HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ec.Brandt, Charles and Emmy Lou
'--"
r'
-i"""'" f""""!.
\.. ,....".
,
~
fir ~ ot ~~I f~t ~ ('d~teut ",WA t~ vNOi~ fv
\ I Ovff\\~ ~ k aturW.
~~~ w.l f1Jf~ V~~. ~
~lhe. tiwJ 1AJt ~
- l
- o~. ~ ~ ~ ol04- ~\~ Ofll~_~k,-
~~L' - ~
....
f Lo-~ fVN~.
\1 f~ ~\z,~ ~.
/","""
~
CHARLES T. BRANDT & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CHARLES T. BRANDT
US BANK BUILDING
420 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 204
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE: (970) 925-5196
FAX: (970) 925-4559
E-MAIL: cbrandt@rof.net
BASALT OFFICE:
GARRET S, BRANDT
PETER S, DELANY, PARALEGAL
132 MIDLAND AVENUE, SUITE 4
BASALT, COLORADO 81621
TELEPHONE: (970) 925-5196
FAX: (970) 925-4559
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Chris Bendon
Garret Brandt ~6
FROM:
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).
111111I11/1111111111111111111111111I11111I1111111111111
4487e0 11/13/2000 02:53P AGREEMEN DAVIS SILVI
1_~~_ 4~~~:00 D 0,00 N 0,00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
~
r"'\
i"" .'1
n
P.D.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 bated April 3, 1995)
THIS P.U,D. Agreement is entered into between WILLIAMS RANCH JOINT VENTURE
("WRW') and the CITY OF ASPEN (the "City") pursuant to Ordinance No, 6, Series of 2000,
WHEREAS, WRN 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, WRN has placed funds in escrow with the City for the completion of the PUD
requirements pursuant to Ordinance No. 52, Series 1994; and,
WHEREAS, WRN 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 WRN 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, WRN and the City hereby covenant and agree as follows:
1. 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.
3. 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 WRJV,
11111111111111111111111111111111111I11111I1111111111111
448750 11/13/2000 02:53P AGREEMEN DAVIS SILVI
2 0' 4 R 20.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
/
Oct, 30, 2000 10: 03AM
/
fIIh
1)
n
No, 2962 P, 5
r k use b the CIty In the event the City decIdes to deSlgn and construct the 1rail segm . . . .
!be trail easemell nal plat crossing Lots 33, 34 and 35 ot 27 of the
Williams Ranch Subdivision throug e Vet Subdivision_ If developed, the
design and construe' ese improv e approved by the City Trails
Co ' .
4.
WRJV agrees to pay to the City an additional $10,000,00 ("Additional Funds") for use by the
City as determined appropriate by the City Council, including, but not limited to, negotiations
with the Centennial CondominilUll Association regarding a 1rail easement over the Centennial
property_
5,
TIle City agrecs to complete construction of the pedestrian trail from the existing 1rail between
lots 6 and 10 Williams Ranch Subdivision to the edge of Silverlode Drive, no later than August 1,
2000, TIle City shall use the Additional Funds held in escrow for this trail.
6_
The requirement for \VRJV to construct the portion of the public trail described on the final plat
as within the trail easement crc>ssing Lots 33, 34 and 35 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision is
hereby waived and shall be of no further 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.
Upon improvement, by the adjacent lot o,,"er(s) 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 vebicles, 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 funds 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 hands and seals upon this Agreement,
8.
C
.
CITY OF ASPEN - ATTEST:
10~~~~
Katlu)m S. Koc , City Clerk
11111111111111111111111111I11111111I11111I1111111111111
448750 11/13/2000 02:53P AGREEMEN DAVIS SILVI
3 of 4 R 20.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
-j
;-.,
,
~
No,29B2 p, 6
Oct,30, 2000 10:04AM
STATEOFSlr )
) .s_
COlJNTY OF )
TI,e foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this I~day of ~. d__ .2000, by John
D. Markel, President of Mark IV, Inc, the managing general partner of the Williams Ranch Joint Venture.
~t2~~
Notary Public
! . - Wi~E~;#~'~~8i6~'r
~@. NOTAAYPUBLJCoCAUFOFlNIA ~
I ~-. SANTA BARBARA coo. N. TV.. :!l
My Comm, Exp, Aug. 15,2001 B
~ ~: ~ : :. -....,~..
The foregoing inst)1Jment was acknowledged before me this _ day of
Rachel Richards as Mayor of the City of Aspen, Colorado_
Witness my hand and official seal.
M commission ~,,;~ires:O:~/~,xoo I
. '.-.-."'..'~"A'~"~.. '. .'.~.._:.
-- MJKC:,. [::1\"::,,: ~'JGHA~t)t;HN; ~"
cc _. ' :.""::'~,:,\/, i1"':~:~,",r::,:':~::(,:-"_'~
&S '. '," ;,c
I "', ";;,,':',:'::!.~I:'>, ,::":'<,::,':"'; -:'
, ", ..,-.". . ..'. <-OIl1111
....".--,~.;t~~:,;,:,\~,,,:~,.,:,":':,'~;~'s.:~
STATE OF COLO:RA:DO"') "..,.
) ss,
)
COUNTY OF PITKIN
, 2000, by
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
Ut~~01'~~ff~itlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
40' 4 R 20.00 g000=05~P0AGREEMEN DAVIS SILVI
-----___ . .00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
._---'-.----...~---'-----------_._-/:
r"1
~
vm
...
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 Directonl, A . .
Chris Bendon, Senior Planner \jJVVVj
Williams Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment
2"d reading of Ordinance No.6, Series of2000.
FROM:
RE:
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 8th.
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
I
t)
o
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 ofthis 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 ajustified
request. This could be accomplished by either the applicant or the Homeowners
Association. As some ofthis 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 ofthe 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
tl
f)
connection through this parcel. The applicant does not have a responsibility to
develop this portion of the trail.
The next portion ofthe 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 southem-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 ofthe trails, This will require additional escrow funds for which
the 9rdinance 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). Staffis 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 I, 2000, by the
applicant or by the City with use of the escrow funds.
3
t'\
'"'
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: Silverio de 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
A
r"1
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 8'h at 4 p.m. A shuttle van will
be leaving from City Hall.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of City Council Ordinance No, 6, Series of2000.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to adopt Ordinance No.6, Series of2000, approving an amendment to the
Williams Ranch PUD."
ATTACHMENTS: .
Exhibit A -- Map of Williams Ranch and Centennial Subdivisions.
C:\home\CHRISB\CASES\ Williams Ranch Amendment\CC-Memo3,doc
5
~
~
t'l
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
THRU:
Steve Barwick, City Manager
John Worcester, City Attorney
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director -J'^ {I' b",
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director \JI-'i vfJ
Chris Bendon, Senior Planner ~
Williams Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment
2nd reading of Ordinance No.6, Series of 2000.
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
April 10, 2000
'I' \ "
Ct:1 /
~
RECEIVED
MAY 1 B 2000
ASPc:.N I pI rK.IN _
~ ,,-, Oo~ ~r::l\'
...........~ ~~~! 1"1\""""/ Dcv c..... ,iV"_
,/.'. 1';,~v'~ ,
SUMMARY:
Williams Ranch PUD was approved in 1994 as a 70/30 affordable housing project
and is currently developed with nearly all ofthe 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 ofthe 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 Lom White Trilil from the Centennial parking lot
area. Property ownership and public easement information is provided for the area on
the attached map (Exhibit C), 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.
I
r\
~
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 retainiJ:lg 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 I, condition #18, of Ordinance No. ~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 indenmify 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 sit~."
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 directli 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
2
1""'\
f""'\
request. This could be accomplished by either the applicant or the Homeowners
Association, As some ofthis 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 proj ect' 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 ofthe 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 th.e 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 staffs urging, the applicant inquired about
securing an easement from the Centennial Condominiums for this trail. The property
on the adj acent 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 ofthe 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 oftrail 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
1\
~
construction ofthis 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 ofthe 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 (EP A) 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 ofthis emergency facility.
5
r"\
~
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 ofthis 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 oftwo 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,
6
r"l
r"l
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 of2000, 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
C:\home\CHRlSB\CASES\ Williams Ranch Amendment\CC-Memo ],doc
7
I"';
^
Exhibit A
Williams Ranch Amendment
Staff Comments: 26.445.040 Review Standards
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
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 ofthe 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 properly prior to development. This issue was raised primarily to address
the project's aesthetics and the value ofretaining some visual cue to the ditch landscape
element. The final approval contained a condition requiring the developer construct a
Staff Comments 2
r'\
to
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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe visual character ofthe City. It is not the
purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly
enforced that iudividual initiative is stifled in the design of a particular
building, or substantial addiiional 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
11
~
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 b.e available to accommodate the proposed
development at the time development is constructed, and that there will be no
net public cost for the provision ofthese 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 ofthe 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
r"1
~
(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 TraiI.Theparkp<lI~el 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 ofthe 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 oftraffic. 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.
C:\home\CHRISB\CASES\Williams Ranch Amendment\CC_EX_A.doc
Staff Comments 5
o
o
<(
a::
o
...J
o
U
~
f-
Z
:::>
o
u
z
iZ
f-
a::
/
"
~
r:-::;
;'~
/""; ~
.,~
I~
..L ~'
I " .
I
/
/
,")
.,tr,
, t,
,
<>
fly ,j~
',>~,,('''A
'(), (y
...~')
'/7
~\..,
.og"JjoC'
i. ~.. '"
m
'-"Iii ~
'"i' i"
, ., .'"
..~ ;~.;I m "'"
0 -
~~ 0
~~ "'"
::;!
rL
t61,~,,,
-.l- Iv] 'io
'-::lS--~'
- .-'
:..:Ii '.,
{it~>
... '".
s 8
W"
-'
~s
"'.
/
!
,
o
J
-:7
/
/
"
'" 2
~ . ,-
u' ~
. - .
/
"'
c;j
",.
l.u UJ
'"
.,J <T
lWO
U.
Q- .
"'i if)
il --
.r
o
()
Q)
,/--
--"~..
,
;~~
;..~ti
;;~~
'"
/
u.
o
~~
"'-
>W
is'''
'"
=,w
",:1:0
f-O
:J: <t
'-'z'"
z-o
V! <(z.J
~ 0:28
'::.1 ~5.
~ ",liS>
_",f-
~ :1a~
0' -v.o
"...'-'
~ -azz
23 g:E~
u zo::-
owQ.
iii~ '
>C)::::E
g~n:
;;:Vl:
u.'"
~o ~
0-,3:
-'W..
ffi~(fJ
><t .
-'0.'"
in J: ~
u.'-''''
o~Q
f-lr
:S'Vl~
o..~,...,
Z:Jz
Q..JQ
!aji=
>.,-,
~~~
~3
lr
;:J~
z.!
ii:'"
u.
o
-~..
/
//
-.-
/
//
w ,/ ~
.___~ u ~lL PI'
o/'-~i~ ~43
~ <l:U ..__/q<">N
Q i!\' .....'" ;7;20
~ ~ ~~ >-'~:O;
w 00~:lS ~::~
(!) ~.~ w...e ~....~
W ~Il:: g~!P V1.<!:
-l I4iV "':15 ",~m
i~ g~~ ~:f3
0",!3:;r; ",%':
2:'-' ~~~ ~i~
r
o !d
:1:-
~/
18~
~
?i
<t
CO
ci
,'"
j<":~
c) I,-
Ii
-< /,~
() ,,7'
,,(~.'
,
/
I
,/ ,:..
I .''' ,I, '.
A ." ,
/., $1"
o~
I .~ I
I
,
o ~
.
:E
lD
~
/
Q ,-"
...:
,.:
z
o
i=
u
w
C/l
LL
o
"'"
.....
