Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.Williams Ranch.A011-99PN: 2737-074-29012 Case A011-99 Williams Ranch Final PUD��4 U FA am 1964 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-5090 1041 1042 1043 1046 City of Aspen Land Use: D Deposit n Flat Fee HPC Zoning and Sign Referral Fees: 1163 City Engineer 1205 Environmental Health 1190 Housing Building Fees: 1071 Board of Appeals 1072 Building Permit 1073 Electrical Permit 1074 Energy Code Review 1075 Mechanical Permit 1076 Plan Check 1077 Plumbing Permit 1078 Reinspection Other Fees: 1006 Copy 1302 GIS Maps 1481 Housing Cash in Lieu 1383 Open Space Cash in Lieu 1383 Park Dedication 1468 Parking Cash in Lieu Performance Deposit 1268 Public Right-of-way 1164 School District Land Ded. TOTAL NAME: 1 l 1i k 11 r� ADDRESS/PROJE& PHONE: CHECK# CASE/PERMIT#: # OF COPIES: DATE: INITIAL: W. 4 IRK, WR w wlj�A I 11kl JL' I I illf, A PARCEL ID:1273707429012, 0 DATE RCV6 - T— 2�/5/99 CASE NAME: Williams Ranch Joint Venture Final PUD PROD ADDRIWilliams Ranch CASE TYPt�in�l PUD I 1s 'a 8 , — LITMTIM�7179�' OWN/APP- Ranch/John 11F�ADRjc/o Chs. Brandt, 420 C/S/Z,', =Aspen,CO 81611 F T REPICIiiirles & Garrett Brandt ADR:1420 E. Main Street, S C/S/Z Aspen, CO 81671 FEES DUE:12225 7 160 FEES RCV 2110 + 160 REFERRALS] MTG DATE REMARKS -LOS PLAT SUBMITD: REF-F— V BODY PH NOT PLAT (BK,PG): --,PATE OF FINAL CITY COLIN 0� C' 16 U�ti+w �w1 A"46vvd ayeera Nb q"wj,.,5 Pz: A01 1-99 Chris Bendon — STEPSI-2 PHN:J925-5196 'PHN. -1925 5196 STAT: r �o�,win' �, y�, �b ala�k }w;l� op����-wx�,lu • • CHARLES T. BRANDT & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHARLES T. BRANDT US BANK BUILDING BASALT OFFICE: ----- 420 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 204 GARRET S. BRANDT ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 132 MIDLAND AVENUE, SUITE 4 TELEPHONE: (970) 925-5196 BASALT, COLORADO 81621 PETER S. DELANY, PARALEGAL FAx: (970) 925-4559 TELEPHONE: (970) 925-5196 E-MAIL: cbrandt@rof.net FAx: (970) 925-4559 MEMORANDUM TO: Chris Bendon FROM: Garret Brandt DATE: 11/06/00 SUBJECT: Williams Ranch PUD Amendment Enclosed are the Amendment signed by John Markel, a check to the City of Aspen for $10,000 as payment required under the Amendment, and a check to the Clerk and Recorder to record the signed amendment. I received the letter from John Worcester concerning the change to the Amendment, the language he asked for is in Paragraph 3, in the first sentence. If you have any questions, please let me know. As soon as the necessary signatures are completed by the City, please record the Amendment. I have included enough funds to record the first page and then the signatures on separate pages (5 pages total). 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 448P50 11/13/2000 02:53P AGREEMEN DAVIS SILVI 1 of 4 R 20.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO • • P.U.D. AGREEMENT (Amending Certain Obligations of Williams Ranch Joint Venture Under Ordinance 52, Series of 1994 and the AH Construction Agreement Between the City of Aspen and Williams Ranch Joint Venture Dated April 3, 1995) THIS P.U.D. Agreement is entered into between WILLIAMS RANCH JOINT VENTURE ("WRJV") and the CITY OF ASPEN (the "City") pursuant to Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2000. WHEREAS, WRJV is the developer of the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development, approval granted pursuant to Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994; and, WHEREAS, the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development is a fifty (50) residential unit project divided into two subdivisions: The Silverlode Subdivision consisting of fifteen (15) free-market units, and the Williams Ranch Subdivision consisting of thirty-five (35) affordable housing units (the "PUD"); and, WHEREAS, the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development is located within the City of Aspen directly east of the Centennial Condominiums in Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West containing parcels 2737.074.30.001-015 and 2737.074.29.001-036; and, WHEREAS, WRJV has placed funds in escrow with the City for the completion of the PUD requirements pursuant to Ordinance No. 52, Series 1994; and, WHEREAS, WRJV submitted an application to the Community Development Department for substantial amendments to the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development and release of the escrow funds; and, WHEREAS, the amendments requested relate to conditions of approval stipulated in Ordinance 52, Series of 1994, concerning the development of "a small ditch water feature," "hard surface pedestrian walking areas" (a.k.a. sidewalks), "soil erosion controls" on a mining road above the project, and a release of the construction requirement of the trail platted from the Open Space Parcel to the boundary of the Molly Gibson Park along the southern boundary of the PUD; and, WHEREAS, the amendments were approved May 8, 2000, by the Aspen City Council through Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2000; and, WHEREAS, one condition of Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2000, is that WRJV and the City enter into this PUD Agreement stipulating the nature and requirements of the PUD amendments and to specify the proper distribution of the escrow funds. NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledges, WRJV and the City hereby covenant and agree as follows: All un-amended provisions of Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994, shall remain in full force and effect. 2. All trail easements described on the final plat shall remain in full force and effect, whether or not a trail is ever constructed within the same. All escrow funds currently held by the City in the amount of $11,400.00 (by to the City from Land Title Guarantee Company) shall be retained by the City, and are hereby released by WRJVj, 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 448750 11/13/2000 02:53P AGREEMEN DAVIS SILVI 2 of 4 R 20.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO Oct•30. 2000 10:03AM 0 use b t e z xn a eve the trail easernen fi WA Williams Ranch Subdivision design and construetion_nla �- CO t'iilYi3iElY't5�the l 1tytV Yaricg 0 N o , 2 9 6 2 P- 5 ty decides to design and construct the trail segme crossing Lots 33, 34 and 35 of 27 of the e t ver o e Subdivision. If developed, the iese improve a approved by the City Trails 4. WRJV agrees to pay to the City an additional S10,000,00 ("Additional Funds") for use by the City as determined appropriate by the City Council, including, but not limited to, negotiations with the Centennial Condominium Association regarding a trail easement over the Centennial property 5. The City agrees to complete construction of the pedestrian trail from the existing trail between lots 6 and 10 Williatris Ranch Subdivision to the edge of Silverlode Drive, no later than August 1, 2000. The City shall use the Additional Funds held in escrow for this trail. 6. The requirement for `VRTV to construct the portion of the public trail described on the final plat as within the trail easement crossing Lots 33, 34 and 35 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision is hereby waived and shall be of no fixther obligation. 7. The requirement for WRJV to construct the portion of the public trail described on the final plat as within the trail easement crossing Lot 27 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision through Lot 15 of the Silverlode Subdivision is hereby waived and shall be of no further obligation. 8. Upon improvement, by the adjacent lot owners) and/or the Williams Ranch Homeowners Association, of the emergency access way between the Spruce Street right-of-way and the Silverlode Drive cul-de-sac to a condition to adequately withstand emergency vehicles, as determined by the Fire Marshall, the City agrees to grant to the Williams Ranch Homeowners Association all unused funds left -over after satisfying the above requirements. The fimds shall be used for the purpose of landscape improvements to the Open Space parcel. Any seed mixture used for improving the Open Space parcel shall be approved by the City Forester_ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and WRJV have caused their duly authorized officials to place their bands and seals upon this Agreement. WILLIANIS EANCU JOINT VENTURIE By: `"lC)ar , Inc. Managing General Partner C )F ASPEN, COLORADO \ By: <�14� R.ach Richards, Mayor CITY OF ASPEN -- ATTEST: - Kathryn S. Koc , City Clerk 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 448750 11/13/2000 02:53P AGREEMEN DAVIS SILVI 3 of 4 R 20.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO Oct,30, 2000 10:04AM 0 • No•2962 P. 6 STATE OF ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /_atday of/rz.&4 .a 2000, by John D. Markel, President of Mark IV, Inc. the managing general partner of the Williams Ranch Joint Venture. Witness my hand and official seal. MY con expires: ' oZG10 / ,. Notary Public -'rw1 N MIKEL PACK RICHARDSON `Y�r'`. �. COMM1151202 `�T'�'TE OF COl✓ORA�)O NOTA�BARSARA FORNIA ss• SAUNTY COUNTY OF PnKIN My Co5, 2001 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of 2000, by Rachel Richards as Mayor of the City of Aspen, Colorado - Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public I IIIIII "III I'lll' IIIIII III I'llll IIIII 750 11/13/2000 02:53P AGREEMEIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 4 of 4 R 20.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKINACOUNTY LCO Vffi_ a'a MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager John Worcester, City Attorney Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director FROM: Chris Bendon, Senior Planner RE: Williams Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment 2"' reading of Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2000. DATE: May 8, 2000 SUMMARY: Williams Ranch PUD was approved in 1994 as a 70/30 affordable housing project and is currently developed with nearly all of the fifty (50) approved residences. The project was split into two Subdivisions. Silverlode Subdivision contains the 30% free-market portion and is generally east of the Williams Ranch Subdivision which contains the thirty-five (35) affordable dwellings. Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994, approved the Williams Ranch PUD and contains a series of conditions of the approval to which the applicant is requesting amendments. The amendments are detailed under the heading "Amendments" along with a description of how the proposed Ordinance would affect the topic. During first reading of this Ordinance, several questions regarding trails were raised by City Council. The trail easement in question is currently staked and a site visit is scheduled for 4 p.m. on Monday, May 8"'. City Council expressed a desire for the Ordinance to require the trail be completed as originally planned and promised by the Joint Venture. The proposed Ordinance has been structured in this manner with a requirement that additional funds be placed in escrow. This Ordinance may be amended during the meeting at the direction of Council. Staff recommends City Council adopt Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2000. AMENDMENTS: Aesthetics. Prior to development, this property conveyed water through the Salvation Ditch in an exposed manner — a traditional open-air ditch. The development application sought to cover this ditch and convey water underground. The discussions during development review considered the historic character of the land and the value of retaining some visual cue to the historic landscape element. As discussed in the previous meeting, staff, the Commission, and the area residents are now less interested in re-creating this feature, especially considering the potential lack of water. The proposed Ordinance is structured to no longer require this feature be installed. Staff and the Commission do, however, have a concern about the condition of the Open Space parcel. The original review of this PUD considered the visual characteristics of the overall development. This Open Space parcel was to be revegetated with native species according to the land use application. The applicant represented that the present landscape (prior to development) would be replicated "in order to preserve the natural character of the site." The Open Space parcel appears to not have any top soil and does not appear to have been correctly seeded. The parcel is currently a patch of weeds and thistles with relatively little value, visually, as open space in a natural character. In direct comparison, the park parcel directly north of the open space parcel exhibits a natural undisturbed condition and is a significant aesthetic value to the area. Many of the area residents have undertaken their own recovery efforts for this area. As the primary concern over the ditch feature was the aesthetic value and visual character of the development, staff believes reclamation of this area to be a justified request. This could be accomplished by either the applicant or the Homeowners Association. As some of this work has been initiated by residents, staff believes returning the escrow money to the Homeowners Association for this purpose to be appropriate. To accomplish this, the applicant would need to "release" the escrow funds from the obligations of Ordinance 52 and allow the City to retain the funds. The City could then grant the funds to the residents. The proposed Ordinance includes a clause to this effect. Pedestrian Movement (Sidewalks and Trails). There is a request by the developer to not develop the sidewalks required in the original approval. As previously discussed, staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and area neighbors support a no -sidewalk scheme. Staff does have concerns about maintaining the purpose of the sidewalks, pedestrian movement, and the ability of the developer to provide a benefit equal to the originally required sidewalks. The trails and sidewalks, as originally approved, combined to provide a permeable development with respect to pedestrian movement through the development. Trails were platted to serve the community's movement both "vertically" and "horizontally" through the development. The trail that serves "vertical" movement (platted east - west) is developed on the lower two blocks with one exception: the intersection with Silverlode Drive between lots 6 and 7. Staff has included a condition that this last remaining portion be developed. The northern -most section of the "horizontal" trail is through the "park" parcel. This is a parcel that was deeded to the City and the City has the ability to construct a trail 2 connection through this parcel. The applicant does not have a responsibility to develop this portion of the trail. The next portion of the trail is through the "open space parcel." This parcel is in common ownership of the Williams Ranch Home Owners' Association with a public trail easement as shown on the plat. This portion of the trail has been developed by the applicant, albeit crudely. The middle portion of this trail (lots #33-35) has not been developed but is certainly buildable. This is an important link to serve this north -south movement to the extent that the remaining portions to the north are developed. This connection would allow pedestrians to access Williams Ranch Drive from the Centennial parking lot area. This section, however, has little support from neighbors, especially those who live adjacent to the trail. The "vertical" trail at this point does not extend to a public right- of-way and terminates on Centennial property. There is a physical trail where residents have continued walking towards Brown Lane. After reviewing the staked alignment of the easement with several members of the City Parks Department, the southern -most portion of this -trail easement (lots #27 — 31 and #15) could be constructed, although some sections may need to include stairs or other similar solutions to accommodate the topography. The Commission believes that all portions of the trail should be constructed by the developer as originally proposed regardless of the construction complexity. The Commission argued that the developer should have realized the difficulty of developing this trail and made any necessary adjustments to the application in 1994. City Council echoed this sentiment and the proposed Ordinance is structured to require construction of the trails. This will require additional escrow funds for which the Ordinance requires the amount be estimated by the City. This improvement and associated additional escrow money is expected to be similar to the sidewalk improvements originally required. With respect to the middle segment, staff believes the trail segment is important but that the issue should be handled by the neighborhood association in coordination with the Centennial Condominium owners. The middle section should be developed unless and alternative route is found (the best alternative being a trail easement across the Centennial Condominiums property). Staff is suggesting the Ordinance require the construction of this middle trail segment or construction of a trail within a new easement on the Centennial property. This requirement will ensure adequate public access and will encourage the property owners most effected by the "trail in their backyard" to come to an agreement with the Centennial owners. The Ordinance goes further by requiring the improvement be accomplished by August 1, 2000, by the applicant or by the City with use of the escrow funds. 3 Soil Erosion Control on Smuggler Mine Property. As previously discussed, the original application included the Smuggler Mine property and access to this development was contemplated through Smuggler Mine. Now that the mine is not expected to increase in intensity and because the mine was never annexed into the City, a "whereas" clause in the proposed Ordinance states that the applicant is not responsible for this improvement. Emergency Access. The approvals for this project included a requirement to install "grass pavers" along the emergency access easement connecting the cul-de-sac to Spruce Street. The pavers allow for emergency access and are currently in a dilapidated condition. The proposed Ordinance allows for any un-used moneys from the escrow funds to be returned to the Homeowners for revegetation of the Open Space parcel. The return of these funds, however, is conditioned upon a successful inspection of this emergency access by the Fire Marshal. APPLICANT: Williams Ranch Joint Venture, John Markel, President. Represented by Charles Brandt, Charles Brandt and Associates. LOCATION: Williams Ranch Drive and Silverlode Drive vicinity. Please refer to the attached location map. ZONING: Affordable Housing -Planned Unit Development. (AH-PUD). CURRENT AND PROPOSED LAND USE: The project consists of two Subdivisions: Silverlode and Williams Ranch. Together, there are 15 free-market residences and 35 affordable housing deed restricted residences. PREVIOUS ACTION: The project received final development approval pursuant to Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994. The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the amendment request under a public hearing initiated September 24, 1999, continued to November 2, 1999, and continued to December 14, 1999. The Commission adopted Resolution 99-27, attached, recommending the manner in which the PUD should be amended. The City Council considered this amendment request on March 13, 2000, and requested additional information regarding the trail segments and the surrounding trail system. 4 REVIEW PROCEDURE: Final Planned Unit Development (& Substantial Amendment). The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the application at a duly noticed public hearing and recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial to the City Council. City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application at a duly noticed public hearing. BACKGROUND: Williams Ranch PUD and Subdivision was granted land use approval pursuant to Ordinance 52, Series of 1994. This document has been included in the application for reference. STAFF COMMENTS: Review criteria and Staff Findings, the application packet, and letters from area residents were included in the first reading packet and have not been duplicated for this packet. A map of the surrounding area, including the Centennial property, is included as Exhibit "A." A site visit has been scheduled for Monday May 81' at 4 p.m. A shuttle van will be leaving from City Hall. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of City Council Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2000. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2000, approving an amendment to the Williams Ranch PUD." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Map of Williams Ranch and Centennial Subdivisions. CAhome\CHRISB\CASES\Williams Ranch Amendment\CC-Memoldoc 5 • • VI1 tp MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager John Worcester, City Attorney Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director FROM: Chris Bendon, Senior Planner RE: Williams Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment 2"d reading of Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2000. DATE: April 10, 2000 SUMMARY: RECEIVED MAY 1 8 2000 ASF rYVI NIIKIN Williams Ranch PUD was approved in 1994 as a 70/30 affordable housing project and is currently developed with nearly all of the fifty (50) approved residences. The project was split into two Subdivisions. Silverlode Subdivision contains the 30% free-market portion and is generally east of the Williams Ranch Subdivision which contains the thirty-five (35) affordable dwellings. Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994, approved the Williams Ranch PUD and contains a series of conditions of the approval to which the applicant is requesting amendments. The application packet includes a summary of the amendments requested, a copy of the approving Ordinance, and a copy of the pertinent Subdivision plat sheet for reference. The staff recommendation and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendations differ depending upon the topic. During First reading, City Council requested additional information regarding the ability of a person to access the Loni White Trail from the Centennial parking lot area. Property ownership and public easement information is provided for the area on the attached map (Exhibit Q. The public rights -of -way would allow a person to access the Loni White Trail through the Open Space and Park parcels. This assumes the trail through these parcels is developed. The "vertical trail" terminates on land owned by Centennial Condominium Association and does not connect with a public right-of-way. An easement is not in place and a person cannot, legally, access Williams Ranch Drive from the Centennial parking lot area, although a physical trail does exist. Considering this missing link, staff is suggesting the middle trail segment be constructed unless a trail easement from Centennial can be acquired. Additional questions about the public trail system in the area were raised by City Council. A representative of the City Parks Department will be available to discuss the relationship of the Williams Ranch trail to the overall trail system. Staff recommends City Council adopt Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2000. • • AMENDMENTS: Aesthetics. Prior to development, this property conveyed water through the Salvation Ditch in an exposed manner — a traditional open-air ditch. The development application sought to cover this ditch and convey water underground. The discussions during development review considered the historic character of the land and the value of retaining some visual cue to the historic landscape element. The final approval contained a condition requiring that the developer construct a water feature along the ditch alignment. This is reflected in Section 1, condition #18, of Ordinance No. 5.2, Series of 1994. The Salvation Ditch Company has indicated their reluctance to have such an improvement constructed within their easement. Furthermore, water to serve this water feature would have to be purchased and the Homeowners' Associations would most likely need to indemnify the ditch company. While impediments exist, this improvement is not impossible to construct. The Homeowners' have submitted a letter, attached, indicating their support for this amendment — they don't want this reconstructed ditch. The preference expressed by the President of the Williams Ranch HOA is for the common open space parcel to be landscaped with native vegetation and not include this "water feature." Staff and the Commission agree with the developer and the HOA. The decision to underground the ditch effectively eliminated this historic landscape element. While it may have been preferable to retain at least some portions of the historic ditch exposed to provide a visual reference to the previous condition of the property, the decision has been made and the undergrounding has been accomplished. Creation of an apparent ditch does not necessarily achieve the same result. Furthermore, if the opportunity to have active water within this new landscape element is not achieved, the aesthetic benefit of a re-created ditch would be further diminished. Staff and the Commission do, however, have a concern about the condition of the Open Space parcel. The original review of this PUD considered the visual characteristics of the overall development. This Open Space parcel was to be revegetated with native species according to the land use application. The applicant represented that the present landscape (prior to development) would be replicated "in order to preserve the natural character of the site." The Open Space parcel appears to not have any top soil and does not appear to have been re -seeded. The parcel is currently a patch of weeds and thistles with relatively little value, visually, as open space in a natural character. In direct comparison, the park parcel directly north of the open space parcel exhibits a natural undisturbed condition and is a significant aesthetic value to the area. Many of the area residents have undertaken their own recovery efforts for this area. As the primary concern over the ditch feature was the aesthetic value and visual character of the development, staff believes reclamation of this area to be a justified • • request. This could be accomplished by either the applicant or the Homeowners Association. As some of this work has been initiated by residents, staff believes returning the escrow money to the Homeowners Association for this purpose to be appropriate. To accomplish this, the applicant would need to "release" the escrow funds from the obligations of Ordinance 52 and allow the City to retain the funds. The City could then grant the funds to the residents. The proposed Ordinance includes a clause to this effect. Pedestrian Movement. There is a request by the developer to not develop the sidewalks required in the original approval. While staff agrees with the developer and the residents of the area that the more urban treatment of sidewalks would diminish the project's aesthetics, staff does have concerns about maintaining the purpose of the sidewalks — pedestrian movement. During the development review for this PUD, a request from the City Engineer to provide sidewalks on the perimeter of the entire cartway was forwarded to the Boards. Planning staff, the P&Z and the HPC believed that no sidewalks should be developed in order to reflect a more rural character. The eventual condition required sidewalks on only one side of the cartway. The sidewalk along Silverlode Drive from the intersection with Smuggler Road to Mollie Gibson Park was developed. The sidewalk around Lots 1-12 of Williams Ranch Subdivision (the internal "island") has not been developed. This area does not have a significant amount of traffic. Furthermore, a landscaped drainage swale bordering the cartway has been developed on many of these lots. These landscape improvements have been developed in the public right-of-way and the City could require them to be removed. However, removing this landscaping and storm water feature for the provision of concrete sidewalks is not staff s preference for this area. In fact, the paved cartway and soft edge of the landscaped drainage swale evokes a more rural aesthetic appropriate for the area and is preferred by staff. P&Z concurred with staff regarding the sidewalks. The feeling is also shared by the homeowners in Williams Ranch. The relatively low auto traffic and a desire for a less "urban" treatment supports a no sidewalk treatment and staff is not proposing a change to the existing situation in the area. Staff does have a concern, however, about the purpose of the sidewalks — the safe and convenient conveyance of pedestrians. The trails and sidewalks, as originally approved, combined to provide a permeable development with respect to pedestrian movement through the development. Trails were platted to serve the community's movement both "vertically" and "horizontally" through the development. The trail that serves "vertical" movement (platted east -west) is developed on the lower two blocks with one exception: the intersection with Silverlode Drive between lots 6 and 7. Staff has included a condition that this last remaining portion be developed. The 3 trail that was to serve "horizontal" movement (platted north -south) is easiest to understand in four sections, described as follows (see Exhibit `B"): The northern -most section of this horizontal trail is through the "park" parcel. This is a parcel that was deeded to the City and the City has the ability to construct a trail connection through this parcel. The applicant does not have a responsibility to develop this portion of the trail. The next portion of the trail is through the "open space parcel." This parcel is in common ownership of the Williams Ranch Home Owners' Association with a public trail easement as shown on the plat. This portion of the trail has been developed by the applicant, albeit crudely. The middle portion of this trail (lots #33-35) has not been developed but is certainly buildable. This is an important link to serve this north -south movement to the extent that the remaining portions to the north are developed. This connection would allow pedestrians to access Williams Ranch Drive from the Centennial parking lot area. This section, however, has little support from neighbors, especially those who live adjacent to the trail. The "vertical" trail at this point does not extend to a public right- of-way and terminates on Centennial property. There is a physical trail where residents have continued walking towards Brown Lane. The southern -most portion of this trail easement (lots #27 — 31 and #15) does not adequately provide for a trail to be built. The topography in this area is extremely steep and a trail would be very difficult to develop and may pose ground stability issues with adjacent development. At staff s urging, the applicant inquired about securing an easement from the Centennial Condominiums for this trail. The property on the adjacent Centennial property is flat and could accommodate this trail if an easement were secured. Centennial representatives are not overly receptive to this easement and no agreement has been achieved. The Commission believes that all portions of the trail should be constructed by the developer as originally proposed regardless of the construction complexity. The Commission argued that the developer should have realized the difficulty of developing this trail and made any necessary adjustments to the application in 1994. Staff believes the southern most segment should not be built due to the complexity of construction compared with the overall benefit. This portion of trail would largely duplicate the pedestrian movement along the two public streets to the Molly Gibson Park. With respect to the middle segment, staff believes the trail segment is important but that the issue should be handled by the neighborhood association in coordination with the Centennial Condominium owners. The middle section should be developed unless and alternative route is found (the best alternative being a trail easement across the Centennial Condominiums property). Staff is suggesting the Ordinance require the 4 construction of this middle trail segment or construction of a trail within a new easement on the Centennial property. This requirement will ensure adequate public access and will encourage the property owners most effected by the "trail in their backyard" to come to an agreement with the Centennial owners. The Ordinance goes further by requiring the improvement be accomplished by August 1, 2000, by the applicant or by the City with use of the escrow funds. With respect to the City -owned park parcel, this segment should be constructed by the City to the extent that the privately owned portions are developed. In other words, the trail should be built only if the segment represents a missing connection. Soil Erosion Control on Smuggler Mine Property. The original application included the Smuggler Mine property and access to this development was contemplated through Smuggler Mine. The mine was scheduled to increase the amount of mining activity (drilling, blasting, etc.) including a significant amount of surface activity. It was contemplated that erosion from this surface activity would need to be mitigated prior to its draining onto the residential portion of the development — Williams Ranch. Staff researched the representations made by the applicant concerning this road and erosion control device. The Williams Ranch residential application did not make any promises concerning these improvements. Nowhere in any of the staff memos, notes, or adopted resolutions or Ordinances were these improvements referenced. Literally, the only location these improvement are promised are on the grading sheets of the final PUD Plans. These Final PUD plans, however, were approved by the City and not by the County. Thus, improvements outside of the City jurisdiction are not enforceable by the City and are not binding upon the developer. The owner of this mining property has an obligation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to not re -grade or otherwise disturb this land. The Smuggler Mine is not owned by the applicant and the applicant has no ability to meet this condition of approval. In addition, the Smuggler Mine and the location of these improvements lies entirely within Pitkin County and the City does not have the authority to require any actions be undertaken. For these reasons, this re -grading is not an obligation of Ordinance 52, Series of 1994, and is not a binding commitment by the developer. A "whereas" clause in the proposed Ordinance clarifies this issue. Emergency Access. The approvals for this project included a requirement to install "grass pavers" along the emergency access easement connecting the cul-de-sac to Spruce Street. These grass pavers are intended to allow emergency service vehicles to navigate the easement while natural grasses grow through the small openings. The pavers are currently in a dilapidated condition and staff is concerned about the long-term usefulness of this emergency facility. 5 Staff does want to point out that the emergency access must be maintained in a useful condition year-round. According the City Engineer, the improvement was installed correctly and "signed -off' and the developer has no further obligation. The maintenance requirement is now a responsibility of the two homeowners associations (Silverlode and Williams Ranch). In other words, the City is assured through the provisions of Ordinance 52 that the emergency access will remain in an adequate condition and no changes to this assurance are proposed. The two HOA's, the City, and the Fire Department have discussed the condition of this emergency access way and the necessary improvements are expected to occur this Spring. This was verbally confirmed by staff in speaking with the Williams Ranch HOA President and a property owner adjacent to the easement. To further ensure this emergency access way is in adequate condition, staff has structured the returning of escrow funds to the HOA for the open space parcel contingent upon a follow-up inspection of this access way by the Fire Department. APPLICANT: Williams Ranch Joint Venture, John Markel, President. Represented by Charles Brandt, Charles Brandt and Associates. LOCATION: Williams Ranch Drive and Silverlode Drive vicinity. Please refer to the attached location map. ZONING: Affordable Housing -Planned Unit Development. (AH-PUD). CURRENT AND PROPOSED LAND USE: The project consists of two Subdivisions: Silverlode and Williams Ranch. Together, there are 15 free-market residences and 35 affordable housing deed restricted residences. PREVIOUS ACTION: The project received final development approval pursuant to Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994. The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the amendment request under a public hearing initiated September 24, 1999, continued to November 2, 1999, and continued to December 14, 1999. The Commission adopted Resolution 99-27, attached, recommending the manner in which the PUD should be amended. The City Council considered this amendment request on March 13, 2000, and requested additional information regarding the trail segments and the surrounding trail system. Z • • REVIEW PROCEDURE: Final Planned Unit Development (& Substantial Amendment). The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the application at a duly noticed public hearing and recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial to the City Council. City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application at a duly noticed public hearing. BACKGROUND: Williams Ranch PUD and Subdivision was granted land use approval pursuant to Ordinance 52, Series of 1994. This document has been included in the application for reference. STAFF COMMENTS: Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit "A." The Williams Ranch Plat showing the trail easements is included as Exhibit "B." A map of the surrounding area, including the Centennial property, is included as Exhibit "C." The application packet, letters from area residents, the P&Z Resolution, and correspondence with the applicant were included in the first reading packet and have not been duplicated for this packet. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of City Council Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2000. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2000, approving an amendment to the Williams Ranch PUD." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments Exhibit B -- Map of Williams Ranch PUD Exhibit B -- Map of Williams Ranch and Centennial CAhome\CHRISB\CASES\Williams Ranch Amendment\CC-Memol.doc 7 • EA Staff Comments: 26.445.040 Review Standards Exhibit A Williams Ranch Amendment A development application for a PUD must comply with the following standards and requirements: Staff has condensed many of the review criteria in instances where the criteria does not apply to this amendment. Please refer to the PUD section of the land use code for a full explanation of the specific criteria. 1. General Requirements: A. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. B. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of the existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding: Of particular importance regarding these two criteria is the aesthetics of the open space area which was originally required to contain a re -configured ditch feature and the movement of pedestrians through the project. Staff believes the suggested resolution of this amendment for these two concerns is consistent with the Goals and Objectives of the AACP, and with the character of the surrounding area. C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The future development capabilities of the immediate area are not expected to be adversely affected with the amendments. The opportunity for enhanced pedestrian connection through the property will remain with the plated easements and may be developed in the future. The improvement to the open space parcel is expected to complement the surrounding area. D. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. Staff Finding: This project was granted GMQS allotments and the amendments do not require additional allotments. 2. Density. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone district. Furthermore, densities may be reduced ... 3. Land Uses. The land uses permitted shall be those of the underlying zone district. Detached residential units may be authorized to be clustered in a zero lot line or row house configuration, but multi -family dwelling units shall only be allowed when permitted in the underlying zone district. Staff Comments 1 4. Dimensional Requirements. The dimensional requirements shall be those of the underlying zone district, provided that variations may be permitted in the following: 5. Off-street parking. The number of off-street parking spaces may be varied from that required in the underlying zone district based on the following considerations: Staff Finding: No changes to the project's density, land uses, dimensional requirements, or parking are proposed or are necessary with the proposed Ordinance. 6. Open Space. The Open Space requirement shall be that of the underlying zone district. However, a variation in minimum open space may be permitted if such variation would not be detrimental to the character of the proposed PUD, and if the proposed development shall include open space for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD through a common park or recreation area. An area may be approved as a common park or recreation area if it: a. Is to be used and is suitable for scenic, landscaping, or recreation purposes; and b. Is land which is accessible and available to all dwelling units or lots for whom the common area is intended. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas shall be deeded in perpetuity to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the planned unit development (PUD), together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. Any plan for open space shall also be accompanied by a legal instrument which ensures the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and communally owned facilities. 7. Landscape Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan a landscape plan, which exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces. It shall provide an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species that are regarded as suitable for the Aspen area climate. Staff Finding: This response considers the criteria for both Open Space and a Landscape Plan. The development includes an Open Space area to the benefit of the residents of the PUD in a natural scenic capacity. This area was required, according to the approvals, to contain a re-created "ditch" feature referring to the historic landscape element which existed on the property prior to development. This issue was raised primarily to address the project's aesthetics and the value of retaining some visual cue to the ditch landscape element. The final approval contained a condition requiring the developer construct a Staff Comments 2 water feature along the ditch alignment. This is reflected in Section 1, condition #18, of Ordinance 52, Series of 1994. The Salvation Ditch Company has indicated their reluctance to have such an improvement constructed within their easement. Furthermore, the Homeowners' have submitted a letter indicating their support for this amendment. The preference expressed by the President of the Williams Ranch HOA is for the common open space parcel to be landscaped with native vegetation and not include this "water feature." Staff agrees with the developer and the HOA. Staff does, however, have a concern about the condition of the Open Space parcel and the project's aesthetic value. In other words, the re-created ditch may be difficult to develop but the overall aesthetic of the project are still important. The Open Space parcel is currently a patch of weeds and thistles with relatively little value, visually, as open space in a natural character. In direct comparison, the park parcel directly north of the open space parcel exhibits a natural undisturbed condition and is a significant aesthetic value to the area. The open space parcel appears to not have any top soil and does not appear to have been re -seeded. As the primary concern over the ditch feature was of its aesthetic value, staff believes a condition to provide sufficient top soil and re -seeding of this area is appropriate. Staff is recommending the ditch feature condition be eliminated and this open space parcel be appropriately landscaped with native vegetation be applied. Considering the work that many residents have already completed in this area, staff is recommending the residents be responsible for this work and be able to use the funds held in escrow from the developer. Upon completion of this improvement, staff believes the intent of these two criteria will be met. 8. Architectural Site Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural consistency with the proposed development, architectural character, building design, and the preservation of the visual character of the City. It is not the purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly enforced that individual initiative is stifled in the design of a particular building, or substantial additional expense is required. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony and proportion of the buildings with each other and surrounding land uses. Building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage and reduce soil erosion. Staff Finding: No changes to the project's architectural plan are requested in this amendment. 9. Lighting. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Staff Finding: Staff Comments 3 The amendment does not address lighting and no concerns about outdoor lighting have been brought to the attention of City staff. The development in this PUD will have to be in conformance to the lighting Code as any other property in the City is required. 10. Clustering. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged. Staff Finding: This standard does not apply to this amendment. 11. Public facilities. The proposed development shall be designed so that adequate public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed development at the time development is constructed, and that there will be no net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings shall not be arranged such that any structure is inaccessible to emergency vehicles. Staff Finding: The grass pavers required to be installed along the emergency access way were inspected and approved by the City Engineer. Since this inspection in the Fall of 1998, the condition of the pavers and, therefore the long-term usefulness of the facility, has deteriorated. This access is now compromised and may represent a practical difficulty in the provision of emergency service, possibly no longer meeting the intent of this criteria. This emergency access way needs to be maintained in a manner acceptable to emergency service providers. Staff has included a condition concerning the inspection of this area. The original approval required pedestrian facilities to be accommodated on -site. While staff s concerns are both related to the provision of public facilities and the provision of adequate circulation, staff has summarized the discussion of this issue under the following criteria — #12 Circulation. The soil erosion mitigation condition of the land use approvals related to a mining road on Smuggler Mountain, contemplated both the future development of the Smuggler Mine property and the fact that the Smuggler Mine owners were party to the original application. The applicant is no longer able to make representations about the Smuggler Mine or commit to conducting improvements on the Mine property. Staff is recommending the condition related to the re -grading of this mining road be removed from the land use approvals. 12. Traffic and pedestrian circulation. a. Every dwelling unit, or other land use permitted in the planned unit development (PUD) shall have access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. b. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movement and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Minor streets within the Planned Unit Development Staff Comments 4 0 • (PUD) shall not be connected to streets outside the development so as to encourage their use by through traffic. C. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding collector and arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be adversely affected. d. Every residential building shall not be farther than sixty (60) feet from an access roadway or drive providing access to a public street. e. All nonresidential land use within the planned unit development (PUD) shall have direct access to a collector or arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on any street. f. Streets in the planned unit development (PUD) may be dedicated to public use or retained under private ownership. Said streets and associated improvements shall comply with all pertinent city regulations and ordinances. Staff Finding: The original review concentrated on a pedestrian's ability to walk through the project. A series of easements were required and recorded on the final plat. For better clarity, staff is referring to these as the "horizontal" trail and the "vertical" trail. The horizontal trail provides pedestrian movement north and south along roughly the same topographic elevation from the public "park" parcel through to the southern -most boundary of the PUD. This horizontal trail was intended to serve as an extension to the Loni White Trail along the Salvation Ditch which connects to the Hunter Creek Trail. The park parcel has been deeded to the City for park use which included the City's ability to construct a trail. The vertical trail provides a pedestrian cut -through between the blocks of the Subdivision. The Improvements were completed on the lower two Blocks. The remaining portion, the portion providing access to the property above Silverlode Subdivision, was required as an easement but not required to be constructed. There is a request by the developer to not develop the sidewalks required in the original approval. During the development review for this PUD, a request from the City Engineer to provide sidewalks on the perimeter of the entire cartway was forwarded to the Boards. Due to the relatively low auto traffic expected and a desire to require less of an "urban" treatment, the eventual condition required sidewalks on only one side of the cartway. This area does not have a significant amount of traffic. Staff believes the paved cartway and soft edge of the landscaped drainage swale evokes a more rural aesthetic appropriate for the area and is preferred development style. CAhome\CHRISB\CASES\Williams Ranch Amendment\CC EX A.doc Staff Comments 5 ORDINANCE NO.6 (SERIES OF 2000) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, TO AMEND THE WILLIMAS RANCH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Williams Ranch Joint Venture, represented by Charles Brandt and Associates P.C., for substantial amendments to the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development approval granted pursuant to Ordinance 52, Series of 1994; and, WHEREAS, the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development is a fifty (50) residential unit project divided into two Subdivisions: the Silverlode Subdivision consisting of fifteen (15) free-market residential units and the Williams Ranch Subdivision containing thirty-five (35) affordable housing units; and, WHEREAS, the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development is located within the City of Aspen directly east of the Centennial Condominiums in Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West containing parcels. 