HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19991102AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2,1999, 4:30 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
II. MINUTES (10/19/99, 10/12/99, 07/20/99)
III. TIM SEMRAU COMMENDATION PROCLAMATION
IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
V. ADU List Resolution, Joyce Ohlso�';yy
VI. INFORMATIONAL ITEM
4:45- 4:55 A. Code Amendments, Chris Bendon
VII. PUBLIC HEARING
4:55-5:25 A. Referral to City Council Regarding ADU Floor Area Bonuses, Chris
Bendon
5:25-5:30 B. Code Amendment- (PUB) Zone District & Definitions, Continue to
11/30, Nick Lelack{
5:30-5:35 C. Yellow Brick Rezoning to (PUB) Zone District- Continue to 11/30,
Nick Lelack
5:35-6:05 D. Williams Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment, Chris Bendon
1? Ens>. j
VIII. ADJOURN
TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE. WE RECOMMEND APPLICANTS ARRIVE AT LEAST
'/2 HOUR PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED TIME.
CITY AGENDA
City Council Meetings- on the 2nd and 4th Mondays at 5:00 PM
Planning Zoning Commission Meetings- on the 1st and 3' Tuesdays at 4:30 PM
Historic Preservation'Commission Meetings- on the 2n1 & 41h Wednesdays at 5:00 PM
Board of Adjustment- on every other Thursday at 4:00 PM, or on Demand
Revised 10125199
10/25 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 10/5
Code Amendment — Lighting Ordinance 15t Reading (SM) (Consent)
Code Amendment- Residential Multi -Family Definition 2"d Reading (PH)_ Prenotice (CB)
Saint Moritz Minor PUD 1st Reading (CB)
Aspen Mountain PUD Public Hearing (JA)
Moore Family PUD 1st Reading (NL) Action Item
10/27 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 10/5
403 W. Hallam St.- Worksession and Site Visit
117 Neale — Minor HPC
Contractor Licensing
135 W. Hopkins- Cont'd from 10/13
735 W. Bleeker- Final
11/2 City Planning and Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 10/12
Williams Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment (CB)
Code Amendments (CB) — Information Item
Code Amendment- (PUB) Zone District & Definitions (NL)- cont'd from 10/19 (renotice with
broad definitions)
Yellow Brick Rezoning to (PUB) Zone District (NL) — cont'd from 10/19
Referral to City Council Regarding ADU Floor Area Bonuses (PH) (CB)
Tim Semrau Proclamation Commendation
11/8 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 10/19
Code Amendment- Accessory Dwelling Unit Program 2nd Reading (PH) (CB)
Saint Moritz Minor PUD 2nd Reading * Prenotice (PH) (CB)
HPC Contractor Licensing 1" Reading (AG)
Resolution Re: World Town Planning Day (JO)
11/9 Growth Management Committee (5:00) at Plaza 1 (Tentative)
Chateau Chaumont- Change in Use (CB)
11/10 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 10/19
Architecture 101 (AG)
Bavarian Conceptual- Advisory comments to council (JO)
330 Gillespie- Worksession
135 W. Hopkins- Conceptual — Cont'd from 10/27
11/11 Planning and Zoning (2:00 — 8:OOPM) at Council Chambers (Dinner Provided)
City Notice 10/19
Joint City -County meeting on AACP
11/16 Planning and Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 10/26
Code Amendments Worksession (CB)
Second Aspen Subdivision Lots #6 and #7 ADU, Special Review (NL) (PH)
Graminger 70/30 AH PUD Worksession
11 /17 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 10/26
Special Meeting
11/22 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 11/2
Bavarian Conceptual Public Hearing (JO)
Lighting Ordinance 2nd Reading (SM) (PH)
Moore Family PUD and School District Housing Amendment 2nd Reading (PH) (NL)
11124 HPC
City Notice 11/2
Cancelled
11130 Planning and Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 11 /9
(PUB) Zone District & Definitions cont'd from 11/2 (NL)(PH)
Yellow Brick Rezoning to (PUB) cont'd from 11/2 (NL) (PH)
518 W. Smuggler ADU (NL) (PH)
1395 Riverside ADU (NL) (PH)
1225 & 1227 Alta Vista ADU (NL) (PH) (Tentative)
1217 Planning and Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 11 /16
Code Amendments Public Hearing (CB)
Hoag Lot #3 8040 Greenline Review (CB)
Molly Gibson Lodge Minor PUD (NL) (PH) — (make up council notices for applicant mailing at
same time)
Moore ADU Public Hearing (NL)
510 Park Circle Minor PUD- amendment Public Hearing (NL) (Tentative)
12/8 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 11 /16
Winter and CO. Cont'd
12/13 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 11 /23
Code Amendment (PUB) Zone District 1st Reading (NL)
Yellow Brick School Rezoning to Public 1 St Reading (NL)
2
Contractor Licensing (HPC) 2"d Reading (AG)
State Historic Preservation Tax Credit Resolution (AG)
Molly Gibson Lodge Minor PUD I` Reading (NL)
12114 Planning and Zoning (4:30)
Notice 11 /23
12/21 Planning and Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 11 /30
Holiday- No meeting
12/22 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 11 /30
Holiday- No Meeting
j-
1/ 4 Planning & Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 12/14
1/ 10 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 12/21
Molly Gibson Lodge Minor PUD 2"d Reading (NL) (PH)
Code Amendment (PUB) Zone District 2"d Reading (NL) (PH)
Yellow Brick School Rezoning to (PUB) 2"d Reading (NL) (PH)
1/ 12 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 12/21
1/ 18 Planning & Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 12/28
1/ 24 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 1/ 4
1/ 26 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 1/ 4
2/ 1 Planning & Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 1 /11
Scheduling of Public Hearings are subject to change by discretion of Planning Staff.
cc: P&Z Packet
City Attorney's Office
City Planning Staff
City, Clerk's Office
g:/planning/aspen/agendas/comingup.doc/
COMMENDATION PROCLAMATION
Of the City of Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission
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 as a Planning and Zoning Commissioner; and
WHEREAS, Tim was recently appointed to serve on the Board of the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority and his expertise, commitment a -id 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 2nd day of
November, 1999.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Robert I. Blaich, Chairman
P.
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REQUESTING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND
THE HOUSING AUTHORITY CREATE AND MAINTAIN A
COMPREHENSIVE INVENTORY AND LIST OF ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNITS IN THE CITY OF ASPEN
Resolution 999 -
WHEREAS, employee residents are vital to the sense of community in Aspen
and essential to the character and economy of the City of Aspen; and,
WHEREAS, Accessory Dwelling Units are a viable component of the employee
housing stock within the City; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Area Community Plan, 1993, states as a policy that the
City should, "Promote, market and implement Cottage Infill and Accessory Dwelling
Unit programs.", and the provision of information for employees about the existence,
location and ownership of Accessory Dwelling Units will help to implement this policy;
and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission feels that it is important that
the City of Aspen have and maintain a comprehensive inventory and list of all Accessory
Dwelling Units within the City of Aspen; and,
WHEREAS, ' the Planning and Zoning Commission requests that a
comprehensive inventory and list of Accessory Dwelling Units be created and
maintained; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department and the Aspen
Housing Authority should work closely with each other to create and maintain such a
comprehensive inventory and list of Accessory Dwelling Units.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of
the City of Aspen, Colorado:
That the Community Development Department and the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority create and maintain a comprehensive inventory and list of Accessory Dwelling
Units in the City of Aspen.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on November 2, 1999.
APPROVED AS TO FORIN�I:
David Hoefer, City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
PLANNING AND ZONING COMINIISSION:
Robert Blaich, Chair
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director'
FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner
RE: Land Use Code Amendments — Information Item
DATE: November 2, 1999
SUMMARY:
As a follow-up to the revised organization of the Land Use Code, staff is proposing a
series of substantive code amendments. The first step in this process is to determine
what sections of the code need to be addressed and describe the manner in which they
should be amended. Attached is an annotated Code summary. Staff s comments in
this summary should not be considered as code language, but rather to provide
commentary and pose substantive questions for staff and the Commission to consider.
This scoping process may take several meetings as the land use code is fairly large.
Once the scoping sessions are complete, staff will have a clear road map of the
desired changes and will be able to return with actual code language proposals. The
first work session will not be a noticed public hearing, but meetings thereafter —
starting with the December 7"' meeting — will be noticed as public hearings.
This information item summary is intended to give the Commission a "head start" on
the relative discussions held by staff prior to the first work session. The best way to
use this summary is side -by -side with the land use code. Follow the section headings
and staff comments with the respective sections of the Code. Consider each of the
sections and the manner in which they interrelate.
The work session format for this scoping exercise will be similar to a "conceptual"
review. These topics will be dealt with in a broad, philosophical manner while the
details (criteria, specific language, etc.) will come back for closer scrutiny. All of the
code amendments will come back through the Commission. In fact, several of the
land use topics may become their own project and some have already been allotted
staff resources in the Department's Work Program.
Staff recommends the Commission read through this summary and be prepared
for the work session on November 16,1999.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- 11.2.99 Code Summary and Comments
PART 100 — GENERAL PROVISIONS
26.104
26.104.010
26.104.020
Authority and Title
Purpose
26.104.030 Comprehensive Community Plan
26.104.040 Applicability and Penalty
26.104.050 Void Permits
26.104.060
Emergencies
26.104.070
Land Use Application Fees
26.104.080
Rules of Construction
26.104.090
Reserved
26.104.100
Definitions
Staff Comments:
This Part serves to define the purpose of the Land Use Code and includes
legislative authorities and provisions for interpreting and applying regulations.
This Part 100 was updated with the revised Land Use Code and staff has no
recommended changes for this section except for definitions.
As the Corm -mission is well aware, Land Use Code definitions are highly used and
are commonly adjusted to reflect new and/or modified terms and to eliminate
defunct terms. Any term used in the Land Use Code should be defined unless its
meaning is so commonly known as to not justify a definition.
Staff is suggesting the following terms be added to the Land Use Code and is
asking the Commission to suggest what other undefined terms may need to be
defined.
Commission Action:
Consider terms used in the Land Use Code or terms commonly used in land use
reviews that should be defined, but that are not currently defined.
Townsite Essential Public Facility - pending
Non -Profit Organization — pending Administrative Office?
Carport
Retail Use
Storage Area
Trash Compactor
Development Order
Pre -Application Conference
Commercial Use
Residential Multi -Family - pending
Wildlife Resistant Dumpster or Trash
Enclosure
Sign — pending
PUD Development Plan
Code Amendments, Version 11.16.99 Page 1
PART 200 - ADMINISTRATION - DECISION MAKING
BODIES
Staff Comments:
This Part defines the City's Boards and their functions in implementing the Land Use
Code. This portion of the code was relatively unaffected by the re -write. The Chief
building Official's functions were defined in a separate chapter and the "Planning and
Development Agency" was re -named the Community Development Department.
Recent code amendments have altered some of the functions which need to be updated in
this section. Also, staff has identified additional functions that specific Boards should have
and has suggested some amendments to current functions.
Commission Action:
Review these authorities and compare them to how you understand the LUC to function,
and the manner in which it should function.
26.208 CITY COUNCIL
Suspension of Building Permits? (Moratoriums)
Amendment to N. — provisions of this title, the goals of the AACP, or consistent
with a significant community interest.
26.210 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Initiate a Code Amendment / Map Amendment
Make modifications to review procedures
26.212 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
LP Program GMQS Exemptions - update
ADU Special Review — Pending
PUD final amendments - update
BOA Variances - update
Serve as DRAC
Remove designation of Historic Districts, Landmarking? (HPC to CC)
26.216 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
26.220 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
Make recommendations for map amendments related to historic properties.
Initiate code amendments regarding historic provisions of LUC
ADU Special Review — pending
Serve as DRAC
26.222 DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMITTEE
26.226 GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
Consistent with PitCo. Quorums, voting procedures, etc.
Code Amendments, Version 11.16.99 Page 2
26.304 COMMON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES
26.304.010 General.
26.302.020 Pre -application conference.
26.304.030 Application and fees.
26.304.040 Initiation of development application.
26.304.050 Determination of completeness and review by the Community
Development Director.
26.304.060 Review of a development application by decision -making bodies.
26.304.070 Development orders.
26.304.075 Building Permit.
Staff Comments:
Section 304 defines the process for land use reviews. Pre -Application Conferences,
meeting procedures, public noticing, and development order procedures are contained in
the portion of the LUC. The majority of the land use procedures are referenced to Part
400 under the specific land use review. For example,, the process for a Special Review
directs the reader to the Special Review chapter in Part 400. This has been purposefully
done to prevent duplicate (and contradictory) code provisions.
Staff is suggesting minor modifications to this part of the code. Primarily these
modifications are to further clarify the LUC processes.
• Flow Chart of Land Use Process.
• Form for Development Orders
• Initiation - Include Director's ability to initiate a Text/Map Amendment.
• Initiation - Include condo associations and process for jointly owned areas?
• Check References for gaps. Both 304 to 400 and 400 to 304.
• Sketch Plan Review — Is this a location for City Project Review and/or Projects of
"Significant Community Interest?" (AH Process revisions team)
Commission Action:
The Commission should review this section from the viewpoint of a potential applicant.
Can you find what you are looking for? Does the pre-app process make sense? Do you
know what to expect to happen at the hearing? What may facilitate the explanation of
the process?
Secondly, the Commission should look for gaps in section sites. Does a provision send
you to a section that doesn't apply or doesn't exist?
Lastly, are there processes that should be added or amended? There are a few members
of the Commission working with staff and two members of the Council designing a more
useful process for affordable housing and city owned projects. Any revisions from this
series of meetings will be incorporated into this section.
Code Amendments, Version 11.16.99 Page 3
26.306 INTERPRETATIONS OF TITLE
26.3 06.010 Interpretation.
Staff Comments:
This Section allows for a land -owner to request a formal interpretation of the land use
code. Staff is not suggesting any changes to this section other than a description of the
form by which an applicant may submit a request.
Commission Action:
Should there be substantive changes to this section? One possible suggestion might be to
require the City Council to consider appeal after a recommendation has been made by the
P&Z. This would address a concern raised during the SCI revisions about "use"
interpretations.
City Attorney:
Can the interpretation process be modified to include a review by P&Z? Is this a judicial
or legislative action?