.(;
-9'/
q 0'
q~.
p. ~
/~~,a:
!"l~;
E~;;;:-
/
C/l
//
/
/
//
/'
/
"-
,
~
..... t:l.
i~ l!l
llr" "Ill
=l'~:.
i'.:~~~"
g~hi
-- )
-
w
C/l
w
:r:
f-
~
Z
o
Vi
:;;
is
co
:::>
C/l
:r:
u
z
<(
a::
C/l
::;:
::!
...J
...J
::::
.:~
/",
~:l '
~'~~ .g~
'J -'""
- \ -
J !~~3.,
8 ~, ~~.
./' II
C 0/.
;:)
~ '
.l: ~m
l!ll!l"'C
;:;'1 E~>
~ \ j /: ~~':i
\\ // ~W
~ ' ". . ,:.'
== ~\~_ // ~. . . ro /,/ ~m :~:i
\ '5 \ \ /\.-.. c./ . -- 'c" / \,v~ ,. . Wi:; ~~
, :> \ \ /~--\...~/ . ffi / (r-<~ ? t '~I, ,"
~ . \ -\'\~'- . / - .'~ '<'::::,.'-,, .' ~
,,\ ./ aC /~~~!y."C ';:y/ .,~)
~" .~ ~ ./_1. // / u" /" ~"
~,\ _ / /.L' ~ '-' S'
e '>>;;-d5n:c=' /_1 . (. ij; ,. '"IT'''
....~ ~ ..1(1=. \:qn~~ / ~~,\:____. ,.,j.~:':'::- ~ ~. .' );> m~hiI!!n
~~ Ti L. ) _ , ,,;l!hji;!l
"." 1-,,\ 1 ',.-=::7/CL...::> "/r- . ~ t-- ',:.no.,,! " '
/""", _.. '-::;i, "';:' -WI!-' ~~/t,) .... p,';<f!l:'
u~~ ,/;/, . oJ ,I,." ,;-1
____ v~('-'----~ d!~ ,;,' E ~ Hii;;!i;;l
.~ ;~', ~ (u\\~;?~!~~."cnJ.., ~ ~ i:!jl1imn ~
"/_~ i J. ;7".' .~... ~... J1~ ( ~~'i'.<:(o if;' ~, ~ 1 ' ;fill';'! . --",. ~,
_ , , , I, ,;If,;j. ,*1> " .,' ill ' . ,<.' '" .",~'
It ~ I I' =-t--j _ _''', i! 'I;;.~ ;$~/. 1,.~~mlll]lII}\llm'IHI[iJ1 - '-=:1 58
#/f.------ ,_=,.... ~~ ~~~'S.~~~~7.f...."':~ ::;-',:'1'1(1,,1,11','":-:\ 1!, , ,.',1 ",I,I;I:WlJ,1m1J.\11,I.,i,\i}JlJJJJ:llJ.nnrTlI11~lnld
"/'___.__ ~ _-- ._~_,. ~ ....0,;;:. ,~..... oS'.!Ii ..,_.... ,I. ...,llli, I I '1"111 '111'1" ,..L" ,-..,.1, ..N""I"".,I.I,
_.c ._ ~_.___~.:.-->., ~/-&....~~...... ."....., .......'.. .,' ,I ,1"11" fZ(II.'....r/.7.i':
":3:-::c. ~ -~L ---r-~;L~.=~ _ ...~ .....~~//'"'---./...- :l-~:,<;V~;~~i:;;::::.,-:;..:,: .::,.::,:.J.. ,..I....:I.')'..~_i.I\' 1'1'11\'11'1
UJ LL IT] 0 I . ~ t -...~...~ fi;;"" ~ I' ,.....,. ..". "..... ..' .. ..... . " ,
r L ,-.1 '1--.;-- '\.rJ::-""'*-~"/~ /:-:::.- L;' "':'~~I";,..:.;,:,,,.:i,,-:,,,;::<::;"':::I~;;";f;:'X::,:;~;;;~:;';;,;;;;:Y;~:i':1
. . ',,,, - ~,... .. "'_ ' " I" ,." ,..,' " ......." 'e"'"
, . ... .. . '., ' I' I ' ' ,I ).1 I .....,.; ..,. ><\." ~".'r"''''
_~ ~_ .. I It.. ... k . r.<r-?J ""''''. "?"'''' " " 'i. ';,1-,i'" '"'\ 1\,:1
'III ~ ~ "I ....' '.... 1.1\\1,'10111,'11' ',',-!'r..'"","n' :.....~., ',I ',,, ',', ,\"1
, ~~. . _ " , ~. ~/ _ 'c~"..,.,~" ',' ,., ,.,' :. ",,,.,,....,..,,,,,..-,.r;
. '.. 'i..' ~.Il .11 -:(J;:~~....:..,. ..-..... ..'.., " ".,..":',',,. ,',illa,
.1"/' ....~ ~-~ c:~~~..~-,f.___..4It
i ..... /~ ., . ..1' "if
:.i/ / /;~ I ' L-......-:- . ....-.'~.." -. ' · !. ·
"..... . . ~,I, _ I-----..c<.. ... ..'
. .."i' ,"""-::_. I" .. .
. . ~-,~..
/"""'.(
/'
('
....~
w,
~~
./
~~
{~';~
,. ~r
~~r
~~~
,0 ~ x~
/'. ~ ~!~.r <t "0', /
7, t-~
'-. / <t;'< /
" / o't'<:JOj~'" /
/ ..... /
'-.,/ .l"""'>
--./ ,'\ll"' /
.c.<...<"'o+ /
c,'\'~G /
,:)r;,~ /
c,q~ /
/
/
*
~
~
~
~
.
~
."
.,.
z.
,
,/
.~
---.--.
.'.
-;7
;I~'
I'-
N
~ I I I
~ III ,I
1/ '
1/1
II ~
/ / aj
. l()
-
-
.~
~
,~
c.~::-.
l/
j"
-~
.~~
1j
"",,'.,,': '<.0'
"y'"
...l~'?J~'"
..,. . ,.
...;.tc",:"~'" ItIi ,,'0
,..". .. v
!' .. \
..:.:.......'."':/: ., -.1.--
,:'>":<'i"::'~':
'i<'~'::,,:> ..
:t.' ,
.....>;;;".ii.~
,:~.'.:.',','.".,}f"..'...
," 'i:,:,,:~;}l'
,!"..,.~
.,}:!it'-,
';,i:':'.'~;~
~<"'~
...'.,.,.':....5
."(t':~
o
.... /" -- ----
>'VOJ ' u'"---'''''
V elf-
I"l ~Z:I:..J
>(7 ~ ~ f- f-
a:'" -
./ <lwa:"-'"
"'0 ll.l/lOW
> <l,,-Zf-
w Wo
<D...J
.6e
,-
-S;:
$
,
. ,
~
l
.
t'"
I I ~
/ ~
II ~
/' u ~
<l: el
i I ~
Ii!
\ I ;
i \ \
,
,
\
, \ \
I\,
\ \ \
I . \
\ \ \
-;:
>\~.
\:
z
W
0-
o
L\\
..J
:
,.
- \
J
.
...
:s
.
)/
0.'
r
~"
r\
MEMORANDUM
A ....
"Ihe.
TO:
Mayor and City Council
THRU:
Steve Barwick, City Manager . I
John Worcester, City Attorney Of'
Julie Ann Woods, community. Development Directo . ,_
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Directon I A' .
Chris Bendon, Senior Planner ~UNl
FROM:
RE:
Williams Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment
t At reading of Ordinance No. to , 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,
staffhas 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. b, 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
1
r-.,
A
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 I, 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 ofthe 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, havea 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
{J
~
,
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
r"1
I)
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 ofthe 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 staffs 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 ofthe
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
r"1
~
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 (EP A) 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
I"l
~
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 oftwo 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,
6
r"1
I)
RECOMMENDATION: b
Staff recommends City Council Ordinance No, _' Series of2000, upon first
reading, establishing the second reading and public hearing as April! 0, 2000,
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve adopt Ordinance No, 0 , Series of2000, 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.
C:\homeICHRISBICASESI Williams Ranch AmendmentlCC-Memol,doc
7
r"1
~
Exhibit A
Williams Ranch Amendment
Staff Comments: 26.445.040 Review Standards
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 deveIopment shall be consistent with the Aspen Area
Community PIan.
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 ofthe 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
dev~loped in the future. The improvement to the open space parcel is expected to
complement the surrounding area,
D. Final approvaI shall only be granted to the deveIopment to the extent
to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicaut.
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
,...."
r J
A
4. Dimensional Requirements. The dimensionaI requirements shall be those of
the underlying zone district, provided that variations may be permitt~d 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 ofthe 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 pun 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
de~elopment (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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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
,r-. I""\,
water feature along the ditch alignment. This is reflected in Section I, 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 pe 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 pIan, which ensures architectural
consistency with the proposed development, architectural character, building
design, and the preservation of the visual character ofthe 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
f""""
~ I
1"1
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 ofthis criteria,
This emergency access way needs to be maintained in a manner acceptable to emergency
service providers, Stafj'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
/"';.
I')
(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,
C:\home\CHRISB\CASES\ Williams Ranch Amendment\CC _EX _ A.doc
Staff Comments 5
I"""';
,.. ,
1"""'\
'1
G~ihit-t;
~.
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WI L
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A SUBS.T ANTIAL ~~U,
AMENDMENT TO THE WILLIAMS RANCH PLANNED UNIT 1'"1'1~.
DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS GRANTEDPuRSlJANt 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,
WHE~AS, 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.
111111I1111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111
440391 02/11/2000 12:~1P RESgLUTI DAVIS SILVI
1 of 3 R 15.00 D0.00 N 0.00 PITkIN COUNTY CO
r)
o
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 I,
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 pedestriat, walking area on one side of all roads" (sidewalks), as stipulated in
Section I, condition #2b, of Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994, and the "five foot
pedestrian path," stipulated in Section 1, condition #I4i, 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 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
oflandscape 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,
111111I1111I1111I11111111I111111111111111I1111111111111
44039102/11/2000 12:01P RES~LUTI DAVIS SILVI
2 0' 3 R 1!.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITkIN COUNTY CO
f".,
.~
,. ..>
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:
PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
CiQ~ I V
,
~,~/
Robert Blaich, Chair
ATTEST:
C:\homeICHRISBICASESIWilliams Ranch AmendmentIPZ_RES02.doc
111111I1111I1111I11111111I111111111111111I11111 "" I11I
440381 02/11/2000 12:01P ~ESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI
3 0' 3 R 15.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITkIN CDUNTY CO
"'; :',~: J,.; :~:' y~. ,""
. ~ ;..' < -'.' ,._.J
. .;~ . -;
'...,......
t"", ~
GARY A. WRIGHT, P.C.
ALLEN H. ADGER, p.e.*"
BRIAN J. PINKOWSKI, P.C.
201 NORTH MILL STREET. SUITE 106
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TEL.EPHONE: 970-925-5625
FACSIMILE:: 970.925-5663
to f!lif11D
R4~
OF COUNSEL: 'Ji..,A
PHILIP J. O'CONNELL" TJ{//f
MACE J. YAMPOLSKY, LTD,**"
WRIGHT & ADGER
LAW PARTNERSHIP, LLP
c-mall: aspen@wrl~ht.adger.(;om
25 October 1999
. ALSO ADMITTED TO FLORIDA BAR
.. ALSO ADMITTED TO T UISIANA ~
'". ACSO ADWITW TO CAL RN>A AND VADA \......
I
CATALINA CRUZ
Christopher Bendon, Planner
Aspen Pitkin County Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street, Third Floor
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Williams Ranch Homeowner's Association
~\ ~~1
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 t."'-lis trail not be constnlct~d.
