The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.su.240 Silverlode Dr.0037.2008L 1.1 nÂ» - 240 SILVERLOADE DR. 2737.07.4.29.001 0037.2008 \ 0 ~Â»tu,Â«Â» 4 z 60 AN>LED THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0037.2008.ASLU PARCEL ID NUMBER 2737-07-4-29-001 PROJECTS ADDRESS 240 SILVERLOADE DR. PLANNER JENNIFER PLENAN CASE DESCRIPTION WILLIAMS RANCH, APPEAL REPRESENTATIVE GARY KELLY. DATE OF FINAL ACTION 02/28/2009 CLOSED BY Angela Scorey on 03/02/2009 RESOLUTION NO.g (SERIES OF 2009) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AFFIRMING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION REGARDING DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION. WHEREAS, the Community Development Director issued an administrative decision regarding dimensional standards applicable to the Williams Ranch subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the Director rendered a decision and a property owner, Gary Wright, on behalf of himself, his wife, and Gary Kelly, believes the Director exceeded his jurisdiction and abused his discretion and sought an appeal based on such grounds; and, WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Chapter 26.316, may affi rm an interpretation of the Land Use Code made by the Community Development Director or reverse or modify the interpretation upon a finding that there was a denial of due process, exceeding ofjurisdiction, or abuse of authority in rendering the interpretation; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has taken and considered written and verbal testimony from Gary Wright on behalf of himself and other appellants as well as the Community Development Director, and as a result has found that the Director provided due process and neither exceeded his jurisdiction or abused his authority in rendering the interpretation; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council affirms the Community Development Director's Administrative Decision regarding dimensional standards applicable to the Williams Ranch subdivision. This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances, If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Resolution No. 7, Series of 2009. Page 1 APPROVED by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting on January 12,2009. ATTEST: /7 *0 4 14*__ In/1 44 MA Â« A / Kathryn S. K~Ii, Citfelerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayoj APPROVED AS TO FORM: ff ( '(AUAJA John WorcekldÂ¢City Attorney Resolution No. 7, Series of 2009. Page 2 Regular Meeting Aspen Citv Council January 12,2009 Couneilwoman Kasabach said she shares Councilman Johnson's concerns, especially the scope of the plan. Mayor Ireland said he is concerned about the role of the hospital in community health care; what will drive the growth and how to cope with it; the traffic and parking issues. Mayor Ireland said analyzing a hospital in terms o f client demands and how much money can be made obstructs the vision o f what a community health facility should be. Mayor Ireland said the plan addresses how to take care of people who are sick but does not address how to restrain the need for these services. Mayor Ireland said he will have to be convinced about the need for private rooms, especially with the diminishing number of people covered by health insurance. Mayor Ireland said the statement was made that detox is not part of a hospital's core competency but if not at a hospital, where and who takes care of these people. The role o f the hospital in community health care is important. Mayor Ireland said he does not subscribe to the maintaining market share model o f the hospital. Aspen does not control the rate of growth in the mid-valley, which will be explosive. Mayor Ireland noted there has been zero growth at the hospital from Aspen parents. Mayor Ireland said the roundabout is the Achilles heel; it is nearing capacity and close to where it will be unable to function. Mayor Ireland said the number o f people required to serve town continues to come up from down valley and has to go through the roundabout. Mayor Ireland said being able to expand this facility in another 20 or 25 years is very important. Mayor Ireland reiterated he has concerns about who we serve, how we serve them, how they get into and out of the facility, Mayor Ireland said this is everyone's hospital. Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing. Melody Durham, nurse at AVH, told Council she has worked in several units o f the hospital and currently directs the cardiac rehabilitation unit, which is a new service within the last 15 years. Two patient care rooms were taken up to create the cardiac rehab facility. Ms. Durham noted a major focus ofthe cardiac rehab unit is preventative health care. There is no waiting room. One of the goals is to offer more in terms ofprevention. Councilman Romero moved to continue the public hearing to January 26,2009; seconded by Councilwoman Kasabach. WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION - Wright Appeal Gary Wright, appellant and speaking for Gary Kelly, Bob Morris and Susan Sparks, said staffs memo does not relate the appellant's position or the issues. Wright said the code that applies to the Williams Ranch subdivision, a 35 deed restricted units mixed with free market units project, the issue is whether slope reduction should be applied to reduce the FARs on the deed restricted houses and should the 500 square foot garage exemption granted by the PUD be allowed or should the current code apply. Wright reminded Council this was a 4 year process which included Pitkin County and the federal 14 Regular Meeting Aspen Citv Council January 12, 2009 government; it was one of the first projects in the AH affordable housing zone district where the developer received 15 free market lots subject to constructing 35 deed restricted houses. Wright said no cash subsidies were provided and a park was dedicated to the city. The Williams Ranch project went through a four-step process with the city. Wright requested Council to allow the floor areas allowed under Ordinance #59,1989, and allow the same 500 square foot exemption for the garage. Wright noted there is a restriction to the homeowners that only 10% cost of the original price can be recoverable when sold. Anything over 10% does not get repaid. Wright said the homeowners should be allowed to spend money on home improvements. Mayor Ireland asked if the original PUD provided for the additional space. Wright said it did. Mayor Ireland asked i f that PUD expired. Wright said the vested rights expired. Mayor Ireland said the subdivision was subject to rules of general applicability adopted by Council, who adopted limitations to apply to this subdivision. Mayor Ireland said Wright is arguing that the code should be changed to allow the garage exemption and that slope reduction not apply. Mayor Ireland said this is a request for an appeal and the standards are that the administration abused its discretion, exceeded its jurisdiction or there was a denial o f due process. Mayor Ireland asked if Wright is alleging this. Wright said he is not. Mayor Ireland said the standards for an appeal are clear and Wright wants Council to adopt zoning to allow things that were previously allowed. Wright said it is within Council's jurisdiction to find that for this deed restricted housing, it is appropriate to respect what was done by prior Council. Wright said he thought staff had some discretion in their interpretation and thought this was the appropriate process. Mayor Ireland said without a showing of denial o f due process, that the administration exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion, Council cannot hear this or they would be zoning property without notice. John Worcester, city attorney, gave Council a memorandum setting forth the standards for this type appeal. Worcester said Wright's argument should be made in an PUD amendment application because there is no argument that meets the standards o f review for an appeal. Wright admitted that those standards cannot be sustained. Worcester recommended Wright file an amendment to the PUD. Worcester said the homeowners will need a document to be recorded setting forth the dimensional requirements and the only proper way to do that is to have an amendment to the PUD. Councilman Johnson moved to approve Resolution #8, Series of 2009, affirming the interpretation o f the community development director; seconded by Councilwoman Kasabach. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Johnson moved to adjoum at 9:35 p.m.; secopded by Councilwoman Kasabach. All in favor, motion carried. g_),4- lit KatprÂ¢n S. Koch, City Clerk U 15 =2ullillillill 2-a. Q j MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~~ FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Directo]~~~3) RE: Wright Appeal (Williams Ranch Subdivision) MEETING DATE: January 12,2009 GENERAL BACKGROUND In August of 2008, after meeting and working with members of the Williams Ranch homeowner's association (HOA), the Community Development Director issued and administrative decision (Exhibit 1) with regard to the Williams Ranch Subdivision. The determination was issued to clarify what land use code and dimensional requirements are applicable to the subdivision. The owners of two properties (Gary and Jena Wright as well as Gary Kelly) filed a notice of appeal (Exhibit 2) once the decision was issued and was subsequently scheduled before the City Council. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Once an appeal is scheduled, the review body hears the appeal at a public meeting. Based solely upon the record established by the original decision, the City Council shall consider whether: 1) There was a denial of due process; or, 2) The administrative body exceeded its jurisdiction; or, 3) The administrative body abused its discretion. These standards ask whether the Director' s actions were ethical. The City' s code states that the decision or determination made by the administrative officer shall not be reversed or modified unless there is a positive finding on one of these criteria (Please see Exhibit 3 for the entire code section 26.316.030, Appeal procedures). The appellants have not cited which criterion was met with the determination made by staff. t DETAILED SUMMARY: The administrative decision was issued as a result of an initial inquiry fielded by staff with regard to a proposed addition to the Wright residence. A representative for Mr. Wright first met with staff to gather information on the dimensional standards (such as maximum height, minimum setbacks and maximum floor area) associated with the lot. Staff originally confirmed the underlying zone district as Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH/PUD). The current AH/PUD section of the land use code states that "dimensional requirements are established by adoption of a final PUD development plan." The ordinance approving the Williams Ranch project (Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994) did not memorialize most of the dimensional standards for the subdivision making it unclear what if anything could be built on 1 Mr. Wright's lot. After this preliminary research, staff began having discussions with members of the HOA to determine what steps should be taken next. Originally, staff had discussed memorializing dimensional standards through a PUD Amendment; however, additional research showed that the AH zone district had previously contained zone district dimensional standards and an administrative decision was issued stating that the former AH zone district dimensions remained in effect.. Research showed that prior to the current AH/PUD zone district regulations, the original Affordable Housing (AH) zone district was established in 1989 and included dimensional standards, rather than standards being established through a PUD plan. Staff was able to determine what dimensional standards were in place at the time of the subdivision's approval. As the current zone district standards for the Al-1/PUD zone do not include dimensional standards, staff determined that the subdivision could rely on the Affordable Housing zone district standards in effect at the time of the subdivision's approval (see Exhibit A, located within Exhibit 1 of this memo). In the administrative decision, staff also determined that the subdivision's vested rights had expired in 1997 and current regulations of the city are applicable to new development within the subdivision. Specifically related to this appeal, staff determined that slope reduction (where allowable floor area is reduced by the presence of steep slopes on a lot) and the current inclusions and exemptions for the calculation of floor area are applicable to development within the subdivision. Depending on the topography of individual lots within the subdivision, the maximum allowable floor area allowed may be reduced (by no greater than 25%). Additionally, inclusions and exclusions in the calculation of floor area have changed since the subdivision's approval. Three hundred seventy-five square feet of garage space is exempt from floor area calculations rather than five hundred square feet as was the case in the past. STANDARDS OF REVIEW: 1. Due Process - With respect to due process, staft Worked with both Mr. Wright and members of the Williams Ranch homeowner's association (HOA) to determine the subdivision's dimensional standards. Meetings with members of the (HOA) occurred on and off again in 2008. At one of the last meetings in which the Mr. Wright participated in, the administrative decision was provided and staff suggested the Appellant, interested in building an addition, do an initial slope analysis to determine if the current regulation would impact his proposal. Staff is not sure if this analysis was ever undertaken. Staff also suggested the HOA consider submitting a PUD Amendment if changes to the approvals were desired. As required by the Land Use Code, the appellants were provided notice of tonight's meeting via registered mail and all other affected parties were noticed by publication in the newspaper, as required. Assuming tonight's meeting does not contain any procedural flaws; staff believes that proper due process has been provided to the appellants. 