HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19991214 AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1999
4:30 PM
COUNTY BOARD ROOM, PLAZA I
I. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
III. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
IV. DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE
A. 518 W. Francis Request for Variance, Amy Guthrie
B. Alpine Cottages Request for Variance, Sarah Oates
V. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Williams Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment, Continued from 11/2, Chris
Bendon /~~ (~,._~ _
VI. OTHER
A. Final Draft of Aspen Mountain Drainage Master Plan, Nick Adeh
VII. ADJOURN
CITY AGENDA
City Council Meetings- on the 2nd and 41" Mondays at 5:00 PM
Planning Zoning Commission Meetings- on the 1 st and 3' Tuesdays at 4:30 PM
Historic Preservation Commission Meetings- on the 2nd & 4th Wednesdays at 5:00 PM
Board of Adjustment- on every other Thursday at 4:00 PM, or on Demand
Revised 12/08/99
12/13 Cif Council (5:00)
City Notice 11/23
State Historic Preservation Tax Credit Resolution (AG) (Consent)
Molly Gibson Lodge Minor PUD 1st Reading (NL) (Consent)
UBC 2nd Reading (SK) —must be before
Contractor Licensing 2nd Reading (AG)
12/14 Staff Technical Meeting (10-12)
Meeting with Nick Adeh on Aspen Mountain Drainage Master Plan
12/14 Planning and Zoning (4:30) (County Board Room)
City Notice 11/23
Final Draft of Aspen Mountain Drainage Master Plan (NA)
Williams Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment (CB) — Cont'd form 11/2
Alpine Cottages Variance DRAC (SO)
518 W. Francis Variance DRAC (AG)
12/15 HPC (5:00) (Tentative)
City Notice 11/23
Special Meeting
330 Lake Conceptual
333 W. Bleeker work session
117 N. 6t"- Skylight
Paragon- Minor
212 E. Hopkins- Minor
12/16 Planning and Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 11/23
Joint Planning and Zoning meeting on AACP
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
1/ 4 City Council (5:00)
Work Session on AACP Priorities
1/ 10 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 12/21
Molly Gibson Lodge Minor PUD 2 n' Reading (NL) (PH)
1/11 Planning and Zoning Commission (4:30)
City Notice 12/21
Aspen Mountain Drainage Master Plan Public Hearing (NA)
(PUB) Zone District and Definitions (NL) (PH), Continued from 11/30
Yellow Brick Rezoning to (PUB) Zone District (NL) (PH), Continued from 11/30
1/ 12 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 12/21
333 W. Bleeker Minor HPC
130 S. Galena Minor HPC
527 W. Main Minor HPC
221 E. Main (Explore)- Conceptual Public Hearing
1/ 18 Joint City/County Planning & Zoning (4:30) (tentative)
City Notice 12/28
AACP Public Hearing (JA) (LH)(PH)
1/ 24 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 1/ 4
Code Interpretation- Village of Aspen Subdivision (SO)
Aspen Mountain Drainage Master Plan (NA)
Yellow Brick Rezoning to (PUB) Zone District 1s' Reading (NL)
Code Amendment- (PUB) Zone District and Definitions 1" Reading (NL)
1/25 Growth Management Commission (5:00)
Stanger- Metro Residential Scoring
Stillwater Affordable Housing Growth Management Exemption/ Allocation
1/ 26 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 1/ 4
Architecture
2/1 Planning & Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 1 /11
2/8 City Council (5:00)
Joint Meeting with BOCC regarding AACP Priorities
2/8 Joint Planning and Zoning Commission (5:00)
Buttermilk Commercial Growth Management Scoring (Advisory to County)
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
2
Memorandum
TO: Design Review Appeal Committee
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
DATE: December 14, 1999
RE: 518 W. Francis Street- Appeal from Design Standards relating to
"build -to line," "secondary mass," "building elements," and "windows"
SUMMARY: The subject property currently contains two detached dwelling units,
which is a non -conforming use since the lot is less than 9,000 square feet. The existing
buildings will be demolished and replaced as allowed by the land use code, in a
traditional primary building and carriage house configuration.
The applicant requests a waiver of the Residential Design Standards related to "build -to
line," "secondary mass," "building elements," and "windows."
APPLICANT: Christopher Hewett, 'represented by Stan Mathis.
LOCATION: 518 W. r Street, Lots P& O, Block 27, City and Townsite of
Aspen.
ZONING: R-6.
PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS AND STAFF EVALUATION
Background: The proposed project is two new single family houses on a 6,000.square
foot parcel. The development will be limited to the floor area that would otherwise be
allowed for a single family house; 3,240 square feet.
Site Description: The property is flat and located in the West End, adjacent to several
historic buildings. Existing parking in front of the house will need to be removed as part
of the redevelopment of the site. The applicant must note that two on -site parking spaces
will be required for each unit and it appears that the parking area at the rear of the site
may have to be revised to provide a fourth space.
Waivers Requested:
1. Build -to lines. On
parcels or lots of less than.
15, 000 square feet, at least
60% of the front fagade shall
be within S feet of the
minimum front yard setback line.
On corner sites, at least 60%
of both street facades of the
building shall be within 5
feet of the minimum setback
lines. Porches may be used to
meet the 60% standard.
KrM
=I IIIIIUINillil�llllll� �'""""'�
Staff evaluation: The property will contain two single family houses, each of which is
required to meet the "Residential Design Standards." Because of the configuration which
is being used, with what appears to be a primary house and a secondary building, the rear
unit does not meet the build to line requirement. Staff finds that the proposed site design
is appropriate and consistent with the traditional building patterns on the immediately
adjacent historic properties and with the character of the West End.
2. Secondary Mass.
All new structures shall
locate at least 10%of their
total square footage above
grade in a mass which is
completely detached fifom
the principal building, or
linked to it by a subordinate
connecting element.
Accessory buildings such as
garages, sheds, and
Accessory Dwelling Units
are examples of appropriate
uses for the secondary mass.
Staff evaluation: The front house does meet this standard, however the rear unit, which
is only approximately 1200 square feet does not. As described above, the overall plan for
the site is consistent with this standard in that it appears to be a primary building with a
detached secondary structure or outbuilding.
3. Building Elements.
The entry door shall
face the street and.be no
more than ten feet (10'0')
back from the f ontmost wall
of the building. Entry doors
shall not be taller than eight
feet (8'0 ".)
Staff response: The rear building has been designed to have it's entry on the east side of
the building. Presumably the building will be accessed from the alley rather than by
approaching it from West Smuglol-
ler.
4.
W' doves. Street facing windows
shall not s n through the area where a
second floor vel would typically exist,
which is betwee ine (9) and twelve
feet (12) above the ished first floor.
For interior staircases, is measure-
ment will be made from e first 1 d-
ing if one exists. A transom in ow
above the main entry is exem om
this standard.
All stree/das
reas w' h an exterior
expressioe he' ht greater than
ten (10) b counted as two
(2) squarach one (1) square
foot of flExterior expression
shall be s facade penetrations
betweenand twelve (12) feet
above the level of finished floor.
"No window zone"
Staff response: There are two windows on the front of "Unit A" which face the street
and fall into the "no window zone." Staff does not find that they meet any of the review
standards for a variance If a variance is not granted, they must be eliminated or the
applicant may elect to take a floor area penalty.
REVIEW STANDARDS: The Committee may grant an exception to the design
standards if the project as proposed is found to meet one of the following criteria:
a) yields greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan:
b) more effectively addresses the issue or problem a given standard or provision
responds to;
c) be clearly necessary for reason of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints.
Staff recommendation: Staff recommends the Design Review Appeals Commission
approve the variance requests related to "build -to line," "secondary mass," and "building
elements," finding that they more effectively address the issue or problem the standards
respond to. Staff does not recommend that the variance request for "windows" be
approved because none of the review standards are met.