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.
re'''"'.,;i'\I....1t,V- .
nli.:;wz::.uvIJ:;:D
G:\WRHA\MarkeI.OOI
OCT 2:- 1999
ASPEN / PiTieN
COMMUNITY DEVELO?MZi\:T
OFFICES LOCATED IN ASPEN, BASALT, AND DENVER, COLORADO
t'""'i;
~
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 ofthe trail was built by Williams Ranch Joint Venture to
City spe~ifications, as we Urtder:;tand it, and "va~';""~l'Clx:~'pteci by tIle CitY. Because of non-use due 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 amendmentto our protective covenants (enclosed with this
letter) prohibiting the construction of sidewalks This 'irnendment has been of record since June
1999,
SAL VA nON 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 SijverLode 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,
G:\WRHA\MarkeLOOl
tn
r"1
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:
^-~
Gary A. Wright, President
,..,.... n '1T"",...,.-1",,1
v,-" v. ,..............""..
G:IWRHAIMarkeI.OOl
r'\
~
RECEIVED
APR 1 S 1999
CHARLES T. 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
ASPt::\\! I PiTKIN
'-'0MMUNITY DBlELOPMEN"l'
TRAVIS S. THORNTON
GARRET S. BRANDT
C.T. BRANDT,PARALEGAL
April 15, 1999
~~h~'~ D
~
CO'((e~~ .
WI ~l;t:w\r
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 24th, 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
r"1
f\
;r
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 WRN 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.
WRN 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.
I
I')
r-..
~, ..:.~
b, As Built Drawings, Hans Brucker is preparing the "as builts" that are still
needed. WRN 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 WRN 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. WRN 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,
~q~~
Garret S. Brandt for
Charles T. Brandt & Associates, P.C,
cc: John Markel, via facsimile
Apr7l6-99 02:l4P Silv~LOde Real Estate
970 ~..3-4a9l
I ..~
P.Ol
ASPEN...-
EARTHMOVING
'bX. 1? ~~.
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 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,
,.- ..--"""'{\ ~ "-
~'M \\~
Rick Pickard
P.O. Box 1090 Carbondale, Colorado 81623 970-963-0377 Fax 963-2247
I"") GTS Development .1"")
119 E COOPER AVE., #12
ASPEN, CO 81611
(970) 920-4418
b&~\\i(t ~ E.
~-
~ ~ rast~~
June 30, 1999
Mr. Chris Bendon
City of Aspen Planning Dept.
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 91611
JUN 3 0 1999
';' ~>I ~ 1 { ';,.,_..N~;;;JiENT
Dear Chris:
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 Silver Loae 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.
I 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
~
r'I,
v
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 all 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, .
//?/7;
Gregory T. Simmons
GS/s
Ene!.
~
A
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 cOhcerns 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}ide 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
^
f)
R ;,;: '(;.. :.:J
JUl 27 1999
:;c~~;.. _. .. ,', -\ ~..
.:.- -...._ ..',.iCi'Jj
July 26, ]999
~\\\lb\'t- ~ f
CCM.-h\tl.~J..,
Chris Bendon
City of Aspen
Planning and Zoning
Dear Chris:
Thank you for taking the time to review the information regarding Williams
Ranch. The l!,rimarv nrablem is incomplete ditch 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? _ '(-0::,.
In addition to the ditch work, I also want to inform you that the punchlist
work promised to Phase I homeowners has also not been completed. .L.
..realize that this list is not in vouriuri~.diction to enforce, but you should be
aware that the Williams Ranch Joint 'V::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. I would like to find out from you the city zoning code on
parking space allotmentfor each unit. Please call me at 925-5060 X155 to
set a time.
~erelY,
Barbara Owen
;;a'~Frr T"-.;;;"","
-nll"f"
C'i
f""\
3[:4.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Julie Ann Woods, com. munity Development Director 0IIv!
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director ;;. /
Christopher Bendon, Planner~\JV)
Williams Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment - Public Hearing
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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
ofthe 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 fru,it.
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
1
,/
r"1
I"")
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. Staffis 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
/.
r"1
r'1
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 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. Oil 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 obIigation with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EP A) 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 ofl999, and is not a binding commitment by the "developer.
3
1""""\
~
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:
AHl-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
r"1
r'""\
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\CHRISB\CASES\Williams Ranch Amendment\PZ_Memo2.doc
5
~.. ',,-.o-""i
r~'{l')
MEMORANDUM
-~.7'"'' ..
tj
TO:
Planning and Zoning Commission r
~
, .
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director _
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Directonl A I A II
Christopher Bendon, Planner tfJWV J
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
Land Use Cl)de 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: 0... .:2.1 _ .
· Thursday January 13th 9 -11 a,m, -- Vl> b fJl(J. {J-, /
· Thursday January 13th 1-3 p,m. --- ~""'- E. .
· Friday January 14th 1-3 p,m. /
On December 14, I999, staff will ask for 2-4 P&Z members to participate in these
small group discussions and commit to one of the sessions,
G;~ ~~
S ltV\j
AtA-V\
1
r"1
r\. !II.:D.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU:
Julie Ann Woods, Community De~~I9Rment Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director ~
Christopher Bendon, Planner UflflM
Williams Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment - Public Hearing
FROM:
RE:
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. Staffhas
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 staffwill 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.
1
r"-\
r'l
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 I, 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
1""'.
,~
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 ofthe
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,
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
r-..
i '
I'l
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 ofthis 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 (EP A) 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. Ifthe 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:
AHl-PUD
CURRENT AND PROPOSED LAND USE:
The project consists oftwo Subdivisions: Silverlode and Williams Ranch, Together,
there are 15 free-market residences and 35 affordable housing deed restricted
residences.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
5
r'\
('"""j
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 I, 2000,
2, ecf th ity, and acceptance by the City of the
impr ent ated condi. n # , ,. the requirement to construct a "small ditch
water feature," as stipulated in Section I, 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
W,llm=R=hS~i~.on_ b'~cl'~: :fu'::~~ < ~~
~/ 'Hu h 4.
4,
5.
~
I'"
,. .,
,-",.
, ;
, shall be re-
ed: ese im rovements be accomp' ed by Willi anc oint
no later th Ju~z-oOO, The design d cons 'on plans fi these
vements shallhtf'approved by the City ail ordinator of . s
epartrnent.
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 I, condition #14i, of said Ordinance, shall be deemed met and no
further obligation to develop asidewalk 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 Pun shall be vacated from Lot #27 of the Williams
Ranch Subdivision through Lot #15 of the Silverlode Subdivision,
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,
ncyaccess between e Spruce S et right- - yan t e ~
I be imp 0 wit emer nc vehic
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
eviewed by the City Attorney prior to recordation, imp emen a Ion 0
andscape and pub IC acihtJes reqwre t oug t I amendment, the agreement shall be
ccompanied by a cash escrow in the amount estimated by the City Engineer for the
improvements ursu '
7 teRtiAt.~
8.
9.
10,
11.
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 ent to the I . sion plat depictin e trail easement me '
ndif s II also be recorde
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.
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
f:lf.lct~
w VD~
It<"i "0p(
C)
.r'\
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Resolution No. 99- 27 recommending City Council amend the
Williams Ranch Pun 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 Amendment\PZ_Memo2;doc
8
("'\
"
Exhibit A
Williams Ranch Amendment
Staff Comments: 26.445.040 Review Standards
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 expla.nation ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ispotcntially 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 residentiaI units may be authorized to be clustered in a
Staff Comments 1
n
t')
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 ofland 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 I, 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 ofthe 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 timi(lg of this amendment review, staff is
recommending this be accomplished in the Spring of200Q, 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 ofthe 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
(l
o
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 ofthe 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
1"",
~
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 propo~ed development shall be designed so that it will not create
traffic conge~tion on the arterial and collector road~ 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 ofthe
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
r-,
t ,-,
~
This area does not have a significant amount oftraffic, 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,
C:\home\CHRISB\CASES\Williams Ranch Amendment\PZ_EX_A.doc
Staff Comments 6
~
f\
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU:
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director J fr;o
Christopher Bendon, Planner lliWJ
Williams Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment - Public Hearing
t'
FROM:
RE:
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 recoD;1mends 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
<"\)"'~\ - Iv-. review considered the historic character of the land and the value of retaining some
V ,~ 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
I
F1
~
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 arid 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 arid 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.
so: ~ (\ , IV ~. I 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
2
l' ~\ \
"~l~\
~~~~
u ~JJ.~ -
~~~.
r'-..
l"")
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 ofthe trail.
The next portion ofthe 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 ofthe 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
3
~f~
f1~
ftef> .
~
1""'"
r"1
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
environmental concerns. The application was amended when the Smuggler Mine
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 (EP A) 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.
4
I"".
~
ZONING:
AHl-PUD
CURRENT AND PROPOSED LAND USE:
The project consists of two Subdivisions: Silverlode and Williams Ranch. Together,
there are I5 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 I994.
The Planning and Zoning Commission opened this public hearing on July 6, I999,
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:
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 Deparfinent shall approve the seed mixture, The
improvement shall be accomplished prior to July 1,2000,
5
.1""';,
I""';,
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 I, 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
ofthe 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 Pun 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.
6
t"""'\
f)
10. AIl 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,
1 I, 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, 99& 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 2 I,
1999,
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments
Exhibit B -- Referral Agency Comments
Exhibit C -- Letters from residents
Exhibit D -- Applicant Correspondence
Exhibit E -- Location Map
Exhibit F -- Application
C:\home\CHRISB\CASES\Williams Ranch AmendlTlent\PZ_Memo.doc
7
t"'")
()
Exhibit A
Williams Ranch Amendment
Staff Comments: 26.445.040 Review Standards
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. GeneraI Requirements:
A. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
B. The proposed deveIopment shall be consistent with the character of
the existing Iand 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
deveIopment 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 configura'tion, but multi-family dwelling units shall
only be allowed when permitted in the underlying zone district.
Staff Finding:
No changes in the type ofland uses are proposed with this amendment.
4. Dimensional Requirements. The dimensional requirements shall be those of
the underIying 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 ofthe final deveIopment
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
r")
~
The development includes an Open Space area to the benefit ofthe 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 I, 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 of2000, 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 pIan, which ensures architectural
consistency with the proposed development, architectural character, building
design, and the preservation ofthe 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 ofthe 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
f""\
()
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 ofthe pavers and, therefore the long-term usefulness ofthe 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 ofthis issue under the
following criteria - #I2 Circulation.
The soil erosion mitigation condition of the land use approvals related to a mining road
on Smuggler Mountain, contemplated both the future development ofthe 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. Staffis
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
f1
~
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 arid minimrim 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
r'\
~
This area does not have a significant amount oftraffic, 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,
C:\home\CHRlSB\CASES\Williams Ranch Amendment\PZ_EX_A.doc
Staff Comments 6
"'.
