HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19990921 AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1999, 4:30 PM
SISTER CITIES ROOM
I. ROLL CALL
II. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
IV. PUBLIC HEARING
4:45-~:~o A. Yellow Brick Rezoning to Public (To Be Continued to October 19'),
Nick Lelack ~,4~--~ Z~O
4:5o-5:2o B. 426 N. 2."d ,Street Landm:rk Designation, Amy Guthrie
~:2o.~:35 C. Williams R~nch Substa_ tial PUD Amendment, Chris Bendon ~ ll/~._~
~:3~-6:05 D. Code Amendment- Residential Multi-Family Housing Definition,
Chris Bendon ~
6:o~.6:~5 E. Daly Accessory Dwelling Unit 1590 Homestake Drive, Nick Lelack
v. DJOU ¢:4(
Times are approximate. We recommend applicants arrive at least~ hour prior to the scheduled time.
CITY AGENDA
City Council Meetings- on the 2"d and 41" Mondays at 5:00 PM
Planning Zoning Commiss.ion Meetings- on the 1st and V Tuesdays at 4:30 PM
Historic Preservation Commission Meetings- on the 2"d & 4" Wednesdays at 5:00 PM
Board of Adjustment- on every other Thursday at 4:00 PM, or on Demand
9121 City Planning and Zoning (4:30) Sister City Room
City Notice 8/31
426 N. 2"d, Landmark Public Hearing (PH)
Williams Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment, Public Hearing (CB) (con't from 8/3)
Code Amendment- Residential Multi -Family Housing Definition (CB) (PH)
Yellow Brick School Rezoning to Public (NL) (PH) -Continued to October 19th
Daly Accessory Dwelling Unit 1590 Homestake Dr. Public Hearing (NL) (PH)
Hoag Lot #3 8040 Greenline Review (CB)- Continued to Oct. 19th
9/22 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 8/31
Election of Officers
104 S. Galena, St Mary's Rectory- Worksession
12:00 Site Visit to St. Mary's
302 E. Hopkins cont'd from 8/25
616 W. Main St. Minor HPC
7" and Main- Affordable Housing Review
121 N. 5" Historic Lot Split
9/27 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 9/7
Moore Rezoning, 2"d Reading Public Hearing (SM)- open and continue Oct. 12
426 N. 2nd, Landmark, 1st Reading (AG) *Prenotice
Bavarian Conceptual Action Item 1st Reading (JO)
Aspen Mountain PUD Conceptual Action Item 1' Reading (JA)
Section M 2"d Reading (JA)
Grand Aspen Temporary Use for Affordable Housing Public Hearing (JA)
9/28 City Planning and Zoning (4:00)
Special Meeting with County P&Z
Lighting Ordinances (SM)
Buttermilk Master Plan -Gondola
10/4 City Council (5:00)
Truscott Worksession
10/5 City Planning and Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 9/14
4:00- 5:30 Staff Meeting with City Council- Forest Service Plan
5:30- 7:00 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting with City Council
10/6 HPC (5:00)
Special Meeting
Winter & Co.
10/12 GMC (5:00)- Tentative Meeting at Pitkin County Library
City Notice 9/21
Chateau Chuamant—Change in use (CB) (PH)
10/12 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 9/21
4/26 N. 2"d Landmark 2"d Reading (PH)*Prenotice (AG)
Code Amendment- Lodge Preservation Program 2"d Reading (CB) (PH)
Code Amendment- Accessory Dwelling Unit Program -1st Reading (CB)
Code Amendment- Definition of Residential Multi -Family Housing 1st Reading (CB) Consent
488 Castle Creek Rezoning Appeal of Code Interpretation 1st Reading (CB)
Moore Rezoning- Cont'd from Sept. 27
10/13 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 9/21
135 W. Hopkins Public Hearing (con't from 8/11)
7" & Main — Continued from 9/8/99
10/19 City Planning and Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 9/28
Mitchell 8040 and Zoning Variances, 550 Aspen Alps Road, Public Hearing (con't from 8/3)(CB)
Saint Moritz LP Expansion & Minor PUD Public Hearing (CB)
Code Amendment- (PUB) Zone District & Definitions- Continued from Sept. 21 (NL)(PH)
Hoag Lot#3 8040 Greenline Review (CB)
Yellow Brick Rezoning to (PUB) zone district — Cont'd from Sept. 21 (NL) (PH)
10/25 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 10/5
Code Amendment- Residential Multi -Family Definition 2"d Reading (PH) Prenotice (CB)
Code Amendment- (PUB) Zone District & Definitions- 1" Reading
Saint Moritz Minor PUD 15t Reading (CB)
10/27 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 10/5
11/2 City Planning and Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 10/12
1118 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 10/19
Code Amendment- Accessory Dwelling Unit Program 2"d Reading (PH) (CB)
Williams Ranch PUD Amendment 2"d Reading * Prenotice (PH) (CB)
Saint Moritz Minor PUD 2"d Reading * Prenotice (PH) (CB)
Yellow Brick School Rezoning to Public 2"d Reading (PH) (CB)
11 /10 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 10/19
2
CITY AGENDA
City Council Meetings- on the 2"d and 41" Mondays at 5:00 PM
Planning Zoning Commission Meetings- on the 1st and 31 Tuesdays at 4:30 PM
Historic Preservation Commission Meetings- on the 2nd & 41" Wednesdays at 5:00 PM
Board of Adjustment- on every other Thursday at 4:00 PM, or on Demand
9/21 City Planning and Zoning (4:30) Sister City Room
City Notice 8/31
426 N. 2"d, Landmark Public Hearing (PH)
Williams Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment, Public Hearing (CB) (con't from 8/3)
Code Amendment- Residential Multi -Family Housing Definition (CB) (PH)
Yellow Brick School Rezoning to Public (NL) (PH) -Continued to October 19th
Daly Accessory Dwelling Unit 1590 Homestake Dr. Public Hearing (NL) (PH)
Hoag Lot #3 8040 Greenline Review (CB)- Continued to Oct. 19th
9/22 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 8/31
Election of Officers
104 S. Galena, St Mary's Rectory- Worksession
12:00 Site Visit to St. Mary's
302 E. Hopkins cont'd from 8/25
616 W. Main St. Minor HPC
7" and Main- Affordable Housing Review
121 N. 5t" Historic Lot Split
9/27 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 9/7
Moore Rezoning, 2nd Reading Public Hearing (SM)- open and continue Oct. 12
426 N. 2"d, Landmark, 1st Reading (AG) *Prenotice
Bavarian Conceptual Action Item 1st Reading (JO)
Aspen Mountain PUD Conceptual Action Item 1st Reading (JA)
Section M 2"d Reading (JA)
Grand Aspen Temporary Use for Affordable Housing Public Hearing (JA)
9/28 City Planning and Zoning (4:00)
Special Meeting with County P&Z
Lighting Ordinances (SM)
Buttermilk Master Plan -Gondola
10/4 City Council (5:00)
Truscott Worksession
10/5 City Planning and Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 9/14
4:00- 5:30 Staff Meeting with City Council- Forest Service Plan
5:30- 7:00 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting with City Council
10/6 HPC (5:00)
Special Meeting
Winter & Co.
10/12 GMC (5:00)- Tentative Meeting at Pitkin County Library
City Notice 9/21
Chateau Chuamant—Change in use (CB) (PH)
10/12 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 9/21
4/26 N. 2 nd Landmark 2 n' Reading (PH)*Prenotice (AG)
Code Amendment- Lodge Preservation Program 2 n' Reading (CB) (PH)
Code Amendment- Accessory Dwelling Unit Program -1st Reading (CB)
Code Amendment- Definition of Residential Multi -Family Housing 1 s' Reading (CB) Consent
488 Castle Creek Rezoning Appeal of Code Interpretation 1st Reading (CB)
Moore Rezoning- Contd from Sept. 27
10/13 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 9/21
135 W. Hopkins Public Hearing (con't from 8/11)
7" & Main — Continued from 9/8/99
10/19 City Planning and Zoning_(4:30)
City Notice 9/28
Mitchell 8040 and Zoning Variances, 550 Aspen Alps Road, Public Hearing (con't from 8/3)(CB)
Saint Moritz LP Expansion & Minor PUD Public Hearing (CB)
Code Amendment- (PUB) Zone District & Definitions- Continued from Sept. 21 (NL)(PH)
Hoag Lot#3 8040 Greenline Review (CB)
Yellow Brick Rezoning to (PUB) zone district — Cont'd from Sept. 21 (NL) (PH)
10125 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 1015
Code Amendment- Residential Multi -Family Definition 2 nd Reading (PH) Prenotice (CB)
Code Amendment- (PUB) Zone District & Definitions- 1't Reading
Saint Moritz Minor PUD 1 " Reading (CB)
10/27 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 10/5
11/2 City Planning and Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 10/12
11/8 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 10/19
Code Amendment- Accessory Dwelling Unit Program 2 nd Reading (PH) (CB)
Williams Ranch PUD Amendment 2 nd Reading * Prenotice (PH) (CB)
Saint Moritz Minor PUD 2 nd Reading * Prenotice (PH) (CB)
Yellow Brick School Rezoning to Public 2 nd Reading (PH) (CB)
11/10 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 10/19
2
NICHOLAS LELACK
1599 Greystone Drive
Carbondale,'CO 81623
(970) 704-9501
nickl@ci.aspen.co.us
EDUCATION
Master of Community and Regional Planning candidate, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR
Concentration: land use planning
Master of Science in Public Affairs candidate, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR
Concentration: public finance
Bachelor of Science in Psychology, Willamette University, Salem, OR, May 1990
EXPERIENCE
Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, Aspen, CO, June 1999 — Sept. 1999
Pitkin County Planning Technician
♦ Evaluated minor amendment to development permit applications, temporary use
applications, and 1041 hazard review exemption applications for compliance with the
Pitkin County Land Use Code. Prepared and presented staff reports containing findings
and recommendations.
♦ Conducted pre -application conferences and drafted conference summaries.
♦ Responded to public inquiries concerning the land use code and hazard review mapping.
City of Springfield, Planning Division, Springfield, OR, March 1999 — June 1999
Intern — Assistant Planner
♦ Evaluated development applications and zone changes for compliance with land use
codes and policies. Participated in Development Review Committee meetings discussing
development applications.
♦ Processed Land and Drainage Alteration Permit applications.
♦ Provided staff support to the Mixed Use Ordinance Development Committee, including
the collection of mixed -use ordinances from other -ities and evaluation of different
approaches to developing and implementing mixed -use ordinances.
Community Planning Workshop, Univ. of Oregon, Eugene, OR, Jan. 1999 — June 1999
Researcher for Oakland, Oregon historic preservation and community development project
♦ Conducted literature review on community development strategies in small, rural towns.
♦ Developed and administered survey, analyzed results, and wrote newsletter reporting
results.
♦ Developed marketing plan for commercial development.
♦ Created design guidelines manuaffor historic property owners.
♦ Updated historic resources inventory.
Oregon Economic Development Department, Salem, OR, April 1998 — Dec. 1998
Special Projects Coordinator, Resource Assistance for Rural Environments (RARE) Program
♦ Managed community profiles project. Collected and analyzed data on municipal issues to
update and expand Oregon's 240 community profiles. Presented project updates to
Oregon Rural Development Council.
♦ Coordinated with departmental divisions the preparation of the "Report on Services and
Strategies for Helping Distressed Communities in Oregon."
♦ Managed Rural Public Needs Project, including collecting and analyzing rural public
works projects requiring federal and/or state financial assistance.
Japan International Transport Institute, Washington, D.C., Aug. 1994 — Aug. 1996
Research Assistant
♦ Wrote newsletter articles and reports on transportation and budget policies and on
aviation, trucking, and maritime industry developments.
♦ Interpreted United States regulations, policies, and procedures for Japanese agencies,
associations, and businesses.
♦ Edited Japanese government documents and speeches translated into English.
♦ Served as lead representative in meetings with congressional staff.
Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, D.C., Jan. 1994 — Aug. 1994
Intern for Zbigniew Brzezinski
♦ Prepared weekly reports discussing political, economic, foreign relations, and
defense issues in Japan and China.
♦ Coordinated and drafted studies with Asian Studies Division.
Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET) Program, Chiba, Japan, July 1992 — July 1993
Assistant English Teacher
♦ Team -taught English in five junior high schools with Japanese language teachers.
♦ Facilitated English conversation classes for Funabashi City employees.
♦ Conducted elementary school English club activities.
Office of Senator Bob Packwood, Washington, D.C., Sept. 1990 — July 1992
Legislative Correspondent
♦ Drafted memorandums and responded to constituent inquiries in the areas of: agriculture,
budget, commerce, environment, foreign relations, and transportation.
♦ Gathered cosponsors for legislation.
♦ Directed intern program.
. ames D. Lindt
3239 S. Parker Road
Apt. #A110
Aurora, CO 80014
(3 03 )743 -6960
Objective: Seeking entry-level position as Planning Technician.
Education:
1995-1999 University of Northern Colorado Greeley, Colorado
I earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in May of 1999, majoring in Applied
Geography with a minor in Economics. I maintained a grade point average
of 3.35. I was named to the Dean's list of Academic Distinction for 1997-98 and
also to the Dean's Honor Roll for 1998-99. Courses taken include Urban
Geography, Urban Planning Economics, Growth and Development, Resource
Management, Biogeography, Cartography and Advanced Cartography,
1991-1995 Aspen High School Aspen, Colorado
I was named Freshman Class Vice President. I was awarded Aspen High School's
Coaches Award Scholarship for 1994-1995. Four-year Varsity Letterman in
Football and Baseball and I was the captain of the Aspen High School baseball
team in 1995.
Employment History
1999-Present QC Data. Englewood, CO
Conversion Technician. My duties are to digitize electrical service
maps and create a computer database of service maps using Microstation,
so that electric service companies can have a mapped database of their
service cables and accessories at their disposal.
Summer of 1998 City of Aspen Parks Department. Aspen, CO
Athletic Field Maintenance. My duties included maintaining Aspen's
athletic fields as well as assisting on other Park's Department projects.
Summers of 1995-97 City of Aspen Recreation Department Aspen, CO
Athletic Field Maintenance. My duties included maintaining Aspen's
softball and baseball fields as well as running the batting cage. I also
coached youth baseball.
Skills and Abilities:
-Computer Mapping
-Geographic Statistical Analysis
-Word Processing Skills
-Presentation Skills
Technical Knowledge:
I have worked extensively with the following software:
WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, Powerpoint, Excel, Windows 98,
AutoCAD, Microstation, Microsoft Works, MapViewer, Microsoft Office
97, and Surfer 3.2.
COMMENDATION PROCLAMATION
Of the City of Aspen
Planning
a• a ZoningCommission
WHEREAS, Tim Semrau has skillfully and faithfully served as a member of
the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission for one (1) year
and his outstanding service has contributed to the general
prosperity of the City and the accomplishment of its goals; and
WHEREAS, Tim has dedicated time and energy to plan for the future of
Aspen in a responsible and proper manner through his efforts in
reviewing development proposals and involvement in long range
land use planning matters; and
WHEREAS, Tim has put in countless hours in the Council Chambers and
Sister Cities Room of Aspen City Hall slaving over and voting on the
Land Use concepts of the Citizens of Aspen and the staff of the
Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, Tim's expertise and commitment to the cause of Affordable
Employee Housing has allowed him to give valuable input on
affordable employee housing projects and improve the quality of
life for Aspen residents; and
WHEREAS, Tim is a committed community member who has given of
himself to carry out the role of the Planning and Zoning Commission;
and
WHEREAS, Tim was recently appointed to the serve on the Board of the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and his expertise,
commitment and personality will be missed by the members of the
Planning and Zoning Commission; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission and the Citizens of Aspen commend Tim Semrau for his
hard work and dedication in serving Aspen with distinction. We
further resolve that this commendation be spread upon the public
records of the City and that a copy be presented to Tim as evidence
of our appreciation for his service.
APPROVED AND PROCLAIMED by the Commission at its meeting on
this day of , 1999 by a vote of to (_)to(_).
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Robert I. Blaich, Chairman
MEMORANDUM
TO: Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director
FROM: Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer jd
RE: Apex Security Signs
DATE: September 8, 1999
BACKGROUND:
Apex Security was contacted in the October of 1997 by the City Zoning Officer because
of the proliferation of security signs on residential properties. These signs were, and still
are, in violation of the Aspen Municipal Code. After several months of discussion with
Apex Security it was determined that a code amendment would be sought so that some
sort of security sign could be utilized and still comply with the code.
On January 25, 1999, City Council passed an ordinance allowing 6"x .6" security signs of
a neutral color to be affixed to the wall of the residence, thereby backing staff s assertion
that the current blue and white security signs affixed mailboxes, etc., are in violation of
the Municipal Code.
Apex Security was given a four (4) month grace period to remove all non -complying
signs. That grace period expired June 1, 1999. Apex Security argues that the signs are
owned by their clients and not by the company, but the City's argument is that because
these signs are an advertisement for Apex Security they are owned by the business.
On August 25, 1999, David Hoefer wrote a letter to the owner of the business requesting
the signs be brought into compliance within fifteen (15) days. If Apex Security is not
going to comply within the fifteen days, then the City will initiate court proceedings.
1
STAFF: ��
WITNESSES: (1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
EXHIBITS: 1 Staff Report K
(Check If Applicable)
2 Affidavit of Notice (Check If Applicable)
3 Board Criteria Sheet (Check If Applicable)
4
5
MOTION:
VOTE: YES NOD
YES NO
YES NO
YES NO
ffWFYES NO
JASMINE TYGRE YES V NO
TIMOTHY MOONEY YES %e NO
STEVEN BUETTOW YES Ve NO
MfJ YESjr NO
ACTION: Landmark Designation
To be eligible for landmark designation, a structure or site must meet two (2) or more
of the five (5) standards contained in Section 26.76.020 of the Municipal Code. It is
not the intention of HPC to landmark insignificant structures or sites. HPC will focus
on those which are unique or have some special value to the community.
Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary
structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or event of
historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen,
the State of Colorado, or the United States.
Architectural Importance: The structure or site reflects an architectural style
that is unique, distinct, or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or
site embodies the distinquishing characteristics of a significant or unique
architectural type (based on building form or use), or specimen.
Designer: The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose
individual work has influenced the character of Aspen.
Neighborhood Character: The structure or site is a significant component of an
historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site
is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character.
Community Character: The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the
character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size,
location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or
architectural importance.
Attachment S
County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
} SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS
State of Colorado } SECTION 26.52.060(E)
76�1 :�� einc, or representing an
Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice
requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following
manner:
1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S.
Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated
ay of f , 199which is days prior to the public
on the attached list, on the at
hearing date of 5e4E: -J ).
2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from
the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the jL- day
of , 199 �, to the '_Z.V day of, 199 aj . (Must be posted for at least
T
ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto.
'PL iC NOTICE
FI.ATE_ J
-.DIME !
PLACE a.
PURPOSE ...
L'I.JCLOTI"I.1JT, i-IdIGr•�.�'."� t•t •-.
R%ff Y�RL it ] Al
Signature
Signed before me this/0�' day of
1999 . by
OAAWL_,-_�
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My Commission expires: 7 -2 -
Notary Public M_
--�00
GREENBERG RONALD & JAN 50%
44 MARYLAND PLAZA
""JIS MO 63108
SCHIFF DAVID T
485 MADISON AVE 20TH FLOOR
NEW YORK NY 10022
LUNDY VICTOR ALFRED TRUSTEE 50%
301 LAKE AVE
ASPEN CO 81611
LEWIS PETER B
PO BOX 5070
CLEVELAND OH 44101
COTSEN 1985 TRUST LLOYD COTSEN
TRUSTEE
12100 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 905
LOS ANGELES CA 90025
WELTERS ANTHONY
WELTERS BEATRICE WILKINSON AS JT
TENANTS
919 SAIGON RD
MC LEAN VA 22101
GATES CHARLES C & JUNE S LEWIS JONATHAN & POSADA ROBERTO
990 S BROADWAY TRUST CONOVER CATHRINE M
DENVER CO 80217 4649 PONCE DE LEON BLVD #304 1666 CONNECTICUT AVE NW STE 300
CORAL GABLES FL 33146-2119 WASHINGTON DC 20009
SCHERMER LLOYD G & BETTY A 1/2 INT
SCHERMER GREGORY P & GRANT E 1/2 LEWIS PETER B CITY OF ASPEN
INT PO BOX 5070 130 S GALENA ST
210 LAKE AVE CLEVELAND OH 44101 ASPEN CO 81611
ASPEN CO 81611-1347
NICHOLSON JOHN J
ADLER LOU REVOCABLE TRUST MCMAHAN JAMES A & JACQUELINE NICOLA FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LLLF'
9911 W PICO BLVD PHA 2 OAKMONT DR 621 17TH ST #1215
LOS ANGELES CA 90035 LOS ANGELES CA 90049 DENVER CO 80293
F.1 QHN K - TRUSTEE ZEISLER KARL
Ch. ,AE & WATERMAN -- ZEISLER JOAN C FRISHMAN ANDREW J TRUST 1/2 IN't
220 N MAIN #600 426 N SECOND ST PO BOX 465
DAVENPORT IA 52801 ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81612
4LLEN ROBERT H & JUDY LEY HERNANDEZ CECIL M & LORENE M NESSEN MAURICE N
4545 POST OAK PL STE 251 'PO BOX 1045
-IOUSTON . TX .77027 ASPEN CO 81612 C/O 919 3RD AVE
NEW YORK NY 10022
<OHNER ELLEN P
-IUNT ELLEN C/O BARNHART PAUL F JR GREENWOOD WILLIAM
'O BOX 8770 2121 SAGE RD PO BOX 4778
kSPEN CO 81612 HOUSTON TX 77056 ASPEN CO 81612
AULLINS DON R % HARDING &
'AR13ONE TOe N MAURICE B TOBIN JOAN F
i903 BELLAIRE BLVD. 1850 K ST NW #380 1850 K ST NW STE 380
IOUSTON Tx 77025 WASHINGTON DC 20006 WASHINGTON nr, 2nnn6
N T HOMAS E& NOEL i I ASPr-N LLC
O S T E i1 �`!^ ^�^�., .. , ASPEN VALENTINE LLC
ii LN Jt UU t.�v •a-•
�,►,«± icdi-cx
CO 8v203 001 uv�AN AVE: cCri i C/O GARFIELD & HECHT
501 E HYMA
ASPEN CO 81E11 �i AVE
ASrEiv Ci i o 10 4 1
kRANQI MICHELE PFEIFER SAX JOEL D DEVOS ESTHER LEONARD
4r ILPA 303 W FRANCIS ST PO BOX 3238
-GA
ASPEN GO 81611 ASPEN 0 8A1 12
VICENZI GEORGE A
BOX 1747 PO BOX 2238
n Mtn slianr) ASPEN GO 816i2
MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Members
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development
p ent Director
FROM: Joyce A. Ohlson, Deputy Director of Co mmunity Development
DATE: �j l� e
September 21, 1999 (�
Attached please find the following items as a follow-u t concerns. p o your recent requests or
® The resumes of Nick Lelack, Staff Planner, and J
Technician. We welcome these new staff members to amen Lindt, Planning
drop in to say hello and always feel free to call them it our team. Feel free to
any way they can help you in
® A draft "Commendation Proclamation" for Tim Semrau.
the Commission members review and call staff with Staff proposes that
changes you would like to see. (Gail Joyce at 920-5 any "personalized"
052 or James at 920-
5104-feel .free to leave a detailed message.) Staff will revise and plan for its adoption at t. ;e Commission's next eu the proclamation
schedule will be coordinated with Tim. 9 lar meeting. The
A memorandum from Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer, providing Apex sign matter. As of this writing, the City Attorne Js the status of the
office
follow up with Apex. Y is continuing to
• Regarding the Sun Deck occupancy:
Staff research and discussions with the
County ComDev staff indicates that the maximum allow
(not the 800 as noted in the Sundeck/Aspen Mtn. Club allowed occupancy ►s 575
The County ComDev Department will have to handle thisma advertisement int flyers
within their jurisdiction. +s matter ►n that it is
TV'
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director J ZAM
FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner a
RE: Williams Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment —Public Hearing
DATE: September 21, 1999
SUMMARY:
Williams Ranch PUD was approved in 1994 as a 70/30 affordable housing project
and is currently developed with nearly all of the fifty (50) approved residences. The
project was split into two Subdivisions. Silverlode Subdivision contains the 30%
free-market portion and is generally east of the Williams Ranch Subdivision which
contains the thirty-five (35) affordable dwellings. The approving Ordinance No. 52,
Series of 1994, contains a series of conditions of the approval to which the applicant
is requesting amendments.
The application packet includes a summary of the amendments requested, a copy of
the approving Ordinance, and a copy of the pertinent Subdivision plat sheet for the
Commission's reference. Under,the section "Amendments," staff summarizes and
responds to the requests.
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission pass forward a
recommendation of approval of this PUD amendment, with conditions.
AMENDMENTS:
Aesthetics.
Prior to development, this property conveyed water through the Salvation Ditch in an
exposed manner — a traditional open-air ditch. The development application sought to
cover this ditch and convey water underground. The discussions during development
review considered the historic character of the land and the value of retaining some
visual cue to the historic landscape element. The final approval contained a condition
requiring that the developer construct a water feature along the ditch alignment. This
is reflected in Section 1, condition #18, of the Ordinance.
The Salvation Ditch Company has indicated their reluctance to have such an
improvement constructed within their easement. Furthermore, water to serve this
water feature would have to be purchased and the Homeowners' Associations would
most likely need to indemnify the ditch company. While impediments exist, this
improvement is not impossible to construct.
The Homeowners' have submitted a letter indicating their support for this amendment
— they don't want this reconstructed ditch. The preference expressed by the President
of the Williams Ranch HOA is for the common open space parcel to be landscaped
with native vegetation and not include this "water feature."
Staff agrees with the developer and the HOA. The decision to underground the ditch
effectively eliminated this historic landscape element. While it may have been
preferable to retain at least some portions of the historic ditch exposed to provide a
visual reference to the previous condition of the property, the decision has been made
and the undergrounding has been accomplished. Creation of an apparent ditch does
not necessarily achieve the same result. Furthermore, if the opportunity to have
active water within this new landscape element is not achieved, the aesthetic benefit
of a re-created ditch would be further diminished.
Staff does, however, have a concern about the condition of the Open Space parcel.
The original review of this PUD considered the visual characteristics of the overall
development. These discussions, and an eventual condition, concentrated on the
historic landscape element of the ditch. The Open Space parcel is currently a patch of
weeds and thistles with relatively little value, visually, as open space in a natural
character. In direct comparison, the park parcel directly north of the open space
parcel exhibits a natural undisturbed condition and is a significant aesthetic value to
the area.