Exhibits:
Resolution No. A-') Series of 1999
A. Application
G: planning/aspen/drac/518wfrancis
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES FROM THE
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS RELATING TO BUILD -TO LINE,
SECONDARY MASS, BUILDING ELEMENTS, AND WINDOWS FOR 518 W.
FRANCIS STREET, LOTS P AND 0, BLOCK 27, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF
ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO., SERIES OF 1999
PARCEL ID NO.2735-124-10-006
WHEREAS, the applicant, Christopher Hewett, represented by Stan Mathis, has
requested variances from the "Residential Design Standards" for the property located at
518 W. Francis; and
WHEREAS, all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section
26.410.030 must meet one of the following statements in order for the Design Review
Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an exception,
namely the proposal must:
a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan;
b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision
responds to; or
c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific
constraints, and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated December 14, 1999, recommended
approval of the variances from the "build -to line," "secondary mass," and "building
elements," based on a finding that "Criteria C" is met; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing, which was legally noticed, was held at a regular meeting
of the Planning and Zoning -Commission on December 14, 1999, at which the
Commission considered and by a vote of _ to _
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That variances have been granted from the standards based on criteria c
for the building at 518 W. Francis Street, Lots P&O, Block 27, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado, as presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 14,
1999, without conditions.
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION at its regular
meeting on the day of , 1999.
Approved as to form:
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney
Approved as to content:
Robert Blaich, Planning and Zoning Commission
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy Clerk
ATTACHMENT 1
LAND USE APPLICATION FORM
1. Project name rJ,�J CST Ft�ANGI
2. Project location ;,-�.� �„�, �; ram 10, s -..�.►�..-�.- ,� .� �,�
(indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description)
3. Present zoning
ram.•
4. Lot size 'i%
5. Applicant's name, address and phone number
V
"' � ♦ � Fri► 4' • �r'j Y�. �'r '
6. Representative's name, address, and phone number.=*,!�.
7. Type of application (check all that apply):
Conditional Use
Special Review
8040 Greenline
Stream Margin
Subdivision
GMQS allotment
View Plane
Lot Split/Lot Line
Adjustment
Conceptual SPA
Final SPA
Conceptual PUD
Final PUD
Text/Map Amend.
GMQS exemption
Condominiumization X
Conceptual HPC
Final HPC
Minor HPC
Relocation HPC
Historic Landmark
Demo/Partial Demo
Design Review
Appeal Committee
8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures,
approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the
property) :)PT4, ;ED 1 s11� c 5 oN A Woop i..C7--
�1Afr9Vy . 10.0 E-)►f=. i'ti/!:� EfT,4,1b, '1'-ic GDF 2�oI!�%;
+ A5.2E TIPZt�E1D r
G%M6,1J25HE,1.1, A14D FX-,hL.Ac-� W 2 nC T4CHE b 5 J N GLE ��Y 1� Cr L N (TS H/A 1— C-
9. Description of development application p` ��
' �A l'L,IC�NT J5 F-.F-Qu5STING � ! zbIp�,w-rIA-t p551At4 STA�ApAt 26 VAr,1/s,f•�„� F�
fg��o>F-�,b -ro et
EEL, 'E L-r ',�I5 i-�1FbT �.9I� SYi2�F,T
10. Have you completed and attached the following?
Attachment 1- Land use application form
Response to Attachment 2
Response to Attachment 3
c
�pn�nnnmmmmmmmmm>M»>�> 3
�y<OffRRf
�1�JNJ W W W PNP W W iwP W Jlw rl W �IPJ r• < ;t
•�� c Eo o _n a Go _ Q j„-•
^00oo93�R3a�5� <.^ Vt i
o
's bnn�`:
nn; xx' G� Cni 'xin=
o�.iLL-niWienGninxL=in=NL=q.q�L1:-Lb;,
NL JPUPPUPN W LNtANL V+PUHJJfT Jb,tn W
A
MNdo40odDf l
�� � � c 6 S:o��® OOOo ZZZ3?3p33333333333333
me vro ot�3�a�^^'g : tno N�o.Syccf f
a ° Ni n v
H?A: v71 P 7 'O: 7oi 6^ NCi
�e)4: CI1 S'r1WP
N eo u to li, J J ��' �.1 �•'.,., i
x�rt0xOTRf^nt?f�rf 1xm'OWrnq
p._4. W 1aNLlALb, W b, C,L t J. _i; "`•...,"�Yf.•Jn. ? S
�ytn"1t 1,YntntntnurA7o7oAAR?A .�i , •�_
.m ,
B aE ^ r o.,. n G1
•JN�4C�JWNNp. b,4 f �� ,}� � .v �
x
Y,<<rF,r.m r" 1'
4. t b- •i^ .t � •t,• .li:.Z.,...r._ �_t. t!e Y�.,3 ..: 5 .
�j
0
n
'D
O
m
aILI
•�7
cn.tfWdq
!
s '� a
�p(+d
74
--•yak..:
8 or !
Ol
-I 3 -•a
Ac-
�'jC'j�> zb � s
��
,
\D Ji
1
i
`f
Rod
Rd
44,
S s
,,P
> J j
Av
in QL it
a
4; �� Lr_ $; 4'
AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
County of Pitkin } TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION
} SS.
State of Colorado }
SECTION 26.304.060 (E)
I
being or representing an
ll certify that I have complied with the public notice
Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally
requirements pursu
ant to Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in the
following manner:
1. By mailing of notice a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class, postage prepaid
U.S.
Mail to all owners of property with three hundred (300) feet of the subject
roperty, as indicated on the attached list, on the day of
199 (which is _
P
days prior to the public hearing date of
us place on the subject property (as it could be seen
1 that the said sign was posted and visible continuously
199% (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full
A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto.
Signature
day
Signed before me this
,199 by
it
WITNESS My HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My commission expires: /e;�'—'�
Notary,Pub,tic
Notary -Publics Signature,;
C,
1i
i��
�e
::, '3
wsx x2� -.. % ,f tf.# Yr. �{R:i E". #Nbs 3ns+.�v r N1, > M' _. Y.i S s .I I I 4_ 'K: �s%.- 'i£[cY e ilol
MEETING DATE: 12/14/99 o;s
NAME OF PROJECT: 518 WEST FRANCIS — CHRISTOPHER HEWITT
CITY CLERK: JACKIE LOTHIAN
STAFF: AMY GUTHRIE
WITNESSES: (1) STAN MATHIS
(2) CHRIS HEWITT
(3)
(4)
(5)
EXHIBITS: 1 Staff Report ( x ) (Check If Applicable)
2 Affidavit of Notice ( x ) (Check If Applicable)
3 Board Criteria Sheet ( x ) (Check If Applicable)
4
wl
MOTION: ROGER HUNT MOVED TO ADOPT RESO #99-42 DELEING
THE "WINDOWS" REQUEST FROM THE 3 VARIANCES REQUESTED. TIM
MOONEY SECOND.
VOTE: YES 6 NO O
ROBERT BLAICH YES _X NO
ROGER HUNT YES _X NO
ROGER HANEMAN YES _X_ NO
RON ERICKSON YES _X_ NO _
TIMOTHY MOONEY YES _X_ NO
STEVEN BUETTOW YES _X NO
PZVOTE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Planning Director 4='
FROM: Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer
DATE: December 14, 1999
RE: 115 Robinson Road, Alpine Cottages PUD Lot D
SUMMARY: The subject property is a 5,192 square foot vacant lot that is part of the
Alpine Cottages PUD.
The applicant requests a waiver of the Residential Design Standards related to
"secondary mass." The "secondary mass" standard requires that at least 10% of the
above grade square footage is in a mass that is detached, or linked by a subordinate
element, from the principal residence. This proposal does not include a secondary mass.
APPLICANT: Alpine Cottages, LLC, represented by Semrau Building.