---I7Vl:lj~ ~5-+~.n?0
~
AQ,-661
'rw JO A~ Srql <lill <llOJ<lq P<luBlS
I
~- -~ -
~ ~.. \/ ,-~'f';
; $r:~:J~d% ~~s= U::;;~:
<lll1lUuBlS
~rJ?~
~.rg , s;. --f?U"''f}' <lrutm S ,~U1Jo!IddV
Aq '?J (7r/l-+ v ~ffi Yj) <;'\A>J IJ; M
'O~<ll<lq p<lqOU1+U s!uillS p<l~sod
<lq~ JO qdu.IBOlOqd V .( <l~Up ilu!l11<lq <lq~ <llO.pq SAUP I1IlJ ( ~ ~SU<lI ~U lOJ p<l~sod
. ~J-- v?-I-
<lq~sn1^!) ~' ~ JOAUp-<lqlO~~' ~W JOAUP'~<lql
~ "VIi/I ~ '11
ruOl] AIsnonul~uoo <lIqlslA puu p<l~SOd SUM uills PlUS ~uq~ puu (AUM o!Iqnd ~S<llll<lU <lql ruol]
U<l<lS <lq PInoo ~l su) A)l<ldOld p<lfqns <lq~ uo <lOUId snonoldsuoo U rrr uBls U ilul~sod A8: '(;
'ilu!l11<lq o!Iqnd <lq~ o~ lOpd SAUP 09 U1Jq~ <llOru ou p<llll<lddu A<lql su 4uno:J
UPf.l1dJO SplOO<ll X1J~ ~U<lllm <lql uo <lsoql <lq I]1Jqs Sl<lllMO 4r<ldOld ~U<lOUfpU <lquo
S<lSS<llppU pU1J S<llII13U <llJ.l '(Of l~ JO <ll11P ilu!l11<lq ollqnd <lql m lopd SAUp~ sl qO!l{M)
~. vpt'V JO AU.vc.?t' <lql uo '~s!l p<lqOU1+ll <lql uo P<ll11OlpUl su 'A:).I<ldold p<lfqns <lql o~
~u;Jollfpll 4r<ldOldJo Sl<lllMO llll o~ ilu!l11<lq o!Iqnd ;Jq~ opopd SAllp %~Sll;Jll11 jlll1^! 'S'fl
(71
Plud;Jld ;Jilu~sod 'SSllp-~SlY Aq 'O~<ll;Jq P;JlfOll1+U sl qO!l{MJO Adoo II '<lOllOUJO ilu!l!um A8: 'j
:l;JlIU1lm ilulMOIlOJ ;Jq~ ul
SUcil~llInil<llI <lSfl PU1J14uno:J uP1+!d ;JlfUO 06-r UOlP<lS o~ ~U1Jnsmd S~U;JlU<llmb<ll <lOl~OU o!lqnd <lq~
qllM p;J!Idruoo ;JAllq I ~ulf~ 4l:).l;J0 AllUUOSl;Jd '~lUll<ld ~u;JlUdopA<la 4unoJ uPI~ld ;Jq~ o~ ~U1Jo!IddV
uu ilUl~U;JS;Jld;Jll0 ilUl;Jq , -fl/V'::1J tf>5 fj~ 'I
06-1' NOI.LJ:!IS :!IaoJ
:!ISil aNV'I llNilOJ NDIHd
0.1 .1NVilS~ild DNI'IIVW
'SS
{ OPll.l010J JO <lllllS
{
~d W~Bv:~~ 666~ 9~ 'unr
C
l/J
:.!
!...
lDU
is
oC..
ell 0'"
~--,.S(.) ~ -
. 0... 'Ii
X CD'"
.l:E~
~O'"
c:....-,
~~
~(.)
~
~
..
e
..
~
ii;
..
~I ''\
~~
~~
Iil\.l
~f
I:>
<..J
.s
.....
~
~
~
~ ~
.. )
o Ql N
" Iii Iii ::
.~ r...J Qi 10
i~ ~~ 0 ~ ~
I~ -~J u 0 0
- ~ ;;0.,,; (J '" (J
~8 __~O~ ",8, ,; -Iii ~
N'" ~/ii~';["'/ii.s l - 1D- a::
~ aJ:: 8"~f ~/iig~ ~ ~~~~m~",~~ '" _
~ ,~~ ,8i~-o8~~ ~ Iii ~1D8o~8~!18 ~ ~
<IN'Um tt'ctq_coU -lf~ fONNONCO ~&coc .NQ)'NCD
e~~*8~<K~~~e!mos~G60~~ue~a.o~t~o~o~
&1ii~~,;~f~!!oJ.~(J;;(JOliilii~/iijIJ!.:!'~~a~/ii~;;~~
;O"'u;l!.~'" -"ill""" ,; 0.. -"''''':J! -J:!"rr- " 8-
~~~~~8ti~~siQ~f~~i~~~~i~t~~~f~t~f~~8
~~~J,;i;~1I~~iEii~i!~I~~o~~~.~~i~~[ ,,;
i~*~u;f~Ei~~mm5~~~~.:!'O~~~~::5~~3~. .:!'!J
m:g...",=< e"'",",ooo=a""Iii:C'g- ....ll..ll""...~lil&!. _",""
~~!!~f~f]~;i~i~~~i~!~i~i~l~!fj~!~I~
"~.~ ~~~li'!'t:~'i:i[tiT;,;'.tih-o;t't.;nlrf-t~I~.,;c~~'~&s.t..
~~S~~~~-~~-E~~~OU~o, u '8~.'Q~~60' b"
~1-~~~0~1-&~~2~l~"'i,;"'w~. R:~~i"I~~B"'I... .
Il ....0...9 o...,E'....O-lil!"'S .<L ....X-... -.em Ii~ili"~-
~ ~ma~~ ~~. ~~~a.~i~li~-~ej0~~~.~Q ~!
~~-~!~~~~~f~~~0~~I~.~~I~HIl~~5"~.I~m
~ ij.if~€~.i i~~; It ~3 R.e ':;;#~AOl:-, i ~~;-: ~rL~~
~~~~~~~~~~~gB!~~~~!~~I~~~~~~lt~~f~!
ii
~.f-tf
.J../-
1"'0
~~~
I
8
....
'" '" ~
;0 t "'.. il:1:l' ~
.' IN.'Of':',,, fq i-lil 12 ~l!I'
~ ~f..~ ~ ",g\~~~ .... .. ~i ' ~~= i
-Il.'.. "'.... ~ 'lD - . .e.. j ....., .:l:
Q''W'''. .... '_...OOO..-......!'!_.. 0~ ~OOO""'~ lfJ"
to. as",:Joo. ClI f .".... .!l!! -. _.... _ (l\,l 0 .... I
~~fi.~"~~L.....jm~......~N2~~!~!i~ '" .~
lI:f..2...~-.;.'\;'flll:<J 'o..r:,-:Jlti.OIlW_ I ..!1*ca'I8,
-1!=- _:iUJ":".!~.x ~~ -~eg~3~1I~~iEE~'~~~i.s.ec:,""!~:::ii::-
Q'" l!' - c ~- - .0,. '" 0 *"....., - - .. -.: -.. .!l! ~ --11"-,, -.. !i ~
~ ~~a~~~~ ..!~-i~~~~63 - ~~~~~~a %~~
!~~it!lifl!~jll'JIIIHliKIII!ltJljl
::>
'::l
~
%1 e-Or:'t,.
'r~}d~ ~(f
.-L-:/
(1S5h-..sr:b) j-
r\.
'ON 3NOHd
1'""'\,
. :".i"
~Vv10J.~
--'"
0\
HSldOd
..
If.
WO~.:I ,
~3tOT iO:JY-ID 7;,17l'o.jA...
/ (X)()/ 0
.~ /oODII
.,( /OCOI <.
1000/3
~ /DoOO<;5
~ /0).0) /
if /03001
f. D. 8rpe "C/ . f)/61z.
f?f!lf'CvfZ~(~ 1N:) /:Jl.foo Wi&:"re-, elvJ
SvrJ..(L ItfS"o (...os. .~(~S 7(1().;J.s-
a. 2f1d(tp'> (~1tkMl) ~9/J\.r(l/1w. oJ!'.
#ff?i! 6/A 9g~J l~^-'b~
?v~ ;Y1. W, t?
&h /u r I XI-
7!wNt-S .A W~~
/..;J.l'lL Ce fJf1RI
.R..uJ- ?~4f0,
{J. o. Sty: (033
.--
;ti1() )/ {/wl5!-
&Dbi,!
ffl 'i ~/lju. :J, ~'^
/.. f( " c.
g/~ (
'(
[.) f kmi 0kk
Asp", '8'/6/7...
(\
;t-:t7> 1-8 '13ocet
~ '73il:J) 2
1.(?:,0(j) 3
,'iJl.<.I..I.'1k,u."".' FAJ..t ~iuv t/ ~ / Gt: /'
/
&vV/1\ kMJ Ik--uJJ ass .I If.-ov/h!.~.
tIc"k/ L~JIvY\ f5-l'-{ ~:;J, ~J d. J}}-aJ&.fv." F-l
II,) HL... IIi J...l-L..; J...1tf5" 5;1 . / ~ '. ','
It/(Jk~<: ;~Ar( J;li'Ai tit;-.ft../.L % ,4i,. t JE~ c )Jevi../~
qlS'tff>ilvu,-"
3'J.}L/ {t:j1ft!#d tJ/. 5.~,)C..4- C(Jif1CJ 11-~
Iv! iI /,'q(llS (JaIL(, "'-- J 0 i ,J- U.tn~
'/U-/SJ Lj JJiJk ,4 /k-/l h./ frt..J/qnJ CbJ.o~"\ a-. ~Il diG II
,....--y" l{?Jl)QS" ~::: ~ A1vl:~~ h1 (&rniG/( ,'-1 ) 'S e:. #u 1nt1V\ ~ iJ,4 ~
L:::J j --'- ! . j ~c.~ ~ (7 f2e-vt;;JIC..' 'Y,rvs I-
/fr:;(}b",- 8, & ,'/ p GI ~~)l... 't'f;.o, ~ s-f4. Fe( C 4-1 ~ "7
fv4.,/( ~ r61'tl~t /v;.~J("~u.. /0/)/-/ PrcsfY-J 5/-, !f- /3c
i.u T.:> II t', C A 0/)-,.0'3 )-
If?iJ)o} AlV" 6jl.l'~ P 0 ~( l/ 9; s- l'ffAr'- g;1(p/c,
koc"..,F6k-t f..,~+- ~71'ib Le4J~~d c.-t--I 4c-~f-w- Jld~
~3CW ~ /fIlIL /..J.J. 1/ 1 ~ AvO(. 1ft).. 11lJn s/~//
~ 11...r4-i\ / 3G;{~ M.<..fk~ kel D' '11<<<.5 I Ix:. 7S-~
l.f3C(J)1' l)rW.jJaJj S)'Y/fl'()/'ts. //9 e, wcy;e .4//,.( fi-I?. ~\ 3/(,.,
If 3criQ fi0 ~ Ikhl"'C'k.~ Fvck~ ~.~ 111......'tIJc.1v-., T~ I
s Ja.;' fb.rJ, C I 010 q 03
Lf 300/i Mlt'ctlY\. ~"t-... J"D i 11. J- (;~ fv&u...
G p;r/r-.0 ~~"- ('&1J~^j5 Go { t. 'H.v,dJt',.,s
i..{JcJO{7.. ~. q (' 4/,,,,, L I ( ~~ JOhl^' O. h--~ lb. I
ef 2AC\ P,tlV'-}I'1I L_ (}-. A5duV\. 8/(:. t (, I
' ~ j I ~ 1::t:.'L I. " I
4,JOO (3 ~/;1'~ et.J1 /I; {I ~ "'I"" LA./u. w,.l"/i...'L>'lj ~r~ P..("" @~:i
~i'-,e,'f^u#'7/ o"'-f\ ... ((0 " ~3""'()
[Jff ~JOOli~:' cf0'j;}lf"" JJ::t1i~/-./;~ik '~~ 11Jof<~ .
L{)()OiS-A~I,<\. ''Thv..l''im\,j;,kl~ {)::')( 5:),-,,.2./\ '+:ff..' <g/0rc
'13 C(J)fr;
i
rI
2t370t~
'-100 Zs"5\.> -Yi J-t6^ &w..ht #1.c I/I~ 61 h~", ./
'too ~-( _ " \'
lj;),903 7- - I,Jdk'itm.s J~~,
53 'S) "f. Alu.."
'S f--t 3D7.. .
~L Y/& ((
'13 caoi
~ iJilha(f\'i. I?cl""'- ~~ Iv~ ~c/(!?ow
'1303/~-
'i;}1()o/
.f/w 5t1Ukr 61s 4// /Ja/Yt';, (kI'tC~
lf~ 903G,
-7
)6--" '100030
~ 100001
'"100103
~/ t-f 0000 ~
~ LjtJC5()<jS-
'IOorJ if ~
5ml/~ j/,;'1W 0.J,). AU -eli'".btb~{.;"- !/-t.lskt.