The open space parcel appears to not have any top soil and does not appear to have
been re -seeded. As the primary concern over the ditch feature was of its aesthetic
value, staff believes a condition to provide sufficient top soil and re -seeding of this
area is appropriate. Staff is recommending the ditch feature condition be eliminated
and a condition requiring this open space parcel be appropriately reclaimed and
landscaped with native vegetation be applied.
Pedestrian Movement.
There is a request by the developer to not develop the sidewalks required in the
original approval. While staff agrees with the developer and the residents of the area
that the more urban treatment of sidewalks would diminish the project's aesthetics,,
staff does have concerns about maintaining the purpose of the sidewalks — pedestrian
movement.
During the development review for this PUD, a request from the City Engineer to
provide sidewalks on the perimeter of the entire cartway was forwarded to the Boards.
Due to the relatively low auto traffic expected and a desire to require less of an
"urban" treatment, the eventual condition required sidewalks on only one side of the
cartway. The sidewalk along Silverlode Drive from the intersection with Smuggler
2
road to Mollie Gibson Park was developed. The sidewalk around Lots 1-12 of
Williams Ranch Subdivision (the internal "island") has not been developed.
This area does not have a significant amount of traffic. Furthermore, a landscaped
drainage swale bordering the cartway has been developed on many of these lots.
These landscape improvements have been developed in the public right-of-way and
the City could require them to be removed. However, removing this landscaping and
storm water feature for the provision of concrete sidewalks is not staff s preference
for this area. In fact, the paved cartway and soft edge of the landscaped drainage
swale evokes a more rural aesthetic appropriate for the area and is preferred by staff.
Staff does have a concern, however, about the purpose of the sidewalks — the safe and
convenient conveyance of pedestrians. The trails and sidewalks, as. originally
approved, combined to provide a permeable development with respect to pedestrian
movement through the development. Trails were platted to serve the community's
movement both "vertically" and "horizontally" through the development. The trail
that serves "vertical" movement (platted east -west) is developed on the lower two
blocks with one exception: the intersection with Silverlode Drive between lots 6 and
7. Staff has included a condition that this last remaining portion be developed.
The trail that was to serve "horizontal" movement (platted north -south) has been
developed only on the open space parcel. It is important to staff to maintain public
access through the development between the Loni White Trail and the Molly Gibson
Park.
The northern -most section of this horizontal trail is through the "park" parcel. This is
a parcel that was deeded to the City and the City has the ability to construct a trail
connection through this parcel. The applicant does not have a responsibility to
develop this portion of the trail.
The next portion of the trail is through the "open space parcel." This parcel is in
common ownership of the Williams Ranch Home Owners' Association with a public
trail easement as shown on the plat. This portion of the trail has been developed by
the applicant, albeit crudely. Staff is recommending this portion of the trail be
improved to City standards.
The middle portion of this trail (lots #33-35) has not been developed but is certainly
buildable. This is an important link to serve this north -south movement as it connects
the vertical trail through to the "open space parcel." Staff is recommending this trail
segment be built by the applicant.
The southern -most portion of this trail easement (lots #27 — 31 and # 15) does not
adequately provide for a trail to be built. The topography in this area is extremely
steep and a trail would be very difficult to develop and may pose ground stability
issues with adjacent development. After consulting with staff, the applicant inquired
3
about securing an easement from the Centennial Condominiums for this trail. The
property on the adjacent Centennial property is flat and could accommodate this trail
if an easement were secured. According to the applicant, Centennial representatives
were not receptive to this easement. Staff s first preference is for the applicant to
continue negotiations with the owners of the Centennial property. If those
negotiations continue to be unsuccessful, staff believes the pedestrian connection
could still be served through use of Williams Ranch Drive and then to the sidewalk
along Silverlode Drive.
Soil Erosion Control on Smuggler Mine Property.
The original application included the Smuggler Mine property and access to this
development was contemplated through Smuggler Mine and improvements to a
mining road above the development were contemplated. The concerns raised about
this access were that the possible erosion from the mining property be mitigated for
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 (EPA) to not re -grade or
otherwise disturb this land. For these reasons, staff is recommending this obligation
of Ordinance 52, Series of 1999, be amended to eliminate the re -grading condition for
this mining road.
Emergency Access.
The approvals for this project included a requirement to install "grass pavers" along
the emergency access easement connecting the cul-de-sac to Spruce Street. These
pavers are in poor condition and may represent a community safety issue.
The City Engineer inspected and accepted the grass pavers last Fall. At that time the
pavers were in a useful condition. Staff is concerned about the long-term usefulness
of this emergency facility in relation to the current condition. In other words, the
emergency access only serves its intended purpose if maintained in a manner
acceptable to emergency service providers. Staff has included a condition that the
grass pavers be improved to a reasonable and useful condition.
APPLICANT:
Williams Ranch Joint Venture, John Markel, President. Represented by Charles
Brandt, Charles Brandt and Associates.
LOCATION:
Williams Ranch Drive and Silverlode Drive vicinity. Please refer to the attached
location map.
rd
ZONING:
AH 1-PUD
CURRENT AND PROPOSED LAND USE:
The project consists of two Subdivisions: Silverlode and Williams Ranch. Together,
there are 15 free-market residences and 35 affordable housing deed restricted
residences.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
The project received final development approval pursuant to Ordinance No. 52, Series
of 1994.
The Planning and Zoning Commission opened this public hearing on July 6, 1999,
and continued to this date. The amendment was not presented at the July 6, 1999,
meeting and the Commission did not consider any elements of the request. The
Planning and Zoning Commission has not previously considered this amendment.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Final Planned Unit Development. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall
consider the application at a duly noticed public hearing and recommend approval,
approval with conditions, or denial to the City Council. City Council shall approve,
approve with conditions, or deny the application at a duly noticed public hearing.
BACKGROUND:
Williams Ranch PUD and Subdivision was granted land use approval pursuant to
Ordinance 52, Series of 1994. This document has been included in the application for
reference.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit "A." Agency
referral comments have been included as Exhibit "B." Letters received from areas
residents have been attached as Exhibit "C." Correspondence between staff and the
applicant is attached as Exhibit "D." A location map is attached as Exhibit "E." The
application is attached as Exhibit "F."
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission pass forward a
recommendation to City Council to amend the Williams Ranch PUD, Ordinance 52,
Series of 1994, with the following conditions:
l . Lot #36 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision, the Open Space parcel, shall be improved
with top -soil and re -vegetated with a native grass mixture and either mulched or
watered daily to stimulate germination by Williams Ranch Joint Venture. The City
Forester of the City Parks Department shall approve the seed mixture. The
improvement shall be accomplished prior to July 1, 2000.
5
2. Upon completion, inspection by the City, and acceptance by the City of the
improvements stated in condition # 1, above, the requirement to construct a "small ditch
water feature," as stipulated in Section 1, condition #18, of Ordinance No. 52, Series of
1994, shall be deemed met and no further obligation to develop a "ditch" shall be
required.
3. The portion of the pedestrian trail between lots 6 and 10 of the Williams Ranch
Subdivision shall be completed to the edge of the Silverlode Drive cartway. The portion
of the public trail described on the final plat as crossing Lots 33, 34, and 35 of the
Williams Ranch Subdivision shall be developed. The portion of the pedestrian trail
crossing Lot #36 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision, the open space parcel, shall be re-
developed. These improvements shall be accomplished by Williams Ranch Joint
Venture no later than July 1, 2000. The design and construction plans for these
improvements shall be approved by the City Trails Coordinator of the City Parks
Department.
4. Upon completion, inspection by the City, and acceptance by the City of the
improvements listed in condition #3, above, the requirement to construct "hard surface
pedestrian walking area on one side of all roads" (sidewalks), as stipulated in Section 1,
condition #2b, of Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994, and the "five foot pedestrian path,"
stipulated in Section 1, condition #14i, of said Ordinance, shall be deemed met and no
further obligation to develop a sidewalk shall be required.
5. Upon completion, inspection by the City, and acceptance by the City of the
improvements listed in condition #3, above, the trail easement depicted on the final plat
of the Williams Ranch Subdivision and Silverlode Subdivision along the southern
boundary of the Williams Ranch PUD shall be vacated from Lot #27 of the Williams
Ranch Subdivision through Lot # 15 of the Silverlode Subdivision.
6. Sidewalks may be developed adjoining public rights -of -way in the future upon petition
of the City by the residents to create an Improvement District pursuant to Section 21.28
of the Municipal Code, as amended.
7. The emergency access way between the Spruce Street right-of-way and the Silverlode
Drive cul-de-sac shall be improved to withstand emergency vehicles.
8. The City and the applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement stipulating the nature and
requirements of this PUD amendment following final consideration by City Council,
pursuant to Section 26.445.060 of the Land Use Code. This agreement shall be
reviewed by the City Attorney prior to recordation. To ensure the implementation of the
landscape and public facilities required through this amendment, the agreement shall be
accompanied by a cash escrow in the amount estimated by the City Engineer for the
improvements, pursuant to Section 26.445.060(C) and (D).
9. Pursuant to Section 26.445.090, the PUD amendment agreement shall be recorded
within one -hundred and eighty (180) days of the final approval by City Council. An
amendment to the Subdivision plat depicting the vacated trail easement mentioned in
condition 45 shall also be recorded.
C$I
10. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public
meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
11. The applicant shall record the Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution with the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a
per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City
Clerk who will record the resolutions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Resolution No. 99AT-- recommending City Council amend the
Williams Ranch PUD approvals, as granted pursuant to Ordinance 52, Series of 1994,
with the conditions recommended in the staff memorandum dated September 21,
1999.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A --
Exhibit B --
Exhibit C --
Exhibit D --
Exhibit E --
Exhibit F --
Review Criteria and Staff Comments
Referral Agency Comments
Letters from residents
Applicant Correspondence
Location Map
Application
CAhome\CHRISB\CASES\Williams Ranch AmendmentTZ Memo.doc
7
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A SUBSTANTIAL
AMENDMENT TO THE WILLIAMS RANCH PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS GRANTED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE 52,
SERIES OF 1994.
Parcel Nos. 2737.074.30.001-015 and 2737.074.29.001-036
Resolution No. 99 -AT
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Williams Ranch Joint Venture, represented by Charles Brandt and Associates P.C.,
for substantial amendments to the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development approval
granted pursuant to Ordinance 52, Series of 1994; and,
WHEREAS, the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development (the project) is a
fifty (50) residential unit project divided into two Subdivisions: the Silverlode
Subdivision consisting of 15 free-market residential, units and the Williams Ranch
Subdivision containing 35 affordable housing units; and,
WHEREAS, the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development is located within
the City of Aspen directly east of the Centennial Condominiums in Section 7, Township
10 South, Range 84 West; and,
WHEREAS, the amendments requested relate to conditions of approval
stipulated in Ordinance 52, Series of 1994, concerning the development of a "small ditch
water feature," "hard surface pedestrian walking areas" (a.k.a. sidewalks), "soil erosion
controls" on a mining road above the project, and a release of a trail easement platted
from the Open Space parcel to the boundary of the Molly Gibson Park along the southern
boundary of the PUD.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445, Planned Unit Development, of the
Aspen Municipal Code, substantial amendments to an approved Planned Unit
development may be approved by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after
considering recommendations by the Community Development Director, the Planning
and Zoning Commission made at a duly noticed public hearing, the appropriate referral
agencies, and members of the general public; and,
WHEREAS, after considering a recommendation by the Community
Development Director, referral agencies, comments made by the applicant, and members
of the general public at a duly noticed public hearing opened on July 6, 1999, and
continued to September 21, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds the PUD
amendments to be in substantial compliance with the goals and objectives of the Aspen
Area Community Plan and the intent and requirements of the Land Use Code with the
conditions listed in this Resolution and recommends, by a to (_ to _) vote, that
the Aspen City Council approve this substantial amendment to the Williams Ranch
Planned Unit Development with the conditions listed herein.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
That City Council should approve this substantial amendment to the Williams Ranch
Planned Unit Development with the following conditions:
l . Lot #36 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision, the Open Space parcel, shall be
improved with top -soil and re -vegetated with a native grass mixture and either
mulched or watered daily to stimulate germination by Williams Ranch Joint
Venture. The City Forester of the City Parks Department shall approve the seed
mixture. The improvement shall be accomplished prior to July 1, 2000.
2. Upon completion, inspection by the City, and acceptance by the City of the
improvements stated in condition #1, above, the requirement to construct a "small
ditch water feature," as stipulated in Section 1, condition #18, of Ordinance No. 52,
Series of 1994, shall be deemed met and no further obligation to develop a "ditch"
shall be required.
3. The portion of the pedestrian trail between lots 6 and 10 of the Williams Ranch
Subdivision shall be completed to the edge of the Silverlode Drive cartway. The
portion of the public trail described on the final plat as crossing Lots 33, 34, and 35
of the Williams Ranch Subdivision shall be developed. The portion of the
pedestrian trail crossing Lot #36 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision, the open space
parcel, shall be re -developed. These improvements shall be accomplished by
Williams Ranch Joint Venture no later than July 1, 2000. The design and
construction plans for these improvements shall be approved by the City Trails
Coordinator of the City Parks Department.
4. Upon completion, inspection by the City, and acceptance by the City of the
improvements listed in condition #3, above, the requirement to construct "hard
surface pedestrian walking area on one side of all roads" (sidewalks), as stipulated
in Section 1, condition #2b, of Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994, and the "five foot
pedestrian path," stipulated in Section 1, condition #14i, of said Ordinance, shall be
deemed met and no further obligation to develop a sidewalk shall be required.
5. Upon completion, inspection by the City, and acceptance by the City of the
improvements listed in condition #3, above, the trail easement depicted on the final
plat of the Williams Ranch Subdivision and Silverlode Subdivision along the
southern boundary of the Williams Ranch PUD shall be vacated from Lot #27 of the
Williams Ranch Subdivision through Lot # 15 of the Silverlode Subdivision.
6. Sidewalks may be developed adjoining public rights -of -way in the future upon
petition of the City by the residents to create an Improvement District pursuant to
Section 21.28 of the Municipal Code, as amended.
7. The emergency access way between the Spruce Street right-of-way and the
Silverlode Drive cul-de-sac shall be improved to withstand emergency vehicles.
8. The City and the applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement stipulating the nature
and requirements of this PUD amendment following final consideration by City
Council, pursuant to Section 26.445.060 of the Land Use Code. This agreement
shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to recordation. To ensure the
implementation of the landscape and public facilities required through this
amendment, the agreement shall be accompanied by a cash escrow in the amount
estimated by the City Engineer for the improvements, pursuant to Section
26.445.060(C) and (D).
9. Pursuant to Section 26.445.090, the PUD amendment agreement shall be recorded
within one -hundred and eighty (180) days of the final approval by City Council. An
amendment to the Subdivision plat depicting the vacated trail easement mentioned
in condition #5 shall also be recorded.
10. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during
public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
11. The applicant shall record the Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution with
the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building.
There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee
to the City Clerk who will record the ,resolutions.
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL by the Commission at its regular meeting on
September 21, 1999.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
Robert Blaich, Chair
CAhome\CHRISB\CASES\Williams Ranch Amendment\PZ RESO.doc
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. With conditions addressing these two
concerns, staff believes that the amendments are consistent with the Goals and Objectives
of the AACP, and with the character of the surrounding area.
C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future
development of the surrounding area.
Staff Finding:
The future development capabilities of the immediate area are not expected to be
adversely affected with the amendments. The opportunity for enhanced pedestrian
connection through the property is potentially enhanced with this amendment and these
proposed conditions.
D. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent
to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant.
Staff Finding:
This project was granted GMQS allotments and the amendments do not require additional
allotments.
2. Density:
Staff Finding:
No changes in the project's density are proposed. This standards does'not apply to this
amendment.
3. Land Uses. The land uses permitted shall be those of the underlying zone
district. Detached residential units may be authorized to be clustered in a
Staff Comments 1
zero lot line or row house configuration, but multi -family dwelling units shall
only be allowed when permitted in the underlying zone district.
Staff Finding:
No changes in the type of land uses are proposed with this amendment.
4. Dimensional Requirements. The dimensional requirements shall be those of
the underlying zone district, provided that variations may be permitted in
the following:
Staff Finding:
No changes to the project's dimensional requirement are proposed.
5. Off-street parking. The number of off-street parking spaces may be varied
from that required in the underlying zone district based on the following
considerations:
Staff Finding:
No changes to the project's off-street parking requirements are proposed or necessary.
6. Open Space. The Open Space requirement shall be that of the underlying
zone district. However, a variation in minimum open space may be
permitted if such variation would not be detrimental to the character of the
proposed PUD, and if the proposed development shall include open space for
the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD through a
common park or recreation area. An area may be approved as a common
park or recreation area if it:
a. Is to be used and is suitable for scenic, landscaping, or recreation
purposes; and
b. Is land which is accessible and available to all dwelling units or
lots for whom the common area is intended.
A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas shall
be deeded in perpetuity to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the planned unit
development (PUD), together with a deed restriction against future residential,
commercial, or industrial development.
Any plan for open space shall also be accompanied by a legal instrument which
ensures the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and
communally owned facilities.
7. Landscape Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final development
plan a landscape plan, which exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces.
It shall provide an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species that are
regarded as suitable for the Aspen area climate.
Staff Finding:
This response considers the criteria for both Open Space and a Landscape Plan.
Staff Comments 2
The development includes an Open Space area to the benefit of the residents of the PUD
in a natural scenic capacity. This area was required, according to the approvals, to
contain a re-created "ditch" feature referring to the historic landscape element which
existed on the property prior to development. This issue was raised primarily to address
the project's aesthetics and the value of retaining some visual cue to the ditch landscape
element. The final approval contained a condition requiring the developer construct a
water feature along the ditch alignment. This is reflected in Section 1, condition #18, of
the Ordinance.
The Salvation Ditch Company has indicated their reluctance to have such an
improvement constructed within their easement. Furthermore, the Homeowners' have
submitted a letter indicating their support for this amendment. The preference expressed
by the President of the Williams Ranch HOA is for the common open space parcel to be
landscaped with native vegetation and not include this "water feature."
Staff agrees with the developer and the HOA. Staff does, however, have a concern about
the condition of the Open Space parcel and the project's aesthetic value. In other words,
the re-created ditch may be difficult to develop but the overall aesthetic of the project are
still important. The Open Space parcel is currently a patch of weeds and thistles with
relatively little value, visually, as open space in a natural character. In direct comparison,
the park parcel directly north of the open space parcel exhibits a natural undisturbed
condition and is a significant aesthetic value to the area.
The open space parcel appears to not have any top soil and does not appear to have been
re -seeded. As the primary concern over the ditch feature was of its aesthetic value, staff
believes a condition to provide sufficient top soil and re -seeding of this area is
appropriate. Staff is recommending the ditch feature condition be eliminated and a
condition requiring this open space parcel be appropriately landscaped with native
vegetation be applied. Considering the timing of this amendment review, staff is
recommending this be accomplished in the Spring of 2000. Upon completion of this
improvement, staff believes the intent of these two criteria will be met.
8. Architectural Site Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final
development plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural
consistency with the proposed development, architectural character, building
design, and the preservation of the visual character of the City. It is not the
purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly
enforced that individual initiative is stifled in the design of a particular
building, or substantial additional expense is required. Architectural
character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon
appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony and
proportion of the buildings with each other and surrounding land uses.
Building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and
maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage
and reduce soil erosion.
Staff Finding:
No changes to the project's architectural plan are requested in this amendment.
Staff Comments 3
9. Lighting. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or
hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands.
Staff Finding:
The amendment does not address lighting and no concerns about outdoor lighting have
been brought to the attention of City staff. The development in this PUD will have to be
in conformance to the lighting Code as any other property in the City is required.
10. Clustering. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged.
Staff Finding:
This standard does not apply to this amendment.
11. Public facilities. The proposed development shall be designed so that
adequate public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed
development at the time development is constructed, and that there will be no
net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings
shall not be arranged such that any structure is inaccessible to emergency
vehicles.
Staff Finding:
The grass pavers required to be installed along the emergency access way were inspected
and approved by the City Engineer. Since this inspection in the Fall of 1998, the
condition of the pavers and, therefore the long-term usefulness of the facility, has
deteriorated. This access is now compromised and may represent a practical difficulty in
the provision of emergency service, no longer meeting the intent of this criteria. This
emergency access way needs to be maintained in a manner acceptable to emergency
service providers. Staff has included a condition concerning the repair of this area.
The original approval required pedestrian facilities to be accommodated on -site. While
staff s concerns are both related to the provision of public facilities and the provision of
adequate circulation, staff has summarized the discussion of this issue under the
following criteria — 412 Circulation.
The soil erosion mitigation condition of the land use approvals related to a mining road
on Smuggler Mountain, contemplated both the future development of the Smuggler Mine
property and the fact that the Smuggler Mine owners were party to the original
application. The applicant is no longer able to make representations about the Smuggler
Mine or commit to conducting improvements on the Mine property. Staff is
recommending the condition related to the re -grading of this mining road be removed
from the land use approvals.
12. Traffic and pedestrian circulation.
a. Every dwelling unit, or other land use permitted in the planned unit
development (PUD) shall have access to a public street either directly or
Staff Comments 4
through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area
dedicated to public or private use.
b. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic
flow with controlled turning movement and minimum hazards to vehicular
or pedestrian traffic. Minor streets within the Planned Unit Development
(PUD) shall not be connected to streets outside the development so as to
encourage their use by through traffic.
C. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create
traffic congestion on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the
proposed development, or such surrounding collector and arterial roads
shall be improved so that they will not be adversely affected.
d. Every residential building shall not be farther than sixty (60) feet from an
access roadway or drive providing access to a public street.
e. All nonresidential land use within the planned unit development (PUD)
shall have direct access to a collector or arterial street without creating
traffic hazards or congestion on any street.
f. Streets in the planned unit development (PUD) may be dedicated to public
use or retained under private ownership. Said streets and associated
improvements shall comply with all pertinent city regulations and
ordinances.
Staff Finding:
The original review concentrated on a pedestrian's ability to walk through the project. A
series of easements were required and recorded on the final plat. For better clarity, staff
is referring to these as the "horizontal" trail and the "vertical" trail. The horizontal trail
provides pedestrian movement north and south along roughly the same topographic
elevation from the public "park" parcel through to the southern -most boundary of the
PUD. This horizontal trail was intended to serve as an extension to the Loni White Trail
along the Salvation Ditch which connects to the Hunter Creek Trail. The park parcel has
been deeded to the City for park use which included the City's ability to construct a trail.
The vertical trail provides a pedestrian cut -through between the blocks of the
Subdivision. The Improvements were completed on the lower two Blocks. The
remaining portion, the portion which would provide access to the property above
Silverlode Subdivision, was required as an easement but not required to be constructed.
There is a request by the developer to not develop the sidewalks required in the original
approval. While staff agrees with the developer and the residents of the area that the
more urban treatment of sidewalks would diminish the project's aesthetics, staff does
have concerns about maintaining the purpose of the sidewalks — pedestrian movement.
During the development review for this PUD, a request from the City Engineer to provide
sidewalks on the perimeter of the entire cartway was forwarded to the Boards. Due to the
relatively low auto traffic expected and a desire to require less of an "urban" treatment,
the eventual condition required sidewalks on only one side of the cartway.
Staff Comments 5
This area does not have a significant amount of traffic. Staff believes the paved cartway
and soft edge of the landscaped drainage swale evokes a more rural aesthetic appropriate
for the area and is preferred development style.
Staff does have a concern, however, about the purpose of the sidewalks — the safe and
convenient conveyance of pedestrians. The maintenance of pedestrian permeability — the
ability for pedestrians to pass through the subdivision — was important in the original
review and is important in this amendment review. Staff has recommended a set of
conditions to address this criteria.
C:\home\CMSB\CASES\Williams Ranch Amendment\PZ EX A.doc
Staff Comments 6
11
MEMORANDUM
Fa.i�'��fyl •�.w�..��
To: Chris Bendon, Planner
Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer
From: Chuck Roth, Project Engineer
Date: May 17, 1999
Re: Williams Ranch Subdivision/PUD Amendment
The Development Review Committee has reviewed the above referenced application at their March
17, 1999 meeting, and we have the following comments:
General — (1) These comments are based on the fact that we believe that the submitted site plan is
accurate, that it shows all site features, and that it is feasible. The wording must be carried forward
exactly as written unless prior consent is received from the Engineering Department. This is to halt
complaints related to approvals tied to "issuance of building permit." (2) If there are any
encroachments into the public right-of-way, the encroachment must either be removed or be subject
to current encroachment license requirements.
1. Amendment 1 — Salvation Ditch Water Feature — This is a zoning issue related to previous
approvals, not an engineering issue.
2. Amendment 2 — Sidewalks - The application statement that "the Williams Ranch Subdivision
was initially planned without sidewalks" is incorrect. During the original planning, sidewalk, curb
and gutter on both sides of all streets was planned as required by City Code. During the P.U.D.
review process, it was decided to reduce the typical design to shoulder swales for drainage on both
sides of streets and hard surface pedestrian areas on one side of the streets. The application is
further incorrect in stating that the "applicant was forced to agree to" the above.
In the context of City Council's auto disincentive programs and promotion of the pedestrian
improvements that have been constructed during the past nine years, as well as the Pedestrian
Walkway and Bikeway System Plan, it is necessary to provide pedestrian spaces off of streets.
Regarding vehicles parked in driveways that would extend across the sidewalks, that
situation is not permitted by the approved P.U.D. plan. Vehicles must be parked on private
property and not in the public rights -of -way.
Regarding the closeness of sidewalks to residences, that is a product of the site design that
was submitted by the applicant for the P.U.D. approval.
I. Amendment 3 - Soil Erosion Control — Any proposal to alter the drainage and erosion design
of the original approvals should be verified by the original engineer who designed the site drainage.
The amendment request does not reflect the original application and approvals. The commitment
was made by the applicant that the road would be re -graded to mitigate avalanche and rockfall
hazards. This is shown on the plat.
DRC Attendees
Staff: Chris Bendon, Rebecca Schickling, John Krueger, Ed Van Walraven, Tom Bracewell,
Ross Soderstrom
Applicants: Garret Brandt
99M61
2
ASPEN 1 PITKIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
September 30, 1998
i
P'
ftb AL
ASPEN • PITKIN
OFFICE OF THE Cm ATToR.NEY
Mr. John D. Markel, President
Mark IV, Inc., General Partner
Williams Ranch Joint Venture
3214 Campanil Drive
} Santa Barbara, CA 93109
RE: Williams Ranch
Dear John:
This is a follow-up to our meeting in August in which you met with City staff members to go over the
latest punch list of items that need to be completed as part of the project's public improvements.