LOCATION: 115 Robinson Road, Alpine Cottages PUD, Lot D.
ZONING: AH-1 /PUD.
PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS AND STAFF EVALUATION
Background: The proposed project is.a single family home on a lot of 5,192 square feet.
The proposed floor area for the dwelling unit is 2,653 square feet, and the applicant is
allowed 3000 square feet of floor area.
Site Description: The property is located on Robinson Road, behind the Alpine Cottages
affordable housing units. A 10 foot trail easement runs along the north side of the
property, and the private access road Robinson Drive runs along the south side. The lot is
a triangular shape, and is on the corner of Robinson Road and Alpine Court.
Waiver Requested: The following text and graphic are applicable excerpts from the
Residential Design Standards.
2. Secondary Mass.
All new structures shall
locate at least 10% of their
total square footage above
grade in a mass which is
completely detached from
the principal building, or
linked to it by a subordinate
connecting element.
Accessory buildings such as
garages, sheds, and
Accessory Dwelling Units
are examples of appropriate
uses for the secondary mass.
The garage is the secondary mass in this illustration. It is connected to the principal
building by a subordinate element (such as a linked pavilion), which demonstrates how
this standard can be met.
The site plan does not meet the Residential Design Standards because no secondary mass
is proposed.
Staff evaluation: The house does not meet this standard, and is instead configured as
two masses (see Site Plan in Exhibit B) submitted by the applicant.
Staff recommendation Staff does not recommend that the variance request for
"secondary mass" be approved because none of the review standards discussed in Exhibit
A are met.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B -- Application
2
EXHIBIT A
Section 26.575.020, Residential Design Standards
The proposed building does not comply with the following design standard:
All new structures shall locate at least 10% of their total square
footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from,
or linked to it by a subordinate connecting element. Accoessory
buildings such as garages, sheds, and Accessory Dwelling Units
are examples of appropriate uses for the secondary mass.
In response to the review criteria for a DRAC variance, Staff makes the following
findings:
a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or,
Staff Finding:
The proposed variance is not in greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen
Area- Community Plan (AACP). The Residential Design Standards are a direct
outcome of the AACP. Thus, this standard is not met.
b) a more effective method of addressing standard in
question; or,
Staff Finding:
Staff does not feel the proposed design more effectively addresses the standard in
question. There is adequate space on the site to detach or link the secondary
mass (garage) to the principal structure.
c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to
unusual site specific constraints.
Staff Finding:
The lot is no larger than many non -conforming lots in the West End, and those that have
been split through the Historic Lot Split process. These lots are required to comply with
the standard, therefore there is no unusual site specific constraints. Although the
configuration of this lot does not mirror the platted townsite lots in the West End, staff
does not believe unusual site constraints exist to warrant the variance. Further, the PUD
did not dictate specific building envelopes in the individual lots. All preexisting lots are
subject to the current design standards at the time the building plans are submitted.
Resolution #99 -
AIN
(SERIES OF 1999)
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE FOR
"SECONDARY MASS" FOR ALPINE COTTAGES PUD, LOT % 115
ROBINSON ROAD, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel No. 2737-181-65004
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Alpine Cottages, LLC, owners, represented by Tim Semrau of Semrau Building, for
a variance from the Residential Design Standards Variance for Alpine Cottages PUD, Lot
D, 115 Robinson Road; and,
WHEREAS, Lot D of Alpine Cottages PUD is a 5,192 square foot, located in the
AH-1 /PUD Zone District, and is currently a vacant parcel; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
Community Development Department staff reviewed the applicant's application for
compliance with the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410.040 of the Aspen
Municipal Code and found the submitted development application to be inconsistent with
Standard 26.410.040(B)(1), Secondary Mass, of the Aspen Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.410.020(C) of the Aspen Municipal Code provides that
if an application is found by Community Development Department staff to be
inconsistent with any item of the Residential Design Guidelines, the applicant may either
amend the application or appeal staff s findings to the Design Review Appeal Board
pursuant to Chapter 26.222, Design Review Appeal Board; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.410.020(B) of the Aspen Municipal Code,
the applicant submitted a request for a variance from Standard 26.410.040(B)(1) of the
Aspen Municipal Code to the Design Review Appeal Board as it applies to secondary
mass; and
WHEREAS all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of
Section 26.410.040 must meet one of the following review standards in order for the
Design Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant
an exception, namely the proposal must:
a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan;
b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision
responds to; or
c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific
constraints; and
4
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing at a regular meeting on
December 14, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission, which also served as the
Design Review Appeal Board, approved a variance from the Secondary Mass standard of
Section 26.410.040(B)(1) of the Aspen Municipal Code as it applies to secondary mass
for Lot D. Alpine Cottages PUD, without conditions, by a vote of to (_ -
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
CPvtinn 1
That the proposed variance for a single-family residence at 115 Robinson Road; Aspen,
Colorado, is approved pursuant to Section 26.410.040(B)(1), Secondary Mass, of the
Residential Design Standards because a variance is clearly necessary for reasons of
fairness related to unusual or site specific constraints.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on December 14, 1999.
3
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
g:\pl anning\aspen\drac\alpine
Robert Blaich, Chair
I
N-41 %owo,
Vicinity M-,ap
13
op
, + i0� o �
SUBJECT PROPERTY..obi o
. x137
rn7
I r IW
CST
0
Cj
T NORTH
;�
I
1%
D
Semrau Building and Design, Inc.
•PLAN .dEsigN *build
12/6/99
208112 East Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
To; Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development
From; Timothy Semrau
Semrau building and design
RE; Request for variance from Residential Design Standard B. 1. (Secondary Mass) .
Background Information;
Alpine Cottages Planned Unit Development is an Affordable Housing (AH-1) rezone
approved in July of 1998. The proposed Single family residence for Lot D is the first of
4 free market homes associated with the recently completed 10 affordable units. Lot D
was platted to comply with the Residential Design Standards in affect at the time of
approval. The goal of the project was to create the smallest possible single family
building envelopes and residences necessary to finance the AH component of the
development. Additionally, a trail easement to Snyder Park was granted on the east side
of the property and a utility easement for a water line the Snyder AH units which further
reduced the size of the building envelopes. All the FM lots were located to minimize
any visual impact. The small FAR (3000 sq. ft.) and compact building envelopes were
designed to minimize visual impacts while providing for small, downsized homes that
complement the existing neighborhood.
Goals of section B of the Residential Design Standard;
A. Promote the development of accessory units off of the City alleys
B. Preserve solar access
C. Respect the scale of Aspen's historical homes.
A. Ten affordable housing units (28 bedrooms) have already been provided in
association with this small free market lot, more valuable to the community than an
accessory dwelling unit.
B. Solar access is not affected.
C . The extremely small building envelope for this home was designed to keep it in scale
with Aspen's traditional homes and fits in with the existing neighborhood:
Phone: Y70-V25-6.1.1 Fus: 925-64.;
r7111Semrau Building and Design, Inc.
•P14N •dEs qN •bv ld 208 112 East Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
DRAC Standards for Granting a Variance;
A. Yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; or
B. More effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision
responds to; or
C. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific
constraints.
A. In -fill, privately funded affordable housing is a primary goal of the AACP. This
project was designed to provide the smallest possible Free market homes while
absorbing the costs of in -town AH units. Two easements were granted to assist the
city's Snyder project, creating an extremely small building envelope which could
still meet the existing Design standards in affect at the time of approval. Creating a
completely detached secondary mass would negatively affect the viability of the
development and discourage additional AH projects.
B . The siting of this small building envelope necessitates a compact structure with
minimal visual impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Requiring a detached
structure defeats the purpose of the small building envelope.
C . There is no alley or rear access for this home, the building envelope was designed to
force a compact structure with a small footprint, and the trail easement granted to
Snyder park further reduces the available land. The visual impact of this home is
minimal and a detached secondary mass is inappropriate to the site.