2. Jurisdiction - The Director's jurisdiction to interpret the Land Use Code is established in Chapter 26.210 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. This Chapter outlines the jurisdiction, authority, and duties allocated to the Community Development Director. One o f the Director' s duties outlined in the Chapter reads: "To render interpretations of this Title or the boundaries of 2 duties outlined in the Chapter reads: "To render interpretations of this Title or the boundaries Of the Official Zone District Map pursuant to Chapter 26.306." Staffbelieves this language is clear and it does not appear that the applicant is questioning this provision of the code. 3. Discretion - With respect to abuse of the Director's discretion, the Director did need to use his discretion in rendering the decision. The question is whether the Director abused that discretion or acted unethically. , p iIi Once a development's statutory vested rights have expired, any proposed development must meet adopted standards of the city. Regulations change over time and new development is subject to such changes. As noted in section 26.308.010 D., Expiration of Vested Rights, "after expiration (of a vested right), a development order remains valid......but shall be subject to any changes in the I.and Use Code that have been adopted since the developments original approval." The approvals for Williams Ranch continue to be valid and homeowners in the subdivision can continue to rely on the ALI zone district dimensional standards in place at the time of approval. There have been changes to the land use code since 1994. Upon the expiration of the development's statutory vested rights in 1997, new development must conform to those changes. This includes slope reduction and the manner in which floor area is calculated. TWO RESOLUTIONS: Attached are two Resolutions. One finds that the Director acted correctly and affirms the determination. The second finds that the Director exceeded his jurisdiction, abused his authority, or failed to provide due process and reverses the determination. RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes the Director' s determination was rendbred ethically and that no abuse of authority or exceeding ofjurisdiction occurred. Staff recommends City Council uphold the Director's determination by adopting the proposed Resolution affirming the determination. If the City Council finds the Director did not act correctly, City Council will need to render a new determination. This may be more or less restrictive that the determination rendered by the Director. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: Call motions must be made in the positive) "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2009, [affirming or reversing] the Community Development Director's determination regarding dimensional requirements subject to lots within the Williams Ranch Subdivision." ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT 1 - Administrative Decision 1 EXHIBIT 2 - Submitted Appeal Â·Â· EXHIBIT 3 - Land Use Code Chapter 26.316, Appeal's . 09 RESOLUTION N0. , (Reversing Interpretation) (SERIES OF 2009) ** A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN APPEAL AND REVERSING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION REGARDING DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION. WHEREAS, the Community Development Director issued an administrative decision regarding dimensional standards applicable to the Williams Ranch subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the Director rendered a decision and a property owner, Gary Wright, on behalf of himself, his wife, and Gary Kelly, believes the Director exceeded his jurisdiction and abused his discretion and sought an appeal based on such grounds; and, WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Chapter 26.316, may affirm an interpretation of the Land Use Code made by the Community Development Director or reverse or modify the interpretation upon a finding that there was a denial of due process, exceeding ofjurisdiction, or abuse of authority in rendering the interpretation; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has taken and considered written and verbal testimony from Gary Wright on behalf of himself and other appellants as well as the Community Development Director, and as a result has found that the Director either exceeded his jurisdiction or abused his authority,in rendering the interpretation; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approves the appeal of the Community Development Director's decision regarding dimensional standards applicable to the Williams Ranch subdivision and reverses the decision as follows: Section 1: A. Certain provisions of Section 26.575.020 C., Lot Area, shall not apply to the calculation of Floor Area for lots within the Williams Ranch subdivision. Specifically, the subdivision shall not be subj ect to slope reduction in the calculation of lot area. The following language shall not be applicable to the subdivision: "when calculating floor area ratio, lot areas shall include only areas with a slope of less than twenty percent (20%). In addition, half (.50) of lot areas with a slope of twenty to thirty percent (20-30%) may be counted towards floor area ratio; areas with slopes of greater than thirty percent (30%) shall be excluded. The total reduction in FAR attributable to slope reduction for a given site shall not exceed twenty-five percent (25%)." Resolution No. , Series of 2009, Page 1 1 *Ii HÂ·,; B. The provisions of Section 26.575.020 A.3, Garages, shall not apply to the calculation of Floor Area for lots within the Williams Ranch subdivision. Instead, garage, carport and storage areas shall be limited to a five hundred (500) square foot exemption. Section 2: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereo f. ' 41 APPROVED by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting on 52009. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney Resolution No. , Series of 2009. Page 2 123Â« 1 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION JURISDICTION: City of Aspen APPLICABLE ORDINANCE: Ordinance 59 (Series 1989) EFFECTIVE DATE: August 1,2008 WRITTEN BY: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Director APPROVED BY:~AL Chris Bendon, Community Development Director COPIES TO: John Worcester, City Attorney SUMMARY This administrative decision is being issued in response to several inquiries that staff has entertained with regard to the Williams Ranch subdivision (approved in 1994) and its original approvals. In sum: â€¢ The ordinance approving Williams Ranch subdivision (No. 52, series 2004) regulates density, accessory dwelling units and height. â€¢ Ordinance No. 59 (Series of 1989) regulates dimensional standards such as Minimum Setbacks and Floor Area. â€¢ New development is subject to regulations in the City of Aspen's Land Use Code that are of general applicability. PURPOSE The purpose of this administrative decision is to interpret the ordinances and clarify the dimensional requirements applicable to the Williams Ranch subdivision which is located in the Affordable Housing (AH) zone district and has a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay. This clarification is needed because the AH zone district standards have changed over time. BACKGROUND In 1989, Ordinance No. 59 (Series of 1989) (hereinafter "AH Ordinance") adopted an Affordable Housing zone district (Exhibit B) as a new zone district to the City of Aspen's land use code. Staff further researched subsequent ordinances to verify whether any later code amendments affected the content of the AH Ordinance prior to the Williams Ranch subdivision being approved. Three ordinances were found that amended the AH Ordinance: Ordinance No. 22 (Series of 1992) amended the Floor Area allowance for a 9,000 square feet or greater lot, Ordinance No. 68 (Series o f 1993) amended Conditional Uses permitted in the zone district, and Ordinance No. 12 (Series of 1994) affected Page 1 of 4 permitted uses and dimensional requirements (Exhibit C). Other than the AH Ordinance, only the final ordinance noted affected the Williams Ranch subdivision. Ordinance No. 52 (Series of 1994 ) is an ordinance that granted subdivision, Planned Unit Development, GMQS Exemption and Vested Rights for the Williams Ranch Project (Exhibit D). The approval allowed for the construction of thirty-five (35) deed restricted affordable housing units (Williams Ranch subdivision) and fifteen (15) free-market lots (Silverlode subdivision). A PUD is site specific and certain dimensional requirements are permitted to be varied, although the underlying zone district dimensional standards are to be used as a guide. Any approved dimensional variations are memorialized in the ordinance approving the development. In the case of Ordinance No. 52 (hereinafter "Williams Ranch Ordinance"), the following sections reference and memorialize certain dimensional standards or requirements: â€¢ Sub-section 1.1.f., "Pitkin County's definition for calculating height and determining natural grade shall be used for this project." â€¢ Sub-section 1.8., "All other lots are subject to the 25 foot height limitation of the City of Aspen, and are calculated using Pitkin County's definition for height." â€¢ Sub-section 1.15., "No accessory dwelling units are permitted to be constructed in any o f the Williams Ranch residences." â€¢ The overall ordinance approved thirty-five affordable housing units. Since the passage of the Williams Ranch Ordinance, amendments to the AH zone district have occurred. For instance, the AH zone district is now called the Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH/PUD) zone district and the dimensional requirements for the subject zone district are established through the adoption of a final PUD. In the ease of the Williams Ranch approval, only certain dimensional standards were memorialized in the ordinance because the Affordable Housing zone district in 1994 had set dimensional standards. DISCUSSION It is staff' s interpretation that the properties within the Williams Ranch subdivision may utilize the Affordable Housing zone district regulations in effect at the time of their approval inclusive of Ordinance No. 59 (Series of 1989) and Ordinance No. 12 (Series of 1994) unless the Williams Ranch Ordinance supersedes these requirements. However, the subdivision' s vested rights expired in 1997 and any contemporary regulations of the land use code that affect development such as lighting, fencing, calculations and measurements, and slope reduction are applicable to any new development in the subdivision as these regulations are of general applicability. To exempt the subdivision from any regulations of general applicability, the PUD must be amended by the City Council. Staff has discussed this process with representatives of the homeowner' s association of the Williams Ranch subdisvion. Two other areas with regard to the PUD should also be clarified. Although the underlying zone district allows for a greater potential density than the thirty-five (35) affordable housing units that exists, the Williams Ranch Ordinance restricts the subdivision to Page 2 of 4 thirty-five units. An amendment to the PUD is required to increase the density. Another area of clarification is with regard to the type of unit the affordable housing units are considered and the resulting Floor Area scale to be used in calculating Floor Area. Each dwelling unit is located upon an individual lot. As noted in Exhibit A, single-family dwellings may have a zero (0) side yard setback. A number of dwelling units share a common lot line and need to be considered either two single-family residences or a duplex. Since each dwelling unit is located upon its own Iot and can have a zero (0) side yard setback, each affordable housing unit is considered a single-family (or detached residence) for floor area calculations. APPEAL OF DECISION As with any administrative decision by the Community Development Director, an applicant has the ability to appeal this decision to the Aspen City Council. This can be done in conjunction with a land use request before City Council or as a separate agenda itern. 