26.308 VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS
26.308.10 Vested Property rights.
Staff Comments:
This section now provides for an automatic vesting of any development order. This
replaced the previous provision of a Council Ordinance to establish a vesting period. Staff
may suggest some minor changes to this section if clarification on vesting initiation is
needed.
Commission Action:
Are there changes needed to clarify the process?
Code Amendments, Version 11.16.99 Page 4
26.310 AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE REGULATIONS AND
OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP
26.310.010 Purpose.
26.310.020 Standards of review.
26.310.030 Procedure for amendment.
26.310.040 Application.
26.310.050 Temporary suspension of building permits — Pending Ordinance.
26.310.060 Notation of planning and zoning commission resolution on official
zone district map.
26.310.070 Recordation of designation.
26.310.080 Placement on city's official zone district map.
26.310.090 Time limitations.
Staff Comments:
This section serves both rezonings and text amendments. The criteria are general and
sometimes do not apply well to the situation. For example: it may be more appropriate
to have the rezoning criteria dealing with the developability of the land and the possible
neighborhood impacts associated with the new zoning. Likewise, it may be important to
have a text amendment criteria that speaks to the purpose of the zone district is relation
to all districts. One potential option would be to split the section into two discrete
sections. Staff believes the section does not necessarily need to be split but that the
criteria should be specific to each action.
Secondly, staff is suggesting the annexation process be included in the land use code.
This does not necessarily need to be included with the map amendment section, but it the
most likely fit. This section would primarily refer the user to the City Attorney's process
for annexation and reference the appropriate state statutes, describe the number of
meetings required, etc.
Lastly, there should be a process for "initial zoning." When a property is annexed into
the City, the City has 90 days in which to include the parcel within a zone district.
Currently, staff uses the "rezoning" process although the action is not technically a
rezoning.
Commission Action:
Should there be separate criteria for Text Amendments and Map Amendments? Should a
"Map Amendment" be renamed a "Rezoning?" Should the annexation process be
described in the Land Use Code even though the action is not a land use process? Is it
necessary to include an initial zoning process?
City Attorney:
Should the annexation process be described in the land use code and reference the reader
to other sections of the code, state statute, or to the CA's office? Problems?
Code Amendments, Version 11.16.99 Page 5
26.312 NONCONFORMITIES
26.312.010 Purpose.
26.312.020 Nonconforming uses.
26.312.030 Nonconforming structures.
26.312.040 Nonconforming accessory uses and accessory structures.
26.312.050 Nonconforming lots of record.
26.312.060 Lot reduction.
Staff Comments:
The non -conforming structure provision was changed to require a variance type
procedure to reconstruct. The City Attorney does not recommend this be applied to
density non -conformities as the loss of a unit may result in a "takings" challenge. Non -
Conforming Structure needs a graphic.
We may want to reference non -conforming lighting to the lighting code.
Ability to build a single-family home on a non -conforming lot of record. This is
typically done to prevent a "takings" claim by providing the lot owner with a reasonable
use of the property. This, however, assumes that single-family homes are 1) allowed in
all zones (pyramid -style zoning); and 2) a single-family home is the least impactive or
most desirable is something must be built.
Aspen's land use code is not a pure pyramid -style system as some zones specifically do
not allow for a single-family home because the community has decided more intense
uses are desired. In addition, the provision of a single-family home may be suggested to
be removed from some zones to support community goals of city form. In these cases,
the default use may need to be modified. One possible manner of doing this would be to
allow the first use listed in the zone as the default use if the parcel is non -conforming.
Commission Action:
Consider a difficult non -conforming scenario and then read the non -conforming structure
vs. non -conforming use provisions. Do these make sense and can you determine what
differentiates a use from a structure? (Try considering a duplex on a lot which is too
small for a duplex in a zone which allows duplexes.) What types of ways could this
section be clarified? Charts, graphics, answers to common questions.
Are there substantive policy changes that should be made to this section?
Code Amendments, Version 11.16.99 Page 6
26.314 VARIANCES
26.314.010
Purposes.
26.314.020
Authority.
26.314.030
Authorized variances.
26.314.040
Standards applicable to variances.
26.314.050
Procedure for variance approval.
26.314.060
Conditions.
26.314.070
Expiration.
26.314.080
Appeals.
Staff Comments:
The "practical difficulty" standard should be replaced with a strict hardship criteria. Most
people have a practical difficulty doing most anything, especially developing property in
Aspen, but that does not necessarily mean their property has been rendered unusable or
worthless. Some language to the effect of "baring a variance, the strict application of the
zone district requirements to this property will render it without a reasonable use."
Commission Action:
This variance provision is a system that is typical of all zoning codes and allows relief to
be granted to a property owner who's property doesn't "fit" with the zoning code. It is
essentially a last resort prior to the owner and the jurisdiction going to court and
potentially the last opportunity for the jurisdiction to avoid having to reimburse the
property owner for value lost due t he regulation.
The Commission should consider the criteria for a hardship with respect to specific
circumstances which deserve a variance. At the same time, the criteria should be worded
in a manner as to discourage frivolous applications. Typically, staff describes the test as
"you must show that your property is so different than every other property in the
neighborhood that the City's regulations have rendered your property worthless — do you
think you property is worthless?" This is effective in eliminating instances where a
developer wants to "try his hand" at getting extra FAR. The code language, while maybe
not so cynical, should demonstrate the difficulty of the test.
City Attorney:
Do our existing criteria need changing? Are there examples of this more strict language?
Code Amendments, Version 11.16.99 Page 7
26.316
APPEALS
26.316.010
Purpose.
26.316.020
Authority.
26.316.030
Appeal procedures.
Staff Comments:
This section details the process and reviewing Boards for appealing decisions. In the
revised code, the P&Z may review variances with appeals to the BOA. Text
interpretations appeals are reviewed by City Council. The P&Z does not review appeals,
although the ADU code proposes to allow P&Z and HPC to review appeals of
administrative findings for ADU's. Also, appeals of PUD amendment determinations
made by the P&Z may be appealed to Council.
Staff suggests the following changes in this section:
1. Clarify "decisions shall be in writing" — does this mean a Reso?
2. Describe the terms "denial of due process," a "Board exceeding jurisdiction" or
"abusing discretion."
3. Inclusion of P&Z appeal for ADU, and PUD amendment determination appeal by
City Council.
Commission Aciton:
Do these appeal processes make sense? Are there certain types of cases in which an
appeal should proceed through P&Z?
City Attorney:
CC — Any other appeal for which authority to hear is not granted to any other Board.
Does this mean any action taken by a Board may be appealed to the CC? Is this new?
Our understanding under the previous code was that a final decision by P&Z (say a
conditional use) could not be appealed to CC, but must proceed to district court.
(Amend CC Authorities.)
Can terms such as "exceeding jurisdiction" be defined? Or, is this a case by case
determination?
Code Amendments, Version 11.16.99 Page 8
PART 400 - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS AND
26.404 DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED AS OF RIGHT
26.404.010 Development permitted as of right.
Staff Comments:
This section could be read to allow any use permitted by right a particular zone district to
apply for a building permit. There are enough other sections of the code requiring
conformance with the entire code that staff does not percieve this as a serious hole in the
code. However, this section should require conformance with the entire LUC and
"permitted" should be changed to uses exempt from the land use code or uses granted a
"development order."
Commission Action:
The Commission should direct staff to adjust this section to be in closer relation to the
remainder of the land use code.
City Attorney:
Is this as big of a hole as we think this is?
26.410 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
26.410.010 General.
26.410.020 Procedure.
26.410.030 Administrative checklist.
26.410.040 Residential design standards.
Staff Comments:
This section has been recently updated and adopted. Staff does not suggest any
revisions. Furthermore, any suggested revisions should be accomplished under a
separate code amendment. The adopted revision includes several graphic aids which
staff is attempting to include in the codified version of the LUC. This has posed more
hassle that expected. In the event a graphically enhanced version cannot be incorporated
into the LUC, a separate "stand alone" document will need to be referenced.
Commission Action:
Anyone good with computers?
Code Amendments, Version 11.16.99 Page 9
26.415 DEVELOPMENT IN AN "H," HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT,
OR INVOLVING THE INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND
STRUCTURES
26.415.010 Development involving the inventory of historic sites and structures or
development in an "H," Historic Overlay District.
26.415.020 Variances.
26.415.030- Minimum maintenance requirements.
26.415.040 Appeal and call up.
Staff Comments:
This section needs a lot of work.
Refer to adopted guidelines, preferred practices.
Misc. Supp. For historic contractor licensing? Or in HP section?
Historic Lot Split — remove process to Subdivision with criteria for a Lot Split in Historic
section.
Amy:
This should come back as special project.
Commission Action:
What are we doing with these two sections?
26.420 HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT AND HISTORIC LANDMARKS
26.420.010
Standards for designation.
26.420.020
Procedure for designation, amendment, rescinding.
26.420.030
Application.
26.420.040
Recordation of designation.
26.420.050
Placement on city's official zone district map.
26.420.060
Rescinding designation.
26.420.070
Establishment of district.
26.420.080
Establishment of inventory of historic sites and structures.
26.420.090
Development approval for historic landmark.
Landmark approval process: HPC to CC.
Criteria for inclusion on the Inventory, Landmark.
Describe process- and evaluation criteria for inventory. Ranking, etc.
Refer to process of rezoning with HPC acting as referral to CC.
This section should come back as special project.
Code Amendments, Version 11.16.99 Page 10
26.425 CONDITIONAL USES
26.425.010 Purpose.
26.425.020 Authority.
26.425.030 Authorized conditional uses.
26.425.040 Standards applicable to all conditional uses.
26.425.050 Procedure for conditional use approval.
26.425.060 Application.
26.425.070 Reserved.
26.425.080 Amendment of development order.
Staff Comments:
Using same standards for all conditional uses. Many times these standards don't make
sense. Some types of uses may need their own criteria. Reserved section should allow
for the application of conditions to regulate the nature of the use.
Concern about the use of CU to exact housing mitigation. This is a relatively undefined
type of process.
Commission Action:
Do the criteria of this section adequately serve the range of uses allowed as CU's? What
other types of criteria should be included?
Should there be saturation levels? For example: no more than 6 restaurants or x square
feet of restaurant in the C 1 zone?
Should the additional employee generation be based on net increase and the 60% criteria
of the AACP. Should there be a process described for this evaluation? Should there be
an adopted set of generation factors based on uses?
City Attorney:
Conditional use allow the P&Z to exact additional affordable housing based on the
nature of the use compared to the previous use. Is this o.k? Is the previous use an unfair
criteria? What happens to the housing when the CU occupant moves out?
Code Amendments, Version 11.16.99 Page 11
26.430 SPECIAL REVIEW
26.430.010
Purpose.
26.43 0.020
Authority.
26.430.030
Applicability.
26.430.040
Review standards for special review.
26.430.050
Procedure for special review approval.
26.430.060
Application.
26.430.070
Conditions.
26.430.080
Modification of requirements.
26.430.090
Amendment of development order.
Staff Comments:
Standards mostly in specific review sections, SR section provides the process. Changes
to individual review criteria should be amended under the respective section.
Don't duplicate other review sections if the project is already in review. — PUD, Historic.
Possible "Site Plan Review"
This section could be used to look more in depth at projects exceeding certain
threshold. (i.e. houses in excess of 80% of the allowable FA. Design of open
space downtown. Commercial use of open space.
What are we doing with this section??
Commission Action:
Would there be a benefit in having a "site plan review" for certain case where a specific
threshold was exceeded?
Code Amendments, Version 11.16.99 Page 12
26.435 DEVELOPMENT IN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
(ESA)
26.435.010 Purpose.
26.435.20 Authority.
26.435.30 8040 greenline review.
Staff Comments:
This review tries to address too many issues and does an inadequate job of doing so. The
main purpose of 8040 is for fire and water service, but the review also includes house size,
cut/fill, geotech, aesthetics, lighting, materials, etc. In additions, the 8040 line is "further
up he hillside" the further the City annexes. For example: none of Deer Hill is within the
review area.
Should this section be split into:
1) Blue Line — ability to serve with water.
2) Red line — ability to serve with fire protection.
3) slopes over 30%.
4) ridge and mountainside foreground development practices.
Should we issue grading permits? Erosion control standards. (Either engineering or
construction standards section?)
Commission Action:
Is this review getting at what your concerns about mountainside development? Are there
better ways to get at these concerns?
26.435.40 Stream margin.
Staff Comments:
We should draw a line a call it the "river corridor setback." Administrative Review with
appeals to the P&Z. Or, we could require site plan review within certain buffer area. This
would streamline (pun intended) the process and would guarantee consistency — a common
complaint about our current process.
If a administrative review is established, the process for determining the line will go
through a process with the P&Z. This will include a survey of the river corridor and a pre-
determined buffer area. His will be a process involving staff and P&Z recommendations to
Council.
Commission Action:
If a system of administrative review is established, should P&Z review only appeals or
should there be a "buffer area" review? Other concerns?
Code Amendments, Version 11.16.99 Page 13
26.435..50 Mountain view plane review.
Staff Comments:
What's the point? What are we trying to achieve, and is this still valid?
Nearly every architect and planner with some urban design background has told us these
regulations are detracting from the urban core aesthetic. In fact, staff has expressed dis-
satisfaction with these view planes for years.
Commission Action:
Consider the view from the second floor of the Wheeler Opera House. Do you have a
great appreciation for the mechanical air ducting equipment on the buildings in the
foreground? Consider the street aesthetic of these buildings. Do these building inspire
civic pride?
Consider the aesthetic and town building principals of these code provision and whether or
not hey are shaping buildings in the best possible manner.
Now consider the view of Aspen Mountain up Galena Street. Consider the view up Mill
Street when the fountain is operational. These are classic views of the mountain resource
and ones that should be the focus of greater design attention. These are the types of
regulations important to consider with any Infill Housing Program.
Should these protected view planes continue?
26.435.60 Hallam Lake Bluff review.
Staff Comments:
Administrative Review. Draw a line and require a setback. Site plan review for
development in buffer area. Also, this area is mostly HPC review. Allow HPC to
determine correct setback for historic properties — there is no need to go to different
Boards.
Commission Action:
Should this be treated similar to Stream Margin with a surveyed line and defined setback?
Should the HPC be able to review buffer area development if there is a conditional setback
area?
26.435.070 Procedure for approval of development in ESA.
26.435.080 Application.
26.435.090 Conditions.
Code Amendments, Version 11.16.99 Page 14
26.440 SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA (SPA)
26.440.010
Purpose.