Enclosed please find the latest punch list developed by the Engineering Department. Some of the items
listed may be completed as of the date of this letter.
I have also done some research on the trails issue which came up at our meeting. Based upon this
research it is pretty clear that the developer was required to put in the trails which we discussed. Rather
than restate the conclusions we have reached, I am enclosing a memorandum addressed to me from
John Kruger on this subject.
Please review -the enclosed and let me know of any problems you anticipate either in completing the
punch list items or the trail segment.
Sin ,
n P. Orcester
City Attorney
cc: Community Development Department
Parks Department
JPW-09/30/98-G:\john\word\Ietters\markel5.doc
130 Som GALENA STREI r ASPEN, CotoRADO 81611-1975 PHONE 970.920.3053 • FAX 970.920.5119
Printed on Recyde� Piper
J
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Worcester
FR: John D. Krueger
DATE: August 18, 1998
RE: Williams Ranch Trail/Easement
cc: Jeff Woods, Rebecca Schickling-Parks Department
Stan Clauson-Community Development
Chris Bendon-Community Development
Nick Adeh-Engineering
Ross Soderstrom-Engineering
Sara Thomas -Community Development
After further research into the many documents regarding the William's Ranch
development and after talking to all of the City staff involved in the approval process, it is
clear to me that the developer of William's Ranch-WRJV is responsible for constructing
all of the trail throughout the entire trail Easement/s as represented on the plat. This
includes the entire section that runs east and west along the bottom of the property
connecting to the sidewalk and then to Mollie Gibson Park.
Several documents spell out WRJV's responsibility to construct the trail. None specify
that only part of the trail is to be constructed. The main supporting documents are:
I. WILLIAMS RANCH -CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION AGREEMENT
BOOK 780, PAGE 375, page 6, section 4.4
"PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. WRJV agrees that it shall, at its sole cost, construct all
the roads, hydrants, sidewalks, trails, waterlines. sewer lines and common areas as shown
and depicted on the final PUD Application Exhibits."
All of the other "public Improvements" have been constructed or are in the process of
being completed. Trails are not excepted from the rest of the public improvements. They
are included and "all" trails are to be constructed by WRJV as shown on the plat.
In Exhibit J of the Annexation Agreement the cost of trail construction is broken out as a
line item for two different trail sections:
1
Exhibit "J"
"WILLIAMS RANCH LANDSCAPE COST ESTIMATE"
6. Trails:
480 l.f. @ $5.00/l.f. 2,400.00
6. Trails
100011 @ 5/11. 5,000.00
H. AH CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT
This agreement contains basically the same language as the annexation agreement. It
specifies that WRJV is responsible for the construction of all public improvements,
including trails.
AH CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT
PAGE 2, SECTION 1.3
"Public Improvements. WRJV shall construct all roads, hydrants, sidewalks, trails
water lines, sewer lines and common areas set forth on the Final PUD Development Plan,
as shown on Exhibit G to the Annexation Agreement ("Final PUD Plan").
III. FINAL PLAT OF SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION AND WILLIAMS RANCH
SUBDIVISION
CERTIFICATION OF OWNERSHIP AND DEDICATION FOR THE WILLIAMS
RANCH SUBDIVISION
"1. Does hereby accept the responsibility for the completion of required improvements:"
IV. LETTER OF APRIL 3,1998 TO JOHN WORCESTER FROM THOMAS
STEVENS
RE: MEETING WITH CITY STAFF ON MARCH 23, 1998
This letter from WRJV states that WRJV will install the trail this summer.
PAGE 2
"Parks Department Issues"
"WRJV to install 8 foot "crusher fines" trail this summer. Tom to stake alignment for
Parks review prior to construction."
V. RESOLUTION 94-24 OPEN SPACE AND PARKING
This resolution references that the applicant "shall provide a public trail" not just an
easement.
2
SECTION 7, PAGE 2
"The applicant shall provide a public trail adjacent to the Salvation Ditch as it crosses the
private open space parcel."
ENCROACHMENT
WRJV also has encroachment problems into the trail easement. Boulder retaining walls
on the south sides of lots 29,30, and 31 encroach into the 10 foot trail easement shown on
the Plat. The encroachment will make it extremely difficult to build the trail within the
easement and within the Williams Ranch Subdivision property. This is referenced as
follows:
FINAL PLAT OF SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION AND WILLIAMS RANCH
SUBDIVISION
"NOTES:"
"4. NO STRUCTURES SHALL BE PERMITTED TO ENCROACH INTO ANY
EASEMENT AREAS IDENTIFIED ON THE FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT."
CITY OF ASPEN ORDINANCE 52,1994
BOOK 775, PAGE 824, page 3, section l,b.
"No development shall be permitted to encroach into any easement areas identified on the
Final Plat. This condition shall be noted on the Final Plat."
MAINTENANCE
The Homeowners Association will be responsible for the maintenance of the trail once
construction is complete.
In summary, WRJV should be required to construct the trail in all easements as shown on
the plat. The trail design and construction must meet City Standards. WRJV must work
with City Parks Department on all trail design and construction. WRJV must submit a
final trail design and with typical cross sections and construction schedule with phasing to
the City Parks Department for review and approval. Trail design and construction should
be completed by November 1, 1999.
3
GTS Development
119 E COOPER AVE., #12
ASPEN, CO 81611
(970) 920-4418
June 30, 1999
Mr. Chris Bendon JUN` f `
City of Aspen Planning Dept.
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 91611
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 Williams Ranch and Silver Lode Subdivision should be required to
re -construct and landscape the emergency access road across Lot 1 including re-
installing the grass locking pavers, installing a gate at the west end and planting the
aspen groves per the original plan.
believe that the most effective time to re -construct and landscape this emergency
access easement would be the Spring of 2000. At that time, I will be done with the
construction on Lot 1 and will be landscaping the rest of my parcel.
Regarding the developers application for Amendment to the PUD, I am not in favor of
granting the developer an approval of Amendment 1 - "Build and install the Salvation
Ditch Water Feature. ( Please see my attached letter to George Stranahan, the
President of the Salvation Ditch Company). Additionally, I have spoken with George
Stranahan since sending the attached letter to him. He said that the Salvation Ditch
Company would not be apposed to an open water feature as long as the user paid for
the water usage. He estimated that the water usage would be between $1,000.00 and
$3,000.00 per year for a pond. He also said that the user would have to sign a "Hold
Harmless Agreement" protecting the Salvation Ditch Company from any liabilities for
having an open feature in a residential neighborhood. George Stranahan can be
reached during business hours at 923-4646, ext. 218.
It seems as though the developer of Williams Ranch Subdivision will save substantially
if 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,
Gregory T. Simmons
GS/s
Encl.
GTS Development
' 119 E COOPER AVE., #12
I t -
ASPEN, CO 81611
tz
�!Y (970) 920-4418
"4 June 29 1999
Mr George Stranahan
-;P:O. Box 70
Woody Creek, CO 81656
;f
Dear Mr. Stranahan:
am the owner of Lot 1, Silver Lode Subdivision. This lot sits directly to the North of
the Williams Ranch Park Parcel that the Salvation Ditch runs through. The City of
Aspen was proposing to create a water feature for the Williams Ranch/Silver Lode
Subdivision at this location.
understand that this water feature was not approved or developed, because the
Salvation Ditch Company did not want to assume the liability of an open water feature
in a residential neighborhood.
There is nothing that I would like more than a water feature on the park parcel in front
of the home that I am currently developing on Lot 1, Silver Lode.
Is there any way that the Subdivision, the City, and/or I could purchase the water rights
and assume the responsibility for such a water feature.
would greatly appreciate a call back prior to the July 6 Planning and Zoning Meeting
regarding the proposed amendment to the Williams Ranch Subdivision. (Please see
enclosure).
I can be reached at 920-4418 or on my cell 948-5170.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
.l /r'
Gregory Timmons
GS/s
Encl.
rn
OD
co
_0
/ro
am)
July 26, 1999
Chris Bendon
City of Aspen
Planning and Zoning
Dear Chris:
J U L 2 ; 1999
Cu��h�,Uea,
Thank you for taking the time to review the information regarding Williams
Ranch. The nrimar problem 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?
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. I
realize that this list is not in your iurisdiction to enforce, but you should be
aware that the Williams Ranch Joint Y":.:nture does not have a history of
fulfilling theirpromises.
I would be happy to meet you when you go up to Williams Ranch to inspect
the situation. I would like to find out f rom you the city zoning code on
parking space allotment for each unit. Please call meat 925-5060 X155 to
set a time.
Si cerely,
Barbara Owen
, E IV
CHARLES T. BRANDT & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CHARLES T. BRANDT
TRAVIS S. THORNTON
GARRETS. BRANDT
Mr. Chris Bendon
Community Development
130 S. Galena St
Aspen, CO 81611
US Bank Building
420 East Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone 970-925-5196
Fax 970-925-4559
April 15, 1999
Re: Amendment Application for Williams Ranch
Dear Clods:
1999
C. T. BRANDT, PARALEGAL
CuYreg�bc�W�c� .
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" easement was the major issue relating to our amendment,
which we believed such easement will be granted, please schedule us for the May 18th Planning
& Zonin Hearing. If for some reason the Centennial Board won't grant us the easement on
April 19t I will immediately notify you to have this item removed from the agenda. As you
might imagine, scheduling our application for the 18th will avoid further delays in processing our
application.
The staff also suggested that plat amendments to Williams Ranch and Centennial for the
trail would be in order. However, after consideration of all that is involved with plat
amendments, and the nature of this ordinance amendment, we do not believe that an amendment
is warranted. If our amendment is approved to move the trail to the Centennial alignment, the
amending ordinance will spell out that the existing trail is not required to be constructed and the
easement is vacated. This amending ordinance will be of record and a plat amendment will
therefore be an unnecessary expense and delay.
3. Sidewalks. We understand the City's arguments for sidewalks: safer streets and
encouraging pedestrian movement. I will not reiterate our previous arguments as to why
sidewalks in this development will not add significantly to either of those important
considerations. Instead we want to focus on the issue of possible future changes in home
ownership and new families requesting sidewalks from the City if not installed now.
Since WRJV is only obligated to install walking paths on ONE side of the street
(presumably this is only on the "island" created by Silverlode Drive and Williams Ranch Drive)
there is no guarantee that future homeowners won't ask the City to install sidewalks on the other
sides of these streets. Is the City willing to pay for these?
However, a solution might be to amend the Williams Ranch protective covenants to state
that no sidewalks will ever be install unless approved by a number of homeowners sufficient to
change the protective covenants (i.e. more than a simple majority) and paid for by the
homeowners. This would put all future homeowners on notice of the restriction and could not
then effectively petition the City for installation. If the staff would support this approach, please
let me know so we can actively pursue it for the upcoming public hearings.
4. Soil Erosion Controls. We have spoken with Gary Wright, who represents the mine
owners above the subdivision. As he stated in his letter included with the Amendment
Application, Mr. Wright reiterated that WRJV would not be allowed to do any work on the
mining property because of the mining company's permits. We were unable to obtain specific
information concerning the permits' restrictions. For any further information concerning these
restrictions, Gary Wright stated that he could be contacted directly.
In addition, the engineer for Williams Ranch stated that the drainage system was
designed to handle the runoff from the natural and historic condition of the mountain. The
mountain has been left in its natural and historic state, and so the drainage system should not be
an issue.
Please let me know what information the staff will need to then recommend approval of
this amendment.
5. Miscellaneous Issues.
a. Emergency Access off of Spruce Street. The fire department raised the issue
of the installation of the road pavers along the emergency access. We have
requested a letter from the contractor that installed the pavers stating that the
pavers were installed per the manufactures specs. Prior to installation, the specs
were submitted to and approved by the fire department.
WRJV will not install gates across this access, as it has not been shown that since
the installation of the landscaping, that any traffic continues to use this.
b. As Built Drawings. Hans Brucker is preparing the "as builts" that are still
needed. WRJV is still obligated to provide these regardless of the requested
amendments and this should not be used to hold up our requests.
c. Plat Amendments. The staff requested two additional plat amendments:
Locate the drywell, and delete the access easement for Lot 5. The owner of Lot 5
has already stated to V► RJV 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. VaUV 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 WR what is required, if anything. However, any
remaining obligation should be separate and not used to hold up this amendment.
Please let us know as soon as possible if we can get this amendment on the P&Z Agenda
for May 18 as we will need to do the public hearing notices. Also, if we can provide additional
information on any of these issues please detail what you need. Thank you for your assistance.
Yours very truly,
Garret S. Brandt for
Charles T. Brandt & Associates, P.C.
cc: John Markel, via facsimile
Apr-16-99 02:14P SilvevLode Real Estate 970 963-4891 P.01
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,
Rick Pickard
P.O. Box 1090 Carbondale, Colorado 81623 970-963-0377 Pax 963-2247
•• • - - - -
.�.�'
UAM
970 963-4891
P.02
'Boll PWOV L*vW k*' ce"
lrq Pfio.Grade
Actual Finish Grade
paver gridwork after
heavy water down.
This is the actuai'sod'
planting level
Heavy vehicle
sub -base. 3/4' cnished
rock or class 2 road —
base recornmended
1. HEAVY VEHICLE/
FIRE ACCESS ROAD
P'lariting level using std, cut
Send or sandy barn 6/8" food
planting base to receive
paver gridwork
NOTE: if native soil consists of sand (eg. Palm Springs), crushed rock sub -base is not required.
* a' Pion" LffM in C4& Z. LIGHT/LOAD
•• Mipinlnp FI*h trade HIGH USE TRAMC
paNer Grillwork Finish trade
Planting level using special cut
Top of sod after settlings Sand or sandy loam sod
Into cells. No sat fill planting base to receive
required with this n► paver gridwork
application.
Sub -base determined
by traffic load weight.
3/4' crushed rock or.
class 2 road base
recommended
NOTE: If native soil consists of sand (eg. Palm Springs), cashed rock sub -base is not required.
ASSEMBLY & INSTALLATION DATA
A. Remove all foreign top grade structures (le., grass, weeds, rock, wood, wire, etc.)
B. Rototill the entire surface to a depth of 4" to 6%
C. After rototilling, remove all obvious stones, roots, wire, etc.
D. Add desired sand or soil amendments as required. Fine grade and apply
roller pressure to establish a moderate compaction.
NOTE: For heavy vehicle access area specifications, see above illustration.
Generally speaking the fastest assembly technique is to preassemble long individual rows of GP Ilplus, Pavers
along a major lateral of the proposed gridwork (fire lane, parking area, golf cart path, ect.). Continue joining row
after row until gridwork is completed. GP llpius Pavers can be cut to match any curve or Irregular profile. Pavers
can be cut quickly and easily using a skilisaw, handsaw or saber saw.
THE HEAVY -WEIGHT CHAMPION
From: BARTRON CORPORATION
441 South 48th Street. Suite 107
Tempe, AZ 85281
(602) 921-4984 9 (800) 992-9949 • FAX: (602) 829-6730
CALL RIGHTS RESERVED 1993
PRINTED IN USA BARTRON CORPORATION, INC.
A r-16-99 02:15P SilverLode Real Estate 970 963-4891
�h" s AS.
".7
GZ
�.t Boom
among
Ina a
vow
L
90' PLATFORM QUINT, 1990 MODEL, 58,000 LBS.
Manufactured- by Sutphen, Columbus, Ohio.
SPECS
Length: 45',6" Gross Weight: 58,000 Ibs fully loaded.
Width: 8',3" 52,000 Ibs w/o water.
Height: 10',11 " Weight Distribution: 20,000 lbs*ont axle.
Pump efficiency: 1.S00 GPM 38,000 Ibs, rear axle.
Platform Aerial Boors: Extends to 90'. (19 IL 33 w/o water)
• • rn�s +.eao•
9,SOD • 9.SUM
bA00 .
ouMPXXodhw .
" All location photography:
T my'& MM M 30 5 Park Plaza
31=0 moou":� at Irvine Company's (CA)
mpm jamboree Center
Mira
u• . ys
o.san, 9sm •
0" 1 Two Ws uni 9= •
SEP-13-99 12:34 FROM:CHARLES T. BRANDT & ASSOC ID:9709254559
PAGE 2/4
CHARLES T. BRANDT
TRAVIS S. THORN T ON
GARRET S. BRANDT
Im
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
eS
DT.PARALEGAL
I9 �
t ,1
r�
Chris Bendon, Community Development Department via facsimile 920-5-439
MEMORANDUM
CC: John Markel via facsimile
Tom Stevens via facsimil
FROM: Chuck Brandt G
DATE: 09/ 13/99
SUBJECT: Williams Ranch — Proposed Amendments to Williams Ranch Approval Ordinance
Thank for the opportunity Friday afternoon to go over the requested amendments to the William's
Ranch approval Ordinance_ I've spoken mith John Markel, President of the General Partner of the
Williams Ranch Joint Venture ( NX RJ'V") 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. In reading Greg Simmons' letter of June 30`b I
don't believe it offers a response different than that previously received from the
Saltation Ditch Company relating to the water feature_ The Salvation Ditch.
Company has several concerns about the use of its ditch easement for the "crater
feature" and the use of its crater 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 purpose of a having a pond on his lot providing he
pary5 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 Silverlode Drive to 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-13-99 12:35 FROM:CHARLES T. BRANDT & ASSOC ID:9709254559 PAGE
We all agree that the -easter]y segment of the trail easement is over terrain too steep
to construct the trail.
As for the muddle segment between the vertical trail and the Open Space parcel, to
construct a trail in this area would significantly impact the three homes adjacent to
the trail easement and adversely affect their privacy. Furthermore, at the westerly
end of the trail easement, there is a steep bank Because of these considerations,
WRJV requested that it be . excused from constructing this portion of the trail.
However, if the City requires that this segment of the trail be constructed WRJV 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 WRJV to construct a trail over the Park
parcel. The Park was dedicated to the City of Aspen as a public park as part of the
subdivision approval process (See paragraph 5 under Certificate of Ownership and
Dedication for the Williams Ranch Subdivision); any trail over the Park would be the
City's responsibility
3. You indicated that the elimination of the require to construct
the sidewalks is not an issue since Williams Ranch Homeowners Association opposes
construction, they would interfere with the existing drainage ditches throughout the
sub&ision 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 Mutinoo Road. Since this feature is off of
the subdivision property and gn-en Gary Wrighes letter written on behalf of the
adjacent property owners on which any erosion control feature would be
constructed, you did not see the need for WRJV to construct this feature.
Miscellaneous Matters. You raised a couple of additional matters during our discussion.
First, you "asked about the Open Space Parcel indicating that it was unsightly and that the trail
"wasn't much" of a trail. Under the dedication language of the Subdivision Plat (p,�ph 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 'Mons Ranch Homeowners Association and it is the
Associzdon's responsibltyto not only maintain the trail but the Open Parcel as well__.
You also asked why the vertical trail stops about five feet shy of Silverlode Drive where the area is
planted in grass. I've spoken with project manager Tom Stevens about this and he told me that he
believes that the trail must have been landscaped 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 constructed in accordance with the City's requirements
and accepted by Jack Reid, head of the City's streets department. This matter has been discussed
with the Homeowners Association and John Markel has agreed that WRJV will contribute the
majonty of the cost of repair to the Williams Ranch Homeowners Association-
3/4
SEP-13-99 12:35 FROM:CHARLES T. BRANDT & ASSOC ID:9709254559 PAGE 4/4
Lastly, you raised the issue of the condition of the emergency access road into the subdivision off
of North Spruce Street. The emergency access road was also built according to the City's
requirements and accepted by the City. The unsightliness and destruction of the grass which was
planted there by WRJV is the result of the construction of the residence on the lot adjacent to the
emergency access. This, too, is a matter for the Homeowners Association and the owner of the
adjacent lot to resolve and is not a responsibility of WRJV_
Document 1
Exhibit
7" y \
Williams Ranch PUD
l _
-
Av
74s Centennial:
z A,
�, _ ; Smuggler Park
200 0 200 400 Feet
Location Map
q
F-(;tivcw
F E B 4 1999
CHARLES T. BRANDT & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CHARLES T. BRANDT US Bank Building
------ 420 East Main Street, Suite 204
TRAVIS S. THORNTON Aspen, Colorado 81611
GARRETS. BRANDT Telephone 970-925-5196
Fax 970-925-4559
February 4, 1999
Mr. Chris Bendon
Community Development Department
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
ASPEN / PH KIN
cOMMUNITY DEVELOPWIENT
C. T. BRANDT, PARALEGAL
Re: Amendment to Ordinance 52, Series 1994; Williams Ranch Subdivision
Dear Chris:
In response to your pre -application conference summary memorandum and the
amendment application, this letter will provide the needed information and outline the proposed
amendments to the subdivision approval ordinance that Williams Ranch Joint Venture
("Applicant" or "WRJV") is requesting.
Information Requested for Application, As Outlined by Community Development:
1. Proof of ownership: The Williams Ranch Subdivision is now largely developed. Proof of
ownership of the many lots does not pertain to the subject matter of the proposed amendments.
Williams Ranch Joint Venture is the developer of the project and is responsible for its
completion. The proposed amendments are to Ordinance 52 and relate to only four (4) matters
of completion in the final stage of the development.
2. Signed fee agreement: Attached.
3. Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed b, theapplicant which
states the name, address and telephone number of the Applicant's representative: Attached.
4.a. Street address and legal description of the parcel: Attached.
4.b. Names of all owners, mortgages, etc.: See number 1 above.
5. Total deposit for review of the application: Enclosed.
6. 25_copies of the complete application packet and maps: Per Chirs Bendon — Will supply the
number of copies he requests after initial review
7. An 8 '/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen: Attached.
8.a. Site improvement survey Not required, per Chris Bendon.
8.b. CCooDy of most recent plat noting proposed changes: The requested changes are to Ordinance
52, 1994, and do not affect the recorded plats. Therefore a plat showing the proposed changes
will not be of benefit and is not attached.
9. Additional materials as required by the specific review: None requested.
10. A written description of the proposal and an explanation of how the proposed development
complies with the review standards relevant to the development application: This letter contains
the written description of the proposed amendments and the review standards.
11. List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing: Attached.
12. Copies of prior approvals: Attached (Ordinance 52).
Existing Conditions:
The Williams Ranch Subdivision was approved by Ordinance 52, Series 1994 (copy
attached). The Ordinance actually contains two subdivisions, the Silverlode Subdivision, which
consists of 15 lots for free market homes, 11 of which have been developed or are currently
under development, and the Williams Ranch Subdivision, which consists of 35 lots for affordable
housing, that have all been developed. Also, the development includes two public roads, open
space along the Salvation Ditch right-of-way, a public trail and a public trail easement, and a
parcel of land deeded to the City as a passive park.
Proposal:
The Applicant requests four amendments to Ordinance 52, Series 1994, so that the
Applicant can obtain an acknowledgement from the City of Aspen of complete and satisfactory
performance of all the development obligations (Applicant requests that the acknowledgement be
in a recordable form), as follows:
Amendment 1 — Salvation Ditch Water Feature:
Delete the requirement of a water feature as contained in Section 1, Subsection 18 of
Ordinance 52, which states: "The Final Plans shall indicate a small ditch water feature
along the Salvation Ditch alignment to maintain the historic character of this area."
An enclosed portion of the Salvation Ditch flows under a short section of the Williams
Ranch Subdivision, including several residential lots, in the southwestern corner of the
development. Prior to this project, the Salvation Ditch was an open ditch that transported
irrigation water. The Developer and the Ditch Company agreed that the Developer would
enclose the ditch under the subdivision property so that open, running water would not run
through the subdivision.
The Salvation Ditch Company's right-of-way is their property. The Ditch Company has
indicated that it does not want any further encumbrances on top of the ditch, so the Applicant is
not able to build the required water feature. Also, the Ditch Company will not supply water to
run through the "ditch", so the water feature would be dry. (See letter from George Stranahan,
President, Salvation Ditch Co., attached to this letter as Exhibit "A".) Nor does the Applicant
own any water rights which could be utilized for this purpose. Further, several residents of
Williams Ranch Subdivision have expressed reservations about having such a feature next to
their homes. When it rains, the dry ditch might hold water and be an attractive nuisance to
children living near by. See the letter from Gary Wright, President of the Williams Ranch
Homeowner's Association, attached hereto as Exhibit "B".
We consider the deletion of this section to be an insubstantial amendment. The Salvation
Ditch Company will not allow this feature to be built. Further, this is not a typical requirement
for other developments. While it is understandable that the City would like for historic features
of this type be recognized in some way, it cannot be reasonably accomplished in this case. If the
Applicant is asked to relocate the water feature elsewhere, it will further defeat the purpose of
having the feature. One suggested location is slightly north of historic ditch location. However,
this would require agreements from the current homeowners, and put the "ditch" in the middle of
many backyards. And there is still the problem of obtaining any water to run through the water
feature.
We plan to include this amendment in the public hearing and amendment process, but
would prefer that you agree that this is an impossible requirement, and can be deleted through
the insubstantial amendment process prior to the public hearings.
Amendment 2 — Sidewalks:
Delete the requirement of sidewalks within the development as contained in Section 1,
Subsection 2.b. of Ordinance 52, which 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 solel 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
driveway, it will block most, if not all, of the sidewalk. This will cause pedestrians to walk in the
street, which defeats the purpose of having sidewalks. Also, the sidewalks would be set in five
feet from the street, forcing residents that have to dodge parked cars to cross one or more strips
of a homeowners yard. Further, many residents have planted trees and other landscaping in the
right-of-way which would be lost if sidewalks are constructed.
Williams Ranch has one interior loop with only one road for regular ingress and egress.
This in not a project that has any thru streets. While pedestrian safety is always a great concern,
the reality in this case is that there is minimal vehicular traffic during most of the day, and the
vast majority of traffic is by Williams Ranch residents. As noted previously, this is a compact
subdivision, where walking anywhere within the subdivision, to the RFTA bus stop or local trails
is not a long distance. Combined with the minimal traffic, residents can use the streets safely for
their short walks through the subdivision to the existing trails. Further, if sidewalks are
constructed, the residents will most like not use them due to cars blocking the path, as mentioned
above. In this situation, the Applicant believes that the addition of sidewalks will not
significantly encourage residents to walk to town, nor does the lack of sidewalks significantly
deter residents from walking.
With walkways on only one side of the roads, pedestrians will have to cross the streets to
use them. With the short distances to be covered, few residents will take the extra walk out of
their way to use the one sidewalk, especially when they have to walk around cars in driveways
every 50 or so feet. Further, the City, HPC, developer and residents agree that concrete
sidewalks are not desired for this project, but a suitable hard surface substitute that can withstand
our harsh winters and spring thaws has not been found. The sidewalks will be in constant
disrepair, further discouraging their use.