Plime: 970-92 5-h-l-i7 F(n: 9 2 5-6.4.;
+ .+'1
ORDINANCE NO. 18
(SERIES OF 1998)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING REZONING,
CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL,
SUBDIVISION, AN EXEMPTION FROM THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPETITION
AND SCORING PROCEDURES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND FREE-MARKET-AH
ASSOCIATED, APPROVAL OF THE METHOD IN WHICH AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS
TO BE PROVIDED, AND VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR THE ALPINE COTTAGES,
1240 EAST COOPER AVE., CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLOR.ADO,
Parcel ID No. 2737-181-00-016
WHEREAS, Larry Saliterman, in association with Semrau Building and Design
(applicant), submitted an application (development proposal) to the Community Development
Department for the development of 10 deed restricted affordable units and four (4) free-market-
AH associated lots at 1240 East Cooper Ave.; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a rezoning to AH 1-PUD, conceptual and final
planned unit development approval, subdivision, an exemption from the growth management
competition and scoring procedures for affordable housing and free-market-AH associated.
approval of the method in which affordable housing is to be provided, vested property rights,
a waiver of the "Residential Design Standards", and Special Review to establish the parking
requirements and lot size, and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department, the Housing Authoritv,•the City
Engineer, the Fire Marshal, the Environmental Health Department, the Parks Dept. and the
Building Department reviewed the development proposal in accordance with all applicable
procedure and review criteria set forth in Sections 26.38, 26.44, 26.52, 26.56, 26.58, 26.64,
26.84, 26.88, 26.92 and 26. 100, of the tilunicipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve applications for waiver
of the "Residential Design Standards", and Special Review to establish the parking requirements
and lot size and may recommend Citv Council approve rezoning to AHl-PUD, conceptual and
final planned unit development approval, and subdivision, and did approve said requests and
recommended said actions with conditions, by a 4-0 vote, at a duly noticed public hearing on
May 19, 1998; and,
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Commission may recommend City Council
exempt, from the growth management competition and scoring procedures affordable housing
and free-market-AH associated housing, and the method in which affordable housing is to be
provided from the Growth Management Quota System pursuant to Sections 26.52 and 26.100,
and recommended said action, by an 8-0 vote, pursuant to said sections at a duly noticed public
hearing on' 19, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council may approve rezoning to ARI-PUD, conceptual
and final planned unit development approval, subdivision. an exemption from the growth
management competition and scoring procedures for affordable housing and free-market-AH
associated, approval of the method in which affordable housing is to be provided, as well as
vested property rights, pursuant to Sections 26.08, 26.44, and 26.52, of the Municipal Code of
the City of Aspen, and the Aspen City Council reviewed and considered the development
proposal pursuant to said sections, reviewed and considered those recommendations and
approvals as granted by the Community Development Department, Referral Agencies, the
Growth Management Commission, and the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and
considered public comment at a public hearing held June 22, 1998, and July 27, 1998; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all
applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with
conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
public health, safety, and welfare purposes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows:
Section 1
That it does hereby grant to Larry Saliterman, in association with Semrau Building and Design
(applicant), approval of rezoning to AHl-PUD, conceptual and final planned unit development
approval, subdivision, an exemption from the growth management competition and scoring
procedures for affordable housing and free-market-AH associated, approval of the method in
which affordable housing is to be provided, and vested propernr rights for the subject parcel, the
Alpine Cottages, 1240 East Cooper Ave., City of Aspen parcel number 2737-181-00-016. with
the conditions of approval delineated in Section 3 below.
Section 2:
The Official Zone District Map for this City of Aspen, Colorado, shall be and is hereby amended
to reflect the AH 1-PUD designation.
Section 3:
Conditions of Approval:
1. That ten (10) deed -restricted units and four (4) free-market-AH associated allotments, be
exempted from Growth Management as outlined below, and that this be the approved method of
providing affordable housing for the Alpine Cottages:
Lot 1:
1 four -bedroom Category 4 units
1 four -bedroom Category 3 unit
4 one -bedroom Category 3 units
4 four -bedroom RO units
Total Units: 10 Total Bedrooms: 28
Lots 2 through 5 (free-market)
4 three -bedroom units
Total Units: 4
Project Total Units:
Total Bedrooms: 12
14 Project Total Bedrooms: 40
Total Percentage of Category Units =10/14 = 71%
Total Percentage of Category Bedrooms = 28/40 =' 70%
2. That the applicant agree to the conditions placed on the project by the housing board,
including: .
• The RO units will have a 3% appreciation cap;
• The applicant will sell the RO units to a minimum household size of three persons;
• Income and asset restrictions should be based on a maximum of an $800,000 price;
• The maximum price for the RO units be set at $550,000;
• The RO units be sold to households who have worked in Pitkin County a minimum of
the last four years consecutively; and r
• That 30% of the category units, or two (2) units, be opened to the public in a lottery.
and that the remaining 70% of the units' residents may be selected by the applicant,
as modified by city council.
3. That a utility plan be submitted to the Water Dept., the ACSD, and the City Engineer for
their review and approval prior to issuance of building permit;
4. All legal instruments associated with the access easement to Lot B, Ferguson Exemption,
the emergency access easement located between proposed Lots B and C, utility easements, and
the 10' trail easement between Aene Ct. and Snyder be recorded as part of the final plat,.
5. Lighting should be downcast and not used to call attention to architectural features;
6. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant will be required to gain approval for a
line extension request, a collection system agreement, and possibly a shared service agreement
for each unit from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District;
7. The applicant shall submit a drainage report prior to issuance of a building permit to
ensure that no sediment loaded drainage will be leaving the property during and after
construction;
S. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a fugitive dust control
Plan;
9. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall gain the necessary permits from
the Environmental Health Department for any fireplaces or woodburning devices;
10. Asbestos testing of the existing buildings will be required, as applicable, with the
building permit application;
11. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit GIS data including
property lines, building footprints, easements, and encroachments;
12. That the applicant pay fees -in -lieu of the school land dedication, and that the payment be
made prior to and on a proportional basis to the issuance of any building permits for the
residential lots;
13. That the required park fees be paid prior to the issuance of building permit;
14. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall repair any public right-
of-way damaged during construction;
15. All utility meters and any new utility pedestals or transformers must be installed on the
applicant's property and not in any public right-of-way. Easements must be provided for
pedestals. All utility locations and easements must be delineated on the final plat. Meter
locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed;
16. A current title policy for the Ferguson Subdivision, Lot 3, must be submitted prior to
filing of the final plat;
17. Additional information about the chain of title and the prior approvals regarding the open
space reservation must be provided prior to filing of the final plat;
18. The applicant will grant a utility easement along the westerly side of proposed Lot A and
will work with the adjacent owners (Robinson) to attempt to get agreement to relocate two
spruce trees onto Robinson's property instead of within the propose water easement alignment.
Division of costs for extension of the water distribution system will need to be negotiated with
the City Water Dept.; r
19. The proposed development shall construct, at its expense, a main line extension of the
sanitary sewer system and provide individual sewer service lines to each individual building.
20. The site plan shall include areas for trash and recycling containers and for on -site snow
storage;
21. The Robinson Rd. access way, as proposed, is too narrow to be dedicated to the public
and should remain a private access way and common utility easement as previously dedicated in
the Ferguson Subdivision Exemption;
22. The parking spaces located between Units G & J need to be widened to 8.5 ft wide
(minimum) and should have a barrier curb or planting median separating these spaces from the
access driveway. Unassigned parking spaces should conform to city and ADA standards in size.
number, accessibility, slope;
23. The applicant will need to provide plans in the construction plans submitted for the
building permit(s) which include: staging and mitigating traffic, hauling and delivery routes;
vehicle parking; equipment and materials staging areas; temporary drainage, erosion and
sedimentation control during construction, and provision of temporary utilities;
24. The applicant will be responsible to provide temporary utility and drainage services to the
site and neighboring properties which may be impacted by disruption of utilities during
construction;
25. The applicant will secure all permits required by CDOT prior to commencing work
(relocation of the existing fire hydrant) and will follow the most stringent permit requirements if
the requirements of any permits differ;
26. For purposes of operation, maintenance and administration, each dwelling unit will need
to have separate utility services, metering and isolation valves and switches;
4
I .J
27. The applicant is required to join any future improvement districts formed for the purpose
of constructing public improvements which benefit the property under an assessment formula.