2737.074.30.001-015 and 2737.074.29.001- 036; and, WHEREAS, the amendments requested relate to conditions of approval stipulated in Ordinance 52, Series of 1994, concerning the development of "a small ditch water feature," "hard surface pedestrian walking areas" (a.k.a. sidewalks), "soil erosion controls" on a mining road above the project, and a release of the construction requirement of the trail platted from the Open Space parcel to the boundary of the Molly Gibson Park along the southern boundary of the PUD; and, WHEREAS, the soil erosion control requirement, as indicated on the grading plan of the Final PUD Plans, indicates improvements on land not owned by the applicant and not within the City limits, and shall not be considered a requirement of Ordinance 52, Series of 1994; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445, Planned Unit Development, of the Aspen Municipal Code, substantial amendments to an approved Planned Unit development may be approved by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission made at a duly noticed public hearing, the appropriate referral agencies, and members of the general public; and, WHEREAS, after considering a recommendation by the Community Development Director, referral agencies, comments made by the applicant, and members of the general public at a duly noticed public hearing opened on July 6, 1999, continued to September 21, 1999, continued to November 2, 1999, and continued to December 14, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds the PUD amendments, as described in P&Z Resolution #99-27 (not as requested), to be in substantial compliance with the goals and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan and the intent and requirements of the Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2000. Page 1 Land Use Code and recommends, by a six to zero (6 to 0) vote, that the Aspen City Council approve this substantial amendment to the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development in the manner described therein; and, WHEREAS, City Council reviewed and considered the recommendations of the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and members of the public during a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the amendments to the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development approvals, as described herein, meet or exceed all applicable standards and that approval of the amendment 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 the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: The Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development, as approved pursuant to Ordinance 52, Series of 1994, is hereby amended in the following manner: 1. The requirement to construct "a small ditch water feature," as stipulated in Section 1, condition # 18, of Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994, shall no longer be required. 2. The portion of the pedestrian trail between lots 6 and 10 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision shall be completed to the edge of the Silverlode Drive cartway by Williams Ranch Joint Venture in the same manner as the adjoining trail was developed. The improvement shall be accomplished by no later than August 1, 2000. If, for any reason, the Joint Venture does not complete this improvement, the City of Aspen shall complete the improvement by using the Subdivision funds held in escrow by the City. The portion of the public trail described on the final plat as crossing Lots 33, 34, and 35 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision or a trail within a newly secured trail easement across Centennial Condominiums property connecting the existing vertical trail with Brown Lane shall be developed by Williams Ranch Joint Venture. The improvement shall be accomplished by no later than August 1, 2000. If, for any reason, the Joint Venture does not complete this improvement, the City of Aspen shall complete the improvement by using the Subdivision funds held in escrow by the City. The design and construction plans for this improvement shall be approved by the City Trails Coordinator of the City Parks Department. 4. The portion of the public trail described on the final plat as crossing Lot 27 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision through Lot #15 of the Silverlode Subdivision is not Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2000. Page 2 required to be developed by Williams Ranch Joint Venture. The easement shall remain in effect and the trail may be developed in the future. If developed, the design and construction plans for this improvement shall be approved by the City Trails Coordinator of the City Parks Department. 5. The requirement to construct "hard surface pedestrian walking area on one side of all roads" (sidewalks), as stipulated in Section 1, condition #2b, of Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994, and the "five foot pedestrian path," stipulated in Section 1, condition # 14i, of said Ordinance, shall be waived and no further obligation to develop a sidewalk shall be required. 6. The City and the applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement stipulating the nature and requirements of this PUD amendment following final consideration by City Council, pursuant to Section 26.445.060 of the Land Use Code. This agreement shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to recordation. All un-amended portions of the former agreement shall remain in full force and effect. The agreement shall allow the City to retain the funds held in escrow from the prior agreement with the ability for the City to spend the funds as determined appropriate by the City Council. The PUD amendment agreement shall be recorded within one -hundred and eighty (180) days of the final approval by City Council. 7. Upon improvement of the emergency access way between the Spruce Street right-of- way and the Silverlode Drive cul-de-sac to a condition to adequately withstand emergency vehicles, as determined by the Fire Marshal, the City shall grant to the Williams Ranch Home Owners Association all remaining and unused funds held in escrow in association with this project for the purpose of landscape improvements to Lot #36 (the Open Space parcel) and any trail improvements, within the project's existing platted easements, desired by the Association. Any seed mixture used for improving Lot #36 shall be approved by the City Forester. Section 2• All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Aspen planning and Zoning Commission or the Aspen City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. 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 Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2000. Page 3 shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5: Pursuant to Section 26.304.070 of the Municipal Code, 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. Section 6• A public hearing on the Ordinance was held on the 10`h day of April, 2000, at 5:00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was 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 13' day of March, 2000. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed, and approved this Approved as to form: City Attorney Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Rachel E. Richards, Mayor day of , 2000. Approved as to content: Raeliel T. Richards, Mayor CAhome\CHRISB\CASES\Williams Ranch Amendment\Ordinance.doc Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2000. Page 4 CD N 46 7" W 156.10' �p �rn - — `9• con_ l OPEN SPACE \ � G- (aIFCT PARKING EASEMENT _ 'co uRr .9MGNYW,I U^4�/V(A 0 4 G! 4 El _C. T 4NS. E 5E. 1 V O� �9 O \, �3 91 PARKING )o �. 2 Ip 37„ � EASEMENT �V& E c7O.j FOR TH BENEFIT c, ,L OF LOT 2 i O LC ti LOT o° t`/L O T 27 LP < Ef FC X8' OF LOT 158.12. 1 NILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISIK�N IN THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 7, T. 10 S., R. 84 W., 6th P.M., PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO • �► �- �,� Wiliam Ranch PWI � `X� % f; .0010 l \\ C<\ FEE7.30 0 SD FEET ke& ht4r, C lC \-:4CC, GRAPHIC SCALE W SCALE\ I INCH. 50 FEET "! A\�\ ` • u ���t` - \ � ! BOOR K �3i CQf E \ '2/� LEGE)}D eCEEss Ea5[r[rr aoeK ]za -4" yi ]�•J \\ 0 SSNDESCRIBED1M0 IN "�� I • r V TN' UT� N •SPEr r•M �OC]ty.�+ a\ -. •J I FOUND. BUREAU OF LAND \ MANAGEMENT 8RASS CAP, ,�'�'� AS DESCRIBED S 41, , �, ��� SET TNIS SURVEY. 51W RESAR ��',!�'� II ` Centennial / — — _ — — — Surras+ SErCR LaSf Ra M WITH I I/2- ALUMuwEt CAP �•. S 3 +N[ SErEn: as PaICL: MARKED 9ANNER. INC. 20632 \ / / r 3-<677- E — �'- ui0 rK NCYr.r oonrol aL .+f I� =WC0. V. r,q a 0E Or •YEN /I •i • , a �j �/��/ ,�'�� 1 / / t 439.98. Y ♦ f ►:_ / (V1�r tl-'/� y//Ly _� • A• �, ��',I;' : v , •"'�/Vler Pa ' // ' i ! ! LOT 5 '^�W is — S 3,.219. -cust Is I I i•; -r:_ _ / s]. nc aEaET•h' ti, 1 � � v r . ! « _ ` 44 ��� ' ►//w�■�\\\!\ I aor ] e , LOT 6 �••, LOT 7 IIII \ I (�• I /� LOT 1 i1 1 r OT 8 _•.y- - - ..= + � 'V � / / .\ �1 �4E..µy�"/C STarKM Eau' r II -��M-' — =v 1\�✓ ?` N cuss L3E. ! r — i �a :CCC:: E:SSUE>- aJx »S. a•aE Us: On 4 EEK.Y• rOr.ErC `-il•:!• I••' js •_ors ` — ccts sM• < \- +•CC_--! (n\ n a/,O at +ECJ.SE- v i0c` YS •4'a19 - // Y- IOK _ L07 9 ���••.6Y,�r/w1, .'/�(7{e �,/.I�6' _ ;X aA•o _]ra-ar•_r •, VECMCvr \ , I , LOT V al I Tvnl; - •t - .'C? V SYVtt<C- •0 aIs -:_ d. �^{ _.. .Ea[rr .,. /; 1 , ✓ `_ 1 _ ... Y� J����- _ _ v � � ` kOr.t \iX, S•.E 1 1 r u � �_ • lon cass s. a s .r E osEK`M-'\ or .o* �\ \/ °f4 OT :0 • / LOT 3 1 _ _tip._ -- '\• `\ � "�... a A/�y i / / \j � /� ,j_ �• / ' �\ / / EICC Rays. EASE T .\ / LO 2 _ \ TI.f a . Y'pS 'a% / L T E RM MASS CAP - i ELCC •ears P4 / Vf70S+S La r^ l ao1 ,«• .r. w nw LOT 2 \\ / 4 a \ v nwKr w.w..n, a.•KrK.•awK.-r .r ,. P ` a` 1/ _r -++ for is LOT h j \ LOT 3 ES4. 4 ' \ ...'E / 4Sr C ti ••. n.rn •MKr•• .r •w• a,<• •w•n -c _. _�— ,- S\\'` �•• *ea]'sM a wr. b // fi EasEUErT S I \ / //� r �\ . e..wwK SS.w el rr. 9w•ew.�•'^ Pri'� / LOf 17 • r \ '�. / L07 a o/rY ,q� ` \pq-TM• n / �d u'v+ s i _ ' c•. aM•�•::. ;�: r»w a.•� a w s•.« \ Pat/[iSE.9N- -- rK. ^^rK.K, •a,rKE C,PPP c l {+ %y�'. /j� LOT 5 /. c•� M`s'�. w .: a.".'se . ,u.. .:. ;i LOT I ; iP�C ^l� * / ' wEs- SEAS .c :i �'.T� �� LOT 12 / Prl I 2s�areN; SS . - • LOT Ij I / / `•Or \ �. EASEaKErT�t� 'ra•r c.ray. e.r .t+ .,. / l t r/ �/q y.T�_ / /i LOT 6 Et _APS Ew' W. LOT 7 / - /% \ / / / �J• �. -_ LOT 14 \ \ a«/� `'' EC L.Z r ._ `_ - _ �i+�--. - ,' -� ' / — .\ `•ti \ r • LOT 22 \ 7 r�. ' LOT IO 'y/�►, $c 4CN• YO I i '' S :1-C•. EASEA. M� i�a '�Q E'FCuut /.b- LOT 6 -� _ • II i % c a s / / / Ecar / LOT 11 !`' \lr CLOT 36 �' ` _ ` a1 s<.t• �\ '� 'Q•/ % LOT E E•S[uCr: •. \ \ / ,'` O. LOT 12 f �_ +RA w * y o ' r• LOT 9 ; • _ �� �LbAMSRANCND.ARK PAq P`cE)t t- L — »>, e.+ �s /�' o.' -� —. 8 M •SSICAPay AND ;; TE-:ry EASEMENT _ \ .� w+•. K ��{'o • . LOT r OPEN $PAC'..unr \ \ I t�: g 1 'S /C _ 14 �� UT0.1TY EAS_ NT •'\• * 4�♦ +a� a. ` ' it �\ LOT BOOK SOB. AGE 312 _ • ` ,�\ / a• � o..r<, a r y= i� w' r •R, ?]. y ~ .I/ 'i' LOT 35 r A�/ .a +: CSt :SET%A%S/II ~ / / /h.Et 'fuS o� o \ !/ � qJ� •j \/<, -L,. _ L —~ / t fL0T 27 LOT 29 LOT 30 v$ J�eQq � -_a=" OT 28 LOT 9 � • � / � ` LOT 13 \ J� r4C V - ' •. /E ���. , /s /� :TATTY r.uuErT cowElwOVFN A,,. ` IEL bOr yDa +GE .0 AVL'C R.O. •. (_SVSSWfaQ EasEu[MT. li{976. / as ,� ja P AND epo« 92, PAGE ee -.ice 46' Tn AR EASEMENTSOCK no, PAGE 500 n I \ eonK ]oa PAGE vz aKo �1 _ —_ 00 \� eoaK T P•GL Sa AND �T4:Tv EASEMENT •o \ — ' laaKacE \ � E•Sex¢r. . • 978 •>rLL1AM$ RA NCN PARK PaAC£t /`.-rt`- 1 lv aluwM,ti 10' TRAIL EASEMENT L•[,' CAP SC: . AND UTILITY EASEMENT EASEMENT ; �OOhRb1�;t:MS CLEs 1] mrE FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT OF SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION and WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION $1— 50' a256-08 OF SILVERLODE -WILLIAMS RANCH PARCEL OF SMUGGLER MINE SUBDIVISION IN THE SE 1/4 OF yg No 4 Of 4 SECTION 7, T. 10 S., R. 84 W., 6fh P.M., PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO 9ar..Ea ASSOC. r MEMORANDUM /itI TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager I John Worcester, City Attorney Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Directo Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Directoaw r FROM: Chris Bendon, Senior Planner RE: Williams Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment V reading of Ordinance No. ID , Series of 2000. DATE: March 13, 2000 SUMMARY: Williams Ranch PUD was approved in 1994 as a 70/30 affordable housing project and is currently developed with nearly all of the fifty (50) approved residences. The project was split into two Subdivisions. Silverlode Subdivision contains the 30% free-market portion and is generally east of the Williams Ranch Subdivision which contains the thirty-five (35) affordable dwellings. Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994, approved the Williams Ranch PUD and contains a series of conditions of the approval to which the applicant is requesting amendments. The application packet includes a summary of the amendments requested, a copy of the approving Ordinance, and a copy of the pertinent Subdivision plat sheet for reference. This amendment request will be presented as an action item for first reading for further clarification. The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the requested amendment under three separate meetings. The staff recommendation and the Commission recommendations differ depending upon the topic. The applicant's requests and the various positions are presented under the heading "Amendments." Where possible, staff has also summarized positions of neighborhood residents and the Homeowners' Associations. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution #99-27 is attached as Exhibit B. Staff recommends City Council adopt Ordinance No. (0, Series of 2000, upon first reading. AMENDMENTS: Aesthetics. Prior to development, this property conveyed water through the Salvation Ditch in an exposed manner — a traditional open-air ditch. The development application sought to cover this ditch and convey water underground. The discussions during development review considered the historic character of the land and the value of retaining some 0 , 0 visual cue to the historic landscape element. The final approval contained a condition requiring that the developer construct a water feature along the ditch alignment. This is reflected in Section 1, condition #18, of Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994. The Salvation Ditch Company has indicated their reluctance to have such an improvement constructed within their easement. Furthermore, water to serve this water feature would have to be purchased and the Homeowners' Associations would most likely need to indemnify the ditch company. While impediments exist, this improvement is not impossible to construct. The Homeowners' have submitted a letter, attached, indicating their support for this amendment — they don't want this reconstructed ditch. The preference expressed by the President of the Williams Ranch HOA is for the common open space parcel to be landscaped with native vegetation and not include this "water feature." Staff and the Commission agree with the developer and the HOA. The decision to underground the ditch effectively eliminated this historic landscape element. While it may have been preferable to retain at least some portions of the historic ditch exposed to provide a visual reference to the previous condition of the property, the decision has been made and the undergrounding has been accomplished. Creation of an apparent ditch does not necessarily achieve the same result. Furthermore, if the opportunity to have active water within this new landscape element is not achieved, the aesthetic benefit of a re-created ditch would be further diminished. Staff and the Commission do, however, have a concern about the condition of the Open Space parcel. The original review of this PUD considered the visual characteristics of the overall development. This Open Space parcel was to be revegetated with native species according to the land use application. The applicant represented that the present landscape (prior to development) would be replicated "in order to preserve the natural character of the site." The Open Space parcel appears to not have any top soil and does not appear to have been re -seeded. The parcel is currently a patch of weeds and thistles with relatively little value, visually, as open space in a natural character. In direct comparison, the park parcel directly north of the open space parcel exhibits a natural undisturbed condition and is a significant aesthetic value to the area. Many of the area residents have undertaken their own recovery efforts for this area. As the primary concern over the ditch feature was the aesthetic value and visual character of the development, staff believes reclamation of this area to be a justified request. This could be accomplished by either the applicant or the Homeowners Association. As some of this work has been initiated by residents, staff believes returning the escrow money to the Homeowners Association for this purpose to be appropriate. To accomplish this, the applicant would need to "release" the escrow funds from the obligations of Ordinance 52 and allow the City to retain the funds. 2 The City could then grant the funds to the residents. The proposed Ordinance includes a clause to this effect. Pedestrian Movement. There is a request by the developer to not develop the sidewalks required in the original approval. While staff agrees with the developer and the residents of the area that the more urban treatment of sidewalks would diminish the project's aesthetics, staff does have concerns about maintaining the purpose of the sidewalks — pedestrian movement. During the development review for this PUD, a request from the City Engineer to provide sidewalks on the perimeter of the entire cartway was forwarded to the Boards. Planning staff, the P&Z and the HPC believed that no sidewalks should be developed in order to reflect a more rural character. The eventual condition required sidewalks on only one side of the cartway. The sidewalk along Silverlode Drive from the intersection with Smuggler Road to Mollie Gibson Park was developed. The sidewalk around Lots 1-12 of Williams Ranch Subdivision (the internal "island") has not been developed. This area does not have a significant amount of traffic. Furthermore, a landscaped drainage swale bordering the cartway, has been developed on many of these lots. These landscape improvements have been developed in the public right-of-way and the City could require them to be removed. However, removing this landscaping and storm water feature for the provision of concrete sidewalks is not staff's preference for this area. In fact, the paved cartway and soft edge of the landscaped drainage swale evokes a more rural aesthetic appropriate for the area and is preferred by staff. P&Z concurred with staff regarding the sidewalks. The feeling is also shared by the homeowners in Williams Ranch. The relatively low auto traffic and a desire for a less "urban" treatment supports a no sidewalk treatment and staff is not proposing a change to the existing situation in the area. Staff does have a concern, however, about the purpose of the sidewalks — the safe and convenient conveyance of pedestrians. The trails and sidewalks, as originally approved, combined to provide a permeable development with respect to pedestrian movement through the development. Trails were platted to serve the community's movement both "vertically" and "horizontally" through the development. The trail that serves "vertical" movement (platted east -west) is developed on the lower two blocks with one exception: the intersection with Silverlode Drive between lots 6 and 7. Staff has included a condition that this last remaining portion be developed. The trail that was to serve "horizontal" movement (platted north -south) is easiest to understand in four sections, described as follows (see Exhibit "F"): The northern -most section of this horizontal trail is through the "park" parcel. This is a parcel that was deeded to the City and the City has the ability to construct a trail 3 connection through this parcel. The applicant does not have a responsibility to develop this portion of the trail. The next portion of the trail is through the "open space parcel." This parcel is in common ownership of the Williams Ranch Home Owners' Association with a public trail easement as shown on the plat. This portion of the trail has been developed by the applicant, albeit crudely. The middle portion of this trail (lots #33-35) has not been developed but is certainly buildable. This is an important link to serve this north -south movement to the extent that the remaining portions to the north are developed. This section, however, has little support from neighbors, especially those who live adjacent to the trail. Also, pedestrians could use the nearby parking lot and access way, as they do today, to accomplish the same movement. The southern -most portion of this trail easement (lots #27 — 31 and #15) does not adequately provide for a trail to be built. The topography in this area is extremely steep and a trail would be very difficult to develop and may pose ground stability issues with adjacent development. At staff s urging, the applicant inquired about securing an easement from the Centennial Condominiums for this trail. The property on the adjacent Centennial property is flat and could accommodate this trail if an easement were secured. Centennial representatives are not overly receptive to this easement and no agreement has been achieved. The Commission believes that all portions of the trail should be constructed by the developer as originally proposed regardless of the construction complexity. The Commission argued that the developer should have realized the difficulty of developing this trail and made any necessary adjustments to the application in 1994. Staff believes the southern most segment should not be built due to the complexity of construction compared with the overall benefit. This portion of trail would largely duplicate the pedestrian movement along the two public streets to the Molly Gibson Park and would serve nearly no benefit if the remaining segments are never constructed. With respect to the remaining two segments in which the developer is obligated, staff believes the issue should be handled by the neighborhood association with use of the escrow money currently obligated for trail improvements. This would allow the neighborhood more flexibility in recovering the open space parcel in the manner they prefer and to address issues related to privacy, etc., with portions of the trail near residences. This, again, requires the developer to "release" the escrow funds to the City. With respect to the City -owned park parcel, this segment should be constructed by the City to the extent that the privately owned portions are developed. In other words, the trail should be built only if the segment represents a missing link. 4 Soil Erosion Control on Smuggler Mine Property. The original application included the Smuggler Mine property and access to this development was contemplated through Smuggler Mine. The mine was scheduled to increase the amount of mining activity (drilling, blasting, etc.) including a significant amount of surface activity. It was contemplated that erosion from this surface activity would need to be mitigated prior to its draining onto the residential portion of the development — Williams Ranch. Staff researched the representations made by the applicant concerning this road and erosion control device. The Williams Ranch residential application did not make any promises concerning these improvements. Nowhere in any of the staff memos, notes, or adopted resolutions or Ordinances were these improvements referenced. Literally, the only location these improvement are promised are on the grading sheets of the final PUD Plans. These Final PUD plans, however, were approved by the City and not by the County. Thus, improvements outside of the City jurisdiction are not enforceable by the City and are not binding upon the developer. The owner of this mining property has an obligation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to not re -grade or otherwise disturb this land. The Smuggler Mine is not owned by the applicant and the applicant has no ability to meet this condition of approval. In addition, the Smuggler Mine and the location of these improvements lies entirely within Pitkin County and the City does not have the authority to require any actions be undertaken. For these reasons, this re -grading is not an obligation of Ordinance 52, Series of 1994, and is not a binding commitment by the developer. Emergency Access. The approvals for this project included a requirement to install "grass pavers" along the emergency access easement connecting the cul-de-sac to Spruce Street. These grass pavers are intended to allow emergency service vehicles to navigate the easement while natural grasses grow through the small openings. The pavers are currently in a dilapidated condition and staff is concerned about the long-term usefulness of this emergency facility. Staff does want to point out that the emergency access must be maintained in a useful condition year-round. According the City Engineer, the improvement was installed correctly and "signed -off' and the developer has no further obligation. The maintenance requirement is now a responsibility of the two homeowners associations (Silverlode and Williams Ranch). In other words, the City is assured through the provisions of Ordinance 52 that the emergency access will remain in an adequate condition and no changes to this assurance are proposed. The two HOA's, the City, and the Fire Department have discussed the condition of this emergency access way and the possible need for corrective action after conclusion of an adjacent construction project. To further ensure this emergency 5 access way is in adequate condition, staff has structured the returning of escrow funds to the HOA for the open space parcel contingent upon a follow-up inspection of this access way by the Fire Department. APPLICANT: Williams Ranch Joint Venture, John Markel, President. Represented by Charles Brandt, Charles Brandt and Associates. LOCATION: Williams Ranch Drive and Silverlode Drive vicinity. Please refer to the attached location map. ZONING: Affordable Housing -Planned Unit Development. (AH-PUD). CURRENT AND PROPOSED LAND USE: The project consists of two Subdivisions: Silverlode and Williams Ranch. Together, there are 15 free-market residences and 35 affordable housing deed restricted residences. PREVIOUS ACTION: The project received final development approval pursuant to Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994. The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the amendment request under a public hearing initiated September 24, 1999, continued to November 2, 1999, and continued to December 14, 1999. The Commission adopted Resolution 99-27, attached, recommending the manner in which the PUD should be amended. The City Council has not previously considered this amendment request. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Final Planned Unit Development (& Substantial Amendment). The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the application at a duly noticed public hearing and recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial to the City Council. City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application at a duly noticed public hearing. BACKGROUND: Williams Ranch PUD and Subdivision was granted land use approval pursuant to Ordinance 52, Series of 1994. This document has been included in the application for reference. STAFF COMMENTS: Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit "A." Letters from residents, the HOA, and correspondence with the applicant have been included. The area map (Exhibit F) is helpful in locating the platted trails. 2 • • RECOMMENDATION: / Staff recommends City Council Ordinance No. (O , Series of 2000, upon first reading, establishing the second reading and public hearing as April 10, 2000. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: /— "I move to approve adopt Ordinance No. , Series of 2000, upon first reading. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments Exhibit B -- P&Z Resolution 99-27 Exhibit C -- Williams Ranch H.O.A. Letter Exhibit D -- Correspondence with Applicant Exhibit E -- Letters from Residents Exhibit F -- Map of Area Exhibit G -- Application Packet. CAhome\CHRISB\CASES\Williams Ranch Amendment\CC-Memol.doc 7 • • ORDINANCE NO.6 (SERIES OF 2000) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, TO AMEND THE WILLIMAS RANCH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Williams Ranch Joint Venture, represented by Charles Brandt and Associates P.C., for substantial amendments to the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development approval granted pursuant to Ordinance 52, Series of 1994; and, WHEREAS, the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development is a fifty (50) residential unit project divided into two Subdivisions: the Silverlode Subdivision consisting of fifteen (15) free-market residential units and the Williams Ranch Subdivision containing thirty-five (35) affordable housing units; and, WHEREAS, the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development is located within the City of Aspen directly east of the Centennial Condominiums in Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West containing parcels. 2737.074.30.001-015 and 2737.074.29.001- 036; and, WHEREAS, the amendments requested relate to conditions of approval stipulated in Ordinance 52, Series of 1994, concerning the development of "a small ditch water feature," "hard surface pedestrian walking areas" (a.k.a. sidewalks), "soil erosion controls" on a mining road above the project, and a release of the construction requirement of the trail platted from the Open Space parcel to the boundary of the Molly Gibson Park along the southern boundary of the PUD; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445, Planned Unit Development, of the Aspen Municipal Code, substantial amendments to an approved Planned Unit development may be approved by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission made at a duly noticed public hearing, the appropriate referral agencies, and members of the general public; and, WHEREAS, after considering a recommendation by the Community Development Director, referral agencies, comments made by the applicant, and members of the general public at a duly noticed public hearing opened on July 6, 1999, continued to September 21, 1999, continued to November 2, 1999, and continued to December 14, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds the PUD amendments, as described in P&Z Resolution #99-27 (not as requested), to be in substantial compliance with the goals and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan and the intent and requirements of the Land Use Code and recommends, by a six to zero (6 to 0) vote, that the Aspen City Council approve this substantial amendment to the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development in the manner described therein; and, • WHEREAS, City Council reviewed and considered the recommendations of the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and members of the public during a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the amendments to the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development approvals, as described herein, meet or exceed all applicable standards and that approval of the amendment 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 the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: The Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development, as approved pursuant to Ordinance 52, Series of 1994, is hereby amendment in the following manner: 1. The requirement to construct "a small ditch water feature," as stipulated in Section 1, condition #18, of Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994, shall no longer be required. 2. The portion of the pedestrian trail between lots 6 and 10 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision shall be completed to the edge of the Silverlode Drive cartway by Williams Ranch Joint Venture in the same manner as the adjoining trail was developed. The improvement shall be accomplished by no later than July 1, 2000. If, for any reason, the Joint Venture does not complete this improvement, the City of Aspen shall complete the improvement by using the Subdivision funds held in escrow by the City. 3. The portion of the public trail described on the final plat as crossing Lot 33 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision through Lot #15 of the Silverlode Subdivision is not required to be developed by Williams Ranch Joint Venture. The easement.shall remain in effect and the trail may be developed in the future. If developed, the design and construction plans for this improvement shall be approved by the City Trails Coordinator of the City Parks Department. 4. The requirement to construct "hard surface pedestrian walking area on one side of all roads" (sidewalks), as stipulated in Section 1, condition #2b, of Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994, and the "five foot pedestrian path," stipulated in Section 1, condition #14i, of said Ordinance, shall be waived and no further obligation to develop a sidewalk shall be required. 5. The City and the applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement stipulating the nature and requirements of this PUD amendment following final consideration by City Council, pursuant to Section 26.445.060 of the Land Use Code. This agreement shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to recordation. All un-amended portions of the former agreement shall remain in full force and effect. The agreement shall allow the City to retain the funds held in escrow from the prior agreement with the ability for the City to spend the funds as determined appropriate by the City Council. The PUD amendment agreement shall be recorded within one -hundred and eighty (180) days of the final approval by City Council. 6. Upon improvement of the emergency access way between the Spruce Street right-of- way and the Silverlode Drive cul-de-sac to a condition to adequately withstand emergency vehicles, as determined by the Fire Marshal, the City shall grant to the Williams Ranch Home Owners Association all remaining funds held in escrow in association with this project for the purpose of landscape improvements to Lot #36 (the Open Space parcel) and any trail improvements, within the project's existing platted easements, desired by the Association. Any seed mixture used for improving Lot #36 shall be approved by the City Forester. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Aspen planning and Zoning Commission or the Aspen City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. 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: Pursuant to Section 26.304.070 of the Municipal Code, 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. Section 6• A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 10`h day of April, 2000, at 5:00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, 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 13' day of March, 2000. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this Approved as to form: City Attorney Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Rachel E. Richards, Mayor day of , 2000. Approved as to content: Rachel E. Richards, Mavor CAhome\CHRISB\CASES\Williams Ranch Amendment\Ordinance.doc • LJ Staff Comments: 26.445.040 Review Standards Exhibit A Williams Ranch Amendment A development application for a PUD must comply with the following standards and requirements: Staff has condensed many of the review criteria in instances where the criteria does not apply to this amendment. Please refer to the PUD section of the land use code for a full explanation of the specific criteria. 1. General Requirements: A. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. B. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of the existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding: Of particular importance regarding these two criteria is the aesthetics of the open space area which was originally required to contain a re -configured ditch feature and the movement of pedestrians through the project. Staff believes the suggested resolution of this amendment for these two concerns is consistent with the Goals and Objectives of the AACP, and with the character of the surrounding area. C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The future development capabilities of the immediate area are not expected to be adversely affected with the amendments. The opportunity for enhanced pedestrian connection through the property will remain with the plated easements and may be developed in the future. The improvement to the open space parcel is expected to complement the surrounding area. D. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. Staff Finding: This project was granted GMQS allotments and the amendments do not require additional allotments. 2. Density. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone district. Furthermore, densities may be reduced ... 3. Land Uses. The land uses permitted shall be those of the underlying zone district. Detached residential units may be authorized to be clustered in a zero lot line or row house configuration, but multi -family dwelling units shall only be allowed when permitted in the underlying zone district. Staff Comments 1 4. Dimensional Requirements. The dimensional requirements shall be those of the underlying zone district, provided that variations may be permitted in the following: 5. Off-street parking. The number of off-street parking spaces may be varied from that required in the underlying zone district based on the following considerations: Staff Finding: No changes to the project's density, land uses, dimensional requirements, or parking are proposed or are necessary with the proposed Ordinance. 6. Open Space. The Open Space requirement shall be that of the underlying zone district. However, a variation in minimum open space may be permitted if such variation would not be detrimental to the character of the proposed PUD, and if the proposed development shall include open space for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD through a common park or recreation area. An area may be approved as a common park or recreation area if it: a. Is to be used and is suitable for scenic, landscaping, or recreation purposes; and b. Is land which is accessible and available to all dwelling units or lots for whom the common area is intended. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas shall be deeded in perpetuity to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the planned unit development (PUD), together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. Any plan for open space shall also be accompanied by a legal instrument which ensures the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and communally owned facilities. 7. Landscape Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan a landscape plan, which exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces. It shall provide an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species that are regarded as suitable for the Aspen area climate. Staff Finding: This response considers the criteria for both Open Space and a Landscape Plan. The development includes an Open Space area to the benefit of the residents of the PUD in a natural scenic capacity. This area was required, according to the approvals, to contain a re-created "ditch" feature referring to the historic landscape element which existed on the property prior to development. This issue was raised primarily to address the project's aesthetics and the value of retaining some visual cue to the ditch landscape element. The final approval contained a condition requiring the developer construct a Staff Comments 2 water feature along the ditch alignment. This is reflected in Section 1, condition #18, of Ordinance 52, Series of 1994. The Salvation Ditch Company has indicated their reluctance to have such an improvement constructed within their easement. Furthermore, the Homeowners' have submitted a letter indicating their support for this amendment. The preference expressed by the President of the Williams Ranch HOA is for the common open space parcel to be landscaped with native vegetation and not include this "water feature." Staff agrees with the developer and the HOA. Staff does, however, have a concern about the condition of the Open Space parcel and the project's aesthetic value. In other words, the re-created ditch may be difficult to develop but the overall aesthetic of the project are still important. The Open Space parcel is currently a patch of weeds and thistles with relatively little value, visually, as open space in a natural character. In direct comparison, the park parcel directly north of the open space parcel exhibits a natural undisturbed condition and is a significant aesthetic value to the area. The open space parcel appears to not have any top soil and does not appear to have been re -seeded. As the primary concern over the ditch feature was of its aesthetic value, staff believes a condition to provide sufficient top soil and re -seeding of this area is appropriate. Staff is recommending the ditch feature condition be eliminated and this open space parcel be appropriately landscaped with native vegetation be applied. Considering the work that many residents have already completed in this area, staff is recommending the residents be responsible for this work and be able to use the funds held in escrow from the developer. Upon completion of this improvement, staff believes the intent of these two criteria will be met. 8. Architectural Site Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural consistency with the proposed development, architectural character, building design, and the preservation of the visual character of the City. It is not the purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly enforced that individual initiative is stifled in the design of a particular building, or substantial additional expense is required. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony and proportion of the buildings with each other and surrounding land uses. Building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage and reduce soil erosion. Staff Finding: No changes to the project's architectural plan are requested in this amendment. 9. Lighting. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Staff Finding: Staff Comments 3 The amendment does not address lighting and no concerns about outdoor lighting have been brought to the attention of City staff. The development in this PUD will have to be in conformance to the lighting Code as any other property in the City is required. 10. Clustering. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged. Staff'Finding: This standard does not apply to this amendment. 11. Public facilities. The proposed development shall be designed so that adequate public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed development at the time development is constructed, and that there will be no net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings shall not be arranged such that any structure is inaccessible to emergency vehicles. Staff Finding: The grass pavers required to be installed along the emergency access way were inspected and approved by the City Engineer. Since this inspection in the Fall of 1998, the condition of the pavers and, therefore the long-term usefulness of the facility, has deteriorated. This access is now compromised and may represent a practical difficulty in the provision of emergency service, possibly no longer meeting the intent of this criteria. This emergency access way needs to be maintained in a manner acceptable to emergency service providers. Staff has included a condition concerning the inspection of this area. The original approval required pedestrian facilities to be accommodated on -site. While staff s concerns are both related to the provision of public facilities and the provision of adequate circulation, staff has summarized the discussion of this issue under the following criteria — # 12 Circulation. The soil erosion mitigation condition of the land use approvals related to a mining road on Smuggler Mountain, contemplated both the future development of the Smuggler Mine property and the fact that the Smuggler Mine owners were party to the original application. The applicant is no longer able to make representations about the Smuggler Mine or commit to conducting improvements on the Mine property. Staff is recommending the condition related to the re -grading of this mining road be removed from the land use approvals. 12. Traffic and pedestrian circulation. a. Every dwelling unit, or other land use permitted in the planned unit development (PUD) shall have access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. b. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movement and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Minor streets within the Planned Unit Development Staff Comments 4 • • (PUD) shall not be connected to streets outside the development so as to encourage their use by through traffic. C. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding collector and arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be adversely affected. d. Every residential building shall not be farther than sixty (60) feet from an access roadway or drive providing access to a public street. e. All nonresidential land use within the planned unit development (PUD) shall have direct access to a collector or arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on any street. f. Streets in the planned unit development (PUD) may be dedicated to public use or retained under private ownership. Said streets and associated improvements shall comply with all pertinent city regulations and ordinances. Staff Finding: The original review concentrated on a pedestrian's ability to walk through the project. A series of easements were required and recorded on the final plat. For better clarity, staff is referring to these as the "horizontal" trail and the "vertical" trail. The horizontal trail provides pedestrian movement north and south along roughly the same topographic elevation from the public "park" parcel through to the southern -most boundary of the PUD. This horizontal trail was intended to serve as an extension to the Loni White Trail along the Salvation Ditch which connects to the Hunter Creek Trail. The park parcel has been deeded to the City for park use which included the City's ability to construct a trail. The vertical trail provides a pedestrian cut -through between the blocks of the Subdivision. The Improvements were completed on the lower two Blocks. The remaining portion, the portion which would provide access to the property above Silverlode Subdivision, was required as an easement but not required to be constructed. There is a request by the developer to not develop the sidewalks required in the original approval. During the development review for this PUD, a request from the City Engineer to provide sidewalks on the perimeter of the entire cartway was forwarded to the Boards. Due to the relatively low auto traffic expected and a desire to require less of an "urban" treatment, the eventual condition required sidewalks on only one side of the cartway. This area does not have a significant amount of traffic. Staff believes the paved cartway and soft edge of the landscaped drainage swale evokes a more rural aesthetic appropriate for the area and is preferred development style. CAhome\CHRISB\CASES\Williams Ranch Amendment\CC EX A.doc Staff Comments 5 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A SUBSTANTIAL l AMENDMENT TO THE WILLIAMS RANCH PLANNED UNIT+ DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS GRANTED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE 52, SERIES OF 1994. Parcel Nos. 2737.074.30.001-015 and 2737.074.29.001-036 Resolution No. 99 - 27 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Williams Ranch Joint Venture, represented by Charles Brandt and Associates P.C., for substantial amendments to the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development approval granted pursuant to Ordinance 52, Series of 1994; and, WHEREAS, the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development (the project) is a fifty (50) residential unit project divided into two Subdivisions: the Silverlode Subdivision consisting of fifteen (15) free-market residential units and the Williams Ranch Subdivision containing thirty-five (35) affordable housing units; and, WHEREAS, the Williams. Ranch Planned Unit Development is located within the City of Aspen directly east of the Centennial Condominiums in Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West; and, WHEREAS, the amendments requested relate to conditions of approval stipulated in Ordinance 52, Series of 1994, concerning the development of "a small ditch water feature," "hard surface pedestrian walking areas" (a.k.a. sidewalks), "soil erosion controls" on a mining road above the project, and a release of the construction requirement of the trail platted from the Open Space parcel to the boundary of the Molly Gibson Park along the southern boundary of the PUD; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445, Planned Unit Development, of the Aspen Municipal Code, substantial amendments to an approved Planned Unit development may be approved by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission made at a duly noticed public hearing, the appropriate referral agencies, and members of the general public; and, WHEREAS, after considering a recommendation by the Community Development Director, referral agencies, comments made by the applicant, and members of the general public at a duly noticed public hearing opened on July 6, 1999, continued to September 21, 1999, continued to November 2, 1999, and continued to December 14, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds the PUD amendments, as described herein (not as requested), to be in substantial compliance with the goals and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan and the intent and requirements of the Land Use Code and recommends, by a six to zero (6 to 0) vote, that the Aspen City Council approve this substantial amendment to the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development in the manner described hereinafter. I 111111 440391 02/11/2000 12.01P RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 1 of 3 R 15.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO • • NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: That City Council should amend the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development in the following manner: 1. The requirement to construct "a small ditch water feature," as stipulated in Section 1, condition # 18, of Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994, shall no longer be required. 2. The portion of the pedestrian trail between lots 6 and 10 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision shall be completed to the edge of the Silverlode Drive cartway by Williams Ranch Joint Venture in the same manner as the adjoining trail was developed. The improvement shall be accomplished by no later than July 1, 2000. If, for any reason, the Joint Venture does not complete this improvement, the City of Aspen shall complete the improvement by using the Subdivision funds held in escrow by the City. 3. The portion of the public trail described on the final plat as crossing Lot 33 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision through Lot #15 of the Silverlode Subdivision is required to be developed by Williams Ranch Joint Venture by no later than July 1, 2000. The design and construction plans for this improvement shall be approved by the City Trails. Coordinator of the City Parks Department. 4. Upon completion, inspection by the City, and acceptance by the City of the improvement listed in conditions #2 and #3, above, the requirement to construct "hard surface pedestriai, walking area on one side of all roads" (sidewalks), as stipulated in Section 1, condition #2b, of Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994, and the "five foot pedestrian path," stipulated in Section 1, condition #14i, of said Ordinance, shall be waived and no further obligation to develop a sidewalk shall be required. The City and the applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement stipulating the nature and requirements of this PUD amendment following final consideration by City Council, pursuant to Section 26.445.060 of the Land Use Code. This agreement shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to recordation. All un-amended portions of the former agreement shall remain in full force and effect and the City shall retain the funds held in escrow from the prior agreement and shall require additional funds be placed in escrow to complete the improvement described herein. The PUD amendment agreement shall be recorded within one -hundred and eighty (180) days of the final approval by City Council. 6. Upon improvement of the emergency access way between the Spruce Street right-of- way and the Silverlode Drive cul-de-sac to a condition to adequately withstand emergency vehicles, the City shall grant to the Williams Ranch Home Owners Association ($_ amount to be estimated by the City Parks Department) for the purpose of landscape improvements to Lot #36, the Open Space parcel. 7. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IN 440391 02/11/2000 12:01P RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 2 of 3 R 13.