26.316.030(A) APPEAL PROCEDURES Any person with a right to appeal an adverse decision or determination shall initiate an appeal by filing a notice of appeal on a form prescribed by the Community Development Director. The notice of appeal shall be filed with the Community Development Director and with the City office or department rendering the decision or determination within fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision or determination being appealed. Failure to file such notice of appeal within the prescribed time shall constitute a waiver of any rights under this Title to appeal any decision or determination. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A - Summary of Dimensional Standards Exhibit B - Ordinance No. 59 (Series of 1989) Exhibit C - Ordinance No. 12 (Series of 1994) Exhibit D - Ordinance No. 52 (Series of 1994) Page 3 of 4 Exhibit 'A' Summary of Dimensional Requirements: Dimensional Standard Requirement Notes Minimum Lot Size 3,000 sq. ft. Ordinance No. 12 (Series of 1994). Based upon 'fathering' lot greater than 27,000 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Area Per 3,000 sq. ft. Ordinance No. 12 (Series of Dwelling Unit 1994). Based upon 'fathering' lot greater than 27,000 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width 30 feet Ordinance No. 59 (Series of 1989) Minimum Front Yard Principal Building: 10 feet Ordinance No. 59 (Series of Accessory Building: 15 feet 1989) Minimum Side Yard 0 ft. for each side yard with a Ordinance No. 59 (Series of total of 15 ft. for both side 1989) yards. Minimum of 5' for yards which are contiguous to any other zone district other than the affordable housing zone district. Minimum Rear Yard Principal Building: 10 feet Ordinance No. 59 (Series of Accessory Building: 5 feet 1989) Maximum Height 25 feet Ordinance No. 52 (Series of 1994). Measured per Pitkin County code Minimum distance between 5feet Ordinance No. 59 (Series of Buildings 1989) Floor Area 3,000-6,000 = 2,400 sq. ft. of Ordinance No. 59 (Series of floor area, plus 28 sq. ft. of 1989) floor area for each additional 100 sq. ft. in lot area up to a maximum of 3,240 sq. ft. of floor area. 6,000-9,000=3,240 sq. ft. of floor area, plus 14 sq. ft. of floor area for each additional 100 sq. ft. in lot area up to a maximum of 3.660 sq. ft. of floor area. Note: This is provided as a summary reference only and does not create a vested right. Please refer to original ordinances for actual language. In the case of any discrepancies between the summary and the ordinance language, the ordinance language prevails. Regulations may change over time and affect the validity of this summary. Page 4 of 4 $ C Effel-E 5 ORDINANCE NO. 59 (SERIES OF 1989) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AMENDING CHAPTER 24, ARTICLE 5, DIVISION 2 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE TO CREATE A NEW SECTION 5-208, AFFORDABLE HOUSING (AH) ZONE DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council (hereinafter "the Council") has received the recommendations of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission with respect to amendments to the requirements for the creation of an Affordable Housing (AH) zone district; and WHEREAS, the Council recognizes that the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has held a public hearing for the creation of this zone district on March 28, June 13, July 11 and July 25, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Council is aware that in order to accomplish their affordable housing goals a zoning tool such as the Affordable Housing zone is essential; WHEREAS, the Council has held public work sessions on the Affordable Housing zone on June 8 and August 14, 1989; and WHEREAS, both the Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission recognize the importance of affordable housing to preserving the fabric of the Community; and WHEREAS, in 1987, the draft Affordable Housing Production Plan identifies a 250 unit affordable housing shortfall; and WHEREAS, the Affordable Housing zone district is part of the city's implementation strategy for the Affordable Housing Production Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That Article 5, Division 2 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations be amended by the creation of a new Section 5-208, Affordable Housing (AH) zone district which shall read as follows, and the renumbering Of all subsequent sections in this Division accordingly: Sec. 5-208 Affordable Housing (AH). A. Purpose. The purpose of the Affordable Housing (AH) Zone District is to provide for the use of land for the production of low, moderate and middle income affordable housing and Resident Occupied Units. The zone district also permits a limited component of free market units to off-set the cost of developing affordable housing. It is contemplated that land may also be subdivided in connection with a development plan. The Affordable Housing (AH) Zone District is intended for residential use primarily by permanent residents Of the Community. Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the Affordable Housing (AH) Zone District should be scattered throughout the City to ensure a mix of housing types, including those which are affordable by its working residents; at the same time the Affordable Housing (AH) Zone District can protect the 2 City's neighborhoods from rezoning pressures that other non-community oriented zone districts may produce. Further, lands in the Affordable Housing (AH) Zone District should be located within walking distance of the center of the City, or on transit routes. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Affordable Housing (AH) Zone District. 1. Residential uses restricted to low, moderate and middle income affordable housing guidelines and resident occupied units must comprise at least 70 percent of the unit mix, of the development. Free market development may comprise up to 30 percent of the unit mix, and 40 percent of the bedroom mix Of the development. Residential uses may be comprised of single-family, duplex and multi- family dwelling units; 2. Home occupations; and 3. Accessory buildings and uses. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Affordable Housing (AH) Zone District, subject to the standards and procedures established in Art. 7, Div. 3. 3 1. Open use recreation site; 2. Day care center; 3. Satellite dish antennae; and 4. Dormitory D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and condi- tional uses in the Affordable Housing (AH) Zone District. 1. Minimum lot size (sq.ft.): +reee 3,000 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (sq.ft.): Detached residential dwelling: 3,000 Duplex: 3Â·reee-1,500 For multi-family dwellings on a lot of 27,000 sq. ft. or less or for lots of 43,560 s.f. or less when approved by special review pursuant to Art. 7, Div. 4, the following sq. ft. requirements apply: studio: 300 1 bedroom: 400 2 bedroom: 800 3 bedroom: 1,200 Units with more than 3 bedrooms: one (1) bedroom per 400 square feet of lot area. For multi-family dwellings on a lot of more 4 than 27,000 sq. ft. (except when varied by Special Review) the following sq. ft. requirements apply: studio: 1,000 1 bedroom: 1,250 2 bedroom: 2,100 3 bedroom: 3,630 Units with more than 3 bedrooms: one (1) bedroom per 1,000 square feet of lot area. 3. Minimum lot width (ft.):-+e 30 4. Minimum front yard (ft.): principal building: 10 accessory building: 15 5. Minimum side yard (ft.): The minimum side yard for single-family and duplex dwellings is 0 ft. for each side yard; 15 ft. total minimum for both side yards. (Minimum side yard shall be 5' for yards which are continous to any zone district other than Affordable Housing.) The minimum side yard for multi-family dwellings shall be 5 feet. 6. Minimum rear yard (ft.): principal building: 10 accessory building: 5 7. Maximum height (ft.): 25; increasable up to 30' by 5 special review pursuant to Art. 7, Div.4. 8. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot (ft.): 5 9. Percent of open space required for building site: to be established by special review pursuant to Art. 7, Div. 4; open space may be used for off- street parking by special review, pursuant to Art.7, Div. 4. 10. External floor area ratio (applies to conforming and nonconforming lots of record). DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS Lot Size Allowable (SO.Ft.1 SOÂ· Ft. 0- 3,000 56 80 sq.ft. of floor area for each 100 sq.ft. in lot area, up to a maximum of b 7960 2,400 sq.ft. of floor area. 3,000- 6,000 brSÂ»68 2,400 sq.ft. of floor area, plus 2-0 28 sq.ft. Of floor area for each additional 100 sq. ft. in lot area, up to a maximum Of 2-7&00 3,240 sq.ft. of floor area. 6 6,000- 9,000 371Â·68 3,240 sq.ft. Of floor area, plus be 14 sq.ft. Of floor area for each additional 100 sq. ft. in lot area, up to a maximum of 2-7*Ge 3,660 sq.ft. of floor area. 9,000+ 2 7+Ge 3,660 sq.ft. Of floor area. DUPLEX Lot Size Allowable (SO-Ft.) SO.Ft. 0- 3,000 60 90 sq.ft. of floor area for each 100 sq.ft. in lot area, up to a maximum o f 1-ieee 2,700 sq.ft. of floor area. 3,000- 6,000 6 7869 2,700 sq.ft. of floor area, plus 30 sq.ft. of floor area for each additional 100 sq.ft. in lot area, up to a maximum of 2 77-60 3,600 sq.ft. of floor area. 6,000- 9,000 37760 3,600 sq. ft. Of floor 7 area, plus Be 16 sq.ft. of floor area for each additional 100 sq.ft. in lot area, up to a maximum of 3-Taee 4,080 sq.ft. of floor area. 9,000+ 3-7}90 4,080 sq. ft. of floor area. MULTI-FAMILY Allowable Lot Size SO-Ft. 0- 27,000 s.f 1.1:1 27,001 s.f- 43,560 s.f .36:1, increasable to 1:1 by special review, pursuant to Art. 7, Div. 4. 43,561 s.f- 3 acres .36:1 > 3 acres- 6 acres .33:1 > 6 acres- 9 acres .30:1 > 9 acres- 18 acres .27:1 >18 acres .24:1 11. Internal floor area ratio: no requirement 8 E. Off-street parking requirement. The following off- street parking spaces shall be provided for each use in the Affordable Housing (AH) Zone District. 1. Residential uses: established by special review pursuant to Art. 7, Div. 4. The maximum number of parking spaces required shall not exceed 1 space/bedroom or 2 spaces/dwelling unit whichever is less. 2. All other: N/A. Section 2. Article 8,8-104 (C) (1) Growth Management Quota Systems Exemptions by City Council of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, are hereby amended to read as follows: "8-104 (C)(1)(e) Affordable Housing Zone District" The development of no more than fourteen (14) free market dwelling units for entire City in one calendar year. Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. 9 .- I Section 4. Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to affect any right, duty or liability under any ordinance in effect prior to the effective date of this ordinance, and the same shall be continued and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5. 040 A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the /' day of <<i<~#du*A.) , 1989, at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the /79Â£j day of 6 1JLLJ , 1989. / 1 / -ic 1 41 / 411_JEE.j William L. Stirfing, Mayor ATTEgT: F--l11409-06 4 RQI_ Kathryn Sj~ Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this '4$11,fi day Of (0 Lb-6_LU , 1989. , 3 1,- :1,/ -*4,{Ur#:L yr'=--u~:~ William L. Stirling, Mayor1 ATTEST: 1 Kathryn jf-' Koch, City Clerk ah.zone.ord.cc.lst.read2 10 EÂ»B>fOG ' ORDINANCE N0. 