26.440.020
Applicability.
26.440.030
Designation of specially planned area (SPA).
26.440.040
Development in a specially planned area (SPA).
26.440.050
Review standards for development in a Specially Planned Area.
26.440.060
Application.
26.440.070
SPA agreement and recordation.
26.440.080 Amendment to development order.
Staff Comments:
Update with PUD or place use amendment in PUD. Allow a PUD to vary use by first
going through a use determination review with P&Z and CC (conceptual).
Revise SPA section to be a Master Plan section. Describe process for adopting a master
plan and effects of a master plan approval. This could be very beneficial for long range
planning, reports and documents used guiding planning decisions, and for large parcel or
scattered parcel plans.
Commission Action:
What are the necessary "hoops" for land use to be come pert of a PUD Review? Should
the applicant first go through a use review with P&Z and CC?
Should we have a formal process for Master Plans? Should the AACP be included in
these guidelines?
City Attorney:
Can the AACP adoption process be included in a Master Plan section?
Code Amendments, Version 11.16.99 Page 15
26.445 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
26.445.010
Purpose.
26.445.020
Applicability.
26.445.030
Planned unit development approval.
26.445.040
PUD ,agreement.
26.445.050
Notice of PUD designation.
26.445.060,
Placement of PUD designation on official zone district map.
26.445.070
Recordation.
26.445.080
Amendment of PUD development order.
26.445.090
Enforcement of PUD development order.
No changes.
26.450 TEMPORARY USES
26.450.010 Purpose.
26.450.020 Authorization for temporary uses.
26.450.030 Criteria applicable to all temporary uses.
26.450.040 Conditions of approval.
26.450.050 Duration and expiration of a temporary use.
26.450.060 Procedure for temporary use approval.
26.450.070 Application.
26.450.080 Amendment of development order.
26.450.090 No vesting of temporary uses.
Staff Comments:
This is a process in which the Commission has no involvement. Temporary uses of one
week or less may be approved by the Director with longer uses by the City Council.
Typical Temporary Uses are for a tent structure during the holidays.
The criteria should be looked at but staff does not recommend any substantive changes to
this section.
Commission Action:
Should there be substantive changed to these procedures? Do the criteria address your
concerns about temporary uses?
Code Amendments, Version 11.16.99 Page 16
26.470 GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMQS)
26.470.010 Purpose.
26.470.020 Applicability.
26.470.030 Aspen Metro Area development ceilings- Residential and Tourist
Accommodations.
26.470.040 Reserved.
26.470.050 Annual development allotments - Residential and Tourist
Accommodations.
26.470.060 Annual development allotments - Commercial and Office.
26.470.070 Exemptions.
26.470.080 Development allotment and application procedures.
26.470.090 Growth management scoring criteria - Residential and Tourist
Accommodations.
26.470.100 Growth management scoring criteria - Commercial and Office.
26.470.110 Amendment of development order.
26.470.120 Expiration of development order.
Staff Comments:
This section will need a wholesale analysis following the adoption of the AACP. Staff
does not suggest combining those code amendments with the amendments proposed in this
scope. Some points, however, for the Commission to consider are:
1. Standardize scoring between residential and commercial..
2. Establishing levels of performance needed for certain scores
3. AACP allotments — yearly and roll over allotments
4. Percentage mitigation requirements for Affordable Housing.
Also, special projects which have certain effects on the GMQS are:
1. Infill Program.
2. Affordable Housing.
These programs are already included in the Work Program and will be proposed as
separate amendments.
Commission Action:
A discussion about the merits of the GMQS could take until the end of the next millenium
to resolve. This discussion, however, should be done in the context of significant analysis
and the involvement of the County. Staff does not suggest involving a GMQS discussion
into these code amendments.
Code Amendments, Version 11.16.99 Page 17
26.480 SUBDIVISION
_ 26.480.010
Purpose.
26.480.020
Applicability and prohibitions.
26.480.030
Exemptions.
26.480.040
Procedures for review.
26.480.050
Review standards.
26.480.060
Application.
26.480.070
Subdivision agreement.
26.480.080
Amendment to subdivision development order.
Staff Comments:
Update criteria similar to PUD. There is some value in the small lot development.
Although the Floor Area benefits are insignificant, some lot owners may want to merge
lots to gain a greater sense of privacy. This, however, detracts from the City's capacity,
makes the City less efficient, and requires more development in the hinterlands to reach
the same population. These folks may want to consider real estate on McClain Flats if
they have concerns about privacy. Should we prohibit lot merging or have a minimum
density requirement? Three units equals a "subdivision."
Commission Action:
Should the City investigate prohibitions of lot mergers and minimum density
requirements similar to Portland OR.
Special Programs to reach certain community goals:
AH Lot Split.
City Attorney:
Prohibiting Lot Merging
3 Units = subdivision?
26.480.90 Condominiumization.
Consistency with CIOA.
Code Amendments, Version 11.16.99 Page 18
PART 500 - SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS
26.510 SIGNS
26.510.010 Purpose.
26.510.020 Applicability and scope.
26.510.030 Procedure for sign permit approval.
26.510.040 Prohibited signs.
26.510.050
Sign measurement.
26.510.060
Sign setback.
26.510.070
Sign illumination.
26.510.080
Sign lettering, logos and graphic designs.
26.510.090
Structural characteristics.
26.510.100
Nonconforming signs.
26.510.110
Signs on public right-of-way.
26.510.120
Temporary signs.
26.510.130
Zone district sign restrictions.
Staff Comments:
Sarah? Other changes we need to make?
Commission Action:
26.515 OFF-STREET PARKING
26.515.010 General provisions.
26.515.020 Characteristics of off-street parking spaces and access to street or
alley.
26.515.030 Required number of off-street parking spaces.
Staff Comments:
Substantive amendments:
Each Zone District should be looked at with respect to parking standards.
Some ideas coming out of the AACP committees suggested a differing philosophical
approach to parking standards. The two suggestions were:
1. Eliminate parking requirements; or,
2. Establish parking maximums
This approach to parking would benefit infill housing and increased development
downtown. The reduction in parking could also contribute to many of the pedestrain goals
of DEPP and generally to the design of downtown sites. Again, this may be a item that
follows the adoption of the AACP. What are we doing with this?
Code Amendments, Version 11.16.99 Page 19
26.520 AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
26.520.010 Purpose.
26.520.020 Standards for Affordable Housing.??
26.520.030 Development in affordable housing/planned unit development
(AH/PUD) zone district. ??
Staff Comments:
These standards were moved to the Housing Guidelines and the ADU code amendment
will substitute the entire section 520.
26.520.040 Accessory dwelling units.
Pending. Ord. 44
20.530 RESIDENT MULTI -FAMILY REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
20.530.010
Purpose and intent.
20.530.020
Application of title.
20.530.030
Certificate of compliance/exemption.
20.530.040
Housing replacement requirements.
20.530.050
Rental and resale restrictions.
20.530.060
Enforcement.
Staff Comments:
This was formerly located in Title 20. Title 20 now needs to be repealed. The rental and
resale provision should probably be included in the Housing Guidelines as to not create a
contradictory regulation. The Housing guidelines don't have a formula for calculating a
cash -in -lieu payments for housing replacement.
There may be considerations of this policy when the infill housing program is developed.
Commission Action:
Is this section easy to use? What could make it more reader friendly?
Code Amendments, Version 11.16.99 . Page 20
26.575 ' MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS
Staff Comments: This supplementary section provides regulations for uses and
structures not necessarily subject to land use review. This is a section full of little
item not substantial enough to warrant a section on their own. The telecom section
should be provided a section of its own.
Commission Action: As this section regulates many things that are not necessarily
reviewed by the P&Z, the Commission does not have a frequent opportunity to
consider changes. This is an opportunity to add items to be regulated and/or
suggest ways to make current regulations easier to understand. Staff has suggested
a few items to include. Does the Commission have others?
26.575.010 General.
26.575.020 Calculations and measurements. This section could use a few
graphic examples. Floor Area could use a general procedure. (i.e. to calculate your
allowable Floor Area: 1... 2... and so on.) A substantive Floor Area amendment
will be presented during the first quarter of 2000. These amendments may suggest
reductions as well as simpler provisions. The Commission should provide
substantive comments during the scoping phase of the FAR amendments. Building
height calculations should be part of the FAR amendments.
26.575.030 Open space. Are all these standards necessary? Commercial
restaurant use should refer to a process (400) and have standards for review.
Special Review or Site Review.
26.575.040 Yards. Use a graphic.
26.575.050 Fences. Needs graphics.
26.575.060 Utility/trash service areas.
26.575.070 Use square footage limitations. These need to be looked at again.
Stan made a few modifications of these provisions.
26.575.080 Child care center or home.
26.575.090 Home occupations.
26.575.100 Landscape maintenance.
26.575.110 Building envelopes. Graphic. May also consider activity envelopes
(slightly larger than the house). Conformance with PitCo.
26.575.120 Satellite dishes.
Code Amendments, Version 11.16.99 Page 21
26.575.130 Wireless Telecommunications. Own Section. 26.540.
26.575.140 Accessory Uses and Accessory structures.
26.575.150 Kitchens in lodge units. This section doesn't exist — kitchens are
allowed in the zone district language. Lighting Section?
26.575.160 Dormitory.
26.575.170 Fuel storage tanks. Changed with SCI code — update.
26.575.180 Restaurant.
26.575.190 Farmers' Market.
26.575.200 Group Homes.
Possible Additional Sections:
Street Names and process for amending.
Storage of dirt and fill material.
Construction staging.
Code Amendments, Version 11.16.99 Page 22
26.580 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS
26.580.010 Purpose.
26.580.020 Subdivisions.
Staff Comments:
This is a new section containing certain requirements of the City Engineer that were
within the Subdivision section. This section should detail the types of reports the City
Engineer may require for a development and at which threshold the requirement is
established. Currently, reports and additional engineering requirements are established
by virtue of a land use application not on the nature of the development. For example: a
single family house must provide a drainage report if there is proposed an ADU
(conditional use). If however, the owner pays a cash -in -lieu, the applicant is not required
to submit a drainage report even though the new development will have the same impact
on the drainage condition. Also, examples of filing documents such as plats and
agreements would greatly benefit the development community and would standardize the
types of information on file with the City
Types of reports and documents could include:
Improvement Survey
Traffic Report
Drainage Report
Geological Technical Report
Plats: Subdivision, Utility, Condo, CIOA
Encroachment License
Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk Construction Agreement
Thresholds Should be based on physical changes to the site, such as:
Lot Coverage.
Excavated material.
Development on steep slopes.
Development in avalanche zones.
Development in geologic hazard areas.
In this manner, a developer would know when a report is needed and what it should
include.
Commission Action:
Consider the types of engineering information that aids the Board in making a decision.
What additional information is, or could be, helpful?
Code Amendments, Version 11.16.99 Page 23
Planning Standards:
Similar to the Engineering Section, above, there should be descriptions and examples of
planning documents, reports, and visual aids in which planners request of developers.
For example: If a landscape plan is required for certain planning reviews, the
planner/applicant should be able to reference a section detailing the necessary items for
such a plan and a visual example.
Documents to be detailed would include:
Landscape plan.
Context Plan — showing the land uses within a certain perimeter of the property.
Site Model / Project Model.
Site Section
Development Order and Recordation.
Architectural Plans.
Architectural Elevations.
PUD Development Plans.
PUD Agreement.
Subdivision Improvements Agreement.
Fisherman's Easement.
Site Development Plan — ESA filing document.
Commission Action:
Consider the types of information that helps the Board make an educated decision. What
types of reports should be added/removed from this list? These items will be referenced
back as submittal requirements for specific land use reviews.
Consider how a final decision is recorded. What types of information should be included
for recordation?
Notes:
1. These two sections (Engineering and Planning standards) may be more easily handled
as a separate amendment.
2. After determining the necessary items to define, these standards and examples should
be developed by a consultant.
Code Amendments, Version 11.16.99 Page 24
26.590 TIMESHARES
26.590.10 Timeshares.
Staff Comments: Bring into consistency with CIOA. Remove unnecessary regulations.
Commission Action:
If legally possible, should condominiums, timeshares and interval ownership projects be
regulated?
City Attorney:
Ability to regulate T.S. as a "use." Can the location, operational characteristics, etc. of
interval ownership be regulated?
Code. Amendments, Version 11.16.99 Page 25
PART 600 - IMPACT FEES AND DEDICATIONS
26.610.44 PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
26.610.010 Purpose.
26.610.020 Applicability.
26.610.030 Fee schedule.
26.610.040 Time of payment and use of funds.
26.610.050 Refund of fees.
26.610.060 Enforcement.
26.610.070 Credits.
Staff Comments:
Fee schedule should be reviewed and updated to reflect current impact of development.
No assessment against AH development - is this new?
Commission Action:
Other amendments or adjustments to this section we should be looking at?
26.630 SCHOOL IMPACT DEDICATION
26.630.010 Purpose.
26.630.020 Applicability.
26.630.030 Dedication schedule.
26.630.040 Procedures for land dedication and cash payments.
26.630.050 Use of lands and use of funds.
26.630.060 Periodic review.
Staff Comments:
The periodic review is well due. Market value in equation should be in the terms
of per land unit.
Commission Action:
Other amendments or adjustments to this section?
City Attorney:
Can we only assess against new Subdivisions?
Code Amendments, Version 11.16.99 Page 26
PART 700 - ZONING DISTRICTS
26.710 ZONE DISTRICTS
Staff Comments:
Combine all Multi -Family zones to one.
Move 70/30 AH mix to the GMQS section.
Remove Single Family from more intense zones.
O Zone is too complicated.
Density allowances too low in O, C 1, AH to reach FAR.
RR has no FAR?
Combine OS and WP Zones
Map has an RB Zone?
Can L Overlay be included in LP?
Provide a use chart and a dimension chart. Graphically describe setbacks.
This section may be a separate project.
Commission Action:
Are there opportunities to combine zone districts? Combine uses?
Should the 70/30 AH mix of the Affordable Housing Zone become part o the GMQS?
Consider whether or not a single-family home in Silverlode is conforming.
Should single-family housing be allowed in the C1, O Zones.
Are maximum density standards (lot area per dwelling) useful. Density changes?