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO 8. The applicant shall record the Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolutions. RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL by the Commission at its regular meeting on December 14, 1999. APPROVED AS TO FORM: r�_ A, Ci Attorney ATTEST: rackie Lot lu , Deputy City Clerk PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Robert Blaich, Chair C.\home\CHR[SB\CASES\Williams Ranch Amendment\PZ RES02.doc I 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 440391 02/11/2000 12:01P RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 3 of 3 R 15.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO WRIGHT & ADGER LAW PARTNERSHIP, LLP t 201 NORTH MILL STREET. SUITE 106 GARY A. WRIGHT. P.C. ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 o: ALLEN H. ADGER,P.C.TELEPHONE 970-925-5625 PHILIPJ. O' BRIAN J. PINKOWSKI, P.C. FACSIMILE 970-925-5663 MACE J. YAMPOLSKY. LTD."' iii.ail:i�I�r�iCurl�;lila�le;�•i'.���ni ALSO ADMITTED TO FLORIDA BAR CATALINA CRUZ ALSO ADMITTED TOT UISIANA BAR 25 October 1999 ALSO ADMITTED TO CAL -NIA ND VADA amp Christopher Bendon, Planner Aspen Pitkin County Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street, Third Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Williams Ranch Homeowner's Association Dear Chris: I am writing in my capacity as the current President of the Williams Ranch Homeowners' Association. This letter is written at the request of the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in connection with the Williams Ranch Joint Venture's pending application to amend its approval ordinance relating to the Williams Ranch Subdivision. As the President of the Williams Ranch Homeowners' Association and having been involved with this project since it's 1989 inception, I am very familiar with each of the matters being considered by the City in connection with the requested amendment. This letter will address each of them. TRAILS. I understand that the discussion centered on three segments of the trail: the southerly portion, the middle portion and the westerly portion over the Williams Ranch Open Space Parcel. With respect to the southerly portion of the trail along the hillside above Centennial, because of the topography and perhaps ground stability, the Association concurs with the Planning Staff s recommendation that thi.- trail not be corstxucted. The middle portion of the trail, between the "vertical trail" and the Open Space Parcel, causes the Association concern about intrusion on the privacy of the three homes which would be impacted by the construction and use of this trail. Furthermore, since the "vertical" trail enables homeowners direct access to the bus stop adjacent to the Centennial Condominiums, the Association believes that this trail would be redundant, and does not think the construction of this segment of the trail is necessary or purposeful. While it is true that the "vertical" trail is grass the last five to ten feet on the westerly side of SilverLode Drive, it is acceptable to the Association. G:\WRHA\Marke1.001 OCT 2 , " COMMUNIny ✓�VC�vr i.`.,=idT OFFICES LOCATED IN ASPEN, BASALT. AND DENVER. COLORADO WRIGHT & ADGER Christopher Bendon, Planner Aspen Pitkin County Community Development Department 25 October 1999 Page 2 Re: Williams Ranch Homeowner's Association The westerly segment or portion of the trail was built by Williams Ranch Joint Venture to City specifications, as we under:;tand it, and war: accepter by die CI'L-. Because of neon -use duc to heavy rains this past summer and the fact that it does not lead anywhere, the trail has fallen into disrepair. If this trail had been used, it would probably not be in its present condition. While the Association acknowledges its legal obligation to maintain the trail as it exists across the Open Space Parcel, it would prefer that the City assume this responsibility - particularly since the trial is rarely if ever used. COMMON AREA OPEN SPACE. I understand that the P&Z expressed some concern at the recent meeting about the existence of weeds and thistles in the Common Area Open Space area. Please be advised that the Association is in the process of adding dirt to this area and performing some re -seeding of the area. Notwithstanding this work, it is our understanding that the Open Space Parcel was never intended to be a grassy, groomed area, but was to revert to its' natural condition. Furthermore, the Homeowner's Association believes that the developer should have been required to do more with this area. However, the developer was not (required to do more) and the Association accepts this situation. It is the intent of the Association to maintain the Open Space Parcel in its' natural condition. SIDEWALKS. The Association's position on sidewalks is unequivocal - We do not want sidewalks. Consequently, we adopted an amendment to our protective covenants (enclosed with this letter) prohihiting the construction of sidewalks Tbiq amendment has been of record since June 1999. SALVATION DITCH WATER FEATURE. For safety and other reasons, the Association does not want the so-called "water feature" implemented. Members of the Association with small children are concerned that the water feature would be an attractive nuisance and a danger. DRAINAGE DITCHES. With Williams Ranch Joint Venture's payment of 80% of the estimated cost to restore the drainage ditches in Williams Ranch along SilverLode Drive, the Association has hired Ute City Land Works to perform this work. Thus, this matter is being addressed to the satisfaction of the Association. GAWRHAWarkel.001 WRIGHT & ADGER Christopher Bendon, Planner Aspen Pitkin County Community Development Department 25 October 1999 Page 3 Re: Williams Ranch Homeowner's Association EMERGENCY ACCESS. The Homeowners' Association has approved an emergency access gate, approved by the fire department, to be installed by the owner of SilverLode Lot 1. Please give me a call if you have any questions or need further information. Sincerely, Williams Ranch Homeowners' Association By: )c V �� Gary A. Wright, President cc: G. Wendel G:\WRHA\Marke1.001 RECEIVED CHARLES T. BRANDT & ASSOCIATES, RC ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHARLES T. BRANDT TRAVIS S. THORNTON GARRETS. BRANDT Mr. Chris Bendon Community Development 130 S. Galena St Aspen, CO 81611 US Bank Building 420 East Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone 970-925-5196 Fax 970-925-4559 April 15, 1999 Re: Amendment Application for Williams Ranch Dear Chris: APR 1 1999 ASNtivl if KIN _MWUNITY DEVELOP`dIFNT C. T. BRANDT. PARALEGAL This letter is to follow up on the DRC meeting that was held on March 241h, 1999 regarding the above referenced amendment, and will outline my understanding of the subjects discussed, and what was requested to be done prior to scheduling public hearings. I shall address each amendment in the order they were submitted in our application, and then -discuss the miscellaneous issues raised at the meeting. 1. Salvation Ditch Feature. There was no opposition to this amendment, and your recommendation will be to approve. 2. Trail Issue. Granting the amendment is dependent on WRJV obtaining an easement on the Centennial Condominium property to construct the connecting trail from Mollie Gibson Park to the open space parcel. At the time of the DRC meeting we did not have a commitment from Centennial to grant us the easement. Since then, we have received verbal approval of the easement from the Board president and we are scheduled to meet with the whole Board on April 19th As the "Centennial Trail" easement was the major issue relating to our amendment, which we believed such easement will be granted, please schedule us for the May 18th Planning & Zonin Hearing. If for some reason the Centennial Board won't grant us the easement on April 19t I will immediately notify you to have this item removed from the agenda. As you might imagine, scheduling our application for the 18th will avoid further delays in processing our application. The staff also suggested that plat amendments to Williams Ranch and Centennial for the trail would be in order. However, after consideration of all that is involved with plat amendments, and the nature of this ordinance amendment, we do not believe that an amendment is warranted. If our amendment is approved to move the trail to the Centennial alignment, the amending ordinance will spell out that the existing trail is not required to be constructed and the easement is vacated. This amending ordinance will be of record and a plat amendment will therefore be an unnecessary expense and delay. 3. Sidewalks. We understand the City's arguments for sidewalks: safer streets and encouraging pedestrian movement. I will not reiterate our previous arguments as to why sidewalks in this development will not add significantly to either of those important considerations. Instead we want to focus on the issue of possible future changes in home ownership and new families requesting sidewalks from the City if not installed now. Since VWRJV is only obligated to install walking paths on ONE side of the street (presumably this is only on the "island" created by Silverlode Drive and Williams Ranch Drive) there is no guarantee that fixture homeowners won't ask the City to install sidewalks on the other sides of these streets. Is the City willing to pay for these? However, a solution might be to amend the Williams Ranch protective covenants to state that no sidewalks will ever be install unless approved by a number of homeowners sufficient to change the protective covenants (i.e. more than a simple majority) and paid for by the homeowners. This would put all future homeowners on notice of the restriction and could not then effectively petition the City for installation. If the staff would support this approach, please let me know so we can actively pursue it for the upcoming public hearings. 4. Soil Erosion Controls. We have spoken with Gary Wright, who represents the mine owners above the subdivision. As he stated in his letter included with the Amendment Application, Mr. Wright reiterated that WRJV would not be allowed to do any work on the mining property because of the mining company's permits. We were unable to obtain specific information concerning the permits' restrictions. For any further information concerning these restrictions, Gary Wright stated that he could be contacted directly. In addition, the engineer for Williams Ranch stated that the drainage system was designed to handle the runoff from the natural and historic condition of the mountain. The mountain has been left in its natural and historic state, and so the drainage system should not be Please let me know what information the staff will need to then recommend approval of this amendment. 5. Miscellaneous Issues. a. Emergency Access off of Spruce Street. The fire department raised the issue of the installation of the road pavers along the emergency access. We have requested a letter from the contractor that installed the pavers stating that the pavers were installed per the manufactures specs. Prior to installation, the specs were submitted to and approved by the fire department. WRJV will not install gates across this access, as it has not been shown that since the installation of the landscaping, that any traffic continues to use this. b. As Built Drawings. Hans Brucker is preparing the "as builts" that are still needed. WRJV is still obligated to provide these regardless of the requested amendments and this should not be used to hold up our requests. c. Plat Amendments. The staff requested two additional plat amendments: Locate the drywell, and delete the access easement for Lot 5. The owner of Lot 5 has already stated to WRJV that he has no intentions of releasing that easement. Also, while Mr. Soderstrom may desire to have the drywell shown on the plat, this is not a requirement, and it is located on the drainage plat (Plat Book 37 at Page 25) which should be sufficient protection. d. Smuggler Park. WRJV states that it believes that it has completed its obligations for the park parcel. If there are still outstanding obligations concerning this, the Parks Department should specifically identify these obligations and inform WRJV what is required, if anything. However, any remaining obligation should be separate and not used to hold up this amendment. Please let us know as soon as possible if we can get this amendment on the P&Z Agenda for May 18 as we will need to do the public hearing notices. Also, if we can provide additional information on any of these issues please detail what you need. Thank you for your assistance. Yours very truly, (; crc- Y5� 4 4� Garret S. Brandt for Charles T. Brandt & Associates, P.C. cc: John Markel, via facsimile Apr-16-99 02:14P Silve Lode Real Estate 970 1§3-4891 P.01 ASPEN,O& WTHMOVING The Stevens Group 580 Main Str, Suite 220 Carbondale, CO 81623 Dear Tom; April 8, 1999 Aspen Earthmoving, LLC has installed the fire lane using II Plus Grassroot Pavers at Williams Ranch subdivision in Aspen. This construction starts at pavement edge of Spruce Street and goes to pavement edge of Silverlode Drive and was completed in November of 1998. The method of installation was strictly adhered to as per Barton Corporation's installation instructions for heavy vehicles, enclosed in this correspondence. Photographic documentation is available upon request. Thank you, Rick Pickard P.O. Box 1090 Carbondale, Colorado 81623 970-963-0377 Fax 963-2247 Mr. Chris Bendon City of Aspen Planning Dept. 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 91611 Dear Chris: GTS Development • 119 E COOPER AVE., #12VI't n t ASPEN, CO 81611 (970) 920-4418 June 30, 1999 JUN 3 1999 Per our telephone conversation, I am writing you a letter representing my interests regarding the "Williams Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment" application. I am the managing partner for NHL II, LLC which owns Lot #1, Silver Lode. My understanding is that John Markle and Silver Lode Development Co. was suppose to landscape the portion of Lot 1 that there is an emergency access easement across with grass locking pavers, Aspen groves and a gate at the West end of the access easement. I believe they were to do this to get some portion of a city held financial deposit. Last fall, 1998 they installed the grass locking pavers and seeded them. No gate was installed. Cars have driven across it throughout the fall, winter and spring. The pavers are no longer installed in a professional workman like manner. Due to there being no gate installed and no irrigation, they were never installed professionally. The grass locking paver emergency access road that they installed is a joke. There is no way that I should have to accept this as the front yard to my property. Additionally, no Aspen trees have been planted. The developer of Vviliiams Ranch and Sliver Looe Subdivision should be required to re -construct and landscape the emergency access road across Lot 1 including re- installing the grass locking pavers, installing a gate at the west end and planting the aspen groves per the original plan. believe that the most effective time to re -construct and landscape this emergency access easement would be the Spring of 2000. At that time, I will be done with the construction on Lot 1 and will be landscaping the rest of my parcel. Regarding the developers application for Amendment to the PUD, I am not in favor of granting the developer an approval of Amendment 1 - "Build and install the Salvation Ditch Water Feature. ( Please see my attached letter to George Stranahan, the President of the Salvation Ditch Company). Additionally, I have spoken with George Stranahan since sending the attached letter to him. He said that the Salvation Ditch • • Company would not be apposed to an open water feature as long as the user paid for the water usage. He estimated that the water usage would be between $1,000.00 and $3,000.00 per year for a pond. He also said that the user would have to sign a "Hold Harmless Agreement" protecting the Salvation Ditch Company from any liabilities for having an open feature in a residential neighborhood. George Stranahan can be reached during business hours at 923-4646, ext. 218. It seems as though the developer of Williams Ranch Subdivision will save substantially if al► or part of amendments #1 through 4 are passed. Perhaps they could use part of these savings to do the following: 1. Construct and install the Salvation Ditch Water Feature. 2. Provide and install some substantially sized spruce trees on the Williams Ranch Park Parcel and perhaps on my parcel adjacent to the emergency access easement. 3. Provide and install Spruce and Aspen trees on the steep hill to the right side of Silver Lode Drive across the street from Molly Gibson Park. Thank you for considering my concerns regarding this application. Sincerely, Gregory T. Simmons GS/s Encl. To the Aspen Planning and Zoning Board November 2, 1999 From the residents of Williams Ranch Court We are interested in the proposed trail that would go in front of the Williams Ranch Court area. We would like to understand the need for this trail at this particular spot and would like to discuss the possibilities of a slight change in the location. While we are in favor of open access to Williams Ranch as a neighborhood with streets and easements that the public is welcome to use, the proposed trail seems very close to two homes. Perhaps we could meet with the board on site since this is difficult to explain on paper. Some specific concerns are: lack of privacy...how many feet from the trail to doors and windows? what will keep loose dogs and users on the trail and out of the yards? how will trail cross our parking lot? how many trees will be cut down? what size? how will steep slope from our parking lot be made into trail? will there be a fence on the Court side of the trail? perhaps split rail? who will maintain the trail... litter, thistle, etc? also, dog feces is there a need for this trail at this precise point or could it be moved a few feet downhill? we might be able to work with Centennial. Our neighborhood is important to us. Please let us work with you on this project so all needs may be considered. Thank you very much. Lisa Markalunas Terry Connor Jeffrey Riggenbach Helen Palmer JUL 27 1999 July 26, 1999 Chris Bendon City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Dear Chris: Thank you for taking the time to review the information regarding Williams Ranch. The nri aaa nroblem is i_npl= itch work Enclosed are copies of the homeowners meeting notes that clearly show their promise to complete the job. Tom Stevens argues that the city has already signed off on the ditch work as having been completed. Is this the case? In addition to the ditch work, 1 also want to inform you that the punchlist work promised to Phase I homeowners has also not been completed. I � realize that this list is not in otrr ' fiction to enforce, but you should be aware that the Williams Ranch Joint I ."nture does not have a history of fulfilling their promises. I would be happy to meet you when you go up to Williams Ranch to inspect the situation. 1 would like to find out from you the city zoning code on parking space allotment for each unit. Please call meat 925-5060 XI55 to set a time. Barbara Owen 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner Im RE: Williams Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment — Public Hearing DATE: December 14, 1999 SUMMARY: Williams Ranch PUD was approved in 1994 as a 70/30 affordable housing project and is currently developed with nearly all of the fifty (50) approved residences. The project was split into two Subdivisions. Silverlode Subdivision contains the 30% free-market portion and is generally east of the Williams Ranch Subdivision which contains the thirty-five (35) affordable dwellings. The approving Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994, contains a series of conditions of the approval to which the applicant is requesting amendments. The application details the requested amendments and staff has summarized these requests under the heading "Amendments." At the last public hearing, the Commission requested additional input from members of the City Parks Department regarding the trail easements and the feasibility of constructing trails on these cross slopes. A member of the Parks Department will be present during the hearing. The Commission also requested the applicant attempt to coordinate a trail easement with the Centennial Home Owners' Association. The applicant did attend a meeting of the Centennial HOA and the concept was rejected. Although the concept of moving the trail easement may appear to be a simple solution, the idea does not seem to have any momentum and neither the City nor the applicant have the ability to include an unwilling land owner in a land use application. Staff believes the applicant has put forth a good faith effort in reaching an agreement with the Centennial HOA. Unfortunately, this effort does not appear likely to bear fruit. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission pass forward a recommendation of approval of this PUD amendment. AMENDMENTS: Aesthetics. Prior to development, this property conveyed water through the Salvation Ditch in an exposed manner — a traditional open-air ditch. The development application sought to cover this ditch and convey water underground. The discussions during development review considered the historic character of the land and the value of retaining some . visual cue to the historic landscape element. The final approval contained a condition requiring that the developer construct a water feature along the ditch alignment. This is reflected in Section 1, condition #18, of the Ordinance. The Salvation Ditch Company has indicated their reluctance to have such an improvement constructed within their easement. In addition, the homeowner's have submitted a letter indicating their support for this amendment — they don't want this reconstructed ditch. The decision to underground the ditch effectively eliminated this historic landscape element. While it may have been preferable to retain at least some portions of the historic ditch exposed to provide a visual reference to the previous condition of the property, the decision has been made and the undergrounding has been accomplished. Creation of an apparent ditch does not necessarily achieve the same result. Furthermore, if the opportunity to have active water within this new landscape element is not achieved, the aesthetic benefit of a re-created ditch would be further diminished. Staff is recommending the "ditch feature" no longer be required. Staff does, however, have a concern about the condition of the Open Space parcel. As the "ditch feature" was originally required as an aesthetic amenity, staff believes it would be appropriate to require a proper re -vegetation of this parcel. The amendments includes a provision for escrow funds to be returned to the Home Owner's Association to accomplish this improvement. The granting of these funds, however, has been subjected to the improvement of the emergency access easement, addressed in more detail below. Pedestrian Movement. There is a request by the developer to not develop the sidewalks required in the original approval. While staff agrees with the developer and the residents of the area that the more urban treatment of sidewalks would diminish the project's aesthetics, staff does have concerns about maintaining the purpose of the sidewalks — pedestrian movement. During the development review for this PUD, a request from the City Engineer to provide sidewalks on the perimeter of the entire cartway was forwarded to the Boards. Due to the relatively low auto traffic expected and a desire to require less of an "urban" treatment, the eventual condition required sidewalks on only one side of the cartway. This area does not have a significant amount of traffic. Furthermore, a landscaped drainage swale bordering the cartway has been developed on many of these lots. These landscape improvements have been developed in the public right-of-way and the City could require them to be removed. However, removing this landscaping and 2 storm water feature for the provision of concrete sidewalks is not staffs preference for this area. In fact, the paved cartway and soft edge of the landscaped drainage swale evokes a more rural aesthetic appropriate for the area and is preferred by staff. Staff does have a concern, however, about the purpose of the sidewalks — the safe and convenient conveyance of pedestrians. The trails and sidewalks, as originally approved, combined to provide a permeable development with respect to pedestrian movement through the development. Trails were platted to serve the community's movement both "vertically" and "horizontally" through the development. The trail that serves "vertical" movement (platted east -west) is developed on the lower two blocks with one exception: the intersection with Silverlode Drive between lots 6 and 7. Staff has included an amendment that this last remaining portion be developed. The trail that was to serve "horizontal" movement (platted north -south) has been developed only on the Open Space parcel. On this point, the Commission requested additional input from the Parks Department. Staff has recommended the requirements to build these trail segments be removed but that the trail easements remain in effect such that a trail may be constructed in the future, if desired. Soil Erosion Control on Smuggler Mine Property. The original application included the Smuggler Mine property and access to this development was contemplated through Smuggler Mine. The mine was scheduled to increase the amount of mining activity (drilling, blasting, etc.) including a significant amount of surface activity. It was contemplated that erosion from this surface activity would need to be mitigated prior to its draining onto the residential portion of the development — Williams Ranch. Staff researched the representations made by the applicant concerning this road and erosion control device. The Williams Ranch residential application did not make any promises concerning these improvements. Nowhere in any of the staff memos, notes, or adopted resolutions or Ordinances did these improvements show up. Literally, the only location these improvement are promised are on the grading sheets of the final PUD Plans. These Final PUD plans, however, were approved by the City and not jointly with the County. Thus, improvements outside of the City jurisdiction are not enforceable by the City and are not binding upon the developer. The owner of this mining property has an obligation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to not re -grade or otherwise disturb this land. The Smuggler Mine is not owned by the applicant and the applicant has no ability to meet this condition of approval. In addition, the Smuggler Mine and the location of these improvements lies entirely within Pitkin County and the City does not have the authority to require any actions be undertaken. For these reasons, staff is suggesting this re -grading is not an obligation of Ordinance 52, Series of 1999, and is not a binding commitment by the'developer. 3 Emergency Access. The approvals for this project included a requirement to install "grass pavers" along the emergency access easement connecting the cul-de-sac to Spruce Street. These pavers are in poor condition and may represent a community safety issue. The City Engineer inspected and accepted the grass pavers in the Fall of 1998. At that time the pavers were in a useful condition. The pavers are now in a dilapidated condition and staff is concerned about the long-term usefulness of this emergency facility. During the former hearing, the Commission questioned the ability of the City to require the original developer, Williams Ranch Joint Venture, to re -build this improvement. Because the improvement has been formally accepted by the City, the obligation to maintain the improvement in working order no longer falls on the home owner's association. Staff has stipulated the improvement of the access easement to working order prior to the granting of any escrow funds to up -grade the Open Space parcel. APPLICANT: Williams Ranch Joint Venture, John Markel, President. Represented by Charles Brandt, Charles Brandt and Associates. LOCATION: Williams Ranch Drive and Silverlode Drive vicinity. Please refer to the attached location map. ZONING: AH 1-PUD CURRENT AND PROPOSED LAND USE: The project consists of two Subdivisions: Silverlode and Williams Ranch. Together, there are 15 free-market residences and 35 affordable housing deed restricted residences. PREVIOUS ACTION: The project received final development approval pursuant to Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994. The Planning and Zoning Commission opened this public hearing on July 6, 1999, continued to September 24, 1999, continued to November 2, 1999, and continued to this date. At the previous meeting, the Commission requested additional information from representatives of the Parks Department. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Final Planned Unit Development. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the application at a duly noticed public hearing and recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial to the City Council. City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application at a duly noticed public hearing. 4 • • BACKGROUND: Williams Ranch PUD and Subdivision was granted land use approval pursuant to Ordinance 52, Series of 1994. This document has been included in the application for reference. STAFF COMMENTS: The application, staff comments on the review criteria, and referral agency comments have not been attached to this memorandum. These attachments accompanied the previous memorandums and have not been amended. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission pass forward a recommendation to City Council to amend the Williams Ranch PUD according to proposed P&Z resolution 99-27, attached. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. 99-27 recommending City Council amend the Williams Ranch PUD approvals, as granted pursuant to Ordinance 52, Series of 1994. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Proposed Resolution 99-27 C:\home\CRRISB\CASES\Williams Ranch AmendmentTZ Memoldoc 5 V t MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission J i THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner P �w RE: Land Use Code Amendments — Information Item DATE: December 7, 1999 SUMMARY: On November 16, 1999, staff discussed the process for amending the land use code with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Pursuant to this discussion, staff will schedule small user group discussions to review the land use code. Staff would like to include representatives from the P&Z, HPC, Housing Board, and City Council as well as area Architects, planners, attorneys, developers, and interested citizens. These group sessions will be approximately two hours in duration with 4-6 members participating. Staff believes this process of small group discussion will more effectively concentrate on the areas of the code which should be amended. At present, staff has scheduled three session times: • Thursday January 13)" 9 -11 a.m. • Thursday January 13`h 1-3 p.m. • Friday January 14`h 1-3 p.m. � On December 14, 1999, staff will ask for 2-4 P&Z members to participate in these small group discussions and commit to one of the sessions. if�l�M�r RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE WILLIAMS RANCH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS GRANTED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE 52, SERIES OF 1994. Parcel Nos. 2737.074.30.001-015 and 2737.074.29.001-036 Resolution No. 99 - 27 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Williams Ranch Joint Venture, represented by Charles Brandt and Associates P.C., for substantial amendments to the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development approval granted pursuant to Ordinance 52, Series of 1994; and, WHEREAS, the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development (the project) is a fifty (50) residential unit project divided into two Subdivisions: the Silverlode Subdivision consisting of fifteen (15) free-market residential units and the Williams Ranch Subdivision containing thirty-five (35) affordable housing units; and, WHEREAS, the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development is located within the City of Aspen directly east of the Centennial Condominiums in Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West; and, WHEREAS, the amendments requested relate to conditions of approval stipulated in Ordinance 52, Series of 1994, concerning the development of a "small ditch water feature," "hard surface pedestrian walking areas" (a.k.a. sidewalks), "soil erosion controls" on a mining road above the project, and a release of a trail easement platted from the Open Space parcel to the boundary of the Molly Gibson Park along the southern boundary of the PUD. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445, Planned Unit Development, of the Aspen Municipal Code, substantial amendments to an approved Planned Unit development may be approved by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission made at a duly noticed public hearing, the appropriate referral agencies, and members of the general public; and, WHEREAS, after considering a recommendation by the Community Development Director, referral agencies, comments made by the applicant, and members of the general public at a duly noticed public hearing opened on July 6, 1999, continued to September 21, 1999, continued to November 2, 1999, and continues to December 14, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds the PUD amendments, as described herein, to be in substantial compliance with the goals and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan and the intent and requirements of the Land Use Code and recommends, by a _ to _ (_ to _) vote, that the Aspen City Council approve this substantial amendment to the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development in the manner described herein. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: That City Council should amend the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development in the following manner: 1. The requirement to construct a "small ditch water feature," as stipulated in Section 1, condition # 18, of Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994, shall no longer be required. 2. The portion of the pedestrian trail between lots 6 and 10 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision shall be completed to the edge of the Silverlode Drive cartway by Williams Ranch Joint Venture in the same manner as the adjoining trail was developed. The improvement shall be accomplished by no later than July 1, 2000. If, for any reason, the Joint Venture does not complete this improvement, the City of Aspen shall complete the improvement by using the Subdivision funds held in escrow by the City. 3. The portion of the public trail described on the final plat as crossing Lots 33, 34, and 35 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision is not required to be developed by Williams Ranch Joint Venture. The easement shall remain in effect and the trail may be developed in the future. The design and construction plans for this improvement shall be approved by the City Trails Coordinator of the City Parks Department. 4. The portion of the public trail described on the final plat as crossing Lot #27 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision through Lot #15 of the Silverlode Subdivision is not required to be developed by Williams Ranch Joint Venture. The easement shall remain in effect and the trail may be developed in the future. The design and construction plans for this improvement shall be approved by the City Trails Coordinator of the City Parks Department. 5. Upon completion, inspection by the City, and acceptance by the City of the improvement listed in condition #2, above, the requirement to construct "hard surface pedestrian walking area on one side of all roads" (sidewalks), as stipulated in Section 1, condition #2b, of Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994, and the "five foot pedestrian path," stipulated in Section 1, condition #14i, of said Ordinance, shall be deemed and no further obligation to develop a sidewalk shall be required. •y�p� `W,G�w� 6. The City and the applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement stipulating the nature and requirements of this PUD amendment following final consideration by City Council, pursuant to Section 26.445.060 of the Land Use Code. This agreement shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to recordation. All un-ammended portions of the former agreement shall remain in full force and effect and the City shall retain the funds held in escrow from the prior agreement. The PUD amendment agreement shall be recorded within one -hundred and eighty (180) days of the final approval by City Council. 7. Upon improvement of the emergency access way between the Spruce Street right-of- way and the Silverlode Drive cul-de-sac to a condition to adequately withstand emergency vehicles, the City shall grant to the Williams Ranch Home Owners Association ($____) for the purpose of landscape improvements to Lot #36, the Open Space parcel. 8. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 9. The applicant shall record the Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolutions. RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL by the Commission at its regular meeting on December 14, 1999. APPROVED AS TO FORM City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Robert Blaich, Chair CAhome\CHRISB\CASES\Williams Ranch Amendment\PZ RESO.doc • MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community DevleloDment Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner RE: Williams Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment — Public Hearing DATE: November 2, 1999 SUMMARY: Williams Ranch PUD was approved in 1994 as a 70/30 affordable housing project and is currently developed with nearly all of the fifty (50) approved residences. The project was split into two Subdivisions. Silverlode Subdivision contains the 30% free-market portion and is generally east of the Williams Ranch Subdivision which contains the thirty-five (35) affordable dwellings. The approving Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994, contains a series of conditions of the approval to which the applicant is requesting amendments. The application packet includes a summary of the amendments requested, a copy of the approving Ordinance, and a copy of the pertinent Subdivision plat sheet for the Commission's reference. Under the section "Amendments," staff summarizes and responds to the requests. During the first public hearing regarding this proposed amendment, the Commission raised several concerns and requested additional information be provided. Staff has provided this additional information under the respective topic headings. The Commission also requested a representative of the City Engineers Office attend this meeting and representative from each of the two homeowners' associations. Staff has arranged for these representatives to be at the meeting. Attached to this memorandum is a letter from Gary Wright, President of the Williams Ranch Homeowner's Association. In this letter, Mr. Wright presents the position of the land owners in Williams Ranch and staff will go over these during the meeting. From Mr. Wright's letter, it appears the neighborhood is in support of the applicant's requests. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission pass forward a recommendation of approval of this PUD amendment, with conditions. • • AMENDMENTS: Aesthetics. Prior to development, this property conveyed water through the Salvation Ditch in an exposed manner — a traditional open-air ditch. The development application sought to cover this ditch and convey water underground. The discussions during development review considered the historic character of the land and the value of retaining some visual cue to the historic landscape element. The final approval contained a condition requiring that the developer construct a water feature along the ditch alignment. This is reflected in Section 1, condition #18, of the Ordinance. The Salvation Ditch Company has indicated their reluctance to have such an improvement constructed within their easement. Furthermore, water to serve this water feature would have to be purchased and the Homeowners' Associations would most likely need to indemnify the ditch company. While impediments exist, this improvement is not impossible to construct. The Homeowners' have submitted a letter indicating their support for this amendment — they don't want this reconstructed ditch. The preference expressed by the President of the Williams Ranch HOA is for the common open space parcel to be landscaped with native vegetation and not include this "water feature." Staff agrees with the developer and the HOA. The decision to underground the ditch effectively eliminated this historic landscape element. While it may have been preferable to retain at least some portions of the historic ditch exposed to provide a visual reference to the previous condition of the property, the decision has been made and the undergrounding has been accomplished. Creation of an apparent ditch does not necessarily achieve the same result. Furthermore, if the opportunity to have active water within this new landscape element is not achieved, the aesthetic benefit of a re-created ditch would be further diminished. Staff does, however, have a concern about the condition of the Open Space parcel. The original review of this PUD considered the visual characteristics of the overall development. This Open Space parcel was to be revegetated with native species according to the land use application. The applicant represented that the present landscape (prior to development) would be replicated "in order to preserve the natural character of the site." The Open Space parcel is currently a patch of weeds and thistles with relatively little value, visually, as open space in a natural character. Staff does not consider thistle and other noxious weed to be native species. In direct comparison, the park parcel directly north of the open space parcel exhibits a natural undisturbed condition and is a significant aesthetic value to the area. The open space parcel appears to not have any top soil and does not appear to have been re -seeded. As the primary concern over the ditch feature was the aesthetic value 2 and visual character of the development, staff believes a condition to provide sufficient top soil and re -seeding of this area is a justified request and appropriate considering the amendment request. Staff is recommending the ditch feature condition be eliminated and replaced with a condition requiring this open space parcel be appropriately reclaimed and landscaped with native vegetation. Pedestrian Movement. There is a request by the developer to not develop the sidewalks required in the original approval. While staff agrees with the developer and the residents of the area that the more urban treatment of sidewalks would diminish the project's aesthetics, staff does have concerns about maintaining the purpose of the sidewalks — pedestrian movement. During the development review for this PUD, a request from the City Engineer to provide sidewalks on the perimeter of the entire cartway was forwarded to the Boards. Due to the relatively low auto traffic expected and a desire to require less of an "urban" treatment, the eventual condition required sidewalks on only one side of the cartway. The sidewalk along Silverlode Drive from the intersection with Smuggler Road to Mollie Gibson Park was developed. The sidewalk around Lots 1-12 of Williams Ranch Subdivision (the internal "island") has not been developed. This area does not have a significant amount of traffic. Furthermore, a landscaped drainage swale bordering the cartway has been developed on many of these lots. These landscape improvements have been developed in the public right-of-way and the City could require them to be removed. However, removing this landscaping and storm water feature for the provision of concrete sidewalks is not staffs preference for this area. In fact, the paved cartway and soft edge of the landscaped drainage swale evokes a more rural aesthetic appropriate for the area and is preferred by staff. Staff does have a concern, however, about the purpose of the sidewalks — the safe and convenient conveyance of pedestrians. The trails and sidewalks, as originally approved, combined to provide a permeable development with respect to pedestrian movement through the development. Trails were platted to serve the community's movement both "vertically" and "horizontally" through the development. The trail that serves "vertical" movement (platted east -west) is developed on the lower two blocks with one exception: the intersection with Silverlode Drive between lots 6 and 7. Staff has included a condition that this last remaining portion be developed. The trail that was to serve "horizontal" movement (platted north -south) has been developed only on the open space parcel. It is important to staff to maintain public access through the development between the Loni White Trail and the Molly Gibson Park. The northern -most section of this horizontal trail is through the "park" parcel. This is a parcel that was deeded to the City and the City has the ability to construct a trail 3 • • connection through this parcel. The applicant does not have a responsibility to develop this portion of the trail. The next portion of the trail is through the "open space parcel." This parcel is in common ownership of the Williams Ranch Home Owners' Association with a public trail easement as shown on the plat. This portion of the trail has been developed by the applicant, albeit crudely. Staff is recommending this portion of the trail be improved to City standards. The middle portion of this trail (lots #33-35) has not been developed but is certainly buildable. This is an important link to serve this north -south movement as it connects the vertical trail through to the "open space parcel." Staff is recommending this trail segment be built by the applicant. The southern -most portion of this trail easement (lots #27 — 31 and #15) does not adequately provide for a trail to be built. The topography in this area is extremely steep and a trail would be very difficult to develop and may pose ground stability issues with adjacent development. After consulting with staff, the applicant inquired about securing an easement from the Centennial Condominiums for this trail. The property on the adjacent Centennial property is flat and could accommodate this trail if an easement were secured. According to the applicant, Centennial representatives were not receptive to this easement. Staff believes the pedestrian connection could still be served through use of Williams Ranch Drive and then to the sidewalk along Silverlode Drive. Soil Erosion Control on Smuggler Mine Property. The original application included the Smuggler Mine property and access to this development was contemplated through Smuggler Mine. The mine was scheduled to increase the amount of mining activity (drilling, blasting, etc.) including a significant amount of surface activity. It was contemplated that erosion from this surface activity would need to be mitigated prior to its draining onto the residential portion of the development — Williams Ranch. Staff researched the representations made by the applicant concerning this road and erosion control device. The Williams Ranch residential application did not make any promises concerning these improvements. Nowhere in any of the staff memos, notes, or adopted resolutions or Ordinances did these improvements show up. Literally, the only location these improvement are promised are on the grading sheets of the final PUD Plans. These Final PUD plans, however, were approved by the City and not jointly with the County. Thus, improvements outside of the City jurisdiction are not enforceable by the City and are not binding upon the developer. The owner of this mining property has an obligation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to not re -grade or otherwise disturb this land. The Smuggler Mine is not owned by the applicant and the applicant has no ability to meet 4 this condition of approval. In addition, the Smuggler Mine and the location of these improvements lies entirely within Pitkin County and the City does not have the authority to require any actions be undertaken. For these reasons, staff is suggesting this re -grading is not an obligation of Ordinance 52, Series of 1999, and is not a binding commitment by the developer. Emergency Access. The approvals for this project included a requirement to install "grass pavers" along the emergency access easement connecting the cul-de-sac to Spruce Street. These pavers are in poor condition and may represent a community safety issue. The City Engineer inspected and accepted the grass pavers last Fall. At that time the pavers were in a useful condition. The pavers are now in a dilapidated condition and staff is concerned about the long-term usefulness of this emergency facility. During the previous hearing, the applicant contended that because the City Engineer inspected the improvement and "signed -off' the developer has no further obligation. The Commission questioned whether or not there was any ability for the City to require corrective action by the original developer if the improvement was actually installed inappropriately and requested the City Engineer provide some additional guidance. The City Engineer will be in attendance. Staff does want to point out that the emergency access must be maintained in a year- round passable manner. If the developer is indeed no longer responsible for the condition of the grass pavers, the obligation lies with the homeowners' associations. In other words, the City is assured through the provisions of Ordinance 52 that the emergency access will remain in an adequate condition. APPLICANT: Williams Ranch Joint Venture, John Markel, President. Represented by Charles Brandt, Charles Brandt and Associates. LOCATION: Williams Ranch Drive and Silverlode Drive vicinity. Please refer to the attached location map. ZONING: CURRENT AND PROPOSED LAND USE: The project consists of two Subdivisions: Silverlode and Williams Ranch. Together, there are 15 free-market residences and 35 affordable housing deed restricted residences. PREVIOUS ACTION: 5 The project received final development approval pursuant to Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994. The Planning and Zoning Commission opened this public hearing on July 6, 1999, continued to September 24, 1999, and continued to this date. The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the amendment during the September 24, 1999, hearing and requested additional information a the presence of certain representatives. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Final Planned Unit Development. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the application at a duly noticed public hearing and recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial to the City Council. City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application at a duly noticed public hearing. BACKGROUND: Williams Ranch PUD and Subdivision was granted land use approval pursuant to Ordinance 52, Series of 1994. This document has been included in the application for reference. STAFF COMMENTS: Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit "A." Agency referral comments have been included as Exhibit "B." the application packet and letters from area residents were included in the previous staff report and have not been duplicated. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission pass forward a recommendation to City Council to amend the Williams Ranch PUD, Ordinance 52, Series of 1994, with the following conditions: 1. Lot #36 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision, the Open Space parcel, shall be improved with top -soil and re -vegetated with a native grass mixture and either mulched or watered daily to stimulate germination by Williams Ranch Joint Venture. The City Forester of the City Parks Department shall approve the seed mixture. The improvement shall be accomplished prior to July 1, 2000. 2. n om on, i eco�th ity, and acceptance by the City of the impr ent ted con # , the requirement to construct a "small ditch water feature," as stipulated in Section 1, condition #18, of Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994, shall be deemed met and no further obligation to develop a "ditch" shall be required. 3. The portion of the pedestrian trail between lots 6 and 10 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision shall be completed to the edge of the Silverlode Drive cartway. The portion of the public trail described on the final plat as crossing Lots 33, 34, and 35 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision shall be develope The portion of the pedestrian trail W • , shall be re- ed. ese im rovements be accomp ' ed by Willi anc oint 2epartinent. no later th July The The design d cons on plans f these 1 e* V. �.