12 (SERIES OF 199* AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, AMENDING CHAPTER 24 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, LAND USE REGULATIONS, BY AMENDING SECTION 24-5-206.2 TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR SINGLE- FAMILY AND DUPLEX DWELLING UNITS TO 1,500 SQUARE FEET PER DWELLING UNIT ON PARCELS LESS THAN 27,000 SQUARE FEET IN THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT. WHEREAS, Section 24-7-1103 of the Municipal Code provides that amendments to Chapter 24 Of the Code, to wit, "Land Use Regulations", shall be reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at public hearing, and then approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved by the City Council at public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director did receive from the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority ("Applicant") and has reviewed and 4~ recommended for approval a text amendment to Chapter 24 associated with the development of affordable housing; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposal and did conduct a public hearing thereon on March 1, 1994; and WHEREAS, upon review and consideration of the text amendment, agency and public comment thereon, and those applicable standards as contained in Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, to wit, Division 11 of Article 7 (Text Amendments), the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval Of the text amendment recommended by the Planning Director pursuant to procedure as authorized by Section 24-6-205 (A)(5) of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered 1 the text amendment under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered those recommendations and approvals as granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the text amendment meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for public health, safety, and welfare; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed text amendment will allow and promote better site design, encourage small, family-oriented affordable housing, promote housing proposals that reflect surrounding neighborhood characteristics and will be consistent with the public welfare and the purposes and intent of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN COLORADO: Section 1: Pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 of the Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows in regard to the text amendment: 1. The proposed text amendments as set forth are not in conflict with the provisions of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code or the Aspen Area Community Plan. 2. The proposed text amendments will not adversely impact traffic generation or road safety when taken into consideration with the other aspects of the Municipal Code. 3. The proposed text amendment will promote the public interest and character of the City of Aspen. 2 Section 2: Section 5-206.2 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended, which new text shall read as follows: B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Affordable Housing (AH) zone district. 1. Residential uses restricted to the affordable housing income and category guidelines, as defined by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and adopted by Council in effect at the time of approval, and resident occupied units, as defined by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and adopted by Council in effect at the time of approval, must comprise at least seventy (70) percent of the unit mix, of the development. Free market development may comprise up to thirty (30) percent of the unit mix, and forty (40) percent of the bedroom mix of the development. Residential uses may be comprised of single-family, duplex and multi-family dwelling units; The following changes are proposed for Section 24-5-206.2 D.: D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Affordable Housing (AH) zone district. 1. Minimum lot size (square feet) on a lot of 27,000 square feet or less: 1,500 2. Minimum lot size (square feet) on a lot greater than 27,000 square feet: 3,000 3. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet): Detached and duplex residential dwelling on a lot of 27,000 square feet or less: 1,500 Detached and duplex residential dwelling on a lot greater than 27,000 square feet: Detached residential dwelling: 3,000 Duplex: 1,500 3 Section 3: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion Of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5: A Dublic hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on theR:I day of c -40â€ž534 1994 at 5:00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Ft'all, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 62-2~ day of ~Â».d2,4- f-L 1994. ~l-, l3Â»=bt-- John Bennett, Mayor 1.-48+. 032LÂ«_D,tell - Kathryn ,@-Koch, City Clerk U ,/7 FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this .25 day of 4644 -A, , 1994. John Bdnnett, Mayor Atte,st: Ii.Iitut Kathryn 13'. Koch, City Clerk 4 t-.- . 0 0 379604 8-775 P-Roo 03/09/95 02:03P PG 1 OF 11 REC DOC SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER 55.00 ORDINANCE NO.SU (SERIES OF 1994) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN GRANTING FINAL REVIEW FOR SUBDIVISION, PUD, GMQS EXEMPTION, AND VESTED RIGHTS FOR THE WILLIAMS RANCH PROJECT TO CONSTRUCT 35 DEED RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AND 15 FREE MARKET LOT ON A PARCEL LOCATED IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6TH PM WHEREAS, the Smuggler Consolidated Mines Corporation ("Applicant"), represented by Tom Stevens and Gary Wright, submitted an application to the Planning Office requesting approval of the Williams Ranch development which consists of 35 deed restricted affordable housing units, 15 free market lots, Planned Unit Development, Subdivision, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, Annexation, 8040 Greenline Review, and Special Review; and WHEREAS, the Williams Ranch property is located immediately adjacent to the City of Aspen in the AF-1 zone district of Pitkin County; and WHEREAS, the Applicant did file on December 12, 1991 with the City Clerk of the City of Aspen a Petition for Annexation to annex the subject property to the City of Aspen, and WHEREAS, on January 13, 1992, City Council did adopt Resolution No. 4, Series of 1992, finding substantial compliance with Section 31-12-107(1), C.R.S.; and i WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution No. 12, Series of 1992, at its regular meeting on March 23, 1994, did find and determine, following a public hearing, said Petition for Annexation to be in substantial compliance with __31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S, and 379604 8-775 P-823 03/09/95 02:03P PG 2 OF 11 . WHEREAS, the Applicant and the City of Aspen have consented to that certain Annexation Agreement dated , 1994; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the Applicant's request at a public hearing on September 13, 1994, at which time the Commission recommended approval to City Council for the Subdivision, Rezoning, PUD, GMQS Exemption, and Annexation. The Commission also granted 8040 Greenline review and Special Review for parking and open space, subject to conditions in Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 94-__; and WHEREAS, the Commission voted 4-0 to recommend approval of this project to City Council; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-7-1004 Subdivision, Section 24-7-901 Planned Unit Development, and Section 24-8-104 GMQS AIA Exemption, City Council may approve the Applicant' s request; and WHEREAS, City Council considered the Applicant's request at a duly noticed public hearing on November 14, 1994 at which time Council determined that this project complies with the applicable requirements of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, City Council has found that a multi-year development allotment for one free market unit pursuant to Section 24-8-103(D) is appropriate to accommodate this project; and WHEREAS, the approvals granted herein are specifically conditioned upon City Council approval of said Petition for Annexation by Ordinance duly adopted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: 2 379604 B-775 P-824 03/09/95 02:03P PG 3 OF 11 Section 1: Pursuant to Section 24-7-1004 Subdivision, Section 24- 7-901 Planned Unit Development, and Section 24-8-104 GMQS Exemption, City Council does hereby approve the applicantls request subject to the terms and conditions of said Annexation Agreement and upon adoption by the City Council of an Annexation Ordinance annexing the subject property to the City of Aspen; and subject further to the following conditions: 1. The Zoning Enforcement Officer has recommended the following conditions of approval that shall be adhered to by the applicant: a. Building envelopes on the free market lots shall contain all development and disturbance proposed for those lots. Natural vegetation shall be maintained outside the designated building envelopes. This condition shall be noted on the Final Plat. b. No development shall be permitted to encroach into any easement areas identified on the Final Plat. This condition shall be noted on the Final Plat. c. Prior to the development of each lot, a separate topographical and boundary survey with corner monuments shall be prepared by a registered land surveyor and submitted with the building permit. d. The free market units shall provide one parking space per bedroom. e. Allowed floor area square footages shall be based on the lot areas identified on the Final Plat. f. Pitkin County's definition for calculating height and determining natural grade shall be used for this project. g. Lots 3 - 15 have received a PUD variance for the front yard that addresses the requirement of Section 24-3-101 Yard (A)(5), which permits driveways or cut slabs greater than 30 inches below grade within the required yards. h. All heights and FAR calculations shall be verified when 3 332-71â‚¬13* .. 379604 B-775 P-825 03/09/95 02:03P PG 4 OF 11 - working drawings are submitted to the Building Department < for building permit review. The drawings included in the application packet do not contain adequate detail for this level of review. 2. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions regarding pedestrian areas: a. The Final Plat shall identify pedestrian easements on all lots that are adjacent to roads. b. Hard surface pedestrian walking areas shall be placed on one side of all roads within the subdivision and along one side of the main access road across Mollie Gibson park to Smuggler Mountain Road. c. All hard surface pedestrian walking areas shall be maintained in a suitable walking condition on a year round basis. d. The Covenants and approvals shall specify whether the Homeowner's Associations or individual property owners are responsible for snow removal and maintenance of these walkways. 3. The applicant shall complete an ACSD Collection System agreement, and shall comply with ACSD Rules, Regulations, and Specifications, prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4. The following conditions of approval from the Environmental Health Department, shall be adhered to by the applicant: a. The applicant shall adhere to the fugitive dust control plan filed in the Environmental Health Department. b. The applicant shall file a fireplace/woodstove permit for each structure with the Environmental Health Department, prior to the issuance of any building permits. c. Construction hours shall be limited to 7:00am to 10:00pm to minimize construction noise on neighboring properties. 5. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions as they relate to the Housing Office: a. The applicant may choose the first time purchasers of the affordable housing units, as long as each purchaser complies with the Aspen/Pitkin County.Housing Guidelines and each purchaser has been approved by the APCHA. b. All resale affordable housing units shall come under the jurisdiction of the APCHA and its guidelines. 4 379604 8-775 P-826 03/09/95 02:03P PG 5 OF 11 c. The Master Deed Restriction shall be filed and approved by the Housing Office within 180 days of City Council approval of the project. d. Ten of the Resident Occupied "RO" units shall comply with the RO requirement for the City of Aspen in the 1994 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office 1994 Affordable Housing Guidelines. The remaining five RO units shall meet all the requirements of the Housing Guidelines, except there will be no asset or income limitations for these residents. 