The agreement would be executed and recorded concurrent with recording the subdivision plat;
28. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -
way and easements, we advise the applicant as follows:
• The applicant must receive approval from: City Engineering (920-5080) for design of
improvements, including landscaping and grading, within public rights -of -way;
• Parks Department (920-5120) for vegetation species and placement, and irrigation
systems;
• Streets Department (920-5130) for mailboxes, street and alley cuts; and
• permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -
way from the City Community Development Department (920-5090);
29. Unless the applicant can provide documentation verifying his water rights in this
irrigation ditch; the property owner should establish a raw water lease agreement with the City
Water Department for use of a portion of the City's water allocation in the Riverside irrigation
ditch for purposes of irrigation;
30. The Ferguson Subdivision Exemption plat shows an eight (8) ft wide easement centered
on the ditch flowline. Unless some other documentation is presented to substantiate another
dimension, an eight (8) ft wide easement will be suitable for this ditch easement. -
The applicant shall record the Planning and Zoning Resolution with the County Clerk and
Recorder;
32. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public
meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
Section 4:
All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation
presented before the Growth tilanagement Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission,
and/or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same
shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other.specific conditions.
Section 5:
Pursuant to Section 26.52.080 of the :Aspen Municipal Code and C.R.S. 24-68-104(2), City
Council does hereby grant the applicant vested Property Rights status for the site specific
development plan for the Alpine Cottages, 1240 East Cooper Ave., as approved by Ordinance
Number 18, Series of 1998, for a period of three (3) years from the date said Ordinance
is approved with the following conditions:
1. The rights granted by this site specific development plan shall remain vested for a period of
three (3) years from the effective date hereof. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms
and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said vested property rights.
5
Failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded by the Municipal
Code shall also result in forfeiture of said vested property rights.
2. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review:
except that the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to
run until the date of publication provided for in Section 26.52.080(D).
3. Zoning that is not part of the site specific development plan approved hereby shall not result
in the creation of a vested property right.
4. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall exempt the site specific
development plan from subsequent reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or the
general rules, regulations or ordinances of the City provided that such reviews or approvals are
not inconsistent with the approvals granted and vested herein.
5. The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of
ordinance or regulations which are General in nature and are applicable to all property subject to
land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing,
electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site development approval,
the developer shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical
codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing.
Section 6:
Pursuant to Section 26.52.080 (D) of the :Municipal Code. the City Clerk shall cause notice of
this Ordinance to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen no
later than fourteen (14) days following final -adoption hereof.
Section 7:
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 8•
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 9:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed
a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 10•
A public hearing on the Ordinance was held on the 22nd day of June, 1998, and continued to the
13th day of July, 1998 and then continued to the 27th day of July, 1998, at 5:00 in the City
Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing -a
N
Fi
public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of
E
Aspen.
E
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law,
by the City Council of the City of Aspen on this 26th day of May, 1998.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
City Attorney John Bennett, Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 27th day of July, 1998.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
City Attorney John Bennett, Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
SIVIanning%asoemonds%ord I898.doc
7
N
m
l
O
O
O
U)
O
0
o
o
b ti
cn
�I--
N ,
r.r�ti
Pax ► ^. /``,,,, � ,
C2
W
O
LO
n
;-lo,
�c�too
CDO
� "_''
C)
L
p
,
CD~
`�
, -�
(:;N
��`tc�trt
Q
1-4
M
-
C.oV
o A
� W
�'
Ca U
Q
-5
vi
0
b
•°
o
°
o
a
-Co
3 � ao
oyE��
u
CLO
Cfi CT
�.°.i
owc�u¢..��
� a — 3
►� >
a� y ls'
CL O
r
O O
0
0 0 0 0 O
-- - ---- - - - -
Z
HoUSE-
NovSE-
1�
_'y
Site Plar
Scale 1 " = 10'
Site Plar
Scale 1 " = 10'
' i
- �* — ` = .{off► "f'°^t�' � f � �'' n
j:. NORTH .. ' t
co Lot Cane n HANDICAP,
'App-A S k,,,; Z PER c,rT z r<EC2
}� wets S-i
NEw PRYwELL
_ �,�µ + � ,y. �E� NEW CURB AND GUTTE
�P 2� . UNIT C 4BR RO w�c_ COyD ALk
PORE I
v �V LOREET D I' UNIT "T' Is' �
/ C GARAGEIp
S772sq. it
�'� tr ( s•
UNTT B 4BR ROPj? 1 wF• �' , r
Cgye/ J Y ," I UUj ..ope
r ` Cot AH
oN /Z• UNIT B GARAGE
L"MT H 1BR CAn fr •ys� I
/ l = 0-1 q'
UNIT A GARAGE � K
FREE 1L�R.h�T I UNITS H.B \
LOT C GARAGES BELOW /"'"`" =z'
` 5013sq. ft. L, Lot 1
1101sq. ft.
30
3011
Low >> ` r• UNIT G 1BR CAT 3 / LYIT F G �R AGE f ' . 30
lye
UNITS G.A LNITT F 4HR RO
I Ni/ DRLt, �; GARAGES BELOW
';'AAA o vFb I
FREE UA
LOT
D L;\'TT �
;Q• ft. rr _ aBR CAT4 E �8R CAT4
R CAT 4 sz • o c
L1 ��' �REp � • .l•,,:, 7 S , ,/ i// log .. I
bujldjnoIER CAT-- `� . RCX w..,i ; ! ` �1 % / Z `,
L"VITS IJ _ v �� o'
GARA(;ES BELOW LYiTS D,,E
v
GAGES BELOW
S�� • /� ,
y
�;.
/ FEE •
MARKET
•
- ' lrrimadon Ditch
LOT AL4 to
>
/ Lot Lint
3c PA VED
— building envelope
..�z r...� UT1 LIti EftSrM�nT „� OKrvewAY
EA
LotCme - _� UTTLTTV/STTF PLAN
+ SCALE 1"=*
q'd :7f •
x
C:
r
VI AN "J4C
®('awing
Site Plan
Scale Job
LC
LOT A ALPINE *CO TTA GES
CITY OF ASPEN, CO UIVTY OF PITKIN,
STATE OF COLORADO
GRAPHIC SCALE
1 Inch - 10 IL
Surveyors Certificate:
1, KENNETH R. WILSON, being a Registered Land Surveyor in
the State of Colorado, do hereby certify thot this mop of
existing conditions was prepured by me and under my
supervision from o survey me and under my
suoervision and that at e,Ysdry d map are true and
accurate to the best a ,»kl ji% no belief.
s
KENNETH R. W1L ON .1.7.. TF
Note: This topography m `°e�� h National Moo
Accuracy Standards for t cps. Where checked
909 of paints should be within 112 the contour interval
and well deAned points should be plotted within 1150' of
their true position. Critical design should be based upon
Spat elevations, please contact Schmueser Cordon Meyer,
Inc. for this spot elevation information.
Legend and Notes:
— p indicates found monument as described.
— O indicates set monument. 15 rebar and Yellow Plastic
Cop LS wia
— Bearings are relative to a bearing of S 52'02'00"A' on the
line between No.S rebar-, with plastic coos LS 2J76
and LS 15770 found on easterly line of Lot 1 of Alpine Cottages.