Code Amendments, Version 11.16.99 Page 27
off. q.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director lj�
FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner
RE: Accessory Dwelling Unit Program — Public Hearing
Referral to City Council on Occupancy and Incentives
DATE: November 2, 1999
SUMMARY:
City Council adopted, on first reading, code amendments related to Accessory
Dwelling Units (ADU's). In the first reading, Council made some changes to the
proposed language and requested staff look into further changes. Pending Ordinance
No. 44, Series of 1999, is attached for your reference.
As a provision of the ADU Program recommended by the Commission, the existing
Floor Area incentives related to mandatory occupancy were removed. The
Commission's recommendation required mandatory occupancy for all ADU's used as
housing mitigation for a Growth Management Exemption.
City Council does not appear to be interested in an ADU Program that is based on all
"sticks" and no "carrots." They remain interested in ways to increase occupancy, but
do not want to tie mandatory occupancy to exemptions from the GMQS. In the
alternative, Council expressed an interest in providing incentives for property owners
to voluntarily deed restrict their ADU to mandatory occupancy in exchange for a
benefit. The most basic benefit to offer property owners remains Floor Area.
The current system offers 1/2 of the ADU's Floor Area for free (to not count towards
the total allowed) in exchange for the mandatory occupancy restriction. This has not
been a successful incentive as ADU's developed below grade are almost completely
exempt from Floor Area calculations.
Considering this turn of events, staff is seeking the Commission's input in returning a
useful recommendation to City Council. Staff has developed a few items for the
Commissson to consider. These are in no particular order and the final suggestion
from the Commission may actually be a combination of these items.
Above Grade:
Require ADU's be developed above grade, or at least 50% above grade. This returns
an earlier suggestion of the Program to improve livability. The theory behind this
_ ' would be to improve access to light and natural air ventilation. This also requires that
at least a portion of the ADU counts towards Floor Area and makes the incentive
more interesting to land owner.
Interior Entrances:
One suggestion may be to eliminate the option of interior entrances. This by itself,
with no other amendments, could encourage greater occupancy. One of the primary
criticisms of the current program is that ADU's are more often used as guest suites or
billiards rooms that actual living quarters.
Eliminating the interior door option would complicate this style of usage and a land
owner may be more likely to house a caretaker or another member of the community.
As a design standard, a land owner would have the option of requesting the interior
entrance from the P&Z under the Special Review criteria.
Increase Floor Area Incentive:
Increase the Floor Area exemption to 100% of the area of the ADU if deed restricted
to mandatory occupancy. Any ADU (due to required area for window wells,
entrances, etc.) counts in some capacity against allowable Floor Area. This doesn't
eliminate the "below -grade incentive," but does provide some incentive to all
potential ADU's.
One significant benefit of this approach may be to encourage owners of existing
ADU's to convert their ADU to mandatory occupancy to achieve some additional
Floor Area. A potential down side may be the additional bulk and mass allowed on
small town site lots — an expressed concern of he Commission and Council. To
address this bulk issue, the Commission may want to suggest a 100% incentive only
be provide at such time as amendments to Floor Area are adopted.
Staff recommends the Commission consider the manner in which occupancy of
ADU's could be improved through the use of incentives and/or amendmentsto
the pending Ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Pending Ordinance 44, Series of 1999.
0)
ORDINANCE NO.44
(SERIES OF 1999)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, TO AMEND THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT PROGRAM,
SECTION 26.520, AMEND THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM,
SECTION 26.470, AMEND THE METHOD OF CALCULATING FLOOR AREA
FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, SECTION 26.575.020, AMEND THE
ZONE DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED IN SECTION 26.710, AMEND THE
DEFINITION OF `ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT," SECTION 26.104.100,
AMEND THE OFF-STREET PARKING REGULATIONS, SECTION 26.515.030,
AND AMEND SPECIAL REVIEW, SECTION 26.430 OF THE LAND USE CODE.
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission of the
City of Aspen directed the Planning Director of the Community Development
Department to propose amendments to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Program provisions
of the land use code pursuant to sections 26.208 and 26.212; and,
WHEREAS, the amendments requested relate to Sections 26.520, 26.470,
26.575.020, 26.710, 26.104.100, 26.515.030, and 26.430 of the land use code of the
Aspen Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title
26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval
with conditions, or denial by the Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning
Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and
considering these recommendations; and,
WHEREAS, the amendments to the Growth Management Quota System
(GMQS), as proposed herein, shall not be implemented retro-actively upon existing
Accessory Dwelling Units but shall apply to properties seeking an exemption from
GMQS on or after the date of final adoption of these amendments; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Director recommended approval of amendments to
Sections 26.520, 26.470, 26.575.020, 26.710, 26.104.100, 26.515.030, and 26.430 of the
land use code of the Aspen Municipal Code as described herein; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened the public hearing to
consider the existing and proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit Program on August 3, 1999,
and continued the hearing to August 24, 1999, took and considered public testimony and
the recommendation of the Planning Director and recommended, by a six to zero (6-0)
vote, City Council adopt the proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit Program amendments to
the land use code by amending the text of sections 26.520, 26.470, 26.575.020, 26.710,
26.104.100, 26.515.030, and 26.430 of the land use code of the Aspen Municipal Code as
described herein.
Ordinance No. 44, Series of 1999
Page 1
WHEREAS, City Council reviewed and considered the recommendations of the
Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and members of
the public during a duly noticed public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the text amendments to Sections 26.520,
26.470, 26.575.020126.710, 26.104.100126.515.030, and 26.430 of the land use code of
the Aspen Municipal Code, as described herein, and commonly referred to as the
"Accessory Dwelling Unit Program," meet or exceed all applicable standards and that the
approval is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary
for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1:
Section 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units, which section defines, describes, authorizes,
and regulates the process for developing and requirements for operating an Accessory
Dwelling Unit, is hereby amended by replacing, in total, the language in said section with
the following text:
26.520
Accessory Dwelling Units
26.520.010 Purpose
26.520.020 Definition
26.520.030 Authority
26.520.040 Applicability
26. 520.050 Design Standards
26. 520.060 Calculations and Measurements
26. 520.070 Deed Restrictions, Recordation, Enforcement
26.520.080 Procedure
26.520.090 Amendments
26.520.010 Purpose
The purpose of the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Program is to promote the long-
standing community goal of socially, economically, and environmentally responsible
development patterns which balance Aspen the resort and Aspen the community.
Aspen values balanced neighborhoods and a sense of commonality between working
residents and part-time residents. ADUs represent viable housing opportunities for
working residents and allow employees to live within the fabric of the community
without their housing being easily identifiable as "employee housing." ADUs also
help, to address the affects of existing homes, which have provided workforce
housing, being significantly redeveloped, often as second homes.
Ordinance No. 44, Series of 1999
Page 2
ADUs support local Aspen businesses by providing an employee base within the
town and providing a critical mass of local residents important to preserving Aspen's
character. ADUs allow second home owners the opportunity to hire an on -site
caretaker to maintain their property in their absence. Increased employee housing
opportunities in close proximity to employment and recreation centers is also an
environmentally preferred land use pattern which reduces automobile reliance.
To the extent Aspen desires Accessory Dwelling Units which provide viable and
livable housing opportunities to local working residents, ADU's qualify existing
vacant lots of record and significant redevelopment of existing homes for an
exemption from the Growth Management Quota System. In addition, ADU's deed
restricted to Mandatory Occupancy provide for certain Floor Area incentives.
26.520.020 General
An Accessory Dwelling Unit, or ADU, is a separate dwelling unit incidental and
subordinate in size and character to the primary residence and located on the same
parcel or on a contiguous lot under the same ownership. A primary residence may
have no more than one ADU. An ADU may not be accessory to another ADU. An
ADU cannot be conveyed as a property interest separate from the primary residence,
and an ADU shall not be considered a unit of density with regard to zoning
requirements. Accessory dwelling units shall not be used to obtain points in the
affordable housing category of the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS).
Accessory dwelling units also may not be used to meet the requirements of Chapter
26.530 "Residential Multi -Family Housing Replacement Program." All ADUs shall
be developed in conformance with this Section.
26.520.030 Authority.
The Community Development Director, in accordance with the procedures, standards,
and limitations of this Chapter and of Common Development Review Procedures,
Section 26.304, shall approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a land use
application for an Accessory Dwelling Unit.
An appeal of the Community Development Director's determination shall be
considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved, approved with
conditions, or disapproved, pursuant to Section 26.520.080, Special Review.
A land use application requesting a variation of the ADU design standards shall be
approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved by the Planning and Zoning
Commission, pursuant to Section 26. 520.080, Special Review.
If the land use application requesting a variation of the ADU design standards is part
of a consolidated application process, authorized by the Community Development
Director, requiring consideration by the Historic Preservation Commission, the
Ordinance No. 44, Series of 1999
Page 3
Historic Preservation Commission shall approve, approve with conditions, or
disapprove the variation, pursuant to Section 26. 520.080, Special Review.
26.520.040 Applicability
This Section applies to all zone districts within the City of Aspen in which an
Accessory Dwelling Unit is a permitted use, as designated in Section 26.710, and to
all Accessory Dwelling Units approved as a Conditional Use prior to the adoption of
Ordinance No. 44, Series of 1999.
26. 520.050 Design Standards
All ADUs shall conform to the following design standards unless otherwise approved,
pursuant to Section 26.520.080, Special Review:
1. An ADU must contain between 300 and 800 net livable square feet, 10% of
which must be a closet or storage area.
2. An ADU must be able to function as a separate dwelling unit. This includes
the following:
a) An ADU must be separately accessible from the exterior. This does
not preclude a second interior entrance to the primary residence;
b) An ADU must have separately accessible utilities. This does not
preclude shared services;
c) An ADU shall contain a kitchen containing, at a minimum, an oven, a
stove with two burners, a sink, and a refrigerator with a minimum of 6
cubic feet of capacity and a freezer; and,
d) An ADU shall contain a bathroom containing, at a minimum, a sink, a
toilet, and a shower.
3. One parking space for the ADU shall be provided on -site and shall remain
available for the benefit of the ADU resident. The parking space shall not be
stacked with a space for the primary residence.
4. An ADU shall be located within the dimensional requirements of the zone
district in which the property is located.
5. The roof design shall prevent snow and ice from shedding upon an entrance to
an ADU. If the entrance is accessed via stairs, sufficient means of preventing
snow and ice from accumulating on the stairs shall be provided.
6. ADUs shall be developed in accordance with the requirements of this title
which apply to residential development in general. These include, but are not
limited to, the Uniform Building Code requirements related to adequate
natural light, ventilation, fire egress, fire suppression, and sound attenuation
between living units. This standard may not be varied.
Ordinance No. 44, Series of 1999
Page 4
7. All ADUs shall be registered with the Housing Authority and the property
shall be deed restricted in accordance with Section 26.520.070 Deed
Restrictions. This standard may not be varied.
26.520.060 Calculations and Measurements
A. Floor Area.
ADU's are attributed to the maximum allowable floor area for the given property on
which they are developed, pursuant to Section 26.575.020 Calculations and
Measurements.
B. Net Livable Square Footage.
ADUs must contain between 300 and 800 square feet of net livable floor area, unless
varied through a land use review. The calculation of net livable area differs slightly
from the calculation of Floor Area inasmuch as it measures the interior dimensions of
the unit.
26. 520.070 Deed Restrictions and Enforcement.
A. Deed Restrictions.
At a minimum, all properties containing an ADU shall be deed restricted in the
following manner:
• The ADU shall be registered with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority.
• Any occupant of an ADU shall be qualified as a local working resident according
to the current Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended.
• The ADU shall be restricted to lease periods of no less then six months in
duration, or as otherwise required by the current Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority Guidelines. Leases must be recorded with the Housing Authority.
Accessory Dwelling Units qualifying a property for a Floor Area Bonus, pursuant to
Section 26.575.020(A)(6), shall be deed restricted to Mandatory Occupancy. This
additional restriction requires the ADU be continuously occupied by a local working
resident, as defined by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, for lease periods
of six months or greater. The owner shall retain the right to select a qualified renter.
The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall provide a standard form for
recording Accessory Dwelling Unit deed restrictions. The deed restriction shall be
recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder prior to an application for a
building permit may be accepted. The book and page associated with the recordation
shall be noted in the building permit plans for an ADU.
B. Enforcement.
The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, or their designee, shall enforce the
recorded deed restriction between the property owner and Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority.
Ordinance No. 44, Series of 1999
Page 5
26.520.080 Procedure
A. General.
Pursuant to Section 26.304.020, Pre -Application Conference, Applicants are
encouraged to meet with a City Planner of the Community Development Department
to clarify the requirements of the ADU Program.
A development application for an ADU shall include the requisite information and
materials, pursuant to Section 26.304.030. In addition, the application shall include
scaled floor plans and elevations for the proposed ADU. The application shall be
submitted to the Community Development Department.
Any bandit dwelling unit which can be demonstrated to have been in existence on or
prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 44, Series of 1999, 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. No retro-active penalties or assessments
shall be levied against any bandit unit upon legalization.
ADUs require a separate building permit. After a Development Order has been issued
for an ADU, a building permit application may be submitted in conformance with
Section 26.304.075.
B. Administrative Review.
In order to obtain a Development Order for an ADU, the Community Development
Director shall find the ADU in conformance with the criteria for administrative
approval. If an application is found to be inconsistent with these criteria, in whole or
in part, the applicant may either amend the application, apply for a Special Review to
vary the design standards, or apply for an appeal of the Director's finding pursuant to
Subsection C, below.
An application for an ADU may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by
the Community Development Director based on the following criteria:
1. The proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit meets the requirements of Section
26.520.050, Design Standards.
2. The applicable deed restriction for the Accessory Dwelling Unit has been
accepted by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and the deed restriction
is recorded prior to an application for a building permit.
C. Appeal of Director's Determination.
An appeal of a determination made by the Community Development Director, shall
be reviewed as a Special Review pursuant to subsection D, below. In this case, the
Community Development Director's finding shall be forwarded as a recommendation
and a new application need not be filed.
Ordinance No. 44, Series of 1999
Page 6
D. Special Review.
An application requesting a variance from the ADU design standards, or an appeal of
a determination made by the Community Development Director, shall be processed as
a Special Review in accordance with the Common Development Review Procedure
set forth in Section 26.304. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If
the property is a Historic Landmark, on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures,
or within a Historic Overlay District, and the application has been authorized for
consolidation pursuant to Section 26.304, the Historic Preservation Commission shall
consider the Special Review.