In addition to the practical considerations above, the residents of Williams Ranch do not
wish to have the sidewalks installed. A recent resolution against sidewalks was passed
unanimously by the homeowners association. See the letter from Gary Wright, president of the
association, concerning this issue, attached hereto as Exhibit `B".
It should be noted that the Applicant has completed the sidewalk from the subdivision to
Mollie Gibson Park and down to Smuggler Mountain Road, as was required by this provision.
Finally, if the council agrees that a sidewalk is not practical or useful for this subdivision,
then the sidewalk around the cul-de-sac, required in Section 1, Subsection 14.i. of Ordinance 52,
should also be deleted. This sidewalk would serve no practical purpose as it would not connect
to any other sidewalk, and the same technical problems of constructing this as stated above, also
apply here.
Amendment 3 — Soil Erosion Control on Old Mining Road:
Amend Section 1, Subsection 14.b. of Ordinance 52, which states: "Soil erosion controls
and the debris interceptor shall be indicated on the final plat drawings. Construction
drawings for each phase of work shall be designed by a licensed engineer and indicate
appropriate runoff control measures. The plans shall be submitted and approved by the
Engineering Department, prior to any earthmoving activities." 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 WRJV. It is the
opinion of the Applicant and John Worcester, City Attorney, that the trail would better serve the
community if it is located on the Centennial property, rather than within the trail easement shown
on the Williams Ranch plat, in order to avoid having to cut into a steep hillside, and placing a
pedestrian trail close to or in a resident's back yard.
Review Standards: Amendment to an Approved Planned Unit Development (PUD)
1. A change in the use or character of the development: Not Applicable. Williams
Ranch Subdivision is an affordable housing development, and the amendments requested do not
alter this.
2. An increase by greater than three (3) percent in the overall coverage of structures on
the land: Not Applicable.
3. Any amendment that substantially increases trip generation rates of the proposed
development, or demand for public facilities: Not applicable to requested amendments number 1
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 proj ect's
original approval or which requires granting a further variation from the project's approved use
or dimensional requirements:
Amendments 1 and 2 would change conditions contained in the original approval,
notably the elimination of sidewalks and elimination of the "water feature" along the
Salvation Ditch.
Amendment 3 would change a representation made by Stephen Albouy to put in soil
erosion controls and a debris interceptor when his old mining road on Smuggler
Mountain was regraded.
Amendment 4 would clarify the responsibilities of WRJV to build a trail from the Mollie
Gibson Park to the open space parcel, and move the trail to a more feasible and accessible
location for the area.
Conclusion:
Applicant respectfully requests these amendments to Ordinance 52, Series 1994, from
City Council. These amendments are in the best interest of the residents of Williams Ranch, and
will enable the Applicant to receive final approval of the subdivision from the City.
Respectfully submitted,
r67
Garret S. Brandt for
Charles T. Brandt & Associates, P.C.
Exhibit "A"
SALVATION DITCH COMPANY
BOX 70 WOODY CREEK, CO 81656
Williams Ranch Joint Venture
C/o C.T Brandt & Associates acg"i iZ lad
420 East Main St. #204
Aspen, CO 81611
The Salvation Ditch Company understands that City made a condition of approval that
you construct a "small ditch water feature along the Salvation Ditch alignment to
maintain the historic character of this area."
For reasons of our effective management of the ditch as it is in the pipe, and our
unwillingness to manage such as water feature the Ditch Company will not approve such
a use of either our easement or our water. We like to be good community members, but
this is beyond our capacities.
Sincerely,
'S.., r4N,6*
George Stranahan
President, Salvation Ditch Company
r . I
Exhibit «B))
/. .. �.
•
,� ...., • . , ihY INr
t;.
�--- �--
rWR1C"WHT
CC
& A►DGER
LAW PARTNERSHIP. I I P
101 NORTH MII I IHEh'1. 6UIT'F: 108
ASPEN, i:01 JCNtAI)O 81611
GAFiY A. WR![-a! !T, r r.
ASPEN TELEM40Nh' pY4%gV.F -M2tr
oAalur YI{IJ•.rnr,nM ,rsrsw>,�.actiw•
'-'~ •� VwN�tl.:
Pwi JP J. O'CONNI;LL"
A1,,) Ff�f H. ADCEht, P.cr.'
rMVMIIX:
dmuCt 9. Mca-ARTY
CAYALJNA CRUZ
17 November 1998
••'" "i° naMmtx' ��
RLORICA 1iAh
A1.60 AUMI I I LU i U
TUXAS AND LOUISIANA RIAN
Ms. Amy Margerum
City Manager - City of Agwn
- -
'� 1:30 Scnitb Galena Stmet
_
____........_... _ •- --
Aspen, Colorado 81611
_
1
Rc_ Williams R.aneb
i
Homeowner's Association
i
Dear Amy. •
I am writing on behalf of the Williamu JkLinch Homcowncr's Association as a follow up to
certain resolutions that were unanimously a3pprovcd at a rec ont 1-lomcowner's Association .meeting
attended by more than 30 of the 35 homeowner~ And members. 1 am currently serving as the
president and as the chairman of the homcu)wncrs board of directors.
I have been informed by John D. Markel, pm-sidcmt of Mark IV, Inc. the matiaginla I trtn4r
of the Williams Ranch Joint Venture, that the City has askod, or shall I say rcquircd, the histallation
of sidewalks to be located can the; west side of Silverl.odc l3rive wid dim south side of Williams
Ranch Drive to bt; located adjacent to the deed restricted homes. We respectfully request that you
advise us what course of action we must take to gussurc that thh; do= not take place. liven the
homeowners who axc not directly impacted, (e.g. the sidewalk would not be located on their
properties), were supportive of the concept that nn sidcwalk br, insttallud. I am available to attend
a City Counsel Meeting to further this Conn if that would be advisable.
In addition, I huvc been advi:aCd by Mr. Markel that a "water feature" is also being required
for the common Caren which belongs to our I Iomeowner?s Aswc;iutiun. Again, particularly. based on
the lack of any water riglils out Of the Salvation Ditch being; available to snake this a " Wgt" water
fc;aturc, we Strom ly oppose th is ide'd quid would recluest that the City simply require native landscapu
vegetation on this open space area.
Further, we believe it would be gta pilul lu both our guests as well as, ether citi7.cns, to advise
them that our little neighborhuml. bus no through streets by providing a "no outlet•" sign preferably
placed at the i>ntterscct.ion ul"5i1vcrLodt; Drive with Smuggler Mountain It.oad. l am informed that
nu,ncrous lust individuals drive, bicycle ur hike around the Williars ltaneh sod Silveri ode
Subdivisions in an obviously h.tile attempt to hike up Smuggler Mountain, Likewise, if the; street
sign for SilverLodo Drivu could be put back up this would be great.
<::�wtu3wo�-cw�
. 4 -4 Al i
WR1(xHT & AIDGER
Ms. Amy Mar&=m
16 November 1998
Re: Williams Ranch Homeowner's Association
Page Z
I am also writing to confirm that, since .a11 roadwork hng- been , completed pursuant to the - -- - _--
Subdivision Improvements Agreement to at Icwt the standard required by the City, if not a higher
standard forthe interiorroads, (SilverLode Drive and Williams )mmch Drivrz) the City is responnsibIc
for snow plowing and you will assure that in fact will talw- pluou.
Again, thank you for your cooperation. I think we can all be proud of the final result of the
deed restricted unit;; at Williams Ranch. It is my pleasure to servo as the President at this time turd
work. with my neighbors for the good of our (x)mmunity and neighborhood.
Sincerely,
V�lI2IcTtlrr �• ADGER, LLl'
By:yGyr
_ ___A. Wright
GAW/cc
cc: Mark IV, Inc,
GAWRI LANamerum,001
;L
a
Exhibit "C"
, fi t! 1 � 1, 4 ' 1.1 141 ►►' - rl 1 -0, tip —
rK
I -
W R_r ; ntr & A D G` H R
LAW PARTNER sI• IR LIP
Y111 NUiYI11 MII1 E111411 1. 6LIJIF ,UG
Adi111 N. GUWRA110 /+11111
GARY A. wRIGHT, Ru.
AM 111 C111ION1 ' wyO 02D 1;6?'.i
ALU04 11. ADGL" -C. h.�:••
OAGALT 'rrt i*Hitspa • n7n•►a•...M..w►
i A(:.41MI1 1• Wei ty?►ar.?b3
CATALINA GRUZ
16 November] 9iR
• AI mn A111 mvri TQ
TCXAG AND 1 t*31JIVANA BAR
John D. Markel, President
Mark IV, Inc. Managing partner
Williams Ranch Joint Venture
3214 CamWilc Drive
Santa Barbara, California 9-1109
UH (.:UUNUF-L'
ri IIIjPJ. A'r:r)NN1 I t ••
HIRICE B. MCI AN 1 Y
'• ALGO AI1Mn•rco To
11,01111 M KM
Re: Pmposed grading to Wright & Preusch Mining, I.id. im-operty
also known a.,4 dia Smuggler Mine
Dear John: ,s
I stun writing m the attorney of Wright & Prcuseh Mining, Ltd. in ,-cply to your loiter dated
October 171, 1998. You have requested access to Wright & Preusch's property so that the Williams
Ranch Joint Venture; can comple;to certain road grading as indicated on a portion of the subdivision
plat that ypu sent to me.:. You will need to make whatever armngcniernts rscc:essary to not perform
such work. As we till know, ,significant time has paswd since; the plat was approved and during the
intervening time, in no small part as a result of the oblipitions Wright & Prottsch Mining, Ltd. has
to the 1✓11viromilelital PIX)tec;tion Agency lu rstnuit to itti llgreetnent on l_'onsew filed with the 1-cdc pal
Court, this grading csni not take. pinc e. T
This ureu of our property is unmodified wid contains natural vegetation that should not be
disturbed because it may interfere with our obligations to the EPA. Such work may also he in
violation of the bond Loki permit Wright & Preuseh Mining, I Ad. has with the State of Colorado.
Ptcase colsrni to me in writing at your earliest reasonablu convenience that you will take
whatever action is nc,c,c,: nary to assure ihnt this grading wi I1 not take, Iftec and that you have the, sign
off from the necessary City or County, officials so that we know that this issue is closed. Please
contact me if you ncW— tiny further Clarification or have questions.
SinGgt'r�ly.
WR1( HT & ADGER, s. x
BY: w.
(ta®rA,Wright
CAWAx,
" G:%w&r-LTD%M&tkcl.UQ 1
ECL
�r
Q
• . j , � 1 ! / / .ice . •''' • ��
Lai
X04
/ %• p 1• 1
it
Erf
.00
, :.._.�-.ter .• , _
1 ►.•
kOnCD
1 _
10
' , G ! / r• .\ , / \ , D / ;ice
lit-
44
,
it
► / J �.1 \\ t V
C.
JA
it
r
It
It
It
r- • � - -ram �-:� ��\ � 1• � � `\��
at
�'
LAND USE APPLICATIr"I
PROJECT:
Name: WILLIANS RANCH & SILVERLODE SUBDIVISIO
Location: Plat recorded in Pi tki n CwInty ;i
(Indicate street address, lot & block number,
APPLICANT:
on where appropriate)
Name: WILLIXIS RXIC111 JOIIT VENTURE
c/o Gnar es I. Brandt Associates i
Address: 4"3 E. 'lain Street, Suite 204
Phone #: Asi)en, Colorado 81611 i
—970-925-5196
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name: Charles T. Brandt
Address: same a S a -,oleo
Phone #:
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
Conditional Use
Conceptual PUD
Conceptual Historic Devt.
Special Review
Final PUD (& PUD Amendment)
Final Historic Development
Design Review Appeal
Conceptual SPA
Minor Historic Devt.
GMQS Allotment
Final SPA (& SPA Amendment)
Historic Demolition
GMQS Exemption
Subdivision
Historic Designation
ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream
❑
Subdivision Exemption (includes
Small Lodge Conversion/
Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff,
condominiumization)
Expansion
Mountain View Plane
Lot Split
Fl
Temporary Use
Other:
Lot Line Adjustment
_,__.__u_:
Text/Map-Amendment---°-
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
SEE ATTACHED LETTER
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
SEE ATTACHED LETTER
Have you attached the following?
® Pre -Application Conference Summary
Attachment #l, Signed Fee Agreement
Response to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form•• Wk
Response to Attachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents
� I Response to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents
E] Response to Attachment #5, Review Standards for Your Application
FEES DUE: $ f�
ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Applications Fees
(Please Print Clearly)
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and Ali 11 i amc Ranch joint Veni-nre
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. APPLICANT has .submitted to CITY an application for Williams Ranch a n d
Si 1 verl ode Subdivisions (hereinafter, THE PROJECT).
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 43 (Series of 1996)
establishes a fee structure for land use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a
condition precedent to a determination of application completeness.
3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed
project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing
the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to allow
APPLICANT to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be
billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining
great cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are
necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of
recovering its full costs to process APPLICANTS application.
4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete
processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to
enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project
approval, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision.
D. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the City's waiver of its right to
collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an
initial deposit in the amount of $ 2270.00which is for 12* hours of Planning staff time, and
if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings
to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including
post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date.
APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of
processing. *plus one (1) hour of
CITY OF ASPEN
.,Oie Ann Woods
Community Development
Acting Director
City of Aspen
Engineering at $110.00.
APPLICANT
Signatur '
Dat . Octo 21 1998
Printed Name:
Mailing Address:
John Ma rkAi
Charles T. Brandt & Assoc.
420 E. Main St, Suite 204
Amen, M 816511
December 2, 1998
Community Development Office
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Information Requested in Application for Ordinance Amendment
To Whom It May Concern:
The application requests the following information in a letter signed by the Applicant.
Name, address and telephone number of the Applicant:
Williams Ranch Joint Venture
Mark IV, Inc., General Partner
John Markel, President
3214 Campanil Drive
Santa Barbara, CA 93109
805-687-8255
Name, address and telephone number of Applicant's authorized representative:
Charles T. Brandt
Garret S. Brandt
Charles T. Brandt & Assoc. PC
420 E. Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-5196
Si
Presid8 t, Mark IV, Inc.
General Partner WRJV
,-- V ER
°L SUBDIVISION VISION
(JI V I S I p N'--.__._ r and d ,/ILL I
IN THE AIMS RAN
E SE I/ �H
.. 4 of S
84 W. ---- -_- - E C TI O N
PITKIN
WILLIAMS R - COUNT Y
South ANCH SUBDIVISION is 1 C O L O R A D O
Range 84 W - of located as follows: the 6th Principal'
the SEI/4 of
Pal Meridian Section T, Township 10
Beginning and 1s more
the northwesterly northwesterly fully described
Parcel y corner y corner of Williams
whence the °f the SILVER Ranch Subdivision
center 1/4 LODE SUBDIVISION AND WILLIAMSidentical
1. Thence S 59.0 corner of Section 7 with
3. E. 274, 7 '
2• Thence S 12.1 5 56 0 bears N 88•53'34" yy RANCH SUBDIVISION
Thence 25,0 W, 4.00 311.35 feet,
4• Thence S 60•25,45" W, feet;
5• ThenceSoutheast
9 27 05 w 180.21 feet.
southeaster! We 43-3fi feet; i
the northeast y 90.94 feet alon
6, chord bearing With a radius of 9 the arc
Thence S 6ng 53•08'26• E 7 0.00 feet °f ° circular
Thence 06' " E. 2.. feet• . ° delta of 130•I6curve concave to
southeasterly 94•81 feet; 45 and a r
Ssouthwest 3 33' with o radius 195.95 feet
27" adius o f along the arc
8• Thence E. 189.0 211.49 feet, a delta of 5of a 3.r 05,r11" j
southeaster) 2 feet; curve concave
the southwest withy 198.00 feet and a chord b the
chord be S a radius o f along the arc of caring
9• 211.49 feet a circular
Thence S 13.Op• 39•50'04" E. a delta of 53•38'24 curve f0. Thence 51" E. 1,3190.85 feet; concave to
southeaster! 5•32 feet; and o
the east with y 129.29 feet along
bearing S • a• radius of 896.14fee
9 the arc
I
IL Thence 1 a 08 50" E, 129.IT feet of a circular
southeaster! feet; ° delta of 08•►5'58" curve concave to
the west with y 114.84 feet along and a chord
bearing S a radius of 17 g the arc s
12. Thence S 16 0 59?36 29" 4.79 feet °f ° circular
13. Thence E. 112 7 a delta of 37• 38 curve concave to
southwe 9 feet;i
southwesterly " W' S8'SZ feet • and a chord
the northwest y IT.7► feet '
bearing S 1 with a radius along the arc
14• Thence 5. 57' p2. of 569.23 feet of ° circular
northwe W, 17.71 feet; a delta of curve concave to
the north sterlY 35.73eet Ol 46'
chord West with a radius of °ion 57`
15- bearing 9 the arc of o circular and ° chord
Thence northwg N 25.51'56` 25.00 feet, o delta of •
esters W 32.77 curve concave to
the northeast y 92.56 feet feet; 81 53•28- and a
chord bearing Nith a radius o f along the arc
16. Thence N •23'0 59•42.i8" 373.14 feet °f ° circular
IT. Thence N 3 3 W 92.32 feet; °delta of 14•i2curveandncOVe to
57 " E. 125.75 feet; 44
4 13 " W. 100 °
Containing 2.30 feet to t
Platted and 5'926 acres he Point
final subdivided the
ore or less °f Beginning,
as cribs
Property t in rider the name and a into Lots described
above have b he Che a style of WILLIAMS through 36 plus y these press
Aspen, Colorado RANCH SUBDIVISION, Parcel
Presents laid out,
►• Does hereby accept °rid' °s shown on this
2• Does hereby pt the responsibility Subdivision of real
Y dedicate thoseponsibllity for the
as easements Portions o f t completion of
Purposes shown
page 3 he said real pro required improve
necessaryn thereon, odd Page 4 of this Perty which merits;
structures to the does herebyPlat as non- are indicated
the easements entity grant the exclusive
3. Does he are established; Y reSPOnsible for right to install easements for the
Does
Y dedicate Williams Providing the and maintain
Public for anch Subdivision Ranch Drive services
0 4 for which
4. Does hereby use °s ° street. as shown hereon t 0.00 foot wide right-of-way
Y grant Owner will ° the City of Aspen
Easement No, a non-exciusive construct the Pen on behaf within
other similaremergency access initial �mProvements; °f the
5• Does hereby and emergency' o to
°11 police, sheriff, epsement
Y dedicate the agencies or fire over
City of Williams Persons; Protection Reciprocal
6• Does Ranch ambulance and
hereby
for use os a Pork p
Does
hreby dedicate Public park arcel, to the
encumbering .11 ° non-exciusive annexation m Lot 36 easement to the T• Does hereby agreement, Section36,Pen Space, which Public
non- Y dedicate to 4.12.4, page 8, easement for recreation
exclusive p the City of As 'nay be revoked PurPOses '
edestrain Trail pen for the Pursuant to
S. Does Easement as use of the public
the
hereby dedicate N. shown on the , the 10
ease ment for to the Salvation A Plat, wide
reasonabt ditch mainten Ditch Com
9. Does Y necessary from °rice, repair, and replacement
a non-
hereby grant time to time Placement as shown on. the plot
across the heir guests °i sots within the sub ' as maY• be
Guest •Parkin and invitee di�fsion
Exec �1` g Easements s for ingress, non-exclusive
Executed this O as shown. egress easements
day of °rid Parking over and
Q rG
1995.
a SILVERLOL _ SUBDIVISION and .✓ILLIAMS RANCH
SUBDIVISION IN THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 7, T. 10
R. 84 Wei 6th P.M., PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
The SILVERLODE
SUBDIVISION
is located in the SEI/4 of Section
7, Township 10 j
South, Range 84
West of the
6th Principal Meridian, and Is more
fully described
as follows:
Beginning at the
northwesterly
corner of SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION
identical with the
northwesterly corner of WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION whence the
center 1/4 corner of
Section 7 bears
N 88053'34"
W, 311.35 feet;
j
I. Thence S 88653'34" E. 658.51 feet;
2. Thence S 331146*270 E. 439.96 feet;
3. Thence S 32'32'35" E. 102.19 feet;
4. Thence S 00'00'56" W. 254.21 feet;
5. Thence S 00*00*56" W, 259.42 feet;
6. Thence S 55014'43" W, 241.60 feet;
7. Thence N 34013'57" W, 347.46 feet;
8. Thence N 84023'03" E, 125.75 feet;
9. Thence southeasterly 92.56 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to
the northeast with a radius of 373.14 feet, a delta of 14012'45" and a
chord bearing S 59*42*18" E. 92.32 feet;
10. Thence southeasterly 35.73 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to
the southwest with a radius of 25.00 feet, a delta of 81053'28" and a
chord bearing S 25051*56" E. 32.77 feet;
II. Thence northwesterly 17.71 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to
the northeast with a radius of 569.23 feet, a delta of 01'46'57" and a chord
bearing N 15*57*02' E. 17.71 feet;
12. Thence N 16'59'36" E, 58/53 feet;
13. Thence northwesterly 114.84 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to
the west with a radilus of 174.79 feet, a delta of 37'38'40" and a chord
bearing N 02*27*29" W, 112.79 feet;
14. Thence northwesterly 129.29 feet along the arc of a circular curve- concave to
the east with a radius of 896.14 feet, a delta of 080. 15' 58" and a chord
bearing N 17' 08' 50" W, 129.17 feet.
15. Thence N 13'00'51" W. 135.32 feet;
16. Thence northwesterly 198.00 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to
the southwest with a radius of 211.4,9 feet, a delta of 53038'24" and a
chord bearing N 39'50'04" W. 190.85 feet;
17. Thence northwesterly 195.95 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave
to the southwest with a radius of 211.49 feet, a delta of 53' 05' 11' and
a chord bearing N 39' 33' 27" W. 189.02 feet;
18. Thence N 66'06'03" W, 94.81 feet;
19. Thence northwesterly 90.94 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to
the northeast with a radius of 40.00 feet, a delta of 130.16*05" and a
chord bearing N 53'08'27" W, 72.58 feet;
20. Thence N 69.27'06" E. 43.36 feet;
21. Thence N 80#25-05" E. 180.21 feet;
22. Thence N 12*10#220 E, 4.00 feet;
23. Thence N 59005'56" W, 274.70 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Containing 6.848 acres more or less, as described above, have by these presents
laid out, platted and subdivided the some into Lots I through 15 as shown on this
final plot under the name and style of SILVERLODE SUBDIVSION, a subdivision of real
property in the City of Aspen, Colorado. and;
I. Does hereby accept the responsibility of the completion of the required
improvements;
2. Does hereby dedicate those portions of the said real property which are
Indicated as easements on page 3 and page 4 of this plat as easements for the purposes
shown thereon, and does hereby grant the right to install and maintain necessary
structures to the entity responsible for providing the services for which the
easements are established.
3. Does hereby dedicate SiiverLode Drive, a 40.00 foot wide right-of-way, within
SiiverLode Subdivision as shown hereon to the City of Aspen on behalf of the public
for use as a street. Owner will construct initial improvements;
4. Does hereby grant a non-exclusive emergency access easement over Reciprocal
Easements No.l and No. 2 to all police, sheriff, fire protection. ambulance and
other similar emergency agencies or persons;
5. Does hereby grant a twenty (20) foot wide non-exclusive sanitary sewer easement on the property
line between SiiverLode Subdivision Lots 7 and 8 for the benefit of Parcel E and the North
Portion of Parcel C, The Pride of AAAs��pe��n,,� M.S. 7883 AM.
Executed this -60 1N day of 1995.
S.,.
4 +, u t •
ca
Oel
8600
luld
` �_./ / �I �1+� �"� it •' `� • I'.• i • • • o.� '�• • ♦ �• orat
• • •
.:.
•• � '�l•{' I . _mil % ��'1 :/f ��; f •• � •1 � � • � �
�� 1 '�- l • • • • • i/
•
. ?./ tam
)'tp
/y ;-._ • .., ,•.
ME
It '' 0� •. r •J••0 0
r
49• 1 \
• �^ ' �/1�Ti'; :.�,e•��t •rl. /J%•j� � .. •�r :—•fir v
Are
t / I
war
♦ • . 11i -0
• N r /
•I/ �• C • • • • •• •dd
• ,• L ///� ���/ ~/ / / / ICJ
PG l Of' 134
i
ORDINANCE NO. j
E (SERIES OF 1994)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN GRANTING FINAL REVIEW
FOR SUBDIVXSION, DUDRANCHEPROJECTNTXEMPTI
0 CONSTRUCT
AND VESTED RIGHTS FOR THE WILLIAMS
35 DEED RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS D
15 FREE MARKET LOT ON A PARCEL LOCATED IN SECTION 7 r
TOWNSHIP 14 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE bTH PM
WHEREAS, the. Smuggler Consolidated Mines Corporation
("Applicant"), represented by Tom Stevens and Gary Wright,
submitted an application to the Planning office requesting approval
of the Williams, Ranch development which consists of- 35 deed
restricted affordable housing units, 15 free market lots, Planned
Unit Development, Subdivision, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption,
Annexation, 8040 Greenline Review, and Special Review; and
WHEREAS, the Williams Ranch property is located immediately
adjacent to the City of Aspen in the AF-1 zone district of Pitkin
County; End
WHEREAS, the Applicant did file on December 12, 1991 with the
City Clerk of the City of Aspen a Petition for Annexation to annex
the subject property to the City of Aspen, and
WHEREAS, on January 13, 1992, City Council did adopt
Resolution No. 4, Series of 1992, finding substantial compliance
with Section 31-12-107(1), C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution No. 12, Series of
1992, at its regular meeting on March 23, 1994, did find and
determine, following a public hearing, said Petition for Annexation
to be in substantial compliance with ^31-12-104 and 31-12-105,
C.R.S, and
84
381193 B-780 P-366 05/09/95 058P, PIC OF
WHEREAS,, the Applicant and the city of Aspen have consented
to that certain Annexation Agreement dated 1994; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the
Applicant's request at a public hearing on September 13, 1994, at
which time the Commission recommended approval to City Council for
the Subdivision, Rezoning, PUD, GMQS Exemption,, and Annexation.