OOO"L ~d/iafYI.5 w(f ~/". siftjl
"T "'~... ',~vij Mo,"O\ "'-
~ ~ 5fNU- '5f. k(..ift ~/{P/J
)h,J UJ(l.sl/tJ~ '-<J e:J- 4/ {lo ~ /fOb1 .~ [;/{
.4fltv1. /~i/...h",\'" c..m,,5~veitlJJ-., . I\. "e
Gran j T/rt f't) ~ ~ AI/wi:- $. 77~ .j~
P. o. 1\<. ?f r 'Awuf1 !flb/?..
-r. /} . I (. I'
I I'" N)VY\.. -
)/e~ f1JnSo6&teJ .:EI-..It - ~( (' " I'
;t4w GII!dJ j,c/e".f..U EJ.. ..Ii i' " .. , (
f-;.e.~r- j/u"s( tJ It'r&>-. DBA l!ctliJ Film:. f'.O. 10& 7-
-eelcv -;:; finS P. (). 6cy. t.IObi-- ~~ % 1&.( '-
I,
,-....
r'\
o/OW30 A'l.t/I'-I.J.Jl. JI/v.-J 1/.11/' a])-4 ~v..
liJOOiJ... 4/t-V/iJi1 9, ~'cA kf1,s/Jt.(/I. % Sk//l-,/J..u/"5 IS() € 'S"02>:'
~F~f//oO;l..
(7 k/if~~€5f',. 'S"-s-c.).~-
. il;1'l l/
r\
~
------ -- -.~. ........oa
J.U-:::IIlY::1IL{Ll'!!I;,j.::J
P.1l2
OOBERTA J. CUNNlNGEAM 1 lOPS
VI 10 FREE SILVER. COURT
ASPBN, CO 81611
VAARAH M. OATES
112 FREE SILVER COURT
ASPEN, CO 81611
.AUSTIN & AMY BARRoW
V 113 FREE SILVER. COUln
ASPEN, CO 81611
~ ~ Z$? ~ ra-.+---c-f--
/HOWARD B, HOLGATE
/ il4FREESILVERCOURT
ASPEN, CO 81611
I16FS
~VA C. & ERIC W. PEKKALA
V p.o, BOX 936
ASPEN, CO 81612
~JANDRO PALMAz
117 FREE SILVER COtJRT
ASPEN, CO 81611
~VlD BALL
, 119 FRlls SILVER COtJRT
ASPEN, CO 81611
""~OL PASTERNAK
v'liomEE SILVER COURT
ASPEN, CO 816Il
121FS
CHARLEs B. McCRORY, JR.
~P.O. BOX 3512
ASPEN. CO 81612
~SA CARp 122FS
P.O. BOX 10432
ASPEN, CO 81612
j
AlANLEL KOCIELA j
i/ 123 FREE SILVER. cor' T
ASPEN, CO 81611 ,
~TALLEE
124 FREE SIT. VER COURT
ASPEN, CO 81611
/WlLLIE SABARESE
V 125 FREE SILVER COURT
ASPEN, CO 816Il
~ BRACHER. 12 S
P.O. BOX 4002
ASPEN, CO 81612
...FRANCE STONE 127FS
/" P.O. BOX 3870
ASPEN, CO 81612
ffERESA I. SALVADORE
/ JOHN ARMSTRONG
129 FREE SILVER COURT
ASPEN, CO 81611
~THYBEACH
P.O. BOX 8432
ASPEN, CO 81612
210FS
~L & mOMAs ERICKSON
210 TEAL COURT
ASPEN, CO 8161I
AIm MACBLANE JR.
I/" il7 TE1\L COlJRT
ASPEN, CO 81611
)MRC ZACHARy ~ZANNE WOLFF
V POBOX 4494 214 FREE SILVER. COURT
ASPEN, CO 81612 ~ ASPEN, CO 81611
4J, C/'if (K
"} wZn I
/PATPJ.CK.PFEIFERk:'1J.i1^1 (\ . M, . ED ~RArGE.ALLEN
214 TEAL COtJRT 215 FREE SILVER COURT v-:<I~E1U.y A. STACHOWSKI
' ASPEN, CO 8161I ASPEN, CO 81611 L 216 TEAL COURT
(I/l! ~ lI'; . ASPEN, CO 816! I
QI.-~LL(;
0.E. DeVILBISS
212 FREE SILVER COURT
ASPEN, CO 81611
212T
214FS
vfAZI LUTGRlNG
219 TEAL COURT
ASPEN, CO 81611
DEANNA Ie. OLSEN
V220 FREE SILVER. COURT
ASPEN, CO 816Il
yrMOTIIY CARNEY
/220 TEAL COURT
ASPEN, CO 81611
I>J\UL C. CORBETT 221FS
/i>:O, BOX 2884
ASPEN, CO 81612
~ANETV. LEVERSON
221 TEAL COURT
ASPEN, CO 81611
r"\
o
I
........-::3,tlI~~,~tI;,;s::J P.93
-. -~ -.-~-
~OlU KVRlHANNA AUSON C. DANFORTH 222T ~NE 1.. SANDVOLD
222 FREE SILVER COURT v:-.O. BOX 3763 23 FREE SlL VEil. COUR'l'
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN. CO 81612 ASPEN, Co 81611
v6ILYN J, ANDERSON ~1NALD BARBOUR 2241'S ~NM1NK
J. MARlY GANCSOS P.O. BOx 4194 24 "mAL COURT
223 TEAL COURT ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, Co 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611 \\,fJ-
ALIA GILUOMYE o't.f-- AmABRAUN!G 225T ~CKIE FRANCIS
ALLEN OOMINGOS ~ ( P.O. BOX 761 226 TEAr. COURT
225 I'REB SILVER COURT r' ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
v4 MARQUIS hIAMZUEHLKE 228T ~CY A. MATTIIEWS 229T
227 TEAL COURT P.O. BOX 806 P.O. BOX 1370
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612
/!"Ess FERRO
V1310FREESlLVERCT
ASPEN, CO 81611 /
(;pc
d~;~~~~~1-\t:5 p7
ASPEN,CO.81611 'e.r<<.<-(.(. P-C-^
L.I~ ~o(' ?l
' '7t)...T~
AYNORMAN
,314 FREE SILVER COURT
'ASPEN, CO 81611
/' i!l. MICHAEL B. BLAKESLBE
V ~ P.O. BOX 420
, ASPEN, CO 81612 fo.J!P
/C,.VJ
:g;:ANNE E. SAMET
lAS.o. BOX 8596
ASPEN, CO 81612
CJ ~i!Jrw
~O ~ ,~CHARLES CURRY
~ p.O. BOX 8150
/ ASPEN, CO 81612
311FS
offiRYL IiANNAli
013 FREE Sn..VERCOURT
ASPEN. CO 81611
313T
~LA CARROLL
/3;~ ~AL COURT
ASPEN, CO 81611
~ S. 1'0RSElLLE
315 TEAL COURT
ASPEN, CO 81611
~CHARD KLEIN
P.O, nOX 737
ASPEN, CO 81612
316FS
~REN E. SILVERMAN i
VP.O.!lOX2615
ASPEN, CO 81612
317FS
~R.C RULEy &: LAURA GRINSTEAD
017 TEAL COURT
ASPEN, CO 81611
, .sUSAN F, SIMMONS
V 319 FREE Sn.. VER COURT
ASPEN, CO 81611
>ON! MCWlLLlAMS
V319 TEAL COURT
ASPEN, CO 81611
~SKULZER
L..--120 FREE sn.. Va COURT
ASPEN, Co 81611
~NDRA KmlNAMER. 320T
P.O. BOX 11947
ASPEN, Co 81612
~ &: SUSAN CROSS
P.O. !lOX 1843
ASPEN. CO 81612
I
3rlFS
~ 32IT
TRIer" A. &: KElTll A. WHEELllR
P.O, BOX 3513
ASPEN, CO 81612
r-\
f""l
...., ..I'.'U1~LI.l.I.7~;J:
L A l'1.'-c-~((~ !>.A:-re-""--v~) . 323T
~~RLES &\ 1ANICE ROSENBERG 1;1; JEFFREY SPlR.OFF mR& REBECCA DRISCOLl.
322 TEAL COURT ~ 323 FREE SIt ~ ~u~ 0-0 BOX 9995
ASPEN, CO 81611 . ASPEN, CO 816~, , ASPEN, CO 81612
~.ti4
~EL &: 19sEPli &: KEVIN DRISCOLL 324T
/!~~l.AFFER.TY t./".O. BOX 9995
. 324 FREE SII. VER COURT ASPEN, CO 81612 .
ASPEN, CO 81611
/... I M.J -zt..d t Li1>'1 J (t>~t
V ~ ,.-/ fO'B"'" 'f\ /'
llN &J\:M',t ~~ Wv'RODERT SMALL/JEANNE MCGOVERN ~ERICKK. SOYkA
325 TEAL COURT ~~ ~ ~'26 FREE SILVER COURT \./SONYA HOBAN
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 326 TEAL COUR1'
L ASPEN, CO 81611
)Vtu.rAM READER
{/327 FREE SIt VER. COURT
ASPEN. CO 8161!
,L ALLEN ANGLIN
ti~HEATHERANGLIN
P.O. BOX 3657
ASPEN, Co 81612
j\NNE-LTSA PARKER
c/410TEALCOURT
ASPEN, CO 81611
~STANCE G. MORRELL 4141'S
V;~~'BOX 5121
ASPEN, CO 81612
ALAN ROBERTS/JOliN KLONOWSKI
(Aio FREE SILVER. COURT
ASPEN, CO 81611
~MANN GOLLNER.
,AiiTEAr. COU.RT
ASPEN, CO 816 1
M1\:lU< TER.!{ 423FS
vSAMANTI-iA CHCOCK
P.O. BOX 329
ASPEN, CO 816 2
J9ftN P. TOTI'ENliOFF
v325 FREE SILVER. COURT
ASPEN, CO 81611
-RE'w GOKEY .
~ TEAL CO"URT
ASPEN, CO 81611
LINDA KILLIAN
-\-1281iAL COURT
ASPEN, CO 81611
GMt D. OTTE
vn9 TEAL COURT
ASPEN, CO 81611
~AR101lNSON
410 FREE 8n.VER.COURT
ASPI,N, CO 81611
SUSAN SOfLUNnT
V412 FREE S.lL VER. COURT
ASPEN. CO 8161 I
i
I I
IQ!lifmm M.l1MlTH fl4T
'1'OBOX 11334 [
ASPEN, CO 8T2
i
,
~~~~~I<ESISLER
ASPEN, CO 81611
P#fRICIA C. CRAWFORD
/A12 TEAL COURT
ASPEN, CO 81611
s..rnYLAlNG
~i5Fim: SILVER COURT
ASPEN, CO 81611
t>g:eJtAEL J. MOONEY
~O. BOX 3452
ASPEN, CO 81612
4211'S
LAURIE &\ COLIN NESS
v422 FREE SILVER COURT
ASPEN, CO 81611
CH1USTOPHER STEWART
"'"MEGAN M, SHEAN
422 TEAL COURT
ASPEN, CO 81611
SANnRA MACKAY
1/423 TEAL COURT
ASPEN, CO 81611
~ &: LAURJE LOPER
1',0. BOX 5061
ASPEN, CO 81612
424FS
~.
.')
/ALBERT PRZYBYLSla
i/ 424 TEAL COURT
ASPEN, CO 81611
f""""'-..
---.------
....,--~.UI:::I.I;.t..l,.QLli:J
~BROWNSTElN
P,O. BoX 8153
ASPEN, CO 81612
~
.t"'.~::J
,I
I
.',
. .
LAND USE APPLICATI"'1
, PROJECT:
)
Name: WILLIAMS RANCH & SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION
Location: Pl
at rF'corrlprl in Pitkin rnllnty ~t Pl~t Book 37 Piige 4
(Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal descrIption'where appropriate)
ApPLICANT:
Name:
Address:
Phone #:
WILLIAMS RArlC11 JOI:IT VENTURE
c/o Lhar!es I. 5randt & Assoclates P.C.