-. ements shall bpproved by the City ail ordinator of s 4. Upon completion, inspection by the City, and acceptance by the City of the improvements listed in condition #3, above, the requirement to construct "hard surface pedestrian walking area on one side of all roads" (sidewalks), as stipulated in Section 1, condition #2b, of Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994, and the "five foot pedestrian path," stipulated in Section 1, condition #14i, of said Ordinance, shall be deemed met and no further obligation to develop a sidewalk shall be required. 5. Upon completion, inspection by the City, and acceptance by the City of the improvements listed in condition #3, above, the trail easement depicted on the final plat of the Williams Ranch Subdivision and Silverlode Subdivision along the southern boundary of the Williams Ranch PUD shall be vacated from Lot #27 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision through Lot #15 of the Silverlode Subdivision. 6X. Sidewalks may be developed adjoining public rights -of -way in the.future upon petition of the City by the residents to create an Improvement District pursuant to Section 21.28 of the Municipal Code, as amended. 8. The City and the applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement stipulating the nature and requirements of this PUD amendment following final consideration by City Council, pursuant to Section 26.445.060 of the Land Use Code. This agreement shall be by the City Attorney prior to recordation. public facilities require t oug t i amendment, the agreement shall be by a cash escrow in the amount estimated by the City Engineer for the 9. Pursuant to Section 26.445.090, the PUD amendment agreement shall be recorded within one -hundred and eighty (180) days of the final approval by City Council. e e=th*sion plat depictin e trail easement me ' dit.recorde 10. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 11. The applicant shall record the Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolutions. 7 RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. 99- 27 recommending City Council amend the Williams Ranch PUD approvals, as granted pursuant to Ordinance 52, Series of 1994, with the conditions recommended in the staff memorandum dated November 2, 1999. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments Exhibit B -- Letter from Gary Wright, Williams Ranch HOA President C:\home\CHRISB\CASES\Williams Ranch AmendmentTZ Memoldoc 8 • E Staff Comments: 26.445.040 Review Standards Exhibit A Williams Ranch Amendment A development application for a PUD must comply with the following standards and requirements: Staff has condensed many of the review criteria in instances where the criteria does not apply to this amendment. Please refer to the PUD section of the land use code for a full explanation of the specific criteria. 1. General Requirements: A. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. B. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of the existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding: Of particular importance regarding these two criteria is the aesthetics of the open space area which was originally required to contain a re -configured ditch feature and the movement of pedestrians through the project. With conditions addressing these two concerns, staff believes that the amendments are consistent with the Goals and Objectives of the AACP, and with the character of the surrounding area. C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The future development capabilities of the immediate area are not expected to be adversely affected with the amendments. The opportunity for enhanced pedestrian connection through the property is potentially enhanced with this amendment and these proposed conditions. D. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. Staff Finding: This project was granted GMQS allotments and the amendments do not require additional allotments. 2. Density: Staff Finding: No changes in the project's density are proposed. This standards does not apply to this amendment. 3. Land Uses. The land uses permitted shall be those of the underlying zone district. Detached residential units may be authorized to be clustered in a Staff Comments 1 • • zero lot line or row house configuration, but multi -family dwelling units shall only be allowed when permitted in the underlying zone district. Staff Finding: No changes in the type of land uses are proposed with this amendment. 4. Dimensional Requirements. The dimensional requirements shall be those of the underlying zone district, provided that variations may be permitted in the following: Staff Finding: No changes to the project's dimensional requirement are proposed. 5. Off-street parking. The number of off-street parking spaces may be varied from that required in the underlying zone district based on the following considerations: Staff Finding: No changes to the project's off-street parking requirements are proposed or necessary. 6. Open Space. The Open Space requirement shall be that of the underlying zone district. However, a variation in minimum open space may be permitted if such variation would not be detrimental to the character of the proposed PUD, and if the proposed development shall include open space for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD through a common park or recreation area. An area may be approved as a common park or recreation area if it: a. Is to be used and is suitable for scenic, landscaping, or recreation purposes; and b. Is land which is accessible and available to all dwelling units or lots for whom the common area is intended. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas shall be deeded in perpetuity to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the planned unit development (PUD), together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. Any plan for open space shall also be accompanied by a legal instrument which ensures the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and communally owned facilities. 7. Landscape Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan a landscape plan, which exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces. It shall provide an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species that are regarded as suitable for the Aspen area climate. Staff Finding: This response considers the criteria for both Open Space and a Landscape Plan. Staff Comments 2 The development includes an Open Space area to the benefit of the residents of the PUD in a natural scenic capacity. This area was required, according to the approvals, to contain a re-created "ditch" feature referring to the historic landscape element which existed on the property prior to development. This issue was raised primarily to address the project's aesthetics and the value of retaining some visual cue to the ditch landscape element. The final approval contained a condition requiring the developer construct a water feature along the ditch alignment. This is reflected in Section 1, condition #18, of the Ordinance. The Salvation Ditch Company has indicated their reluctance to have such an improvement constructed within their easement. Furthermore, the Homeowners' have submitted a letter indicating their support for this amendment. The preference expressed by the President of the Williams Ranch HOA is for the common open space parcel to be landscaped with native vegetation and not include this "water feature." Staff agrees with the developer and the HOA. Staff does, however, have a concern about the condition of the Open Space parcel and the project's aesthetic value. In other words, the re-created ditch may be difficult to develop but the overall aesthetic of the project are still important. The Open Space parcel is currently a patch of weeds and thistles with relatively little value, visually, as open space in a natural character. In direct comparison, the park parcel directly north of the open space parcel exhibits a natural undisturbed condition and is a significant aesthetic value to the area. The open space parcel appears to not have any top soil and does not appear to have been re -seeded. As the primary concern over the ditch feature was of its aesthetic value, staff believes a condition to provide sufficient top soil and re -seeding of this area is appropriate. Staff is recommending the ditch feature condition be eliminated and a condition requiring this open space parcel be appropriately landscaped with native vegetation be applied. Considering the timing of this amendment review, staff is recommending this be accomplished in the Spring of 2000. Upon completion of this improvement, staff believes the intent of these two criteria will be met. 8. Architectural Site Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural consistency with the proposed development, architectural character, building design, and the preservation of the visual character of the City. It is not the purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly enforced that individual initiative is stifled in the design of a particular building, or substantial additional expense is required. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony and proportion of the buildings with each other and surrounding land uses. Building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage and reduce soil erosion. Staff Finding: No changes to the project's architectural plan are requested in this amendment. Staff Comments 3 • • 9. Lighting. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Staff Finding: The amendment does not address lighting and no concerns about outdoor lighting have been brought to the attention of City staff. The development in this PUD will have to be in conformance to the lighting Code as any other property in the City is required. 10. Clustering. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged. Staff Finding: This standard does not apply to this amendment. 11. Public facilities. The proposed development shall be designed so that adequate public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed development at the time development is constructed, and that there will be no net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings shall not be arranged such that any structure is inaccessible to emergency vehicles. Staff Finding: The grass pavers required to be installed along the emergency access way were inspected and approved by the City Engineer. Since this inspection in the Fall of 1998, the condition of the pavers and, therefore the long-term usefulness of the facility, has deteriorated. This access is now compromised and may represent a practical difficulty in the provision of emergency service, no longer meeting the intent of this criteria. This emergency access way needs to be maintained in a manner acceptable to emergency service providers. Staff has included a condition concerning the repair of this area. The original approval required pedestrian facilities to be accommodated on -site. While staff s concerns are both related to the provision of public facilities and the provision of adequate circulation, staff has summarized the discussion of this issue under the following criteria — # 12 Circulation. The soil erosion mitigation condition of the land use approvals related to a mining road on Smuggler Mountain, contemplated both the future development of the Smuggler Mine property and the fact that the Smuggler Mine owners were party to the original application. The applicant is no longer able to make representations about the Smuggler Mine or commit to conducting improvements on the Mine property. Staff is recommending the condition related to the re -grading of this mining road be removed from the land use approvals. 12. Traffic and pedestrian circulation. a. Every dwelling unit, or other land use permitted in the planned unit development (PUD) shall have access to a public street either directly or Staff Comments 4 • through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. b. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movement and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Minor streets within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall not be connected to streets outside the development so as to encourage their use by through traffic. C. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding collector and arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be adversely affected. d. Every residential building shall not be farther than sixty (60) feet from an access roadway or drive providing access to a public street. e. All nonresidential land use within the planned unit development (PUD) shall have direct access to a collector or arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on any street. f. Streets in the planned unit development (PUD) may be dedicated to public use or retained under private ownership. Said streets and associated improvements shall comply with all pertinent city regulations and ordinances. Staff Finding: The original review concentrated on a pedestrian's ability to walk through the project. A series of easements were required and recorded on the final plat. For better clarity, staff is referring to these as the "horizontal" trail and the "vertical" trail. The horizontal trail provides pedestrian movement north and south along roughly the same topographic elevation from the public "park" parcel through to the southern -most boundary of the PUD. This horizontal trail was intended to serve as an extension to the Loni White Trail along the Salvation Ditch which connects to the Hunter Creek Trail. The park parcel has been deeded to the City for park use which included the City's ability to construct a trail. The vertical trail provides a pedestrian cut -through between the blocks of the Subdivision. The Improvements were completed on the lower two Blocks. The remaining portion, the portion which would provide access to the property above Silverlode Subdivision, was required as an easement but not required to be constructed. There is a request by the developer to not develop the sidewalks required in the original approval. While staff agrees with the developer and the residents of the area that the more urban treatment of sidewalks would diminish the project's aesthetics, staff does have concerns about maintaining the purpose of the sidewalks — pedestrian movement. During the development review for this PUD, a request from the City Engineer to provide sidewalks on the perimeter of the entire cartway was forwarded to the Boards.. Due to the relatively low auto traffic expected and a desire to require less of an "urban" treatment, the eventual condition required sidewalks on only one side of the cartway. Staff Comments 5 • 11 This area does not have a significant amount of traffic. Staff believes the paved cartway and soft edge of the landscaped drainage swale evokes a more rural aesthetic appropriate for the area and is preferred development style. Staff does have a concern, however, about the purpose of the sidewalks — the safe and convenient conveyance of pedestrians. The maintenance of pedestrian permeability — the ability for pedestrians to pass through the subdivision — was important in the original review and is important in this amendment review. Staff has recommended a set of conditions to address this criteria. CAhome\CHRISB\CASES\Williams Ranch Amendment\PZ EX A.doc Staff Comments 6 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE WILLIAMS RANCH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS GRANTED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE 52, SERIES OF 1994. Parcel Nos. 2737.074.30.001-015 and 2737.074.29.001-036 Resolution No. 99 - 27 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Williams Ranch Joint Venture, represented by Charles Brandt and Associates P.C., for substantial amendments to the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development approval granted pursuant to Ordinance 52, Series of 1994; and, WHEREAS, the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development (the project) is a fifty (50) residential unit project divided into two Subdivisions: the Silverlode Subdivision consisting of fifteen (15) free-market residential units and the Williams Ranch Subdivision containing thirty-five (35) affordable housing units; and, WHEREAS, the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development is located within the City of Aspen directly east of the Centennial Condominiums in Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West; and, WHEREAS, the amendments requested relate to conditions of approval stipulated in Ordinance 52, Series of 1994, concerning the development of a "small ditch water feature," "hard surface pedestrian walking areas" (a.k.a. sidewalks), "soil erosion controls" on a mining road above the project, and a release of a trail easement platted from the Open Space parcel to the boundary of the Molly Gibson Park along the southern boundary of the PUD. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445, Planned Unit Development, of the Aspen Municipal Code, substantial amendments to an approved Planned Unit development may be approved by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission made at a duly noticed public hearing, the appropriate referral agencies, and members of the general public; and, WHEREAS, after considering a recommendation by the Community Development Director, referral agencies, comments made by the applicant, and members of the general public at a duly noticed public hearing opened on July 6, 1999, continued to September 21, 1999, and continued to November 2, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds the PUD amendments to be in substantial compliance with the goals and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan and the intent and requirements of the Land Use Code with the conditions listed in this Resolution and recommends, by a to _ (_ to _) vote, that the Aspen City Council approve this substantial amendment to the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development with the conditions listed herein. • • NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: That City Council should approve this substantial amendment to the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development with the following conditions: Lot #36 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision, the Open Space parcel, shall be improved with top -soil and re -vegetated with a native grass mixture and either mulched or watered daily to stimulate germination by Williams Ranch Joint Venture. The City Forester of the City Parks Department shall approve the seed mixture. The improvement shall be accomplished prior to July 1, 2000. 2. Upon completion, inspection by the City, and acceptance by the City of the improvements stated in condition # 1, above, the requirement to construct a "small ditch water feature," as stipulated in Section 1, condition #18, of Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994, shall be deemed met and no further obligation to develop a "ditch" shall be required. 3. The portion of the pedestrian trail between lots 6 and 10 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision shall be completed to the edge of the Silverlode Drive cartway. The portion of the public trail described on the final plat as crossing Lots 33, 34, and 35 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision shall be developed. The portion of the pedestrian trail crossing Lot #36 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision, the open space parcel, shall be re- developed. These improvements shall be accomplished by Williams Ranch Joint Venture no later than July 1, 2000. The design and construction plans for these improvements shall be approved by the City Trails Coordinator of the City Parks Department. 4. Upon completion, inspection by the City, and acceptance by the City of the improvements listed in condition #3, above, the requirement to construct "hard surface pedestrian walking area on one side of all roads" (sidewalks), as stipulated in Section 1, condition #2b, of Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994, and the "five foot pedestrian path," stipulated in Section 1, condition #14i, of said Ordinance, shall be deemed met and no further obligation to develop a sidewalk shall be required. 5. Upon completion, inspection by the City, and acceptance by the City of the improvements listed in condition #3, above, the trail easement depicted on the final plat of the Williams Ranch Subdivision and Silverlode Subdivision along the southern boundary of the Williams Ranch PUD shall be vacated from Lot #27 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision through Lot #15 of the Silverlode Subdivision. 6. Sidewalks may be developed adjoining public rights -of -way in the future upon petition of the City by the residents to create an Improvement District pursuant to Section 21.28 of the Municipal Code, as amended. 7. The emergency access way between the Spruce Street right-of-way and the Silverlode Drive cul-de-sac shall be improved to withstand emergency vehicles. 8. The City and the applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement stipulating the nature and requirements of this PUD amendment following final consideration by City Council, pursuant to Section 26.445.060 of the Land Use Code. This agreement shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to recordation. To ensure the implementation of the landscape and public facilities required through this amendment, the agreement shall be accompanied by a cash escrow in the amount estimated by the City Engineer for the improvements, pursuant to Section 26.445.060(C) and (D). 9. Pursuant to Section 26.445.090, the PUD amendment agreement shall be recorded within one -hundred and eighty (180) days of the final approval by City Council. An amendment to the Subdivision plat depicting the vacated trail easement mentioned in condition #5 shall also be recorded. 10. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 11. The applicant shall record the Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolutions. RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL by the Commission at its regular meeting on November 2, 1999. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Robert Blaich, Chair CAhome\CHRISB\CASES\Williams Ranch Amendment\PZ RESO.doc C. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director J �M FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner 11w) RE: Williams Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment — Public Hearing DATE: September 21, 1999 SUMMARY: Williams Ranch PUD was approved in 1994 as a 70/30 affordable housing project and is currently developed with nearly all of the fifty (50) approved residences. The project was split into two Subdivisions. Silverlode Subdivision contains the 30% free-market portion and is generally east of the Williams Ranch Subdivision which contains the thirty-five (35) affordable dwellings. The approving Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994, contains a series of conditions of the approval to which the applicant is requesting amendments. The application packet includes a summary of the amendments requested, a copy of the approving Ordinance, and a copy of the pertinent Subdivision plat sheet for the Commission's reference. Under the section "Amendments," staff summarizes and responds to the requests. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission pass forward a recommendation of approval of this PUD amendment, with conditions. AMENDMENTS: Aesthetics. Prior to development, this property conveyed water through the Salvation Ditch in an exposed manner — a traditional open-air ditch. The development application sought to cover this ditch and convey water underground. The discussions during development review considered the historic character of the land and the value of retaining some ti visual cue to the historic landscape element. The final approval contained a condition requiring that the developer construct a water feature along the ditch alignment. This is reflected in Section 1, condition # 18, of the Ordinance. The Salvation Ditch Company has indicated their reluctance to have such an improvement constructed within their easement. Furthermore, water to serve this water feature would have to be purchased and the Homeowners' Associations would 0 - 0 most likely need to indemnify the ditch company. While impediments exist, this improvement is not impossible to construct. The Homeowners' have submitted a letter indicating their support for this amendment — they don't want this reconstructed ditch. The preference expressed by the President of the Williams Ranch HOA is for the common open space parcel to be landscaped with native vegetation and not include this "water feature." Staff agrees with the developer and the HOA. The decision to underground the ditch effectively eliminated this historic landscape element. While it may have been preferable to retain at least some portions of the historic ditch exposed to provide a visual reference to the previous condition of the property, the decision has been made and the undergrounding has been accomplished. Creation of an apparent ditch does not necessarily achieve the same result. Furthermore, if the opportunity to have active water within this new landscape element is not achieved, the aesthetic benefit of a re-created ditch would be further diminished. Staff does, however, have a concern about the condition of the Open Space parcel. The original review of this PUD considered the visual characteristics of the overall development. These discussions, and an eventual condition, concentrated on the historic landscape element of the ditch. The Open Space parcel is currently a patch of weeds and thistles with relatively little value, visually, as open space in a natural character. In direct comparison, the park parcel directly north of the open space parcel exhibits a natural undisturbed condition and is a significant aesthetic value to the area. The open space parcel appears to not have any top soil and does not appear to have been re -seeded. As the primary concern over the ditch feature was of its aesthetic value, staff believes a condition to provide sufficient top soil and re -seeding of this area is appropriate. Staff is recommending the ditch feature condition be eliminated and a condition requiring this open space parcel be appropriately reclaimed and landscaped with native vegetation be applied. Pedestrian Movement. �- There is a request by the developer to not develop the sidewalks required in the original approval. While staff agrees with the developer and the residents of the area that the more urban treatment of sidewalks would diminish the project's aesthetics, staff does have concerns about maintaining the purpose of the sidewalks — pedestrian movement. During the development review for this PUD, a request from the City Engineer to provide sidewalks on the perimeter of the entire cartway was forwarded to the Boards. Due to the relatively low auto traffic expected and a desire to require less of an "urban" treatment, the eventual condition required sidewalks on only one side of the cartway. The sidewalk along Silverlode Drive from the intersection with Smuggler 4 • • road to Mollie Gibson Park was developed. The sidewalk around Lots 1-12 of Williams Ranch Subdivision (the internal "island") has not been developed. This area does not have a significant amount of traffic. Furthermore, a landscaped drainage swale bordering the cartway has been developed on many of these lots. These landscape improvements have been developed in the public right-of-way and the City could require them to be removed. However, removing this landscaping and storm water feature for the provision of concrete sidewalks is not staff s preference for this area. In fact, the paved cartway and soft edge of the landscaped drainage swale evokes a more rural aesthetic appropriate for the area and is preferred by staff. Staff does have a concern, however, about the purpose of the sidewalks — the safe and convenient conveyance of pedestrians. The trails and sidewalks, as originally approved, combined to provide a permeable development with respect to pedestrian movement through the development. Trails were platted to serve the community's movement both "vertically" and "horizontally" through the development. The trail that serves "vertical" movement (platted east -west) is developed on the lower two blocks with one exception: the intersection with Silverlode Drive between lots 6 and 7. Staff has included a condition that this last remaining portion be developed. The trail that was to serve "horizontal" movement (platted north -south) has been developed only on the open space parcel. It is important to staff to maintain public access through the development between the Loni White Trail and the Molly Gibson Park. The northern -most section of this horizontal trail is through the "park" parcel. This is a parcel that was deeded to the City and the City has the ability to construct a trail connection through this parcel. The applicant does not have a responsibility to develop this portion of the trail. The next portion of the trail is through the "open space parcel." This parcel is in Lit common ownership of the Williams Ranch Home Owners' Association with a public trail easement as shown on the plat. This portion of the trail has been developed by SQL the applicant, albeit crudely. Staff is recommending this portion of the trail be improved to City standards. The middle portion of this trail (lots #33-35) has not been developed but is certainly buildable. This is an important link to serve this north -south movement as it connects the vertical trail through to the "open space parcel." Staff is recommending this trail segment be built by the applicant. v The southern -most portion of this trail easement (lots 421— 31 and #15) does not adequately provide for a trail to be built. The topography in this area is extremely �steep and a trail would be very difficult to develop and may pose ground stability issues with adjacent development. After consulting with staff, the applicant inquired 3 about securing an easement from the Centennial Condominiums for this trail. The property on the adjacent Centennial property is flat and could accommodate this trail if an easement were secured. According to the applicant, Centennial representatives were not receptive to this easement. Staff s first preference is for the applicant to continue negotiations with the owners of the Centennial property. If those negotiations continue to be unsuccessful, staff believes the pedestrian connection could still be served through use of Williams Ranch Drive and then to the sidewalk along Silverlode Drive. Soil Erosion Control on Smuggler Mine Property. The original application included the Smuggler Mine property and access to this development was contemplated through Smuggler Mine and improvements to a mining road above the development were contemplated. The concerns raised about this access were that the possible erosion from the mining property be mitigated for �00environmental concerns. The application was amended when the Smuggler Mine lW' property was no longer part of the application. The Smuggler Mine is not owned by the applicant and the applicant has no ability to meet this condition of approval. Furthermore, the owner of this mining property has an obligation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to not re -grade or otherwise disturb this land. For these reasons, staff is recommending this obligation of Ordinance 52, Series of 1999, be amended to eliminate the re -grading condition for this mining road. Emergency Access. The approvals for this project included a requirement to install "grass pavers" along the emergency access easement connecting the cul-de-sac to Spruce Street. These pavers are in poor condition and may represent a community safety issue. The City Engineer inspected and accepted the grass pavers last Fall. At that time the pavers were in a useful condition. Staff is concerned about the long-term usefulness of this emergency facility in relation to the current condition. In other words, the emergency access only serves its intended purpose if maintained in a manner acceptable to emergency service providers. Staff has included a condition that the grass pavers be improved to a reasonable and useful condition. APPLICANT: Williams Ranch Joint Venture, John Markel, President. Represented by Charles Brandt, Charles Brandt and Associates. LOCATION: Williams Ranch Drive and Silverlode Drive vicinity. Please refer to the attached location map. M .7 • ZONING: AH 1-PUD CURRENT AND PROPOSED LAND USE: The project consists of two Subdivisions: Silverlode and Williams Ranch. Together, there are 15 free-market residences and 35 affordable housing deed restricted residences. PREVIOUS ACTION: The project received final development approval pursuant to Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994. The Planning and Zoning Commission opened this public hearing on July 6, 1999, and continued to this date. The amendment was not presented at the July 6, 1999, meeting and the Commission did not consider any elements of the request. The Planning and Zoning Commission has not previously considered this amendment. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Final Planned Unit Development. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the application at a duly noticed public hearing and recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial to the City Council. City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application at a duly noticed public hearing. BACKGROUND: Williams Ranch PUD and Subdivision was granted land use approval pursuant to Ordinance 52, Series of 1994. This document has been included in the application for reference. STAFF COMMENTS: Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit "A." Agency referral comments have been included as Exhibit "B." Letters received from areas residents have been attached as Exhibit "C." Correspondence between staff and the applicant is attached as Exhibit "D." A location map is attached as Exhibit "E." The application is attached as Exhibit "F." RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission pass forward a recommendation to City Council to amend the Williams Ranch PUD, Ordinance 52, Series of 1994, with the following conditions: Lot #36 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision, the Open Space parcel, shall be improved with top -soil and re -vegetated with a native grass mixture and either mulched or watered daily to stimulate germination by Williams Ranch Joint Venture. The City Forester of the City Parks Department shall approve the seed mixture. The improvement shall be accomplished prior to July 1, 2000. 2. Upon completion, inspection by the City, and acceptance by the City of the improvements stated in condition # 1, above, the requirement to construct a "small ditch water feature," as stipulated in Section 1, condition #18, of Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994, shall be deemed met and no further obligation to develop a "ditch" shall be required. The portion of the pedestrian trail between lots 6 and 10 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision shall be completed to the edge of the Silverlode Drive cartway. The portion of the public trail described on the final plat as crossing Lots 33, 34, and 35 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision shall be developed. The portion of the pedestrian trail crossing Lot #36 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision, the open space parcel, shall be re- developed. These improvements shall be accomplished by Williams Ranch Joint Venture no later than July 1, 2000. The design and construction plans for these improvements shall be approved by the City Trails Coordinator of the City Parks Department. 4. Upon completion, inspection by the City, and acceptance by the City of the improvements listed in condition #3, above, the requirement to construct "hard surface pedestrian walking area on one side of all roads" (sidewalks), as stipulated in Section 1, condition #2b, of Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994, and the "five foot pedestrian path," stipulated in Section 1, condition #14i, of said Ordinance, shall be deemed met and no further obligation to develop a sidewalk shall be required. Upon completion, inspection by the City, and acceptance by the City of the improvements listed in condition #3, above, the trail easement depicted on the final plat of the Williams Ranch Subdivision and Silverlode Subdivision along the southern boundary of the Williams Ranch PUD shall be vacated from Lot #27 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision through Lot #15 of the Silverlode Subdivision. 6. Sidewalks may be developed adjoining public rights -of -way in the future upon petition of the City by the residents to create an Improvement District pursuant to Section 21.28 of the Municipal Code, as amended. 7. The emergency access way between the Spruce Street right-of-way and the Silverlode Drive cul-de-sac shall be improved to withstand emergency vehicles. 8. The City and the applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement stipulating the nature and requirements of this PUD amendment following final consideration by City Council, pursuant to Section 26.445.060 of the Land Use Code. This agreement shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to recordation. To ensure the implementation of the landscape and public facilities required through this amendment, the agreement shall be accompanied by a cash escrow in the amount estimated by the City Engineer for the improvements, pursuant to Section 26.445.060(C) and (D). 9. Pursuant to Section 26.445.090, the PUD amendment agreement shall be recorded within one -hundred and eighty (180) days of the final approval by City Council. An amendment to the Subdivision plat depicting the vacated trail easement mentioned in condition #5 shall also be recorded. 2 • • 10. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 11. The applicant shall record the Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution*. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. 99A-�—'- recommending City Council amend the Williams Ranch PUD approvals, as granted pursuant to Ordinance 52, Series of 1994, with the conditions recommended in the staff memorandum dated September 21, 1999. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Exhibit B -- Exhibit C -- Exhibit D -- Exhibit E -- Exhibit F -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments Referral Agency Comments Letters from residents Applicant Correspondence Location Map Application CAhome\CHRISB\CASES\Williams Ranch AmendmentTZ Memo.doc 7 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE WILLIAMS RANCH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS GRANTED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE 52, SERIES OF 1994. Parcel Nos. 2737.074.30.001-015 and 2737.074.29.001-036 Resolution No. 99 -2�q_ WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Williams Ranch Joint Venture, represented by Charles Brandt and Associates P.C., for substantial amendments to the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development approval granted pursuant to Ordinance 52, Series of 1994; and, WHEREAS, the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development (the project) is a fifty (50) residential unit project divided into two Subdivisions: the Silverlode Subdivision consisting of 15 free-market residential units and the Williams Ranch Subdivision containing 25. of rdab ousin units; and, WHEREAS, the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development is located within the City of Aspen directly east of the Centennial Condominiums in Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West; and, WHEREAS, the amendments requested relate to conditions of approval stipulated in Ordinance 52, Series of 1994, concerning the development of a "small ditch water feature," "hard surface pedestrian walking areas" (a.k.a. sidewalks), "soil erosion controls" on a mining road above the project, and a release of a trail easement platted from the Open Space parcel to the boundary of the Molly Gibson Park along the southern boundary of the PUD. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445, Planned Unit Development, of the Aspen Municipal Code, substantial amendments to an approved Planned Unit development may be approved by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission made at a duly noticed public hearing, the appropriate referral agencies, and members of the general public; and, WHEREAS, after considering a recommendation by the Community Development Director, referral agencies, comments made by the applicant, and members of the general public at a duly noticed public hearing opened on July 6, 1999, and continued to September 21, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds the PUD amendments to be in substantial compliance with the goals and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan and the intent and requirements of the Land Use Code with the conditions listed in this Resolution and recommends, by a _ to (_ to —) vote, that the Aspen City Council approve this substantial amendment to the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development with the conditions listed herein. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: That City Council should approve this substantial amendment to the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development with the following conditions: 1. Lot #36 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision, the Open Space parcel, shall be improved with top -soil and re -vegetated with a native grass mixture and either mulched or watered daily to stimulate germination by Williams Ranch Joint Venture. The City Forester of the City Parks Department shall approve the seed mixture. The improvement shall be accomplished prior to July 1, 2000. 2. Upon completion, inspection by the City, and acceptance by the City of the improvements stated in condition # 1, above, the requirement to construct a "small ditch water feature," as stipulated in Section 1, condition #18, of Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994, shall be deemed met and no further obligation to develop a "ditch" shall be required. The portion of the pedestrian trail between lots 6 and 10 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision shall be completed to the edge of the Silverlode Drive cartway. The portion of the public trail described on the final plat as crossing Lots 33, 34, and 35 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision shall be developed. The portion of the pedestrian trail crossing Lot #36 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision, the open space parcel, shall be re -developed. These improvements shall be accomplished by Williams Ranch Joint Venture no later than July 1, 2000. The design and construction plans for these improvements shall be approved by the City Trails Coordinator of the City Parks Department. 4. Upon completion, inspection by the City, and acceptance by the City of the improvements listed in condition #3, above, the requirement to construct "hard surface pedestrian walking area on one side of all roads" (sidewalks), as stipulated in Section 1, condition #2b, of Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994, and the "five foot pedestrian path," stipulated in Section 1, condition #14i, of said Ordinance, shall be deemed met and no further obligation to develop a sidewalk shall be required. 5. Upon completion, inspection by the City, and acceptance by the City of the improvements listed in condition #3, above, the trail easement depicted on the final plat of the Williams Ranch Subdivision and Silverlode Subdivision along the southern boundary of the Williams Ranch PUD shall be vacated from Lot #27 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision through Lot #15 of the Silverlode Subdivision. 6. Sidewalks may be developed adjoining public rights -of -way in the future upon petition of the City by the residents to create an Improvement District pursuant to Section 21.28 of the Municipal Code, as amended. 7. The emergency access way between the Spruce Street right-of-way and the Silverlode Drive cul-de-sac shall be improved to withstand emergency vehicles. The City and the applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement stipulating the nature and requirements of this PUD amendment following final consideration by City Council, pursuant to Section 26.445.060 of the Land Use Code. This agreement shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to recordation. To ensure the implementation of the landscape and public facilities required through this amendment, the agreement shall be accompanied by a cash escrow in the amount estimated by the City Engineer for the improvements, pursuant to Section 26.445.060(C) and (D). 9. Pursuant to Section 26.445.090, the PUD amendment agreement shall be recorded withilt one -hundred and eighty (180) days of the final approval by City Council. An amendment to the Subdivision plat depicting the vacated trail easement mentioned in condition #5 shall also be recorded. 10. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 11. The applicant shall record the Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolutiong. RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL by the Commission at its regular meeting on September 21, 1999. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Robert Blaich, Chair CAhome\CHRISB\CASES\Williams Ranch Amendment\PZ RESO.doc • • Staff Comments: 26.445.040 Review Standards Exhibit A Williams Ranch Amendment A development application for a PUD must comply with the following standards and requirements: Staff has condensed many of the review criteria in instances where the criteria does not apply to this amendment. Please refer to the PUD section of the land use code for a full explanation of the specific criteria. 1. General Requirements: A. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. B. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of the existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding: Of particular importance regarding these two criteria is the aesthetics of the open space area which was originally required to contain a re -configured ditch feature and the movement of pedestrians through the project. With conditions addressing these two concerns, staff believes that the amendments are consistent with the Goals and Objectives of the AACP, and with the character of the surrounding area. C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The future development capabilities of the immediate area are not expected to be adversely affected with the amendments. The opportunity for enhanced pedestrian connection through the property is potentially enhanced with this amendment and these proposed conditions. D. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. Staff Finding: This project was granted GMQS allotments and the amendments do not require additional allotments. 2. Density: Staff Finding: No changes in the project's density are proposed. This standards does not apply to this amendment. 3. Land Uses. The land uses permitted shall be those of the underlying zone district. Detached residential units may be authorized to be clustered in a Staff Comments 1 zero lot line or row house configuration, but multi -family dwelling units shall only be allowed when permitted in the underlying zone district. Staff Finding: No changes in the type of land uses are proposed with this amendment. 4. Dimensional Requirements. The dimensional requirements shall be those of the underlying zone district, provided that variations may be permitted in the following: Staff Finding: No changes to the project's dimensional requirement are proposed. 5. Off-street parking. The number of off-street parking spaces may be varied from that required in the underlying zone district based on the following considerations: Staff Finding: No changes to the project's off-street parking requirements are proposed or necessary. 6. Open Space. The Open Space requirement shall be that of the underlying zone district. However, a variation in minimum open space may be permitted if such variation would not be detrimental to the character of the proposed PUD, and if the proposed development shall include open space for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD through a common park or recreation area. An area may be approved as a common park or recreation area if it: a. Is to be used and is suitable for scenic, landscaping, or recreation purposes; and b. Is land which is accessible and available to all dwelling units or lots for whom the common area is intended. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas shall be deeded in perpetuity to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the planned unit development (PUD), together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. Any plan for open space shall also be accompanied by a legal instrument which ensures the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and communally owned facilities. 7. Landscape Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan a landscape plan, which exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces. It shall provide an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species that are regarded as suitable for the Aspen area climate. Staff Finding: This response considers the criteria for both Open Space and a Landscape Plan. Staff Comments 2 The development includes an Open Space area to the benefit of the residents of the PUD in a natural scenic capacity. This area was required, according to the approvals, to contain a re-created "ditch" feature referring to the historic landscape element which existed on the property prior to development. This issue was raised primarily to address the project's aesthetics and the value of retaining some visual cue to the ditch landscape element. The final approval contained a condition requiring the developer construct a water feature along the ditch alignment. This is reflected in Section 1, condition #18, of the Ordinance. The Salvation Ditch Company has indicated their reluctance to have such an improvement constructed within their easement. Furthermore, the Homeowners' have submitted a letter indicating their support for this amendment. The preference expressed by the President of the Williams Ranch HOA is for the common open space parcel to be landscaped with native vegetation and not include this "water feature." Staff agrees with the developer and the HOA. Staff does, however, have a concern about the condition of the Open Space parcel and the project's aesthetic value. In other words, the re-created ditch may be difficult to develop but the overall aesthetic of the project are still important. The Open Space parcel is currently a patch of weeds and thistles with relatively little value, visually, as open space in a natural character. In direct comparison, the park parcel directly north of the open space parcel exhibits a natural undisturbed condition and is a significant aesthetic value to the area. The open space parcel appears to not have any top soil and does not appear to have been re -seeded. As the primary concern over the ditch feature was of its aesthetic value, staff believes a condition to provide sufficient top soil and re -seeding of this area is appropriate. Staff is recommending the ditch feature condition be eliminated and a condition requiring this open space parcel be appropriately landscaped with native vegetation be applied. Considering the timing of this amendment review, staff is recommending this be accomplished in the Spring of 2000. Upon completion of this improvement, staff believes the intent of these two criteria will be met. 8. Architectural Site Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural consistency with the proposed development, architectural character, building design, and the preservation of the visual character of the City. It is not the purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly enforced that individual initiative is stifled in the design of a particular building, or substantial additional expense is required. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony and proportion of the buildings with each other and surrounding land uses. Building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage and reduce soil erosion. Staff Finding: No changes to the project's architectural plan are requested in this amendment. Staff Comments 3 9. Lighting. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Staff Finding: The amendment does not address lighting and no concerns about outdoor lighting have been brought to the attention of City staff. The development in this PUD will have to be in conformance to the lighting Code as any other property in the City is required. 