The Commission also granted 8040 Greenline review and Special
Review for parking and open space, subject to conditions in
Planning and Zoning commission Resolution 94- and
WHEREAS,, the Commission voted 4-0 to recommend approval of
this project to City Council; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-7-1004 Subdivision, section
24-7-901 Planned Unit Development, and Section 24-8-104 GMQS
Exemption, City Council may approve the Applicant's request; and
WHEREAS, City Council considered the Applicant's request at
a duly noticed public hearing on November 14, 1994 at which time
Council determined that this project complies with the applicable
requirements of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, City Council has found that a multi -year development
allotment for one free market unit pursuant to Section 24-8-103(D)
is appropriate to accommodate this project; and
WHEREAS, the approvals granted herein are specifically
conditioned upon city council approval of said Petition for
Annexation by ordinance duly adopted.
NOW, THEREFORE, B9 IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
2
7t:►0 ;-:� ..3fi f o5/09I95 02:58p pG 18 OF 84
Section 1: Pursuant to Section 24-7-1004 Subdivision, Section 24-
7-901 Planned Unit Development, and Section 24-8-104 GMQS
Exemption, City Council does hereby approve the applicant's request
subject to the terms and conditions of said Annexation Agreement
and upon adoption by -the City Council of an Annexation Ordinance
annexing the subject property to the City of Aspen; and subject
further to the following conditions:
1. The Zoning Enforcement officer has recommended the following
conditions of approval that shall be adhered to by the
applicant:
a. Building envelopes on the free market lots shall contain.
all development and disturbance proposed For those lots.
Natural vegetation shall be maintained outside the
designated building envelopes. This condition shall be
noted on the Final Plat.
b. No development shall be permitted to encroach into any
easement areas identified on the Final Plat. This
condition shall be noted on the Final Plat.
C. Prior to the development of each lot, a separate
topographical and boundary survey with corner monuments
shall be prepared by a registered land surveyor _and
submitted with the building permit.
d. The free market units shall provide one parking space
per bedroom.
e. Allowed floor area square footages shall be based on the
lot areas identified on the Final Plat.
f. Pitkin County's definition for calculating height and
determining natural grade shall be Lised for this project-
9- Lots 3 - 15 have received a PUD variance for the front_
yard that.addresses the requirement of Section 24-3--101
Yard (A) (5) , which permits driveways or cut slabs greater
than 30 inches below grade within the required yards.
h. All heights and FAR calculations shall be verified when
3
f
working drawings are submitted to the Building Department
for building -permit review. The drawings included in the
application packet do not contain adequate detail for
this level of review.
2. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions
regarding pedestrian areas:
a. The Final Plat shall identify pedestrian easements on all
lots that are adjacent to roads.
b. Hard surface pedestrian walking areas shall be placed on
one side of all roads within the subdivision and along
one side of the main access road across Mollie Gibson
park to Smuggler Mountain Road.
C. All hard surface pedestrian walking areas shall be
maintained in a suitable walking condition on a year
round basis.
d. The Covenants and approvals shall specify whether the
Homeowner's Associations or individual property owners
are responsible for snow removal and maintenance of these
walkways.
3. The applicant shall complete an ACSD Collection System
agreement, and shall comply with ACSD Rules, Regulations, and
Specifications, prior to the issuance of any building permits.
4. The following conditions of approval from the Environmental
Health Department, shall be adhered to by the applicant:
a. The applicant shall adhere to the fugitive dust control
plan filed in the Environmental Health Department.
b. The applicant shall file a fireplace/woodstove permit for
each structure with the Environmental Health Department,
prior to the issuance of any building permits.
C. Construction hours shall be limited to 7:00am to 10:O0pm
to minimize construction noise on neighboring properties.
5. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions as
they relate to the Housing Office:
a. The applicant may choose the first time purchasers of the
affordable housing units, as long as each purchaser
complies with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines
and each purchaser has begn approved by the APCHA.
b. All resale affordable housing units shall come under the
jurisdiction of the APCHA and its guidelines.
4
�,� 119 ti, A -ray r -389 05/O9195 02 : �8P � G ^O OF 84
C. The Master Deed Restriction shall be filed and approved
by the Housing Office within 180 days of City Council
approval of the project.
d. Ten of the Resident Occupied "RO" units shall comply with
ith
the RO requirement for the Clty of Aspen
11n the Affordable
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office994
Housing Guidelines. The remaining five RO units shall
meet all the requirements of the Housing Guidelines,
except there will be no asset or income limitations for
these residents.
6. The turnaround at the intersection of Freesilr approval
Road and
Williams Ranch Drive shall be redesigned subject
of the City Engineer and the Fire Chief. Alternately, the
applicant shall install residential sprinkler systems in all
residential units.
7. Lots 1 - 15 shall have a residential sprinkler system
installed and these shall be indicated on the building permit
drawings.
Development on Lot 15 is limited to eighteen feet in
height
8 as calculated y
(plus five feet to the mid -point),
county's Land Use Code. All other lots are subject to thea25
foot height limitation of the City of Aspen,
calculated using Pitkin County's definition for height.
9. The water pump serving the upper lots shall have adequate
records of pump maintenance and servicing available for
inspection by the Fire Marshall.
1p. The emergency access road shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide
and maintained in a passable condition on a year round basis.
The improvements agreement, declarations, and covenants shall
specify that snow removal will be provided by the Homeowner's
Associations for the emergency access rOe
d.
11. The allowable floor area for the free market els trial l nIf
exceed 90% of what is permitted in the Aone
the proposed floor area for any
free market parcel is over 8 0%
of the permitted floor area for the AH zone district, then a
Review by
the Planning and Zoning
complete 8040 Greenline
any
Commission shall be required prior to the issuance of
In the So4o Greenli
buildingpermits for that lot. focussed Review
shall e on
process, particular attention
requirements 7 and 8, which provide for thepreservation of
the mountain as a scenic resource and design to blend into the
open character of the mountain.
12. Lots 1 - 15 shall have an engineer evaluate the site
5
38 ]. 19 K-•78k- FI 90 05/09 / 95 021- : 58P FIG OF 84
conditions to recommend foundation design, prior to building
permit review on each parcel.
13. A licensed engineer shall submit a report addressing the
foundation design for the affordable housing units, prior to
the issuance of any building permits.
14. As discussed in the referral comments dated August 24, 1994
from the Engineering Department, the applicant shall comply
with the following:
a. The free market units shall be required to provide for
on -site stormwater detention, prior to the issuance of
any building permits.
b. Soil erosion controls and the debris interceptor shall
be indicated on the Final Plat drawings.
designedConstruction
drawings for each phase of work shall
by a
licensed engineer and indicate appropriate runoff control
measures. The plans shall be submitted and approved by
the Engineering Department, prior to any earthmoving
activities.
• c . The applicant shall dedicate public then
orth
w y or an
property
easement for Spruce Street along
boundary on Lots 1 - 4 and provide a seven foot easement
for snow storage along these lots.
d. All access roads shall be a minimum of 20 foot driving
width. This also applies to the "driveway" called
• Williams Court.
e. The "grass over paver blocks" or similar system for the
emergency access lane off Spruceemergency shall be designed
cle
and engineered to handle gencY response
loads. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Fire Marshall, prior to the issuance of any building
permits.
f. The applicant shall submit construction drawings and
specifications, stamped by a registered engineer, and
obtain written permission from Engineering prior to any
road work, utility construction, or grading/drainage
construction.
9. Prior to signing the Final Plat, the applicant shall
submit a letter by a registered engineer stating that the
road designs meet the requirements of .Section 24-7-
1004 (C) (4) (a) (10) and (13) • 1
h. The Final Plat shall indicate a 20 mph speed f limit in signs
the
to be installed by the applicant a
6
B-780 P--39 i 0� /09 /913 it --, : 5,9P PG 2" O H+
Traffic Report.
i. In addition to the required 100 foot diameter turnaround
for the intersection of Freesilver Road and Williams
ll be designed
Ranch Drive, a seven foot buffer
outside this turnaround that will be for drainage, snow
storage space plus a five foot pedestrian path. This
shall be identified on the Final Plat.
j. An easement for the snow orage areas d on the Final Plat.ln the
development shall be indicate
k. The applicant shall provide three single globe antique
street lights for this project, one at the intersection
of Williams Drive and Teal Court, Ranch oneat the and
intersection/turnaround d one at the l•ams nntersection of Williams
Freesilver Road, a
Ranch Drive and Freesilver Road. Intermediate, low level
street lighting shall be provided betweeninter shall tions.
Design, style and location oflights
be
approved by the City Engineer.
1. All utilities, except natural gas, shall be stubbed out
to the property lines prior to paving the access roads.
M. Any property monuments removed disturbhall beereset ring
construction (including landscaping)
g)
a land surveyor.
n. Prior to Final Plat approval, property corner monuments
shall be set on the external boundaries of the
subdivision.
o. The Final Plat and subdivision
toraeand recycleareas
agreement
include
a note specifying that trash and not within access
will be located on priproperty ro erty
and utility easements.
p. The Final Plat must meet the requirements of Plat shall Sectionalso
24-
7-1004 (D) of the Municipal latapproval royal far utility
include certificates of p PP
location and easement width by on utility
t companies and
approval by all easement holdersproperty.
q. The "Final Plat" will consist of all boundary,
certificate, site, engineering, and architectural
drawings approved by the City. All sheets containing
engineered drawings must be stamped by a registered
engineer.
r. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement
districts which may be formed for the purpose of
7
Si1`3 F �)= 49�i/fir+/C�� O '.0 OF 84
.:58f L
constructing improvements in the adjacent Smuggler area
public rights -of -way.
S. The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080)
for design considerations of development within public
rights -of -way, parks department (920-5120) for vegetation
species, and shall obtain permits for any work or
development, including landscaping, within public rights -
of -way from the city street department (920-5130).
t. Guest parking areas shall be delineated on the Final Plat
and all pull in parking spaces shall be redesigned to
comply with the requirements of the Municipal Code.
15. No accessory dwelling units are permitted to be constructed
in any of the Williams Ranch residences.
16. As stated in the Parks Department referral comments dated
September 7, 1994, the applicant shall comply with the
following:
a. The applicant shall obtain an easement from the ditch
owners for the proposed trail along Salvation Ditch.
Specific information regarding trail standards and
materials shall be included in the application. The
applicant should dedicate this as a public easement.
b. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the
applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan that
identifies trees six inches in diameter and over.
Landscaping in any right--of-way should also be included
on the landscape plan. The Parks Department will review
and approve the final landscape plan to be recorded with
the Final Plat documents.
C. The applicant shall comply with ordinance 37 Series of
1991 as it relates to irrigation methods.
17. The applicant shall pay the $157,360 park•deve.lopment impact
fee prior to the issuance of any building permits, unless the
applicant provides a cost breakdown of the park improvements
as specified Section 24-5-608.
18. The Final Plans shall indicate a small ditch water feature
along the Salvation Ditch alignment to maintain the historic
character of this area.
19. The applicant shall provide a Final Plat and Subdivision•
Improvement Agreement, satisfactory to the City Attorney,
Engineer and Planning Office, detailing the costs of all
proposed public improvements within 180 days of City Council
review. The guarantee of these improvements shall be in place
before the issuance of any building permits. All public
improvements shall be completed, in place and accepted by the
appropriate agency before issuance of any Certificate of
Occupancy's.
20. The applicant shall explore restricting residential
development on the remaining 30 acres in Pitkin County, with
the exception of a night watchman's quarters, not to exceed
1,500 square feet in floor area.
21. The City Engineer shall pursue a text amendment to allow
in
variations of subdivision design standards as set for
Section 24-7-1004(C)(4) of the Aspen Municipal Code.
22. only Lot 5 shall have access via Spruce Street.
23. Prior to the commencement of any construction activities on
this property, the applicant shall receive final Annexation
and Rezoning approvals from the City of Aspen.
24. The applicant shall comply with the
recommendations
cdated January 19mad by
Br Collins in his geologic repor
25. All material representations made by the applicant
the
application and public meetings shall beaeeto and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended
by other conditions.
26. The applicant shall grant a Public Recreation
Easement
nt o Salvation
City of Aspen for the open space parcel
Ditch.
27. The applicant agrees not to seek any variances to the 25-foot
height limit for structures, as based upon the Pitkin County
regulation pertaining to the measurement of building heights.
Section 2: Pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, City Council does hereby grant the Applicant vested rights
for the Williams Ranch Subdivision site development plan as
follows:
1. The rights granted by the site specific development plan
approived by this ordinance shall remain vested for three (3)
years from the date of final adoption msspecified andconditions
However, any failure to abide by t
attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said
E
381 1 9.'; B••-- 1 f?VI E=r_. 394 05/09/95 02':58P PG 25 OF 84
2.
3.
4.
vested property rights. Failure to timely and properly record
all plats and agreements as specified herein or in the
Municipal Code shall also result in the forfeiture of said
vested rights.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of
referendum and judicial review.
Nothing in the approvals provided by this Ordinance shall
exempt the site specific development plan frm ordinance subsequent'
reviews and/or approvals required by this o
ed
general rules, regulations or ordinances o inconsistent citt withlor the
the
that such reviews or approvals are not inc
approval granted and vested herein.
The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not
preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which
are general in nature and are applicable to all properties
subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen, including
but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and
mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site
development approval, the developer shall abide by any and all
such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical
codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing.
section 3: The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to
be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City
of Aspen; no later than fourteen (14 ) days following final adoption
hereof. Such notice shall be given in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general andic Of the creation theapproval
as
of a site specific development plan,
vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68,
Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following
described property:
The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said
notice.
Section 4: This ordinance shall not become effective unless and
until the City Council approves the Petition for Annexation by duly
enacted ordinance annexing the subject property to the City of
10
02 : 58P P6 26 OF 84
Aspen.
Section 5: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
day ofA&6ae.- 1994 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council
Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. Fifteen (15) days
prior to the hearing a public notice of the hearing shall be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of
Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by
the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of
1994.
Joh Bennett, Mayor -
ATTEST:
I
2�1a- M. 10 - - 1)
athryn B41 Xoch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this JyAgl-�IdW—f day of
1994.
ATTEST:
Kathryn V Koch, City Clerk
ord.cc. ah.will iranch.final
11
4 4F
John ennett, Mayor
l �
sit -7
da
L �
ppAy
N
u .10 � • j .!r •� �� ^ � � • t� t•�s 1�
CL
�o 00 . C • ' ' v � � •ir ' •fit •,
3
go
of
� � , t oo .�• 5i .� i. a
z N t � • � � J�' �i / ys ,•� =yf
f y t ~ �•t �+ v ��t s�i
�4j&lu
a.
off
JJ �
LAJ
via
IN is;
SW
N
V . {b.•7ti � O 'r � Of
alit
ra
PIO
Oo
a •
u
I
4
O
1
FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT OF SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION and WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION IN THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 7, T. 10 S., R. 84 W., 6th P.M., PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
LINE INFORMATION
BLM BRASS CAP - 1978
C 1/4 SECTION 7
XAl
r
1
1\ �� \
' V
Qj
°i 0-4\ /� Sco
FL"E 0 0 50 FEET j Q
fI I11r,
G APHIC SCALE
/6.0p. ' (� SCALE\ 1 INCH = 50 FEET
\
/ � \�' / ' �COK 13l�CEL. � IL7 LEGS 1 r
ACCESS EASEMENT BOOK. 578, PAGE 453. l3 4�'S \ MONUMENT, FOUND INFACE
O ROAD CONSTRUCTION WITHIN Ty\ \ AS DESCRIBED r J
EASEMENT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL Y J THE CITY OF ASPEN AND PITKIN COUNTY _\ \ FOUND, BUREAU OF LAD
GUEST PARKING EASEMENT I \` MANAGEMENT BRASS CAP,
• AS DESCRIBED
N.T.S. SET THIS SURVEY, 5/J" REBAR \�
i l SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT F WITH I I/2" ALUMINUM CAP
33.46 27" THE BENEFIT of PARCEL £ MARKED BANNER, INC. 20632 \
AND THE NORTH PORTION OF
PARCEL ''- THE PRIDE OF ASPEN.\\ /J /
Uj It
LOT 5 S 0219,
ON -EXCLUSIVE
ACCESS ESMT.
FOR THE BENEFIii'
I OF LOT 5 J / ' / LOT 6 I I
\
LOT 4 � __-- J o LOT 7
i ((� ,• �\ \ t�J OWATER PUMP N-EXCLUSIVE 1 1 i f ' ' OT 8
STATION ESMT_
hCCESS ESMT. ' l ' I I �� � � �•�
X� ? .ACCESS EASEMENT BOOK 593. PAGE'352 6 / \ ! FOR THE BENEFIT jL_ t / NON-EXCLUSIVE'
C� AND RE-RECOROEO IN BOOK 593. PAGE1429 \ ` F LOT 6 L -� '' -�� 1 CCESS ESMT. t / ti �'• `��
4 ROAD CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE EASEMENT J/ \ \ �' f/ T I 1 r FOR THE BEN?F1. LOT 9 / ! �—
SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF ASPEN i I OF LOT 7
r
\? /� NON-E CLUSIVE
\ V I ACCESS EW9!�tT.
�y T' SNOW STORAGE EASEMENT / FOR THE .It,
`,<v ate` S O• SF /
Y\/ TO THE CITY OF ASPEN / / OF LOT 4 \�� i O A� / / LOT '0 0 2 / LOT 3 pF
00.
usEMExT r n- ELEC. TRANS.
i
\ \ / // ✓ m 2v EASEMENT F/Y/E,
LOT I LOT 2 10 cl
P MO
TwentyI201 loot wide private non exclusive access LOT 2 TL so �P� L T 11 SLIM BCA MEN RASS CAP
P / / i ! _ELEC. TRANS. H, / KQi 1/7383-1978
and pubNt utility easement for the benacc al P O• \ 4
Y \ �/ 1 LOT 18 .,eb• \ LOT 3 ESMT. N� / �5/ /
Parcel E and the southern portion of the Pride of Aspen h� /' �ELEC. TRA ��� LOT I9 ! \ 0 Ur ,40 - \ -E -LUS 'E /
Mining Claim United Slates M.S. 7B83 AM as the some \ / EASEMENT <'e <a 1 ti / `• is described in Resolution 93.141 of the Board of County 0� / /. / F,� 2a \ A �/ �/T : 1 \ ACCE £S T.
Commissioners of Pitkin Couni Colorado, the northern �� / ci O• LOT 17 LOT 4 % / - FOR THE B FI
Y. h \. �P d / FA_ L07 10 ��• UTILITY 8 �\
Portion of Pride of Aspen Mining Clam United States : C' v : DRAINAGE J
M.S. 7883 and the Por lions of the BGliaraI Mining Claim / \ C,Pa0�� / p0�S/, / so �C / ' \T,/EASEMENT
Unllad States M.S. 4438 described in hot certain mop / ` \ / O K / o // 'Qj \/
recorded is Plal Book 28, al Page 96 of fhe records / LOT I \ / G�e�?�,P /, y. 1 I �ti 4�\ yy LOT 5 GUEST PARKING \ �� �4 \ T
of Pitkin Count , Colorotlo, and the same being expressly \ E l ( LOT 12
Y Y / % y�' LOT i5 / `� \ LF / EASEMENT
dedleata hereby.
% /� J. •� / ELEC, TRANS. ! o~ 0•,6/y/CG`9 LOT 6 /p�y�/O�,PO S
ESMT. S
" y ,Q /i / O• 2
LOT 14 / \ /6h" lr\\ 9C / LOT 7 /v� \ / / Y9 00. R2.
e SEMENT S
,15' DITCH EASE NT ! <ry/•� LOT 22 ` S'� yy° LOT 10
3 / / ✓ 00 ° JE2,� EasEM`�FNr y'O LOT 8 �L� ELEC. TRANS. / \
0Cp.1- p0. 2 �' AS ME PS`� ,.° BEN tNE 't• G�, p / EASEMENT / Y
RECIP E pl-A �E� ORA'NAGE� / LOT 36 ° a� 4 BENEFIT o�/C LOT 13
12 or _- \ �S, '� PARENT
EASEMENT' / ORALVAGE �
O'Sry F TNE�K �/G /�� LOT II EASEMENT\
AIR RY SEWER EA T BE FIT( 1� �%` q /
of Lo ze y, �� / LOT 9 LOT 12 \
_ __WIL.LFAM� RANCH .PARK PARCEL— L Y 46.18YT' w r56.0 /Ym p
BLM BRASS CAP s 10' TRAIL EASEMENT,-\; r ~�
•O AND UTILITY EASEMENT2J.w• yPARNwT / / / \
1978 0. = 3 I \� j izro usEUENr ly
BENEFIT •�S• 1 /
S \ OPEN SPACE \� P e y a\ LOT z LOT 26 °o. ` Tep
/ UTILITY EASEMENT G. ' ryti. � �� , � � D�� •� '
A \\
QUEST PARKING CASE1�Hj - 01 ° 9 / 5 ? PARKNG EASEMENT N \ LOT 14 /
C BOOK 508, PAGE 312 a \ 5 <<,<' K s. ; 'FOR BENEFIT r
\ (n ry , C .. OF LOT 28 ST PARKNG l \, i
S \ F- 254.61' t 4 • i t1P 04ry PARKNG 4 EASEMENT
\ r'Q� �' �• N f- 11 /� / I TREANA �' /, •` Pay y� EASEI�NT CTa
! O• I EASE LOT 35 C/<`'� FORNEFIT LEC. TRANS_ --
OF 23.TY / _ i
00 \ !-{ L t /�- ELEC. TRANS/\ \ J
'f- AG C O �'V�L' r i' , �•'` q LOT z EASEMENT S / � ' FV
--�� o o Lp4 J � EASEMENT
\ d� c \ \ �I�Jvr�n I` / ��� _- _ z�>jLOT 27 LOT 29 LOT 30
\ CPO VV �• / — OT 28 LOT 31 61 / / LOT 15 \
S`' �O'o \ RfG(y / \_ o / BOOK PF E4SEM~
UTILITY EASEMENT COWENHOVEN TUNNEL '�,� Boo 480, pAL,
\ /Oy \e / AND PUBLIC R.O.W. r BOOKSUBSRFACE 80, PAGE 580 EASEMENT. 1349. 76
- / K 508 pA� 414
32 ry0 7
DEDICATION
MIA LACE I- , BOOK 508, PAGE 312 AND AND BOOK 92, PAGE 66 _ 40' TRAIL EASEMENT Ro
00 \ BELbtE ( / \ bo- i1M32 BOOK 17. PAGE 30 UTILITY EASEMENT
�-
_ �
,f _ DRAINAGE
<
EASEMENT
4NU P\, WILLIAMS RANCH PARK PARCEL: /
q 10' TRAIL EASEMENT �-i__ N,J _'_ ` CAP SETIN
Iti / S \ AND UTILITY EASEMENT + lV(J�� ( CONCRETE
`11 EASEMENTS 0l1/0C� —__ U.S. ARMY CORP
V11N/0AvjS (� OF ENGINEERS
`hJ EL = 8045.90
FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT OF SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION and WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION SCALE: JOB NO: DATE:
1" = 50' 8256-08 5-6-95
OF SILVERLODE-WILLIAMS RANCH PARCEL OF SMUGGLER MINE SUBDIVISION IN THE SE I/4 OF SHEET No -
BANNER ASSOC., INC.
SECTION 7, T. 10 S., R. 84 W.,6th P.M., PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO 4 of 4.
Ir q-21-99
v
NAME OF PROJECT:
V
CITY CLERKj�r 04m, m�
STAFF: ,v L00" I Aqoq
G*Ic Ig 'ice MOAL
WITNESSES: (1) /� � � isamb"r
�r
c3>
(4)�1. b w(5) K 4--7?)T->r5t4-
EXHIBITS: I Staff Report Ve(ocheck If Applicable)
2 Affidavit of Notice (Check If Applicable)
3 Board Criteria Sheet (Check If Applicable)
4
5
VOTE: YES NO
CA u YES NO
YES
NO
�m,V"r` YES
NO
YES
NO
D C'o 04,
-1-0 � V. 2UA
k.-�
JASMINE TYGRE
YES
TIMOTHY MOONEY
YES
O
STEVEN BUETTOW YES
R el A, y
O
YES
NO
E4A
i
a. - at t a . - .0
PUD REVIEW STANDARDS
Planned Unit Development
A development application for a PUD must comply with the following standards and
requirements:
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.
C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of 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.
2. Density:
A. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying
zone district. Furthermore, densities may be reduced if:
There is not sufficient water pressure and other utilities to serve the proposed
development;
2. There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road
maintenance to the proposed development;
3. The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of slope,
ground instability, and the possibility of mud flow, rockfalls and avalanche dangers;
4. The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural
watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution;
5. The proposed development will have deleterious effect on air quality in the
surrounding area and the city; or
6. The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the
proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to
critical n
B. Reduction in density for slope consideration.
1. In order to reduce wildfire, mudslide, and avalanche hazards; enhance soil stability; and
guarantee adequate fire protection access, the density of a PUD shall also be reduced in
areas with slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent in the following manor:
a. For lands between zero (0) and twenty (20) percent slope, the maximum density
allowed shall be that permitted in the underlying zone district.
b. For lands between twenty-one (2 1) and thirty (30) percent slope, the maximum
density allowed shall be reduced to fifty (50) percent of that permitted in the
underlying zone district.
C. For lands between thirty-one (31) and forty (40) percent slope, the density shall
be reduced to twenty-five (25) percent of that allowed in the underlying zone
district.
d. For lands in excess of forty (40) percent slope, no density credit shall be
allowed.
2. Maximum density for the entire parcel on which the development is proposed shall be
calculated by each slope classification, and then by dividing the square footage necessary
in the underlying zone district per dwelling unit.
For parcels resting in more than one (1) zone district, the density reduction calculation
shall be performed separately on the lands within each zone district.
4. Density shall be further reduced as specified in Chapter 26.04, Definition of Lot Area.
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.
4. Dimensional Requirements. The dimensional requirements shall be those of
the underlying zone district, provided that variations may be permitted in
the following:
a.
Minimum distance between buildings;
b.
Maximum height (including viewplanes);
C.
Minimum front yard;
d.
Minimum rear yard;
e.
Minimum side yard;
f.
Minimum lot width;
g.
Minimum lot area;
h.
Trash access area;
i.
Internal floor area ratio; and
j.
Minimum percent open space.
If a variation is permitted in minimum lot area, the area of any lot may be greater or less than the
minimum requirement of the underlying zone district, provided that the total area of all lots, when
averaged, at least equals the permitted minimum for the zone district. Any variation permitted
shall be clearly indicated on the final plat development plan.
Staff Comments 2
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:
a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development.
b. The parking need of any nonresidential units.
C. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is
proposed.
d. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including
those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile
disincentive techniques in the proposed development.
e. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core or public
recreational facilities in the city.
Whenever the number of off-street parking spaces is reduced, the City shall obtain
assurance that the nature of the occupancy will not change
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.