420 E. :lai n Street. Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name:
Charles T Rranrlt
Address:
Phone #:
same as aS9ve
TYPE OF ApPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
o Conditional Use 0 Conceptual POD
o Special Review g final POD (& POD Amendment)
o Design Review Appeal 0 Conceptual SPA
o GMQS Allotment 0 final SPA (& SPA Amendment)
o GMQS Exemption 0 Subdivision
o ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream 0 Subdivision Exemption (includes
Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization)
Mountain View Plane
o
o
Lot Split
Lot Line Adjustment
o Temporary Use
._lQl.-Text/Map-Amendmt:lll
!..-~
.~
o Conceptual Historic Devt.
o final Historic Development
o Minor Historic Devt.
o Historic Demolition
o Historic Designation
o Small Lodge Conversion!
Expansion
o
Other:
.
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buiIdings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
, SEE ATTACHED LETTER
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
I SEE ATTACHED LETTER
Have you attached the following?
[] Pre-Application Conference Summary
[] Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement
o Response to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Forrn-Nl,.."
KJ Response to Attachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents
[] Response to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents
D Response to Attachment #5, Review Standards for Your Application
FEES DUE: $ ~~":(-e>
A~PENr;KIN COMMUNITY DEVE;LOP~T DEPARTMENT
" .~
Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Applications Fees
(Please Print Clearly)
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and William~ Ranr.h ,Joint Ventllre
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
I. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for Wi 11 i ams 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 [mdings for project
approval, unless current billings are paid in fulI 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 appIication completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an
initial deposit in the amount of$ 2270. OOwhich 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.
Community Development
Acting Director
City of Aspen
.-/ Signatur .
Dat,
Printed Name:
Mailing Address:
Octo 1998
,10~~ M~ rk€ll
% Charles T. Brandt & Assoc.
420 E. Main St, Suite 204
fA<r"n, rn All';l1
CITY OF ASPEN
#.~5S
ie Ann Woods
r'\
r\
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
,sIL VERLOl_ SjJf?DIVISION
- -r ...
SUBDIVISION IN THE SE 1/4
and
/I~IAMS
;;
SECTION
RANCH
OF
7,
T.
/0
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 WHllams 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 eS-53'34. W. 311.35 feeti
r. Thence S 59.05'56- E. 274.70;
2. Thence S 12"'0'22. W, 4.00 feet;
3. Thence S BO"25'05. W, IBO,21 f.et;
4. Thence S 69"27'06. W, 43,36 f.et;
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-'6'05" and a
chord bearing S 53"08'26. E. 72.58 feet;
6, Thenc. S 66"06'03" E. 94.81 fe.t;
7. Thence southeasterly 195.95 feetaJong the orc of a circular curve concave to the
southwest with a radius of 211.49 feet. a delta 01 53- OS' U'" 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 10
the southwesl wHh a radius of 211.49 feet, a delta 01 53-38'24'" and a
chord bearinq S 39-50'04'" E,190.85 feet;
9, Thence S 13"00'51" E. 135.32 feet;
10. Thence' southeasterly 129.29 feet aiong the arc of a circular curve concave to
the east with a radius of 896.14 feet, a delta of OS-15'S8'" and a chord
b.orlng S 17"08'50" Eo 129,17 leet;
II. Thence southeasterly 114.84 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to
the west with a radius of 174.79 feet, Q delta of 37- 38' 40., and Q chord
b.oring S 02" 27" 29" E. 112.79 fe.t;
12, Th.nc. S 16" 59' 36" W. 58,52 feet;
13. Thence southwesterly 17.7f feet olong 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 leet;
14. Thence northwesterly 3:5.73 feet along the ore af a circular curve concave to
the northwest with 0 radius 01 25.00 feet, 0 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 are of 0 circular curve concave to
the northeast with a radius of 373.'4 teet, a delta 01 14-'2'44" and a
chord bearing N 59"42'18" W. 92.32 feet;
16. Thence N B4"23'03" E. 125.75 feet;
17. Thence N 34-13'S7- W, 1002.30 feet to the Point 01 Beginning.
Contoininq5.926 acres more or less, os described above have by these presents laid out,
platted and subdivided the same into Lots I through 36 plus Park Parcel as shown on this
final plat under the name and style 01 WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION. a Subdivision of real
property in the CUy of Aspen, Colorado and;
l. Does hereby accept the responsibility for the completion of required improvements;
2. Does hereby dedicate those portions 01 the said real property which are incUcated
as easements on page 3 and page 4 01 this plat os non~exclusive easements for the
purposes shown thereon, and does hereby grant the right fa 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 riqht-of-way, within
Williams Ranch Subdivision as shown hereon to the City of Aspen on behalf of the
Public for use as Q street. Owner will construct the initial improvements;
4. Does hereby grant a non.exclusive emerqency aCcess easement over Reciprocal
Easement No. , and No. 2 to oJl pollce, sheriff. fire protection, ambulance and
other similar emerqency Qqenc;es or persons;
S. Does hereby dedicate the Williams Ranch ~ark Parcel, to the
Clty of Aspen for use as a pUblic pork.
6. Does hereby dedicate a "on.exelusive easement to the pUblic for recreation purposes
encumberinq all of Lot 36. Open Space, which easement may be revoked pursuant to the
annexotton agreement, Section 4.12.4. paqe 6.
7. Does hereby 'dedicate to the Clty of Aspen for the use of the ~ubJic, the 10' wide
non-excJusive Pedestroin Trail Easement as shown on the plat, . n_. LJ . ~ ') HUn.
8.' d~'Sa"h~~ebY de.icat~ t~ -~;;e sOlvoilor~'I.~~h Company 0 non-e.clusive access
easement for ditch maintenance, repair, and replacement as Shown on. the Plat, as may. pe
reasonably necessary' from time to time. . .
9. Does hereby grant to the owners of lots within the subdivtSion non-exclusive easemenls
for the benefit of their guests ond invitees for ingress. egress and porking over ond
across the Guest ~rkjng Easements os shown.
E.xecuted 'Mis ~CJ day of J'.'1 a fel, 1995.
~SIL VERLOL _ S}ll?DIVISIO~ and
, - "c--., _ ~
SUBDIVISION IN THE SE 1/4 OF
.!I~/AMS.. RANCH
SECtION 7, T. /0
R.
S.,.
84
w.,
6th
P.M.,
PITKIN
COUNTY,
COLORADO
The SILVERLOOE SUBDIVISION Is located In the SEI/4 of Secllon 7, Township 10
South, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian. and Is more fully described
as follows:
i
I
I
I
I
I
,
Beginning at the northwesterly corner of SIL VERLODE SUeprVISION 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 Ss'53'34" E, 658.51 leel,
2, Thence S 33'46'27" E, 439.96 lee I;
3. Thence S 32'32'35" E, 102.19 leel;
4. Thence S 00'00'56" W, 254.21 leel,
5. Thence S 00'00'56" W, 259.42 feel;
6. Thence S 55'14'43" W, 241,60 f..I;
7, Thence N 34'13'57" W, 347.46 ,..1,
8. Thenc. N 84'23'03" E, 125.75 f.el,
9. Thence southeasterly 92.56 feet along the orc of a circular curve concave to
the northeast wHh 0 radius of 373.14 feet, a delta of 14-,2'45. and 0
chord b.orin9 S 59'42'IB" E. 92.32 I.et;
10. Thence southeasterly 35.73 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to
the southwest with a radius of 25.00 feet, Q delta of 81-03'28" and a
chord bearing S 25'5/'56" E. 32.77 fe.l,
II. Thence northwesterly 17.71 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to
the northeast with Q radius of 569.23 feet, a delta of 01.46'57'" and 0 chord
bearing N 15.57'02" E.17.n feet;
12. Thence N 16'59'36" E, 5B/53 I..t;
13. Thence northwesterly 114.84 f.etalono the. arc of a circular curv. concave to
the west with a radJlus of 174.79 f..t, Q deJta of 3~38'40" and a chord
b.orlng N 02'27'29" W, 112.79 f..I,
14. Thence northwesterly 129.29 feet along the arc: of a circular curv.. concave to
the east with a radius of 896.14 feet, 0 delta of 08~ IS' 58" and a chord
b..ring N 17' OS' 50" W, 129.17 f..t,
15. Thence N 13'00'51" W, 135.32 f..I;
16. Thence northwesterly /98.00 fa.t alonO the arc. of a circular curve concave to
the southwest with Q radius of 2IJ..4,9 feet, ad.,ta of 53.38'24" and a
chord be.rin9 N 39'50'04" W, 190,B5 I..t;
17. Thence northwesterly 195.95 feet otong the arc of a circular curve concave
to the southwest with a radius of 211.49 feet, a delta of 53- 05' II. and
· chord b..rin9 N 39' 33' 27" W, IB9.02 I.et;
IS, Thenc. N 66'06'03" W, 94.SI le.t,
19. Thence northwesterly 90.94 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to
the northeast with a radius of 40.00 feet, a deUa of 130-16'05. and a
chard bearinq N 53.08'27" W. 72.58 feet;
20. Thence N 69'2T06" E, 43.36 f.et;
21. Th.nce N BO'25'05" E, IBO,21 f..I,
22. Th.nce N 12'10'22" E. 4,00 f..t;
23. Thence N 59'05'56" W, 274.70 I..t 10 the POinl of Be91nnln9,
ContainlnQ 6.848 acres more or '..5, as described above. have by these presents
laid out. platted and subdivided the same Into Lots 1 through 15 as shown on this
final plat under the name and style of SIl VERLODE SUBOIVSION, a subdivision of real
property in Ihe City of Aspen, COlorado. and;
I. Does hereby accept the responsibility of the completion of the required
improvements;
2. Does hereby dedicate those portlonsof the said real property which are
Indicated as easements on page 3 and page 4 of 'his plat as easements for the purposes
shown thereon, and does hereby grant the riOht to install and maintain necessary
structures to the entity responsible for providing the services for which the
easements are established.
3. Does hereby dedicate SJlverLode Drive. a 40.00 foot wide riQht.of.way, within
SlIverLode Subdivision as shown hereon to the City of Aspen on behalf of the public
for use as 0 street. Owner will construct InltlaJ Improvements;
4. Does hereby grant a non.exclusive emergency access easament over Reciprocal
Easements No.1 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 sanitary sewer easement on the property
line between Sliver Lode Subdivision Lots 7 and 6 for the benefit of Parcel E and the North
Portion of Parcel C, The Pride of Aspen, M.S. 7883 AM.
E.eculed this 'jjo '" day of M--cA.,
.
1995.
r"1
.~
~
<
~
~
~
~
z
~
u
~
>
~
,r"\
f',
-i
CHARLES T, BRANDT
CHARLES T. BRANDT & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
US Bank Building
420 East Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Teiephone 970-925-5196
Fax 970-925-4559
C,T,BRANDT,PARALEGAL
TRAVIS S, THORNTON
GARRET S, BRANDT
October 15, 1999
~~.....
'\..~
OC) II//$'I)
'\,.. I t"
Jif<l(: ~!><$' "/.9"
"',j""lv/ , :;Ig
I Y/)"/!;./r"
-'c), '\;ft,
V(> 'v
'q~
.:jt;1,,...
HAND DELIVERY
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney
City of Aspen
130 S, Galena St.
Aspen, CO
Re: Williams Ranch - Amendment to pun Ordinance
Dear David:
As you know from attending the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission's meeting on
September 21st, 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 ("WRN") 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 constmct
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 DeveIopment 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 ofWRN were accepted by the City, WRN 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 2nd
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::,~
CTB/
Charles T. Brandt for
Charles T, Brandt & Associates, P,C,
cc: John Markel via facsimile
~is Bendon via hand deliver
Document3
",
r-,
A~\\..qO)
t'")
RECl:.lVCW
fEB 4 1999
CHARLES T. BRANDT
CHARLES T. BRANDT & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
US Bank Building
420 East Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Teiephone 970-925-5196
Fax 970-925-4559
ASPEN/ PITKIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TRAVIS S. THORNTON
GARRET S. BRANDT
C.T.BRANDT,PARALEGAL
February 4, 1999
Mr, Chris Bendon
Community Development Department
130 S, Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
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 ofthe 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 \1," by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen: Attached.