6. The turnaround at the intersection of Freesilver Road and Williams Ranch Drive shall be redesigned subject to approval of the City Engineer and the Fire Chief. Alternately, the applicant shall install residential sprinkler systems in all residential units. 7. Lots 1 - 15 shall have a residential sprinkler system installed and these shall be indicated on the building permit drawings. 8. Development on Lot 15 is limited to eighteen feet in height (plus five feet to the mid-point), as calculated by Pitkin County's Land Use Code. All other lots are subject to the 25 foot height limitation of the city Of Aspen, and are calculated using Pitkin Countyls definition for height. 9. The water pump serving the upper lots shall have adequate records of pump maintenance and servicing available for inspection by the Fire Marshall. 10. The emergency access road shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide and maintained in a passable condition on a year round basis. The improvements agreement, declarations, and covenants shall specify that snow removal will be provided by the Homeowner's Associations for the emergency access road. 11. The allowable floor area for the free market parcels shall not exceed 90% of what is permitted in the AH zone district. If the proposed floor area for any free market parcel is over 80% of the permitted floor area for the AH zone district, then a complete 8040 Greenline Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be required prior to the issuance of any building permits for that lot. In the 8040 Greenline Review process, particular attention shall be focussed on requirements 7 and 8, which provide for the preservation of the mountain as a scenic resource and design to blend into the open character of the mountain. 12. Lots 1 - 15 shall have an engineer evaluate the site 5 379604 B-775 P-827 03/03/95 02:03P PG 6 OF 11 < conditions to recommend foundation design, prior to building permit review on each parcel. 13. A licensed engineer shall submit a report addressing the foundation design for the affordable housing units, prior to the issuance of any building permits. 14. As discussed in the referral comments dated August 24, 1994 from the Engineering Department, the applicant shall comply with the following: a. The free market units shall be required to provide for on-site stormwater detention, prior to the issuance of any building permits. b. Soil erosion controls and the debris interceptor shall be indicated on the Final Plat drawings. Construction drawings for each phase of work shall be designed by a licensed engineer and indicate appropriate runoff control measures. The plans shall be submitted and approved by the Engineering Department, prior to any earthmoving activities. c. The applicant shall dedicate public right-of-way or an easement for Spruce Street along the north property boundary on Lots 1-4 and provide a seven foot easement for snow storage along these lots. d. All access roads shall be a minimum of 20 foot driving width. This also applies to the "driveway" called Williams Court. e. The "grass over paver blocks" or similar system for the emergency access lane off Spruce Street shall be designed and engineered to handle emergency response vehicle loads. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshall, prior to the issuance of any building permits. f. The applicant shall submit construction drawings and specifications, stamped by a registered engineer, and obtain written permission from Engineering prior to any road work, utility construction, or grading/drainage construction. g. Prior to signing the Final Plat, the applicant shall submit a letter by a registered engineer stating that the road designs meet the requirements of Section 24-7- 1004(C)(4)(a)(10) and (13). h. The Final Plat shall indicate a 20 mph speed limit signs to be installed by the applicant as identified in the 6 379604 8-775 P-828 03/09/95 02:03P PE 7 OF 11 Traffic Report. i. In addition to the required 100 foot diameter turnaround for the intersection of Freesilver Road and Williams Ranch Drive, a seven foot buffer shall be designed outside this turnaround that will be for drainage, snow storage space plus a five foot pedestrian path. This shall be identified on the Final Plat. j. An easement for the snow storage areas within the development shall be indicated on the Final Plat. k. The applicant shall provide three single globe antique street lights for this project, one at the intersection of Williams Drive and Teal Court, one at the intersection/turnaround of Williams Ranch Drive and Freesilver Road, and one at the intersection of Williams Ranch Drive and Freesilver Road. Intermediate, low level street lighting shall be provided between intersections. Design, style and location of these lights shall be approved by the City Engineer. 1. All utilities, except natural gas, shall be stubbed out to the property lines prior to paving the access roads. m. Any property monuments removed Or- disturbed during construction (including landscaping) shall be reset by a land surveyor. n. Prior to Final Plat approval, property corner monuments shall be set on the external boundaries of the subdivision. 0. The Final Plat and subdivision agreement shall include a note specifying that trash storage and recycle areas will be located on private property and not within access and utility easements. p. The Final Plat must meet the requirements of Section 24- 7-1004(D) of the Municipal Code. The Plat shall also include certificates Of plat approval for utility location and easement width by all utility companies and approval by all easement holders on the property. q. The "Final Plat" will consist of all boundary, certificate, site, engineering, and architectural drawings approved by the City. All sheets containing engineered drawings must be stamped by a registered engineer. r. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts which may be formed for the purpose of 7 379604 B-775 P-829 03/09/95 02:03P PG 8 OF 11 - constructing improvements in the adjacent Smuggler area public rights-of-way. S. The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for design considerations of development within public rights-of-way, parks department (920-5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights- of-way from the city street department (920-5130). t. Guest parking areas shall be delineated on the Final Plat and all pull in parking spaces shall be redesigned to comply with the requirements of the Municipal Code. 15. No accessory dwelling units are permitted to be constructed in any of the Williams Ranch residences. 16. As stated in the Parks Department referral comments dated September 7, 1994, the applicant shall comply with the following: a. The applicant shall obtain an easement from the ditch owners for the proposed trail along Salvation Ditch. Specific information regarding trail standards and materials shall be included in the application. The applicant should dedicate this as a public easement. b. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan that identifies trees six inches in diameter and over. Landscaping in any right-of-way should also be included on the landscape plan. The Parks Department will review and approve the final landscape plan to be recorded with the Final Plat documents. C. The applicant shall comply with Ordinance 37 Series of 1991 as it relates to irrigation methods. 17. The applicant shall pay the $157,360 park development impact fee prior to the issuance of any building permits, unless the applicant provides a cost breakdown of the park improvements as specified Section 24-5-608. 18. The Final Plans shall indicate a small ditch water feature along the Salvation Ditch alignment to maintain the historic character of this area. 19. The applicant shall provide a Final Plat and Subdivision Improvement Agreement, satisfactory to the City Attorney, Engineer and Planning Office, detailing the costs of all proposed public improvements within 180 days of City Council review. The guarantee of these improvements shall be in place 8 379604 B-775 P-830 03/09/95 02:03P PG 9 OF 11 before the issuance of any building permits. All public improvements shall be completed, in place and accepted by the appropriate agency before issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy's. 20. The applicant shall explore restricting residential development on the remaining 30 acres in Pitkin County, with the exception of a night watchman's quarters, not to exceed 1,500 square feet in floor area. 21. The City Engineer shall pursue a text amendment to allow variations of subdivision design standards as set forth in Section 24-7-1004(C) (4) of the Aspen Municipal Code. 22. only Lot 5 shall have access via Spruce Street. 23. Prior to the commencement of any construction activities on this property, the applicant shall receive final Annexation and Rezoning approvals from the City of Aspen. 24. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations made by Bruce Collins in his geologic report dated January 19, 1994. 25. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 26. The applicant shall grant a Public Recreation Easement to the City of Aspen for the open space parcel adjacent to Salvation Ditch. 27. The applicant agrees not to seek any variances to the 25-foot height limit for structures, as based upon the Pitkin County regulation pertaining to the measurement of building heights. Section 2: Pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council does hereby grant the Applicant vested rights for the Williams Ranch Subdivision site development plan as follows: 1. The rights granted by the site specific development plan approved by this Ordinance shall remain vested for three (3) years from the date of final adoption specified below. However, any failure to abide by the terms and conditions ~WIA attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said 9 379604 B-775 P-831 03/09/95 02:03P PG 10 OF 11 vested property rights. Failure to timely and properly record all plats and agreements as specified herein or in the Municipal Code shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested rights. 2. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review. 3. Nothing in the approvals provided by this Ordinance shall exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent reviews and/or approvals required by this Ordinance or the general rules, regulations or ordinances of the City provided that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the approval granted and vested herein. 4. The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all properties subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen, including but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site development approval, the developer shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. Section 3: The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen, no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption hereof. Such notice shall be given in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said notice. Section 4: This ordinance shall not become effective unless and until the City Council approves the Petition for Annexation by duly enacted ordinance annexing the subject property to the City of 10 379604 8-775 P-832 03/09/95 02:03P PG 11 OF 11 Aspen. Section 5: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the f# day of (~, 1994 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. Fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing a public notice of the hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 4~ day of ~U44.4-- 1994. * /55- JohA Bennett, Mayor *,0/Ill"'14,1.* y L, 3,0~i 0 F. -4.i;'' . Â¢ f ATTEST: f & :3 F A L..3 3.fakt*r~k~4~tkoch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 0~ day of ~1~~ , 1994. ~11 6.â€ž.,IX John ~ennett, Mayor pitTE&%04*9 '1545'D~ 903?ch, City Clerk 09~.cc. ah.Â¥114~ranch. final " 11 44%"el>.4 . 