A Special Review for an ADU may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied
based on conformance with the following criteria:
1. The proposed ADU is designed in a manner which promotes the purpose of the
ADU program, promotes the purpose of the zone district in which it is proposed,
and promotes the unit's general livability; and,
2. The proposed ADU is designed to be compatible with, and subordinate in
character to, the primary residence considering all dimensions, site configuration,
landscaping, privacy, and historical significance of the property; and,
3. The proposed ADU is designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances
the character of the neighborhood considering all dimensions, density, designated
view planes, operating characteristics, traffic, availability of on -street parking,
availability of transit services, and walking proximity to employment and
recreational opportunities. ,
E. Inspection and Acceptance.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for an ADU, the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority, or the Chief Building Official, shall inspect the ADU for
compliance with the Design Standards. Any un-approved variations from these
standards shall be remedied or approved pursuant to this chapter prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Compliance.
26.520.090 Amendment of an ADU Development Order
A. Insubstantial Amendment.
An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit may be authorized by the Community Development Director if.
1. The change is in conformance with the design standards, Section 26.520.050, or
does not exceed approved variations to the design standards; and,
2. The change does not alter the deed restriction for the ADU or the alteration to the
deed restriction has been approved by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority.
B. Other Amendments.
Ordinance No. 44, Series of 1999
Page 7
All other amendments to an approved development order for an Accessory Dwelling
Unit shall be reviewed pursuant to the terms and procedures of this Section.
Section 2:
Section 26.470.070(B) subparagraphs 1 and 2, which Section defines, authorizes, and
regulates the process for exempting the development of single-family and duplex
residences from the scoring and competition and scoring procedures of the Growth
Management Quota System (GMQS), is hereby amended to read as follows:
1. Single-family. In order to qualify for a single-family exemption, the applicant
shall have three (3) options:
a. Providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), pursuant to Section
26.520;
b. paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; or
c. recording a Resident -Occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single-
family dwelling unit being constructed.
2. Duplex. In order to qualify for a duplex exemption, the applicant shall have
five (5) options:
a. Providing one free market dwelling unit and one deed restricted Resident -
Occupied (RO) dwelling unit with a minimum floor area of one thousand
five hundred (1,500) square feet;
b. providing two free market dwelling units and one accessory dwelling unit
with a minimum floor area of six hundred (600) net livable square feet,
pursuant to Section 26.520;
c. providing two free market dwelling units and two Accessory Dwelling
Units, each with a minimum net livable floor area of three hundred (300)
square feet, pursuant to Section 26.520;
d. providing two deed restricted Resident -Occupied (RO) dwelling units; or
e. paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended.
Section 3:
Section 26.430.030, which section defines the applicability of the Special Review land
use process, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Special Review shall apply to all development in the City of Aspen designated for
special review by the following Chapters or Sections of this Title:
• Dimensional requirements (Chapter 26.710 - Zone Districts),
• Replacement of non -conforming structures ( Chapter 26.312)
Ordinance No. 44, Series of 1999
Page 8
• Reduction of open space requirements in CC zone district (Section
575.030(B)),
• Off-street parking requirements (Section 26.515.040),
® Reductions in the dimensions of utility/trash service areas (Section
26.575.060),
• Subdivision standards (Section 26.480.050).
• Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards (Section 26.520)
Cectinn 4--
Section 26.430.040, which section defines the review standards for Special Review
according to the type of development, is hereby amended by the addition of subparagraph
H to read as follows:
H. Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards. Whenever a special review is
conducted to determine a change in the design standards required for Accessory
Dwelling Units, it shall be considered in accordance with the standards set forth at
Section 26.520.080(D).
CP0tinn S.
Section 26.104.100, which section defines terms used in the Land Use Code, is hereby
amended by referencing the new Section number of the Accessory Dwelling Unit
Program as follows:
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). A deed restricted dwelling unit attached to or
detached from a principal residence situated on the same lot or parcel, and which
meets the occupancy, dimensional and other requirements set forth in Section
26.520 of this Title.
Cpctinn (.
Section 26.515.030, which contains a chart defining the number of required off-street
parking spaces according to zone district designation, is hereby amended to read as
follows:
*For single-family and duplex residential use and multi -family use: two (2)
spaces/dwelling unit. Fewer spaces may be provided by special review pursuant to
Chapter 25.430 for historic landmarks only, and fewer spaces may be provided
pursuant to Chapter 26.520, for accessory dwelling units only. One (1)
space/dwelling unit is required if the unit is either a studio or one -bedroom unit.
'Rectinn 7!
Section 26.575.020(A)(6), which section defines the method in which Floor Area is
calculated for Accessory Dwelling Units and attributed to the allowable Floor Area for
the parcel, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Ordinance No. 44, Series of 1999
Page 9
6. Accessory Dwelling Units. The floor area of an Accessory Dwelling Unit
shall be. calculated and attributed to the allowable floor area for a parcel
with the same inclusions and exclusions for calculating Floor Area as
defined in this Section.
ADU Floor Area Bonus. The floor area of an Accessory Dwelling Unit
deed restricted to Mandatory Occupancy shall be excluded up to a
maximum of 100% of the size of the ADU. This Mandatory Occupancy
restriction requires the ADU be continuously occupied by a local working
resident, as defined by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, for
lease periods of six months or greater. The owner shall retain the right to
select a qualified renter.
Section 8:
Section 26.710, which section defines the purpose of, and regulates permitted uses,
conditional uses, and dimensional requirements for land according to the Zone District
designation as defined by the Official Zone District Map of the City of Aspen, is hereby
amended by eliminating the conditional use: Accessory Dwelling Units meeting the
provisions of Section 26.520.040, and adding the permitted use: Accessory Dwelling
Units meeting the provisions of Section 26.520, to the following zone districts:
26.710.040
Medium -Density Residential (R-6).
26.710.050
Moderate -Density Residential (R-15).
26.710.060
Moderate -Density Residential (R-15A).
26.710.080
Low -Density Residential (R-30).
26.710.090
Residential Multi -Family (R/MF).
26.710.100
Residential/Multi-Family (R/MFA).
26.710.130
26.710.140
26.710.150
26.710.180
26.710.190
26.710.220
Section 9:
Rural Residential (RR).
Commercial Core (CC).
Commercial (C-1).
Office (0).
Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR).
Conservation (C).
Section 26.710, which section defines the purpose of, and regulates permitted uses,
conditional uses, and dimensional requirements for land according to the Zone District
designation as defined by the Official Zone District Map of the City of Aspen, is hereby
amended by adding the permitted use: Accessory Dwelling Units meeting the provisions
of Section 26.520, to the following zone districts:
26.710.110 Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH 1 /PUD).
26.710.120 Residential Mobile Home Park (MHP).
Ordinance No. 44, Series of 1999
Page 10
Section 10:
That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy of this
Ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 11:
This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 12:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Sectinn 1 3:
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 8"' day of November, 1999 at 5:00 in
the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to
which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general
circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law,
by the City Council of the City of Aspen on this 12"' day of October, 1999.
Attest:
Pending
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Rachel E. Richards, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 1999.
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Pending
E-7
Rachel E. Richards, Mayor
C:\home\CHRISB\CASES\ADU—CODE\ADU—ord.doc
Ordinance No. 44, Series of 1999
Page 11
ADU Thoughts
1. Underground space should remain "free" — not counted F.A.R. as it does
not affect the "mass" of the house.
2. We agree you should streamline the process — it saves staff & builder
time and money.
3. People should be allowed to put the ADU where it "fits" (for design,
access, lot size) above or below grade. (Key Point — a garden level ADU
may encourage rentals).
4. F.A.R. has recently been reduced by allowing a one -car garage in the city
(250 sq. t.). A second car space, also very valuable for storage — now
comes from the living space,which discourages families from renting the
ADU because they need the living space.
5. The more people are penalized with F.A.R. reduction, the probability of
renting their ADU lessens.
6. In order to realize viable occupancy for these ADU's a possibility may be
a real F.A.R. bonus — like 1 to 1 ie. build 350 sq. f1. apartment for rent
and add that amount (350 sq. ft.) to your above grade space thereby
creating a "free market choice" for the owner. This should encourage
rental.
7. Highly discourage any "Mandatory" rental/build requirements, which
may open everyone up to lawsuits.
8. Reduce Cash in Lieu to make it more attractive for owner/developers to
pursue this option, thereby generating more income to build affordable
housing, $42.00 per square foot is an outrageous number.
EC I V E o.
NOV 0 2 1999
hetic uses are sought to be maue awauio
requested to be continued as conditional uses, as shown below.
gation are
:e Pond. Amount: 0.025 a.f., absolute, 0.405 a.f., conditional. Use:
:atorial, recreation, and aesthetic, absolute. Stockwatering and
gation, conditional. Kuhns Pond Ditch. Amount bsolut. 25e fStockwatering IIand
:atorial, recreation, and aesthetic, a
j -gation, conditional (5 pages)
99CN18i GARFIHLD COUNTY - GROUND NATi3K TRIBUMRY To THE ROARING 1FORK
3R Alan L. and Jill Scott, C/o Lori J.M. Satter 816d1 (970) 945-6546.
:omb &Green, P.C. Drawer 790, Glenwood Springs,
f Water Right. Decreed Name of Structures FODeWheeh
e o pious
ion for Chang tion From Pre
agesages Sought: Bowers Well No. 1•. Information Division 5..
$ May 6, 1992; Case No.: 91CW223; Court: Water Court, R.
re;. of Divers1,498/ft� Bast f the of the West Sec. Line 7and �2,4987ft.
the .14. at a point
uth of the North Sec. Line. Appropriation Date: November i7, 1976;
cunt b.033 Oft. Historic Uset. In-house domestic use for .one single
d s-itl 1� of C d it it i#goolilneT . 7 sf ,lawns A. $I Ws of the 6th )catP Mn
! ffffLLl�ddiiantr' t�il�C�fll►a>t, in iatortat was issued
tl�t NO • t'1
:1N 1'ru�13' !ri+tt�!lirrr i7i 1y'ii� '''+ t ,wail it - Want 1
f whll it:+c4wr E113t E+r to
its^ 1{4 -YiW Va*4i4fai 1s tVftnetY re""t Me. la-wh 18.
.f 1
Y NiwYr 0.da1 ctr at a point locates in point 2g000 ..
!hd MMJ a or rat. 1f, T. 7 1" R• e7 M. of the 6th P.M. at a
youth of the North Baa. Line. and 1,500 ft. seat of the Nest sea. Line.'
are diverting water
.plicentr have conotructed the replalicants claim at well d change of water right
der the verbal emergency permit. APP
rely to confirm the location of the Bowers Well No. 1 as it is now drilled
d operated. Name and Address of Owner of Land on Which Structures Are
,cated: Alan L. and Jill Scott, 3725 NW 53rd street, Boca Raton, FL 33496.
pages) .
99CW187 PITKIN COUNTY, TRIBUTARY OF OWL CREEK, TRIBUTARY TO ROARING
)RK RIVER. Application for Hexennial Finding of Reasonable Diligence. -
.nee Aspen Interests Limited Partnership, c/o Patrick & Stowell, P.C., 730
lst Durant Ave., Suite 200, Aspen, CO 81611, (970) 920-1028. Name of
:ructures: Marolt Reservoir, Marolt Pond, Duck Pond, and Elk Wallow Pond.
,scription of conditional water rights: Date of original Decree: June 3,
)87 (relating back to July 8, 1986). Case No. 86CW278, Water Division No.
. Location: Marolt Reservoir: The dam axis is located at a point on the
_est of the dam whence the North Quarter Corner of Section 9,. Township 10
-)uth, Range 85 West of the 6" P.M. bears North 31 Bast 1480 feet: thence
:mth 390 East 150 feet along the crest of the dam (SENW) (Pitkin County).
irolt Pond: The dam axis is located at a =point on the crest of the dam
,ience the North Quarter Corner of Section 9, Township 10 South, Range 85
ist of the 6`" P.M., bears North 11.30' East 3070 feet; thence South 46° West
)0 feet along the crest of the dam (NESW) (Pitkin County). Duck Pond: The
3m axis is located in Section 9, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6'h
.M. whence the North Quarter Corner of said Section 9 bears North 220 East
)90 feet (NWSW) (Pitkin County). Elk Wallow Pond: The dam axis is located at
point on the crest of the dam whence the North Quarter Corner of Section 9,
;wnship 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6" P.M., bears North 1,90 East 4570
=et (SWSW) (Pitkin County). Source: The source is an unnamed tributary of
:1 Creek, tributary to the Roaring -Fork River. Said unnamed tributary
2ceives some water from the Hines Owl Creek Ditch. Appropriation date: As to
Ll conditional water rights: July 8, 1986. Conditional amount: Marolt
w!servoir: 14.0.a.f., conditional. Marolt Pond: 4.0 a.f., conditional. Duck
ond: 0.10 a.f:, conditional. Elk Wallow Pond: 0.20 a.f., conditional. Use:
arolt Reservoir: Conditional use of domestic. Absolute decree awarded for
:rigation, livestock, fish propagation and piscatorial purposes. Marolt
:nd: Conditional use of domestic. Absolute decree awarded for livestock,
ish propagation and piscatorial purposes. Duck 'Pond: Conditional uses of
:mestic, irrigation, livestock, piscatorial and fish propagation purposes.
lk Wallow Pond: Conditional uses of domestic, irrigation, livestock, and
iscatorial purposes. Detailed outline of work performed toward completion
f the --nropriation and application of water to the conditional uses decreed
uri relevant diligence period, including expenditures. During the
21 iligence period, the Applicant has spent $97,597.00 for
rc; al and engineering services, $5,200.00 for permits and fees,
53,, for entitlements, $300,323.00 for infrastructure improvements,
116,3bD.00 for general administrative costs, $23,800.00 for landscaping, and
17,307.00 for construction salaries. In total, the Applicant has spent
*624,231.00 on project costs during the relevant.diligence period. -These
:osts relate to the project in general which development is the demand for
:he water rights described herein. If claim to make absolute, date, use and
mount of water applied to beneficial use: Date: n/a. Use: n/a. Amount: n/a.