S. Architectural Site Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final
development plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural
consistency with the proposed development, architectural character, building
design, and the preservation of the visual character of the City. It is not the
Staff Comments 3
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.
9. Lighting. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or
hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands.
10. Clustering. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged.
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.
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 (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 Comments 4
,;
��
9
%of I lug,91er Mine -1li/ Iffams Ranch
Adj��ant Pro a
p rty owners
'
.
us#:
awt t�wner
ddress
.
ejha...,n,.s
Cennteniai Condominiums
100 Luke Short Court
Aspen, Colorado Biel
$26-187e
Grafton & Rhyllis Smith
Q187 Lu ine D
P riye
Aspen, Colorado 81611
925.7120
Pitkin County .
50e East Main Strg9t
Aspen, Colorado 81011
e25-5150
Vltilk Wilkinson
R 0. Box 4M
Aspen, CQIQrado 81612
none �.
Jerry rrnroth
•
P.O. Box 8,9
Aspen, COlomdo 81612.
'1065
Eugene Witt
_ .
North of Nell. Condo Assoc.
555 East Durant St.
825- B
1 52
Aspen, Colorado 81611
� �.
-A spen, Colorado-g
notii
-8ted--'
IAN%ADJLrsr
Z'd
dn080 SN3A31S WU62:60 86, bI 100
v
Go
� 3Cb01
,4"
y3c�is
yaq�a/
ya yo��
Lq
�
YOOO 3 v
5�v Al It/ i,�s�- �� �C� Zen
OocfiZ G,/i/�ams GJ�c�j �� 84//
yOOO ol
�'an.q. s
U
Au) (onsr/�a � �� ,�1� �L-ayApv-�
AvivvialkV.1-
h
'410000.,z
C) ra T /n ro
"+,1,
P, 6. &Y. 31 V-6
Ir
ltews4,
Ar,,x
e
C-vC- ._�-D�- n�-�-MZ`W 90_T;^,*�--�9OCnDCncoCD _.
v m 0 a. m �: cD 3 m� woi � m 3• m o �' o ru sv
a N' CD CDa 0.0 v
0 0. Cn a o :3CL n v Z o. CD 0)
m CL
s c Cn a T
> >
? _.
m
m
0-_n=c-o-v=0D-v-n=Cn5KCn-4-v�_�Cn=�_CnCn0r
0 0 0 a v D a o 0 v �u o o a, v c� a o p 3 0 0 -, o 0 0 0 0 v s -o
m m tD -ov CD m o o m m �,• c co N o: N• z* c0 cnn o 0 3 C CL x
N cr cnn p•CD
_ (D (D N 3 :3a. p•CD
�•
N =
O
O N O O O O� O O N N O O O O O O O O O N 0 0 0 0 ... 0 0" 0 0 0 O
.p t� co cn rn Cn (" -4 W M o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cs 0 0 0 !T� -0 0 0? !� 0
x x x x x x x CD x x x x x x x x x x x x _
WS-�WcnoO CD * c�,j�.��� __ _ �3x x =Cnx —
•A• 00 N 0) cn m Cn 00 CO W CD�l O O O -� MN O W = N �. (0• Cn N = 3 �, CJt �•
CJt Cn Cn CO -� O CD Co Co C ? -4 N O Cn O O O W B. O (o -ice (n 5• N W [n
Cn O .tom N W (p o GOJ N (�O CD .A W O Cn O C>7 ;� CnCJ) cn Cn CJ7 .-r A. _ (p 00 Q
n CD Cn �- Cn rn Cn
cn F-" N N N
[7
IL co 0
A>DDD>DDDDDCn>>> >DDDDDDDDDDDDD>DDDD10 �
cn cn a cn cn cn cn cn cn a cn � cn cn cn 0 cn cn u, cn cn cn cn cn cn � cn cn cn cn cn a a cn cn G;
v -v -a -a -o -v -o v o -o •a -a o -a -o -a v -v -a -a '0-0 -o -a -o -o -a -0 -0 -a -0 -a K �.
� o �
N N
00000000000000000000000000000000000iw al
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PIP
N
N
o W ao ao � aD ao � ao 0o Oo o Oo o ao oD oD Oo ao ao ao ao ao oD o aD ao Oo 0 0 0 00 oD o0 oD =
Co Co (o (o (o w Co Co Co O 0 W Co Co (o Co (o (o Co W Co Co Co Co (o (o Co Co Co Co Co Co
" N N N N N N N N N N 11 N N N N N N N -! N N N N N N N N N N N N CD
O CA CJ1 C� Cn Cn OCJt W O O Co W CJ1 Cn O CJ1 Cn I? co O O Cn O CJt CJ7 Cn M A Cn O Cn v
11 v N 6 & -!P A 6,� Co -- (V W W N 6 �4 N 60 " Co N N -! 00 44 IN- & -& -- W
W O — O O — " O cn C) O Cn 00 CJ7 N N Co N -1 -L 00 00 � CA N CA Co 00 -ph. Cn W �•
00 1! N 0) G 00 00 00 J O AA 00 .-1 0) -� .AA •O N M W CA Co Ca (o J� CD -� -1 N Co W
cn -� O m O — Co O m O N A W N (n N W W •A Ln CA Cn CJ1 N (o (n OD co A n
rmlk
(o Co Co (o tl Co (o (o (o Co (o (o (o Co (o Co (o (o CO (o (o Co
N N N N N N N N N" N N N N N N N N N N to
CA O CA O � O O Cn cn CJt C11 Cn CJ1 CJ1 (A 00 Cn O Cn O Cn W
�I -� 4- 6 N Cn 1, (n " 1 Cn CJ1 00 O N N Co � N 00
-� CJ7 0)-� O (o .A. Co O •A (3) (0 M
4 W N CA w W N -� N W OD O N O Co (o -P " W
O •A Cn (A C M -! (o W OD O Cn 4b. w O 00 (n 00 O O
C x x
( CA
CJ1 A W N —0 W W -1 0 Cn .4, W N O Co 00 11 CA Cn .A W N —0 Co 00 11 0) (n .P W N �
u
�* lo
� r�
t �
Ck
.T _
10-14e-98 10:10 First Choice Properties ID=97092?1A35 P-02
10/14/98 09:55:59 CENTENNIAL OWNERS' ASSOCIATION 'V9.49 gage 1
Accounts Receivable Customer Report
Customer Cade Deleted
Customer Name/Address ShippingTotal Sales
Name/Address 1998 Sales
1997 Sales
Income Acct
----------------------------------------- .--------------------- Service Chg?
--
11OFS
ROBERTA J. CUNN_INGHAM 6986.88
P.O. BOX 9211 1.387.78
ASPEN
�.615.78
CO 81612 1199
(970) 925-830E YES
112FS
SARAH M. OATES
112 FREE S I L'V'ER COURT
ASPEN CO 81611
(970) 920-4177
113FS
DIANE L. SANDVOLD
P.O. BOX 4114
"SPEN CO 81612
-4FS
HOWARD B. HOLGATE
1.14 FREE SILVER COURT
ASPEN CO 81611
(303) 925-8094
116FS
EVA C. & ERIC W. P.EKKALA
P.O. BOX 936
ASPEN CO 8161.2
(970) 920-4061
117FS
ALEJANDRO PALMAZ
117 FREE SILVER COURT
ASPEN CO 81611
(303) 920-2429 (303) 920-6330
1428.18
1453-53
-25.35
1199
YES
5864.39
1355.71
1283.47
1199
YES
5513.42
972.78
1309.86
1199
YES
9042.13
1.583.73
2153.68
1199
YES
6831.81
1215.37
1598.53
1199
YES
1A-14-98 10:10 First Choice Properties ID=97092?1035
P.03
10 /'14 / 9$ 0 9: 5 5: 5 9 CEN'Z'EN1V'IAL OWNERS' ASSQCIAT1pIJ 119.49 page 2
Accounts Receivable Customer Report
Customer Cade
Customer Name/Address Deleted? Total Sales
Shipping Name/Address 1998 Sales
1997 Sales
--_-�--- Income Acct
------------------- ---------------------------- -- Service Chg?
119FS------- -----
DAVID S . BALL,
119 FREE SILVER COURT
ASPEN CO 81.611
(970) 925--5162
1.20FS
CAROL PASTERNAK
120 FREE SILVER COURT
ASPEN
(970) 925-3612 CO 81611
121FS
CHARZES B. MCCRORY, JR.
P.O. BOX 3512
PE1V CO 81612
13) 925-3855
,2 ES
RESA ANNE CARP
P.O. BOX 10432
ASPEN CO 81612
(303) 925-6496
123FS
CHRISTINE SPAROVIC
123 FREE SILVER COURT
ASPEN CO 81611
(303) 925-7357
1.2 4 FS
CR ISTAL LEE
124 FREE SILVER COURT
ASPEN CO 81611
(303) 925-6466
(970) 925-9500
(303) 920-5341
(303) 925-9500
7821.48
1424.72
1597.58
1.199
YES
9318.66
1758.55
2106.22
1199
YES
8114.04
1445.62
1905.91
1199
YES
8005.14
1415.90
1,877. OS
1199
YES
9315.99
1633.86
2220.84
1199
YES
9681.05
1911.58
2250.14
1199
YES
10-14798 10:11 First Choice Properties
JD=9709271035
P-04
10/14/98 09:55:59
CENTENNIAL OWNERS' ASSOCIATION
V9.49 Page 3
Accounte-ReceiVable Customer Report
Customer Code
Customs XT Deleted?
mME: Address
Shipping Name/Address Total Sale,
1998 Sales
1997 Sales
---------------
Income Acet
----------------
------------------------------- Service Chg7.
125FS
-------------
WILLIE SA13ARESE
125 FREB SILVER COURT
9569-62
1711-74
ASPEN Co SIG11
2219-07
(.303) -925-7185
1199
(303)925-2552 YES
126FS
KIM BRACHER
P.O. BOX 4002
'575.63
1692-12
ASPEN CO 81612
2247.32
1199
YES
:12 7PS
FRANCE STONE
P.O. BOX 3870
'q PEN
CO 81612
)3)-925-6013
.9FS
TERRSA J. SALVADORE
JORN ARMSTRONG
129 FREE SILVER
COURT
ASPEN
CO 81611
(.970)925-1.994
(-970)920-1247
21OFS
CATHY BEACH
P.O. BOX 8432
ASPEN
(970)-920-2251
CO 81612
210T
MAURI J. JENKINS
C/O TRY -JAY REAL
ESTATE
P 0 BOX LT
ASPEN
(303) 925-1523 7
CO 81612-7411
(303).925-7797
12235.45
2454.50
3080-26
1199
YES
13356.18
2567.96
3068-34
1199
YES
1035.90
1035.90
0.00
119.9
YES
'930.73
1175.05
1718-37
1199
YES
10-14798 10:11 First Choice Properties
ID=9709271035 P-05
10/14/98 09:55:59 CEN'1'ENNIAL
OWNERS ASSOCIATION
V9.49 page 4
Accounts.Receivable Customer Report
Customer Code
Customer Name/Address Deleted? Total Sales
Shipping Name/Address
1998 Sales
1997 Sales
Income Acct
T_-----___--
---------------.------------------------------------- Service Chg?
212FS-----"----
J- E. DeVILBISS 9035.02
21.2 FREE SILVER COURT 16 51. 64
ASPEN 2172.05
(303) 920-68-31 CO 816I1 1.19.9
(303) 92YES
212T
DANIEL KOCIELA
212 TEAL COURT -
ASPEN CO 8161.1
(303) 925-2438
21.4FS
SUZANNE L . 'WOLFF
21.4 FREE SILVER COURT
"SPEN CO 81611
I
_4T
PATRICK PFEIFER
214 TEAL COURT
ASPEN, CO 81611
(970) 920-1325
215FS
ERIK S . SKARVAN
215 FREE SILVER COURT
ASPEN Co 81611
(970) 925-1069
21.6T
PADRAIG E. ALLEN
KIMBERLY A- STACHOWSKI
216 TEAL COURT
ASPEN CO 81611
(970)920-9640
(303) 925-3273
6733.45
1215.38
1584.78
1199
YES
2780.63
983.61
1277.03
1199
YES
2828.37
160,E , 34
1223.03
1199
YES
3092.79
1033.44
1596.46
1199
YES
-0.24
-0.24
0.00
1199
YES
10-14798 19:11
First Choice
Properties ID=9709271035
P.06
10/14/98 09:55:59 CENTENNIAL', OWNERS' AS SOt-zATION
V9.49 Page 5
Accounts
Receivable Customer Report
Customer
Cade
Deleted?
Customer
Name/Address
ShippingTotal
Name/Address
Sales
1998 Sales
1997 Sales
Income Acct.
----------.-�-------------------
------------ ---------_..-___®-
Service Chg?
-------------
217T
TED MACBLANE J}2 .
3 9 8.65
217 TEAL COURT
398.65
0.00
ASPEN'
CO 81611
1199
(970) 925-2531
YES
219T
TAZI LUTGRING
7207.74
219 TEAL COURT
-
1788.10
1586.61
ASPEN
CO 81611
1199
(-970) 925-9242
(970) 920-5423
YES
220PSE'
F DEANNA K. OLSEN
8319.79
220 FREE SILVER
COURT
1688.34
1906.30
ASPEN
CO 81611
1199
)3) 920-9758
YES
JT
TIMOTHY CARNEY
9671.63
220 TEAL COURT
1638.27
2559.76
ASPEN
CO 82611
1199
(303) 920-4047
(303) 920-1000
YES
221FS
PAUL C. CORBETT
2707,42
P O BOX 2884
1623.52
1083.90
ASPEN
CO 81612
1199
YES
221T
JANET V. LEVERSON 7989.42
221 TEAL COURT 1415.26
1878.55
ASPEN CO 81611 1199
(303) 925-2467 (308)925-5590 YES
10-14798 1A:11 First Choice Properties ID=9709271035
P.A7
j 10/'14/98 09:55:59 CENTENNIAL OWNE
RS ASSOC:IATION V9.49 Page
Accounts Receivable Customer Report
Customer Code
Customer Name/Address Deleted? Total Sale
Shipping Name/Address s
�.998 Sales
1997 Sales
------.-----..------------- Income Acct
�--- ---
----------- .--- --- Service Chg?
222FS---.-----------
MIDORI KURIHANNA
222 FREE SILVER COURT
ASPEN CO 81611
(303) 920-113.4
(970) 920-9262 Fax
222T
ALI SON C . DANFORTH
P - 0 . BOX 3 763
ASPEN CO 81612
(970) 925-2583
223FS
WERNER P . MERKEI,
P.O. BOX 9971
'EN CO 81612
a3) 925-6859
223T
MARTLYN J. ANDERSON
J. MARTY GANCSOS
223 TEAL COURT
ASPEN CO 81611
(303) 925-8479
224FS
REGINALp BARBOLTR
P.O. BOX 4194
ASPEN CO 81612
(303) 920-3191
224T
KATRLEEN MINK & JOEL SCOTT
224 TEAL COURT
ASPEN CO 81611
(970) 920-9262
(970) 925-2220
(303) 925-66].0
6995.75
1217.72
1611.30
1199
YES
$012.38
1401.29
1869.47
1199
YES
9092.81
1643.27
2142.73
1199
YES
'319.04
1637.16
2190.93
1199
YES
'331.40
1477.89
2213.25
1199
YES
5149.24
1646.18
2185.20
1199
YES
10-14798 10:11 First Choice
Properties ID=9709271035
p,A8
10/'14/98 09:55:59 CENTENNIAL OWNERS' ASSOCIATION
V9.49 Page 7
AcCOur1ts
Receivable Customer Report
Customer Cade
Deleted?
Customer Name/Address
shipping Name/AddressTotal
Sales
2998 Sales
1997 Sales
Income Acct
-------------------------------
------------------------------
Service Chg?
225FS
------
ANNE - MARIE CAYE
52 9 6.8 8
P.O. BOX 10056
1689.38
2262.81
ASPEN CO 81611
(970) 920-3849
1199
YES
225T
MARTHA BRAUNIG
10531.83
P.O. SOX 761
1739.55
2318.15
ASPEN CO 81612
1199
(970) 925-3630
YES
226T
•7ACKI E FRANC I S
10052.63
226 TEAL COURT
2056.17
2224.01
nSPEN CO 81611
1199
70) 92.5-1481
(970) 925-5536
YES
0) 920-3463 Fax
227T
JAN MARQUIS
9246.32
227 TEAL COURT
1630.91
2180.25
ASPEN Co 81611
1199
(303) 925-4247
YES
228T
WILLIAM ZUEHLKE
9492.81
P.O. BOX 806
1656.71
2246.47
ASPEN CO 81612
1199
(970) 920-2610
YES
229T
NANCY A. MATTHE'W'S
9003.09
P.O. BOX 1370
1619.96
2141.58
ASPEN CO 81612
1199
(303) 920-1506
(303) 920-1506
YES
10-14798 10:12 First Choice
Properties ID=9?09271A35
p,09
10/14/98 09:55;59 CENTENNIAL, OWNERS' ASSU�IATION
t19.49 page 8
Accounts
Receivable Customer Report
Customer Cade
Deleted?
Customer Name/Address
Shipping Name/Address1998
Total. Sales
Sales
1997 Sales
Income Acct
-------------------------------
-- ___,-------------------_.__
-.
Service Chg?
31OFS
- _
TESS FERRO
5820.34
310 FREE SILVER COURT
1179.93
ASPEN
1390.66
CO 81611
(970)925-6794
1199
YES
310T
ROBERT C. DRESSLER, .TR.
6814.79
310 PEAL COURT _._ . _.
1202.98
ASPEN
1608.70
CO 81611
(970) 925-3994
1199
YES
311Ps
LTLANNE E- SAMET
7169.60
P.O. BOX 8596
1222.94
1617.53
ASPEN CO 81612
1199
70) 925-4509
YES
2T
ALBERT L. PRZYBYLSXI
6486.40
312 TEAL COURT
1029.89
1469.27
ASPEN CO 81611
1199
(970) 925-1876
YES
313FS
CRERYL HANNAH
7598.11
313 FREE SILVER COURT
1431.02
1674.90
ASPEN CO 81611
1199
(303) 925-1364 (303) 544-1246
YES
313T
MARC ZACHARY
12 7 7.9 2
P 0 BOX 4494
1037.76
240.16
ASPEN CO 81612
1199
YES
10-14-98 10:12 Fir—st Choice Properties ID=9709271035
P-10
10/14/98 09:55:59 CENTENNIAL, OWNS
RS' ASSOC7ATIO.N V9.49 page 9
Accounts.Rece1Vable Customer Report
Customer Code Deleted?
Customer Name/Address Total Sales
Shipping Name/Address 1998 Sales
1997 Sales
------- Income Acct
--------.-------- ---------------..---- .---------,_ Service-Chg?-
314FS
JUDY NORMAN
314 FREE S I LV'ER. COURT
ASPEN CO 81611
(303) 925-6682
314T
TWILA CARROLL
314 TEAL COURT
ASPEN CO 81611
315T
JULIA S. F'ORSEILLE
315 TEAL COURT
"PEN
CO 81611
70) 925-1685
6FS
RICHARD XLEIN
P.Q. BOX 737
ASPEN
CO 81612
(970) 925--4089
317F'S
KAREN E . S ILVERMAN
P.O. BOX 2s15
ASPEN
CO 81612
(303) 925-6442
317T
MARC HULEY & LAURA
CRINSTEAD
317 TEAL COURT
ASPEN
CO 81611
(303) 925-6087
(970) 925-9500
(970) 920-1752
(303) 925-1000
6048,62
1243.12
1388.57
1199
YES
3154.57
996.04
1329.18
1199
YES
9395.28
1820.09
2132.40
1199
YES
9032.38
1584.79
2112.81
1199
YES
6971.66
1237.38
1638.04
1199
YES
7022.13
1237.86
1643.79
1199
YES
10-14-98 10:12 First Choice Properties iD=9709271035
10/14/98 09:55:59 CENTENNIAL O
WNERS' ASSOCIATION
Accounts Receivable Customer Report
Customer Code
Oust Deleted?
P.11
V9.49 Page 10
Omer Name/Address ShippingTotal Sales
Name/Address 1998 Sales
1997 Sales
Income A
------------------------------.------�----------. ServiceCht?
3 ------�--------- ---- ------
19FS
SUSAN F . SIMMONS
319 FREE SILVER COURT
ASPEN CO 81611
(303) 920-4310
319T
TONI MCWILLIAMS
319 TEAL COURT
ASPEN CO 81611
(970) 925-7058
320FS
DEMIS KUL2ER
320 FREE SILVER COURT
-AqPEN c0 81611
)3) 925-9118
JT
SANDRA KENNAMER
P.O. BOX 11947
ASPEN CO 81612
(303) 925-3370
321FS
ED & SUSAN CROSS
P.O. BOX 1841
ASPEN CO 81612
(970) 925-4404
(970) 544-9455 Fax
321T
PATRICIA A. & KEITH A. WHEELER
P.O. DOX 3513
ASPEN CO 81612
(303) 925-8558
(303) 925-2128
(-970) 379-084'4
7131.74
1266.27
1680.10
1199
YES
7810.48
1413.84
1906.44
1199
YES
9315.89
1640.87
2187.06
1199
YES
9548.17
1683.'70
2242.40
1199
YES
13934.08
2565.87
3415.74
1199
YES
7883.17
1402.04
1882.66
1199
YES
10-14798 10:13 First Choice Properties ZD=97A92?1035
10 / 1.4 / 9 8 0 9: 5 5: 5 9 CENTtNNTAL OWNERS
AS SOU IATI ON
Accounts,Receivable Customer Report
Customer Code Dei.eted�
P.12
V9.49 Page 11
Customer Name/Address
Total Sakes
Shipping Name/Address
1998 Sales
1997 Sales
Income Acct
------------------------------..
---------Service Service Chg?
322T
------
CHARLES & JANICE ROSENaERG
9194.79
322 VEAL COURT
1620.27
2178.73
ASPEN CO 81611
(303) 920-3754
1199
(303) 925-2867 YES
323FS
RENEE & DAVID C. GREEN
7636.32
323 FREE SILVER COURT - -
2408.73
3412 .25
ASPEN CO 81611
1199
YLS
323T
JOE & REBECCA DRISCOLL -26.75
P.O. FOX 9995 -26.75
0.00
ASPEN, CO 81612 13.99
YES
IFS
MICHAEL & HEATHER LAFFERTY 9525.91
324 PREE SILVER COURT 1641.05
2197.73
ASPEN CO 81611 1199
YES
324T
JOE DRISCOLL 9426.55
KEVIN DRISCOLL 1649.60
P.O. BOX 9995 2194.74
ASPEN CO 81611 1199
YES
325FS
JOHN P. TOTTF14HOFF 9174.66
325 FREE SILVER COURT 1615.78
2151..69
ASPEN CO 81611 1199
(-970) 925-1823 YES
(970) 925-7717 Fax
10-14798 10:13 First Choice Properties w_4ID=9709271035
10/14/98 09:55:59 CENTENNIAL OWNERS'
ASSOCIATION
Accounts Receivable Customer Report
Customer Code D
P.13
V9.4 9 Page 12
Customer Name/Address eleted? Total Sales
Shipping Name/.Address 1998 Sales
' 1997 Sales
Income Acct.
------------------------------- ------------------- Service Chg
------- --- �
325T
MICHAEL & LISA TYLER
P O BOX 10564
ASPEN CO 81612
(970) 544-5864
326FS
ROBERT SMALL & JEANNE MCGOVERN
326 FREE SILVER COURT _-
ASPEN, CO 81611
326T
FREDERICK K. SOYKA
S ONYA H013AN
326 TEAL COURT
ASPEN
CO 81611
70) 925-5712
7FS
WILLIAM READER
327 FREE SILVER
COURT
ASPEN
CO B1611
(303) 925-4630
327T
REED GOKEY
327 TEAL COURT
ASPEN
CO 81611
(970) 925-1879
328T
LINDA KILLIAN
328 TEAL COURT
ASPEN
CO 81611
(303) 925-6359
912 .44
912.44
0.00
1199
YES
755.04
755.04
0.00
1199
YES
9359.15
1671.27
2215.35
1199
(970) 920-3627 YES
13423.55
2446.60
3056.14
1199
YES
8122.31
1614.78
1730.95
1199
YES
9648.26
1970.24
2183.21
1199
(303) 925-2361 YES
10:13 First Choice Properties
j D=97&92711935
10/14/98 09:55:
59 CENTENNIAL OWNERS' ASSOCIATION
Accounts Receivable Custom Report
Customer Code
Deleted
P. 14
V9.49 Page 13
Customer Name/Address Shipping Name/Address Total Sales
1998 Sales
1997 Sales
IncOMe Acct
---------------------------- ------------------------------- Service Chq?
-------------
-129FS
MARK ALLEN ANGLIN
BRONWYN HEATHER ANGLIN
329 FREE SILVER COURT
ASPEN
CO 81611
(.970)925-9339
329T
--
GAIT D. OTTE
329 TEAL COURT
—
ASPEN
CO 81611
(303) 925-6118
41OPS
TAMAR JOHNSON
410 FREE SILVER
COURT
ASPEN
CO 81611
03)925-2069
JT
ANNE-LISE PARKER
410 TEAL COURT
ASPEN
Co 81611
(303)925-7115
412FS
SUSAN SCHLUNDT
412 FREE SILVER COURT
ASPEN
CO 81611
(9 7 0) 92 -9 - 62 91
412T
PATRICIA C. CRAWFORD
412 TEAL COURT
ASPEN
CO 81611
(970)920-.1381
(970) 928-5633
(303).925-2260
(3 03) .925-6760
(970) 920-5343
845-97
845.97
0.00
1199
YES
9403.6.0
1828.18
2170.71
1199
YES
11018.13
2033.74
2410.83
119.9
YES
8708.11
1404.31
2094.70
1199
YES
10657.48
3176.97
2212.97
1199
YES
7048.93
1379.18
1720.93
1199
YES
10-14-98 10:13 Firp+, Choice Properties
ID=9709271035
10/14J98 09:55:59 CENTENNIAL OWNERS ASSOCIATION
Accounts,Receivable Customer Report
Customer Code
Customer Na 1Ad Deleted?
P.15
V9.49 Page 14
me dress Total Sales
ShipPixig Name/Address 1998 Sales
19.97 Sales
------------------� Income Acct
-----.---------------------.---------- Service Cbg?