1""""'\
~
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 adiacent 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 of35 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 ofland 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 ofthis 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 comer 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
2
r)
r0
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 I,
SubsectiOl!l:'~~tgfdlnance-37;'~hich 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
r"1
~
driveway, it will block most, ifnot 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 I",Subsecti:-oTr:l'"2I"'i7'"Of-oruinance"~,
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
:lpply here.
Amendment 3 - Soil Erosion Control on Old Mining Road:
Amend Section I, 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
appropriate 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 requirement 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 WRN, It is the
opinion of the Applicant and John Worcester, City Attorney, that the trail would better serve the
community ifit 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
r'\
~
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 [rom 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 WRN 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,
a-r<<J~
Garret S, Brandt for
Charles T, Brandt & Associates, P,C.
6
/"",,-,
Exhibit" A"
r\
, .'1
SALVATION DITCH COMPANY
BOX 70 WOODY CREEK, CO 81656
Williams Ranch Joint Venture
C/o C.T Brandt & Associates
420 East Main St. #204
Aspen, CO 8I611
()a-, t~ ,,,,...?
,
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,
tr~ $\~ ._~
George Stranahan
President, Salvation Ditch Company
r:
.'
I,~
r"1
Exhibit "B"
rJ
.'.",....,..... '0" .j:-... t"'-
J
WRIGHT & ADGER
l..AW PARTNERSHIP. LLf-'
fC", 'n\rr.~JM
~,~U l{
GARY A. WRtGIIT, f'r.
AI...I..EN H. AOel!tt. ...C....
201 "0..,.,4 "... t ;,ofHEIl..f. 1:iURY. 1DR
ASPEN. (='21.0141'00 8t1511
o\5PEN TELEPl4ON". (,I.,c,"-:ll'-H2t.
DA:1AI:r .l1-:J"'.I"l"lN" M"fnIt".lllIMWt
rN".elUII.r.; 9'1Q.;JI::..;dNI:I
I.I~ I"VUI'I~~
PHil lP J. O'CONNI;U."
"HUt:t; B. M..I.MITY
CA'l"AUNA CRUZ
17 Novcmbl'r J 998
......~ I'OMITTED ltJ
F'L0A1bA aAfI
. ^"~ ^'-'M1ULU lU
'TDAG AND LOUUItANA IIAtf
,-
Ms. Amy Margerum
City Manager - City (If Aspen
130 Soutb Galena Street
Aspen. Colonufo 81611
Rc: Williams Ranch Homeowner's Association
Dear Amy:
I am writing on behalf oithe Williams RlIIlch Homeownl'r's Association as a follow up 10
c::crtain resolutions that were unanimously appnlVcd at a recent Homeowner's AlilIoeiation meeting
attended by more than 30 of the 35 homeowners and membern. 1 lIUI eurrently serving a.~ the
president and as the ehainn.an of the homeowners board of dirc:ctOl"s.
J have been infonned by John D. MaJ'kel, J>>:CSidcnt of Mark IV. Inc. the managing pUrUler
of the Wtllimns Ranch Joint V cnture, that the City has !l:Ik.ed, tlr shall J say required, the installation
o{ sidewalks to be located "n the we~-t side of SilvcrLode Drive and 011.: Stluth ~;de of Williams
Rancb Drive to be located adjacent to the deed restricted homes. We respcLiflllly request that you
advise us what course of action we must take L(, (1llBurc that this doc::; nm lake place. Even the
homeowners who tU'C not directly impacted, (c'lI_ the siuewalk would not be located on their
properties), were supportive "fthc concept that no flidcwalk be jllslllllcd. I am availabl~ to attend
a CIty Counsel Meeting to further this concern if that. would be advillitbJe.
In addition, I hllve Ocw udvised by Mr. MilI'kel thll1l1 "water 1i~aturc" is also being required
for the common IIren which belongs 10 our Ilomeowncr's AS$OCiution. Ag-din, particularly hased on
the lack of any water rights out of the $alvation ])Itch being avuilable to make this a ")Vpt" water
fCll1urc. we strongly oppose this ide-<llllld wnuld reqllcstthat the City simply require native landscape
vegetation on this open space area.
Further, we helicve it would he helpiilll.u both nUT !,'llests as well a.'l other citi7.cns, to advise
them that our little neighborl1ulJu 1,1lS no I.hrough streets by providing a "no outlet" ~ign preferably
ploccd at the intersection "l"SilvcrLodtl Drive with Smuggler MouTlUlin Road. I am informed that
numerous IOlll individuals drive, bicycle ur hike around the Williams Ranch and SilverLode
Suhdivisions ill an ohviously futile attempt to hike up Smuggler Mountain. I.ikewisc. if the street
sign for Silve.rLode Drive could be put back up this would be great.
n;\WlUlAlMors.......llCll
:1'
.. .
!~
j'.
,.
r
,.i.
:';
r"1. .., .'
""'"l(~
".., ,." .,. I,.", t ,.... 1~4'.
,..., ."
WRIGHT & ADGER
Ms. Amy Maracrum
) 6 November 1998
Re: Williams Ranch Homeowner's AssociatioD
Page 2
I am also writing to conf.i~ that, sinecllil rood work ha.q heen completed pursuant to the ..
Subdivision Improvetnents AgrCClpcnt to atlclIlIl the standard required by the City, if 110t a highCj'
l.1and=l fOTthC intcriorronds, (SilverLodc: Drive und WilIiDll15 ItMcb Drive:) the: City ill l"Clipol1l1ible
for snow plowing IIIld you will assu.... that in fact will taIro plu"".
Again. thank you for your cooperation. I think we CDII nil he proud (lfthe fina1 result urlhe:
deed restricted units ld Williams Ranch. It is my pleasure 10 serve QS the Presidcnt "tlhis (iDle: lUlU
work with my neighbors for the good of our conununity and ncighburhoou.
Sincerely.
WRIGHT & ADGER, LU'
By'~riOhi----
GA Wlee
cc: Mark IV. Inc.
G:\WR1IAIM.....,.....OOI
:\
"I,"
.W
'I;'
i i:
't\
:il
./...
1\,
:.'i;,'
',t!.
.!"
~
;".,
.,>
; ;~.
."
.::r.
::t:.
.,~.
, ,~.
....
"f~ .
::e.
."
.;1.
.'
.;:
.'
i'~
..
~'~'.
,'11.
~ -~;
,~ .
I ,~
, ,;~
j,
.,
",f."
i,;
, .",
'~,'
. .~
. . t~ .
,",..,
".
;~~
:;:
I""j
Exhibit "C"
~i;"'"
I
,...~ ,'.,.. ' .', 'fl"
/'0 ,...., t~>- .
WRIGHT & ADG"~R
LAW PAI<'I'NERSHIP. l.I,p
GARY A. Wr:tIGH'~ ~.C.
Al-L.I:o:N I f. ADG.t:.I~. ......C..
i'UI Hu,nll Mill MII'1"t I. wurn.: ItJ6
-'Mot N. t:ULORAI", (11"'1
AHI"f.N l'm.tf'llnNI' "'I(H'ZG lUo)!i
DAGAJ.t 'rr-I ,.,,, rUNt. A'7n "-""I.(of,,\O(,
1AC'::1IMII" ,..<<,ft>-......
LJ~ I..:UUN~a;:L:
r-, HUi-J J. o'r:n'''Nl", I...
IiUllCEB. Mr.1 AHIY
CATALINA CRUZ
16 November 1998
.. H,CP "IIMItTCD TO
I UhlU JA KAlIl
. AI!IllIt AFW1""",,, TO
TeXAI: AND I t>>JISIANA BAA
John D. Markel, President
Mark IV, lne. ManaginG Partner
Williams Ranch Joint Ventura
3214 Campanile Drive
Santa Barbara. California 93 i 09
. .
Re: Proposed grading tll Wright &, Preuseh MininS, Ltd, propcrty
also known a.q 11\0 Smusglcl' Mine
Dear John:
"
I am writing as the attorney of Wright & Prousch Mining, Ltd. in reply 11.. your Ictter dated
October 17, 1 !l911. You have requested access to Wright & l'reusch's property ~u Ihal the Williams
RlUlCh Joint Venture can comple1c certAin J'Oad g.-nuil\g as illdielUal un II ponioll ofthe subdivision
plllt tJ\at you sent to me. You will need to make whatever lImtllgcmenL<; 'JI.."CCSsary to JY!! pertonn
!lUeh work All we 011 know, significant lime ba.<; pao;:;aJ since the plat was approved and during the
intervening time, in no small pm a.q a result cfthe nbliglllions Wright & l'reusch Mining, Ltd. has
t() the EnvironmclIutll'rolection Agency pUI'limull to iL<; Agreement 0/1 COn.\'enl filed with the Federal
Court, this grading can not take phtcc. T
TIn~ ureu ot' our I)TOPCrty is unmodified WId clInlains nattlral vegetotlon that should 110t be
disturbed becnuse it may inlerfere widl our ohliga1illllS to the liP A Such work may also bc in
violnti()n ofthc bond w,d pl.."I1Ilit Wright & Preusch Mining, I.td. has with the State of Colorado,
Please cOufal'll. Iu JUe in writing at your eIlrlicst reasonable l:onveniencc that you willlnke
whatever action is neeClllltlry to as!lUrt: Ihat this gl'lldiuS will not take place and that you have the sign
oiT from the neccs..~ary City ur County, officials so that we know that iliis issue is closed: Pleuse
contact me if you need llUy further clarific.l\tion (II' have questions,
Sin~ly.
GA W/cc
WRlGHT &..ADGBR, ','.1'
gY"lfu
Q'\W_-LTDIM......OOI
'~r~nul
~JJj
:
fJ
E-l
~
m
OM
ro!
~~
3:
.
/
,\
.. '-<..
*'
~
,
i I
, .r~
,r"'V' '''';
>
\
o
3
~:
;;
"J
(oj
0:>
...
...
oJ:>
(.,:
III
I
'-l
Q::
1$0
'!"I
i
.j>-
...
(oj
1$0
L~
"
1$0
'"
....
,;;
Lq
'5
r('
r...r;
[Xl
v
'1"'
r5
>
.'
-+:
~
~
,.
Q::
.j:.
,
/"""'..
~
R"-~' ,-,'n:::f'
? ~L.rc.~\l '-U
APR 1 .~. 1999
CHARLES T. 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
A6'r'b\l1 ;~i fK\N _
C:\/'-IOP''E''
"'('\/^;~IJNITY 0......'1;:.... ,",1.,-'
TRAVIS S. THORNTON
GARRET S. BRANDT
C.T. BRANDT, PARALEGAL
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 24t\ 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" eas~lTIent 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 irnrnediately 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
~
r"1
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 ifnot installed now,
Since WRN is only obligated to install walking paths on 01'-.'1: 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 WRN would not be allowed to do any work on the
mining property because of the rnining 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. Emer~ency 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.
WRN will not install gates across this access, as it has not been shown that since
the installation ofthe landscaping, that any traffic continues to use. this,
1""""\
r"1
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. Smug:gler 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,
~v~~
Garret S. Brandt for
Charles T, Brandt & Associates, P.C.
cc; John Markel, via facsimile
~ Apr-16-99 02:l4P S;lv~ode Real Estate
. ,)
970 ~3-4B9l
P.Ol
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 IIPlus Grassroot
Pavers at Williams Ranch subdivision in Aspen. This construction starts at
pavement edge of Spruce Street and goes to pavement edge of Silverio de 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,
~-\------(\~ \...
~\M. ,~
Rick Pickard
P,Q. Box 1090 Carbondale, Colorado 81623 970-963-0377 Fax 963-2247
.