10. Clustering. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged. Staff Finding: This standard does not apply to this amendment. 11. Public facilities. The proposed development shall be designed so that adequate public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed development at the time development is constructed, and that there will be no net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings shall not be arranged such that any structure is inaccessible to emergency vehicles. Staff Finding: The grass pavers required to be installed along the emergency access way were inspected and approved by the City Engineer. Since this inspection in the Fall of 1998, the condition of the pavers and, therefore the long-term usefulness of the facility, has deteriorated. This access is now compromised and may represent a practical difficulty in the provision of emergency service, no longer meeting the intent of this criteria. This emergency access way needs to be maintained in a manner acceptable to emergency service providers. Staff has included a condition concerning the repair of this area. The original approval required pedestrian facilities to be accommodated on -site. While staff s concerns are both related to the provision of public facilities and the provision of adequate circulation, staff has summarized the discussion of this issue under the following criteria — #12 Circulation. The soil erosion mitigation condition of the land use approvals related to a mining road on Smuggler Mountain, contemplated both the future development of the Smuggler Mine property and the fact that the Smuggler Mine owners were party to the original application. The applicant is no longer able to make representations about the Smuggler Mine or commit to conducting improvements on the Mine property. Staff is recommending the condition related to the re -grading of this mining road be removed from the land use approvals. 12. Traffic and pedestrian circulation. a. Every dwelling unit, or other land use permitted in the planned unit development (PUD) shall have access to a public street either directly or Staff Comments 4 through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. b. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movement and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Minor streets within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall not be connected to streets outside the development so as to encourage their use by through traffic. C. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding collector and arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be adversely affected. d. Every residential building shall not be farther than sixty (60) feet from an access roadway or drive providing access to a public street. e. All nonresidential land use within the planned unit development (PUD) shall have direct access to a collector or arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on any street. f. Streets in the planned unit development (PUD) may be dedicated to public use or retained under private ownership. Said streets and associated improvements shall comply with all pertinent city regulations and ordinances. Staff Finding: The original review concentrated on a pedestrian's ability to walk through the project. A series of easements were required and recorded on the final plat. For better clarity, staff is referring to these as the "horizontal" trail and the "vertical" trail. The horizontal trail provides pedestrian movement north and south along roughly the same topographic elevation from the public "park" parcel through to the southern -most boundary of the PUD. This horizontal trail was intended to serve as an extension to the Loni White Trail along the Salvation Ditch which connects to the Hunter Creek Trail. The park parcel has been deeded to the City for park use which included the City's ability to construct a trail. The vertical trail provides a pedestrian cut -through between the blocks of the Subdivision. The Improvements were completed on the lower two Blocks. The remaining portion, the portion which would provide access to the property above Silverlode Subdivision, was required as an easement but not required to be constructed. There is a request by the developer to not develop the sidewalks required in the original approval. While staff agrees with the developer and the residents of the area that the more urban treatment of sidewalks would diminish the project's aesthetics, staff does have concerns about maintaining the purpose of the sidewalks — pedestrian movement. During the development review for this PUD, a request from the City Engineer to provide sidewalks on the perimeter of the entire cartway was forwarded to the Boards. Due to the relatively low auto traffic expected and a desire to require less of an "urban" treatment, the eventual condition required sidewalks on only one side of the cartway. Staff Comments 5 This area does not have a significant amount of traffic. Staff believes the paved cartway and soft edge of the landscaped drainage swale evokes a more rural aesthetic appropriate for the area and is preferred development style. Staff does have a concern, however, about the purpose of the sidewalks — the safe and convenient conveyance of pedestrians. The maintenance of pedestrian permeability — the ability for pedestrians to pass through the subdivision — was important in the original review and is important in this amendment review. Staff has recommended a set of conditions to address this criteria. CAhome\CHRISB\CASES\Williams Ranch Amendment\PZ EX A.doc Staff Comments 6 it E W►t'�«w�a 7i S lza%m se�►l - 6v�- V }cke .. ote. If "A 44AN" --� t �0� -.-w tA* A�w (��, Fee -A s�4� o�0e.✓��114W Igo K�4ee G -�-zz-ft'"a qxu , ff"Ai& p Lwlku�� k4,..%& 40�vw.n.. l . Pv b Its„ a"A$3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- h� �vp. �- �' 1•r- 3G � �--40 � Sp Ica , -tP�eLK _ ^ Via. �O—r .�4vee, Irw N�ec�sga 4 -bAA 4�; a., '&kAek 4b 'jbNl,Ccv��¢✓H�( r kww - tiicw a• �t � �, l4 � 1 Or�( �j;�� � b� �n,.►�-- .�, c,..� '� �u. j �� �es•�•-fit D 1J11� l �IGtt/I,CfZ, C,;t�, " 4- t tic-) r3-� 1 � � ". �4 ;�� iwtt$r- . 44c-r- k4vt 'fn, h v ; IA ww� A• , G, o;, 1 JL-V�4c� its Iry .it��'i�t��liC�Gf.� -- �� � v►e� �kYwr� . ©ld .ens. pow ;LW. WMv. • f )fL�,4� da-, c4vetA. • 4p"- av,, ;/. 1 �7� � � f I��l�wl�'J �C7G1.� ��.� ��-vv�.aw� 1.�..�/c�• 641 — ghler 7J"- m --I a'�11V� sAJAA�4U� 01 IuVWwun� 0.6k owh�vLw� t� a+rr.� V Cv(�r� ►►�il�t �l►f, CJ � DU ✓ 4vu . pAcic 4(%G - 40� �OUCI t(ce7 at uortr7.; is 7 vim- V-6 V\ 1 �04-t akh G1�G( h6� re-- i co 141� a's ""fmw� y4vr� 11 4RA ", I Cu k)d jc1w t T rnk -A I 7W 0 0 �v,a oj 1 (V-4 VAJJ ;;ICE n,'{,. +tvt Cu �6 W�(I?� v N. Wi Al I, h�T'hJl ru�.i� ,(LI �94 �W� 1�114P�C( I 1YUII' VIU�uL FI�. �P U� Ya8° A�I1i' GJd'W ine) K�,�fW n�6 g, J aw ekpk"� i k. )2uVtG � NIGI����^'lG kCQ dh& �er • Skflr 74h�I. sc),A 411�� 'ti o\e� -P—M-C ftWl Aal=.Is C retoi %la^� s dv lyer offl\^ Sfad ,�Chtk. tiro �,+v mil cccccss tiC (r� C.w�P— L w4 i luVAE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4* 0 0 l�✓�,��'�f rv�t �VQ I/lA� � a cOle- sSFc( IL 4f 4W-, CP.d(2iw�S i-hR4 �e tMallt . I ed ees10-- C- eva ©4 S MOO I, I It& L, ly��lelvlc;� 62, C)p U, aa- CA�CZ f-X�( rt�vl� C-16 (Cwkv� uVl Qwt'41 lA 1 ac�t oc-4,e-, P Ct4iKoe i rvvbkio�3 peol;k tb��ipAY�s. VOWOOOO, 0 ��l�ws �.ku, TZ AUV4 - IA4e4r *% )vk� 6. 4YA 4v 4v!:-, r- ��- -_ V (K� O-j CEk-+etA K; C,,,, LAI � �ie, -: �4 I,ab �p a4 Ciit� �rn�. OCA WIO.Artj�tt-,A jir-t� <-Iu,( -M� Car, &e� � s. vop000r, 0 • f Lii A - A";x-Q i �e� la ZeA,- aj4 %77PlL, �2 ��W GN �jlCEG -f� • C4 County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE & } ss. MAILING PURSUANT TO State of Colorado } PITKIN COUNTY LAND USE CODE SECTION 4-90 I. L-7a "L 4I 5. 3 , being or representing an Applicant to the Pitkin County Development Permit, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 4-90 of the Pitkin County Land Use Regulations in the following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class, postage prepaid !d U.S. Mail at leastaddays prior to the public hearing to all owners of property adjacent to the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the � ay of ,�. , i9— (which is days prior to the public hearing date of rl't . The names and addresses of the adjacent property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than 60 days prior to the public hearing. 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that said sign was posted and visible continuously from the Atday of 111ar-t,ll to the J G day of 499 (Must be T-CA 1 posted for at least fiaeerrfull days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. W1I(1� 5 Todnf U'� CC— by Applicant's name . &&.r re �-- 5 . 5, & aLf (Attach photograph here) Signature St-ned before me this . day of.�, -- }_$y WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICI SEAL My commission expires: � RK K `— Public /1 Notary Publicls Signature • • �l m O N c OD O m .a0 U V O cm to {Q 0G n _G� NW �O 60 �co �v0� ag+�ao�D000 �W �O _� oC�mp 7tC 8iO0ur�(-) IN 0000-e°oVNmrym<y �`O`Ev`=�a �i 'o per'mo7e°O�EDUcv�U ` �' �p o 700m�- ��0�U^U �m� Ir _ v UQda �aoVO Q cc°o HE Q �2K� c3tpKtiaaacu�_!Q� q¢�m �D:� Q cit/� au� ro= w mN"' xN jp EO E �m E� m^rB pr ED m2 FO mma oe �rv) nib U�� Yr.SrE C !O m-Lti' m} _-- S.�IL�¢ W �� Liz �qr=% fi.0 lid' ► �c�oc��F-�z�-,t�aa �a vim nLIJ �_ ros_� �r8 GAF �'fi g X U �, " � � .th-��^�'� -'o t"�!��Yo'} �E Wie'Ssj .3. ODw 9t IF ID A 4 Td WHOV:TT 666T 9T •unf 961 e —Qlfl� 96TE 0E6 026 : 'ON 9NOHd • cm I HSIdOd ; WOdd 00 • • /i•n/`u A P V . 4, /000/0 x / Oc l Z 100013 CIO CIO l / ACC Ccf ls/i,'r e s y J& 7, Ave jaiss Av./f, /,l - 3 0 a 9 �00 F- L IU }{IZ� ,5a r 5. JV -� q6) L liwk 1k, s1-6 Of IC, Mc� , Sl Fe- C a yr-r- H3 A is M.c lit ;,u r�ti ley zs� s �-. 3 c T,:) del, -3 �- �/ 3LT0 } _ 3 6D Ss' (ce y 3 czv y+ Cj o S r�mUn // y e. Cc) 2 �L'-� ! " �- 'k, 3A, 3 %t7/� �l"-c-' �J`(� J 4 [7� YI t � `C �.� �v G � S v� � /I�t,-�,�►�t�c� T �a� I 0to�03 y BUG j 3 / . v ,, `f3uui�/� Al(Li `i � �tC l S'-i�� y,��A�,ir ,�C �k- 3- 00 • • GO J1 am.s i4,tk y 00oi yd qoo / 54VLI .511ukr J2-, M( kwe Z)� &x e k al.,j �� 6,1i 11ic"n S�Ck J A — Y000,3 0 �)Mvj�f&- 9,, 1 -T,-),� � o vc:rL ` OCC o c� YCZ? / 0-3 Q1 yOovo .� C run f/�1 P e &p < Zvi, I�nsc �C� AtJ 00 • • Y y U_ . - I . --- Y . 01Y OBERTA J. CUNNINGHAM 1 ZO FREE SILVER COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 /HOWARD B. HOLGATE ✓ 114 FREE SILVER COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 V DAVID BALL 1 19 FREE SILVER LOUR f ASPEN, CO 81611 V--�:SA CARP 122FS P.O. BOX 10432 ASPEN, CO 81612 /WLLLIE SABARESE I25 FREE SILVER COURT ASPEN, CO S1611 j'ERESA J. SALVADORE ✓ JOHN ARMSTRONG 129 FREE SILVER COURT ASPEN. CO 8161 I /J.E. DeVILBISS 212 FREE SILVER COURT ASPF,N, CO 81611 /PATRICK PFEIFER,e 214 TEAL COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 /ftD MACBLANE JR. 217 TEAL COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 is 1 I OFS SARAH M. OATES 112 FREE SILVER COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 116FS VA C. & ERIC W. PEKKALA P.O. BOX 936 ASPEN, CO 81612 V�OL PASTERNAK 120 FREE SILVER COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 /DANIEL KOCIELA 123 FREE SILVER COT'TRT ASPEN, CO 81611 • • ,JUSTIN & AMY BARROW 113 FREE SILVER COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 zLLEJANDRO PALMAZ 117 FREE SILVER COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 121FS HARLES B- MCCRORY, JR. P.O. BOX 3512 ASPEN, CO 81612 ,RISTAL LEE ✓✓✓ 124 FREE SILVER COURT ASPEN, CO 91611 BRACHER 126FS FRANCE STONE 127FS P.O. BOX 4002 P.O. BOX 3870 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 v ATHY BEACH 21OFS RY 81 210 TEAL COURT & THOMAS ERICKSON P.O. BOX ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 212T RC ZACHARY P 0 BOX 4494 ASPEN, CO 81612 W-4 M. 215 FREE SILVER COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 V \_ � �5 ,,-tAZI LUTGRING 219 TEAL COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 OTHY CARNEY �PAUI, C. CORBETT 221TS 220 TEAL COURT P.O. BOX 2884 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 LPl ,,SUZANNE WOLFF 214FS 214 FREE SILVER COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 PADRAIG E. ALLFN MLIERLY A. STACHOWSKI 216 TEAL COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 DEANNA K. OLSEN 220 FREE SILVER COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 AANET V. LEVERSON 221 TEAL COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 0 0 Y . 01:3 MIDORI KURIHANNA ,�222 FREE SILVER COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 ILYN J. ANDERSON J. MARTY GANCSOS 223 TEAL COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 is 91SON C. DANFORTH V P-O. BOX 3763 ASPEN, CO 81612 �GINALD BAR130UR P.O. BOX 4194 ASPEN, CO 81612 222T 224FS LIA GILLIOMYE {`- / ALL bOMINGOS p 0� �riARTHA BRAUNIG 225T 225 FREE SILVER COURT \ 1' P O BOX 76I ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 AN MARQUIS 227 TEAL COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 fCFSS FERRO ✓1 310 FREE SILVER CT - ASPEN, CO 81611 CIP c� RIK S. SKARVAN 1-1� ASPEN, CO 81611 L� 31 � Tv�f AY NORMAN � 3141:REE SILVER COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 CHARD KLEIN 316FS P-O. BOX 737 ASPEN, CO 81612 VSUSAN F- SIMMONS 319 FREE SILVER COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 �IAM GUEHLK): 228T P.O. BOX 806 ASPEN, CO 81612 MICHAEL B. BLAKESLEE P.O. BOX 420 r ASPEN, CO 81612 J' ��� DIANE L. SANDVOLD 23 FREE SILVER COURT - ASPEN, CO 81611 jAMILEEN MINK 24 TEAL COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 WE FRANCIS L, 226 TEAL COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 �AiANCY A. MATnIEWS 229T P-O- BOX 1370 ASPEN, CO 81612 PANNE E_ SAMET 311FS LV¢ O. BOX 8596 ASPEN, CO 81612 3 J , "?, L HANNgH fD �Jf CHARLES CURRY / 13 FREE SILVER COURT 313T P.O. BOX 8150 rn' n ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 CARROLL 314 TEAL COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 )LAREN E. SILVERMAN V P.0.13OX 261 S ASPEN, CO 81612 ,TONI MCWILLIAMS 319 TEAL COURT ASPEN, CO 8161I �NDRA KIsNNAMER 320T /ED & SUSAN CROSS P.O. BOX 11947 VVV P.O. BOX 1843 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 317FS 3F1FS XtIA S. FORSEILLE V 315 TEAT. COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 WRC HULEY & LAURA GRINSTEAD TEAL COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 DJ�NNIS KULZER 20 FREE SILVER COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 321T 1po�TRICIA A. & KEMi A. WHEELER P-O. BOX 3513 ASPEN, CO 81612 RLES & JANICE ROSENBERG. OFREY SPIROFF 323T 322 TEAL COURT 323 FREE SILVER COUR7,;T �d` RE13ECCA DRISCOLI. ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 816I 1 P O BOX 9995 ASPEN, CO 81612 HAEL & JO PH & KEVIN DRISCOLL 324T J 1lEATHER LAFFERTY �,p,� BOX 9995 � P. TSILVER COURT 324 FR);E SII-VER COURT ASPEN, CO 81612 325 FREE SILVER COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 T Icy, /` A,.c (Li3n n 325 TEAL COURT "'�"BERTSMALL/JEANNEMCGOVERN ASPEN, CO 81611 ;��< 26 FREE SILVER COURT ASPEN, CO 8I611 L )WILLIAM READER 327 FREE SILVER COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 ALLEN ANGLIN BRON WYN HEATHER ANGLIN P.O_ BOX 3657 ASPEN, CO 81612 ANNE-LISA PARKER 410 TEAL COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 pDNSTANCE G. MORRELL P_O. BOX 5121 ASPEN, CO 81612 GOKEY TEAL COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 D. OTTE 29 TEAL COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 USAN SCHLUNDT 412 FREE SILVER COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 414FS TH M. SMITH � 14T '�X I1334j ASPEN, CO 81112 i AI,, ROBERTS/JOHN KLONOWSKI L420 FREE SILVER COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 NN GOLLNER 421 TEAL COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 MARK TERKE ✓SAMANTfiA H P.O. BOX 329 ASPEN, CO 81 423FS % ES & DUNE KESSLER 0 TEAL, COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 Ple(URIE & COLIN NESS ,/422 FREE SILVER COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 'A RA MACKAY 423 TEAL COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 �F ERICK K. SOYKA LA HOBAN 326 TEAL COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 L� KILLIAN 28 TEAL COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 AMAR JOHNSON 410 FREE SILVER COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 P}&MCIA C. CRAWI.ORD V412 TEAL COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 LY LAING t/ 415 FREE SILVER COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 MjCHAELI.MOONEY 421FS 0. BOX 3452 ASPEN, CO 81612 ,,QMSTOPHER STE-WART MEGAN M. SHEAN 422 TEAL COURT ASPEN, CO 81611 " C;LEN & LAURIE LOPER 424FS P.O. BOX 5061 ASPEN, CO 81612 to 0 /AL'IERT PRZYByLSKI BRO VNSTEIN !/ 424 TEAL COURT XP.WO130X 8153 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 LANU U= ~VLI%.A 111 _' Name: WILLIANS R CH & SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION Location: plat rpror(ip(i in Pitkin Cminty at Plat Book 27 page 4 (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) APPLICANT: Name: WILLIX,1S RANCH JOI IT VENTURE c/o Tar es i. Sran t & Associates P.C. Address: a,� E 'lain Street, Suite 204 Phone #: Aspen, Colorado 81611 970925<, 96 -- REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Charlec, T. Brandt - Address: Phone #: TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual PUD Conceptual Historic Devt. Special Review E3 Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) Ej Final Historic Development Design Review Appeal Conceptual SPA Minor Historic Devt. GMQS Allotment Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) Ej Historic Demolition GMQS Exemption Subdivision Historic Designation ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream Subdivision Exemption (includes Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane Lot Split Temporary Use Other: Lot Line Adjustment _g Text/Map Amendment -- EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) SEE ATTACHED LETTER PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) SEE ATTACHED LETTER Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ 22 IF ® Pre -Application Conference Summary ® Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement Response to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form--- wk ® Response to Attachment 0, Minimum Submission Contents ® Response to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents ® Response to Attachment #5, Review Standards for Your Application ASPEN,OKIN COMMUNITY DEVLjL OPVT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Applications Fees (Please Print Clearly) CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and Williams Ranch Joint Venture (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for Williams Ranch and Silverlode Subdivisions (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 43 (Series of 1996) establishes a fee structure for land use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size. nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to allow APPLICANT to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining great cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANTS application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project approval, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the City's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of S 2270.00which is for 12* hours of Planning staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit. APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing. *plus one (1) hour of Engineering at $110.00. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT ' Signatur ie Ann Woods Dat Octo 21 1998 Printed Name: Jnhn 44rkol Community Development Mailing Address: % Charles T. Brandt & Assoc. Acting Director 420 E. Main St, Suite 204 City of Aspen Acppn, M g1611 December 2, 1998 Community Development Office City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Information Requested in Application for Ordinance Amendment To Whom It May Concern: The application requests the following information in a letter signed by the Applicant. Name, address and telephone number of the Applicant: Williams Ranch Joint Venture Mark IV, Inc., General Partner John Markel, President 3214 Campanil Drive Santa Barbara, CA 93109 805-687-8255 Name, address and telephone number of Applicant's authorized representative: Charles T. Brandt Garret S. Brandt Charles T. Brandt & Assoc. PC 420 E. Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, CO 81611 970-925-5196 Si Presidrnt, Mark IV, Inc. General Partner WRJV SILVERLOL _ S DIVISION and JIL TAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION IN THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 71 T. 10 S. R. 84 W., 6th P.M., PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION is located in the SEI/4 of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, and Is more fully described as follows: Beginning at the northwesterly corner of Williams Ranch Subdivision, identical with the northwesterly corner of the SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION AND WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION Parcel whence the center 1/4 corner of Section 7 bears N 88.53'34' W, 311.35 feet; I. Thence S 59.05'56" E, 274.70; 2. Thence S 12'I0'22" W, 4.00 feet; 3. Thence S 80'25'05" W, 180.21 feet; 4. Thence S 69'27'06' W, 43.36 feet; 5. Thence southeasterly 90.94 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the northeast with a radius of 40.00 feet, a delta of 130'16'05" and a chord bearing S 53'08'26" E. 72.58 feet; 6. Thence S 66'06'03' E. 94.81 feet; 7. Thence southeasterly 195.95 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the southwest with a radius of 211.49 feet, a delta of 53' 05' 11" and a chord bearing S 39' 33' 27" E. 189.02 feet; 8. Thence southeasterly 198.00 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the southwest with a radius of 211.49 feet, a delta of 53'38'24" and a chord bearing S 39'50'04' E. 190.85 feet; 9. Thence S 13.00-51' E. 135.32 feet; 10. Thence southeasterly 129.29 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the east with a radius of 896.14 feet, a delta of 08'15'58" and a chord bearing S 17.08'50" E, 129.17 feet; II. Thence southeasterly 114.84 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the west with a radius of 174.79 feet, a delta of 37' 38' 40', and a chord bearing S 02' 27' 29' E. 112.79 feet; 12. Thence S 16' 59' 36" W, 58.52 feet; 13. Thence southwesterly 17.71 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the northwest with a radius of 569.23 feet, a delta of 01' 46' 57' and a chord bearing S 15' 57' 02' W. 17.71 feet; 14. Thence northwesterly 35.73 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the northwest with a radius of 25.00 feet, a delta of 81'53'28" and a chord bearing N 25'51'56" W, 32.77 feet; 15. Thence northwesterly 92.56 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the northeast with a radius of 373.14 feet, a delta of 14.12*44- and a chord bearing N 59'42'18' W. 92.32 feet; 16. Thence N 84.23*03" E. 125.75 feet; 17. Thence N 34'13'57- W. 1002.30 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 5.926 acres more or less, as described above have by these presents laid out, platted and subdivided the some into Lots I through 36 plus Park Parcel as shown on this final plot under the name and style of WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION, a Subdivision of real property in the City of Aspen, Colorado and; 1. Does hereby accept the responsibility for the completion of required improvements; 2. Does hereby dedicate those portions of the said real property which are indicated as easements on page 3 and page 4 of this plat as non-exclusive easements for the Purposes shown thereon, and does hereby grant the right to install and maintain necessary structures to the entity responsible for providing the services for which the easements are established; 3. Does hereby dedicate Williams Ranch Drive, a 40.00 foot wide right-of-way, within Williams Ranch Subdivision as shown hereon to the City of Aspen on behalf of the Public for use as a street. Owner will construct the initial improvements; 4. Does hereby grant a non-exclusive emergency access easement over Reciprocal Easement No. I and No. 2 to all police, sheriff, fire protection, ambulance and other similar emergency agencies or persons; 5. Does hereby dedicate the Williams Ranch Park Parcel, to the City of Aspen for use as a public park. 6. Does hereby dedicate a non-exclusive easement to the public for recreation purposes encumbering all of Lot 36, Open Space, which easement may be revoked pursuant to the annexation agreement, Section 4.12.4, page 8. 7. Does hereby dedicate to the City of Aspen for the use of the Public, the 10' wide non-exclusive Pedestram Trail Easement as shown on the plat, , NA. 8. Does hereby demcote to the Salvation Ditch Company a non-exclusive access easement for ditch maintenance, repair, and replacement as shown on theP!ot, as may. be reasonably necessary/ from time to time 9. Does hereby grant to the owners of lots within the subdivision non-exclusive easements for the benefit of their guests and invitees for ingress, egress and parking over and across the Guest hParking Easements has shown. y Executed this _ 0 ~ day of ' 1 Q i C 995 SILVERLOL _ S DIVISION and ✓IL TAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION IN THE SE 1/4 OF SEC ION 71 T. 10 S.,. R. 84 W., 6th P.M., PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO The SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION is located in the SEI/4 of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, and Is more fully described as follows: Beginning at the northwesterly corner of SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION identical with the northwesterly corner of WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION whence the center 1/4 corner of Section 7 bears N 88'53'34- W, 311.35 feet; I. Thence S 88'53'34' E. 658.51 feet; 2. Thence S 33'46'27" E. 439.96 feet; 3. Thence S 32'32'35" E. 102.19 feet; 4. Thence S 00.00'56" W, 254.21 feet; 5. Thence S 00.00*56" W, 259.42 feet; 6. Thence S 55.14'43" W, 241.60 feet; 7. Thence N 34.13'57' W, 347.46 feet; 8. Thence N 84.23'03" E, 125.75 feet; 9. Thence southeasterly 92.56 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the northeast with a radius of 373.14 feet, a delta of 14.12*45" and a chord bearing S 59'42'18" E. 92.32 feet; 10. Thence southeasterly 35.73 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the southwest with a radius of 25.00 feet, a delta of 81'53'28" and a chord bearing S 25*51*56" E. 32-77 feet; II. Thence northwesterly 17.71 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the northeast with a radius of 569.23 feet, a delta of 01'46'57' and a chord bearing N 15-57.02" E. 17,71 feet; 12. Thence N 16.59'36" E. 58/53 feet; 13. Thence northwesterly 114.84 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the west with a radilus of 174.79 feet, a delta of 37.38'40' and a chord I bearing N 02'27'29" W, 112-79 feet; I 14. Thence northwesterly 129.29 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the east with a radius of 896.14 feet, a delta of 08•. 15' 58' and a chord bearing N 17• 08' 50" W. 129.17 feet. 15. Thence N 13.00'51- W. 135.32 feet; 16. Thence northwesterly 198.00 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to I the southwest with a radius of 211.4�9 feet, a delta of 53.38'24' and a I chord bearing N 39.50*04' W, 190.85 feet; 17. Thence northwesterly 195.95 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the southwest with a radius of 211.49 feet, a delta of 53• 05' 11' and a chord bearing N 39' 33' 27" W. 189.02 feet; 18. Thence N 66.06'03" W, 94.81 feet; 19. Thence northwesterly 90.94 feet along the arc of o circular curve concave to the northeast with a radius of 40.00 feet, a delta of 130'16'05' and a chord bearing N 53.08*27" W. 72.58 feet; 20. Thence N 69'27'06" E. 43.36 feet; 21. Thence N 80.25'05" E, 180.21 feet; 22. Thence N 12'10'22' E. 4.00 feet; 23. Thence N 59'05'56" W. 274.70 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 6.848 acres more or less, as described above, have by these presents laid out, platted and subdivided the some into Lots I through 15 as shown on this final plot under the name and style of SILVERLODE SUBDIVSION, a subdivision of real property in the City of Aspen, Colorado, and; I. Does hereby accept the responsibility of the completion of the required improvements; 2. Does hereby dedicate those portions of the said real property which are indicated as easements on page 3 and page 4 of this plat as easements for the purposes shown thereon, and does hereby grant the right to install and maintain necessary structures to the entity responsible for providing the services for which the easements are established. 3. Does hereby dedicate SilverLode Drive, a 40.00 foot wide right-of-way, within SilverLode Subdivision as shown hereon to the City of Aspen on behalf of the public for use as a street. Owner will construct Initial improvements; 4. Does hereby grant a non-exclusive emergency access easement over Reciprocal Easements No.l and No. 2 to all police, sheriff, fire protection, ambulance and other similar emergency agencies or persons; 5. Does hereby grant a twenty (20) foot wide non-exclusive sonitary sewer easement on the property line between SilverLode Subdivision Lots 7 and 8 for the benefit of Parcel E and the North Portion of Parcelr�C, The Pride of Aspen,, M.S. 7883 AM. A� Executed this 1 day of I'� G�j 1995. • r 1 54% ✓��� �J CHARLES T. BRANDT TRAVIS S. THORNTON GARRET S. BRANDT CHARLES T. BRANDT & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW US Bank Building 420 East Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone 970-925-5196 Fax 970-925-4559 October 15. 1999 HAND DELIVERY David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO Re: Williams Ranch — Amendment to PUD Ordinance Dear David: C. T. BRANDT, PARALEGAL As you know from attending the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission's meeting on September 21", the Commission is considering the Williams Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment. At the meeting, there were several matters considered by the Commission which I don't believe should have properly been considered as they all have been previously the subject of an extensive review by various departments of the City and accepted as complete. Specifically, I am referring to Ross Soderstrom's December 30, 1998, Memorandum to Nick Adeh (with a copy to John Worcester) referencing progress review of punch list for infrastructure improvements to Williams Ranch dated December 10, 1998. A copy of Ross' Memorandum accompanies this letter. Following that Memorandum, a meeting was held involving Ross, Nick Adel, John Worcester, John Krueger, John Marcela, President of Mark IV, the general partner of Williams Ranch Joint Venture, the developer of the subdivision, and myself. The result of the meeting was that the City determined that Williams Ranch Joint Venture ("WRJV") had fulfilled its obligations under Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994, approving the completion of the development with two exceptions - the seven (7) items set forth in Exhibit "A" Funds to be Held under Escrow Agreement and List of Remaining Improvements (enclosed is a copy of the Escrow Agreement) and those items which are the subject of the requested amendment to Ordinance No. 52. In summary, except for the requirements under Ordinance No. 52 that WRJV construct the trail from Mollie Gibson Park to the Open Space Parcel (included in the list of remaining improvements in the event the City required the trail to be constructed), the implementation of the Salvation Ditch water feature, the construction of sidewalks within Williams Ranch and the soil erosion control work, and those additional items covered by the escrow with the City, the City had determined that all WRJV obligations with respect to the Williams Ranch and Silverload Subdivisions were complete. Yet the Community Development Department revisited three areas of the development which had previously been completed and "signed -off 'on by the City the emergency access, the condition of the vegetation on the Open Space Parcel, the condition of the borrow ditches along Williams Ranch Road and Silverlode Road and the condition of the trail across the Open Space Parcel. I do not believe it is appropriate for Community Development and the Commission to revisit these matters. Intervening events which may have impacted these three areas of the development are not WRJV's doing or concern. Since these obligations of WRJV were accepted by the City, WRJV has no continuing obligation, except for the matters which are the subject of the Escrow Agreement and are before the Commission in the form of the requested PUD amendment. Incidentally, when I raised this issue with John Worcester in anticipation that Community Development might "expand" the scope of consideration, I understood John to say that it was not appropriate to consider any matter which the City had previously accepted. I had asked Chris Bendon to check with John before he wrote his memorandum to the Commission, but I don't believe that happened. Please let me know your position prior to the continued meeting on November 2na Thank you for your consideration. I will be out of the office for the last two weeks in October, so please leave me a voice mail if you would like to discuss this matter and I'll return your call during my travels or speak with my son, Garret, who will be handling this matter during my absence. Yours very truly, C ,cam Charles T. Brandt for Charles T. Brandt & Associates, P.C. �70 cc: John Markel via facsimile .0hris Bendon via hand deliver DocumenB R t (; It i 1r r...; FEB 4 1999 CHARLES T. BRANDT & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHARLES T. BRANDT US Bank Building ------ 420 East Main Street, Suite 204 TRAVIS S. THORNTON Aspen, Colorado 81611 GARRETS. BRANDT Telephone 970-925-5196 Fax 970-925-4559 February 4, 1999 Mr. Chris Bendon Community Development Department 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 ASPEN I P1 I KIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C. T. BRANDT, PARALEGAL Re: Amendment to Ordinance 52, Series 1994; Williams Ranch Subdivision Dear Chris: In response to your pre -application conference summary memorandum and the amendment application, this letter will provide the needed information and outline the proposed amendments to the subdivision approval ordinance that Williams Ranch Joint Venture ("Applicant" or "WRJV") is requesting. Information Requested for Application, As Outlined by Community Development: 1. Proof of ownership: The Williams Ranch Subdivision is now largely developed. Proof of ownership of the many lots does not pertain to the subject matter of the proposed amendments. Williams Ranch Joint Venture is the developer of the project and is responsible for its completion. The proposed amendments are to Ordinance 52 and relate to only four (4) matters of completion in the final stage of the development. 2. Signed fee agreement: Attached. 3. Applicant's name address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name address and telephone number of the Applicant's representative: Attached. 4.a. Street address and legal description of the parcel: Attached. 4.b. Names of all owners. mortgages, etc.: See number 1 above. 5. Total deposit for review of the application: Enclosed. 6. 25 copies of the complete application packet and maps: Per Chirs Bendon — Will supply the number of copies he requests after initial review 7. An 8 `'/z" by I I" vicinity map locating the parcel within the Cityof f Aspen: Attached. 8.a. Site improvement survey Not required, per Chris Bendon. 8.b. Copy of most recent plat noting_ proposed changes: The requested changes are to Ordinance 52, 1994, and do not affect the recorded plats. Therefore a plat showing the proposed changes will not be of benefit and is not attached. 9. Additional materials as required by the specific review: None requested. 10. A written description of the proposal and an explanation of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application: This letter contains the written description of the proposed amendments and the review standards. 11. List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing: Attached. 12. Copies of prior approvals: Attached (Ordinance 52). Existing Conditions: The Williams Ranch Subdivision was approved by Ordinance 52, Series 1994 (copy attached). The Ordinance actually contains two subdivisions, the Silverlode Subdivision, which consists of 15 lots for free market homes, 11 of which have been developed or are currently under development, and the Williams Ranch Subdivision, which consists of 35 lots for affordable housing, that have all been developed. Also, the development includes two public roads, open space along the Salvation Ditch right-of-way, a public trail and a public trail easement, and a parcel of land deeded to the City as a passive park. Proposal: The Applicant requests four amendments to Ordinance 52, Series 1994, so that the Applicant can obtain an acknowledgement from the City of Aspen of complete and satisfactory performance of all the development obligations (Applicant requests that the acknowledgement be in a recordable form), as follows: Amendment 1 — Salvation Ditch Water Feature: Delete the requirement of a water feature as contained in Section 1, Subsection 18 of Ordinance 52, which states: "The Final Plans shall indicate a small ditch water feature along the Salvation Ditch alignment to maintain the historic character of this area." An enclosed portion of the Salvation Ditch flows under a short section of the Williams Ranch Subdivision, including several residential lots, in the southwestern corner of the development. Prior to this project, the Salvation Ditch was an open ditch that transported irrigation water. The Developer and the Ditch Company agreed that the Developer would enclose the ditch under the subdivision property so that open, running water would not run through the subdivision. The Salvation Ditch Company's right-of-way is their property. The Ditch Company has indicated that it does not want any further encumbrances on top of the ditch, so the Applicant is not able to build the required water feature. Also, the Ditch Company will not supply water to K run through the "ditch", so the water feature would be dry. (See letter from George Stranahan, President, Salvation Ditch Co., attached to this letter as Exhibit "A".) Nor does the Applicant own any water rights which could be utilized for this purpose. Further, several residents of Williams Ranch Subdivision have expressed reservations about having such a feature next to their homes. When it rains, the dry ditch might hold water and be an attractive nuisance to children living near by. See the letter from Gary Wright, President of the Williams Ranch Homeowner's Association, attached hereto as Exhibit `B". We consider the deletion of this section to be an insubstantial amendment. The Salvation Ditch Company will not allow this feature to be built. Further, this is not a typical requirement for other developments. While it is understandable that the City would like for historic features of this type be recognized in some way, it cannot be reasonably accomplished in this case. If the Applicant is asked to relocate the water feature elsewhere, it will further defeat the purpose of having the feature. One suggested location is slightly north of historic ditch location. However, this would require agreements from the current homeowners, and put the "ditch" in the middle of many backyards. And there is still the problem of obtaining any water to run through the water feature. We plan to include this amendment in the public hearing and amendment process, but would prefer that you agree that this is an impossible requirement, and can be deleted through the insubstantial amendment process prior to the public hearings. Amendment 2 — Sidewalks: Delete the requirement of sidewalks within the development as contained in Section 1, Subsectiolnio. of Ordinance 52 Mwhich states: "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." The Williams Ranch Subdivision was initially planned without sidewalks due to the topography, compactness of the project, and historical character of the Smuggler Mountain neighborhoods. This was always designed as an affordable housing project, so maximizing the number of units was intended. Consequently, with relatively short front yards, and the density of the project at the base of a mountain far from downtown, sidewalks were not considered a necessity. The Historic Preservation Commission also recommended against sidewalks for this project in keeping with the rural and historic nature of the area. The City Engineer and the City Planning Offices recommended that some type of pedestrian walkway be required for approval. The Applicant was forced to agree to a "hard surface pedestrian walkway" along one side of the street in order to advance the project. This issue has been on going since the start of the development and is not settled as shown by the City's acknowledgement in Note 29 of the recorded plat, Book 37, Page 4, which states that "Owner agrees to continue to work with the City concerning ... walkway locations...." The Applicant is agreeable to complying with the requirement of sidewalks. However, the Applicant asks for this amendment due solely to the impracticality of having any type of pedestrian walkways along the roads in this development. Sidewalks will be inconvenient to the property owners as well as the pedestrians they are intended to serve. The distance from the street to the closest point of most houses is about 20 feet. When a vehicle is parked in the 3 driveway, it will block most, if not all, of the sidewalk. This will cause pedestrians to walk in the street, which defeats the purpose of having sidewalks. Also, the sidewalks would be set in five feet from the street, forcing residents that have to dodge parked cars to cross one or more strips of a homeowners yard. Further, many residents have planted trees and other landscaping in the right-of-way which would be lost if sidewalks are constructed. Williams Ranch has one interior loop with only one road for regular ingress and egress. This in not a project that has any thru streets. While pedestrian safety is always a great concern, the reality in this case is that there is minimal vehicular traffic during most of the day, and the vast majority of traffic is by Williams Ranch residents. As noted previously, this is a compact subdivision, where walking anywhere within the subdivision, to the RFTA bus stop or local trails is not a long distance. Combined with the minimal traffic, residents can use the streets safely for their short walks through the subdivision to the existing trails. Further, if sidewalks are constructed, the residents will most like not use them due to cars blocking the path, as mentioned above. In this situation, the Applicant believes that the addition of sidewalks will not significantly encourage residents to walk to town, nor does the lack of sidewalks significantly deter residents from walking. With walkways on only one side of the roads, pedestrians will have to cross the streets to use them. With the short distances to be covered, few residents will take the extra walk out of their way to use the one sidewalk, especially when they have to walk around cars in driveways every 50 or so feet. Further, the City, HPC, developer and residents agree that concrete sidewalks are not desired for this project, but a suitable hard surface substitute that can withstand our harsh winters and spring thaws has not been found. The sidewalks will be in constant disrepair, further discouraging their use. In addition to the practical considerations above, the residents of Williams Ranch do not wish to have the sidewalks installed. A recent resolution against sidewalks was passed unanimously by the homeowners association. See the letter from Gary Wright, president of the association, concerning this issue, attached hereto as Exhibit `B". It should be noted that the Applicant has completed the sidewalk from the subdivision to Mollie Gibson Park and down to Smuggler Mountain Road, as was required by this provision. Finally, if the council agrees that a sidewalk is not practical or useful for this subdivision, then the sidewalk around the cul-de-sac, required in Section 1,,Subsection 14.i. of Ordinance 52, should also be deleted. This sidewalk would serve no practical purpose as it would not connect to any other sidewalk, and the same technical problems of constructing this as stated above, also "Oply here. Amendment 3 — Soil Erosion Control on Old Mining Road: Amend Section 1, Subsection 14.b. of Ordinance 52, which states: "Soil erosion controls and the debris interceptor shall be indicated on the final plat drawings. Construction lrawings for each phase of work shall be designed by a licensed engineer and indicate "i)propriate runoff control measures. The plans shall be submitted and approved by the Engineering Department, prior to any earthmoving activities." The amendment should clarify that soil erosion controls and a debris interceptor are NOT required only on the 4 • • mining road above the subdivision, and that all other aspect of this reduircmcnt is to remain the same. The original developer of Williams Ranch, Stephen Albouy, represented that he wanted to regrade an existing mining road on Smuggler Mountain above the project. Since this mining road crossed a drainage culvert, any regrading was to be accompanied by new soil erosion controls and debris interceptor. However, the portion of the mining road in question is owned by a new company. This company does not wish to improve the mining road, nor will it allow Williams Ranch Joint Venture to do so. Further, since the road will not be regraded, there is no need to disturb the existing erosion controls and debris interceptor. This area should be left in its historic state. Finally, the current owners of the mining road will not allow WRJV to commence any work on their road as it may jeopardize their federal and state agreements and permits. See the letter from Gary Wright stating the mining company's objections, attached hereto as Exhibit "C". The Applicant requests that the above subsection to Ordinance 52 be amended to state that Applicant does not have to provide erosion controls and debris interceptors only for the mining road where it crosses the drainage culvert on the property above the Williams Ranch Subdivision, as indicated on the Final Plat drawings. Amendment 4 — Trails: Amend Ordinance 52 by adding a section that provides for the release of the obligation to grant a trail easement over and across the subdivision along the southerly boundary from Mollie Gibson Park to the Open Space Parcel, as shown on Exhibit "G" to the Annexation Agreement. (A copy is attached as Exhibit "D".) The Applicant requests this amendment with the understanding that it will conduct good faith negotiations with the Centennial Condominium Association to upgrade the existing trail on Centennial property from Mollie Gibson Park to the Open Space Parcel to the same standard as the Mollie Gibson trail connection to Centennial as previously implemented by WRJV. It is the opinion of the Applicant and John Worcester, City Attorney, that the trail would better serve the community if it is located on the Centennial property, rather than within the trail easement shown on the Williams Ranch plat, in order to avoid having to cut into a steep hillside, and placing a pedestrian trail close to or in a resident's back yard. Review Standards: Amendment to an Approved Planned Unit Development (PUD) 1. A change in the use or character of the development: Not Applicable. Williams Ranch Subdivision is an affordable housing development, and the amendments requested do not alter this. 2. An increase by greater than three (3) percent in the overall coverage of structures on the land: Not Applicable. 3. Any amendment that substantially increases trip generation rates of the proposed development, or demand for public facilities: Not applicable to requested amendments number 1 5 and 3. amendment number 2, requesting deletion of sidewalks from Ordinance, will not have any impact on the use public facilities. Since sidewalks are not currently in place, the elimination of this requirement will not change the current conditions. 4. A reduction by greater than three (3) percent of the approved open space: Not Applicable. 5. A reduction by greater than one (1) percent of the off-street parking and loading spaces: Not Applicable. 6. A reduction in required pavement widths or right-of-way for streets and easements: Not Applicable. 7. An increase of greater than two (2) percent in the approved gross leasable floor area of commercial buildings: Not Applicable. 8. An increase by greater than one (1) percent in the approved residential density of the development: Not Applicable. 9. Any change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the project's original approval or which requires granting a further variation from the project's approved use or dimensional requirements: Amendments 1 and 2 would change conditions contained in the original approval, notably the elimination of sidewalks and elimination of the "water feature" along the Salvation Ditch. Amendment 3 would change a representation made by Stephen Albouy to put in soil erosion controls and a debris interceptor when his old mining road on Smuggler Mountain was regraded. Amendment 4 would clarify the responsibilities of WRJV to build a trail from the Mollie Gibson Park to the open space parcel, and move the trail to a more feasible and accessible location for the area. Conclusion: Applicant respectfully requests these amendments to Ordinance 52, Series 1994, from City Council. These amendments are in the best interest of the residents of Williams Ranch, and will enable the Applicant to receive final approval of the subdivision from the City. Respectfully submitted, Garret S. Brandt for Charles T. Brandt & Associates, P.C. z Exhibit "A" 0 • SALVATION DITCH COMPANY BOX 70 WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 Williams Ranch Joint Venture C/o C.T Brandt & Associates pcg—, Va N iga? 420 East Main St. 9204 Aspen, CO 81611 The Salvation Ditch Company understands that City made a condition of approval that you construct a "small ditch water feature along the Salvation Ditch alignment to maintain the historic character of this area." For reasons of our effective management of the ditch as it is in the pipe, and our unwillingness to manage such as water feature the Ditch Company will not approve such a use of either our easement or our water. We like to be good community members, but this is beyond our capacities. Sincerely, George Stranahan President, Salvation Ditch Company 1 Exhibit "B" GARY A. WRIGI rr, r r' AI .I -EN H. ADGEER, P-C.' CATALJNA CRUZ A1,6U AUMU ILU Ice THRAS AND LOU113 ANA SAN WRIGHT & ADGER LAW PARTNERSHIP. I I P ZUI NORTH MU 1 .IHELI. bU(T}: 108 ASWN. (XnAUHA130 61611 ASPEN TELETN40NO'.' (11UJy6bG2E. oAyAT i'1l l-. r, u wo 11'T!1#�T•�' ' rA4:.7NILf.: '�70-f1:.�1wn 17 November 1998 Ms. Amy Margerum City Manager - City of Aspen 130 Soutb Galena Street Aspen. Colorado 81611 Re: Williams Ranch Homeowner's Association Dear Amy: —�6-1 FJ,) i... -, L'VN�tL: PH11 JP !. 0"• QNNL:L1." wxuCE S. MOA ARTY •• -4: 0 AV WTTLfJ lO FLOAIDA nwh I am writing on behalf of the Williams It.unch Homeowner's Association as a follow up to certain resolutions that were unanimously approved at a recent lloincowncr's Association meeting attended by more than 30 of the 35 homeowners and inenibui—j. 1 tun currently serving as the president and as the chairman of the homLx)wncrs board of directors. I have been informed by John D. Markel, prcSidcnt of Mark. IV, Inc. the managing, I.Mrtncr of the Williams Ranch Joint Vcnture, that the City has uskud, or shall 1 say required, the installation of sidewalks to be located on the west side of Silvcr1,odc Drive wid du: south side of Williams Ranch Drive to be located udjatcent to the deed restricted homes. We respectfully request that you advise us what course of action we must take to :zsurc that lllia does not take place. Even the homeowners who tuc not directly impacted, (L:.I;, the sidewalk would not be located on their properties), were supportive of the concept that no sidewalk IJc instailc:d. 1 am available to attend a City Counsel Meeting to further this concern if that would be advisable. In addition, I have bccn adviscd by mr. Markel that a "water feature" is also being required for the common wren which h0orip to our I Iomeowner's As.�ciutiun. Again, particularly passed on the lack of any water right.