-revious Diligence Proceeding: October 12, 1993. Remarks: The subject rights
Lre a part of an integrated water supply project which encompasses and
.ncludes the water rights decreed in Case Nos. 99CW106 (previously 93CW047),
�3CW074, 93CW079, 93CW080, and 93CW102. (4 pages)
-6. 99CW192 (93CW182) GARFIELD COUNTY - ROARING FORK RIVER. Jean M Blue
and Dee Blue; 0404 Road 104; Carbondale, CO 81623 970-963-2653. Sunnyside
:ndustrial Well No. 1 - Application for Finding of Reasonable Diligence.
:ecreed:. December 1, 1989, 87CW365. Location: SW7/4SE1/4 Sec. 25, T. 7 S.,
88 W., 6th PM at a point whence the SE corner of said Sec. 25 bears South
,2033' a distance of 1865 feet. Appropriation: October 26, 1987. Amount:
1.0 cfs. Use: industrial, mining, dust -suppression and manufacturing
irposes in a gravel pit. The Application contains a detailed outline of the
)rk performed during the diligence period. (2 pages)
2. 99CW198 - GARFIELD, EAGLE and PITK3N COUNTIES - GROUNDWATER TRIBUTARY
i CATTLE CREEK, TRIBUTARY TO ROARING FORK RIVER; FRYING PAN RIVER, TRIBUTARY
) ROARING FORK RIVER, TRIBUTARY TO COLORADO RIVER. Roger and Amelia
3helman, c/o Lori Satterfield Esq., and Dendy Heisel Esq., Balcomb & Green,
.C., P.O. Drawer 790, 818 Colorado Ave., Glenwood Springs, CO 81602, (970)
45-6546. Application for Change of Water Right and Plan for Augmentation.
ecreed name of structure for which change is sought: Basalt Conduit.
nformation from Previous Decree: Date Entered: June 20, 1958, Case No. W-
613, Court: Garfield County District Court. Decreed Point of Diversion:
Ae decreed headgate and point of diversion for the Basalt Conduit is located
n the left side of the Frying Pan River in the NEW of the NWT( of unsurveyed
ac. 18, T. 8 S., R. 84 W. of the 6th P.M. at the head of the outlet tube for
uedi Reservoir whence the SW corner of Sec. 7 of T. 8 S., R. 84 W. of the
th P.M. bears N. 79000' W., a distance of 2,017.1 ft. in Eagle County.
opropriation Date- July 29, 1957; Amount: 450 cfs. Use: Generation of
iectricity, irrigation, domestic, municipal, stock watering, piscatorial and
ndustrial. Proposed chancre: Applicant seeks an alternate point of diversion
f the Basalt Conduit in the amount of 0.033 cfs (15 gpm) at the Eshelman
'ell No. 1, more particularly described as follows: Location: SWl/4NE7/4 of
ac. 18, T. 7S., R. 87W., of the 6th P.M., at a point 2,200 ft. from the
orth sec. line and 1,400 ft. from the East sec. line, in Garfield County.
epth: 250 ft. Amount: 15 gpm; Basalt Water Conservancy District ('BWCD')
wns the Basalt Conduit water right. Applicants have a water supply contract
ith BWCD. Name and address of owner of land upon which point of diversion
nd place of use are located: Roger and Amelia Eshelman, 7378 County Road
.00, r'--hondale, CO 81623, Garfield County. The proposed well will serve up
vc),)o lee red to foe luU�snglrl» feed per acre, based upon .the rl�r
�teM1r
irrigation efficiency.-irrigation1ty� .
feet per acre. The projected diveraioli-�sau
are 1.56 acre feet annually, with a yrojeotedr'ik�':
acre feet. Exhibit A hereto is a'table wmnari�ain„el'e
g ' ee►nr
No i1
diversion and depletion amounts. The Eshelman Wa11 No.'.3.fy�,ta,e
Of well group D of the BWC3 delayed depletion categorise, aat' eaxeed
ih c.as,.-
No. 87CW155, Water Division No. 5. Exhibit B hereto depicts the p,onth1y--:;.a mr
depletion and delayed return flow factors for well group D. A projected
augmentation schedule- taking delayed depletions into account is Exhibit c
requirement from the CLDC water is 0.225 s,s,,
hereto. The projected augmentation
acre feet annually, and the projected requirement for releases from Ruedi
with prior BWCD decrees,
Not)
Reservoir is 0.038 acre feet annually. Consistent
that a call against the Basalt Conduit during the
the:
and
Applicants have anticipated
non -irrigation season would occur only in the month of April. The above- diversions
tdecreeddconditional
suer
described augmentation plan is sufficientoe C vested and
injury
and
from the well, and prevent
Stat
water rights. (6 pages)
Dro'
YOU ARE gEREBY ti0'PIFIED THAT YOU HAVE Y Of NOVBMRR 1999 to
Cate e1 a verified statemethe last dan Of Opposition
file Kith the Water Clerk in quadrup application should not be granted or
sett forth facts as to why .1n part
trt on, Oertain"conditions. A copy of
whx'.0culd, be granted Only. 1 upon the -+applicant ov the
'rrhteeland or opposition wuet oleo be served _ __ _
spiel idaaft•a attornay a� an arri Pvit or- certiriRcatea5 CRCP.Be (Filing shall.be
filed pith the Water Cl eslc, as LaBCri2x`d b3'
$45.00) PEGGY JORDAN, water Clerk, Water Division 5; '109 8th Street, Suite
104; Glenwood Springs, CO 81601.
Published in The Aspen Times October 23, 1999.
PUBLIC NOTICE envelopes for existing structures and accessory
NOTICE OF BUDGET uses. The property is located at 43051 Highway
Notice is hereby given that: a proposed budget 82 and is described as a tract of land situated in
has been submitted to the Board of Directors of the SE 1/4 and the SW 1/4 of Section 17,
the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District for Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th
the ensuing year of 2000; a copy of such pro- P.M. For further information contact Gabe
posed budget has been filed in the office the Preston at the Aspen/ Pitkin Community
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, where Development Department, (970) 920-5092
the same is open for public inspection; such pro- s/Lance Clarke
posed budget will be considered at the Pitkin County Hearing Officer
December regular meeting of the Aspen Published in The Aspen Times on October 23,
Consolidated Sanitation District to be held at 1999. (52230)
565 N. Mill Street on December 7th 1999 at 4 PM.'
Any interested elector of the Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District may inspect the
proposed budget and file or register any objec-
tions thereto at any time prior to the adoption of
the budget.
Published in The Aspen Times on October 23,
1999.(52235)
PUBLIC NOTICE
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: That the Board of County
Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, at its
regular meeting on August 11, 1999, and after a
duly -noticed public hearing, adopted the follow-
ing Resolution #9942:
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COM-
MISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO,
GRANTING SPECIAL REVIEW APPROVAL FOR
THE ASPEN PARAGLIDING AND ASPEN EXPEDI-
TION ROCKY MOUNTAIN CLIMBING SCHOOL
Copies of the full text of the Resolution are avail-
able for public inspection during regular busi=
ness hours in the Office of the Clerk and
Recorder, 530 East Main Street, Suite 101, Aspen,
Colorado 81611. Phone (970) 920-5157
Jeanette Jones,
Deputy County Clerk
Published in The Aspen Times on October 23,
1999. (52227)
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU) PRO-
GRAM FLOOR AREA BONUSES
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
will be held on Tuesday, November 2, 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 S. Galena St.,
Aspen, to recommend an amendment to a pend-
ing Ordinance. The Commission will recommend
the manner in which Floor Area Ratio bonuses
should be used in the Accessory Dwelling Unit
Program. This is a recommendation regarding
pending City Council Ordinance number 44,
Series of 1999, concerning Section 26.575.020,
Floor Area, of the City of Aspen Land Use Code.
For further information, contact Chris Bendon at
the -Aspen/ Pitkin Community Development
Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970)
920-5072.
s/Robert Blaich, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in The Aspen Times on October 23,
1999.(52223)
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: ANDI RANCH, LLC 1041 HAZARD REVIEW &
SCENIC OVERLAY
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
will be held on Tuesday, November 23, 1999 at a
meeting to begin at 3:00 pm before the Pitkin
County Hearing Officer in the Sister Cities Room,
Aspen City Hali, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen to con-
sider an application submitted by And! Ranch,
LLC requesting 1041 Hazard Review & Scenic
Overlay approval to establish building
PUBLIC NOTICE
SNOWMASS WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT
ADVERTISEMENT FOR. BIDS
1. Proposals for the supply of a 640 KW natural
gas generator and switch gear will be received
by the Snowmass Water and Sanitation District,
660 Fairway Drive, Snowmass Village, Colorado,
81615, on or before 11:00 a.m. October 29, 1999,
at which time the proposals will be publicly
opened and read. Any proposal received after
the above -specified time will be immediately
returned to the Bidder.
2. The Specifications may be obtained from RWS
Engineering Company, 7910 Ralston Road #4,
Arvada, CO 80002. The equipment or substitute
temporary equipment must be delivered by
December 1, 1999.
Published: 10-23-99
Owner: - .
By /s/ Richard G. Wall, Manager
Published in The Aspen Times October 23, 1999.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice of Budget
Notice is hereby given that: a proposed budget
has been submitted to the Basalt Regional
Library Board of Trustees for the ensuing year
of 2000. A copy of such proposed budget has-
been filed in the office of Basalt Town Hall,
where the same is open for public inspection.
The proposed budget will be considered at the
regular November meeting of the Basalt
Regional Library Board of Trustees to be held at
99 Midland Avenue, Basalt, Colorado, on
November 8, 1999, at 6:30 p.m. Any interested
elector of the Basalt Regional Library District
may inspect the proposed budget and file or reg-
ister any objections thereto at any time prior to
the final adoption of the budget.
Published in The Aspen Times October 23, 1999.
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: CLAUDIA ASPEN VIEW, LLC 1041 HAZARD
REVIEW & SCENIC OVERLAY
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
will be held on Tuesday, November 23, 1999 at a
meeting to begin at 3:00 pm before the Pitkin
County Hearing Officer in the Sister Cities Room,
Aspen City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen to con-
sider an application submitted by Claudia Aspen
View, LLC requesting 1041 Hazard Review &
Scenic Overlay approval to amend development
envelopes for the construction a garage, a dri-
veway and landscaping. The property is located
at 43151 Highway 82 and is described as a tract
of land situated in the SE 1/4 and the SW 1/4 of
Section 17, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of
the 6th P.M. For further information contact
Gabe Preston at the Aspen/ Pitkin Community
Development Department, (970) 920-5092
s/Lance Clarke
Pitkin County Hearing Officer
Published in The Aspen Times on October 23,
1999.(52229)
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Develo ment Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director -�'TV
FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner
RE: Williams Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment — Public Hearing
DATE: November 2, 1999
SUMMARY:
Williams Ranch PUD was approved in 1994 as a 70/30 affordable housing project
and is currently developed with nearly all of the fifty (50) approved residences. The
project was split into two Subdivisions. Silverlode Subdivision contains the 30%
free-market portion and is generally east of the Williams Ranch Subdivision which
contains the thirty-five (35) affordable dwellings. The approving Ordinance No. 52,
Series of 1994, contains a series of conditions of the approval to which the applicant
is requesting amendments.
The application packet includes a summary of the amendments requested, a copy of
the approving Ordinance, and a copy of the pertinent Subdivision plat sheet for the
Commission's reference. Under the section "Amendments," staff summarizes and
responds to the requests.
During the first public hearing regarding this proposed amendment, the Commission
raised several concerns and requested additional information be provided. Staff has
provided this additional information under the respective topic headings. The
Commission also requested a representative of the City Engineers Office attend this
meeting and representative from each of the two homeowners' associations. Staff has
arranged for these representatives to be at the meeting.
Attached to this memorandum is a letter from Gary Wright, President of the Williams
Ranch Homeowner's Association. In this letter, Mr. Wright presents the position of
the land owners in Williams Ranch and staff will go over these during the meeting.
From Mr. Wright's letter, it appears the neighborhood is in support of the applicant's
requests.
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission pass forward a
recommendation of approval of this PUD amendment, with conditions.
AMENDMENTS:
A esth etics.
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 418, of the Ordinance.
The Salvation Ditch Company has indicated their reluctance to have such an
improvement constructed within their easement. Furthermore, water to serve this
water feature would have to be purchased and the Homeowners' Associations would
most likely need to indemnify the ditch company. While impediments exist, this
improvement is not impossible to construct.
The Homeowners' have submitted a letter indicating their support for this amendment
— they don't want this reconstructed ditch. The preference expressed by the President
of the Williams Ranch HOA is for the common open space parcel to be landscaped
with native vegetation and not include this "water feature."
Staff agrees with the developer and the HOA. The decision to underground the ditch
effectively eliminated this historic landscape element. While it may have been
preferable to retain at least some portions of the historic ditch exposed to provide a
visual reference to the previous condition of the property, the decision has been made
and the undergrounding has been accomplished. Creation of an apparent ditch does
not necessarily achieve the same result. Furthermore, if the opportunity to have
active water within this new landscape element is not achieved, the aesthetic benefit
of a re-created ditch would be further diminished.
Staff does, however, have a concern about the condition of the Open Space parcel.
The original review of this PUD considered the visual characteristics of the overall
development. This Open Space parcel was to be revegetated with native species
according to the land use application. The applicant represented that the present
landscape (prior to development) would be replicated "in order to preserve the natural
character of the site."
The Open Space parcel is currently a patch of weeds and thistles with relatively little
value, visually, as open space in a natural character. Staff does not consider thistle
and other noxious weed to be native species. In direct comparison, the park parcel
directly north of the open space parcel exhibits a natural undisturbed condition and is
a significant aesthetic value to the area.
The open space parcel appears to not have any top soil and does not appear to have
been re -seeded. As the primary concern over the ditch feature was the aesthetic value
2
and visual character of the development, staff believes a condition to provide
sufficient top soil and re -seeding of this area is a justified request and appropriate
considering the amendment request. Staff is recommending the ditch feature
condition be eliminated and replaced with a condition requiring this open space parcel
be appropriately reclaimed and landscaped with native vegetation.
Pedestrian Movement.
There is a request by the developer to not develop the sidewalks required in the
original approval. While staff agrees with the developer and the residents of the area
that the more urban treatment of sidewalks would diminish the project's aesthetics,
staff does have concerns about maintaining the purpose of the sidewalks — pedestrian
movement.
During the development review for this PUD, a request from the City Engineer to
provide sidewalks on the perimeter of the entire cartway was forwarded to the Boards.