414FS------.-------------
CONSTANCE G. MORRELL
P.O. BOX 5121
ASPEN CO 81612
(303) 925-165-6
(303) 925-9500
414T
1VNETH M . SMITH
P O BOX 11334
ASPEN CO 81612
415FS
SALLY LAING
415 FREE SILVER COURT
s T
9PEN
)3) 920-2153 CO 81612
JFS
ALAN ROBERTS/JOHN KLONOWSKI
420 FREE SILVER COURT
ASPEN CO 81611
(970) -
420T
CHARLES & DIANE KESSL'ER
420 TEAL COURT
ASPEN CO 81621
(970) 920-9114
421FS
MICHAEL J. MOONEY
P•O• BOX 3452
ASPEN CO 81612
(970) 920-4017
(303) 925-8046
(970) 920-4017
5648 .28
1038.72
1325.89
1199
YES
1348.61
1402.94
-54.33
1199
YES
5662.93
1005.61
1367.57
1199
YES
1843.04
1660.13
182.91
1199
YES
10339.27
1888.54
2339.43
1199
YES
9027.75
1624.86
2159.85
1199
YES
10-14h-98 10:14 First Choice Properties 1D=9709271035
10/14/98 09:55:59 CENTENNIAL OWNERS'
ASSOCIATION
Accounts Receivable Customer Report
customer Code Deleted-D
V9.49 Page 15
Customer Name/Address Shipping Name/Address
Total Sales
1998 Sales
1997 Sales
Income Acct
------------------------------- ------.._---,-------------_
Service Chg?
421T
---'
HERMANN GOLLNER
7140.49
421 TEAL COURT
1260.48
ASPEN
1637.34
(303) 920-2467 CO 81611
1199
(303) 920-2467
YES
422FS
LAURIE A. & COLIN E. C. NESS
5227.29
422 FREE SILVER COURT _._ ..__ ..
1668.781
2215.20
ASPEN CO 81611
1199
YES
422T
CHRISTOPHER W. STEWART
E
MEGAN M . SREAN
422 TEAL COURT
TSPEN CO 81611
3 FS
MARK TERKUN
SAMANTHA HITCHCOCK
P.O. BOX 329
ASPEN CO 81612
(970) 379-5364
423T
SANDRA L . MACXAY
423 TEAL COURT
ASPEN CO 81611
424FS
GLENN & LAURIE LOPER
P.O. BOX 5061
ASPEN CO 81612
(970) 544-0646
4521.94
1638.16
1.802.29
1199
YES
2271.99
1719.71
552.28
1199
YES
4401.29
1813.48
2210.50
1199
YES
2211.98
2034.06
177.92
1199
YES
10-1,4--98 10:14 First Choice Properties D=9709271035
10/14/98 09:56:00 CENTENNIAL OWNERqf ASSOCIATION
Accounts.Receivahle Customer Report
Customer Code DeletedD
P.17
V9.49 Page 16
Customer Name/Address TotalSales
Shipping Name/Address 1998 Sales
1997 Sales
Income Acct
----------------------- ----------------------------------- Service Chg?
424T---------
PHIL BYRNE 8846.05
424 TEAL COURT 1559.77
2079.39
' ASPEN CO 81611 1199
' (303) 923-0469 YES
425PS
AMY BROWNSTEIN
P.O. BOX 8153
--... _._..
ASPEN
CO 81612
(970) 925--2609
12F
LA H. PESSEL
112 F SILVER
COURT
a SPENT.
CO 81611
?U) 925-1073
�3F
ALISON DANFORTH
P.O. BOX 3763
ASPEN
CO 81611
(970)925-2583
X119F
CHRISTOPHER J. SEEMAN
119 FREE SILVER COURT
ASPEN
CO 8 1
X210F
NANCE SCHUTT /SHANNON SANDERS
P.O. BOX 61.3
ASP CO 81612
0) 920-2251
9199.72
1483.69
2216.76
1199
(970) 925-9500 YES
5876.Qjr
.00
29.15
1199
(970) 925-6331 �,,/r YES
1639.03
0.00
0.00
0
09 92 5,w220 YES
129.92
0.00
129.92
0
YES
8055.60
497.48
2159.55
`1199
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director
Christopher Bendon, Planner 104
Code Amendment — Definition of "Residential Multi -Family '-
- Public Hearing ti Family Housing"
September 21, 1999
SUMMARY:
The City of Aspen recently reorganized the Land Use .
residential multi -family housing re laceme e Code and Incorporated the
20" into Title 26 —the Land Use Code nt provisions formerly located in "Title
In doing so, a new definition was added to the
code defining the term "Residential Multi -Family
however, neglected to apply the replacement provisions
This new definition
buildings. When located in Title 20, re lacemeovisions to units within multi -use
replacement did apply to multi -use buildings
This code amendment will fix this omission b i
e.
definition that coincides with the former lan a including language in this new
creates a `pending Ordinance" and effectiveg amends In addition, this Resolution
by the City Council. Y nds the code, subject to approval
p
Staff recommends the Planning and Zonin
recommendation of a g Commission forward a
concerning the definition
approval to City Council for this text amendment
of `Residential Multi -Famil
y Housing."
APPLICANT:
Community Development Department, City of
Aspen.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Text Amendment. The Planningand Zoning ning Commission shall consider the
application at a public hearing and recommend a r denial to City Council. pp oval, approval with conditions, or
BACKGROUND:
Title 20, the Multi -Family Replacement Pro ra
definition of Multi -family dwellings and including ' referenced the land use code
developments. When the provisions of Title 20 werresidential units within mixed -use
new definition was created which did not include uni moved to the land use code, a
This was an oversight and not intended to be a is within mixed -use buildings.
part of the amendments at the time.
1
RECOMMENDATION: d Zoning Commission forward to City Council a
Staff recommends the Planning an end the definition of "Residential Multi FamilY
recommendation of approval to am
Hg
ousin " as provided in the attached Resolution.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: 1 amend the defiri of the term Residential
GGI move to recommend City COui1c1 -'
-Famil
Mid tt Y Housing as provided in Resolution 9
ATTACHMENTS:
Review
Exhibit A -- w Criteria and Staff Comments
Ex
Exhibit B -- Proposed P&Z Resolution
C:\home\CIMSB\CASES\RMFH_dcflPZ MEMO.doc
2
EXHIBIT A
STAFF COMMENTS: Code Amendment
Section 26.310.040, Text Amendment Standards of Review
In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the
Commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable
portions of this title.
Staff Finding:
The proposed code amendment replaces language unintentionally removed during the re-
organization of he Land Use Code. The amendment does not represent new land use
policy or a change in land use policy for the City of Aspen. Staff does not believe this
amendment represents a conflict with any portions of the Municipal Code.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding:
The amendment replaces the text applicable to a policy adopted in 1990 prior to the
adoption of the 1993 Aspen Area Community Plan. This amendment replaces language
that is consistent with the AACP. In fact, not replacing this language would be
inconsistent with the AACP.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road
safety.
Staff Finding:
These two criteria apply to rezoning applications and do not apply to this text
amendment.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the
proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities,
including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities,
water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Staff Comments 1
Staff Finding:
This text amendment will not, itself, introduce additional demands on public services. In
fact, this section of the code encourages on -site replacement housing for working
residents. This requirement represents a reduction in services needed to accommodate
affordable housing which must be located on the site.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding:
The replacement requirements affect sites which are already developed. Furthermore, the
language being re-inserted into this ordinance addresses multi -use buildings, more
common in the commercial core and intensive zone districts near the center of Aspen.
Staff does not believe this replacement requirement represents the potential for significant
adverse impacts upon the natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Staff Finding:
This amendment replaces language for a land use policy adopted specifically for
addressing the community character and the desire to protect working resident housing in
town. Staff believes replacing this language is consistent and compatible with the City's
character.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel
or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Staff Finding:
This criteria applies to rezoning applications and does not apply to this text amendment.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
Staff Finding:
The purpose of this amendment is to replace language of a land use policy that was
specifically adopted to address the public interest. Staff believes this amendment
promotes the purpose and intent of this Title and is in harmony with the public interest.
C:\home\CHRISB\CASES\RMFH—def\PZ—EX—A.doc
Staff Comments 2
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE DEFINITION OF
"RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY HOUSING," SECTION 26.104.100 OF THE
LAND USE CODE.
Resolution No. 99 - QF
-on.D
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Section 26.304.040, the Planning and Zoning Commission
may initiate text amendments to the Land Use Code and did so initiate this text amendment
to the Land Use Code after considering a recommendation by the Community Development
Director; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council may approve Amendments to the text of the Land Use
Code after taking and considering recommendations from the Community Development
Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission made at a duly noticed public hearing, and
taking and considering public testimony at a duly noticed public hearing in conformance
with the review criteria set forth in Section 26.310; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department analyzed the amendment,
pursuant to Section 26.310, and recommended the definition of the term "Residential Multi -
Family Housing" be amended, as described herein; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on September 21, 1999, the
Planning and Zoning Commission considered a recommendation made by the Community
Development Director, took and considered public testimony, and recommended, by a _ to
vote -�, City Council amend the term "Residential Multi -Family Housing," as
described herein.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
That the City Council should amend the term "Residential Multi -Family Housing," by
inclusion of the following text, denoted by underline:
Residential multi -family housing. A multi -family residential building, a dwelling
unit in a multi -family residential building, one or more dwelling units in an office, retail,
commercial, service commercial building, or three or more detached dwellings on a historic
landmark property where permitted by the zone district which has historically been occupied
by a working resident(s), excluding single-family and duplex dwellings, and excluding
dwelling units which have been utilized exclusively as tourist accommodations or which
have always been occupied by an owner who does not qualify as a working resident.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on September 21, 1999.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
JApianning\aspenVesos. doc\p&z\RMFdef. doe
PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
Robert Blaich, Chair
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
EXHIBITS: I Staff Report (v/f (Check If Applicable)
2 Affidavit of Notice (✓) (Check If Applicable)
3 Board Criteria Sheet ( %4"" (Check If Applicable)
4
5
MOTION:1�/I
Ind
VOTE: YES —4NO D
YES NO JASMINE TYGRE YES -t/ NO
R YES NO TIMOTHY MOONEY YES -LI NO
H YES NO STEVEN BUETTOW YES L NO
YES NO TIM SEMRAU YES VINO
ACTION: Amendment to the Land Use Code
Standards applicable to a land use code text amendment:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this title.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements
of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding
zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and
neighborhood characteristics.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and
road safety.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent
to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of
such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities,
sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and
emergency medical facilities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with
the community character in the City of Aspen.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject
parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed
amendment.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
7
her s� granite and mar -
,the most popular stones
fashion gravestones. She
'hat bronze is also very
The average "double"
Dne, for a husband and
'r instance, costs about
'�to $3,000, though small;
isive "singles" begin at
,200. Custom gravestones
into the "tens of thou -
dollars' " she said.
get thcut stones, to
id finish, from a finishing
'iy," Kemper explained.
re the ones who take the
but of the ground and then
1. We then engrave them.
lon't want to cram it full
ng - well I like them
but more and more, peo-
writing more things on
ones," including family
cause of death, profes-
I hobbies or interests.
Fs ago, it wasn't as easy
gra, 's it is today, so
tin ist come along
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 1590 HOMESTAKE DRIVE: DALY ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNIT CONDITIONAL USE
NOTICE iS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
will be held on September 21, I999 at a meeting
to begin at 4:30 P.M. before the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Meeting
Room, City Hall 130 South Galena, Aspen, to.con-
sider an application submitted by Thomas Daly,
520 West Hallam Street, Aspen, CO 81611,
requesting conditional use approval for an
Accessory Dwelling Unit. The property is locat-
ed at 1590 Homestake Dr. and is described as Lot
#17, 17, West Aspen Subdivision Filing_ #2. For
further information contact Chris Bendon at the
Aspen/ Pitkin Community Development
Department, 130 South Galena St:, Aspen, GO
(970) 920-5072.
s/Bob Blair, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in The Aspen Times on September 4,
1999.(48741)
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 426 N. 2nd HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNA-
TION -
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
will be held on September 21, 1999 at a meeting
to begin at 4:30 P.M. before the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Meeting
Room, City Hall 130 South Galena, Aspen, to con-
sider an application submitted by Joan and Karl
Zeisler requesting approval for Historic
Landmark Designation of the property located
at 426 N. 2nd Street, Units A & B, Second and
Smuggler Condominiums. The property is
described as Block 48, City and Townsite of
;Aspen. For further information contact Amy
Guthrie at the Aspen /Pitkin Community
Development Department, 130 South Galena St.,
Aspen, CO (970) 920-5096.
Amyg@ci.aspenco.us
s/Bob Blair, Chair
a 'mentS in the
' Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
S ad. Nowadays, Published in The Aspen Times on September 4, -
,.est gravestones include 1999. (48745)
ame and birth and death PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the Board of
'e Said. County Commissioners, at a regular meeting on
)er said Snyder, the C10S- August 25, 1999 and after a duly -noticed public
hearing published in the Weekend Edition of the
estone maker to the Val- Aspen Times on August 14,1999, adopted the fol-
.cally installs the monu- lowing Ordinance #99-24.
Saturday-Sunday, September 4-5, 1999 • The Aspen Times 23-C
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE AMEND-
MENT: SECTION 26.104.100, DEFINITION OF
"RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY HOUSING".
NOTICE IS HEREBY.GIVEN that a public hearing
will be held on September 21, 1999, at a meeting
to begin at 4:30 P.M. before the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Meeting
Room, City Hall 130 South Galena, Aspen, to con-
sider an application submitted by the City of
Aspen Community Development Department,
requesting approval for a Proposed Code
Amendment to Section 26.104. 1 26.104.00,
Definitions, revising the definition of Residential
Multifamily Housing. For further information
contact Chris Bendon at the Aspen / Pitkin
Community Development Department, 130
South Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5072.
s/Bob Blair, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in The Aspen Times on September 4,
1999. (48740)
PUBLIC NOTICE
COUNTY COURT, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
Case No. 99C158
ORDER. FOR PUBLICATION AND CHANGE OF
NAME
in the Matter of the Petition for the change of
name of Holly Collamer Norris, Petitioner.
ORDER FOR PUBLICATION
The Court having read and considered the
Petition for Change of Name and the petitioner's
affidavit, and the Court being sufficiently
advised,
FINDS: That the allegations made in said peti-
tion and affidavit satisfy all statutory require-
ments;
AND THE COURT FURTHER FINDS: That the
desired change of name is proper and not detri-
mental to the interest of any other person.
IT iS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. That pursuant to statute, petitioner shall
give public notice of such change by publication
of Public Notice three (3) times in The Aspen
Times, a newspaper published in said county.
This publication is to be made within 20 days
from the date of this Order. Proper proof of pub-
lication shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court
upon final publication.
2. That upon proof of publication being filed
with the Clerk of the Court,
the name of Holly Collamer Norris will be
changed to Holly Collamer.
Dated 8/6/99.
Proposal (RFP) must be submitted to NWCCOG
by September 30, 1999.
Interested bidders may contact Linda
Venturoni, NWCCOG Director of Special
Projects, Box 2308, Silverthorne, CO 8049& Web
Page: www.nwc.cog,co.us. E-mail address: lin-
dav@nwc.cog.co.us
Published in The Aspen Times August 28, -
September 4, 1999. (48016)
PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TO PROVIDE FOOD
SERVICES FOR THE PITKIN COUNTY JAIL
Pitkin County will accept proposals from inter-
ested parties to provide Services -for the daily
preparation and delivery of inmate meals.
More detailed information may be obtained by
contacting:
Don Bird
Dept. J
506 E. Main St., Aspen CO 81611
970-920-5349
Published in The Aspen Times September 4 and
September 11, 1999. (48761)
PUBLIC NOTICE
RESOLUTION NO. 67
(Series of 1999)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, RELATIVE TO THE PETI-
TION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE
"SANDUNES L.P."; FiNDiNG SUBSTANTIAL COM-
PLIANCE WITH SECTION 31-12-107(1), C.R.S.;
ESTABLISHING A DATE, TIME, AND PLACE FOR A
PUBLIC HEARING TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE
WiTH SECTIONS 31-12-104 AND 31-12-105, C.R.S.;
AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF
SAID HEARING; AND AUTHORIZING THE INSTI-
TUTION OF ZONING PROCEDURES FOR LAND IN
THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED.
WHEREAS, on July 20, 1999, the owner of the
property proposed to be annexed, did file with
the City Clerk of the City of Aspen a Petition for
Annexation of territory to the City of Aspen,
whereby real property described in Exhibit "A"
appended to the Petition for Annexation, is
being petitioned for annexation to the City of
Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk of the City of Aspen
has referred the aforesaid petition as a commu-
nication to the City Council for appropriate
action to determine if the petition is substantial-
ly in compliance with Section 31-12-107, C.R.S.;
and
the grave site at Some
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
'COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY,
Fitzhugh Scott Ili, Judge
Glenita L. Melnick
WHEREAS, the petition, including accompany -
ing copies of an annexation map, has been-
llowing the burial Cere-
COLORADO ACCEPTING THE GRANT OF
Clerk of the Court/Deputy Clerk
reviewed by the City Attorney's Office and the
City Engineer and found by them to contain the
AVIGATION EASEMENT AGREEMENT FROM
Published in The Aspen Times August 21, 28,
information prescribed and set forth in para-
n complexity of the
THE CITY OF ASPEN AND MUSIC ASSOCIATES
OF ASPEN, INC. AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY
and September 4, 1999. (47562)
graphsthe 7, and (d) of subsection (1) of Section
31-12-10C.R.S.; and
the funeral home's role
COMMISSIONERS OF
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE bF PUBLIC TRUSTEE SALE
WHEREAS, one hundred percent (100%) of the
lg a family aware Of all
Copies of the full text the Ordinance are avail-
Public Trustee No. 99-15
To Whom it may Concern: This Notice is men
y g
owners of the affected property have consented
to annexation of their property to the City of
ins available to them, and
ioof
able for public inspection from 8:30 to 4:30 in the
Office of the Clerk and Recorder, 530 East Main
-
with regard to the following described Deed of
As en; and
WHEREAS, Section 31-12-107(1)(g), C.R.S., man
Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 970 920
Trust:
R Haggart
dates that the City of Aspen initiate annexation
ions, surpasses In lmpor-
Jeanette Jones
Original Beneficiary. Bank United
Current Owner of the Evidence of Debt: Bank
proceedings in accordance with Sections 31-12-
1 proceedings
a 31-12-110, Gorda ce with
-whenever a petition 2-
is
home's care and prepa-
Deputy County Clerk
4,
United
filed pursuant to subsection (1) of Section 31-12-
the deceased's remains,
Published in The Aspen Times on September
1999. (48757)
Date of Deed of Trust: January 7, 1999
107, C.R.S.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
�.
Recording Date of Deed of Trust January 12,
1999
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COL-
>u helpthat family then
y
PUBLIC NOTICE .:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the Board of
_
Original Principal Amount of Evidence of Debt: $
ORADO:
Section 1
,
;rlence will at least be
County Commissioners, at a regular meeting on
August 25, 1999 and after a dulynoticed public
417,900.00
Outstanding Principal Amount of Evidence.of
That the Petition for Annexation of territory, to
the City of Aspen is hereby found and.deter-
»
ine, Holt said.
hearing published in the Weekend Edition of The
Debt as of the date hereof: $417,900.00
mined to be in substantial compliance with the A`x"'
Aspen Times on August 13, 1999, adopted the
County of Recording: Pitkin
provisions of .subsection (1) of Section 31-12-
is area We have a lot Of
following Ordinance #99-27. -
Book and Page No. or Reception No. of Recorded
107, C.R.S. _ 2
�e
faiths, Holt continued.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
" COMMissIONF.RS OF PITKIN COUNTY,
Deed of Trust: at Reception No. 426512
Legal Description of Real Property:
Section 2
That the City Council hereby determines that 1t
a funeral home, we have
COLORADO OF ONE OR MORE NON-EXCLUSIVE
SEE EXHIBiT A ATTACHED HERETO AND INCOR-
PORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE
shall hold a public hearing to determine if the
proposed annexation complies.with Sections 31-
dy and able to do differ-
CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISES._
Copies of the full text of the Ordinance are avail-
W19CH HAS THE ADDRESS OF 220 Pitkin Mesa
12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., and to estabiish _
rS. WP ve had people of
p p
able for'public inspection from 8:30 to 4:30 in the
Drive #A As n, CO 81611
Pe
whether or not said area is eligible for annexa-
tion pursuant to the Municipal Annexation Act
h
, re . g i o n s : Once ,
Office of the Clark and Recorder, 530 East Main
Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 970-920
THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN IS ALL OF
THE PROPERTY ENCUMBERED BY THE LIEN OF
of 1965, as amended; said hearing to be held at a
It iome we Were
5180
THEDEED OF TRUST.
regular meeting -of the City Council of the City of
Aspen at 5:00 o'clock p.m. on the 27th day of
W d not back the
a t yt .F^deanqtte Jones
f :j De u Coun_ Clerk
h�
TF1E LIEN I?ORECLOSID MAY NOT BE A FIRS
_
September, 1999, in Council Chambers at City
'hey .-.,eve that the per_
P
Published the.Weekerid Edition A The Aspen
Bank United, the owner of the Evidence of Debt
Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado 81611. (A
date which is not less than thirty days nor more
to keep going forward
Times qn ptem Seber �i;'1999..(48759) �e
secured by the Deed of Trust described herein,
has filed written election and demand for sale as
than sixty days after the effective date of this
lid it. We try to accom- .
_ }` `PUBLIC NOTICE
Piiik TAKE NOTICE: That the Board of County
provided by law and in said Deed of Trust.
THEREFORE, Notice Is Hereby Given that I will,
resolution).
Section 3 '
;veryone, and that makes
Co"` ssloners of Pitkin County, Colorado, at its
at 10:00 o'clock in the forenoon of Wednesday,
That the City Clerk shall give public notice as
follows: A copy of this resolution shall consti-
interestln business."
y g
reid,0-- t ieeting on°August 25,.1999, aiid after a
follow-
September 29, 1999, at the South front door,
County
tute notice that, on the given date and at the
duly t�ot(ced pu6tle,fiearin� adopted the
Pitkin Courthouse, 506 East Main,
given time and place set by the City Council, the
ing Ordinance
Aspen, Colorado, sell at public auction to the
City Council shall hold a hearing upon said res-
\ao
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
highest and best bidder for cash, the said real
olution of the City of Aspen for the purpose of
COMM1S.SiONERS QF. PITKINCOUNTY,
property and all interest of the said Grantor(s),
determining and finding whether the area oro-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commsision
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director}!
FROM: Nick Lelack, Planner
RE: Daly Conditional Use for an Accessory Dwelling Unit
— Public Hearing
1590 Homestake Drive
DATE: September 21, 1999
SUMMARY:
Tom Daly, owner and applicant, has applied for Conditional Use approval for an
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) to be located on the main level of a new single
family house on Homestake Drive (Lot 17 of the West Aspen Subdivision). The
property is currently vacant and does not have any trees or shrubbery.
The ADU includes approximately 366 square feet of net livable space including
storage and closet areas. The plans include a bathroom and a combined kitchen/living
area, which characterizes this ADU as an efficiency or studio unit.
This ADU meets or exceeds all development standards and has been reviewed and
recommended for approval by the appropriate referral agencies.
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use for an Accessory Dwelling
Unit, with conditions.
APPLICANT:
Tom Daly.
LOCATION:
1590 Homestake Drive.
ZONING:
Moderate Density Residential (R-15).
LOT SIZE:
15,400 square feet.
(The application states that the lot size is 140' x 100', but it is actually 140' x 110' .
Thus, the actual lot size is 15,400 square feet rather than 14,000 square feet as stated
on the application.)
1
LOT AREA (FOR PURPOSES OF FAR CALCULATION):
15,400 square feet.
FAR:
Allowable — 4,524 square feet
Existing — 0 square feet
Proposed — 4,517 square feet
These figures are represented by applicant and are subject to review by the Zoning
Officer.
CURRENT LAND USE:
Vacant parcel. Building permits pending for single-family residence and Accessory
Dwelling Unit.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Single-family residence with one attached Accessory Dwelling Unit.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
The Commission has not previously considered this application for a conditional use.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Conditional Use. The Commission shall approve, approve with conditions, or
disapprove the application at a public hearing.
BACKGROUND:
This is a vacant lot in the West Aspen Subdivision.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The proposed ADU is to be located on the main level of a new single family
residence. Exterior access to the ADU will be accomplished with a concrete,
flagstone, or other pedestrian -usable path connecting the ADU entrance to the
driveway. The unit meets the land use code standards for ADUs.
The proposed ADU is designed as a studio/efficiency unit with a bathroom and a
combined living/kitchen area.
Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit "A." Agency
referral comments have been included as Exhibit "B." The application has been
included as Exhibit "C."
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Daly Accessory
Dwelling Unit, 1590 Homestake Drive, with the following conditions:
1) The building permit application shall include:
a) a copy of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission resolution.
2
b) a current Site Improvement Survey indicating the nature of all easements of
record indicated on the property title commitment.
c) a completed and recorded sidewalk, curb, and gutter construction agreement and
an agreement to join any future improvement districts for the purpose of
constructing improvements which benefit the property under an assessment
formula.
d) a completed and recorded ADU deed restriction on the property, a form for which
may be obtained from the Housing Office. The deed restriction shall be noted on
the building permit plans.
e) a drainage report and a drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared
by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer which maintains sediment and debris on -
site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil
percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2 year storm
frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. If drywells
are an acceptable solution for site drainage, a soils report must be provided with
percolation test to verify the feasibility of this type system. Drywells may not be
placed within utility easements. The foundation drainage system should be
separate from storm drainage, must be detained on site, and must be shown on the
drainage plan. The drainage may be conveyed to existing landscaped areas if the
drainage report demonstrates that the percolation rate and the retention volume
meet the design storm.
f) a tree removal or relocation permit from the City Parks Department for any trees to
be removed or relocated,
g) a completed tap permit with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. The
applicant shall connect the ADU to the sanitary sewer in a manner acceptable to
the ACSD superintendent.
2. The building permit plans shall reflect/indicate:
a) Conformance with all aspects of the City's Residential Design Standards.
b) The proposed ADU is labeled as such and meets the definition of an Accessory
Dwelling Unit.
c) The ADU will contain a kitchen (having a minimum of a two -burner stove with
oven, standard sink, and a 6-cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer) and a bathroom
(having a minimum of a shower, sink, and a toilet).
d) The ADU has the minimum one (1) off-street parking space provided; the
building permit plans shall indicate the designated ADU parking space. The ADU
space must have clear access and cannot be stacked with a space for the primary
residence.
e) The ADU meets all applicable UBC requirements for light and air.
f) An overhang shall cover the ADU entrance designed to prevent snow and ice from
falling on, or building -up on, the entrance to the ADU.