~ out of tlil; Salvation Ditch being available to snake this a "wet" water feature, we strongly oppose this idc-a auxl would request that the City simply require native landsc;apu vegetation on this open space am& Further, we believe it would bu helpful to both our guests as well its other citizens, to advise them that our little neighborhuod bus no through streets by providing a 11no outlet' sign preferably placed at the intcrsectiwi ul'SilvrrLodL; Drive with Struggler MountainlWad. 1 am informed that numerous lost individuals drive, bicycle or }like around the Williams Ranch :and SilverI.ode Subdivisions in an obviously futile attempt to hike up Smuggler Mountain, likewise, if the street sign for Silverl-odo Iarivc could be put back up this would be great. c \WRHAkN4wS-s—.Wt ", I I .. . I... r . !,,. . WRIGHT & ADGER Ms. Amy Maramtni 16 November 1998 Re: Williams Ranch homeowner's Association Page 2 I am also writing to confirm that, since all road work has been completed pursuant to the Subdivision Improvements Agreement to at least the standard required by the City, if not a higher standard forthe interiorroads, (SilverLode Drivc and Williams Ranch Drivc) the City is responsible for snow plowing and you will assure that in fact will take plans_ Again, thank you for your cooperation. I think we can all be proud of the final result of the deed restricted unit., ut Williams Ranch. It is my pleasure to serve. as the President at this tiulu turd work. with my neighbors for the good of our ummmunity and neighborhood. Sincerely, WRI(Fll'r cQt. ADGI.M.. Lu- By: -- G A. Wright GAW/cc cc: Mark IV, Inc. (iAWRtKAWargmum.001 I 40 Exhibit "C" WRJGirr & ADGER LAW PARTNERSHIP 1-1.P 701 NUlrlll Mil I S IO&P 1. 6tWIK IN. ARI.1 N. COLORANO r111111 MRIA 113-0.110HI MY002GGIOU GARY A. WRIGHT, 1'.C. ALLEN 11. ADGLIi, l .C:,• DARALT TI l 11l1nN1 • ATn1--> w.. `_ fAGmllur 1: �n as..nsla CATALINA C:RUZ 16 November 1998 • AtVffAf1MITT"TO TWIA6 AND 1 AIIIGANA BAR John D. Mlarkel, President Mark IV, Inc. Managing Partner Williams Ranch Joint Ventures 3214 Campanile Drive Santa Barbara, California 93109 *.— 1 '• • I.+.N 1.11411. , .M, Iil.— Re- Proposed grading to Wright & Preusch Mining, IAd. In-operty also known as the Smuggler Mine Dear John: tt,• I.:UUN6KL: r'IIII.J1'J.O'Cf)NNI I I.** 111MICE B. MCI AN I Y •• ALSO At 1MI1'fro To 1 I.111f11M it" I ►un writing pis the attorney of Wright & Preusch Mining, Ltd. in reply to your letter dated October 17, l 998. You have requested access to Wright & I'reusch's property so that the Williams hunch Joint Venture c4u-i complete certain road grading as indicate) on a portion ofthe subdivision plot that you sent to me. You will need to make whatever urranbentents Accessary to not perfonn Such work. As we till know, significant time has pasxxl since the plat was approved and during the intervening time, in no small part as a result of the obligtitions Wright & I'reusch Mining, Ltd. has to the Environmental Protection Agency purstnuil Lo its 11 reement an <:onticnt filed with the Fcdem] Court, this grading can not take place. T 11►ia ureu of our property is unmodified arrd contains natural vegetation that should not be disturbed bemuse it may interfere with our obligations to the EPA. Such work may also be in violation of the bond wid permit Wright & Preusch Mining, I Ad. has with the State cif Colorado. Please coif irn: to toe in writing at your earliest reasornablu convenience that you will take whatever action is neccnsury to assure that this g1 aditlg will not take place: and that you have the sign off from the necessary City or Cculnty, officials so that we know that this issue is closed. Please contact me if you need any further clarification or have questions. SinC4=ly, WRIGHT &. ADGHR, 1.I x ljy 0a A. Wright GAWIcc GAW MCP-LTDkMatkc1.00 i f + S i S � r • � � �- ��`7�� I g4 � d LL O O�� ♦`N�b lye ` ; 1\' ,j..._ !/. j ' I �, � /, ;! 00 Lai om 04 it f H / �� l• I / I / � i L� �• � _� ` r � aI is 1 ! / / / 1 I �. ; Q �o•�`� 1 O ri 1 Py 00 � � 1 r� • t � t O 1' 1-- f f , / '1 � • Q , r 111 ICI.. , •� S �� �* � ^ ( a [ 11 � • v ,��i•s 1. r I I \ �, 111 �, l APR 1 1999 rXN CHARLES T. BRANDY &ASSOCIATES, P.C. ::Dr=ELO ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHARLES T. BRANDT US Bank Building ------ 420 East Main Street, Suite 204 TRAVIS S. THORNTON Aspen, Colorado 81611 C. T. BRANDT, PARALEGAL GARRET S. BRANDT Telephone 970-925-5196 Fax 970-925-4559 April 15, 1999 Mr. Chris Bendon Community Development 130 S. Galena St Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Amendment Application for Williams Ranch Dear Chris: This letter is to follow up on the DRC meeting that was held on March 24`h, 1999 regarding the above referenced amendment, and will outline my understanding of the subjects discussed, and what was requested to be done prior to scheduling public hearings. I shall address each amendment in the order they were submitted in our application, and then discuss the miscellaneous issues raised at the meeting. 1. Salvation Ditch Feature. There was no opposition to this amendment, and your recommendation will be to approve. 2. Trail Issue. Granting the amendment is dependent on WRJV obtaining an easement on the Centennial Condominium property to construct the connecting trail from Mollie Gibson Park to the open space parcel. At the time of the DRC meeting we did not have a commitment from Centennial to grant us the easement. Since then, we have received verbal approval of the easement from the Board president and we are scheduled to meet with the whole Board on April 19`h. As the "Centennial Trail" easement was the major issue relating to our amendment, which we believed such easement will be granted, please schedule us for the May 18'h Planning & Zonin Hearing. If for some reason the Centennial Board won't grant us the easement on April 19` I will immediately notify you to have this item removed from the agenda. As you might imagine, scheduling our application for the 18`h will avoid further delays in processing our application. The staff also suggested that plat amendments to Williams Ranch and Centennial for the trail would be in order. However, after consideration of all that is involved with plat amendments, and the nature of this ordinance amendment, we do not believe that an amendment is warranted. If our amendment is approved to move the trail to the Centennial alignment, the amending ordinance will spell out that the existing trail is not required to be constructed and the easement is vacated. This amending ordinance will be of record and a plat amendment will therefore be an unnecessary expense and delay. 3. Sidewalks. We understand the City's arguments for sidewalks: safer streets and encouraging pedestrian movement. I will not reiterate our previous arguments as to why sidewalks in this development will not add , significantly to either of those important considerations. Instead we want to focus on the issue of possible future changes in home ownership and new families requesting sidewalks from the City if not installed now. Since WRJV is only obligated to install walking paths on ONE side of the street (presumably this is only on the "island" created by Silverlode Drive and Williams Ranch Drive) there is, no guarantee that future homeowners won't ask the City to install sidewalks on the other sides of these streets. Is the City willing to pay for these? However, a solution might be to amend the Williams Ranch protective covenants to state that no sidewalks will ever be install unless approved by a number of homeowners sufficient to change the protective covenants (i.e. more than a simple majority) and paid for by the homeowners. This would put all future homeowners on notice of the restriction and could not then effectively petition the City for installation. If the staff would support this approach, please let me know so we can actively pursue it for the upcoming public hearings. 4. Soil Erosion Controls. We have spoken with Gary Wright, who represents the mine owners above the subdivision. As he stated in his letter included with the Amendment Application, Mr. Wright reiterated that WRJV would not be allowed to do any work on the mining property because of the mining company's permits. We were unable to obtain specific information concerning the permits' restrictions. For any further information concerning these restrictions, Gary Wright stated that he could be contacted directly. In addition, the engineer for Williams Ranch stated that the drainage system was designed to handle the runoff from the natural and historic condition of the mountain. The mountain has been left in its natural and historic state, and so the drainage system should not be an issue. Please let me know what information the staff will need to then recommend approval of this amendment. 5. Miscellaneous Issues. a. Emergency Access off of Spruce Street. The fire department raised the issue of the installation of the road pavers along the emergency access. We have requested a letter from the contractor that installed the pavers stating that the pavers were installed per the manufactures specs. Prior to installation, the specs were submitted to and approved by the fire department. WRJV will not install gates across this access, as it has not been shown that since the installation of the landscaping, that any traffic continues to use this. b. As Built Drawings. Hans Brucker is preparing the "as builts" that are still needed. WRJV is still obligated to provide these regardless of the requested amendments and this should not be used to hold up our requests. c. Plat Amendments. The staff requested two additional plat amendments: Locate the drywell, and delete the access easement for Lot 5. The owner of Lot 5 has already stated to WRJV that he has no intentions of releasing that easement. Also, while Mr. Soderstrom may desire to have the drywell shown on the plat, this is not a requirement, and it is located on the drainage plat (Plat Book 37 at Page 25) which should be sufficient protection. d. Smuggler Park. WRJV states that it believes that it has completed its obligations for the park parcel. If there are still outstanding obligations concerning this, the Parks Department should specifically identify these obligations and inform WRJV what is required, if anything. However, any remaining obligation should be separate and not used to hold up this amendment. Please let us know as soon as possible if we can get this amendment on the P&Z Agenda for May 18 as we will need to do the public hearing notices. Also, if we can provide additional information on any of these issues please detail what you need. Thank you for your assistance. Yours very truly, Garret S. Brandt for Charles T. Brandt & Associates, P.C. cc: John Markel, via facsimile Api--16-99 02: 14P 5i lv ode Real Estate 970 f3-4891 P.O1 ASPEN, EARTHMOVING April 8, 1999 The Stevens Group 580 Main Str, Suite 220 Carbondale, CO 81623 Dear Tom; Aspen Earthmoving, LLC has installed the fire lane using I1 Plus Grassroot Pavers at Williams Ranch subdivision in Aspen. This construction starts at pavement edge of Spruce Street and goes to pavement edge of Silverlode Drive and was completed in November of 1998. The method of installation was strictly adhered to as per Barton Corporation's installation instructions for heavy vehicles, enclosed in this correspondence. Photographic documentation is available upon request. Thank you, Rick Pickard P.O. Box 1090 Carbondale, Colorado 81623 970-963-0377 Fax 963-2247 Estate 970lf3-4891 MAKeY.l ter Wq `ovw `aide C�` 1. HEAVY VEHICLE/ _ Adjoining Finah Grdds FIR, ACCESS ROAD Actual Finish Grace � planting level using std. cut 341 4 n Sand or sandy loam 5f $" soft Sal fill level inside planting base to receive paver gridwork after paver gridwork heavy water down. r This is the actual 'sod' planting level] ----- Heavy vehicle sutwase. 3/41 crushed s� rocx or class 2 road bass recorn oed NOTE: if native soil consists of sand (eg. Palm Springs), crushed rock sub -base is not required. Ste• pr • 10ir plsnrrq Ls"i In Calls Adjoining Finish Grade Top of sod after setting Into cells. No soil fill required with this application. Sub -base determined by tratlic load weight. 3J4' crusn©d rock or class 2 road base reconvnended 2. LIGHT/LOAD HIGH USE TRAFFIC Planting level using special cut Sand or sandy loam 1" sod planting oase to receive paver gridworl NOTE: If native soil consists of sand (eg. Palm Springs), crushed rock sub -base is not required. ASSEMBLY St. INSTALLATION DATA A. Remove all foreign top grade structures (le., grass, weeds, rock, wood, wire, etc.) B. Rototill the entire surface to a depth of 4" to 6". C. After rototilling, remove all cbvious stones, roots, wire, etc. D. Add desired sand or soil amendments as required. Fine grade and apply roller pressure to establish a moderate compaction. NOM For heavy vehicle access area specifications, see above illustration. Generally speaking the fastest assembly technique is to preassemble long individual rows of GP Ilpius Pavers along a major lateral of the proposed gridwork (fire lane, parking area, golf cart path, ect.). Continue joining row after row until gridwork is completed. GP 11plus Pavers can be cut to match any curve or Irregular profile. Pavers can be cut quickly and easily using a skillsaw, handsaw or saber saw. THE HEAVY -WEIGHT CHAMPION From: BARTRON CORPORATION 441 South 48th Street. Suite 107 Tempe, AZ 85281 (602) 921-4984 9 (800) 992-9949 • FAX: (602) 829-6730 CALL RIGHTS RESERVED 1993 PRINTED 1N USA BARTRON CORPORATION, INC. mars as a K 4 - 1e"Nr r mason A. ■■■/■■■ 1. 90- PLATFORM QUINT, 1990 MODEL, 58,000 LBS. Manufactured by Sutphen, Columbus. Ohio. SPECS Length: 45,6" Gross Weight: 58,000 Ibs fully loaded. Width: 8',3' 52,000 Ibs w/o water. Height: 10'.1 1, Weight Distribution: 20,000 lbs front axle. Pump efftdency: 1,500 GPM 38.000 Ibs, rear axle. Platform Aerial Boom: Extends to 90'. (19 li 33 w/o water) 9500• tPci �]�. •.500 � •SOD. %S C� QVM�Gp[J1 MiCS All location photography: .,,• -- 5 Park Plaza ea o*awc^ueo rrodr ea ( at ln/lne Company's (CA) Jamboree Center i.50D 1 9'� r 9.500. NfD i•61M7 95mr SEP-07-SS 10:48 FROM=CHARLES T. BRANDT & ASSOC ID=9709254559 s • CHARLES T. BRANDT & ASSOCIATES, P.C_ ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHARLE$ T. BRANDT TRAVI$ S. THORNTON CARRETS. BRANDT TO: CC: FROM: DATE: US Bank Building 420 East Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone 970-925-5196 Fax 970-925-4559 PAGE C. T. BRANDT, PARALEGAL Chris Bendon, Community Development Department via facsimile 920-5439 John Markel via facsimile John 'Worcester via facsimile Chuck Brandt G 09/07/99 SUBJECT: Williams Ranch - Proposed Amendments to Williams Ranch Approval Ordinance This is a reminder that we discussed getpng together to discuss your preliminary recommendations prior to drafting your recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission on the proposed amendments. Since I will be out of town beginning next Monday afternoon possibly through Friday, September 17`l', I would appreciate getting together this week or at the latest next Monday morning, September 13'h. I've heard that some members of the Williams' Ranch Homeowners Association intend to use the public hearing before the P & Z as a forum to request that Whams Ranch Joint Venture utilize the "savings" from not haying to construct a nxail and sidewalks, if these obligations are in fact eliminated by City Council- Williams Ranch if prepared to construct the sidewalks and the trail if that is the eventual decision, in spite of the difficulties and impracticalities of building these improvements. It is not prepared to "substitute" additional improvements which were not required at the time of the original approval of the subdivision by the City. To require Williams Ranch to construct a trash or garbage enclosure, for example, would violate the developei's vested rights to complete the project in accordance with the City's prior approval. Since this is not a new development application under Section 26.88.060 B. of the Land Use Code, I believe only the matters which are the subject of the requested amendment can be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council and that no new exaction's can be required of the developer by the City. I'm forwarding a copy of this Memorandum to John Worcester for his information. You may wish to consult with him on this matter before we talk. I look forward to hearing from ,you. 2/2 SEP-13-99 12:34 FROM:CHARLES T. BRANDT & ASSOC ID=9709254559 CHARLES T. BRANDT TRAMS S. THORNTON GARRET S. BRANDT TO: CHARLES T. BRANDT & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 9vi RA D . PARALEGAL SFp 1 �,4Fgr qs o S4, l 9g9 O�FT/A Chris Bendor4 Community Development Department via facsimile 920-5439 US Bank Building 420 East Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone 970-925-5196 Fax 970-925-4559 MEMORANDUM CC: John Markel via facsimile Tom Stevens via facsimil FROM: Chuck Brandt G DATE: 09/ 13/99 SUBJECT: Williams Ranch — Proposed Amendments to Williams Ranch Approval Ordinance Thank for the opportunity Friday afternoon to go over the requested amendments to the William's Ranch approval Ordinance_ I've spoken with John Markel, President of the General Partner of the ` iilliams Ranch Joint Venture ("WRJV") as well as project manager Tom Stevens, about each of the items we discussed, particularly those relating to questions you had about the request. This memorandum responds to each request items and answers the questions you posed. 1. Salvation Ditch Water Feature. 1n reading Greg Simmons' letter of June 30`h 1 don't believe it offers a response different than that previously received from the Salvation Ditch Company relating to the water feature_ The Salvation Ditch Company has several concerns about the use of its ditch easement for the "water feature" and the use of its water for such purpose. 1n addition, several homeowners with young children are concerned about the safety aspects of the water feature Mr_ Simmons indicates that George Stranahan told him that he can lease water from the Salvation Ditch Comparry for the purpose of a having a pond on his lot providing he pays a lease rental and executes a hold harmless agreement. I believe these are two different and not inconsistent positions by the Salvation Ditch Company. John Markel has no opposition to any homeowner negotiating a private water usage agreement with the Salvation Ditch Company for ponds and the like. 2. Trail_ You discussed three trail segments over the trail easement- the easterly rti portion along the steep hillside from Silverlode Drive to the so-called vecal trail between lots 26 and 27; the segment over the trail easement between the vertical trail and the existing trail over the Open Space Parcel along the lower portion of lots 33, 34 and 35, and the third segment over the Park SEP-13-99 12:35 FROM=CHARLES T. BRANDT & ASSOC ID=9709254559 PAGE 3/4 We all agree that the easterly segment of the trail easement is over terrain too steep to construct the trail. As for the middle segment between the vertical trail and the Open Space parcel, to construct a trail in this area would significantly impact the three homes adjacent to the trail easement and adversely affect their privacy. Furthermore, at the westerly end of the trail easement, there is a steep bank Because of these considerations, WRJV requested that it be excused from constructing this portion of the trail. However, if the Citv requires that this segment of the trail be constructed WRJV grill do so. As for the westerh- segment of the trail over the Park, no trail easement was shown over the Park and no obligation exists for WRJV to construct a trail over the Park parcel. The Park was dedicated to the City of Aspen as a public park as part of the subdivision approval process (See paragraph 5 under Certificate of Ownership and Dedication for the Williams Ranch Subdivision); any trail over the Park would be the City's responsibility. 3. You indicated that the elimination of the require to construct the sidewalks is not an issue since Williams Ranch Homeowners Association opposes construction, they would interfere with the existing drainage ditches throughout the subdivision and walking in the subdivision streets does not appear to present safety considerations since the subdivision has a small number of lots, has a trail system and the streets are not through street_ 4. Soil Erosion Control on Qld_Mining Road. Since this feature is off of the subdivision property and gn en Gary Wrighes letter written on behalf of the adjacent property owners on which any erosion control feature would be constructed, you did not see the need for WRJV to construct this feature. Miscellaneous Matters. You raised a couple of additional matters during our discussion First, you asked about the Open Space Parcel indicating that it was unsightly and that the trail "wasn't much" of a trail. Under the dedication language of the Subdivision Plat (paragraph 6) WRJV dedicated a non-exclusive easement to the public for recreation purposes_ The City accepted the trail following its construction and WRJV has no further obligation with respect to the trail. The Open Space Parcel has been conveyed to the Williams Ranch Homeowners Association and it is the Association's responsibility to not only maintain the trail but the Open Parcel as well___ You also asked why the vertical trail stops about fn e feet shy of Silverlode Drive where the area is planted in grass. I've spoken with project manager Tom Stevens about this and he told me that he believes that the trail must have been Iandscaped over since it was installed to Silverlode Drive and accepted by the Ciry. You indicated that some of the drainage ditches along the subdivision streets are in need of repair and maintenance_ The drainage ditches were constructed in accordance with the City's requirements and accepted by Jack Reid, head of the Cit/, s streets department. This matter has been discussed with the Homeowners Association and John Markel has agreed that WRJV will contribute the majority of the cost of repair to the Wrilliams Ranch Homeowners Association_ SEP-13-99 12:35 FROM=CHARLES T. BRANDT & ASSOC ID=97092545S9 PAGE 4/4 • • Lastly, you raised the issue of the condition of the emergency access road into the subdivision off of North Spruce Street. The emergency access road was also built according to the City's requirements and accepted by the City. The unsightliness and destruction of the grass which was planted there by WRJV is the result of the construction of the residence on the lot adjacent to the emergency access. This, too, is a matter for the Homeowners Association and the owner of the adjacent lot to resolve and is not a responsibility of WRJV. Document 1 NOV-IS-SS IS:27 FROM:CHARLES T. BRANDT & ASSOC ID:9709254559 PAGE 2/4 CHARLES T. BRANDT & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHARLES T. BRANDT TRAMS S. THORNTON GARRET S. BRANDT John P. 'Worcester, City Attorney The City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 US Bank Building 420 East Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone 970-925-5196 Fax 970-925-4559 November 15, 1999 Re: Williams Ranch - PUD Amendment Dear John: Disappointin&, the Planning Commission gave little serious consideration to the agreement we reached when we met Tuesday afternoon, November 2nd. The Commission again tabled WRJV's application to amend Ordinance No. 52 to December 14th, agreeing that the water feature and sidewalks could be eliminated as developer responsibilities, but asking that we again meet with the Centennial Condominium Association regarding "replacement" trail over the Centennial Condominium property_ You'll recall that this was tried once before without succm in fact, Fred Soyka, a Centennial owner and member of the Centennial Association. Board of Managers, stated during the public comment portion of the hearing that even if the disagreement with WRJV over the amount owed on a disputed billing relating to asphalt repair of a portion of one of Centennial's parking lots was resolved, the Association would = grant a trail easement to the City. The reason given included that previously stated to us, concern that the adjacent Centennial parking lot would be used by the public when accessing the tram. Fred also stated that the footpath now being used over Centennial's property will, in the future, be used for storage purposes (snowmobiles, etc.). Thus, to go back to the Centennial Association as requested by the Commission is a useless and unnecessary act. In addition, rve reviewed the Centennial Condominium Declaration and I do not believe that the Centennial Association has the authority to grant an easement to the City for trail purposes over Centennial property. The land on which the trail would be located is a general common element and as such is owned by all Centennial owners (or at the least those owners of units in the Centennial phase where the trail would be located) as tenants in common. For a trail easement to the City over this property to be legally effective, all of the Centennial owners having an interest in the common elements affected would have to consent to such an easement grant. This is unlikely. The Planning Commission also questioned the idea of allowing the Williams Ranch Homeowners' Association to decide whether to expend the funds available from Williams Ranch Joint Venture to implement the middle segment of the east/west trail over Lots 33, 34, and 35, and whether to make improvements to the existing trail over the open parcel, etc. as we had agreed. As an aside, I do not believe there is a need for a trail to be constructed in this area as such a trail would not directly link any existing trail system. Members of the public can access the Lonnie NOV-15-99 15:28 FROM=CHARLES T. SRANDT & ASSOC ID=9709254559 PAGE 3/4 r"7 Wright Tro (the nearest public trail to Williams Ranch) over Spruce Street or through Williams Ranch on the existing road system_ Vi liams Ranch and Silver King residents can access the Lonnie Wright Trail through the subdivision's road systemm After our Tuesday afternoon meeting, Chris Benden drafted a revised proposed resolution for the Planning Commission's consideration which attempted to reflect the agreement reached during our meeting. However, several aspects of the revised resolution require clarification and modification, as suggested below: Par ra . Okay ParaMUh Since WRJV will provide $10,000 to the Williams Ranch Homeowners Association for use as it sees fit, the completion of the "verticle" trail should be at the Association's direction and there should be no time frame within which to accomplish this improvement- ara rah . This paragraph should provide that WRJV is released from the requirement to construct the trail across Williams Ranch Lots 33, 34 and 35, but that the trail easement shall remain and the trail may be constructed by the Williams Ranch Homeowner's Association in the future if it elects to do so. �h 4. Similarly, this paragraph should provide that WRJV is released from the requirement to construct the trail across Lots 15 through 27 but that the trail easement shall remain and the trail may be constructed by the Williams Ranch Homeowners Association in the future if it elects to do so P h} h - This pat-agraph should provide that WRJV is released from the requirement to construct "hard surface pedestrian walldng access on one side of all roads-" The remainder of this paragraph is satisfactory_ • Para ra . The concept of utilization of the $10,000 by the Williams Ranch Homeowners Association for landscaping and common area improvements and maintenance should be added to this paragraph. r•.-r•. . �., If you agree that the foregoing changes accurately reflect our agreement, please discuss these changes with Chris Benden so that he can revise the resolution prior to the next meeting - In view of the fact that the City is in the process of obtaining the funds in escrow and that Planning Cornmission's requirements disregarded our agreement, I suggest that we arrange to NOV-15-99 15:28 FROM:CHARLES T. BRANDT & ASSOC ID=9709254559 PAGE 4/4 meet to determine hove we can best conclude this matter and proceed to have the amendment to the PUD considered by City Council. Y look forward to hearing, from you. Yours very truly, Charles T. Brandt for Charles T. Brandt & Associates, P_C_ Cc: John Markel via facsimile Gary Wright, Esq. via facsimile David Hoefer, Esq. via facsimile Chris Bendon via facsimile S:\Data\willia=\L-wor=ter.doc DEC-14-99 10:14 FROM=CHARLES T. BRANDT & ASSOC ID=9709254559 PAGE 2/2 • • CHARLE3 T. BRANDT TRAMS S_ TwORNTON GARRET S. BRANDT TO: CHARLES T BRANDT & ASSOCIATES, P.C- ATTORNEYS AT LAW US Bank Building 420 East Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone 970-925-5196 Fax 970-925-4559 MEMORANDUM C. T_ BRANDT. PARALEGAL Christopher Bendon, Planer, and Members of the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission via facsimile CC: John Markel via facsimile John Worcester, Esq. via facsimile David Hoefer, Esq. via facsimile �C uch Brandt FROM: Ch C q 1 DATE: 12/13/99 SUBJECT: Williams Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment John Markel, President of Mark IV, general partner of Williams Ranch Joint Venture, and I have read your Memorandum to the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and the accompanying Resolution. We believe that, with one minor exception, the Memorandum and Resolution is appropriate as it properly reflecst the agreement with the City of Aspen relative to the relinquishment to the City of Williams Ranch Joint Venture's escrowed funds for use by the W- liams Ranch Homeowners' Association. The one exception relates to the comment in your Memorandum that staff still prefers the installation of sidewalks within Williams Ranch. This comment does not take into account the fact that there is no room for sidewalks given the small front yards and short driveways of the Williams Ranch residences. In addition, to link the sidewalks to the trail system under the topic "pedestrian movement" is inappropriate as the trail system, with the exception of the vertical tram, was never intended as a vehicle for pedestrian movement - Because Mr. Markel has just undergone surgery and cannot come to Aspen and I have an appointment on the East Coast that I have been unable to change, neither of us will be in attendance at Tuesday night's continued public hearing. On behalf of the applicant, Williams Ranch Joint Venture, we urge approval of the Resolution by the Planning Commission. Please distribute this Memorandum to members of the Commission. Thank you. FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT OF SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION and WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION IN THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 7, T. 10 S., R. 84 W., 6th F.M., PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO I ':� g;? I I• LINE INFORMATION S BLM BRASS CAP - 1978 C 1/4 SECTION 7 10 M \� v G 4\co FEE1\50 0 50 Q O'KI I I I 1 I I I I I I \F/ s s�,• G 3 34 ' \ B I \ ` /\ GRAPHIC SCALE Cal \ � ' \ 34 A %-s7 0. � I / I \ �SCALE\I INCH = 50 FEET \ '-B goo PA R CEL 7 �V 3= K �3� � \ � L E G E. \ _ ,P 1 \ I GE ACCESS EASEMENT BOOK 578, PAGE 453 4��5 C MONUMENT, FOUND IN PACE O� OD( ROAD CONSTRUCTION WITHIN T� \ AS DESCRIBED EASEMENT SUBJECT TO APPROVALBY I I ( J '//}_ THE CITY OF ASPEN AND PITKIN COI�TY _ j FOUND, BUREAU OF LA11JD \ f GUEST PARKING EASEMENT �� I__ \� MANAGEMENT BRASS CAP, AS DESCRIBED N.T.S. 1 / �� ` � --- -� � SET THIS SURVEY, 5/8" REBAR SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT F R WITH 1 1/2" ALUMINU CAP S 33°46'27,. E THE BENEFIT OF PARCEL "E" MARKED BANNER, INC.20632 \ _ AND THE NORTH PORTION OF / PARCEL •'C'•- THE PRIDE OF ASPEN.\ t 439.96, _ LOT 5 021.9, I I W I I I ! _ S 32132 / ON -EXCLUSIVE I / ACCESSTHE ! E FORTHEEBENEFITI ) J f' ,l a 4 � 4- � I I j ! OF LOT 5 LOT 6 LOT 7 L v W LOT 4 ' � � � WATER PUMP ' �' _ INON-EXCLUSNE • STATION ESML I OT 8 h� \ CCETS ESMT. ' E ACCESS EASEMENT BOOK 593, PAGE 352 / / FOR THE BENEFIT ' ' L__ NON-EXCLUSIVE J ^ AND RE -RECORDED IN BOOK 593, PAGE 429 / / \ i �F LOT 6 '/ 1 ` J �' CCESS ESMT �X ROAD CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE EASE f ENT \ ( yy FOR THE BEN FIT LOT 9 O SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF A PEN i / \ I I %' C OF LOT 7 r / / /�� NON-EXCLUSIVE /� ACCESS ES�T. G v 7' SNOW STORAGE EASEMENT FOR THE BE�JEFIT \ 00 TO THE CITY OF ASPEN / / \ LOT 3 F LOT 4 \� \/ - I OFQ� / LOT 10 // P5� 00°O SA / / \ \ SNOW O• / STACKING \ �/ / / / / �s6 EASEMENT L = 7.71' ELEC. TRANS. ✓ L 2s• EASEMENT Icy / \ m /c(� L9p LOT I LOT 2 \ \ / L91 _ 46' \ A MELT F o/ BLM BRASS CAP Twenty 1201 foot wide private non exclusive access / LOT 2 / Z i ELEC. TRANS. O 4y L T II and public utility easement for the benefit of O 6 y / / LOT 3 ESMT. NQ Parcel E and the southern portion of the Pride of Aspen '�j i ELEC. TRAN I LOT 18 LOT 19 , (/ �a ' -� E CLUS E Mining Claim United States M.S. 7883 AM as the some ! <' o ' Tj Q is described in Resolution 93-141 of the Board of Count 00 �� EASEMENT m I I / v �/� ACCE ES T. y / \ 5�� 1k z LOT 17 O LOT 4 j / \ , R THE B NEFI / Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, the northern c� \ P O F / RUTILITY 8 portion of Pride of Aspen Mining Claim United States QF` / T LOT1y DRAINAGE M.S. 7883 and the Portions of the Ballarat Mining Claim7-'� \ EASEMENT United States M.S. 4438 described in that certain map I // (y recorded in Plai Book 28, at Page 96 of the records / LOT I �� �QR Q�P� i 'a / LO !�� /Q� LOT 5 GUEST PARKING �� �� / of Pitkin County, Colorado, and the same being expressly / \ ��GSFF / / LOT 15 / `/ \ <r� / EASEMENT 4os ti O Y , LOT 12 dedicated hereb LOT 6 ELEC TRANS. O� oa ac �% �9 / T. ESMOO cD �9 LOT 14 0 4p �h ` q0, LOT 7 / EC. TR S. C'CnS J / j O LOT 22 SEMENT �+ q 5g / LOT 10 \ 6,• / SEMENT N 15 DITCH EASE N j / \ N me0'��� EPARKIN ASEMENT o LOT 8 � ELEC.TRANg�j����a FOR THE G p l EASEMENT/ECIPPNO.p�NA -'PS 1 ! (JT 76 \. �pV 6' I , � RFNEFIT \ ��/ / LOT 13 / %\ / \ a/ \-kOF _0"i 24 l%� P' / j •1i 3 � 1 CI�7� �' _ � 169.08• �Jj ARKING qO, �F DRAINAGE , 7" E \ a 5 P EgSEMENT P .�f / � � � \ BF 7HE�,A Y ti LOT II EASEMENT\ NIT' RV SEWER EA EMENT ro \I O BEN FITS qP �%' LOT 12 of Lo a`° t� i LOT 9 R i �IL�FAM�R NCH APAR PARCEL N 46°3827" W 56J0' m N w 2 q �2� !y -s- \ \ s 10' T IL EASE T. °m. �m ° o o �� ��) BLM BRASS CAP o \ cs° ". PARKING UTILI Y EAS T Z 2 sr - 1978 O. / _ _ !. __ ti 2. \ n�� 32°/O.37„ EASEMENT y I �.__._. --- -�-""-..�- y \� (n o 2� \ E fib. O�/6 roof LOT 2 LOT 26 S \/ OPEN SPACE \` \ '� m s, o"/ o'is' AQ S UTILITY EASEMENT G-a ryti ��o ^� ti�s. / m � _- , (� \ �jT OW&GUEST PARKING EASEM T - o y� �ti c�� �� c�5 �( S, y PARKING EASEMENT �� O LOT 14 \ C'�llU BOOK 508, PAGE 3 v✓� C G- 4 `g 0 O s; \/ y F J FOR BENEFIT '- /� . \ a S\ ` / G OF LOT 28 s� G AG A Q \ 9cF v BANNER ASSOC., INC. CENTEN 2?—/ 254.61• 1�'o I I- C'NDOMIN/uMS ` ` r W wA�.L�CE I- SEWLE j 20632 p 4ND P \, (P ..19 9 � GUEST PARKING \ •'�/ C OA PARKING EASEMENT J \ p TRANS. a Q�J EASEMENT EASE. LOT 35 �'� FOR ENEFI7 -EC. TRANS_-- j 2372 0 ELEC.// ° O of LOT 2 EASEMENT L104 J SAl / / EASEMENTS 06 \ \ ' Q / O J o-LOT 27 / \ 11 0G LOT 29 LOT 30 LOT 31 4�� / \ 4 \ LOT 28 LOT 15 \ \ SC OPEBOOKEA SEM UTILITY ES MENT S� URH ACEN AU EMENT, - / BOOK 504pA48o e 494 p AND PUBLIC R.O.W. �' BOOK 80, PAGE 580 / PAGE 312 ti DEDICATION (/ AND BOOK GE 66 BOOK 508, PAGE 312 AND / � .' `: TRAIL EASEMENT ' �o / BOOK 17, PAGE 30 AND UTILITY EASEMENT T \ -Z DRAINAGE __ C EASEMENT WILLIAMS RANCH PARK PARCEL; ' 3 1/4" ALCAP SET 10' TRAIL EASEMENT CEr /\�'�N AND UTILITY EASEMENT .j'/�( CONCRETEIN vT E ( • EASEMENTS i" 10 \�C�Don /N/ U.S. ARMY OF ENGINES EL - 8045. S FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT OF SILVERLODE St'jBDIVISION and WILL S RANCH SUBDIVISION SCALE: JOB NO: DATE: OF SILVER LODE-WILLIAMS RANCH PARCEL OF SMUGGLER MINE SUBDI ON IN THE SE 1/4 OF I = 50' 8256_08 SECTION7,7, T. 10 S., R. 84 W., 64h P.M., PITKIN COUNTY, RADO SHEET NO: 4 of 4 pp d r 't "f. e". `p'E'Hsraw�.��-ik $" ' *`' � �. � ,w �".'� . ' � • � • • V Cr V 4 —``� \ 819 O Q> IN ANCH 8180WILLIAMS \\ �\DEVELOPMENT 8/60 idated Smuggler Co oration (303 PROJECT G tp 925 The Stevens G1 oup, Inc. Busine 8110 __--. ,,` —� ^~`` 1�\_ .^ ``^ - ., ��,821 pnter • - 81 O 8 .. Street, Suite 106 of . 81611 1 - 0 $ �} _ _ ` _ _ ' `�. '\ \, 8/CHITECTUR / 6 O "— 817 p Ar ed —._ — -- 40,.`.. -th • Taos, i,.ro .7.71 O 6 _ - mot" ��.— -._ �� ^ 8 3� ^ ., p_. _ _ _ 0. street V _ T '�Banner Asso �tes, Inc. ..__.._ . . 81611 f _ I ----- ! - ^ N L J•Ax lo ,r C TA .41 2\ /i O+ ; K _ i, 79 c.t t'►ZI P� orb 1 ` 14Ir ,: 1 _ �... CURT w pt\ W VR• 1 `1\ R Site De ✓c lopment Plan Final P. U.D. Plain -- �` ` _ �, ;. ►\. ...►� �..� R Public I cilities Plan ri FINAL FLAT C Y`f yA-• • • • • �TG'll�lu i � 5 j FINAL SUB ON PLAT OF SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION and WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION IN THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 7, T. 10 S., R. 84 W., 6th P.M., PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO �/ V \ I \ All OF LINE INFORMATION BLM BRASS CAP - 1978 C 1/4 SECTION 7 v-q rn 0 1B 0iI I\ \ 35- I 1 GUEST PARKING EASEMENT <0 Q co FEET 11'50 0N50E� Q I1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I �jC\ °' 1l^IGRAPHIC SCALE �1 SCAll INCH = 50 FEET s� \ 1 � BcoK %3/ CEL E \ ��� LEGE Pq GE \ PACCESS EASEMENT BOOK 5711, PAGE 453 4C�5 O MONUMENT, FOUND IN Pl ACE O� � ROAD CONSTRUCTION WITHIN T \ AS DESCRIBED O EASEMENT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL THE CITY OF ASPEN AND PITKIN COIjNTY FOUND, BUREAU OF LAD (,-� — y_ -0 MANAGEMENT BRASS CAP, "J ` \ AS DESCRIBED I SET THIS SURVEY, 5/18" REBAR N.T.S. I / /� _ SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT WITH 1 1/2" ALUMINUM CAP THE BENEFIT OF PARCEL "E" MARKED BANNER, INC. 20632 \ AND THE NORTH PORTION OF tiARCEL "C`- THE PRIDE OF ASPEN.\ 102.19• / / I 1 LOT 5 Q �� -32°3235„ e ON -EXCLUSIVE I ' I I w O/ / ACCESS ESMT. ' Q w'-- ` FOR THE BENEFITI J 1 Q z v /\ OO / / OF LOT 5 I ? J LOT 6 ' �' LOT 7 LOT 4 I IKON -EXCLUSIVE 1/ UMP STATIONWATER ESMT. �r I ' 0T 8 CCESS ESMT. ' ' f \ FOR THE BENEFIT I JI NON-EXCLUSIVE ACCESS EASEMENT BOOKPAGE 352 \ �F LOT 6 j y i -�J CCESS ESMT. AND RE -RECORDED IN BOOK 593, PAGE 429 / / I, y FOR THE BEN FIT LOT 9 DC ROAD CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE EASE ENT \ \ OF LOT 7 OSUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF A PEN / C/ USIVE \ ACCESS T. \ I I N� \ \ 1 / / •l 1, v 7' SNOW STORAGE EASEMENT / FOR THE BENEFIT p TO THE CITY OF ASPEN OF LOT 4 0 A LOT 3 LOT 10 SNOW ,T/4/'I / / //•�.\/ /\ V \ \ STACKING V z7r L ASE ME NT = ELEC. TRANS- �' � J � L zs EASEMENT LOT I LOT 2 \ \ 90 L91 EA ME TN CCFS BLM BRASS CAP TRANS S1y0 / ��\P L T 11 1/7383-1978 Twenty 1201 toot wide private non exclusive access / LOT 2 / `L / I ELEC. and public utility easement for the benefit of .h�` \ >� C�0 LOT 18 eb LOT 3 ESMT. �O�' / _E LUS E Parcel E and The southern portion of the Pride of Aspen �'h / /^ (OCY E EASEMENT �� �e i LOT 19 �"/ - / ry0 T/</TY Q x ACC ES T./ Mining Claim United States M.S. 7883 AM as the same �° \ lf` A A LOT 4 \1 r `FO-R THE B €FI / UTILITY Si �. is described In Resolution 93-141 of the Board of County 0 / / S� 2 LOT 17 / / R/ 15 LOT 10 Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, the northern Gj / \ \ (`P" �0. I Fl]_ / s/ T \ DRAINAGE - portion of Pride of Aspen Mining Claim United States / // \ / P� �0.�7i. '(0� I / CS/, / Pb �O� EASEMENT M.S. 7883 and the Portions of the Ballarat Mining Claim / 0�' / 0 / 'Q/ ` (/ reUnited cordedSiniPlaf Book428, atdescribed Page otthat ihecertain records map / // LOT I \ XQ� QXp d L �i� q� LOT 5 / GUEST PARKING p / �qy l LOT 12 /\J G / o <1 \ L� EASEMENT ` O of Pitkin County, Colorado, and the same being expressly / // FlF' gF.�' / LOT 15 / dedicated hereby. ire-/ ry �.9 ti/10 / % LOT 6 ELEC. TRANS ESMTS9V LOT 14 / 4p y►/ q�, L 0 T 7 EC. TR S. CF SEMENT SS, LOT 22 y LOT 10 \ 15' DITCH EASE NT \ �0^� ° ,�e`ry PARKNG � LOT 8 ��` / ELEC. EASEMENTS / y / f ESE /' LOT 13 / i C�PROCA` NOtE NO. p,GE LOT ME / LOT 36 �e OFNEOr z4 Ati 0. y ^� PARKING ry0� yL1 /C7 �\ / DRAINAGE / 6e_oe" � °i� EASEMENT \ / E �_ ?' FASEMHEv9,, ' / QO� 2 LOT II / Y / AWT Y SEWER EA n; T of BE FIT .� d, �1 T ,n LOT 9 LOT 12 / _ 1NILNAMS�RANCH PARK PARCEL — r L u ab ae'z7" w se.lo' s 10' TRAIL EASEMENT \ \m I / ° ° BLM BRASS CAP / AND UTILITY EASEMENT __ : z 2� \ ^i Y s2•,o.z3g EASEMENT � y 197E �O y _ u y \ j \ 3T E FOR TH a BENEFIT 5 �. of LOT z LOT 26 OPEN SPACE \ \ G �m '� e titi �p ti\ s� e'sa / N q UTILITY EASEMENT w/EST PARKN/O EASE o� + 2> h y S. b !/� FOR BENEFIT LOT I• �� b p � Gj 2 ♦ PARKING EASEMENT CF BOOK 508, PAGE 312 � J � s..h / \ P`GG•• \ - G P 4� O 3' \ U v O OF LOT 28 GUEST PARKING \ L \ 4 0 y 7T _n p EASEMENT \ \ �._Z PARKING / sT \ ry TRANS. �� Q\Pi ti EASEMENT C/o/v0 \ B F ENT �/ LOT 35 �� C EC. TRANS o g / �\ \ OF,� \ C EjUN/4 L EASE. Q 5 °° / ENEFIT L104 �� ,EEEASEMENTS >` O of LOT z EASEMENT lip \ CONDOM yO�a�LDT 27 LOT 29 LOT 30 LOT 31 A \ I \ LOT 28 P / z LOT 15 \ 90 \ \ eP\ 9 O O SLOPE E COWENHOVEN TUNNEL !- / 9 OK 5,BOOK 8 PP E GEE 494 UTILITY EASEMENT SUBSURFACE EASEMENT, 13 -�� / AGE 312 /C AND PUBLIC R.O.W. ' BOOK 110, PAGE 5110 DEDICATION 10' TRAIL EASEMENT ry° AND BOOK 92, PAGE 66 �� M 13EM E E BOOK 508, PAGE 312 AND '�� 1 '• / —y. AND UTILITY EASEMENT 0 ` BEE632 BOOK 17, PAGE 30 �- _ \ \ 600 \ ��� EDRAINAGE ASEMENT --� EAS WILLIAMS RANCH PARK PARCEL 31/4" ALUMINU \ 10' TRAIL EASEMENT CENT �- \ CAP SET IN \ AND UTILITY EASEMENT Ern N'A CONCRETE 19 9 S "L /'� O �� _ U.S. ARMY CORI 1. NGINEERS E "61 ` EASEMENTS L)OM/NIUMS 5 3, ELL = 8045.90 1 SCALE: JOB N0: DATE: FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT OF SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION and WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION I.. = -50 8256-08 5-6-95 OF SILVERLODE-WILLIAMS RANCH PARCEL OF SMUGGLER MINE SUBDIVISION IN THE SE 1/4 OF SHEET N ): SECTION 7, T. 10 S., R. 84 W., 6th P.M., PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO 4 of 4 BANNER ASSOC., INC. • • 9 0 0 �►.'1 3 �- o�y- 3p•os.��j ��� avr S a... U FA 0221 f COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPAIAMNT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-5090 City of Aspen Land Use: 1041 Deposit 1042 Flat Fee 1043 HPC 1046 Zoning and Sign 1163 Referral Fees: City Engineer �. 1205 Environmental Health 1190 Housing Building Fees: 1071 Board of Appeals 1072 Building Permit 1073 Electrical Permit 1074 Energy Code Review 1075 Mechanical Permit 1076 Plan Check 1077 Plumbing Permit 1078 Reinspection Other Fees: L145 Copy 1302 GIS Maps 1481 Housing Cash in Lieu 1383 Open Space Cash in Lieu 1384 Park Dedication 1468 Parking Cash in Lieu Performance Deposit 1268 Public Right-of-way 1 164 School District Land Ded. TOTAL NAME: A.. d L',V ADDRESS / PROJECT: PHONE: CHECK# CASE/PERMIT#: Q44r # OF COPIES: DATE: INITIAL: W, PARCEL ID: 12737 074 30 004 DATE RCVD: 030498 # COPIES: 10 CASE NO A021 98 CASE NAME: Williams Ranch PUD Amendment PLNR:lChris Bendon PROJ ADDR: Williams Ranch (SilverLode Subd) CASE TYP: PUD Amendment STEPS:���� R _" OWN/APP: Williams Ranch Join ADR C/S/Z: PHN:�� REP: Stevens, Thomas G. - Stev ADR:' 31 2 E AABC � C/S/Z: Aspen,CO 81611 PHN:925-6717 i FEES DUE: 450+270eng=720 FEES RCVD: 720 STAT: REFERRALS REF:F- BYF- DUE:[- MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED i I DATE OF FINAL ACTION:F,� o REMARKS1 CITY COUNCIL:F PZ:BOA:�- CLOSED: � -'.> "1BY: ;,�� DRAC: PLAT SUBMITD: PLAT (BK,PG):�- ADMIN:1 ��� • MEMORANDUM TO: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner W 1 RE: Williams Ranch First Amendment DATE: July 10, 1998 APPROVED JUL 1' 1998 C()6WUNgy DEV OF ASPEN DIRK+IUR CITY Tom Stevens, representing Williams Ranch Joint Venture, has applied for an amendment to the Subdivision / PUD plat. The amendments proposed affect property boundary lines, easements, and vehicular access areas. A draft of this plat has been reviewed and the applicant has responded to those concerns raised by our Department and the City Engineer. The applicant has agreed to record, subsequent to this plat amendment, a plat showing as -built locations of buildings on each lot. This should be done prior to final acceptance of the Subdivision by the City. This is an insubstantial amendment to the Subdivision/PUD plat. The Community Development Director may approve insubstantial amendments to Subdivisions and PUDs pursu to Sections 26.88.060 and 26.84.080. I am recommending approval of this -s42"with a conditions requiring a subsequent plat showing as -built locations of the buildings on each lot be recorded prior to final acceptance of the Subdivision. APPROVAL: I hereby approve this Insubstantial Amendment for the re -platting of the Williams Ranch and Silverlode Subdivisions as proposed with one condition. 1. Prior to final acceptance of the Subdivision by the City of Aspen, the applicant shall record a plat showing the as -built placements of the buildings on each lot. date Stan so , ommunity Development Direc r • • Williams Ranch ,Joint Venture 3214 Campanil Drive Santa Barbara CA 93109 Office: 805-687-825 5 Fax:805-687-9745 5/5/98 Mr. John P. Worcester City Attorney, Aspen CO Subject: Various WR Closing Issues Dear John, �j - W � 1) l IAIA d,,,M J,, In advance I apologize for the length of this letter but since each of this issues will need to be dealt with I might as well list them all in one letter. Here goes: 1 The Insubstantial Plat Amendment On 5-4-98 I submitted the final mylar to Chris Benden of the Planning department. I requested that the final signed mylar be returned to Darin at Land Title for the final recordation. He stated that it should require one to two weeks to obtain the remaining City signatures. I would appreciate it if you would insure that the Engineering department responds in a reasonably prompt manner. We responded to their fourth iteration labeled "draft" which was submitted to us one week after you instructed them to provide a "final" version (after a meeting weeks ago that you attended). If the Engineering department proposes substantial changes I will question why it required four expensive iterations to reach this point. If they propose minor additional changes I will question why minor changes are being requested at this point. As I stated in my prior letter, hopefully you will agree with me that "enough" is enough. Your assistance in guiding the signature process, particularly from the Engineering department would be greatly appreciated. 2. The Park Department Request Many discussions have occurred between the WRJV and the Parks Department regarding the City accepting the ongoing maintenance of the Molly Gibson Park. Never was the issue of additional funding to the City or the Parks Department mentioned. Nonetheless, due to the excellent relationship that we have maintained during the past few years of the development, I will agree to your request for a one-time payment of $13,500. In return, I request the following from the City 1) the City agrees to accept immediate transfer of the Park and the adjacent roadway from the County with the recognition that I have modified the Escrow agreement so that the City replaces the County to insure our obligations per the County Letter defining a potential $29,800 obligation, 2) The City accept the WRJV's obligations (outside of its repair/replacement obligations per the County Letter) as being paid in full, and 3) No new additions beyond our prior County Commitments will be added by the Parks department. In other words, at this point we will have received a partial release from the parks department so that our only remaining financial obligation to the City in this area is the replacement of dead or diseased trees per the County Letter. This replacement work will occur in June and then we will contact the Parks department for a final signoff in this area and then request a release from you for the $29,800 being held at Land Title to secure this work. The check for $13,500 is enclosed. John Worcester- 5-4-98 -Closing Issues - 05/05/98 - 9:11 AM 0 • 3. Additional Releases — Proposed Security for City This month, the Alpine Bank loan for the WRJV will be paid off per terms of its original 1995 agreement. The construction loan with Pitkin County Bank for completing the AH units remains in place (with proposed payoff in July, 1998). Alpine Bank's I" trust deed positions on SilverLode Lots 2, 3, and 8 will be released resulting in the City's 2°d positions then becoming 1" TD positions. I am requesting that you agree to a release of SilverLode Lot 3 (which will be needed so that Alpine can re- establish a 1'` TD position for a home development construction loan) and SilverLode Lot 8 which (as we discussed in our last visit) will be closed on July 1, 1998. The City will then have a 1" TD position on Lot 2 with a market value (its contract price) of $725,000. At most our current remaining encumbrances to the City (excluding the completion of the AH units funded by the Pitkin County Bank loan) is $150,000. Between July 1 and August 1, we agreed in our last meeting that the remaining obligations would be defined and then secured for the benefit of the City. As of August 1, we will need to obtain a release from you on Lot 2 as it is under contract for closing on that date. As I stated to you in the last meeting I believe that by this time (as long as we can get a single list of cleanup tasks from the Engineering department after their project inspection in early July) essentially all obligations to the City will have been completed and therefore we would seek a full release from the City, assuming your concurrence. In addition you stated that "we should be able to work something out" regarding the two-year maintenance period requested by the City. I would appreciate having this item resolved by July 1, 1998. Ideally the City recognizes that by August 1, 1998 in reality, a two-year maintenance period for the water system installation will have occurred and that no further financial obligations will be necessary. 4. Final $50;000 Impact Fee Payment Although I don't have our Agreement with me on this trip to Aspen, I believe that based on our most recent closing, we now owe you the final $50,000 impact fee. The check is enclosed. I would appreciate a prompt response acknowledging agreement (if it exists) on each issues 1-3. If not, please respond with your requested changes. To properly close out this project, several more letters with additional issues will undoubtedly be necessary. If you have any ideas for more efficient communication on the remaining closing issues please let me know your thoughts. Thank you once again for your ongoing assistance. Sincerely Yours i John D. Markel President, Mark IV, Inc. General Partner, Williams Ranch Joint Venture Apr-03-98 12:21P SilverLode Real Estate 970 963-4891 P.01 The Stevens Group, Incorporated 312 E Aspen Airport Business Center Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-6717 (Phone) (970) 925-6707 (Fax) FAX TRANSMISSION Please deliver the following pages to: NMNE: John Worchester COMPANY: City of Aspen FAX NUMBER: FROM: ; om Stevens DATE: April3, 1998 RE: Williams Ranch CC: Nick Aden Phil Overeynder JackReid Rebecca Schickling Stephan Kanipe Ed Van Walraven Tom Bracewell Chris Bendon Sara Thomas COMMENTS: Meeting Summary hr.