Due to the relatively low auto traffic expected and a desire to require less of an
"urban" treatment, the eventual condition required sidewalks on only one side of the
cartway. The sidewalk along Silverlode Drive from the intersection with Smuggler
Road to Mollie Gibson Park was developed. The sidewalk around Lots 1-12 of
Williams Ranch Subdivision (the internal "island") has not been developed.
This area does not have a significant amount of traffic. Furthermore, a landscaped
drainage swale bordering the cartway has been developed on many of these lots.
These landscape improvements have been developed in the public right-of-way and
the City could require them to be removed. However, removing this landscaping and
storm water feature for the provision of concrete sidewalks is not staff s preference
for this area. In fact, the paved cartway and soft edge of the landscaped drainage
swale evokes a more rural aesthetic appropriate for the area and is preferred by staff.
Staff does have a concern, however, about the purpose of the sidewalks — the safe and
convenient conveyance of pedestrians. The trails and sidewalks, as originally
approved, combined to provide a permeable development with respect to pedestrian
movement through the development. Trails were platted to serve the community's
movement both "vertically" and "horizontally" through the development. The trail
that serves "vertical" movement (platted east -west) is developed on the lower two
blocks with one exception: the intersection with Silverlode Drive between lots 6 and
7. Staff has included a condition that this last remaining portion be developed.
The trail that was to serve "horizontal" movement (platted north -south) has been
developed only on the open space parcel. It is important to staff to maintain public
access through the development between the Loni White Trail and the Molly Gibson
Park.
The northern -most section of this horizontal trail is through the "park" parcel. This is
a parcel that was deeded to the City and the City has the ability to construct a trail
3
connection through this parcel. The applicant does not have a responsibility to
develop this portion of the trail.
The next portion of the trail is through the "open space parcel." This parcel is in
common ownership of the Williams Ranch Home Owners' Association with a public
trail easement as shown on the plat. This portion of the trail has been developed by
the applicant, albeit crudely. Staff is recommending this portion of the trail be
improved to City standards.
The middle portion of this trail (lots #33-35) has not been developed but is certainly
buildable. This is an important link to serve this north -south movement as it connects
the vertical trail through to the "open space parcel." Staff is recommending this trail
segment be built by the applicant.
The southern -most portion of this trail easement (lots #27 — 31 and # 15) does not
adequately provide for a trail to be built. The topography in this area is extremely
steep and a trail would be very difficult to develop and may pose ground stability
issues with adjacent development. After consulting with staff, the applicant inquired
about securing an easement from the Centennial Condominiums for this trail. The
property on the adjacent Centennial property is flat and could accommodate this trail
if an easement were secured. According to the applicant, Centennial representatives
were not receptive to this easement. Staff believes the pedestrian connection could
still be served through use of Williams Ranch Drive and then to the sidewalk along
Silverlode Drive.
Soil Erosion Control on Smuggler Mine Property.
The original application included the Smuggler Mine property and access to this
development was contemplated through Smuggler Mine. The mine was scheduled to
increase the amount of mining activity (drilling, blasting, etc.) including a significant
amount of surface activity. It was contemplated that erosion from this surface activity
would need to be mitigated prior to its draining onto the residential portion of the
development — Williams Ranch.
Staff researched the representations made by the applicant concerning this road and
erosion control device. The Williams Ranch residential application did not make any
promises concerning these improvements. Nowhere in any of the staff memos, notes,
or adopted resolutions or Ordinances did these improvements show up. Literally, the
only location these improvement are promised are on the grading sheets of the final
PUD Plans. These Final PUD plans, however, were approved by the City and not
jointly with the County. Thus, improvements outside of the City jurisdiction are not
enforceable by the City and are not binding upon the developer.
The owner of this mining property has an obligation with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to not re -grade or otherwise disturb this land. The
Smuggler Mine is not owned by the applicant and the applicant has no ability to meet
0
this condition of approval. In addition, the Smuggler Mine and the location of these
improvements lies. entirely within Pitkin County and the City does not have the
authority to require any actions be undertaken.
For these reasons, staff is suggesting this re -grading is not an obligation of Ordinance
52, Series of 1999, and is not a binding commitment by the developer.
Emergency Access.
The approvals for this project included a requirement to install "grass pavers" along
the emergency access easement connecting the cul-de-sac to Spruce Street. These
pavers are in poor condition and may represent a community safety issue.
The City Engineer inspected and accepted the grass pavers last Fall. At that time the
pavers were in a useful condition. The pavers are now in a dilapidated condition and
staff is concerned about the long-term usefulness of this emergency facility.
During the previous hearing, the applicant contended that because the City Engineer
inspected the improvement and "signed -off' the developer has no further obligation.
The Commission questioned whether or not there was any ability for the City to
require corrective action by the original developer if the improvement was actually
installed inappropriately and requested the City Engineer provide some additional
guidance. The City Engineer will be in attendance.
Staff does want to point out that the emergency access must be maintained in a year-
round passable manner. If the developer is indeed no longer responsible for the
condition of the grass pavers, the obligation lies with the homeowners' associations.
In other words, the City is assured through the provisions of Ordinance 52 that the
emergency access will remain in an adequate condition.
APPLICANT:
Williams Ranch Joint Venture, John Markel, President. Represented by Charles
Brandt, Charles Brandt and Associates.
LOCATION:
Williams Ranch Drive and Silverlode Drive vicinity. Please refer to the attached
location map.
ZONING:
FENVOIEF141MI-JI
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:
M
The project received final development approval pursuant to Ordinance No. 52, Series
of 1994.
The Planning and Zoning Commission opened this public hearing on July 6, 1999,
continued to September 24, 1999, and continued to this date. The Planning and
Zoning Commission considered the amendment during the September 24, 1999,
hearing and requested additional information a the presence of certain representatives.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Final Planned Unit Development. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall
consider the application at a duly noticed public hearing and recommend approval,
approval with conditions, or denial to the City Council. City Council shall approve,
approve with conditions, or deny the application at a duly noticed public hearing.
BACKGROUND:
Williams Ranch PUD and Subdivision was granted land use approval pursuant to
Ordinance 52, Series of 1994. This document has been included in the application for
reference.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit "A." Agency
referral comments have been included as Exhibit "B." the application packet and
letters from area residents were included in the previous staff report and have not
been duplicated.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission pass forward a
recommendation to City Council to amend the Williams Ranch PUD, Ordinance 52,
Series of 1994, with the following conditions:
1. Lot #36 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision, the Open Space parcel, shall be improved
with top -soil and re -vegetated with a native grass mixture and either mulched or
watered daily to stimulate germination by Williams Ranch Joint Venture. The City
Forester of the City Parks Department shall approve the seed mixture. The
improvement shall be accomplished prior to July 1, 2000.
2. 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
no
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.
7
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Resolution No. 99- 27 recommending City Council amend the
Williams Ranch PUD approvals, as granted pursuant to Ordinance 52, Series of 1994,
with the conditions recommended in the staff memorandum dated November 2, 1999.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments
Exhibit B -- Letter from Gary Wright, Williams Ranch HOA President
CAhome\CHRISB\CASES\Williams Ranch Amendment\PZ Memoldoc
8
Exhibit A
Williams Ranch Amendment
Staff Comments: 26.445.040 Review Standards
A development application for a PUD must comply with the following standards and
requirements: Staff has condensed many of the review criteria in instances where the
criteria does not apply to this amendment. Please refer to the PUD section of the
land use code for a full 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 proj ect's off-street parking requirements are proposed or necessary.
6. Open Space. The Open Space requirement shall be that of the underlying
zone district. However, a variation in minimum open space may be
permitted if.such variation would not be detrimental to the character of the
proposed PUD, and if the proposed development shall include open space for
the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD through a
common park or recreation area. An area may be approved as a common
park or recreation area if it:
a. Is to be used and is suitable for scenic, landscaping, or recreation
purposes; and
b. Is land which is accessible and available to all dwelling units or
lots for whom the common area is intended.
A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas shall
be deeded in perpetuity to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the planned unit
development (PUD), together with a deed restriction against future residential,
commercial, or industrial development.
Any plan for open space shall also be accompanied by a legal instrument which
ensures the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and
communally owned facilities.
7. Landscape Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final development
plan a landscape plan, which exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces.
It shall provide an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species that are
regarded as suitable for the Aspen area climate.
Staff Finding:
This response considers the criteria for both Open Space and a Landscape Plan.
Staff Comments 2
The development includes an Open Space area to the benefit of the residents of the PUD
in a natural scenic capacity. This area was required, according to the approvals, to
contain a re-created "ditch" feature referring to the historic landscape element which
existed on the property prior to development. This issue was raised primarily to address
the project's aesthetics and the value of retaining some visual cue to the ditch landscape
element. The final approval contained a condition requiring the developer construct a
water feature along the ditch alignment. This is reflected in Section 1, condition #18, of
the Ordinance.
The Salvation Ditch Company has indicated their reluctance to have such an
improvement constructed within their easement. Furthermore, the Homeowners' have
submitted a letter indicating their support for this amendment. The preference expressed
by the President of the Williams Ranch HOA is for the common open space parcel to be
landscaped with native vegetation and not include this "water feature."
Staff agrees with the developer and the HOA. Staff does, however, have a concern about
the condition of the Open Space parcel and the project's aesthetic value. In other words,
the re-created ditch may be difficult to develop but the overall aesthetic of the project are
still important. The Open Space parcel is currently a patch of weeds and thistles with
relatively little value, visually, as open space in a natural character. In direct comparison,
the park parcel directly north of the open space parcel exhibits a natural undisturbed
condition and is a significant aesthetic value to the area.
The open space parcel appears to not have any top soil and does not appear to have been
re -seeded. As the primary concern over the ditch feature was of its aesthetic value, staff
believes a condition to provide sufficient top soil and re -seeding of this area is
appropriate. Staff is recommending the ditch feature condition be eliminated and a
condition requiring this open space parcel be appropriately landscaped with native
vegetation be applied. Considering the timing of this amendment review, staff is
recommending this be accomplished in the Spring of 2000. Upon completion of this
improvement, staff believes the intent of these two criteria will be met.
8. Architectural Site Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final
development plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural
consistency with the proposed development, architectural character, building
design, and the preservation of the visual character of the City. It is not the
purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly
enforced that individual initiative is stifled in the design of a particular
building, or substantial additional expense is required. Architectural
character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon
appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony and
proportion of the buildings with each other and surrounding land uses.
Building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and
maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage
and reduce soil erosion.
Staff Finding:
No changes to the project's architectural plan are requested in this amendment.
Staff Comments 3
9. Lighting. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or
hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands.
Staff Finding:
The amendment does not address lighting and no concerns about outdoor lighting have
been brought to the attention of City staff. The development in this PUD will have to be
in conformance to the lighting Code as any other property in the City is required.
10. Clustering. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged.
Staff Finding:
This standard does not apply to this amendment.
11. Public facilities. The proposed development shall be designed so that
adequate public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed
development at the time development is constructed, and that there will be no
net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings
shall not be arranged such that any structure is inaccessible to emergency
vehicles.
Staff Finding:
The grass pavers required to be installed along the emergency access way were inspected
and approved by the City Engineer. Since this inspection in the Fall of 1998, the
condition of the pavers and, therefore the long-term usefulness of the facility, has
deteriorated. This access is now compromised and may represent a practical difficulty in
the provision of emergency service, no longer meeting the intent of this criteria. This
emergency access way needs to be maintained in a manner acceptable to emergency
service providers. Staff has included a condition concerning the repair of this area.
The original approval required pedestrian facilities to be accommodated on -site. While
staff s concerns are both related to the provision of public facilities and the provision of
adequate circulation, staff has summarized the discussion of this issue under the
following criteria — # 12 Circulation.
The soil erosion mitigation condition of the land use approvals related to a mining road
on Smuggler Mountain, contemplated both the future development of the Smuggler Mine
property and the fact that the Smuggler Mine owners were party to the original
application. The applicant is no longer able to make representations about the Smuggler
Mine or commit to conducting improvements on the Mine property. Staff is
recommending the condition related to the re -grading of this mining road be removed
from the land use approvals.
12. Traffic and pedestrian circulation.
a. Every dwelling unit, or other land use permitted in the planned unit
development (PUD) shall have access to a public street either directly or
Staff Comments 4
through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area
dedicated to public or private use.
b. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic
flow with controlled turning movement and minimum hazards to vehicular
or pedestrian traffic. Minor streets within the Planned Unit Development
(PUD) shall not be connected to streets outside the development so as to
encourage their use by through traffic.
C. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create
traffic congestion on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the
proposed development, or such surrounding collector and arterial roads
shall be improved so that they will not be adversely affected.
d. Every residential building shall not be farther than sixty (60) feet from an
access roadway or drive providing access to a public street.
e. All nonresidential land use within the planned unit development (PUD)
shall have direct access to a collector or arterial street without creating
traffic hazards or congestion on any street.
f. Streets in the planned unit development (PUD) may be dedicated to public
use or retained under private ownership. Said streets and associated
improvements shall comply with all pertinent city regulations and
ordinances.
Staff Finding:
The original review concentrated on a pedestrian's ability to walk through the project. A
series of easements were required and recorded on the final plat. For better clarity, staff
is referring to these as the "horizontal" trail and the "vertical" trail. The horizontal trail
provides pedestrian movement north and south along roughly the. same topographic
elevation from the public "park" parcel through to the southern -most boundary of the
PUD. This horizontal trail was intended to serve as an extension to the Loni White Trail
along the Salvation Ditch which connects to the Hunter Creek Trail. The park parcel has
been deeded to the City for park use which included the City's ability to construct a trail.
The vertical trail provides a pedestrian cut -through between the blocks of the
Subdivision. The Improvements were completed on the lower two Blocks. The
remaining portion, the portion which would provide access to the property above
Silverlode Subdivision, was required as an easement but not required to be constructed.
There is a request by the developer to not develop the sidewalks required in the original
approval. While staff agrees with the developer and the residents of the area that the
more urban treatment of sidewalks would diminish the project's aesthetics, staff does
have concerns about maintaining the purpose of the sidewalks — pedestrian movement.
During the development review for this PUD, a request from the City Engineer to provide
sidewalks on the perimeter of the entire cartway was forwarded to the Boards.. Due to the
relatively low auto traffic expected and a desire to require less of an "urban" treatment,
the eventual condition required sidewalks on only one side of the cartway.
Staff Comments 5
This area does not have a significant amount of traffic. Staff believes the paved cartway
and soft edge of the landscaped drainage swale evokes a more rural aesthetic appropriate
for the area and is preferred development style.