3
g) Conformance with the City's requirements for driveways. Driveways must be
separated by '25 feet or more (including neighboring driveways), and must be paved
from the edge of the street to the property line. Paving alternatives may be
approved by the City Engineer.
h) A fire suppression system if the gross square footage of the structure exceeds 5,000
square feet.
i) A five (5) foot wide pedestrian usable space with a five (5) foot wide buffer for
snow storage at the edge of the street paving. .
j) A pedestrian connection from the ADU entrance to the driveway shall be
indicated on the building permit plans. The pedestrian path shall be constructed
of concrete, flagstone or other pedestrian -usable surface material.
3. The applicant should provide separate utility taps and meters for each residential unit.
4. All utility meters and any new utility pedestals or transformers must be installed on the
applicant's property and not in any public right-of-way. Easements must be provided for
pedestals. All utility locations and easements must be delineated on the site improvement
survey. Meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed.
5. The applicant must receive approval for any work within public rights -of -way from the
appropriate City Department. This includes, but is not limited to, approval for a mailbox
and landscaping from the City Streets Department.
6. All construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maintained on -site and not within
public rights -of -way unless specifically approved by the Director of the Streets
Department. The applicant shall inform the contractor of this condition.
7. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the
hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Monday - Saturday.
8. Before applying for a building permit, the applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning
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.
9. 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.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve the Daly Accessory Dwelling Unit, 1590 Homestake Drive with
the conditions outlined in the Community Development Department memo dated
September 21, 1999."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments
Exhibit B --
Referral Agency Comments
Exhibit C --
Vicinity Map
Exhibit D --
Development Application
FADaly Pz_memo.doc
al
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNIT TO BE LOCATED IN THE DALY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, 1590
HOMESTAKE DRIVE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel No. 2735-024-01-024
Resolution #99 =
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Tom Daly, owner and applicant, for a Conditional Use Review for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit of approximately three hundred sixty six (366) net livable square feet to be
located on the main level of a single family residence at 1590 Homestake Drive, City of
Aspen; and,
WHEREAS, the parcel is approximately 15,400square feet, located in the
Moderate -Density Residential (R-15) Zone District, and is currently a vacant parcel; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.28.040, Medium -Density Residential,
26.40.090, Accessory Dwelling Units, and 26.60.040, Standards Applicable to All
Conditional Uses, of the Aspen Municipal Code, Accessory Dwelling Units in the R-15
Zone District may be approved, at a public hearing, by the Planning and Zoning
Commission as Conditional Uses in conformance with the requirements of said Sections;
and,
WHEREAS, the Housing Office, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City
Engineering, and the Community Development Department reviewed the proposal and
recommended approval with conditions; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing at a regular meeting on
September 21, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved, by a to
vote, the Conditional Use for an Accessory Dwelling Unit to be located
on the main level of a single family residence, 1590 Homestake Drive, with the
conditions recommended by the Community Development Department.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
That the Conditional Use for an Accessory Dwelling Unit of approximately three hundred
sixty six (366) net livable square feet to be located on the main level of a single family
residence at 1590 Homestake Drive, is approved with the following conditions:
1) The building permit application shall include:
a) a copy of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission resolution.
b) a current Site Improvement Survey indicating the nature of all easements of
record indicated on the property title commitment.
c) a completed and recorded sidewalk, curb, and gutter construction agreement
and an agreement to join any future improvement districts for the purpose of
constructing improvements which benefit the property under an assessment
formula.
d) a completed and recorded ADU deed restriction on the property, a form for
which may be obtained from the Housing Office. The deed restriction shall be
noted on the building permit plans.
e) a drainage report and a drainage plan, including an erosion control plan,
prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer which maintains sediment and
debris on -site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is
required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility.
A 2 year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage
improvements. If drywells are an acceptable solution for site drainage, a soils
report must be provided with percolation test to verify the feasibility of this
type system. Drywells may not be placed within utility easements. The
foundation drainage system should be separate from storm drainage, must be
detained on site, and must be shown on the drainage plan. The drainage may
be conveyed to existing landscaped areas if the drainage report demonstrates
that the percolation rate and the retention volume meet the design storm.
f) a tree removal or relocation permit from the City Parks Department for any trees
to be removed or relocated.
g) a completed tap permit with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. The
applicant shall connect the ADU to the sanitary sewer in a manner acceptable
to the ACSD superintendent.
2. The building permit plans shall reflect/indicate:
a) Conformance with all aspects of the City's Residential Design Standards.
b) The proposed ADU is labeled as such and meets the definition of an
Accessory Dwelling Unit.
c) The ADU will contain a kitchen (having a minimum of a two -burner stove
with oven, standard sink, and a 6-cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer) and a
bathroom (having a minimum of a shower, sink, and a toilet).
d) The ADU has the minimum one (1) off-street parking space provided; the
building permit plans shall indicate the designated ADU parking space. The
ADU space must have clear access and cannot be stacked with a space for the
primary residence.
e) The ADU meets all applicable UBC requirements for light and air.
f) An overhang shall cover the ADU entrance designed to prevent snow and ice
from falling on, or building -up on, the entrance to the ADU.
g) Conformance with the City's requirements for driveways. Driveways must be
separated by 25 feet or more (including neighboring driveways), and must be
paved from the edge of the street to the property line. Paving alternatives may
be approved by the City Engineer.
h) A fire suppression system if the gross square footage of the structure exceeds
5,000 square feet.
i) A five (5) foot wide pedestrian usable space with a five (5) foot wide buffer
for snow storage at the edge of the street paving.
j) A pedestrian connection from the ADU entrance to the driveway shall be
indicated on the building permit plans. The pedestrian path shall be
constructed of concrete, flagstone or other pedestrian -usable surface material.
3. The applicant should provide separate utility taps and meters for each residential unit.
4. All utility meters and any new utility pedestals or transformers must be installed on
the applicant's property and not in any public right-of-way. Easements must be
provided for pedestals. All utility locations and easements must be delineated on the
site improvement survey. Meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not
be obstructed.
5. The applicant must receive approval for any work within public rights -of -way from
the appropriate City Department. This includes, but is not limited to, approval for a
mailbox and landscaping from the City Streets Department.
6. All construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maintained on -site and not
within public rights -of -way unless specifically approved by the Director of the Streets
Department. The applicant shall inform the contractor of this condition.
7. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to
the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Monday - Saturday.
8. Before applying for a building permit, the applicant shall record this Planning and
Zoning 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.
9. 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.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on September 21, 1999-
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
Robert Blaich, Chair
Exhibit A
Daly ADU
STAFF COMMENTS: ADU
Section 26.60.040, Standards Applicable to all Conditional Uses
(A) The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals,
objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan,
and with the intent of the zone district in which it is proposed to be
located.
Staff Finding:
A deed restricted Accessory Dwelling Unit is consistent with the purposes, goals,
objectives, and standards of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). Supplying and
increasing the affordable housing stock is clearly a goal of both the AACP and Land Use
Code.
Accessory Dwelling Units are a conditional use in the R-15 Zone District.
(B) The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character
of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development
and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of
complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the
parcel proposed for development.
Staff Finding:
The surrounding land uses are mixed single-family residential and duplex units. There
are existing ADUs in the neighborhood. The proposed development appears to be in the
same character as the immediate area.
(C) The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the
proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including
visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation,
parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on
surrounding properties.
Staff Finding:
The proposed ADU site has sufficient space to accommodate its parking demand on -site.
The ADU is proposed to be 366 square feet, and located on the main level of a new single
family residence. Staff believes the ADU meets or exceeds this standard because of the
unit's size, design, and integration into the house.
(D) There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the
conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water,
sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency
medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems,
and schools.
Staff Comments page 1
Staff Finding:
Park fees are payable at building permit issuance based on the number of bedrooms in the
residence and ADU. Infrastructure capacity is sufficient for this development and
utilities are available. The applicant will need to complete a tap permit for sanitation
service and is subject to connection fees. The ACSD may require the provision of
separate taps for each unit.
(E) The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the
incremental need for increased employees generated by the
conditional use.
Staff Finding:
The conditional use mitigates itself.
(F) The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards
imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other
applicable requirements of this title.
Staff Finding:
The applicant is not seeking any waivers or special considerations through this process.
The development appears to be in conformance with all other applicable standards of the
land use code.
Section 26.40.090, Accessory Dwelling Units
A. General Provisions
1) Accessory Dwelling units shall contain not less than three -hundred (300)
square feet and no more than seven -hundred (700) square feet of net
livable area. The unit shall be deed restricted, meeting the Housing
Authority's guidelines for resident occupied units and shall be limited to
rental periods of not less than six (6) months in duration. Owners of the
principle residence shall have the right to place a qualified employee or
employees of his or her choosing in the accessory dwelling unit. One (1)
parking space shall be provided on -site for each studio unit, and for each
bedroom within a one or two -bedroom accessory dwelling unit.
Staff Finding:
The proposed ADU is approximately 366 square feet of net livable area. The applicant
will be required to file a deed restriction on the unit prior to building permit application.
2) An attached accessory dwelling unit shall be subject to all other
dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district.
Staff Finding:
The development appears to be in conformance with the provisions of the R-15 Zone
District. A zoning check is required through the building permit review process.
Staff Comments page 2
3) A detached accessory dwelling unit shall only be permitted on parcels that
have "secondary and/or alley access, exempting parcels with existing
structures to be converted to detached accessory dwelling units, detached
garages or carports where an accessory dwelling unit is proposed above,
attached to, or contained within such detached garage or carport.
Detached accessory dwelling units are prohibited within the R-15B zone
district.
Staff Finding:
The ADU is attached.
3) An attached accessory dwelling unit shall utilize alley access to the extent
practical.
Staff Finding:
There is no alley which serves this property.
A. Development Review Standards.
1) The proposed development is compatible and subordinate in character
with the primary residence located on the property and with the,
development located within the neighborhood, and assuming year -around
occupancy, shall not create a density pattern inconsistent with the
established neighborhood.
Staff Finding:
The ADU is subordinate in character to the primary residence. The ADU, considering
year-round occupancy, is not expected to create a density pattern inconsistent with the
neighborhood. ,.
2) Where the proposed development varies from the dimensional
requirements of the underlying zone district, the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall find that such variation is more compatible in character
with the primary residence than the development in accord with.
dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements may
be varied:
a. Minimum front and rear yard setbacks
b. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot.
c. Maximum allowed floor area may be exceeded up to the bonus
allowed for accessory dwelling units.
d. The side yard setback shall be a minimum of three feet.
e. The maximum height limits for detached accessory dwelling units in
the R-6 zone district may be varied at the rear one-third (1 /3) of the
parcel, however, the maximum height of the structure shall not exceed
eighteen (18) feet. On Landmark Designated parcels and within the
Historic Overlay District the HPC shall have the ability to make height
variations.
Staff Comments page 3
f. Maximum allowable site coverage may be varied up to a maximum of
five (5) percent, on Landmark Designated Parcels and within an
Historic Overlay District the HPC shall have the ability to make such
site coverage variations.
g. In the case where the proposed detached accessory dwelling unit is
located on a Landmark Designated Parcel or within an Historic
Overlay District only HPC may make dimensional variations pursuant
to the standards of Section 26.40.070(B)
Staff Finding:
The applicant is not requesting any variations to the dimensional requirements. The one
required parking space has been indicated on the proposed site plan.
2) The Planning and Zoning Commission and the Historic Preservation
Committee may exempt existing nonconforming structures, being
converted to a detached accessory dwelling unit, from 26.40.070(B)(2)(a-
g) provided that the nonconformity is not increased.
Staff Finding:
Not applicable. There are no non -conformities.
3) Conditional use review shall be granted pursuant to Section 26.60.040
Standards applicable to all conditional uses.
Staff Finding:
Refer to Staff Comments for Conditional Use review.
C. Bandit Units.
Any bandit dwelling unit which can be demonstrated to have been in existence on
or prior to November 1, 1988, and which complies with the requirements of this
section may be legalized as an accessory dwelling unit, if it shall meet the health
and safety requirements of the Uniform Building Code, as determined by the
Chief Building Official.
Staff Finding:
Does not apply. This is not a bandit unit.
D. GMQS/ Replacement Housing Credits.
Accessory dwelling units shall not be used to obtain points in the affordable
housing category of the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS). Only those
units meeting the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of
approval of the housing designee and the standards of Section 26.100.090 may be
used to obtain points in the affordable housing category. Accessory dwelling
units also may not be used to meet the requirements of Title 20 of the Municipal
Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, "Residential Multi -Family Housing
Replacement Program."
Staff Comments page 4
Staff Finding:
Does not apply. Multi -Family housing replacement applies to structures of three or more
units.
E. FAR for Accessory Dwelling Units.
For the purposes of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area for a lot
whose principle use is residential, the following shall apply: the allowable floor
area for an above -grade attached accessory dwelling unit shall be excluded to a
maximum of three -hundred -fifty (350) square feet of allowable floor area or fifty
(50) percent of the size of the accessory dwelling unit, whichever is less. This
floor area exclusion provision only applies to accessory dwelling units which are
subject to review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant
to conditional use review and approval, Section 26.60.030 of this code, and the
units must be deed restricted, registered with the housing office, and available for
rental to an eligible working resident of Pitkin County. The owner retains the
right to select the renter for the unit. An Accessory Dwelling Unit separated from
a principal structure by a distance of no less than ten (10) feet with a maximum
footprint of four hundred fifty (45) square feet, shall be calculated at fifty (50)
percent of the allowable floor area up to seven hundred (700) square feet of Floor
Area. Any element linking the principal structure to the accessory structure may
be no more than one (1) story tall, six (6) feet wide, and ten (10) feet long.
Staff Finding:
The ADU does not qualify for a Floor Area exemption because it is not being deed
restricted to mandatory occupancy, and the applicant is not requesting a Floor Area
bonus.
Staff Comments page 5
E-X t, ; !a ; + S
MEMORANDUM
To: Nick Lelack, Planner
Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer
From: Chuck Roth, Project Engineer
Date: September 14, 1999
Re: Daly Conditional Use for an Accessory Dwelling Unit
(1590 Homestake Dr.)
The Development Review Committee has reviewed the above referenced application at their
September 8, 1999 meeting, and we have the following comments:
General - (1) These comments are based on the fact that we believe that the submitted site plan is
accurate, that it shows all site features without misrepresentation, and that it is feasible. The
wording must be carried forward exactly as written unless prior consent is received from the
Engineering Department. This is to halt complaints related to approvals tied to "issuance of
building permit." (2) If there are any encroachments into the public right-of-way, the encroachment
must either be removed or be subject to current encroachment license requirements if continuation
of such encroachment would be acceptable to the City.
1. Site Drainage - The existing City storm drainage infrastructure system is does not have
additional capacity to convey increased storm runoff. The site development approvals must include
the requirement of meeting runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Sec. 26.88.040.C.4.f
and a requirement that the building permit application include a drainage mitigation plan (24"x36"
size plan sheet or on the lot grading plan) and a report signed and stamped by an engineer registered
in the State of Colorado, submitted as part of the building and site plan, as well as a temporary
sediment control and containment plan for the construction phase. If drywells are an acceptable
solution for site drainage, a soils report must be provided with percolation test to verify the
feasibility of this type system. Drywells may not be placed within utility easements. The
foundation drainage system should be separate from storm drainage, must be detained on site, and
must be shown on drainage plans prior to permit drawings. The drainage may be conveyed to
existing landscaped areas if the drainage report demonstrates that the percolation rate and the
retention volume meet the design storm. Drainage from the driveway is of special concern.
2. Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter - The development plans need to indicate a five foot wide
pedestrian usable space with a five foot buffer for snow storage, where feasible. The applicant
needs to sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement, and pay recording fees, prior to
issuance of a building permit.
3. Housing Office — The unit is above grade, which is preferable.
4. Fire Marshal - If the area of the structure exceeds 5,000 square feet, sprinklers must be
installed. The plans will be reviewed by the Fire Marshall at the time of application for a building
permit.
5. Work in the Public Right-of-way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as
follows:
The applicant must receive approval from city engineering (920-5080) for design of
improvements, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way, parks department (920-5120)
for vegetation species and for public trail disturbance, and streets department (920-5130) for
mailboxes , street and alley cuts, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including
landscaping, within public rights -of -way from the city community development department.
DRC Attendees
Staff Nick Adeh, Chris Bendon„ Nick Lelack, Ed Van Walraven, Stephen Kanipe, Cindy
Christensen, Phil Overeynder, Chuck Roth
99M 123
LAND USE APPLICATION 61DP
PROJECT: `
Name: DA ;,...y k 5l I)G N C L M 0
Location: 15 q p H 0 H ES_/?1 KG DR I Ur✓ 0 � -QT 17 !,c)E S i ASPEN SLA 0 i UtS roll FI �
(Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate)
APPLICANT:
Name: --To" n A �_y
Address: 5 o2 Q , . A H SMELT ASPOJ
Phone #: 9c1,S — t 7 9 S
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name: T p M n A LY
Address: 5 A 1112EET As S PE7\1
Phone #: 9- S 7 Y S
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
ew
Conditional Use
❑
Conceptual PUD
R
Conceptual Historic Devt.
❑
Special Review
❑
Final PUD (& PUD Amendment)
❑
Final Historic Development
❑
Design Review Appeal
❑
Conceptual SPA
Minor Historic Devt.
GMQS Allotment
Final SPA (& SPA Amendment)
❑
Historic Demolition
GMQS Exemption
❑
Subdivision
❑
Historic Designation
ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream
❑
Subdivision Exemption (includes
Small Lodge Conversion/
Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, '
condominiumization) .
Expansion
Mountain View Plane
Lot Split
❑
Temporary Use
❑
Other:
F-]
Lot Line Adjustment
❑
Text/Map Amendment
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
VA CAN E R s ML-2,3 1 /A L- Lo T
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: S
❑ Pre -Application Conference Summary
Attachment 41, Signed Fee Agreement
Response to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form
❑ Response to Attachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents
Response to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents
❑ Response to Attachment #5, Review Standards for Your Application
ATTACHMENT 2
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM
Project: f� i,`/ R 51 lb emc A b U
Applicant: j O M D A L_y
Location: 1590 140 HESEAKEb kk V - LOT 17 !QE51r_ASPQJ ► i Si oN
Zone District:
Lot Size: 140 ""X /QC �
Lot Area: . 134 p 00 50. F-1
(for the pu oses of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas
.within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the
definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.).
Commercial net leasable: Existing
-- Proposed.•
Number of residential units: Existing.
-- Proposed: /
Number of bedrooms:
Existing:
Proposed.• PICS ADU)
Proposed % of demolition
(Historic properties only):
DIMENSIONS:
Floor Area:
Existing: --
Allowable. -� 'f .5_1
Principal bldaheight:
Existing' —
,Proposed.
Allowableuc Proposed:
Access. bldg. height:
Existing: --
Allowable: -- Proposed. /yam NZ ---:
parking:
Existing: —
___:Required.-- Proposed: 3
% Site coverage:
Existing: —
Required: Proposed ,
% Open Space:
Existing: —
Required: IV / A
Front Setback:
Existing
PProposed:
e uired: a,`` Pro sed:
. po'f a2.7
Rear Setback:
Existing: —
Required.- /0 Proposed: _ 0
Combined F/R:
Existing: ---
Required: 3,51 Proposed: 36
Side Setback:
Existing: --
Required: Proposed:
Side Setback:
Existing.- —
Required: Proposed: / 7/0 �(/G
Combined Sides:
Existing: —
Required: Proposed:
Existing non -conformities or encroachments: ffo NE
Variations requested: /1/0,lo�5'
a.w vv n.
4
N
q
N
Ig
0
w
Lo//`O
V v
r
oQ�Q
bt ^
�c��.anp
O
w
ac
f
�
p
i
.ci+ •
ij
0
i
WIW
I
�
Z 1
r
_
• � • f
I
i
f
�
r0
®
7
r
♦
f
_
f
2
ff
Z o
Q
•� 9LX\N
•
r r
rlw __.. I
•
I• I
ol
�R
•�
S
•
-
-
lu
as
�1
—
•;
V•
• t- 1
O
eI
O
[QQ[
v
lu
o .
0 �
z
o C
a�
J
w
pp
p
CO
�C �
�z
to
V
V
W
0m X
ttl
0-,z
August 9, 1999
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado
Re: Land Use Application Information
Lot 17, West Aspen Subdivision
To Whom It May Concern:
The applicant authorized to act as representative is the owner:
Thomas J. Daly
520 W. Hallam Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 925-5788
Legal description of the property:
Lot 17, West Aspen Subdivision, Filing No. 2
There are no mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts or
agreements affecting this parcel.
Attached is a copy of the current title insurance policy.
Sincerely,
i
Thomas J. Daly
520 W. Hallam Street
Aspen, CO 81611
925-5788
q uwc;t ir
-0
P11"
} 4 E 71 z 'tNil 'pill , iNLI �"r �0 i 01E¢
774Ot 11-9 0 11 !il"i � SWURWIL
jp
NAME OF PROJECT: �� oki>LA
CITY CLERK: �� Lmw"7*14khw%j
STAFF: t**..l ` G,K � L^469MW4
WITNESSES: (1) ��0tA -D%rl--Y(2) �44W^J *
(3)
(4)
(5)
EXHIBITS: 1
2
3
4
5
MOTION:
Staff Report ( (Check If Applicable)
Affidavit of Notice )/)((checkIf
eck If Applicable)
Board Criteria Sheet ( Applicable)
VOTE: YES —t NO a
YES NO
YES NO
YES NO
YES NO
JASMINE TYGRE YES _
TIMOTHY MOONEY YES NO STEVEN BUETTOW YES � NO.
YES V NO
Attachment 8
County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
} SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS
State of Colorado } SECTION 26.52.060(E)
-7'k M A S iDzqt,5� , being or representing an
Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice
requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following
manner:
l . By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S.
Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the sub ject.property, as indicated
on the attached list, on thec,,V�day ofs�-��7� , 199 ? (which is /q days prior to the public
hearing date of Z99).
2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from
the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the'lday
=� of,s'L 199 , to the �Ay of �S�p -�g� , 199J . (Must be posted for at least
ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto.
(Attach photograph here)
4a'L
Signature --1) J
Signed before me this / 'day of ,
199 "1. by -7 komas -D
61 C/
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My Commission expires: %y - - ;7-0 d 0
(LA"e-�2 Lezo�
Not Public
DOAN SHELLEY F
12263 INDIAN RD
"TH PALM BEACH, FL 33408
COUCHMAN DIANE P
4416 GRASSMERE
DALLAS, TX 75205
LYONS CHARLES P & EDELTRAUD
1690 HOMESTAKE DR
ASPEN, CO 81611
TAYLOR RICHARD E
TAYLOR MURIEL KAY
1595 SILVER KING DR
ASPEN, CO 81611
ROSS RONNI L
1610 W HOMESTAKE
ASPEN, CO 81611
DISABATINO M A JR
DISABATINO G C
1610 SILVER KING DR
ASPEN, CO 81611
DIFFENBAUGH JOHN D
DIFFENBAUGH CAROLYN G
1655 SILVER KING DR
ASPEN, CO 81611
SCHILLER CARL F & LESLIE HARLOW-
1605 SILVER KING DR
ASPEN, CO 81611-1050
BRESNITZ KURT G & LOTTE S
1650 HOMESTAKE DR
ASPEN, CO 81611
SCOTT FITZHUGH III
SCOTT SUSAN S
1655 SILVER KING DR
ASPEN, CO 81611
GUTHRIE JANET UND 44.34% INT
LEVINE WARREN UND 55.66% INT
1525 SILVER KING DR
ASPEN, CO 81611
HIRSCH MICHAEL R & MARY H
1590 SILVER KING DR
ASPEN, CO 81611
OSTERMAIER HERMAN FAMILY TRUST
2.75 CASTLE CREEK RD #105
ASPEN, CO 81611-1194
GORDON GWYN V
1540 SILVER KING DR
ASPEN, CO 81611
SCHWARTZ ALAN E REVOCABLE TRUST
PO BOX 10452
ASPEN, CO 81612-7343
DALY THOMAS J
520 W HALLAM ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
TAYLOR J DAVID
1570 HOMESTAKE DR
ASPEN, CO 81611
MANN FLOYD C TRUST & JOSEPHINE C TRUST SMITH JOAN FRENSLEY & STEPHEN B CITY OF ASPEN 1550 HOMESTAKE DR 4033 GRASSMERE 130 S GALENA ST
ASPEN, CO 81611 DALLAS, TX 75205 ASPEN, CO 81611
ACTION: CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR AN ADU
STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO ALL CONDITIONAL USES:
The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and
standards of the Aspen Area Community Plan, and with the intent of the
zone district in which it is proposed to be located.
The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the
immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and
surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses
and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
development.
The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed
conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts,
impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service
delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties.
There are adequate- public facilities and services to serve the conditional
use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste,
parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and
medical services, drainage systems, and schools.
The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the
incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional
use.
The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards
imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other
applicable requirements of this title.
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS:
Accessory dwelling units shall contain not less than three hundred (300)
square feet and no more than seven hundred (700) square feet of net
livable area. The unit shall be deed restricted, meeting the Housing
Authority's guidelines for resident occupied units and shall be limited
to rental periods of not less than six (6) months in duration. Owners
of the principle residence shall have the right to place a qualified
employee or employees of his or her choosing in the accessory dwelling
unit. One (1) parking space shall be provided on -site for each studio
unit, and for each bedroom within a one or two -bedroom accessory
dwelling unit.
An attached accessory dwelling unit shall be subject to all other
dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district.
A detached accessory dwelling unit shall only be permitted on parcels
that have secondary and/or alley access, exempting parcels with
existing structures to be converted to detached accessory dwelling
units, detached garages or carports where an accessory dwelling unit
is proposed above, attached to, or contained within such detached
garage or carport. Detached accessory dwelling units are prohibited
within the R-15B zone district.
An attached accessory dwelling unit shall utilize alley access to the
extent practical.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS:
The proposed development shall be compatible with and subordinate in
character to the primary residence located on the parcel as well as
development located within the neighborhood, and assuming year-
round occupancy, shall not create a density pattern inconsistent with the
established neighborhood.
Where the proposed development varies from the dimensional
requirements of the underlying zone district, the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall find that such variation is more compatible in
character with the primary residence than the development in
accord with dimensional requirements.
The Planning and Zoning Commission and the Historic Preservation
Commission may exempt nonconforming structures, being converted
to a detached accessory dwelling unit, provided the nonconformity is
not increased.
Conditional use review shall be granted pursuant to Section 26.60.040
standards applicable to all conditional uses.