— This survey does not represent a title search by this
surveyor to determine ownership or to discover
easements or other encumbrances of record. All
information pertaining to ownership, easements or other
encumbrances of record has been taken from final plot
of Alpine Cottogex
This property is subject to apparent easements for
existing utilities and irrigation ditches.
Fences are shown hereon for information only and do not
necessorfl/y represent limits of ownership,
�`JPt
P
0i
NORTH
I �
I
I
{, I
Fl pOR MAIN 32 V2'j T; STORAGE I 5
TO vw� MR 3 T Aix t $+6p
r' r Rl •'
GARAGE z sia•
22-8 X 26-10 �` 3'
Sb V2' TYPE X 3'6' —�
TOP SUB
sle, TYPE X Gm �' � Y6 G�YB TA15 �p WDER _ � b' 1
a LAYERS ON MUG 5-� �
5/8' TYPE X G" Oc I LP I . —
Z/41
-------------------------------- — -- -------------------
mwm IV 3/a— —
1494 l8C ' TOP SLAB 89, A U2'
2 X 4 WALL
9 X 8 GARAGE DOOR 6' TY? j � � R-0 MUJ1TD
OC I +y urns onrni era n
comG�1H nuvm .V"W
9 X 8 GARAGE DOOR I ASSE1,r8LY
oc r77;- �' 310 I W 17-3 X 16-4 CEILING I
b:8 I
3e6 cn FT
�, I 29
I v'
8 X 8 TUM CQNCRETE I I
CQ"(Er'AY 9v rI >�
R£TABBr6 WALL 1/4' PER FOOT STORAGE ALtI 5'
I®I � �`-- I3'iP —�-- 8`T' 37 —�
LOC I AL2 AL3
2Y6 1/2' I 265 1/2'
L A8 _
DS DKa6(OFi5 TO FRAJtt}C
LOWER LEVEL uuSsNm
-Do i10T SCALE
SCALE Vlo' -- r - V
:. S!8' 1YPE X 6Nff
` MECHANICAL
g 10-8 X 6-6 • .7
• 51GRAGE 4'
DRAINr1314]
6-0 X 2-6
TO D1tY1rm
• �,
o S" t
LA'j
GARBAGE CANS
8' CDC
WALL
FLOOR DRAIN
To Wtxu 7
U
F► �
• N M
_ en. '*•-'
N y
Co a�
CD
C
C
r
W
h--4 0
- SCALE I
11/8 1 01
DATE
FLR PLAN
NF111-N-6LD �
GitalO .25 4'
Fl �fflFY ;�, 4'
CLOSET 4
6-0 X 6 7 I NORTH
BEDROOM I4'
11-1 X R a
v4\ Ae
OC 61 VZ 7' ;
v33's v 8' , 8'6'
� —
I
2 y �t Y9A i�
( I
�rp+sm► �I r gh 1 -,-. 3 8 V A2 2 5,
3Yj- t I jj
/!S a I�ItRI�
SAM jSTEM
- ........... IV aar� Jw ►Lnv 5 n1YER I - rs �w vu
+s� so asi&siGEiiSGt . . Vi�S � `� 9 Y? I
S V2' ® m a Ci (SET 3`6• 3'
nEnrcQ 57 rn VW FU I
�ssa�
6�5' S11 Ui
� Camw
w _ Inm
mMaim= L
mc 0..
+�.
Z�J Ir"liZ 187
214
. _r. � m-*r
6' TAB Y6 V2'� 2'4 VZ
DOWN � lP
TOP PLY W 2'
N16�1 TtAtbOMI COQQE5POP05 TO �8E51l2' — — — — — — — — — — �
Z' ii&W5%ART I ON 51TE r LAN C�I -C — — — — — — —) —I—I i 6� RAI I ( I w
i ( 6. TOP LW CONC 109' V7 3f� 1 I p
— — POarH 1
! 5To� LIVING ZOOM ` b X 14-0 14'6
r
1 SWOLNO w 1 n IU 1
4' W i ......... .................... b'6• 3 -
•........................................... ........_......_...
TWO-5[00 R CEA lP 6 D I
DINING ROOM 6'6' ENT
Gas ( Luz I� I g94 t 8C I
zs I
11-I X* 12-6 I LOG F1RF3lACc7� — �� 4 6
(UK
Ac +\ 1
� �
I(l Rtic uYE� n7u1LUVI I I i
i
M
I NOT C..t' -ALL DIFAiM TO RAW4
UL05 NOTED
1 I -00 NOT 5CALE
�I A AN LEE
SC%A E 11/!O•O - - flI •
VMLG
v
M
'C-
-cv
�
2
•� c
O
per..
�-
N
.p C.1
dT-
�
O
C\2
�
1L
n2
Z3
O
Z�
O I
C�
O
�
I�c�l
o
FLP PLAN
I
A8
1
i
1
I
I
3'6' 1
f
I �
wra.
-ALL OW5M TO RAM
i u r55 u rn
-0O`NOT WALE
�PPER LEVEL
SCALE 1/88 = P 0'
��c.j.�
• N
cli
0
r�
� 1
W
o �
U P
o
0
-SCALE
Il/.811 _ if 0111
DATE
I i If/ 9 9
FLR PLAN
TOP PLATE
118' 2
TOP PLY
110' 3/4'
T TOP PLY
100` 0'
ROMED
AW EX=
TOP SLAB
89' 11 ! -
SOUTH EMLEVATIONN
WMM Ate
v
• N
cn
1
N cel)
0.
v
Q�
o
�
C7
r�
W
W
C
I
�
W �
O
- SCALE
II
1/811 .
I I
�, �»
� DATE
v8/99
j ELEVATiOMU'
/A
F4.
w ccrD
R
Q.
c�
r
O
rT 1
O
- SCALE
11/811 - 11 0111
DATE
i i / 5%31/ 9 -c,,l
ELEVATION
Im Imp
ii 1 I II
b:.a 61tADE I I I I I I I I I I
I I► ,
11 I I I� ii Ji �
-1
LL------L--��-------
NORTH EIEVATION
SCALE 1188 = It 0'
U
' N
cn
14ZT""
11-P
'
�
N
C!7
�..
F i
O> Q
Q
`i
N
Q�
n
v 1
W
c�
�
�
W
o�
I�
I
o
ELEVATION
3A 6w
v
.� n
yy
aV w
�
o
N
G"j
O
r
v 1
FT
w
O
�
O
I
oI
- SCALE I
11/811 =
1' oil!
GATE
I
11/aIgg
ELEVATION
I I
�
B
v
' N
'
�
N
Q7
� F►
Cv
Q�
O
O
r n
1�
ram'
W
� 1
O
0
r 1
v ,
-SCALE
I' Oil
DATE
11/8/99
ROOD PLN
a
S�db I -�.[ PUBLIC NOTICEATEf'<
4a� T
PLACEIME
PuRposi
At
County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
} SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION
State of Colorado } SECTION 26.304.060 (E)
a�being or representing an
personally certify that I have complied with the public notice
Applicant to the City. of Aspen, p y fy p
requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in the
following manner:
1: By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class, postage prepaid
U.S.. Mail to all owners of property with three hundred (300) feet of the subject
property, as indicated on the attached list, on the day of ,199_ (which is —
days prior to the public hearing date of
2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen
from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously
c
from the 6a—day of , 199!�? (Must be posted for at least tenjN_�full
days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto.
655�6 ze�
ignature
(Attach photograph here) /,
Signed before me this day
,199y
j WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My commission expires:
I
� Notary Public �►,1
Notary Public's Signatu
.
dr
j TA
1 ,
I
I N'A E, Z0Nil,INE C�0ml,IMIS�S�ION
MEETING DATE: 12/14/99
NAME OF PROJECT: ALPINE COTTAGES REQUEST FOR VARIANCE
CITY CLERK: JACKIE -LOTHIAN
STAFF: SARAH OATES
WITNESSES: (1) TIM SEMRAU
EXHIBITS: 1 Staff Report ( x ) (Check If Applicable)
2 Affidavit of Notice ( x ) (Check If Applicable)
3 Board Criteria Sheet ( x ) (Check If Applicable)
4 Map of area
Q
MOTION: ROGER HUNT MOVED TO ADOPT RESO #99-43 GRANTING
THE VARIANCE TO THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS REGARDING
SECONDARY MASS. RON ERICKSON SECOND.
