAL FOR COST SHARING OF NEEDED LMPROVEMENTS To EAGLE COUNTY SECONDARY ROAD 13 (The E1 Jebel Road) Prepared by DEN= -GUTTING P. U. �iovember .1, 1980 \..d Introduction Eagle County Commissioners, upon approving the preliminary plans of Blue Creek Ranch Subdivision and Aspen Mountain View Subdivision requested that the applicants work together to formulate a cost sharing program to implement needed improvements to County Secondary Road 13. The County Commissioners established that this would be a prerequisite to Final Plat Approval of the subdivisions. It was mutually agreed that a four -step procedure should be followed: I. Engineering Design; II. Agreement on a Cost Sharing Arrangement; III. Obtain Needed Right -of -Ways; IV. Construction of Improvements. Step I, the engineering design has been completed by Dave Grounds in cooperation with the County Engineer, Mel Atwell, and is included as a part of this proposal. This study establishes the improvements that are necessary to currently serve the existing traffic load, the traffic that will be generated by the development of Aspen Mountain View and Blue Creek Ranch, as well as traffic generated by future development. This study also packages the construction improvements in accordance with their needs, and costs for each of "Uhm-se phases aro escii-ziated. The objeCtive oL this proposal is to develop a Logical formuia from which ail involved parties can negotiate and agree upon a Lair cost sharing arrangement. 'lhe n.rocosai is aroKen into tour steps as Follows: 1. Road Improvement Study; 2. Road Utilization; 3. Cost Sharing Ratios; � 4. Payment Schedule. 1. Road Improvement Study. The following is a breakdown of the costs by phase as outlined in Dave Ground's E1 Jebel Road Improvement Study for Eagle County Secondary Road 13. Engineering & Design Studies.......... $ 15,000.00 Phase I, Purchase of Needed Right -of -Way ........................ $ 60,000.00 Phase II, Relocation of utility lines ............................... $ 5,000.00 Phase III, Reduce existing safety hazards ...................... $161,000.00 Phase IV, Excavation of the North portion of County Road 13 ..... $103,000.00 Phase V, Paving and Resurfacing the total project's length .............. $194,000.00 Totai Cost ............ $538,000.00 11✓ 2. Road Utilization. The cost of the road improvements to be done should be paid for by those who will be impacting the future road condition. while noting the inadequacy of the road as it is today, we feel that existing units should bear none of the cost of road improvements needed to accomodate future development in the Missouri Heights area. If we start by stating that existing units will not be used in calculating cost sharing ratios, then we have three categories of units to be constructed that will have an impact on the road. 1. Those units that are presently in the approval process. 2. Those units that have been previously approved by the County, but have not yet been constructed. 3. Those units that have not yet been proposed. From the County study "Inventory of Dwelling Units in Eagle County, Colorado", we have determined that there are 139 approved units which have not to date been constructed. It is our feeling that the County as the approving entity is responsible for this increased impact upon a substandard road system and therefore should be agreeable to paying a proportional share. Units in the process of approval (Aspen Mountain View and Blue Creek Ranch) total 165. The number or L'uture units that the County will approve in the Missouri Heighits area is much more difficult to determine. By taking the acreage available for developaent in the Missouri Heights area anC dpolyirg a tll?1t:, rnr acre ration w.= ccme up wi -h 167 units For iutur-' : ycs�iO..,t2r?L. i1S l.3 a conser`Iatly? e sr-1- ace '11C17, SCIOL O zo „a?�ciZt ±_roc t�_.^�;li1Ly E.-cm, L'Lltllre revenues generatedLOr ?^.ad iIi,CrOVaTie.^.LS. 3. Cost Sharing Ratio. The total number of units to be constructed in the Missouri Heights area that impact County Secondary Road 5-13 is 471. The cost sharing ratios that we propose are easily calculated as follows: 1. Units in the process of approval 165 units 471 total units = 35.0% 2. Units approved but not built 139 units 471 total units = 29.5% 3. Future units to be built 167 units 471 total units = 35.5% 4. Pa ent Schedule. The need for improvement of 5-13 increases with each additional unit constructed, and it seems logical that phasing of the road improvements should be correlated with completion of living units in the Missouri Heights area. We propose that the County tie actual road improvements and pavement for those improvements to a schedule based on building permits issued or a fixed time, whichever comes sooner. Our proposed schedule is as follows: I. AT FINIAL PLAT APPROVAL: Engineering & Design Studies Phase I, Purchase of needed right-of-way ?haJa lI, Relocation .,C 1t.li.., Ll.i..5 '�T.A;.' $15, 000.00 $ 60, 000. 00 $ 5,000.O0 $80, 000.00 Pre sanc avelooerssnar:. ! 315 3-) _ $23, 000. 00 "3 ' � , ate Future love; o��rs' :rare ; 35.: 1 - $28, 400. 00 The developers of Aspen Mountain View and Blue Creek Ranch realize that this is work that should be started at once and that the County therefore will not have the funds from future developers available. They therefore are willing to pay future developments share at this time in exchange for an equal credit in the last phase of improvement. Present developers pay $50,055.00 County pays $20, 945.00 II. AT THE ISSUANCE OF 75 BUILDING PERMITS OR ONE AND ONE HALF YEARS FROM FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, WHICHEVER CODES FIRST: Phase III, reduce existing safety hazards $161,000.00 Present developers' share (35%) _ $ 56,350.00 County's approved share (29.5%) _ $ 47,495.00 Future developers' share (35.5 0) - $ 57,155.00 III. AT THE ISSUANCE OF 150 BUILDING PERMITS OR FIVE YEARS FROM FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST: Phase IV, excavation of the North portion of County Road 13 $103,000.00 Present developers' share (3536) - $ 36,050.00 County's approved share (29.5%) _ $ 30, 385.00 Future developers' share (35.50) _ $ 36,565.00 "V. Al! `19.E ISSUANCE OF 250 SUILDING rMAI'Y3 OR SEEL1 M%� S F RO-L'4 FIilkl ?LLNT -�� APPROVAL, :vHIC=1ER COMES FIRST; ?tease V. pavinq and resurfacing ha- cuotai Jroj c lenqt.". $ L94, 000- 00 fd Present developers' share County's approved share Future developers' share 1*� (35%) _ $ 67, 900.00 (29.5%) _ $ 57, 230.00 (35.5%) _ $ 68, 870.00 Since present developers pay share of Phase I costs for future developers, this amount will be adjusted in Phase V as follows. Present developers' share (35%) = $67,900 less $28,400 $ 39,500.00 Future developers' share (35.50) = $68, 870 plus $28, 400 $ 97, 270.00 `rr