,'" ,..;., . ..". ~ i'I':
'f " :!I'I 'h..~j " ~ . \ - '(,6'" , ".
't..;.,< '",>; :'1f (f "\ "\~ '. ,0 11..,,~. '
;!!-::Ii"~~~ ....1~ . 'f".t"':'''' ~.
t;}~. ~ ...~., ,- 1.-.0.' -
" '!':{ f, ". ,~ r;.'" "; if':;1<>; '" ....
A of
Estate
~~"""lnIIdoc;.o.
/ Adl~mnv ,mislI Glade
--
Soil flll level Inside
paver gridwork after
neavy water down.
This is the actual "sod-
planltng level
Heavy vehicle
sub-Oase. 3/4" croshed
rock or claa8 2 road-
..... recornmeflded
NOTE: If native soli consIStS of sand (eg. PaknSprlngS). crUShed rOCks1JlJ-.ba~isi1C1t reQl.Ilred.
Adu~RI1J:;hGl2llo
"S..r' or"W planting~lnCeU5
,. __./ Adjoinlno finish Glade
__k_Glade
970~3-4agl
P.02
1. HEAVY VlHICLEI
ARE ACCESS ROAD
Planting level using SId. cui
518" sod
Sand or Slll\dy loam
P'm"ing base to recetve
paverg-
~
__.:.-r
'-
2.LlGHT/LOAD
HIGH USE TRAffIC
Planting level using special cui
1" sod
Sand or sandy loam
,planting base to receive
paverg-
Top of sod after sett11ng
lnto cells. No soil fill
required with this
appllcallon.
Sub-baSadatermined
by _oc load weight.
3/4" crushed rock or
claSs 2 road base -
recommendad
','/3C<....:...::...",..:''f,:.:,'j:.:;...;<,,:O.:.;..:::.<..:'.:.,:~;.,.:.,':::').<'.,.;.".,
NOTE.: If native soU consIstS of sand (eg. Palm Spiliigs). CrUshed rock SUD-baSe Is rol: required.
ASSEMBLY &..INSTALLAnON DATA
A. Remove all foreign top grade structures (Ie.. grass. weeds. rock. wood. wire. etc.)
8. Rototill the entire surface to a depth of 4" to 6'.
C. After rototllllng. remove all obvious ,stones. roots. wire. etc.
D. Add desired sand or soil aITIendmE!l'I~ ilS. required. Fine grade'and apply
roller pressure to establish a moderate compaction.
. NOTE: For heavy vehlde access area speclllcations. see above illustration.
Generally speaking the fastest assembly technique Is to preassemble long Individual rows of GP IIplus Pavers
along a major lateral of the proposed grIdworil. (lire lane. parking area. golf cart path. ect.). Continue joining row
after row until grIdworil.ls completed. GP IIplus Pavers can be cut to match any curve or Irregular prolile. Pavers
can be cut quickly and easily using a sklUsaw. handsaw or saber saw.
PA1N'TEO IN USA
<c ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 1993
8ARTRON CORPORATION, INC.
THE HEAVY-WEIGHT CHAMPION
From: BARTRON CORPORATION
441 South 48th Street. Suite 107
Tempe. AZ85281
(602) 921-4984. (800) 992-9949. FAX: {602} 829-6730
SEP-07-99 10,48 FROM,CHARLES T. BRANDT & ASSbc 10,9709254559
1""\
, ,
PAGE
2/2
()
'i
CfiAF;!:t.e$ T. 8RANDT
CHARLES T. BRANDT & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
US Bank Building
420 East Main Street, SUite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone 970-92&-5196
Fax 970-925-4559
C.T.BRANDT.PARALEGAL
TRAVI$ $. lMORNTON
GARRET S. BRANDT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chris Bendon, Community Development Department via facsimi.le 920-5439
CC: John MukeJ. via facsimile
John Worcester via facs.imil.e
FROM: Chuck Brandtc:;...G::'}
DATE: 09/07/99
SUBJECT: Williams Ranch - Proposed Amendments to Williams Ranch Approval. Ordinance
This is a reminder that we discussed getting together to discuss your preIiminary 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
Frid:<y; Seprember 17"', I would appreciate getting together this week or a1: the latest next Monday
morning, September 13th.
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 Williams Ranch Joint Venture utilize the
"savings" from not having to construct a trail and sidewalks, if these obligations are in fact
eliminated by City Council Williams Ranch if prepared to construct the sidewalks and the u-ail 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 developer's vested rights to
complete the project in accordance ~th 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 ocly 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.
Pm forwarding a copy of this Memorandum to John Worcester for his information. You may ~sh
to consult with him. on this ma.tter before we talk. I 'look forward to hearing from you
5EP-13-98 12,34 PROM,CHARLES T. BRANDT I> AS50C ID'9709254558
1""'; r"1
PAGE
2/4
TRAVI'S S. 'THORNTON
GARRET S. BRANDT
1y~RANDT. PAAALeGAL
el$"l
Sfp vl$"b
" '1
~,~"'( ~:,o$.'V /999 "\
>-":0/,0/)";
"'v" kt"
'<0
,"~
1:--'1'",-
Chris Bendon, CommllIlity Development Department via facsimile 920-5439 '
CHARLES T. BRANDT & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
AITORNEYS AT LAW
US Bank Building
420 East Main Street, Sutte 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone 97()"925-5196
Fax 970-925-4559
~I\. 1)
iF
CGV\-\tl'\~cl .
CHAR:~S j. BRANDT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
cc:
John Markel via facsimile
Tom Stevens via facs~
o.uckBrandt C..-:::!-/
09/13/99
FROM:
DATE:
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 :Maxkel, President of the General Parmer of the
Williams 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. 10 reading Greg Simmons' letter of June 30th I
don't believe it offers a response different than that previously received from the
Salvation Ditch Company relating to the water fearure. 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. In 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 Company for the pw:pose 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
portion along the steep hillside from SiIverlode Drive ro the so-called vertical 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-SS 12,35 FROM,CHARLES T. BRANDT & ASSOC 1D,S70925455S
("'\
PAGE
3/4
f4
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,
W'RJV requested that it be excus.ed from constructing this portion of the trail.
However, if the City requires that this segment of the trail be constructed WFJV will
do so.
As for the westerly segment of the trail over the Park, no trail easement was shown
over the Park and no obligation exists for W'RJV 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
Oty's responsibility.
3. Sidewal~. Yau indicated that the elimination of the require to construct
the sid~ 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 Old Mining Road. Since this feature is off of
the subdivision property and given Gary Wright's 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 W'RJV 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 five feet shy of SiIverlode 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 l'\l1dscaped over since it was installed to Silverlode Drive and
accepted by the City.
You indicated that some of the drainage ditches along the subdivision streets are in need of repair
and maintenance. The drainage ditches were constructe<! in accordance with the City's requirements
and accepted by Jack Reid, head of th~ City's streets deparrrnent. This matter has been discussed
with the HomeoWllers Association and John Markel has agreed that WRJV will contribute the
majority of the cost of repair to the Williams Ranch Homeowners Association.
SEP-13-88 12,35 FROM,CHARLES T. BRANDT & ASSOC 10,8708254558
("'\
PAGE
4/4
f4
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 destruccion of the grass which was
planted there by W'RJV is the result of the constroccion 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 W'RJV
DO<umeatl
NOV-15-88 15,27 FROM,CHARLES T. BRANDT & ASSOC 10,8708254558
'^Jii
~.. I",! ..-,
~'l
PAGE
2/4
CHARLES T. BMNOT
CHARLES T. BRANDT &. ASSOCIATES, P.C.
ATTO~NeYS ATUo.W
uS BanI< 6uiloing
420 East Main SIre"'!' Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone 970-925-5196
Fax 970-925-4559
N,_'" lS. 1999 \. \\..l el~'
l~nldV~W-\ '- IJ ~.iru,
~~~ . ~ ~~\'" ""\ VV.l
\}'J\
TRAVlS s. lHORI"ITON
GAl'lReT S. BRANDT
Jolm P. Worcester, City Attorney
The City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Williams Rancb - PUD Amendment
Dear Jolm:
Disappointingly, the PJ~nn;ne Commission giWe little serious consideration to the <\greement
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 <\gain meet with the
Centennial Condominium Association regarding "replacement" trail over the Centennial
Condominium property. You'll recall that this was tried once before with()~ success. In fact, Fred
Soyka, a Centennial owner and member of the Centennial AssociattonBoaI-cl of Managers, stated
during the public comment portion of the heating 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 .!lQl; 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 trail 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 Centenniil Association as requested by the Conunission is a useless and
unnecessary act.
In addition, I've reviewed the Centennial Condominium Declaration and I do not believe
that the Centennial Association has th.e 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
CenteeniaJ phase where the trail would be located) as tenants in common. For a trail easement to the
Gty over this property to be legally effective, all of the Centennial owners having an interest in the
common elements affected would hav:e 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 easr/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 <\greed.
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-15-88 15,28 FROM,CHARLES T. BRANDT & ASSOC
~i
10,8708254558
PAGE
3/4
...
~
t}
Wright Trail (the nearest public trail to Williams Ranch) over Spruce Street or through Williams
Ranch on the existing road system_ Williams Ranch and Silver King residents can access the Lonnie
Wnght Trnil through the subdivision's road system.
After our Tuesday afternoon meeting, Chris Benden drafted a revised proposed resolution
for the Planning Commission's considerarion which attempted to reflect the agreement reached
during our meeting. However, several aspects of the revised resolution require clarification and
modification, as suggested below:
:1. ParagrapU. Okay .
tG Paragraph 2. Since W'RJV will provide $10,000 to the Williams Ranch Homeowners
Association for use as it sees fit, the completion of the "vercicle" trail should be at the Association's
direction and there should be no time frame within which to accomplish this improvement.
~ Paragraph 3. 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.
Paragraph 4. Similarly, this paragraph should provide that W'RJV is released from the
requirement to construct the trail acros~ Lots 15 through 27 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.
P~ph 5_ This paragraph should provide that WRJV is released from the requirement to
construct "hard surface pedestrian walking access on one side of all roads." The remainder of this
paragraph is satisfactory.
Par"U"Ph 6. Okay.
Paragraph 7. 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.
Ea~ph 8. Okay.
Paragraph 9. Okay
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 Commission's requirements disregarded our agreement, I suggest that we arrange to
~ Vv- w;aW .
10,S70S25455S
PAGE
4/4
~,
NOV-15-SS 15,28 FROM,CHARLES T. BRANDT & ASSOC
(;.(d;
1""\
. ,
n
meet to determine how we can best conclude this matter and proceed to have the amendment to
the POO considered by City Council. I look forward to hearing from you.
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
$;\D.",lwilliarns\L.woroosttr.doc
OEC-14-88 10,14 FROM,CHARLES T. BRANDT & ASSOC 10,8708254558
PAGE
2/2
I"'"\,
c. t
n
CHARl...ES T. 6RANDT
CHARLES 1. 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
c_ T. 8R.ANDT. PARA1..5GAL
TAAIIIS s_ THOI'<NTON
""""eT s_ _OT
MEMORANDUM
TO: 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
FROM: Chuch Brandt C ~
1)}l1jE: 12/13/99
SUBJECT: Williams Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment
~~C'
." Oc" I ~/V~b
>1h;.-<f.s~ q
-1,(0., <2i' Y'/p(J~
"l)... v / r, '1
- I) "/r:-
~'G Ifi')v
;(0",
114~
'Yl/j>-
John MaikeI, 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 I;,y the
Williams 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 sid~ given the small front yards and short driveways of the Williams
Ranch residences. In addition, to link the sid~ to the trail system under the topic "pedestrian
movement" is inappropriate as the trail system, with the exception of the vertical trail, was never
intended as a vehicle for pedestrian movement within the ",~bdiv1sion.
Because Mr. Marlrel 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.
Doo=eot2