61*FF 2- APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION Appellant: Homeowners from Williams Ranch Subdivision Date: Monday, 18 August 2008 Appeal from: Administrative Decision re: Dimensional Requirements, etc. Contact Information: Gary and Jena Wright 240 SilverLode Drive Aspen, Colorado Mailing address: 715 West Main Street, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 8i6ii Telephone: 925-5625 Facsimile: 925-5663 APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION Appellant: Homeowners from Williams Ranch Subdivision Date: Monday, 18 August 2008 Appeal from: Administrative Decision re: Dimensional Requirements, etc. The Williams Ranch homeowners involved with this project wish to thank Jennifer and Chris for the time and hard work they did on ascertaining applicable zoning and building requirements for Williams Ranch. Introduction: Williams Ranch and SilverLode subdivisions were the result of more than five years of planning and reviews with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Department of Justice, the State Mine Land Reclamation Division (as it was called then), Pitkin County, and the City of Aspen. Williams Ranch was, beginning in ig89, one of the first projects developed under the then new AH Zone concept. After getting approximately thirteen acres of the Superfund Operable Unit 2 Study Area determined to be free from heavy metals and particularly lead, by the EPA and the Department of Justice, the developer entered into a consent decree with the United States. Thereafter, the developer sought and obtained a subdivision from Pitkin County and annexed those thirteen acres into the City of Aspen with the zoning of AH. After going through numerous planning meetings as well as conceptual approval from City Planning & Zoning and City Counsel, and then detailed submission and final review approval, again with Planning & Zoning and City Counsel, the developer was granted approval for 15 free market lots, subject to constructing thirty-five deed restricted homes. No cash subsidies were provided and, in addition to building the thirty-five homes, the developer also built the Molly Gibson Park. In the late ig8os and early 19gos, the concept of an AH (affordable housing) zone district was a relatively new one. The PUD evidenced by Ordinance No. 59 (Series 1989) and Ordinance No. 52 (Series of 1994) and the underlying requirements were specifically designed for and tailored to this project. Here, this project's topography, number of units, and the site plan that identified both deed restricted and free market lots were the result of many hours of work and collaboration among City staff, APCHA staff, hopeful local homeowners, the contractor and the developer. Page i of 4 Appeal ofAdministrative Decision Appellant: Homeowners from Williams Ranch Subdivision Date: Monday, 18 August 2008 Additionally, this project was one of the first to have both what was then called a Category 5 that had at that particular time higher income and asset allowances and the experiment of five lots that were called RO that had no asset or income limitations, but did have the requirement that the owners be full-time employees in Pitkin County. Dimensional requirements for all thirty-five deed restricted homes are specified in Ordinance No. 59 (Series 1989) and set out in Exhibit A to this Appeal, which exhibit was prepared by Ms. Phelan and marked "draft 6/17/08." Note that Exhibit A was prepared with the benefit of the plans for building permits issued for the construction of the homes as maintained by the City of Aspen. Issues on Appeal: There are two issues with the interpretation of the applicable limitations on the size of additions to the existing homes as set forth in the Administrative Decision. 1. Floor area allowed by the Ordinance No. 59, Series 1989 should not be subject to slope reduction. 2. Exempt floor area allowed by the PUD should not be reduced. Discussion: 1. The floor area allowed bv the P.U.D. should not be subject to slope reduction. Imposition of Slope Reduction. The homeowners believe that because the dimensional requirements and floor areas were specifically planned for the Williams Ranch deed restricted homes, and Staff, P&Z and City Counsel all considered the topography of the site in establishing the standards set forth in Ordinance No. 59 (Series 1989), those dimensional requirements should not be reduced by any slope reduction formula. Page 2 of 4 Appeal ofAdministrative Decision Appellant: Homeowners from Williams Ranch Subdivision Date: Monday, 18 August 2008 Slope reduction serves to reduce development and increase development costs. Here, development will be effectively limited by the current expense o f construction and the ten percent (10%) limitation for expenses that can be added onto the maximum resale price. Having to provide a slope reduction survey and slope reduction calculation is also an unduly burdensome expense for a deed restricted home. Also, with the ten percent (10%) limitation on expenses for approved improvements that can be recovered on resale as enforced by the APCHA, the amount that can be spent and recovered will serve to minimize additional development. Development in the form of small additions to the deed restricted homes at Williams Ranch will ultimately benefit future homeowners. Today, the deed restricted homes at Williams Ranch are very popular because o f the combination of their proximity to town and to public transportation, in addition to the purchase cost for the size and amenities of the homes. Compare for example to North Forty where several home resale prices have exceed $1,000,000. 2. The exempt floor area allowed bv the P.U.D. should not be reduced. The homes that have garages were designed with a five hundred (500) square foot exemption from the square footage that counts against the overall allowance. The homeowners believe that this size exemption should be allowed to continue. The as-built garages from the original construction were allowed to be five hundred (500) square feet without counting against maximum allowable size. The reviewing City Counsel and P&Z were of the opinion that additional garage size was a good idea to allow for storage and to keep boats, bicycles, motorcycles, etc. from ending in the front or back yards, etc. 3. Summary. The PUD for the deed restricted homes constructed at Williams Ranch went through a four-step process of conceptual review by P&Z and City Counsel, and detailed and final submission, again by P&Z and City Counsel. Staff provided input throughout the multi-year process. The PUD was carefully reviewed and considered topography, siting, architectural style, size, location of homes, mixture of Cat 2 through RO, just to mention a few of the relevant criteria that support maintaining the PUD dimensional requirements and square footage exemptions established by Ordinance No. 59 (Series 1989). Page 3 of 4 Appeal ofAdministrative Decision Appellant: Homeowners from Williams Ranch Subdivision Date: Monday, 18 August 2008 Relief Requested: The homeowner appellants from Williams Ranch request that City Counsel grant this appeal by modifying the Administrative Decision to maintain the dimensional requirements set forth in Ordinance No. 59 (Series of 1989), establish that such requirements are not limited by any vested rights limitation and are not subject to slope reduction. Additionally the homeowners request that up to five hundred (500) square feet of garage space shall continue to not count against allowed dimensional limitations. The homeowners suggest that City Council codify the granting of this appeal by authorizing the recording of Exhibit A as setting the dimensional requirements for Williams Ranch. Contact Information: Gary and Jena Wright 715 West Main Street, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 8i6]i Telephone: 925-5625 Facsimile: 925-5663 Page 4 of 4 FIOOR BLD. AREA BLD. PERMIT BASED PERMIT NVELiz'T .2>\26 MAX ON ORD. USED E p DD sâ‚¬a LOT SIZE FLOOR NO 59 FLOOR ADDRESS LOT NO. (SQ. FT.) AREA (1989)* AREA 340 SILVERLODE DR 1 5,732 6305.20 3164.96 2340.50 AN M , MA- ke~ 320 SILVERLODE DR 2 5,766 3174.48 3174.48 2122.02 149 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 3 4,311 2767.08 2767.08 2035.31 300 SILVERLODE DR 4 6,029 3248.12 3244.06 2294.75 gut##Lij Ivy â€¢ 137 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 5 4,551 2834.28 2834.28 2250.26 280 SILVERLODE DR 6 7,896 3770.88 3505.44 2444.29 -'*D</ DÂ¢,la 62 115 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 7 5,064 2977.92 2977.92 2035.31 1 es/Atic-6 \11,0 101 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 8 6,058 3256.24 3248.12 2238.60 87 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 9 8,455 3583.00 3583.7 2490.72 NON. AR- *[2411 260 SILVERLODE DR 10 6,768 3455.04 3347.52 2613.57 240 SILVERLODE DR 11 8,392 3909.76 3574.88 2681.98 220 SILVERLODE DR 12 5,347 3057.16 3057.16 2024.09 420 SILVERLODE DR 13 6,422 ? 3299.08 ? 410 SILVERLODE DR 14 6,504 3381.12 3310.56 ? ANA. 'FrDAT YACD 400 SILVERLODE DR 15 6,691 3433.48 3336.74 ? 390 SILVERLODE DR 16 3,293 ? 2482,04 ? ID' '90Â· 380 SILVERLODE DR 17 3,001 ? 2400.28 ? 370 SILVERLODE DR 18 3,849 2637.72 2637.72 ? AA\,1. SiD 6 Yke 360 SILVERLODE DR 19 3,626 2575.28 2575.28 ? --Ill----------i-I-- 160 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 20 3,040 2411.20 2411.2 1028.72 0 / 5/ 150 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 21 3,022 2406 2406.16 756 140 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 22 5,377 2637.72 3065.56 1184.11 130 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 23 3,229 2464.10 2464.12 917.59 8 1 A . EeM- YAND 120 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 24 3,086 2424.08 2424.08 1103.00 - 110 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 25 3,007 2401.96 2401.96 708.73 ID, M< 100 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 26 4,909 2934.52 2934.52 1138.14 80 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 27 6,549 3316.00 3316.86 1409.84 AUÂ¢>< RE\FUT 70 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 28 3,293 2428.00 2482.04 906.83 - 60 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 29 5,795 3182.60 3182.6 1925.19 50 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 30 3,778 2617.00 2617.84 657.36 GPS' */ 2%40 40 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 31 4,116 2712.00 2712.48 917.69 AD. 6-2 6 M94> 27 WILLIAMS RANCH CT 32 8,107 3829.96 3534.98 980.32 lili 23 WILLIAMS RANCH CT 33 4,577 2807.40 2841.56 889.73 15 WILLIAMS RANCH CT 34 4,985 2955.00 2955.8 884.00 11 WILLIAMS RANCH CT 35 5,125 2995.00 2995 1144.00 Notes: * Slope Reduction is not accounted for in this calculation 8, P 1-7 pM g _ â‚¬\47 (1 -2 -2-4.3 * I 4, 42 EXHIBIT Eb<*\T- 3 Chapter 26.316 APPEALS Sections: 26.316.010 Appeals, purpose statement. 26.316.020 Authority. 26.316.030 Appeal procedures. 26.316.010 Appeals, purpose statement. The purpose of this Chapter is to establish the authority of the Board of Adjustment, Growth Management Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and City Council to hear and decide certain appeals and to set forth the procedures for said appeals. (Ord. No. 17-2002 Â§ 2 (part), 2002) 26.316.020 Authority. A. Board of Adjustment. The Board of Adjustment shall have the authority to hear and decide the following appeals: 1. The denial of a variance pursuant to Chapter 26.314 by the Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission. B. City Council. The City Council shall have the authority to hear and decide the following appeals: 1. An interpretation to the text of this title or the boundaries of the zone district map by the Community Development Director in accordance with Chapter 26.306. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting. 2. Any action by the Historic Preservation Commission in approving, approving with conditions, or disapproving a development application for development in an "H,", Historic Overlay District pursuant to Chapter 26.415. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting. 3. The scoring determination of the Community Development Director pursuant to Chapter 26.470. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting. 4. The allocation of Growth Management Allotments by the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to Chapter 26.470. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting. 5. Any other appeal for which specific authority is not granted to another board or commission as established by this title. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting. C. Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall have the authority to hear and decide an appeal from an adverse determination by the Community Development Director on an application for exemption pursuant to the growth management quota system in accordance with Section 26.470.060(D). City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007. Part 300, Page 35 Administrative Hearing Officer. The Administrative Hearing Officer shall have the authority ~ hear an appeal from any decision or determination made by an administrative official unless otherwise specifically stated in this title. (ord, -No, 17.2002 Â§ 2 (part), 2002; Ord. No. 27-2002 Â§ 23, Ord. No. 12-2007; 2002) ~ ., 26.316.030 Appeal procedures. A. Initiation. Any person with a right to appeal an adverse decision or determination shall initiate an ~16Â·:Â· notice of appeal shall be filed with the Community Development Director and with the city office or ti.- - ; department rendering the decision or determination within fourteen (14) days ofthe date ofthe decision t.~ : - or determination being appealed. Failure to file such notice of appeal within the prescribed time shall -* - . constitute a waiver ofany rights under this title to appeal any deciSiOn or determination. 14 :C B. Effect of Jiling an appeaL The filing of a notice of appeal shall stay any proceedings in V.. - furtherance of the action appealed from unless the Community Development Director certifies in 14---t--- writing to the chairperson of the decision-making body authorized to hear the appeal that a stay poses r~ ; appeal by filing a notice of appeal on a form prescribed by the Community Development Director. The 244.Lt: an imminent peril to life or property, in which case the appeal shall not stay further proceedings. The 4-2-' chairperson of the decision making body with authority to hear the appeal may review such 4-9.9.- certification and grant or deny a stay ofthe proceedings. UttiÂ· f C Timing of appeal The decision-making body authorized to hear the appeal shall consider the ~~= ==- appeal within thirty (30) days of the date of filing the notice of appeal Or as soon thereafter as is 3--practical under the circumstances. litff-/ D. Notice requirements. Notice of the appeal shall be provided by mailing to the appellant and by &:ff=.f publication to all other affected parties. (See section 26.304.060(E)). '0 _4: E. Standard of review. Unless otherwise specifically stated in this title, the decision-making body ~~ly.:: authorized to hear the appeal shall decide the appeal based solely upon the record established by the Ej~91:body from which the appeal is taken. A decision or determination shall be not be reversed or modified L 2-f -unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process, Or the administrative body has exceeded ERffâ‚¬;2 its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. fr-:.F.3 - Action by the decision-making body hearing the appeal. The decision-making body hearing the 2:Vt.-appeal niay reverse, affirm, or modify the decision or determination appealed from, and, ifthe decision ff#atis modified, shall be deemed to have all the powers of the officer, board or commission from whom the j,4--6==-= appeans -taken, including the power to impose reasonable conditions to be complied with by the 1*.49 .4 appellant.Â¢The decision-making body may also elect to remand an appeal to the body that originally ~~feft .heardthematter forfurther proceedings consistentwith thatbody'sjurisdictionand directions given, if mik:.~â‚¬oany; by the body hearing the appeal, The decision shall be approved by written resolution. All appeals /4* shall be public meetings. -~017..4 ,, 4:;2 - . *44---(90. No.---55-2000, Â§Â§ 4,5; Ord. No. 27-2002 Â§ 24, Ord. No. 12-2007,2002) E p -..~~~~ Citfof Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007 ~9 1 Part 300, Page 36 41#.-, , ~; : ~ ~ 5MMr - #-- . NIP Si/!n~,.'Imml~Illl'll'/ -.Ili' ~"wÂ· ' 4Ut~-11~%1l~#||" C,~""00*- 'p"- p. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDR_ESS OF PROPERTY: \A) 1 i f \OU'\As '2&vick 2â‚¬aN , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: t-Lba-~ < n 12 142 5 :00 f rn , 200 3 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, (name, please print) 4- 24 being br represJnting an Applicant to the City o f Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (lE) o f the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: 1/ Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Postin.g ofilotice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch iii height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of , 200 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph Of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing ofnotice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attaclied hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions that create more than one lot, Planned Unit Developments, Specially Planned Areas, and COWAPs are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description o f, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses o f owners of real property in the area o f the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to lhe public hearing on such amendments. 60Â« St- The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 29 day of Dâ‚¬a<Akbcf- , 2001 by Ar-inote.021 SCCJ.~~ ' t.4 :2: 33~ H 3 2% 2% 328 * 37 i 0 -9 2. I 9 &: E 0 2 2 I : - El -0 0 2 g , w I ti~ : f i I =:S &221 2 :E@ -6 0 0 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL zE -g- 0-~~~~~~~~~2 9 %-* E-2 -2-* 1 B~% 26 ~ : 10 -21=211-32"3322/1/5 "4 25 3 My commission expires: 09 ~ 1 0 ~ AG 1-6 Mie Â£34*3228@312%25152 02Â·Ic 90 *flu-g-Mil:-le-Bill-*121 1-2-32 * 1% N~ 0~82@Er -mEÂ¥0=252092.EESS Fe ME: 8 813 Â¥*5 &12 32 3#041&,6 : 3.~ fV~\c~-13F9 ~01 UALL &4 woom.060~Â¥~@5@2â‚¬@trii:*A *53 Â£5:4132*92*:g=-:zi -- I w 2&. Notary Public *1- 6 i 22 -*S 21.2 IA ; E : 1 -1 -3 2 Di Z : 22~: 8 r FA %3:5832-282022-~S:g,+01Â¥@2â‚¬*263 = @& 99 -5,2-1 "% 0-* Wi 0-2 i g-2 E--S =gil -2-d i 2% P<. to i LAURA i 1, MEYER i ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: (IX... ..'9 â€¢ COPY OF THE PUBLICATION - OFCoy â€¢ PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) Mv ronynisfian Frnires 08/10/2010 â€¢ LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL â€¢ APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. Â§24-65.5-103.3 Buue04 01 NATIO 2 209, to be- en C y ouuil. PUBLIC NOTICE December 22,2008 all- Mr. Gary and Jena Wright [mo T-34 1 715 West Main Street, Suite 201 THE CITY OF ASPEN Aspen, CO 81611 RE: ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION APPEAL (WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION) Dear Gary and Jena, As required per Section 26.316.020 D., Notice Requirements, of the land use code notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on Monday, January 12, 2009, to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen. The purpose of the hearing is to consider an appeal of an administrative determination, submitted by the both of you and Gary Kelly. The administrative determination provided information on land use , code and dimensional standards applicable to new development within the subdivision. Your requests are to allow forÂ·a larger floor area exemption for garages, carports and storage areas than allowed by the administrative determination and to exempt development from a reduction of floor area when steep slopes are present on a lot. The subject property under review is legally described as Williams Ranch subdivision. For further information, please feel free to contact me at 970.429.2759 or by email Jennifer.Phelan@ci.aspen.co.us. A memo will be emailed to you in the near future. Regards, outfit- Jenifer Phelan Deputy Director 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET Â· ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 PHONE 970.920.5000 Â· FAx 970.920.5197 www, aspengov.com Printed on Recycled Paper ,. SENDER: COMPLETE THE SECT/ON < - COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY â€¢ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete A. Si rr J d i item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. [] Agent â€¢ Print your name and address on the reverse xuAR. 0-2 l 0 Addressee 7 1 \. so that we can retiÂ·Â·.9 the card to you. B. R66eived by (Printed Name) C/ Date + Delivery â€¢ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, ( 1/2/4, or on the front if space permits. Â£As delivery address different from item 1? O Yes 1. Article Addressed to: If YES, enter delivery address below: O No , Hr. â‚¬aÂ»\ 141.L~ 15-16 6-/bv- AN- 4(5~41, Ce 2116 11 3~pice Type ~KQertified Mail O Express Mail 'Cl Registered Â¤ Return Receipt for Merchandise Â¤ Insured Mail O C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) O Yes 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 91 7108 2133 3934 3814 0862 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 . UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-Class Mail Postage & Fees Paid USPS Permit No. G-10 0 Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box o r' z r - Â°f- Asfw J ennk#at .?4=L> Community Development Departmem 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 SENDER: COMPLETE THE SECTION Q k ~ â€¢ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete ~A.S,gna*- item 4 if Respicted Delivery is desired. - * / 4.09%> O Agmt â€¢ Print your na ne and address on the reverse b- c ,- v - 9 Addrespe so that we can return the card to you. B Received by ( Printed Name) C Datd of D ile â€¢ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. *l C verETE j 2_ I 24# D. Is delivery address different from item 1? O Yes 1. Article Addressed to: If YES, enter delivery address below: Â¤ No Q ARY -1- Ie#AA LA-lflt-r 1 1 5- W Â· HAU. 7*TERA 526 20\ Atean CO gl6 1 \ 3. ~pice Type ~~ Certified Mail Â¤ Express Mail Â¤ Registered Â¤ Return Receipt for Merchandise Â¤ Insured Mail O C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) O Yes 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) _91 7108 2133 3934 3814 0879 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY 1 ~ UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE ~ Firs#Class Mail Postage & Fees Paid USPS Permit Alo. G-10 0 Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box ' CA OF- as F~ Jer+r '*L~.L~ Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Jennifer Phelan From: Gary Kelly [gkaspen@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 08,2008 5:40 PM To: Jennifer Phelan Subject: FW: Gary Kelly, owner; Williams Ranch Lot 6 Jennifer, the first email came back. Hopefully, you will get this one. Please see below. Thank You! Gary From: Gary Kelly [mailto:gkaspen@comeast.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 08,2008 5:27 PM To: 'From: Jennifer Phelan ' Subject: Gary Kelly, owner; Williams Ranch Lot 6 Dear Jennifer, Re: 280 Silverlode Drive, Aspen Williams Ranch Lot 6 Please let this email suffice for my above referenced property, being included in the appeal of administrative determination for the benefit of 280 Silverlode Drive, Aspen. (Lot 6 Williams Ranch) This appeal was filed by Gary Wright on my behalf. Please contact me at your convenience if you need anything else from me. Otherwise, I will be present on November 24,2008. Regards, Gary Kelly Gary P. Kelly, 516 E. Hyman Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 t 970-925-8810 m 970-379-2900 f 970-925-8821 gkaspen@comcast.net 1 715 West Main Street, Suite 201 WRIGHT & LASALLE, LLP Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone: (970) 925-5625 Gary A. Wright Facsimile: (970) 925-5663 gaw@wrightlasalle.com 12 August 2008 Jennifer Phelan by email Community Development Department original by U.S. Mail 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Appeal of Williams Ranch Administrative Decision Dear Jennifer: I am writing to advise of the wish to file an appeal of certain portions of the Administrative Decision, effective on 1 August 2008, and first provided to me by your email transmission of 4 August 2008. My office just contacted Community Development and was advised by Bonnie that prior to filing an appeal we had to provide notice to you. Please consider this correspondence such notice. Additionally, when my office inquired about the form prescribed under Â§26.316.030 by the Community Development Director, we were advised that there is no such form and to provide a letter. Because Bonnie advised that we submit our appeal in letter format directly to Chris Bendon, I will be sending the same to him later today or tomorrow. We are appealing the portion of the administrative decision that imposes slope reductions when an extensive study of this area was done as part of conceptual and detailed reviews by both City P&Z and City Counsel, to determine the appropriate floor area, without any deductions for slope. In other words, slopes were