�'Civ i!1) APR 6 1"8 AtWmiv / ri i rouv COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The total number of pages including this cover being transmitted is 2. Please call if you experience any difficulties with this transmission Apr-03-98 12:21P SilverLode Real Estate 970 963-4891 P.02 April 3, 1998 Mr. John Worchester City Attorney City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: WILLIAMS RANCH Dear John, I appreciate the opportunity to have met with you and the City staff on March 23, 1998 with regards to the above referenced project. It was very helpful in our efforts to continue the momentum towards completion of this development. Below is a summary of that meeting. If you have any additional comments and/or clarification please contact me immediately. In attendance were; Nick and Ross from Engineering, Rebecca from Parks, Phil from Water, Chris from Planning, and Stephen from Building, Tom Stevens from WRJV and Hans Brucker from Banner Associates. There are three separate activities under way at this time; 1.) Units 16 through 24 are in the process of Certificate of Occupancy, 2.) Plat Amendment #1 is in the review process, and 3.) Williams Ranch Joint Venture is planning on a Subdivision completion in late summer 1998 and will be seeking review and release of financial securities. The process for C.O. should not be delayed for Subdivision release issues as they are independent. C.O. should be reviewed as to health safety and welfare issues associated with the specific unit. Water Department Issues Phil has provided Hans Brucker with additional information required of the "as built" drawings. Hans will add this information and provide revised drawings to Phil on 3/30/1998 (DONE). Hans and Phil will conduct a site walkthrough at same time. The purpose of this walkthrough will be to turn the completed system over to the City water Department. The Water Service Agreement calls for financial security for the water system to be in place for two years after completion. Tom will have John Markel call Phil to review (DONE). Engineering Department Issues The solution for the "aesthetic" ditch along the Salvation ditch has not yet been resolved. .112 E, Aspen Airport Business Center, Ashen, Colorxio81011 (303) 925-6717 FAX: (303) 92:i-6707 Apr-03-98 12:21P SilverLode Real Estate 970 963-4891 i • P_03 Mr. John Worchester Ap; it 3, 1998 Pale 2 Site drainage is a concern for both spring erosion control and for C.O. issuance. Tom explained that all rough grading and drainage has been completed and that landscape grading will complete the site. This work is scheduled for first thing this spring as weather permits. The drainage structure above SilverLode lots 12 and 13 has not yet been installed. This work is currently scheduled and will be completed per plan. Hans will be submitting for staffreview an alternative for this structure. If accepted, construction plans will be modified to accept new plan. Hans to have detail to Ross 3130/98 (DONE). Hay bails should be located at all inlets to prevent silt buildup. This will be done as the snow decreases on size. Aspen Eardunoving will cut all pipes flush with manholes. Hans to provide Ross "as built" drawings for the site infrastructure systems once complete but prior to final acceptance. The roads will receive a final 2 inches of asphalt and all required repairs, which is scheduled for June 1, 1998. Tom will contact Jack Reid for an inspection prior to final paving. WIIUV should install No Parking signs along SilverLode and Williams Ranch Drives. All private utilities are complete and proof of acceptance by individual private companies is demonstrated by the change of account to homeowner and beginning of service. Parks Department Issues W;ZJV to install 8 foot "crusher fines" trail this summer. Tom to stake alignment for Parks review prior to construction. WRJV is currently in the process of trail construction from SilverLode lot 10, down through Williams Ranch lots 6 and 10 and on down to property boundary. Plat call for dedication of trail easement from SilverLode lot 15 at the south to the City parcel to the north. Tom will check documents to see if WR V constructs trail or simply grants easement. Aar-03-98 12:21P SilverLode Real Estate 970 963-4891 • • P.04 Mr. John Worchester April 3, 1998 Page 3 Plat Amendment Issues Easement to Williams Ranch lot 35 has been finalized by Banner and in hands of Sara Thomas. Chris to check. Note to be added to plat on Williams Court saying "Public Access" WRJV to prepare a plan (not part of Plat Amendment) depicting all building locations, lot lines and SilverLode driveways. Ross has another review memo. He will provide to Tom, Ann Kirwin and Wallace Beedle (WE HAVE SEEN A DRAFT BUT NOT A FINAL AS OF THIS DATE). C.O. Issues Engineering has not completed review at this time. Concern over drainage. Ross to schedule on site meeting to review (STATUS UNKNOWN). Misc. Issues WRJV has made initial $50,000 payment to City. The final $50,000 payment will be due soon as well as School Impact Fee and RFTA Impact Fee Again, if you have any comments and/or clarifications, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Thomas G. Stevens Project Manager, Williams Ranch Joint Venture Cc: Nick Adeh, City Engineering Department Phil Overeynder, Utilities Director Jack Reid, Streets Superintendent Rebecca Schickling, Assistant Parks Director Stephen Kanipe, Chief Building Official Ed Van Walraven, Fire Marshal, AVFD Tom Bracewell, Superintendent, ACSD Chris Bendon, Project Panner Sara Thomas, Zoning Officer John Markel, Williams Ranch Joint Venture Mitch Haas, 02:34 PM 12/3/W, Re: Reciprocal Easements, Will ' X-Sender: mitchh@comdev Date: Thu,12 Mar 199814:34:18 -0700 To: chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us From: Mitch Haas <mitchh@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Re: Reciprocal Easements, Williams Ranch & SilverLode >X-Sender: philo@water >Date: Thu,12 Mar 199814:23:26 -0700 >To: Ross Soderstrom <ross@ci.aspen.co.us> >From: Phil Overeynder <philo@ci.aspen.co.us> >Subject: Re: Reciprocal Easements, Williams Ranch & SilverLode >Cc: mitchh@ci.aspen.co.us, nicka@ci.aspen.co.us, geraldd@ci.aspen.co.us, > marko@ci.aspen.co.us >Ross, >I received a copy of the plat notes and believe it is clear that the >easement covers the water lines located in the emergency access way off of >North Spruce St. I still would like to clarify the location of the >structures on Lots 21 and 22 since in the field it appears that access to >the water line in the easement between these two lots is very tight. What is >the status of showing building footprints on one of the sheets of the >proposed plat? >On a related matter, I asked John Worcester about the advisability of >signing off on the plat and allowing the lots to record before the site >improvement issues are resolved. I believe John has sent a letter to Mr. >Markel describing the incomplete work. You and Mitch may want to discuss the >plat recordation issue with John but he advised against signing it before >the list off items is resolved since we would no longer be dealing with the >developer but the individual lot owners. These new owners will have no idea >about what was promised to be delivered as part of the subdivision agreement >and what remains as incomplete. >Phil >At 05:36 AM 3/ 10/ 98 -0700, you wrote: >>Phil & Tom: >>I have left copies in your mail boxes of the plat notes (23 & 24) from the >>original Williams Ranch/SilverLode Subdivision Plat for each of you. I also >>attached the sections (7.6) from the subdivision covenants for Williams »Ranh regarding these easements. I believe the corresponding sections in >>the SilverLode Subdivision covenants are the same as the Williams Ranch >>subdivision but with different lot numbers and subdivision names. I don't >>have a copy of the recorded covenants for SilverLode Subdivision. Printed for Christopher Bendon <chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us> 1 0 • Date: Time: Reference: TO: 312 7 l98 FAX TRANSMITTAL City of Aspen Engineering Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 COMPANY/ BUSINESS NAME: Gv.QJ" l/ 0-/a srtu'eA�s 606�C� FA.Y NO.: 925- 6 702 FROM: Ross C. Soderstrom Project Engineer TELE. NO.: (970) 920-5087 FAX NO.: (970) 920 l 19 COMMENTS: Tao 7V ACyl L11-5 ... d, , ,. ,, J. I'_ . ' 0i G �' - r ,1- -. A' i/ rrr ♦ . r i 4r.. Sou l�fE�rn�Ea ,4i�T 2 gaJusr 711 � �r ��KE� ors -13 34 V446V 57CD A&,� A07- shwsaa 0r1 ME fur � 711 I NATURE: T � AEU/EGrJ ��l+�ul,D Ai'f'f 4i2 ah si T� PL4�t/ ®A . NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS PAGE:_ ORIGINALS WILL WILL NOT a'% BE MAILED. T FAXFORIv1A. DOC • 0 To: Thru: From: Date: Re: Attachments: MEMORANDUM Chris Bendon, Project Planner Nick Adeh, City Engineer Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer March 23, 1998 Williams Ranch / SilverLode Subdivision / PUD Plat Amendment Review Appendix "A": List of Plat Corrections Physical Address: Williams Ranch Drive and SilverLode Drive, City of Aspen, CO Legal Description: Williams Ranch / SilverLode Subdivisons / PUD, City of Aspen, CO Parcel ID No.: xxxx-xxx-xx-xxx After reviewing the above referenced application and making a site visit, I am reporting the combined comments made by the members of the DRC: [Site conditions at the time of site visit: March 10, 1998 and during subsequent site visits; 2-4 foot snow pack; some ground surface and features indistinguishable under snow and ice pack.] N.B.: In this memorandum Williams Ranch Subdivision will be identified as "WRS" while SilverLode Subdivision will be identified as "SLS". Discussion: Due to the incomplete development and delivery of the public infrastructure improvements, the City Attorney has recommended that the City not sign the subdivision/PUD plat amendment until the status of the public improvements has been evaluated and the condition of the financial securities for these improvements has been verified for sufficiency and liquidity. This is currently in progress and we expect to have a status review by March 27, 1998. 1. Changes in Conditions: If the proposed use, density, geometry, or timing of construction of the project change, or the site, parking, grading or utility plans for this project change subsequent to this review, a complete set of the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering Dept. for review and re- evaluation. The discussion and recommendations given in this memorandum apply to the application and plans (dated December 16, 1997) provided for this review and such comments and recommendations may change in response to changes in the use, density, geometry, or timing of the construction of the project, or changes in the site, parking, grading or utility designs. 2. Subdivision /PUD Plat: The revised subdivision /PUD plat, consisting of five (5) sheets dedicated to surveying, represents most of the amendments requested in the application and correction of typographical errors and omissions from the Final Subdivision/PUD plat. However, in reviewing the construction of the development there are several conflicts between the original design and actual field 1 OF 5 DRCM868.130C DRAFT 0 • Memo - Williams Ranch / SilverLode Subdivision / PUD Plat Amendment Review DRAFT conditions which have not been addressed. Depending upon the resolution of several items discussed below and the review comments of the other departments, there may be additional changes to the plat. Our revisions are listed in the attached Appendix A. Although conceptually represented in the final plat for the PUD, the site plan, landscape plan, utility and grading plan should each be updated to show the "as -built" conditions of the development. In the site plan, the building footprints and associated parking spaces for the RO and affordable housing lots (with the adjusted lot lines) in the WRS need be shown. The building envelopes (revised), driveways and driveway easements should be shown for the SLS in the revised site plan. In order to evaluate the site plan and approve of the building envelopes and lot lines, the revised site plan will need to be included with the plat for review and recording. A signature block for the Chief Building Official needs to be added to the plat. We understand that the "as -built" plans and drawings of the subdivisions will be prepared in August, 1998 after our meeting of March 23, 1998, with Tom Stevens and Hans Brucker. Neither a site, landscaping, utility nor grading plan were included in the application packet for the subdivision amendment. The applicant will be required to complete the standard requirements and conditions associated with the form(s) of development requested in the application. 3. Easement Encroachments: As required in Ordinance 52, Series of 1994, there were to be no encroachments (development) into "... any easement areas identified on the Final Plat." and a plat note to this effect appears on the Final Plat. Without the benefit of having "as -built" plans and being able to review the site without snow cover, there are concerns that some easements may in -fact be restricted or encroached upon by development. Of particular concern is the 20 ft wide water main easement on the common lot line of Lots 21 & 22, WRS. Similarly, the driveway easement across Lot 11 for the benefit of Lot 10, SLS, should be reviewed in the field. After the Spring, 1998, snowmelt the location and condition of each of the utility easements should be verified in the field for conformance and possible corrective work prior to acceptance of the subdivisions. 4. Vehicular Access and Parking Easements: In the Final Subdivision Plat, the Guest Parking Easement (WRS) and the trail and utility easement along the southwesterly side of the subdivision overlapped such that the trail run through three (3) parking spaces. To correct this, the Guest Parking Easement was adjusted slightly and the parking spaces moved northeasterly to permit passage of the trail on the outside of the parking lot without overlap into the parking spaces. In the revised subdivision / PUD plat, the Guest Parking Easement has been identified by cross -hatching and an arrow points to only the four (4) parking spaces labeled G-1 through G-4 located on Lot 32, WRS. This appears inconsistent with the detail in the original subdivision plat (Sheet 5) which shows a pentangular area across portions of lots 32, 33 and 34, WRS, which encompasses the driveway, aisle and parking spaces which would permit access from the Brown Lane right-of-way and maneuvering space within the parking lot itself. As such, the cross -hatching should be deleted, the label arrow extended to the center of the parking lot, and the northerly side of the parking easement extended to close upon the adjusted common lot line of Lots 32 and 36. To minimize the area of overlap between the Guest Parking Easement with the trail and utility easement, two new lines should be added in the corner of the parking easement to follow the outside edge of parking space G-1 and along the northerly edge of the driveway, and a distance dimension added along this of the parking easement. Additional notes and dimensions are included in Appendix "A". 2OF5 DRCM8c98.DOC DRAFT • Memo - Williams Ranch / Silverl-odeivision /PUD Plat Amendment Review DRAFT Lot 35, Williams Ranch Subdivision, does not have contiguous connection with either a public nor private right-of-way as it was originally platted. To remedy this, an exclusive 20 ft wide `vehicular alley access easement" has been created to connect this lot to a right-of-way. As this is presently drawn, it does not make connection with either the Guest Parking Easement across lots 32, 33 and 34, AIRS, nor with the public right-of-way of Brown Lane abutting the subdivision. The preferred route for this access easement to complete connection to a right-of-way would be to continue the easement to the northwest until it reaches the southerly line of the Guest Parking Easement (course N 570 20' 10" E, 59.0l'). The Final Subdivision / PUD plat showed several parking easements across the lots of the WRS to permit vehicle parking on neighboring lots next to the lot benefited. Other than those on the cul-de-sac, these parking easements have been eliminated from the draft of the plat submitted for this review under the assumption that all of the parking spaces for each lot, respectively, are now located entirely on the benefited lot. While there is still snow covering these parking spaces which prohibits verifying the location of the parking spaces and the lot lines, this should be included in the contents for a subsequent plat amendment. This may involve easements on Lots 19, 23, 24, 25, 28, and 29, WRS, for neighboring lots. 5. Conflict of Trail and Utility Easement Over the Drainage Recharge Field: Within Lot 36, AIRS, is a storm drainage recharge field (an Infiltrator Drainage System) for the Williams Ranch and SilverLode Subdivisions. This lot is also bisected by a trail and utility easement which appears to cross over the area in which the recharge field is located. This creates a potential conflict between the recharge field and possible use of this utility easement by a utility provider. Since this recharge field is a private improvement of the joint homeowners associations, and is primarily made of plastics and washed aggregate, there would be no one readily available who could locate the field nor an easy means of doing so since it is non-metallic and does not carry an electric signal. If someone were to only refer to the survey plat of this subdivision and did not knew to refer to the site plan or construction drawings for this subdivision, they would not know of the existence of the recharge field which has only a few feet of ground cover when they begin trenching to install future utilities. Due to the existence of the recharge field, the utility portion of this combined easement is unusable in its present location. There are two (2) possible solutions (enumerated below) to this conflict although each will require the review and sign -off of each of the utility providers which signed the Final Plat since the utility easement has already been dedicated with their endorsement. A. Vacate the utility portion of the combined trail and utility easement entirely, if it is redundant . or unneeded. B. Separate the utility portion of the combined easement from the trail portion and relocate the utility portion to parallel and be contiguous with the exterior boundary of the WRS. While either option is relatively easy, in consideration of completing the lot line adjustments in a timely manner for the future homeowners, it is more expedient to add a note and cross -hatched area to the present version of the plat identifying the extent of the recharge field, and then making another plat amendment to permanently resolve the conflict of the utility easement and the recharge field. The authorization of the future property owners to make additional revisions to the subdivision plat would need to be extended beyond the present plat amendment in order to resolve this issue if it is not resolved in this plat amendment itself. 3OF5 DRCM8c98.DOC DRAFT 1 • Memo - Williams Ranch / SilverLode3Tibdivision / PUD Plat Amendment Review DRAFT 6. Alignment of Trail and Utility Easement: In the field, the proposed location of the trail and utility easement along the southerly boundary of the WRS is on a sidehill with areas having cross -slopes of up to 45°, and is probably obstructed by obstacles such as existing trees, the tow ditch at the base of the slope Lots 27-31, WRS, inclusive, and the lower portions of the newly built boulder walls along Lots 28 to 31, WRS. It would be beneficial to have this exterior subdivision boundary staked so the intended route of the trail may be flagged in the field prior to constructing the trail. If there is no need for continuing the existence of the utility portion of this easement, it appears that all of the utility providers should be petitioned to vacate the utility easement and re -align the trail easement as necessary before constructing the trail. (Refer to the discussion in the preceding section.) 7. Vacations of Other Utility Easements: The applicant has previously inquired about the possibility of vacating other utility easements through this subdivision which were not used. In the interest of making a timely processing of this plat amendment, city staff has recommended that this be postponed for a later time since all of the utility providers would need to counter -sign or otherwise acknowledge the vacation of the easement after reviewing and verifying their respective utility systems and future needs in the area. 8. Salvation Ditch Company: This utility provider (irrigation water purveyor) has newly built facilities located with the subdivision and has received utility easements through this subdivision however was not a signatory in the Final Subdivision plat. A signature block has been included for this utility in this plat amendment. The Planning and Zoning Commission resolution (94-24) approving of this development contained a condition that a "water feature" be included along the alignment of the Salvation Ditch to retain the aesthetic character of the area. While this condition has not been fulfilled, if such a water feature is to be constructed and it is located on the utility easement of the Salvation Ditch, a second easement would need to be dedicated with the Salvation Ditch Company as a granting signatory. 9. Pitkin County Coordination: Since SilverLode Road passes through portions of Pitkin County, it would be prudent to confirm the coordination of the rights -of -way and easements at the city -county line against the event that any corrections need to be made in the plat(s). 10. Site Restoration of Lot 11, SLS: Since the former driveway easement across Lot 11, SLS, for the benefit of Lot 10 is unused, it is appropriate to backfill this cut to minimize the area left disturbed as discussed in the establishing of building envelopes for the SLS (conditions of Final Plat review) and in the application for the relocation of the driveway. This backfilling work was previously recommended in the review memorandum of May 21, 1996, review of the driveway alignments. 11. Trail Crossing at the Lower Parking Lot: In the construction of the pedestrian crossing in the driveway of the lower parking lot, the City will request the installation of an elevated pedestrian tablet of 3" height, by the length of the driveway width by a depth necessary to create the desired undulation in the vehicles crossing the pedestrian tablet. 4OF5 DRCM8c98.DOC Memo - Williams Ranch / SilverLode ubdivision / PUD Plat Amendment Review 0 DRAFT 12. Contents of a 2nd Plat Amendment: In the preceding discussion several items were mentioned which may need to be revised in a future plat amendment. These are: Re -alignment of the trail along the southwesterly boundary of Williams Ranch Subdivision Vacation of unused utility easements Verification and dedication of parking easements in WRS, particularly for duplex lots Verification and depiction of "as-builts" of the driveway locations in SLS Verification and locations of "as -built" utility easements Verification of any encroachments into utility easements or rights -of -way 13. Improvement Districts: The property owner is required to join any future improvement districts formed for the purpose of constructing public improvements which benefit the property under an assessment formula. The agreement would be executed and recorded concurrent with recording the subdivision plat. 14. As-Builts: Prior to subdivision acceptance, the developer will be required to submit to the Aspen/Pitkin County Information Services Dept. as-builts drawings for the project showing the property lines, building footprint, easements, encroachments, entry points for utilities entering the property boundaries and any other improvements. 15. Work in the Public Rights -of -Way: Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way and easements, we advise the applicant as follows: The applicant must receive approval from: City Engineering (920-5080) for design of improvements, including landscaping and grading, within public rights -of -way; Parks Department (920-5120) for vegetation species and placement, and irrigation systems; Streets Department (920-5130) for mailboxes, street and alley cuts; and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from the City Community Development Department (920-5090). DRC Meeting Attendees: Applicant: none Staff & Referral Agencies: Tom Bracewell, Rebecca Schickling, Ross Soderstrom, Jack Reid, Amy Guthrie, John Krueger, Chris Bendon, Phil Overeynder, Stefanie Levesque 5OF5 DRCM8c98.DOC DRAFT a DRAFT 44 ATTACHMENT "A" To: Ann Kirwin, Esq., Ireland, Stapleton, Pryor & Pascoe Tom Stevens, Williams Ranch Joint Venture Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer From: Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer P.C.: Wallace Beedle, PLS, Banner Associates, Inc. John Worcester, City Attorney Chris Bendon, Project Planner Sarah Thomas, City Zoning Officer Rebecca Schickling, Assistant Parks Director Date: March 23, 1998 0 -:: -* I"n-.- Re: Attachment for Review Memorandum for the 1st Amendment to the Williams Ranch / SilverLode Subdivision Final Plat In making a review of the revised 1 st Amendment to the Williams Ranch / SilverLode Subdivision Final Subdivision Plat, (dated: 02/20/98 and consisting of five (5) sheets), I have noticed the following items which need to be corrected, clarified or for which we need additional information. Dependent upon the comments of other departments and resolution of various details, this list will be further refined to include the changes for the 1 st amendment to the Final Plat. Please deliver and coordinate future correspondence through the project planner, Chris Bendon. Notes and Legend of corrections and comments: Date of last subdivision plat recorded: 4-6-95, at Book 37, page 4, Pitkin.County Recorder's Office WRS Williams Ranch Subdivision SLS SilverLode Subdivision () make corrections as indicated (K) verification or information provided by Ms. Ann Kirwin 1 OF 3 DRCM8a98.DOC DRAFT • DRAFT Sheet 1: 1. Insert a forward slash between the words Subdivision and PUD in the plat title: "First Amendment to the Final SubdivisionLPUD Plat of SilverLode Subdivision and Williams Ranch Subdivision ..." 2. Change the date of the plat to the date of recording. Sheet 2: Amendment Notes: 1 GG. Correct item 2 for the new acreage of Lot 17, Williams Ranch Subdivision. 2. Insert a forward slash between the words Subdivision and PUD in the plat title: "First Amendment to the Final SubdivisionLPUD Plat of SilverLode Subdivision and Williams Ranch Subdivision ..." Also change in the title block at the bottom of the sheet. 3. ' Add a signature block for the Chief Building Official, Pitkin County/City of Aspen. Chief Building Official Approval This First Amendment to the Final Plat of SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION and WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION was approved by the City of Aspen Chief Building Official this day of , 1998. Stephen Kanipe, Chief Building Official Sheet 3: 1. Insert a forward slash between the words Subdivision and PUD in the plat title: "First Amendment to the Final SubdivisionLPUD Plat of SilverLode Subdivision and Williams Ranch Subdivision ..." Also change in the title block at the bottom of the sheet. Sheet 4: Lot 35, WRS: Lengthen the vehicular alley access easement for the �� benefit of Lot 35 to connect with the Guest Parking Easement and narrow the width that it not encroach into the building on Lot 34. 2. Insert a forward slash between the words Subdivision and PUD in the plat title: "First 2OF3 DRCM8a98.DOC 11 Amendment to the Final SubdivisionLPUD Plat of SilverLode Subdivision and Williams Ranch Subdivision ..." Also change in the title block at the bottom of the sheet. C The modifications described below for Sheet 5, item 3, should be reflected in the regular view of the Guest Parking Easement on Sheet 4, with the details more clearly shown in the enlarged detail in the upper left corner of Sheet 5. Sheet 5: Lot 4, SLS: Change the note for the former non-exclusive access easement: " Non- exclusive access esmt. for the benefit of Lot 6 extinguished by this instrument." 2. Insert a forward slash between the words Subdivision and PUD in the plat title: "First Amendment to the Final SubdivisionLPUD Plat of SilverLode Subdivision and Williams Ranch Subdivision ..." Also change in the title block at the bottom of the sheet. Refer to detail of Guest Parking Easement and Parking Area (Sheet 5) Lots 32, 33 and 34, WRS: See Williams Ranch Declarations, section 7.7, sentence 1, which describes "... an access and parking easement over and across a portion of Lots 32, 33 and 34 for access and parking ...". From this description and the layout of the parking lot, simply depicting the guest parking spaces as the Guest Parking Easement does not include the access driveway and the hammerhead for turning around from the parking spaces. It appears that the three (3) lines of lengths 59.01', 66.50', and 47.38' represented three of the five sides of the Guest Parking Easement and the description in section 7.7 corresponds. (line 47.38 no longer closes due to the lot line adjustment.) The Guest Parking Easement as represented over only the parking spaces conflicts with the previous description of the Guest Parking Easement including parts of Lots 32, 33 and 34. It appears that to be consistent with the description in the declarations; a) the original exterior boundaries of the Guest Parking Easement should remain as originally drawn; b) the two (2) lines of lengths 26.06' and 60.34' may be removed; c) the cross -hatched shading may be removed; d) the line of length 47.38' should be extended to the common lot line of Lot 32 and Lot 36; e) the arrow from the descriptive label should point to the center of the Guest Parking Easement (an area with closing boundaries); and f) the label "Guest Parking" may be elongated to cover the four (4) parking spaces which should also retain the individual labels G-1 through G-4. The above modifications should be reflected in the regular view of the Guest Parking 3OF3 DRCM8a98.DOC DRAFT • • DRAFT Easement on Sheet 5, with the details more clearly shown in the enlarged detail in the upper left corner. Miscellaneous: 1. Will amendments to the subdivision declarations be recorded to reflect clarifi- cations/changes in the description of the subdivision exterior boundaries and potential clarifications of the Guest Parking Easement? 2. Change to covenants that homeowners will provide maintenance of Infiltrator System and debris basins and outfalls and for sedimentation pond next to Centennial. 3. Verify who maintains sidewalk, walking areas (if any exist) 4OF3 DRCM8a98.DOC DRAFT Apr-10-98 10:16A Banner Associates, Inc_ 970 243 3810 is • P_03 ,NNER ASSOCIATES, INC. 1777 CROSSROADS BLVD. GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81506 JOB NUMBER: 8256-REPAIRED SUBSTITUTE FOR 8256-SLG--VOID, 6256-AMENDED, ETC. WITH VARIOUS CORRECTIONS MADE, ALL MALFUNCTIONS REPAIRED, CORRECT FILES ARE COPIED HEREIN. FEB. 31 1997, 8256, WEB, 8256 SCALE: i INCH = 12 FEET COORDINATE BOUNDARIES: NORTHING - 2461.5d20 TO 2542.0128 EASTING = 3770.9497 TO 3856.2801 e, � 17 17Q.Q- 197 \ / �577l�71B G771 6794 Rh�W2 6423 fiQ8 1 4X3 6742 67M --,-w31---tom► 6429 19w M74 4191 Apr-10-98 10:16A Banner Associates, Inc. 970 243 3810 P.02 BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC* • a777 CROSSROADS BLVD. BRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81506 JOB NUMBER: 8256-REPAIRED SUBSTITUTE FOR 8256-SLG-VOID, 8256-AMENDED, ETC. WITH VARIOUS CORRECTIONS MADE, ALL MALFUNCTIONS REPAIRED, CORRECT FILES ARE COPIED HEREIN. FEB. 3, 1997, 8256, WEB. 8256 SCALE: 1 INCH = 30 FEET COORDINATE BOUNDARIES: NORTHING - 2494.4880 TO 2601.7081 EAST I NG = 3634. 815 5 TO 3854. 6437 � t � Z N 0 c-A "rl e �dT T�3 41q"T s F o.oQco Qom- �HcYea Coo c Se L o-r 7-5 3o4Z s � -ID Qc.reo"e -. 7 0 S r- 0 V��64W OW4. 4, �� (vv �*s iA ��1 (its t? f YID as b�<<�. vv�l� � , <:,�� � ��.,,�►'� tLV►�Yva 6( Jff�c%u,,j i . tw-ORA� k � s ova 3f COA , . SIB Jam cis L4 0�� C� 3z . oA 6�7 �L-- T,e,:A 64( l pw�v - ILt4 � Al kl- fedoo UJW6 VaM. -J�y�z l s�dule • $&CfA -&GD bull bt 6�WY 6{ Q ILI SUntrvw Ross Soderstrom, 08:30 AM 3/10/98 , Re: DRC Mtg this Wed. Q To: Ross Soderstrom <ross@ci.aspen.co.us> From: Phil Overeynder <philo@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Re: DRC Mtg this Wed. Cc: nicka,johnw,marko,geraldd,ryanm X-A X-Attachments:�— Ross, �Jcr I will forward you copies of previous correspondence from June 20, 1996 and March 7, 1997 regarding the status of water system improvements and acceptance of the water system under the terms of the April 26,1995 Water Service Agreement. Only one item needs to be updated since that time. This refers to item c) of my 6/26/96 memo (attached to hard copy of this e-mail). The Water Department has received a $10,000 payment for an engineering evaluation of water rights. With respect to the remaining issues addressed in the above memos the following will summarize what is required to be completed. Please be advised that since June of 1996 we have been on record with the position that no further certificates of occupancy should be issued for new structures until these items are satisfactorily addressed. a) The Water Service Agreement requires a 2 year maintenance bond in the amount of $200,000. No security has been posted. b) Submission of final record drawings of the water system improvements are required. The final record drawings need to address the 6 items listed in the March 7,1997 letter to Hans Brucker from Mark O'Meara (attached to hard copy of this e-mail). There is no record that there was a response to the changes requested in the preliminary drawings submitted for the Water Department's review of the preliminary drawings. c) A walk through inspection of the system is required to verify the operational status of all water system controls and to ensure all valve boxes were brought to finished grade and are accessible following final paving of roads. (refer to March 7,1997 letter from Mark O'Meara). Thanks for coordinating this review. By way of information I checked with Tom Bracewell of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District who says that they have not accepted the sewer system because of similar issues regarding the lack od as -built drawings and the required maintenance bond. Please feel free.to call me at x5111 if you have questions regarding these comments or the status of water system improvements. Printed for Phil Overeynder <philo@ci.aspen.co.us> 1 Ross Soderstrom, 08:30 AM 3/10/98 , Re: DRC Mtg this Wed. NOW1 At 05:00 AM 3/8/98 -0700, you wrote: >1) We have received an application from Williams Ranch Joint Venture for a >plat amendment (insubstantial) for the Williams Ranch & SilverLode >Subdivisions /PUD which I will present at this week's meeting after the 2 >ADU cases which Chuck is reviewing. >2) On a related but different scope of review and comment, the developer >is approaching the final stages of work and will complete the transfer of >most residential lots when this plat is recorded, so we are requesting that >each dept. which has some interest in this subdivision make an inventory of >the present state of completion/ compliance for their respective areas of >responsibility in the Williams Ranch development. Please copy John W., >Nick A. and myself that we may assemble a comprehensive inventory for the >subdivisions before proceeding with the review, evaluation and acceptance of >the subdivisions by the City. I believe we want to get an overview of the >development first (initial broad brush response) and then fill in the >details with a closer look. >Ross S. Printed for Phil Overeynder <philo@ci.aspen.co.us> 2 f � • MEMORANDUM TO: NICK ADEH, CITY ENGINEER F'ROIVt: PHIL OVEREYNDER, WATER DIRECTO ) (� DATE: ' DUNE 20,1996 SUBJECT: WILLIAMS RANCH WATER SYSTEM Water Department staff has reviewed the supporting material submitted connection with their request for acceptance of the water distribution system for connection with the Apri126, 1995, Water Service A by Banner Associates in as -built drawings and test results for leakage and bacteriologicalWill Ranch in Agreement. These materials included preliminary engineering inspection of the water system during constructiowas performed by contamination. Consulting Water Engineers. The City's P rmed by Leonard Rice The Water Department is prepared to operate the system and to conditionally accept the water system as constructed, subject to the following: a) Provision of a maintenance bond in the amount of $200,000 to be Posted two-year warranty period as provided under paragraph 6 of the Water over the Agreement. Service b) Submission of Final Record Drawings of water system im roveme and CAD dish format. The final drawing P nts in both mylar Water Department's June 19,1996 letter (attached) address the points listed in the c) Verification that all required payments for engineering evaluation of water conveyance of all required easements and structures to make use of hew ter rights Service have been satisfied in accordance with paragraph 7 of the Water S Agreement. d) No further certificates of occupancy for units in either Williams Ranch or Silverlode Subdivisions beyond the R.O. units already completed will be cleared b Department until items b) and c) are satisfied. Y the Water a cc: Neal Goldsborough Jerry Detlefsen PO:rl /mem.75 March 7, 1997 Mr. Hans Brucker c/o Williams Ranch Joint Venture 312 E AABC Aspen, CO 81611 Subject: Williams Ranch and Silverlode Subdivision As-Builts Dear Hans: r7 THE CITY OF ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT Thank you for submitting the above mentioned drawings for review by the Water Department. Through the review, we found the following items still need to be addressed: It is not clear how the pump station is valved. Please show an insert for details labeling the normally closed valves for zone isolation. 2. There is a private line from the pump station intake to the intersection valve at Williams Ranch Drive and Silverlode Drive. This needs to be identified. 3. Please note the normally closed isolation valve on the private line. 4. The fire hydrant at the end of the line on Silverlode Drive needs to be verified whether it is a 4-inch or 6-inch line. The appurtenances for the hydrant also need to be verified and changed on the map as to what is there. 5. We need three 'ties to each valve for location on the map. Please include them on the drawings. 6. The valve locations on the existing 12-inch water line are not correct. Please.include them as they are shown on the enclosed map and label the existing line as 12 inch. The City of Aspen•Water Department will not accept this system until a field inspection has been performed and the problems found on the inspection have been corrected. The inspection will include operating all valves, map verification to the locations of the system appurtenances as listed on the drawings, and changes made in the field to the drawings. We request that you don't call us for a walk-through until all the roads are paved and the valve boxes are brought.to final grade. 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 • PHONE 970.9205110 • FAx 970.920.5117 Printed on Recycled Paper Mr. Hans Brucker March 7, 1997 Page 2 - If you have any.questions regarding this matter, please call me at the Water Department at 970-920- 5112. Sincerely, Mark O'Meara, Chief Plant Operator cc: q< Overeynder, Water Director Nick Adeh, Engineering Department David Chase, Banner Associates MO: r1 /let/ 17brucker • 0 RECEIVED MAR 1 3 1998 ASPLN 1 H i NN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �sp� Consol o�afeo�c�anifafr'on �rsfrrcf 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (970) 925-3601 FAX #(970) 925-2537 Sy Kelly • Chairman Paul Smith • 'rreas. Louis Popish • Secy. March 13, 1998 Chris Bendon Community Development 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Williams Ranch plat amendment Dear Chris: Michael Kelly Frank Loushin Bruce Matherly, Mgr. RECEIVED kl,6Q i (I 1998 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The only concern that we have in reviewing the minor changes suggested in the Willians Ranch plat amendment is to ensure that sewer easements are identified, granted and documented where needed. A copy of the utility as-builts would help identify what part of the collection system is located in the public right of way and what part needs easements. The easements should be described and developed according to our standard format. Ideally, the sewer easements will be located seperate from secondary utilities (electric, gas, cable, phone).and away from the water line alignment as required. Sincerely, Bruce Matherly District Manager EPA Awards of Excellence 1976 • 1986 • 1990 Regional and National Ross Soderstrom,11:11 PM 79/98 -, Re: Williams Ranch 1W X-Sender: ross@comdev Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 23:11:38 -0700 To: Stefanie Levesque <stefanie@ci.aspen.co.us> From: Ross Soderstrom <ross@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Re: Williams Ranch Cc: stephenk@ci.aspen.co.us, chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us, rebeccas@ci.aspen.co.us, sarat@ci.aspen.co.us, johnk@ci.aspen.co.us, nicka@ci.aspen.co.us, chuckr@ci.aspen.co.us, johnw@ci.aspen.co.us I returned a list of corrections (pre -submittal survey info but not a formal review of the lot line adjustment) for the plat to Tom Stevens, his attorney & surveyor last week. Tom wanted to get as many details clarified and corrected as possible before submitting a revised plat with his next amendment application. On Monday (3/ 2/ 98) Tom S. (and John Markel, Pres. of Williams Ranch Joint Venture a.k.a. SilverLode Joint Venture by Mark IV, Inc.) told John Krueger and I, he (they) would submit the copies of the plat "as is" (without making the changes which still need to be incorporated in the plat) with the application for the lot line adjustment this last Tuesday (3/3/98) to get the formal process on the calendar. I do not know if he has made that application. As a note of clarity, Tom did not file the 1st revised plat for the insubstancial amendment which he made 2 yrs ago and which was approved 1 1/2 yr ago - he said it "slipped" through the cracks of his consultants. His surveyor has had trouble proof reading his own work and has been working on the 1st plat for over a year. Tom S. now has to apply for a 2nd amendment to the subdivision/PUD plat. In the cover memo I sent to Tom, his attorney and surveyor last week, I asked Tom to direct future correspondence through Chris Bendon (on behave of Com Dev) which I hope will nudge Tom to complete a formal application so this will move to completion. At 09:09 AM 3/4/98 -0700, you wrote: >Just wondering if you could update me on the Williams Ranch progress. Have >you seen the amended plat drawings and are they in Comm Dev.? >Talk to you soon! >Stefanie Ross S. Printed for Christopher Bendon <chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us> 1 9 • C MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Engineering Department FROM: John P. Worcester DATE: June 28, 1995 RE: Williams Ranch THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY ATCORNEY'S OFFICE Attached please find an outline of action items that we need to keep an eye out for the Williams Ranch project. We need to get together to determine who will ensure that everything is done in the proper time frame. Many of the tasks run out several years and my fear is that no one will be on top of this over the years. Please advise when we can meet to discuss this matter. 1 • • OUTLINE OF ACTION ITEMS ARISING OUT OF THE WILLIAMS RANCH DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION I. Overall Timetable for Construction of AH Units. a. Williams Ranch must commence construction of AH units on or before May 9, 1997. b. Williams Ranch must complete 1/2 of the AH units (18) on or before May 9, 1999. C. Williams Ranch must complete all 35 of the AH units on or before May 9, 2001. II. Landscaping Plan. All landscaping shown on the Final Landscape Plan (Exhibit I to the Annexation Agreement) must be completed no later than the first growing season after completion of all 35 AH units. Williams Ranch developers must promptly replace any plantings which have not survived for at least one growing season following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy ("CO") for the last ( 3 5th) AH unit in the development. III. Public Improvements. (roads, hydrants, sidewalks, trails, water lines, sewer lines, and common areas as shown on all annexation agreement exhibits.) No more than 5 of the free market lots may be sold until all of the public improvements have been completely constructed. As the public improvements are constructed the City Engineer, when requested by Williams Ranch, shall, within 5 days of the date of the request, inspect the constructed improvements and upon approval and acceptance of the same, authorize the partial release of the Aspen DOT to the extent of the value of the accepted public improvements. All public improvements shall be warranted to comply with accepted standards of good workmanship for a period of one year from the date of City Engineer acceptance. IV. Construction of Mollie Gibson Park. All improvements required by the Parks Department must be constructed and accepted before the sale of all of the free market lots. V. Offsite Impact Fee. $50, 000 is due and payable when Williams Ranch has either sold 1/2 (18 ) of the AH units or 5 free market lots, whichever comes f irst . {(� `�D, D LP An additional $50,000 is due and payable when Williams Ranch has sold 26 of the AH units or 10 free market lots, whichever occurs first. VI. RFTA Impact Fee. Williams Ranch must pay RFTA $6,000, due and payable when 26 Ah units or 10 free market lots are sold, whichever comes first. VII. School Impact Fee. Williams Ranch must pay Aspen, for the benefit of the Aspen School District, $15,000, due and payable prior to the sale of the last (35th) AH unit. VIII. Water Department Fee for Groundwater Investigation. On or before April 1, 1996, Williams Ranch must pay $10,000 to the Water Department for investigation of the feasibility of groundwater development. IX. Tap Fees. Tap fees at the following rates are due at the time of application for a building permit for each of the approved units. Category AH Cat. 2 AH Cat. 3 AH Cat. 4 & RO Total tap fee due per ECU $2,217.00 $4,434.00 $7,390.00 Silverlode Sub. Free Market Units $7,390.00 - X. Releases of Encumbrances under the Deed of Trust and Escrow. Attached are the three pages from the AH Construction Agreement which set forth the schedule for the required releases. XI. Remedies in the event of default are set forth in detail in Section 4 and 5 of the AH Construction agreement. 111 tr 1, I. 1JJJ 1.. Jv • •.•..0 vu •uu ..• ......•... _ .. ,J ,8119� B-78Qi F'-447 05/09/95 PG 7�OF 84 3.1.1 The Aspen Deed of Trust shall provide that one (1) or more of the eight (8) Free Market Lots shall be released from the Aspen Deed of Trust upon satisfaction of one (1) or more of the following terms and conditions: d (a) WRJV shall have the right to have one (1) or more of the encumbered Free Market Lots released . from . the Aspen .;,;.: r: Deed of Trust by substituting as collateral therefore the .same;; :; '.:.. ther Free Market 'Lots which are not _then { . number of the o encumbered by the Aspen Deed of Trust; (b) After the sale of eight (8) Free Market Lots, WRTV, at its sole discretion, may substitute in place of the Aspen Deed of Trust,. a General Warranty Deed to two (2). of the remaining Market Lots, which General Warranty Deed shall be depositcd:.into the Escrow. described below for the use and benefit of Aspen and to secure WRJV's performance of the balance of the WRJV Obligations and the WRTV Covenants. Upon deposit of the General Warranty Deed into Escrow, all of the encumbered Market Lots shall be released from the Aspen Deed of Trust; (c) For each three (3) Affordable Housing _ Units for. which certificates of occupancy are issued, together with substantial completion of each one -eighth (1/8) :increment of -the:-. CWRJV Obligations, Aspen shall release one (1) of the encumbered ; 11 4;, = Free Market Lots from the Aspen. Deed of Trust; (d) Upon the sale of a Free Market Lot, ,.such Free Market Lot shall be released from the Aspen Deed of Trust if all of the sales proceeds resulting from such sale are paid in accor- dance with Section 2.5 (Free Market Lot Sales Proceeds) and no portion of such sales proceeds are paid to WRJV; or (e) Upon WRJV's complete performance _of the WRJZ7: Obligations, all of the encumbered Free Market of shallbe released from the Aspen Deed of Trust; 3.1.2 Aspen agrees to release the Free Market Lots from the r' e�, and conditions of Section 3:1.1. -To obtain ' en.Deed:of Trust::in.accordancewith the teens F r "vY equest ("Release Requcs " �? release of a Fred Market Lot WRJV shall providea written r t) , F Aspen which:' (a) identifies the Free Market Lot to be released; 0. •.7y{Y 3-6-952.31 — 5 c}c•.,\i3s73-3�ahcoau . limj PfII'. ti .. 1L'41, 1. a.�� 38119.E H-780 J&448 05/09/95 0.2:58P PG 7OF 84 (b) identifies which condition set forth in Section 3.1.1 C the request is based upon ("Release Condition"); and (c) includes proof to the reasonable satisfaction of Aspen that the Release Condition has been or will be satisfied. + 3.1.3 Upon receipt of a Release Request, the Aspen City Attorney will promptly and in good faith review such request and determine if the Release Condition has been or will be satisfied. Within ten (10)- business days after such receipt, Aspen shall inform a that (a) the release will be granted, or. (b) if the' release will not be granted, WRJV in writing .� the reasons why it.will not be granted. If the release will be granted, Aspen shall execute and. deliver to the Escrow Holder and the public trustee under the Aspen Deed of Trust such documents as may reasonably be required to release the Free Market Lot from the Aspen Deed of Trust ("Release Documents"), which Release Documents shall be delivered by Aspen upon.. _. such terms and conditions are may be reasonably necessary to insure Aspen that the Release Condition will be satisfied. r Warran D Aspen and wRJV shall also establish . 3.2 General ty - .. an escrow ("Escrow") at Land Title Guarantee Company ("Escrow Holder"), •533 E. Hopkins Street, Suite No. 102, Aspen, Colorado; WRJV shall deposit into the Escrow one (1) general warranty deed for each of the lots upon which the Affordable Housing Units shall be constricted ("Affordable Housing Lots"), or a total of thirty-five (35) general warranty deeds ("General the General Warranty Deed described in Section 3.1.1(b) W'arranry, Deeds"); and if applicable, above ("Free. Market Lots General Warranty Deed'). Each General Warranty Deed shall ( provide for the conveyance of the Affordable Housing Lot described therein to Aspen, and each = tion for the Alpine Bank Deed of Trust. The Frec General Warranty Deed shall contain an excep Market Lots General Warranty Deed, as described in Section. 3.1,1(b), shall provide for the �tti conveyance of two (2) Free Market Lots to Aspen. e purpose of the General Warranty Deeds Th and the Free Market Lots General Warranty Deed is to secure WRJV's performance of the WRJV Obligations and the WRJV Covenants- 3.2.1 WRJV and Aspen shall execute and deliver escrow instructions to the Escrow Holder which provide as follows: F (a) WRJV .shall deliver the General Warranty Deeds to the Escrow Holder who will hold the General Warranty Deeds subject to the terms and conditions of the escrow instructions. ` . ,. ;�• (b) The Escrow Holder shall not record the General Warranty Deeds or the Free Market Lots General Warranty Deed x: f, a unless and until 1t .has:rived: from :Aspen a written°:notice that: WRjv has defaulted in the performance of the WRJVObligauons,`�s� or the WRJV Covenants.. The default notice shall spi:cify the defaulted. Promptly after the.Escrow. F;; m-nner in which WRJV has P Y e\13473_3\%h_cowr_..1&u1J3-6-95231pm ••��.f+'' �1 �4-w1. •t - 1 �{L. frzL S '•. ,, t,'+1_ � a ♦�.,, i a '' r t. ; �}+S¢ � 'S tom' � y `..: 'rf Yt � y•- +H�;E�.�^`•-,,t:.&fYGr,� �x Rh1�*`t¢. fEJ `q�; 1.s�+l� �!,S al. .�cu���f�', y� � 4Y �1i i• i"�My1G�f�+` Qi ,f,,y •�%y`•.�• 4r�:x �E _. st�it'.y$c "•"�'c•7tR-� :4 'r..1 ,at �'1�!f.•.Y A�`f '7'a�+''i�.:tf,,,, 5 ' a. q r;'�k73j:'� § 4 e� YT ... r."�v���'9: ? '� ;7.� _ ., °. :''.. . , , .i _....'C.. .. . '.•..... r . - v•1.', , rr'i :4.'.'s !41 . _� 381193 B-780 Sr449 05/09/95 O::58F' PG OF 84 Holder's receipt of Aspen's default notice, it shall forward a copy of the default notice to WRJV. WRJV shall have ten (10) business days to forward a written reply to the Escrow Holder which shall contain one (1) of the following two (2) responses: (i) WRJV agrees that it has defaulted in the performance of the .WRJV Obligations or , the WF + Covenants, in which event, the Escrow Holder shall record, the General Warranty Duds and the Free Market .Lots General Wan-.-nty Deed; or (ii) WRJV denies that it has defaulted in the performance of the WRJV Obligations or the WRJV Covenants, in which event the Escrow Holder shall not record the General Warranty - Deeds and the Free - Market. Lots General Warranty Deed and Aspen and WRJV .shall each have the right. to have the dispute resolved by arbitra tion under the American Arbitration Association's then current rules for commercial arbitration. The arbit mtioa . ' hearing shall take place in the City of Aspen .within sixty . (60) days after the date of delivery of WRJV's response to Aspen's notice of default. Before arbitration commences, each party shall pay the American Arbitration Association one-half of the expected cost of the arbitration proceeding. `t At the conclusion of the arbitration proceeding, the. . arbitrator shall award.:to the prevailing parry all of its arbitration. costs and its attorneys' fees and: costs,.;wh' h K ' shall be paid by the losing party 3.2.2 The escrow instructions shall direct the Escrow Holder to deliver to WRJV the deposited General Warranty Deed for each Affordable Housing Unit for which -a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued to allow WRJV to sell such unit. 3.2.3 UponWRIV's performance of all of the WRJV Obligations. to the reasonable satisfaction of Aspen, Aspen, within ten (10) business days of being requested: to do so; shallinstruct the Escrow Holder to return to. WRJV each General. Warranty Deed. and the Free Market Lots General Warranty Deed which remains in Escrow at that time. 4. EVENTS OF DEFAULT. 4.1 bli au ns WRJV shall be is i. '+F ✓ Obligations upOrL' a occurrence of any of the following events: T � � qr 113473-3Xaham .laml3-6-9SL.,31pm: —. t` r k. 4 � in default of its �W. RJV ' ♦ a.f 1li. c , restrictions and it is essential for WRJV to have fixed criteria prior to recording the Plat Map, ASPEN and WOV have expressly agreed that: 5.1.1 Ten (10) of the RO single family homes will have income and asset limitations of $150,000 and $400,000 respectively'. 