Staff does have a concern, however, about the purpose of the sidewalks — the safe and
convenient conveyance of pedestrians. The maintenance of pedestrian permeability — the
ability for pedestrians to pass through the subdivision — was important in the original
review and is important in this amendment review. Staff has recommended a set of
conditions to address, this criteria.
CAhome\CHRISB\CASES\Williams Ranch Amendment\PZ EX A.doc
Staff Comments 6
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A SUBSTANTIAL
AMENDMENT TO THE WILLIAMS RANCH PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS GRANTED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE 52,
SERIES OF 1994.
Parcel Nos. 2737.074.30.001-015 and 2737.074.29.001-036
Resolution No. 99 - 27
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Williams Ranch Joint Venture, represented by Charles Brandt and Associates P.C.,
for substantial amendments to the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development approval
granted pursuant to Ordinance 52, Series of 1994; and,
WHEREAS, the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development (the project) is a
fifty (50) residential unit project divided into two Subdivisions: the Silverlode
Subdivision consisting of fifteen (15) free-market residential units and the Williams
Ranch Subdivision containing thirty-five (35) affordable housing units; and,
WHEREAS, the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development is located within
the City of Aspen directly east of the Centennial Condominiums. in Section 7, Township
10 South, Range 84 West; and,
WHEREAS, the amendments requested relate to conditions of approval
stipulated in Ordinance 52, Series of 1994, concerning the development of a "small ditch
water feature," "hard surface pedestrian walking areas" (a.k.a. sidewalks), "soil erosion
controls" on a mining road above the project, and a release of a trail easement platted
from the Open Space parcel to the boundary of the Molly Gibson Park along the southern
boundary of the PUD.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445, Planned Unit Development, of the
Aspen Municipal Code, substantial amendments to an approved Planned Unit
development may be approved by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after
considering recommendations by the Community Development Director, the Planning
and Zoning Commission made at a duly noticed public hearing, the appropriate referral
agencies, and members of the general public; and,
WHEREAS, after considering a recommendation by the Community
Development Director, referral agencies,- comments made by the applicant, and members
of the general public at a duly noticed public hearing opened on July 6, 1999, continued
to September 21, 1999, and continued to November 2, 1999, the Planning and Zoning
Commission finds the PUD amendments to be in substantial compliance with the goals
and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan and the intent and requirements of the
Land Use Code with the conditions listed in this Resolution and recommends, by a to
. (_ to _) vote, that the Aspen City Council approve this substantial amendment to the
Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development with the conditions listed herein.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
That City Council should approve this substantial amendment to the Williams Ranch
Planned Unit Development with the following conditions:
Lot #36 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision, the Open Space parcel, shall be improved
with top -soil and re -vegetated with a native grass mixture and either mulched or
watered daily to stimulate germination by Williams Ranch Joint Venture. The City
Forester of the City Parks Department shall approve the seed mixture. The
improvement shall be accomplished prior to July 1, 2000.
2. Upon completion, inspection by the City, and acceptance by the City of the
improvements stated in condition # 1, above, the requirement to construct a "small ditch
water feature," as stipulated in Section 1, condition #18, of Ordinance No. 52, Series of
1994, shall be deemed met and no further obligation to develop a "ditch" shall be
required.
3. The portion of the pedestrian trail between lots 6 and 10 of the Williams Ranch
Subdivision shall be completed to the edge of the Silverlode Drive cartway. The portion
of the public trail described on the final plat as crossing Lots 33, 34, and 35 of the
Williams Ranch Subdivision shall be developed. The portion of the pedestrian trail
crossing Lot #36 of the Williams Ranch Subdivision, the open space parcel, shall be re-
developed. These improvements shall be accomplished by Williams Ranch Joint
Venture no later than July 1, 2000. The design and construction plans for these
improvements shall be approved by the City Trails Coordinator of the City Parks
Department.
4. Upon completion, inspection by the City, and acceptance by the City of the
improvements listed in condition #3, above, the requirement to construct "hard surface
pedestrian walking area on one side of all roads" (sidewalks), as stipulated in Section 1,
condition #2b, of Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994, and the "five foot pedestrian path,"
stipulated in Section 1, condition #14i, of said Ordinance, shall be deemed met and no
further obligation to develop a sidewalk shall be required.
5. Upon completion, inspection by the City, and acceptance by the City of the
improvements listed in condition #3, above, the trail easement depicted on the final plat
of the Williams Ranch Subdivision and Silverlode Subdivision along the southern
boundary of the Williams Ranch PUD shall be vacated from Lot #27 of the Williams
Ranch Subdivision through Lot # 15 of the Silverlode Subdivision.
6. Sidewalks may be developed adjoining public rights -of -way in the future upon petition
of the City by the residents to create an Improvement District pursuant to Section 21.28
of the Municipal Code, as amended.
7. The emergency access way between the Spruce Street right-of-way and the Silverlode
Drive cul-de-sac shall be improved to withstand emergency vehicles.
8. The City and the applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement stipulating the nature and
requirements of this PUD amendment following final consideration by City Council,
pursuant to Section 26.445.060 of the Land Use Code. This agreement shall be
reviewed by the City Attorney prior to recordation. To ensure the implementation of the
landscape and public facilities required through this amendment, the agreement shall be
accompanied by a cash escrow in the amount estimated by the City Engineer for the
improvements, pursuant to Section 26.445.060(C) and (D).
9. Pursuant to Section 26.445.090, the PUD amendment agreement shall be recorded
within one -hundred and eighty (180) days of the final approval by City Council. An
amendment to the Subdivision plat depicting the vacated trail easement mentioned in
condition #5 shall also be recorded.
10. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public
meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
11. The applicant shall record the Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution with the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a
per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City
Clerk who will record the resolutions.
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL by the Commission at its regular meeting on
November 2, 1999.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
Robert Blaich, Chair
CAhome\CHRISB\CASES\Williams Ranch Amendment\PZ RESO.doc
c
WRIGHT &ADGER
LAW PARTNERSHIP, LLP
201 NORTH MILL STREET, SUITE 106
GARY A. WRIGHT, P.C.
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
OF COUNSEL:
ALLEN H. ADGER, P.C."
TELEPHONE: 970-925-5625
PHILIPJ. O'CONNELL'
BRIAN J. PINKOWSKI, P.C.
FACSIMILE: 970-925-5663
MACE J. YAMPOLSKY, LTD.—
e-mail: aslwenL\�rightadgerxom
ALSO ADMITTED TO FLORIDA BAR
CATALINA C RUZ
ALSO ADMITTED TO TEXAS AND LOUISIANA BAR
25 October 1999 ...
ALSO ADMITTED TO CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA BAR
Christopher Bendon, Planner
Aspen Pitkin County Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street, Third Floor
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Williams Ranch Homeowner's Association
Dear Chris:
I am writing in my capacity as the current President of the Williams Ranch Homeowners'
Association. This letter is written at the request of the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission in connection with the Williams Ranch Joint Venture's pending application to amend
its approval ordinance relating to the Williams Ranch Subdivision. As the President of the Williams
Ranch Homeowners' Association and having been involved with this project since it's 1989
inception, I am very familiar with each of the matters being considered by the City in connection
with the requested amendment. This letter will address each of them.
TRAILS. I understand that the discussion centered on three segments of the trail: the
southerly portion, the middle portion and the westerly portion over the Williams Ranch Open Space
Parcel. With respect to the southerly portion of the trail along the hillside above Centennial, because
of the topography and perhaps ground stability, the Association concurs with the Planning Staff s
necoitmmendutlon that thl_- trail not be cCnstruCt:.,d.
The middle portion of the trail, between the "vertical trail" and the Open Space Parcel, causes
the Association concern about intrusion on the privacy of the three homes which would be impacted
by the construction and use of this trail. Furthermore, since the "vertical" trail enables homeowners
direct access to the bus stop adjacent to the Centennial Condominiums, the Association believes that
this trail would be redundant, and does not think the construction of this segment of the trail is
necessary or purposeful. While it is true that the "vertical" trail is grass the last five to ten feet on
the westerly side of SilverLode Drive, it is acceptable to the Association.
G:\WR11A\Marke1.001 OCT 2 T �99
VtJ1Y1MlV�{i 1 f� t.�L..Vi:�1� ��..t_i`rT
OFFICES LOCATED IN ASPEN, BASALT, AND DENVER, COLORADO
WRIGHT & ADGER
Christopher Bendon, Planner
Aspen Pitkin County Community Development Department
25 October 1999
Page 2
Re: Williams Ranch Homeowner's Association
The westerly segment or portion of the trail was built by Williams Ranch Joint Venture to
City specifications, as we understand. it, and wa accepted by the City. Because of nrJn- lse uue to
heavy rains this past summer and the fact that it does not lead anywhere, the trail has fallen into
disrepair. If this trail had been used, it would probably not be in its present condition. While the
Association acknowledges its legal obligation to maintain the trail as it exists across the Open Space
Parcel, it would prefer that the City assume this responsibility - particularly since the trial is rarely
if ever used.
COMMON AREA OPEN SPACE. I understand that the P&Z expressed some concern at
the recent meeting about the existence of weeds and thistles in the Common Area Open Space area.
Please be advised that the Association is in the process of adding dirt to this area and performing
some re -seeding of the area. Notwithstanding this work, it is our understanding that the Open Space
Parcel was never intended to be a grassy, groomed area, but was to revert to its' natural condition.
Furthermore, the Homeowner's Association believes that the developer should have been required
to do more with this area. However, the developer was not (required to do more) and the
Association accepts this situation. It is the intent of the Association to maintain the Open Space
Parcel in its' natural condition.
SIDEWALKS. The Association's position on sidewalks is unequivocal - We do not want
sidewalks. Consequently, we adopted an amendment to our protective covenants (enclosed with this
letter) prohihitina the construction of sidewalks Tbl-, amendment has been of record since June
1999.
SALVATION DITCH WATER FEATURE. For safety and other reasons, the Association
does not want the so-called "water feature" implemented. Members of the Association with small
children are concerned that the water feature would be an attractive nuisance and a danger. .
DRAINAGE DITCHES. With Williams Ranch Joint Venture's payment of 80% of the
estimated cost to restore the drainage ditches in Williams Ranch along SilverLode Drive, the
Association has hired Ute City Land Works to perform this work. Thus, this matter is being
addressed to the satisfaction of the Association.
GAWRHANarke1.001
WRIGHT & AADGER
Christopher Bendon, Planner
Aspen Pitkin County Community Development Department
25 October 1999
Page 3
Re: Williams Ranch Homeowner's Association
EMERGENCY ACCESS. The Homeowners' Association has approved an emergency
access gate, approved by the fire department, to be installed by the owner of SilverLode Lot 1.
Please give me a call if you have any questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
Williams Ranch Homeowners' Association
By: It
Gary A. Wright, President
G:\WRHA\Marke1.001
LISA NL RKAL-UNAS
15 Williams Ranch Court
Aspen, Colorado
November 2, 1999
City of Aspen
Planning & Zoning Commission
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Proposed Trail
To Whom It May Concern:
I would like to hereby express my opposition to the City of Aspen requiring the developer of Williams
Ranch to proceed with the installation of a trail on property adjoining the south side of my property at 15
Williams Ranch Court, Aspen, Colorado between the existing trail from Free Silver Court to Williams
Ranch Drive and the trail across the Williams Ranch Open Space Parcel.
I do not see any significant benefit to the public in placing a trail in this location. The majority of foot
traffic in the neighborhood follows a pattern proceeding from the homes in the neighborhood down to the
bus stop and sidewalks along Brown Lane and onto Park Circle.
I believe that the significant impacts on us as adjoining property owners in terms of impacts on our privacy,
the peaceful enjoyment on our property and the impacts on our lawns and gardens from pets, children and
people who choose to deviate from the established trail are more significant than any perceived benefit to
the public.
Sincerely,
ti
Lisa Markalunas
/lam
cc: Williams Ranch Homeowner's Association
EXHI m
(4 a J.,Vq,
A
To the Aspen Planning and Zoning Board
From the residents of Williams Ranch Court
November 2, 1999
We are interested in the proposed trail that would go in front of the
Williams Ranch Court area. We would like to understand the need for phis
trail at this particular spot and would like to discuss the possibilities
of a slight change in the location.
While we are in favor of open access to Williams Ranch as a neighborhood
with streets and easements that the public is welcome to use, the proposed
trail seems very close to two homes. Perhaps we could meet with the board
on site since this is difficult to explain on paper.
Some specific concerns are:
lack of privacy...how many feet from the trail to doors and windows?
what will keep loose dogs and users on the trail and out of the yards?
how will trail cross our parking lot?
how many trees will be cut down? what size?
how will steep slope from our parking lot be made into trail?
will there be a fence on the Court ,,g ide of the trail? perhaps split rail?
who will maintain the trail... litter, thistle, etc? also, dog feces
is there a need for this trail at this precise point or could it be moved
a few feet downhill? we might be able to work with Centennial.
Our neighborhood is important to us. Please let us work with you on this project
so all needs may be considered.
Thank you very much.
Lisa Markalunas
Terry Connor
Jeffrey Riggenbach
Helen Palmer
1112--ldl 41
NAME OF PROJECT: W11-4,1AMS 12*MO-t 0*4�--
P10A, t�l ,PtMW41>►AwLf'r
CITY CLERK: �10604
STAFF: C4em ltmpADONI
WITNESSES: (1) G J+O&AeLOE:as wj!!:F20"1--p
(2) TRet) e2amegA,
(3) C444**tC4< IL>�
c4> L i ex* mAwmq,a.lru x4v-S
(5) Awjtww�4 T—:ArLw4m,,,w
EXHIBITS: (&)-1taff Report (R�(CFeck4l*�lb)�
2 Affidavit of Notice ( (Check If Applicable);�R10pt...
IV le J
LjtA JAAg44ALLAn� LgrpE3p
5 J410n-'�LME$ corJ�l�rr, uyE
MOTION: .uNos,%4aFF "lwaAca �
6&tn KkA ED� -M -`DMo 14 i (T91
VOTE: YES NO
JASMINE TYGRE YES NO
ROGER HUNT YES NO TIMOTHY MOONEY YES NO
STEVEN BUETTOW YES NO
RON ERICKSON YES NO Yj * c ' 1& X-n A TT - vie _- XTn-MML
—
K�o' � Mc