considered and the current allowances were based on topography and should be allowed to remain. Additionally, the City P&Z and City Counsel spent considerable time before they decided the garage exemption would be 500 square feet. This was based on the belief that people need places to store bicycles, etc., and a garage is a preferable option to the front or back yard. I request that any home owner that wishes to proceed under the Administrative Decision that is being appealed be allowed to do so. A successful appeal will only create the situation where home owners have the opportunity to add more square footage to their homes. Sincerely, WRI~HT & LASALLE. LLP By: M L- Gary A. Wright Copy to: Williams Ranch Board ?ECEIVED Chris Bendon Au& i 5 1108 Lily OF ASPEN www.wrightlasalle.com OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION Appellant: Homeowners from Williams Ranch Subdivision Date: Monday, 18 August 2008 Appeal from: Administrative Decision re: Dimensional Requirements, etc. Contact Information: Gary and Jena Wright 240 SilverLode Drive Aspen, Colorado Mailing address: 715 West Main Street, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 8i6ii Telephone: 925-5625 Facsimile: 925-5663 APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION Appellant: Homeowners from Williams Ranch Subdivision Date: Monday, 18 August 2008 Appeal from: Administrative Decision re: Dimensional Requirements, etc. The Williams Ranch homeowners involved with this project wish to thank Jennifer and Chris for the time and hard work they did on ascertaining applicable zoning and building requirements for Williams Ranch. Introduction: Williams Ranch and SilverLode subdivisions were the result of more than five years of planning and reviews with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Department of Justice, the State Mine Land Reclamation Division (as it was called then), Pitkin County, and the City of Aspen. Williams Ranch was, beginning in 1989, one of the first projects developed under the then new AH Zone concept. After getting approximately thirteen acres of the Superfund Operable Unit 2 Study Area determined to be free from heavy metals and particularly lead, by the EPA and the Department of Justice, the developer entered into a consent decree with the United States. Thereafter, the developer sought and obtained a subdivision from Pitkin County and annexed those thirteen acres into the City of Aspen with the zoning of AH. After going through numerous planning meetings as well as conceptual approval from City Planning & Zoning and City Counsel, and then detailed submission and final review approval, again with Planning & Zoning and City Counsel, the developer was granted approval for 15 free market lots, subject to constructing thirty-five deed restricted homes. No cash subsidies were provided and, in addition to building the thirty-five homes, the developer also built the Molly Gibson Park. In the late 198Osand early 19904 the concept of an AH (affordable housing) zone district was a relatively new one. The PUD evidenced by Ordinance No. 59 (Series ig8g) and Ordinance No. 52 (Series of 1994) and the underlying requirements were specifically designed for and tailored to this project. Here, this project's topography, number of units, and the site plan that identified both deed restricted and free market lots were the result of many hours of work and collaboration among City staff, APCHA staff, hopeful local homeowners, the contractor and the developer. Page i of 4 Appeal ofAdministrative Decision Appellant: Homeowners from Williams Ranch Subdivision Date: Monday, 18 August 2008 Additionally, this project was one of the first to have both what was then called a Category 5 that had at that particular time higher income and asset allowances and the experiment of five lots that were called RO that had no asset or income limitations, but did have the requirement that the owners be full-time employees in Pitkin County. Dimensional requirements for all thirty-five deed restricted homes are specified in Ordinance No. 59 (Series 1989) and set out in Exhibit A to this Appeal, which exhibit was prepared by Ms. Phelan and marked "draft 6/17/087 Note that Exhibit A was prepared with the benefit of the plans for building permits issued for the construction of the homes as maintained by the City of Aspen. Issues on Appeal: There are two issues with the interpretation of the applicable limitations on the size of additions to the existing homes as set forth in the Administrative Decision. 1. Floor area allowed by the Ordinance No. 59, Series 1989 should not be subject to slope reduction. 2. Exempt floor area allowed by the PUD should not be reduced. Discussion: 1. The floor area allowed bv the P.U.D. should not be subiect to slope reduction. Imposition of Slope Reduction. The homeowners believe that because the dimensional requirements and floor areas were specifically planned for the Williams Ranch deed restricted homes, and Staff, P&Z and City Counsel all considered the topography of the site in establishing the standards set forth in Ordinance No. 59 (Series 1989), those dimensional requirements should not be reduced by any slope reduction formula. Page 2 of 4 Appeal ofAdministrative Decision Appellant: Homeowners from Williams Ranch Subdivision Date: Monday, 18 August 2008 Slope reduction serves to reduce development and increase development costs. Here, development will be effectively limited by the current expense of construction and the ten percent (10%) limitation for expenses that can be added onto the maximum resale price. Having to provide a slope reduction survey and slope reduction calculation is also an unduly burdensome expense for a deed restricted home. Also, with the ten percent (10%) limitation on expenses for approved improvements that can be recovered on resale as enforced by the APCHA, the amount that can be spent and recovered will serve to minimize additional development. Development in the form of small additions to the deed restricted homes at Williams Ranch will ultimately benefit future homeowners. Today, the deed restricted homes at Williams Ranch are very popular because of the combination of their proximity to town and to public transportation, in addition to the purchase cost for the size and amenities of the homes. Compare for example to North Forty where several home resale prices have exceed $1,000,000. 2. The exempt floor area allowed bv the P.U.D. should not be reduced. The homes that have garages were designed with a five hundred (500) square foot exemption from the square footage that counts against the overall allowance. The homeowners believe that this size exemption should be allowed to continue. The as-built garages from the original construction were allowed to be five hundred (500) square feet without counting against maximum allowable size. The reviewing City Counsel and P&Z were of the opinion that additional garage size was a good idea to allow for storage and to keep boats, bicycles, motorcycles, etc. from ending in the front or back yards, etc. 3. Summary. The PUD for the deed restricted homes constructed at Williams Ranch went through a four-step process of conceptual review by P&Z and City Counsel, and detailed and final submission, again by P&Z and City Counsel. Staff provided input throughout the multi-year process. The PUD was carefully reviewed and considered topography, siting, architectural style, size, location of homes, mixture of Cat 2 through RO, just to mention a few of the relevant criteria that support maintaining the PUD dimensional requirements and square footage exemptions established by Ordinance No. 59 (Series 1989). Page 3 of 4 Appeal ofAdministrative Decision Appellant: Homeowners from Williams Ranch Subdivision Date: Monday, 18 August 2008 Relief Requested: The homeowner appellants from Williams Ranch request that City Counsel grant this appeal by modifying the Administrative Decision to maintain the dimensional requirements set forth in Ordinance No. 59 (Series of ]989), establish that such requirements are not limited by any vested rights limitation and are not subject to slope reduction. Additionally the homeowners request that up to five hundred (500) square feet of garage space shall continue to not count against allowed dimensional limitations. The homeowners suggest that City Council codify the granting of this appeal by authorizing the recording of Exhibit A as setting the dimensional requirements for Williams Ranch. Contact Information: Gary and Jena Wright 715 West Main Street, Suite 201 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone: 925-5625 Facsimile: 925-5663 Page 4 of 4 FIOOR BLD. AREA BLD. PERMIT BASED PERMIT AN4LkvT .2\16' MAX ON ORD. USED LOT SIZE FLOOR NO 59 FLOOR .-' BLD DD M. a. ADDRESS LOT NO. (SQ. FT.) AREA (1989)* AREA 340 SILVERLODE DR 1 5,732 6305.20 3164.96 2340.50 AN, 14, k-14 k(â‚¬e- 320 SILVERLODE DR 2 5,766 3174.48 3174.48 2122.02 149 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 3 4,311 2767.08 2767.08 2035.31 300 SILVERLODE DR 4 6,029 3248.12 3244.06 2294.75 ttlF~Lt~b 137 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 5 4,551 2834.28 2834.28 2250.26 280 SILVERLODE DR 6 7,896 3770.88 3505.44 2444.29 - 011 & 62. 115 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 7 5,064 2977.92 2977.92 2035.31 101 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 8 6,058 3256.24 3248.12 2238.60 ~T>Â°Ing,giSM#t 87 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 9 8,455 3583.00 3583.7 2490.72 N<iN. le\- wrdih 260 SILVERLODE DR 10 6,768 3455.04 3347.52 2613.57 - - 240 SILVERLODE DR 11 8,392 3909.76 3574.88 2681.98 220 SILVERLODE DR 12 5,347 3057.16 3057.16 2024.09 420 SILVERLODE DR 13 6,422 ? 3299.08 ? ANA. 'Fogr YACD 410 SILVERLODE DR 14 6,504 3381.12 3310.56 ? 400 SILVERLODE DR 15 6,691 3433.48 3336.74 ? 390 SILVERLODE DR 16 3,293 ? 2482,04 ? ID' * - 380 SILVERLODE DR 17 3,001 ? 2400.28 ? 370 SILVERLODE DR 18 3,849 2637.72 2637.72 ? AA,4. â‚¬U>â‚¬Yke 360 SILVERLODE DR 19 3,626 2575.28 2575.28 ? ---- 160 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 20 3,040 2411.20 2411.2 1028.72 D l 5, 150 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 21 3,022 2406 2406.16 756 140 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 22 5,377 2637.72 3065.56 1184.11 130 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 23 3,229 2464.10 2464.12 917.59 ANA . 12.eM- NAVD 120 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 24 3,086 2424.08 2424.08 1103.00 110 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 25 3,007 2401.96 2401.96 708.73 ID, 4 100 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 26 4,909 2934.52 2934.52 1138.14 80 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 27 6,549 3316.00 3316.86 1409.84 AN#O< RE\blAT 70 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 28 3,293 2428.00 2482.04 906.83 - --- 60 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 29 5,795 3182.60 3182.6 1925.19 50 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 30 3,778 2617.00 2617.84 657.36 GPS ' pLAI 'Dpi 40 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 31 4,116 2712.00 2712.48 917.69 AD. 6-2 d X9+ 27 WILLIAMS RANCH CT 32 8,107 3829.96 3534.98 980.32 - 23 WILLIAMS RANCH CT 33 4,577 2807.40 2841.56 889.73 15 WILLIAMS RANCH CT 34 4,985 2955.00 2955.8 884.00 11 WILLIAMS RANCH CT 35 5,125 2995.00 2995 1144.00 Notes: * Slope Reduction is not accounted for in this calculation 1 42/ 994 ; 04 - p - A A 16 a e pae='* 2939 -09-9 -231-011 (51 Permits Elle Edit Becord Navigate FQrm Reports Format Iab Help @ .31 .X I e 22 8 4.16 _3 kad. 14 4 B= 4 0 ~ tk jump 1 :* 00 fle .M] 2 j O + . 43. a 0 0 & Main i Custom Fields ~ Attachments~ Follow-Up Notifications | Feei 1 Conditions |Actions | Fee SummarM | ParceD | Sub Permits | Routing klistory ~ Royting Status ~ Maluatic Gl ~ Address ~240 SILVERLODE DR 3 Apuslite 1 ~ Permit Type laslu _~Aspen Land Use Permit # ~0037.2008.ASLU 1__~ Permit Information City |ASPEN State Ifij-Z] Zip |81611 -~21 Master Permit ~ Routing Queue |aslu07 Applied ~08/19/2008 1,3 Project 21 Status ipending Approved I ill Description LAND USE APPEAL. WILLIAMS RANCH Issued ~ -3 Submitted ~ Clock [Ging Days El Expires ~08/14/2009 1.-1 Owner Last Name 1*Aift RIVER MANAGEMEN- -21 Flist Name ~ PO BOX 10253 ASPEN CO 81612 Phone~ E Owner Is Applicant? Applicant Last Name ~WRIGHT .~ First Name ~GARY |715 W MAIN ST -- |ASPEN CO 81611 Phone *70] 925-5625 Cust # 126006 -21 1 Lender Last Name | -g| First Name | Phone~ AspenGoldibl- ~ Receipt* 24 035 8119 +P GARY KELLY 925-5625