5.1.2 The remaining five (5) RO single family homes will have no income or asset limitations on their purchasers and will be otherwise subject to the restrictions set forth on Exhibit " 5.1.3 In no event shall any owner of any RO single family home be required to move or sell their home as a result of any adjustment in income or asset restrictions revisions made by ASPEN or an increase in their income and assets subsequent to their purchase of any RO single family home. 6 GMOS EXEMPTION: 6.1 Based on the totality of the situation and the community good served by WRJV's construction of Affordable Housing Units, ASPEN agrees that V RJV's GMQS Exemption for the WILLIAMS RANCH project will be based on the GMQS provisions in effect at the time WRJV submitted its Conceptual Review Land Use Application to ASPEN.° OFF -SITE IMPACT FEE: 7.1 WRJV will pay ASPEEN_Ree Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) to ad ss'an o -sit tra f cc impacts. PJne-half (1/2) of WRJV's payment under this se n-Ty a ter WRJV has sold one-half (1/2) of the Affordable Housing Units or one-third (1/3) of free Market Lots, whichever shall first occur. The remaining one-half (1/2) of WRJV's payment under this section shall be paid to ASPEN only after WRJV has sold three-quarters (3/4) of the Affordable Housing Units or two-thirds (2/3) of free Market Lots, whichever shall first occur. WRJV's financial obligation for the off -site impact fee shall be secured by the ASPEN DOT and AH CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT described in paragraph 4.2 above. Subject to annual ° 8 November 1993. adjustment by the Aspen/Piousing Authority. IAM\FIN-D0CS\ANNF.X.006 10 1 Williams Ranch/SilverLode First Amendment to the Final Subdivision PUD ' Plat of the SilverLode Subdivision and the Williams Ranch Subdivision March, 1998 Submitted By: Williams Ranch Joint Venture C/o The Stevens Group, Inc. 312 E Aspen Airport Business Center Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-6717 1 I. INTRODUCTION: This application seeks to amend the recorded plat for the Williams Ranch/SilverLode Subdivisions. This shall be the first amendment to that plat and PUD. An application for an amendment was submitted on March 15, 1996 to amend access locations to SilverLode lots. This was determined to be an insubstantial amendment and was granted staff review approval on July 3, 1996 (see attached Exhibit F). To date, this amendment has not been recorded. While work has been ongoing from the time of approval, the amendment has now grown to encompass all revisions required for both the Williams Ranch Subdivision and the SilverLode Subdivision. The Williams Ranch/SilverLode Subdivision was approved in November 1994 via Ordinance 52, Series 1994. The plat was subsequently recorded in May of 1995. Specifically, this amendment will seek to record those access locations for the SilverLode Subdivision approved July 3`d 1996, revise the duplex lot lines within the Williams Ranch Subdivision (now that the buildings are constructed, accurate lines have been surveyed which represent the common dividing line between each two duplex units. Prior to this point, this dividing line could not be accurately established) and "clean up" all plat related issues on the existing recorded plat that are incorrect. All duplex lot lines that bisect a duplex structure have been revised. The exterior lot line for a duplex structure remains as platted. Those revised property lines that bisect a duplex unit shall apply to Lots 16/17, 18/19, 20/21, 23/24, 25/26, 27/28, 30/31, 32/33 and 34/35. Those items which are being "cleaned up" are the result of City of Aspen Engineering Department review of the existing recorded plat. These items include typographic errors, mathematics and geometry errors and inconsistencies. 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 h II. MINIMUM SUBMISSION CONTENTS 1. This application is being submitted by. - Williams Ranch Joint Venture C/o the Stevens Group, Inc. 312 E Aspen Airport Business Center Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970)925-6717 All correspondence should be sent to Thomas G. Stevens at the above address. 2. See attached Plat Maps. 3. See attached Plat Maps. As the subdivision if now partially still within ownership of Williams Ranch Joint Venture and partially within private ownership, proof of ownership is on two forms. The Williams Ranch Joint Venture ownership is confirmed by the recorded plat Book 37, Page 4. For ownership of transferred properties, consent of ownership and necessary mortgagee will be recorded along with this amendment. 4. See Exhibit G. 5. See attached Plat Maps. III. SPECIFIC SUBMISSION CONTENTS 1. Existing Conditions - General As of this date, 9 of the 15 SilverLode lots have transferred ownership and all 9 are either under construction or construction has been completed. Two additional lots are under contract and scheduled for closing this spring. 11 I 1 1 11 I 1 The Williams Ranch development has 12 units completed and occupied and the remaining 23 units are under construction. Of the 23 under construction, 7 are complete as of this date, February 20, 1998, have received final inspection and in the City's Certificate of Occupancy process. The remaining 16 units will be completed in times ranging from February 23`d through April 30`h 1998. All subdivision infrastructure is complete with the exception of the final layer of asphalt paving and miscellaneous clean-up items. 2 Existing Conditions to be Amended As described in the introduction of this application, there are three items to be amended within this application. Nhe first is to record the previously approved access locations for the SilverLode lots. �econd is to revise the lot lines which divide e(-h duplex unit now that accurate survey information exists. Lastly, ere are several "clean-up" items on the existing plat which are to be revised. The Williams Ranch/SilverLode Subdivision was approved in November 1994 via Ordinance 52, Series 1994. The plat was recorded in May 1995 and is located at Book 37, page 4. The first amendment was submitted March 15, 1996 and was approved July 3, 1995 (See Exhibits E and F). No changes to the PUD development order as outlined in Section 26.84.080 of the land use code will occur due to this amendment to the plat. IV. REVIEW STANDARDS This application only seeks to amend the recorded plat for the Williams Ranch/SilverLode Subdivision. As such, all of the general requirements have already been reviewed and approved. The approved PUD development plan (/ established density, land use, dimensional requirements, off-street parking, open space, landscaping, architecture, lighting, clustering, public facilities and traffic and pedestrian circulation. This application for an insubstantial plat amendment to the existing recorded plat will have no effect on these issues. a 1 1 I rl 1 A 11 Exhibit A I J L� CITY OF ASPEN PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Chris Bendon, 920.5072 DATE: 1.29.98 PROJECT: Williams Ranch PUD Amendment REPRESENTATIVE: Tom Stevens OWNER: listed on the plat TYPE OF APPLICATION: 0 Step -- Staff Review DESCRIPTION: Insubstantial plat amendments. If substantial amendments are requested, the application would need review and approval by P&Z and Council Land Use Code Section(s) 26.84.080 PUD Amendments Review by: Staff, Development Review Committee (Referral Agencies) Public Hearing: No. If substantial amendments are requested, then public hearing would be required Referral Agencies: Engineering, Parks, Zoning, Fire Marshall, Water, ACSD, Electric Department or HC Planning Fees: Planning Deposit ($450) Referral Agency Fees: Engineering, Major ($270); Total Deposit: $ 720 (additional hours are billed at a rate of $180/hour) To apply, submit the following information: 1. Proof of ownership 2. Signed fee agreement 3. Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 4. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 5. Total deposit for review of the application 6. 10_ Copies of the complete application packet and maps. HPC = 12; PZ = 10; GMC = PZ+5; CC = 7; Referral Agencies = 1/ea.; Planning Staff = 2 7. Additional materials as required by the specific review. Please refer to the application packet for specific submittal requirements or to the code sections noted above. 8. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include existing conditions as well as proposed. 9. Copies of prior approvals. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. u pj 11 I Exhibit C I IATTACHMEITt. ICity of Aspen Development Application Fee Policy The City of Aspen, pursuant to Ordinance 4; (Series of 1996), has established a fee structure for the processing of land use applications. A flat fee or deposit is collected for land use applications based on the type of application submitted. Referral fees for other City depar rents reviewing the application will also be collected when necessary. One check including the deposit for Planning and referral agency fees must be submitted with each land use application, made payable to the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department. Applications will not be accepted for processing without the retluired application fee. ' A flat fee is collected by Planning for StafApprovals which normally take a minima' and predictable amount of staff time to process. The fee is not refundable. iA deposit is collected by P'.ann:ng :when more e:ctensive staff revie :v is required. as hours are likeiv to vari substantially tom one =ucanon to another. Actual staff time spent will be charted against the deposit. after the deposit has been expended, the app cant �viil be billed monthiv based on actual staff 'Hours. Cuirrent :;iilin_s must be paid within 330 days or processing of the application will be suspended. Tf an appuc :nt has pre:riously failed to pay ami.icanon tees as require^.:. no new or additional appucanons gill be accepted for processing until the outstanding tees are paid_ In no case will Building Permits be issued untii ail costs associated with case processing have been paid. Mier the dual action on the project. any remaining balance from he deposit will be refunded to the appicant. Appucations winch require a deposit must include an A, eeme-�t or Payment or Deyeio meat Appiication Fees. The :Agreement establishes the applicant as being responsible for payment of all costs associated with processing the application. The Agreement must be signed by the party responsible for payment and sut witted with the application in order for it to be accepted. The complete fee schedule for land use applications is available at the Community Development Department ASPEN/PrriCN CONZMUNTTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTNIENT ' C'rtp Agreement for payment of of Aspen Development Application Fees (Please Print Clearly) CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and UII/1114/M S &j4cGl Joan t J� l Z4-el (herein er APPLIC.AN� AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for )plot 144Y7��,w t (hereinafter, THE PROJEC 7L. 2. APPLICANT unaer-stands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 43 (Series of 1996) establishes a fee stricture for land use applications and the mvment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a dete..—m nat on of a= icanon compie*.eness. ;. APPLICA<�ii and Ci i � agree that because of :he size. nature or scope of the proposed ' project, it is not possible at :his time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processma the application. :3PPLICAuN T and CITY further. agree that it is in the interest of the ^ardes -o allow APPLICAvT to make payment of an nitial deposit and :o hereafter permit additionai :.osts :o be billed to APPL.TCAVi on a monthly basis. AP°L agrees He will be benenter by=e•-a1P1Ta greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments Amon notincation by the Cam' when :hey, are necessary as costs are mc•.sed. CIT`.' agees it will be benented through the greater ae:tamr: of recovering its full costs to process aPPLICA2N7S application. 4. CITY and 0PLICA i further a--ree that it is imprcticabie for CITY staff To compiete processing or present sufficient information to the ?!arming Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make ieaallv required findings for proffer approval. uniess c•..urent billings are paid in foil prior to decision. �. The- 'Ore. APDLIC vT agrees :hat ;n consideration of he C'iY's waive` of its iQnt to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLIC AN1 shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of S which is for hours of Planning staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit. APPLIC:\vT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing daie. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT i Signature: . Stan auso Date: 2 • 20 . g8 Community Development Director Printed dame: ToM STY —�!5 City of Aspen Mailing address: %�'"SF�iY� co 8l�vll LL r� 1 Exhibit D I F ' ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project:1/"C G1'1�1 �l-�l i115/ Applicant: �I/V/ //�a 5 f ? �%yh 1%iY17`VC-f , Location: Zone District: Lot Size:�GI-G5 Lot Area: I F� (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: Proposed: Number of residential units: Existing: rj O Proposed: Number of bedrooms: Existing: Proposed: Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): III DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: Principal bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: Access. bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed. On -Site parking: Existing: Required- Proposed: % Site coverage: Existing: Required: Proposed: % Open Space: Existing: Required: Proposed: Front Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Rear Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Combined F/R: Existing: Required: Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Combined Sides: Existing: Required: Proposed: F 0 Existing non -conformities or encroachments: Variations requested: 2C. I F� Exhibit E IL� G I SilverLode Subdivision PUD/Plat Amendment #1 March 15, 1996 Submitted By: Williams Ranch Joint Venture c/o The Stevens Group, Inc. 312 E Aspen Airport Business Center Aspen Colorado, 81611 (970)925-6717 1 INTRODUCTION: This application seeks to amend the approved and recorded Plat and PUD Development Plan for the SilverLode Subdivision. The purpose of this amendment is to revise the access easements which allow for driveway construction. During ' the course of infrastructure and Phase One construction of the Williams Ranch/SilverLode Subdivisions, it became apparent that the approved access easements did not represent the most efficient and least disruptive access route to ' the individual SilverLode lots. ' Within the approved application for this project (Ordinance 52, Series 1994), no driveways were represented for the SilverLode lots, only access easements where access across adjacent lots were required. However, at this time, the Applicant is submitting for review the actual driveway layouts with grading as well as easement revisions (see attached driveway plans). It is the intention of the Applicant to construct the driveways prior to sale of the lots. This will ensure that the impacts ' to the site of driveway construction are absolutely minimized. 7 ' At this time, only one lot within the SilverLode Subdivision has sold, Lot 15. A building permit has been issued for this lot and construction has begun. The ' balance of the lots are still within ownership of the Applicant. ' SilverLode Drive provides access the all SiverLode lots and has been conveyed to the City of Aspen via recordation of the Final Plat. Subsequently each driveway requires an individual curb cut permit. At this time, permits have been issued for Lots 1, 2, 3, 7, 11, and 14 as these lots required no revisions to any access easements. Specifically, this application for amendment requests access ' easement revisions for the remaining lots, lots 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 13. I H. Review Criteria: IThe specific areas of review for this requested amendment are as follows: ' 1. Insubstantial change to Subdivision, Section 26.88.060 2. Insubstantial change to PUD, Section 26.84.080 3. 8040 Exemption, Section 7-503(b) (old Code) ' I. Amendment to subdivision development order, Section 26.88.060 This section provides the ability for an Applicant to seek an insubstantial ' be by Community Development amendment to a subdivision plat to approved the ' Director based on technical or engineering considerations first discovered during actual development which could not reasonably be anticipated during the approval process. As stated above, the subdivision approvals granted to this project did not include ' driveways to the free market (SilverLode) lots. Instead, access easements were provided where it was anticipated that future owners would locate driveways and SivlerLode Drive only if they needed to cross adjacent lots. Upon completion of road grading, it became apparent that the anticipated alignments of driveways could be improved. Additionally, the Applicant felt that by constructing the ' driveways prior to sale of the lots, the impacts of construction could be controlled and thus minimized. The new alignments require access easement revisions. These revised easements g q have been depicted on the attached Plat maps and PUD plan as well as the individual driveway plans. The easements as well as the actual driveways will ' require less grading, less paving and less retainage than previously anticipated. In I C the case of several lots, access will combined to limit the quantity of driveway intersections with SilverLode Drive. In summary, the precise location and alignment of driveways was not provided at final approval of the subdivision, only easements based on anticipated alignments. Upon completion of road grading, alignments which represent less grading, less pavement, less retainage and increased undisturbed ground have been designed. I1. Amendment of PUD development order, Section 26.84.080 Section 26.84.080 (A) provides the Community Development Director the ability to authorize and insubstantial amendment to a development order for a final development plan providing the following criteria is not met or exceeded: 1. A change in use or character of the development. No change in use or character are proposed, only driveway alignment revisions. 2. An increase by greater than three (3) percent in the overall coverage of structures on the land This proposed amendment will affect on overall coverage of structures on the land. It will however, reduce the amount of coverage on the land by driveway pavement. 3. Any amendment that substantially increases trip generation rates of the proposed development, or the demand for public services. No increase of trip generation nor demand for public services will result from this amendment. 4. A reduction by greater than three (3) percent of the approved open space. This proposed amendment will actually increase, very slightly, the amount of open space. 5. A reduction by greater than one (1) percent of the off street parking and loading space. The proposed amendment will have no effect on the off street parking or loading space. Parking was established by Special Review for SilverLode Subdivision during the approval process and will remain the same. 6. A reduction in required pavement widths or rights of way for streets and easements. No pavement widths or rights of way will be varied by this ' amendment. A copy of the approved subdivision plat as well as the proposed revisions has been attached. 7. An increase of greater than two (2) percent in the approved gross leasable ' floor area of commercial buildings. Not applicable. 8. An increase by greater than one (1) percent in the approved residential density of the development. The proposed driveway alignments will have no effect on development density. 9. A change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the project 's original approval or which requires granting a further variation ' from the project 's approved use or dimensional requirements. Condition 1 (g.) of Ordinance 52, Series 1994 which granted this project's approval ' provides a PUD variance for driveway grading. This variance will still be required but needs no revision. No other conditions or representations of the ' approvals address driveways for SilverLode. IIII. 8040 Greenline Review, Section 7-503 (B.) Exemption The expansion, remodeling or reconstruction of an existing development shall be exempt from the 8040 Greenline review if the following standards are met: ' L The development does not add more than ten (10) percent to the floor area of the existing structure or increase the total amount of square footage of areas ' of the structure which are exempt from floor area calculations by more than twentyfive (25) percent. The proposed driveway alignment revisions will have no effect on allowable FAR for a lot not the method of calculating FAR an a lot. 2. The development does not require the removal of any tree for which a permit would be required pursuant to section 13-76 or the applicant receives a ' permit pursuant to said section. The Applicant agrees that if the removal of 1 1 any tree requiring a permit is necessary, said permit shall be obtained prior to construction/ 3. The development is located such that it is not affected by any geologic hazard and will not result in increased erosion and sedimentation. See attached engineering report. BANNER IMarch 13, 1996 Ms. Suzanne Wolff Community Development City of Aspen/Pitkin County ' 130 South Galena, 3rd Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 CONSULTING ENGINEERS S, ARCHITECTS BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. 2777 Crossroads Boulevard Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 (303) 243.2242 FAX (303)243.3810 605 East Main, Suite 6 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303)925-5857 ' RE: WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION LOTS 1 THROUGH 14 Dear Suzanne: ' This letter is written in response to the relocation of the driveways on the subject property. ' The proposed driveway revisions to the SilverLode Subdivision Lots 1 through 14 have been designed to reduce overall impacts to the site. By having the developer construct the driveways rather than the purchasers; alignment, grading, drainage and retainage will be controlled and subsequently minimized. For this reason, any erosion and sedimentation originally associated with driveway construction will be minimized if not eliminated. ' During the approval process all geological hazards associated with this development program and the development site were addressed. The proposed alignment of driveways will have no effect on the only hazards which are steep slopes (slopes of 15 to 25% gradient). On the contrary, the proposed driveway alignments and grading will benefit the overall site by minimizing grading on steep slopes. ' If you have any further questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me. ' Sincerely, Hans E. Brucker Aspen Projects Manager BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. HEB:jal C:\heblette\silver.let BANNER ' CONSULTING SNGINSSAS G AifCMITSCTS 13ANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. 96 2777 Crossroads Boulevard January 22, 19 Grand Junction, Colorado 81508 ' ((303 243.2242 FAX (303)243.38t0 Mr. Chuck Roth 605 East Main, Suite 8 Aspen, Colorado 81611 City of Aspen Engineering Dept. (303)925-5857 ' 130 S. Galena Street, 2nd Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION ' Dear Chuck: This letter is written in response to your letter dated January 3, 1996 as it relates to construction of the driveways on the subject project. 1 Radius of driveway flare at road edge - City specifications provide for a radius of Y-0". Many of the plot plans show larger radii which are not approved. This is acceptable since we will not be paving the driveways at this time and therefore the radius of the asphalt will not apply. Grading for driveway within public right-of-way and emergencv accesspedestrian, utilitv ' easements - No grading of driveways is permitted. The driveway grade within the public right- of-wav and the easements must be the same as the roadway and the topography in order to permit pedestrian and utility construction use. ' I agreed that we can grade the driveways from the easterly side of the proposed You and g ditch or from 5 feet inside the public right-of-way. This is because we are providing a pedestrian walking hard -surface path on the other side of SilverLode Drive and because all of the utilities for this project are already in place. As far as the grading of driveways across easements. we discussed that we have not installed any utilities in any of the easements, and therefore. no utilities will be affected by the driveway construction. We realize that Parks must comment on the 40 foot wide pedestrian access and utility easement. Drivewav width - The maximum width permitted for a driveway is 18'-0". This is the width of the curb cut, not the transverse width of the driveway. That is, for driveways entering the street at an angle and not perpendicularly, the width is not the width of the driveway but the length of the curb cut. b ' We do not anticipate that the driveways will exceed 18'-0" measured transverse along the edge of SilverLode Drive. ' Lots 1,23,4,11 - The plot plans are approved by Engineering as revised. ' We recognize that these have been approved by you. ' - BANNER January 22, 1996 Mr. Chuck Roth Page 2 of 3 Lots 5,6 - The plot plans are approved by Engineering except that: a. That plat easement sheet (sheet 4 of the recorded plat) must be amended, or easement documents provided, that permit access across Lots 3,4 and 5 for Lots 5 and 6; and We will provide recordable easement documents (descriptions) and record said documents as discussed to mitigate this concern prior to producing an amended plat. We understand that a P.U.D. Amendment may be required as part of this process. b. The driveway crosses a drainage easement. You indicated that alternate plans for drainage are in effect. This must be documented by a letter from a registered engineer and the drainage easement must be deleted by a revised plat sheet or other document. A letter from a Professional Engineer has been provided under separate cover. c. The drivewav crosses a utility easement. Are the utilities in place? Provide discussion of this in the letter from the engineer. Letters that approve your design may be needed from the utilities. As discussed, no utilities have been installed in the subject utility easement locations. Since ' all utilities will be installed in these easements after the driveways have been constructed, any potential conflicts will be avoided. As we discussed, we do not feel that a letter should be required from the utility companies since their facilities have not yet been installed. Lot 7 - The Plot plan is approved by Engineering except the driveway crosses a sewer easement. Please provide a letter from the Sanitation District approving the design. As we discussed, the sanitary sewer easement shown on the plat is specifically dedicated to Mr. Albert Timroth. A private sewer service will be constructed in the easement after the driveways have been constructed and therefore, Mr. Timroth's sewer service will not be affected by the proposed driveway construction. We, therefore, do not feel that a letter should be required from the Sanitation District as suggested. Lots 8 and 9 - The plot plan is approved by Engineering except that the plat easement sheet must be amended. or easement documents provided, that permit mutual access across the lot or else the driveways must be widened to function as a common driveway as anticipated in Section 19-101. We will provide recordable easement documents (descriptions) and record said documents as discussed to mitigate this concern prior to producing an amended plat. We understand that a P.U.D. Amendment may be required as part of this process. 1 1 I 1 1 �J I H BANNER January 22, 1996 Mr. Chuck Roth Page 3 of 3 Lots 12 and 13 - No plot plan was provided for Lot 12. I copied the plot plan for Lot 13 and relabeled it for Lot 12. The plat easement sheet must be amended. or easement documents provided, that permit mutual access across the lot or else the driveways must be widened to function as a common driveway as anticipated in Section 19-101. The driveways are shown on a utility and drainage easement. The plot plan is unclear by not indicating that the easement that the driveways cross in also a utility easement. The drainage easement encompasses a natural drainage. Drainage may need to be piped under the boulder wall and driveways. Provide discussion of this in the letter from the engineer. Letter that approve you design may be needed from the utilities. We will provide recordable easement documents (descriptions) and record said documents as discussed to mitigate this concern prior to producing an amended plat. We understand that a P.U.D. Amendment may be required as part of this process. Please refer to Engineer's letter regarding natural drainage. As discussed, no utilities have been installed in the subject utility easement locations. Since all utilities will be installed in these easements after the driveways have been constructed, any potential conflicts will be avoided. As we discussed, we do not feel that a letter should be required from the utility companies since their facilities have not yet been installed. Lot 14 - The driveway crosses a utility easement. Are the utilities in place? Provide discussion of this in the letter from the engineer. Letters that approve your design may be needed from the utilities. As discussed, no utilities have been installed in the subject utility easement locations. Since all utilities will be installed in these easements after the driveways have been constructed. any potential conflicts will be avoided. As we discussed. we do not feel that a letter should be required from the utility companies since their facilities have not yet been installed. If you have any further questions regarding this matter. please contact me. Sincerely, A& UL 11 Gu�-- Hans E. Brucker Aspen Projects Manager BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. HEB:heb/jal cAllebletteWrives.Iet Silvertod 1 Lot ,'1 - LAJ LEA LLJ - o z r vQ p'l LLJ �� - W SilverLod Lot 2 0 ----------GRAPHIC SCAL I inch :=-"-30 t ��- ��//' / solo LOT 3 - o /' _ �00 / LOT 1 00L _jilo, _ 7990 I 7 Li I Exhibit B 'J pRn.IFCT' LAND USE APPLICATION kPPLICANT: Name: W/ /V loci I Location: �e aG o/ �t f Q1 Y7 Lc 4 (Indicate street address, lot & block number, I gal description where appropriate) Name: Wj/ Ila j, Address: Phone #: f c�0 7 / 7 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: D G 7'_e l� 5 Address: ^; �{- / �% ✓� �/S/ �'LC t Phone c , o? YPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): ❑ Conditional Use ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Conceptual Historic Devt. ❑ Special Review Fhla� & PUD Amendment) Final Historic Development 7 Design Review Appeal Conceptual SPA Minor Historic Devt. ❑ GMQS Allotment Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) Historic Demolition GMQS Exemption ❑ Subdivision ❑ Historic Designation ❑ ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes Ej Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane ❑ Lot Split Temporary Use Other: Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Text/Map Amendment f14'4Y1'e4�W l�f XISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) ra n t"Go( 4 A�l?ll/�1 �Di� 2 , � e s V4-S Teat r���>✓ � �Li ; / y s PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, moaincations, etc.) `r✓r ��-I�l �/G �' nr�/iUvs/H gvn�ytc! �i l;�'� t acc�s� ! ��,/i�Gi'YYJ 5 /��Y'l�/i oiUD�,I/�' 4:2 �/ Gl�if1/I s f'�'Yi e-P 17 Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: S 72�. ® Pre -Application Conference Summary ® Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement ® Response to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form Response to Attachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents �j Response to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents Response to Attachment #5, Review Standards for Your Application 1 it verLode N of 3 E E T 30 /� :�0 F`E E T u GRAPHIC,'SGIL�E� \ ; �� // S0,30 I inch 30, M. : / —_ 7 8020 LOT 3 I I 1 1 1 s020 SilverLode Lot 5 `.FEET '30 0 30 FEET GRAPHIC SC 1-1 inch - -30 it. ` . ~ 1- O 2n. I - g, `sul of LOT 4 04 0,30 0q eo20 OD �� SilverLode Lot 7 FEET 30 0 30 FEET 11111111611 1 GRAPHIC SCALE 810p I inch = 30 fI, 8090 _ 8060 8 0 7 0 8060 ' 1 - 8060 8050 I 3-- J _ - _ - - _ :�, _ z' 8 � . LOT 8 oso 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SilverLode + Lot 8 FEET 30 0 30 FEET GRAPHIC SCALE I inch -- I 8060 )T 7 I 806 40 8050 ' 1 1 r 1 SilverLode .� Lot 9 FEET 30 0 30 FEET `\ GRAPHIC SCALE _ I inch = 30 it. & 060 60 LOT_ 0 / - \ - sos -1 T8040 \�� 2 44 , l °'� LOT 10 11 I 80 0 11 SilverLode Lot 10 0 30 FEET RAPHIC SL� 1 i = 30 t I . Xxo"' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a N� F r rLode L00 11 Lot 0 Lot EET 0 FEV WE G HIC SCALE 30 C� = I ch = 30 11. Lo-de- ot 12 / ov� 8 � ,\ p 30 FEET 6RAP4C� SSGALE h 30__j_t r \� LOT 10 / / o 00 co o LOT L0 12 oeo i � F 1 ls'o 0 Ji erLgd Lot 1 FEAT, 0 ;'0 3Q FEET\ Soso I %� Gt?APHIC CAFE t inch 30 tt. LO 12 BANNER CONSULTING SNGINSusaia V. AACMIT<CTS BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. January 22, 1996 2777 Crossroads Boulevard Grand Junctlon, Colorado 81506 ((303 243-7242 .3810 FAX (3031243.3810 Mr. Chuck Roth 605 East Main, Suite 6 City of Aspen Engineering Department Aspen, Colorado 81811 (303)925-5857 130 S. Galena St., 2nd Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION AND WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE ISSUES IDear Chuck: This letter is written in response to your letter dated January 3, 1996 with regard to the subject project. Banner's original design proposed a drainage inlet structure be installed on Lot 5, in the drainage easement. This drainage inlet was proposed to handle surface runoff generated from the drainage basin above. We understand, however, that Mr. Albert Timroth is now constructing a residence in the area above this easement, and thereby slightly changing the natural drainage pattern. At this point we are now proposing that a Swale be constructed from the north property line south to the proposed access drive for Lot 5, as shown on the enclosed plot plan. Along with this swale, a 24" culvert will be constructed underneath the access drive and daylight into SilverLode Drive. Rip -rap will be installed at the outlet to prevent erosion. It should be noted that this drainage easement will not be vacated. As far as the natural drainage between Lots 12 and 13 is concerned, we are proposing to ' locate the inlet structure for the 36" culvert far enough to the east (above the driveway boulder wall) so as to avoid any potential conflicts in this area. Please feel free to give me a call should you have any questions or comments regarding this issue. Sincerely, BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. ��>�� PLO RFGis,_l / o • ��o E Cy' rF���l David E. Chase, P.E. j 24991 j Senior Vice President-Off4 Lager 4J,0 1 fl i� L Exhibit F I Cr7,,' plafr`%te've MEMORANDUM TO: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director FROM: Suzanne Wolff RE: SilverLode Subdivision Insubstantial Subdivision/PUD Amendment and 8040 Greenline Exemption DATE: July 3, 1996 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting to amend the recorded plat and PUD Development Plan for the SilverLode Subdivision to revise the access easements which allow for construction of driveways to the individual lots. An 8040 Greenline Exemption is also requested to accommodate the proposed driveway amendments. The application, driveway plans, and amended plat are attached as Exhibit "A". APPLICANT: Williams Ranch Joint Venture REPRESENTATIVE: Tom Stevens LOCATION: SilverLode Subdivision ZONING: AH1/PUD BACKGROUND: By Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994, the City Council granted Subdivision and PUD approval for the development of 35 deed -restricted affordable housing units (Williams Ranch Subdivision) and 15 free-market lots (SilverLode Subdivision). The Final Plat was recorded on March 15, 1995, in Plat Book 36 at Page 77. REQUEST: Access easements for the SilverLode lots were provided on the plat only where it was anticipated that driveways would have to cross adjacent lots. During infrastructure and Phase One construction, the applicant determined that the approved access easements did not represent the most efficient and least disruptive access routes to the individual SilverLode lots. The applicant intends to construct the driveways prior to sale of the remaining lots (Lot 15 has already been sold, and construction is in progress) in order to control and minimize the impacts of the alignment, grading, drainage and retainage of the driveways. The following revisions are requested: The existing easement to access Lot 4 across Lot 3 will be extended to provide access to Lots 5 and 6. This amendment will eliminate an additional steep cut off of SilverLode Drive. 17 I A combined driveway will be constructed between lots 8 and 9. The easement to access Lot 10 across Lot 11 will be eliminated. A combined driveway will be constructed between Lots 12 and 13. Curb cut permits have already been issued for Lots 1, 2, 3, 7, 11 and 14, as no revisions were required for these access easements. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Comments from the Parks and Engineering Departments are attached as Exhibit "B". Parks Department: One of Rebecca Baker's concerns is the encroachment of the proposed driveway to Lot 10 across the Open Space Easement. This issue is addressed below with the PUD amendment standards (#4). Ms. Baker's concern regarding the portion of the open space easement between SilverLode Drive and Williams Ranch Drive was addressed by the applicant; pedestrian access will be provided to Brown Lane and the nearby RFTA bus stop. EngineeringDepartment Ross Soderstrom states, "the overall alignment and grading of the driveways for Lots 1-14 has been improved by the proposed design and the potential for erosion has been minimized by the inclusion of this work prior to selling the subject lots." Engineering has approved the proposed alignments and grading plans, subject to clarification of certain issues addressed in the attached memo. These issues include: • The common driveway to Lots 3-6 appears to exceed the maximum allowed grade of 12% where it departs from Reciprocal Easement No. 2. • Conveyance of drainage through and/or around the proposed boulder walls adjacent to the driveways to Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 14. • A final grading plan and drainage plan shall be approved by Engineering. • The required 3' radius at the driveway intersection with the street shall be depicted on the site plans. • The curb cut shall not exceed 18' in length. A revised subdivision plat shall be approved and recorded to reflect the changes. STAFF COMMENTS: Insubstantial Subdivision Amendment: Section 26.88.060 authorizes the Community Development Director to approve an insubstantial amendment to an approved plat, provided the amendment is limited to technical or engineering considerations first discovered during actual development which could not reasonably be anticipated during the approval process, or the change has no effect on the conditions and representations which limit the approved plat. During the course of infrastructure and Phase One construction of the Williams Ranch/SilverLode Subdivisions, the applicant determined that the easement and driveway alignments could be improved to lessen the impacts of driveway construction. 2 Insubstantial PUD Amendment: Section 26.84.080 of the Aspen Municipal Code authorizes the Community Development Director to approve an insubstantial amendment to an approved PUD, if the amendment does =: 1. Change the use or character of the development; Response: The use and character are not being changed. 2. Increase the overall coverage of structures on the land by more than three percent (3%); Response: The amendment will lessen the amount of retainage required for the driveways. 3. Substantially increase trip generation rates or the demand for public facilities; Response: The amendment will not increase trip generation rates or demand for public facilities. 4. Reduce the approved open space by more than three percent (3%); Response: The applicant represents that the open space will actually increase slightly due to the revised driveway alignments. The applicant determined that the approved access easement across Lot 11 to Lot 10, which crossed the entire width of the 40' open space easement between the lots, is unnecessary. The proposed driveway to Lot 10 will encumber only half (20') of the open space easement. The applicants represent that it is not feasible to construct a driveway on Lot 10 which would entirely avoid the open space easement. ' S. Reduce the off-street parking and loading space by more than one percent (1 %); Response: Off-street parking will not be reduced. 6. Reduce the required pavement widths or ri hts-o -w or streets and easements; q P g f ayf Response: No pavement widths or rights -of -way will be reduced. 7. Increase the approved gross leasable floor area of commercial buildings by more than 2%; Response: Not applicable. 8. Increase the approved residential density of the development by more than 1 %; Response: The residential density will not be increased. 9. Create a change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the project's original approval or which requires granting a further variation from the project's approved use 1 or dimensional requirements. 3 Response: Condition # I g of Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994, grants a PUD variance for the front yards of Lots 3-15 which permits driveways or cut slabs greater than 30" below grade within the required yards. The proposed driveway amendments comply with this requirement. 8040 Greenline Review Exemption: Section 26.68.030 exempts development from 8040 Greenline Review if the following standards are met: 1. The development does not add more than 10% to the floor area of the existing structure or increase the total amount of square footage of areas of the structure which are exempt from floor area calculations by more than 25%; and ' Response: The driveway alignment revisions will not affect floor area or exempt square footage. ?. The development does not require the removal of any tree for which a permit would be required pursuant to Section 15.04.450 or the applicant receives a permit pursuant to said section; and Response: The applicant agrees to obtain permits if tree removal is necessa ry. 3. The development is located such that it is not affected by any geologic hazard and will not result in increased erosion and sedimentation. Response: The new alignments will lessen the impact on steep slopes and reduce the number of driveway cuts. ' RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of an insubstantial amendment to the SilverLode Subdivision/PUD and 8040 Greenline Exemption, subject to the following conditions: I . The applicant shall adhere to all conditions of approval as required by Ordinance No. 52, ' Series of 1994. 2. The applicant shall submit an amended plat within 180 days of this approval, for review and approval by the City Attorney, City Engineer, and the Community Development Department. 3. The applicant shall provide the grading and drainage information requested by the City Engineer prior to submission of the amended plat for recording. 11 4 I hereby approve the insubstantial amendment to the SilverLode Subdivision/PUD and 8040 Greenline Exemption, subject to the conditions noted above. Stan Cla on, Co unity Development Director Date APPR°ve° A. Referral Comments B. Application i 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 Cotho"M p 5 mil► � �� 4 .. MEMORANDUM J To: Suzanne Wolff, Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer From: Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer Date: May 21, 1996 (Revised) Re: Silverlode Subdivision PUD/Plat Amendment No. 1 (Lots 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 13, SilverLode Subdivision, City of Aspen, CO) After reviewing the above referenced application and making a site visit I have the following comments: Discussion: The overall alignment and grading of the driveways for Lots 1-14 has been improved by ' the proposed design and the potential for erosion has been minimized by the inclusion of this work prior to selling the subject lots. The proposed driveway grading of Lots 3 - 15 is also consistent with the condition l.g, Ordinance 52, 1994, Final Review for Subdivision , PUD, GMQS Exemption and Vested iRights for this project. Driveway permits for Lots 1, 2, 3, 7, 11, and 14 have been previously approved by the Engineering Dept. as noted on the detail sheets for each driveway. A revised Subdivision Plat recorded with the County Clerk and Recorder will be required to memorialize these changes to the original subdivision plat. 1. Driveway Easements and Grading Plan: The proposed alignments and grading plans for the several residential driveways proposed in this application are approved with the following exceptions and comments. Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6: Although previously approved, it appears that the proposed alignment for the driveway to lot 3 (and lots 4, 5 and 6) will produce a grade greater than the maximum permitted 12% noted on the detail sheets, where it departs from the Reciprocal Easement No. 2. The applicant is requested to meet with the Engineering Dept. to discuss the feasibility of raising the finished grades in the upper portion of Reciprocal Easement No. 2, approximately the last 100 ft immediately below the S ilverlode Drive cul-de-sac, in order to reduce the grade into the `common driveway serving lots 3-6 inclusive. i What utilities have been or will be located in the utility easement on the west side of Lot 5? DRCM6a96.D0C IMenio - Silverlode Subdivision PUD/Plat Amendment No. I How is the drainage from the drainage easement on the east side of Lot 5 conveyed through and/or around the proposed boulder wall placed at the intersection of the driveways serving Lots 5 and 6? Where is the discharge point on to the public right-of-way of this concentrated drainage discharge? ' What is the impact upon the approved building envelopes of realigning the driveways and the proximity of the driveways to the building envelopes? ' Lot 7: How will the drainage be conveyed through and/or around the proposed boulder wall to be placed on the uphill side of this driveway? Where is the discharge point on to the public right-of-way of ' this concentrated drainage discharge? Lots 8 & 9: How will the drainage be conveyed through and/or around the proposed boulder wall to be placed on the uphill side of this driveway? Where is the discharge point on to the public right-of-way of this concentrated drainage discharge? Otherwise accepted. Lot 10: The proposed alignment of this driveway violates condition Lb, Ordinance 52, that states that no development shall encroach into a dedicated easement, i.e., the Pedestrian Access and Utility Easement on the eastern portion of Lot 10. Given the design grading of Silverlode Drive, the proposed driveway location provides the best access to Lot 10 without violating the maximum driveway grade adjacent to a public right-of-way. The applicant will need to meet with the Engineering Dept. to discuss ' the feasibility of leaving the driveway intersection point in its proposed location although making the v.-esterly traverse with the driveway alignment to reach the building envelope of Lot 10. In either case, mitigating landscaping and trail access will be required. The former Lot 10 access easement originating on Lot 11 and crossing the Pedestrian Access and Utility Easement will be abandoned from the Lot 11 side. Any disturbance of the native vegetation or topography will be re -stored to pre -construction conditions. ' Vhat utilities have been or will be placed in the utility easement between Lots 10 and 11 ? Which utilities have not been placed in Silverlode Drive? i Lot 11: How will the drainage be conveyed through and/or around the proposed boulder wall to be ' placed on the uphill side of this driveway? Where is the discharge point on to the public way of this concentrated drainage discharge? Otherwise accepted as proposed. Lots 12 & 13: The debris interceptor, culvert in -let and a new manhole have been positioned to ` intercept the drainage flows in the natural drainage between these lots where the common driveway is proposed. These structures, if properly sized and constructed, will suffice for conveying the historic ' drainage flows through the site. Accepted as proposed. 2 DRCN16a96-DOC I Memo - Silverlode Subdivision [IUD/Plat Amendment No. I �I Lot 14: How will the drainage be conveyed through and/or around the proposed boulder wall to be placed on the uphill side of this driveway? Where is the discharge point on to the public way of this concentrated drainage discharge? Otherwise accepted as proposed. 2. Revised Subdivision Plat: The revised subdivision plat must be submitted for review and acceptance by the Engineering Department prior to recording. I Design and Construction Requirements and Standards: The applicant has agreed to the following design and construction requirements and standards: • The 3 ft radius at the driveway intersection with the street is not accurately noted nor depicted in the site plans. This requirement applies to the placement of fill material upon which the finished surface of the driveway is constructed as well as the finished surface itself. • The curb cut at the pavement edge will not exceed 18 ft in length, regardless of the angle of intersection of the driveway to the street or public right-of-way. 4. Final Grading Plan: We require that the applicant meet with the Engineering Dept. and receive approval prior to changing the approved grading plans and that a revised final grading plan be submitted by the applicant whenever there is a change from the previously approved grading plan. 5. Construction Plans: The applicant has yet to submit construction plans for this project and formalize permission to proceed with construction as required in Ordinance 52, (Series of 1994). 6. Drainage Plan: The drainage plans submitted to date are insufficient to completely evaluate the effectiveness of the design and review the construction details. Additional detailed plans and specifications are needed before continuing with the construction. 7. Dependence of Certificates of Occupancy Upon Acceptance of Public Work: Per the requirements of Ordinance 52, (Series 1994), no Certificates of Occupancy will be issued until all public improvements are completed, in place and accepted by the appropriate agency (Condition 19, Ordinance 52, Series 1994). 8. Salvation Ditch: The several unresolved issues impacting the Salvation Ditch, including historic drainage patterns, required water feature along the ditch alignment, pedestriantrail along the ditch alignment. recently discovered drainage basin and conduit into the existing open ditch, and the adequacy of the drainage study and proposed improvements will be discussed and reviewed in a separate meeting of the concerned parties. DRC,%t6a96.D0C 3 Memo - Silverlode Subdivision PUD/Plat Amendment No. 1 Except as noted above, this application for establishing and revising residential driveway easements and alignments is accepted. Future correspondence on this application shall be addressed directly to Ross Soderstrom, 920-5087, Engineering Dept. C 4 DRCM6a96.DOC rEi 11 MEMORANDUM TO: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development FROM: Rebecca Baker, Parks Department DATE: March 29, 1996 RE: Silverlodd Subdivision, PUD/Plat Amendment #1 ' We have reviewed the proposed driveway locations and have particular concern about Lot # 10 and it accessing across the 40 foot pedestrian access/utility easement. This is not acceptable and the proposed design negates the use of this easement as an access ' easement. From inspecting the site there should be no problem using the existing lot boundary that fronts the street for a driveway for Lot # 10. The grades are not extreme (appears to be 5-7%) and could be workable for a driveway. In addition, the 20' ' driveway easement from Lot 11 that goes half way into the 40' pedestrian/utility easement must be abandoned. It dead ends into the middle of the 40' area and is not usable. As it appears from the drawing of the driveway location on Lot 11 it seems as though there is no need for this easement anyway. The final comment is the lower portion of the 40' easement that crosses through the affordable housing section between Silverlode Drive and Williams Ranch Drive should also have access through it. The grades should be made along Lots 9 & 10 to allow for pedestrian access through this area. CC: Ross Soderstrom, Engineering Department WmRnchDR.doc L I Exhibit G J