VOTE: YES 6 NO O
ROBERT BLAICH YES X NO
ROGER HUNT YES X NO
ROGER HANEMAN YES X NO
RON ERICKSON YES X NO
TIMOTHY MOONEY YES X NO
STEVEN BUETTOW YES X NO
PZVOTE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director
FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner
RE: Williams Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment — Public Hearing
DATE: December 14, 1999
SUMMARY:
Williams Ranch PUD was approved in 1994 as a 70/3 0 affordable housing project
and is currently developed with nearly all of the fifty (50) approved residences. The
project was split into two Subdivisions. Silverlode Subdivision contains the 30%
free-market portion and is generally east of the Williams Ranch Subdivision which
contains the thirty-five (35) affordable dwellings. The approving Ordinance No. 52,
Series of 1994, contains a series of conditions of the approval to which the applicant
is requesting amendments. The application details the requested amendments and
staff has summarized these requests under the heading "Amendments."
At the last public hearing, the Commission requested additional input from members
of the City Parks Department regarding the trail easements and the feasibility of
constructing trails on these cross slopes. A member of the Parks Department will be
present during the hearing.
The Commission also requested the applicant attempt to coordinate a trail easement
with the Centennial Home Owners' Association. The applicant did attend a meeting
of the Centennial HOA and the concept was rejected. Although the concept of
moving the trail easement may appear to be a simple solution, the idea does not seem
to have any momentum and neither the City nor the applicant have the ability to
include an unwilling land owner in a land use application. Staff believes the applicant
has put forth a good faith effort in reaching an agreement with the Centennial HOA.
Unfortunately, this effort does not appear likely to bear fruit.
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission pass forward a
recommendation of approval of this PUD amendment.
AMENDMENTS:
Aesthetics.
Prior to development, this property conveyed water through the Salvation Ditch in an
exposed manner — a traditional open-air ditch. The development application sought to
cover this ditch and convey water underground. The discussions during development
review considered the historic character of the land and the value of retaining some .
visual cue to the historic landscape element. The final approval contained a condition
requiring that the developer construct a water feature along the ditch alignment. This
is reflected in Section 1, condition #18, of the Ordinance.
The Salvation Ditch Company has indicated their reluctance to have such an
improvement constructed within their easement. In addition, the homeowner's have
submitted a letter indicating their support for this amendment — they don't want this
reconstructed ditch.
The decision to underground the ditch effectively eliminated this historic landscape
element. While it may have been preferable to retain at least some portions of the
historic ditch exposed to provide a visual reference to the previous condition of the
property, the decision has been made and the undergrounding has been accomplished.
Creation of an apparent ditch does not necessarily achieve the same result.
Furthermore, if the opportunity to have active water within this new landscape
element is not achieved, the aesthetic benefit of a re-created ditch would be further
diminished. Staff is recommending the "ditch feature" no longer be required.
Staff does, however, have a concern about the condition of the Open Space parcel.
As the "ditch feature" was originally required as an aesthetic amenity, staff believes it
would be appropriate to require a proper re -vegetation of this parcel. The
amendments includes a provision for escrow funds to be returned to the Home
Owner's Association to accomplish this improvement. The granting of these funds,
however, has been subjected to the improvement of the emergency access easement,
addressed in more detail below.
Pedestrian Movement.
There is a request by the developer to not develop the sidewalks required in the
original approval. While staff agrees with the developer and the residents of the area
that the more urban treatment of sidewalks would diminish the project's aesthetics,
staff does have concerns about maintaining the purpose of the sidewalks — pedestrian
movement.
During the development review for this PUD, a request from the City Engineer to
provide sidewalks on the perimeter of the entire cartway was forwarded to the Boards.
Due to the relatively low auto traffic expected and a desire to require less of an
"urban" treatment, the eventual condition required sidewalks on only one side of the
cartway.
This area does not have a significant amount of traffic. Furthermore, a landscaped
drainage swale bordering the cartway has been developed on many of these lots.
These landscape improvements have been developed in the public right-of-way and
the City could require them to be removed. However, removing this landscaping and
2
storm water feature for the provision of concrete sidewalks is not staff s preference
for this area. In fact, the paved cartway and soft edge of the landscaped drainage
swale evokes a more rural aesthetic appropriate for the area and is preferred by staff.
Staff does have a concern, however, about the purpose of the sidewalks — the safe and
convenient conveyance of pedestrians. The trails and sidewalks, as originally
approved, combined to provide a permeable development with respect to pedestrian
movement through the development. Trails were platted to serve the community's
movement both "vertically" and "horizontally" through the development. The trail
that serves "vertical" movement (platted east -west) is developed on the lower two
blocks with one exception: the intersection with Silverlode Drive between lots 6 and
7. Staff has included an amendment that this last remaining portion be developed.
The trail that was to serve "horizontal" movement (platted north -south) has been
developed only on the Open Space parcel. On this point, the Commission requested
additional input from the Parks Department. Staff has recommended the requirements
to build these trail segments be removed but that the trail easements remain in effect
such that a trail may be constructed in the future, if desired.
Soil Erosion Control on Smuggler Mine Property.
The original application included the Smuggler Mine property and access to this
development was contemplated through Smuggler Mine. The mine was scheduled to
increase the amount of mining activity (drilling, blasting, etc.) including a significant
amount of surface activity. It was contemplated that erosion from this surface activity
would need to be mitigated prior to its draining onto the residential portion of the
development — Williams Ranch.
Staff researched the representations made by the applicant concerning this road and
erosion control device. The Williams Ranch residential application did not make any
promises concerning these improvements. Nowhere in any of the staff memos, notes,
or adopted resolutions or Ordinances did these improvements show up. Literally, the
only location these improvement are promised are on the grading sheets of the final
PUD Plans. These Final PUD plans, however, were approved by the City and not
jointly with the County. Thus, improvements outside of the City jurisdiction are not
enforceable by the City and are not binding upon the developer.
The owner of this mining property has an obligation with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to not re -grade or otherwise disturb this land. The
Smuggler Mine is not owned by the applicant and the applicant has no ability to meet
this condition of approval. In addition, the Smuggler Mine and the location of these
improvements lies entirely within Pitkin County and the City does not have the
authority to require any actions be undertaken.
For these reasons, staff is suggesting this re -grading is not an obligation of Ordinance
52, Series of 1999, and is not a binding commitment by the developer.
3
Emergency Access.
The approvals for this project included a requirement to install "grass pavers" along
the emergency access easement connecting the cul-de-sac to Spruce Street. These
pavers are in poor condition and may represent a community safety issue.
The City Engineer inspected and accepted the grass pavers in the Fall of 1998. At that
time the pavers were in a useful condition. The pavers are now in a dilapidated
condition and staff is concerned about the long-term usefulness of this emergency
facility. During the former hearing, the Commission questioned the ability of the
City to require the original developer, Williams Ranch Joint Venture, to re -build this
improvement. Because the improvement has been formally accepted by the City, the
obligation to maintain the improvement in working order no longer falls on the home
owner's association. Staff has stipulated the improvement of the access easement to
working order prior to the granting of any escrow funds to up -grade the Open Space
parcel.
APPLICANT:
Williams Ranch Joint Venture, John Markel, President. Represented by Charles
Brandt, Charles Brandt and Associates.
LOCATION:
Williams Ranch Drive and Silverlode Drive vicinity. Please refer to the attached
location map.
ZONING:
AH 1-PUD
CURRENT AND PROPOSED LAND USE:
The project consists of two Subdivisions: Silverlode and Williams Ranch. Together,
there are 15 free-market residences and 35 affordable housing deed restricted
residences.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
The project received final development approval pursuant to Ordinance No. 52, Series
of 1994.
The Planning and Zoning Commission opened this public hearing on July 6, 1999,
continued to September 24, 1999, continued to November 2, 1999, and continued to
this date. At the previous meeting, the Commission requested additional information
from representatives of the Parks Department.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Final Planned Unit Development. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall
consider the application at a duly noticed public hearing and recommend approval,
approval with conditions, or denial to the City Council. City Council shall approve,
approve with conditions, or deny the application at a duly noticed public hearing.
4
BACKGROUND:
Williams Ranch PUD and Subdivision was granted land use approval pursuant to
Ordinance 52, Series of 1994. This document has been included in the application for
reference.
STAFF COMMENTS: .
The application, staff comments on the review criteria, and referral agency comments
have not been attached to this memorandum. These attachments accompanied the
previous memorandums and have not been amended.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission pass forward a
recommendation to City Council to amend the Williams Ranch PUD according to
proposed P&Z resolution 99-27, attached.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Resolution No. 99-27 recommending City Council amend the
Williams Ranch PUD approvals, as granted pursuant to Ordinance 52, Series of 1994.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Proposed Resolution 99-27
CAhome\CHRISB\CASES\Williams Ranch AmendmentTZ Memoldoc
5
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A SUBSTANTIAL
AMENDMENT TO THE WILLIAMS RANCH PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS GRANTED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE 52,
SERIES OF 1994.
Parcel Nos. 2737.074.30.001-015 and 2737.074.29.001-036
Resolution No. 99 - 27
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Williams Ranch Joint Venture, represented by Charles Brandt and Associates P.C,,
for substantial amendments to the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development approval
granted pursuant to Ordinance 52, Series of 1994; and,
WHEREAS, the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development (the project) is a
fifty (50) residential unit project divided into two Subdivisions: the Silverlode
Subdivision consisting of fifteen (15) free-market residential units and the Williams
Ranch Subdivision containing thirty-five (35) affordable housing units; and,
WHEREAS, the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development is located within
the City of Aspen directly east of the Centennial Condominiums in Section 7, Township
10 South, Range 84 West; and,
WHEREAS, the amendments requested relate to conditions of approval
stipulated in Ordinance 52, Series of 1994, concerning the development of a "small ditch
water feature," "hard surface pedestrian walking areas" (a.k.a. sidewalks), "soil erosion.
controls" on a mining road above the project, and a release of a trail easement platted
from the Open Space parcel to the boundary of the Molly Gibson Park along the southern
boundary of the PUD.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445, Planned Unit Development, of -the
Aspen Municipal Code, substantial amendments to an approved Planned Unit
development may be approved by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after
considering recommendations by the Community Development Director, the Planning
and Zoning Commission made at a duly noticed public hearing, the appropriate referral
agencies, and members of the general public; and,
WHEREAS, after considering a recommendation by the Community
Development Director, referral agencies, comments made by the applicant, and members
of the general public at a duly noticed public hearing opened on July 6, 1999, continued
to September 21, 1999, continued to November 2, 1999, and continues to December 14,
1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds the PUD amendments, as described
herein, to be in substantial compliance with the goals and objectives of the Aspen Area
Community Plan and the intent and requirements of the Land Use Code and recommends,
by a to (_ to _) vote, that the Aspen City Council approve this substantial
amendment to the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development in the manner described
herein.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
That City Council should amend the Williams Ranch Planned Unit Development in the
following manner:
1. The requirement to construct a "small ditch water feature," as stipulated in Section 1,
condition #18, of Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994, shall no longer be required.
2. The portion of the pedestrian trail between lots 6. and 10 of the Williams Ranch
Subdivision shall be completed to the edge of the Silverlode Drive cartway by Williams
Ranch Joint Venture in the same manner as the adjoining trail was developed. The
improvement shall be accomplished by no later than July 1, 2000. If, for any reason, the
Joint Venture does not complete this improvement, the City of Aspen shall complete the
improvement by using the Subdivision funds held in escrow by the City.
3. The portion of the public trail described on the final plat as crossing Lots 33, 34, and 35
of the Williams Ranch Subdivision is not required to be developed by Williams Ranch
Joint Venture. The easement shall remain in effect and the trail may be developed in
the future. The design and construction plans for this improvement shall be approved by
the City Trails Coordinator of the City Parks Department.
4. The portion of the public trail described on the final plat as crossing Lot #27 of the
Williams Ranch Subdivision through Lot #15 of the Silverlode Subdivision is not
required to be developed by Williams Ranch Joint Venture. The easement shall remain
in effect and the trail may be developed in the future. The design and construction plans
for this improvement shall be approved by the City Trails Coordinator of the City Parks
Department.
5. Upon completion, inspection by the City, and acceptance by the City of the
improvement listed in condition #2, above, the requirement to construct "hard surface
pedestrian walking area on one side of all roads" (sidewalks), as stipulated in Section 1,
condition #2b, of Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994, and the "five foot pedestrian path,"
to stipulated in Section 1, condition #14i, of said Ordinance, shall be deemed met and no
further obligation to develop a sidewalk shall be required.
6. The City and the applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement stipulating the nature and
requirements of this PUD amendment following final consideration by City Council,
pursuant to Section 26.445.060 of the Land Use Code. This agreement shall be
reviewed by the City Attorney prior to recordation. All un-ammended portions of the
former agreement shall remain in full force and effect and the City shall retain the funds
held in escrow from the prior agreement. The PUD amendment agreement shall be
recorded within one -hundred and eighty (180) days of the final approval by City
Council.
7. Upon improvement of the emergency access way between the Spruce Street right-of-
way and the Silverlode Drive cul-de-sac to a condition to adequately withstand
emergency vehicles, the City shall grant to the Williams Ranch Home Owners
Association ($_� for the purpose of landscape improvements to Lot #36, the Open
Space parcel.
8. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public
meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
9. The applicant shall record the Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution with the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a
per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City
Clerk who will record the resolutions.
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL by the Commission at its regular meeting on
December 14, 1999.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
Robert Blaich, Chair
CAhome\CHRJSB\CASES\Williams Ranch Amendment\PZ RESO.doc
DEC-14-SS 10:14 FROM:CHARLES T. BRANDT & ASSOC ID:9709254559 PAGE 2/2
CHARLE3 T. BRANDT
TRAVIS S. THORNTON
GARRET S. BRANDT
TO:
CHARL.ES T. BRANDT & ASSOCIATES, P.C:
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
US Bank Bulding
420 East Main Street, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone 970-925-5196
Fax 970-925-4559
MEMORANDUM
C. T. SRANDT, PARALEGAL
Christopher Bendon, Planer, and Members of the City of Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission via facsimile
CC:
John Markel 171a £acsimx e
John Worcester, Esq. via facsimile
David Hoefer, Esq. via facsimUe
FROM:
Chuck Brandt C
DATE:
12/13/99
'`��''�
SUBJECT:
Williams Ranch Substantial FLT.D Arx�endment
"`'~s .
John Markel, President of Mark IV, general partner of Willis ms Ranch Joint Venture, and I
have read your Memorandum to the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and the
accompanying Resolution. We believe that, with one minor exception, the Memorandum and
Resolution is appropriate as it properly refiecst the agreement with the City of ,Aspen relative to the
relinquishment to the City of WMams Ranch Joint Venture's escrowed funds for use by the
Williams Ranch Homeowners' Association.
The one exception relates to the comment in your Memorandum that staff still prefers the
installation of sidewalks within Williams Ranch. This comment does not tape into account the fact
that there is no room for sidewalks given the small front yards and short driveways of the 'Wiliar s
Ranch residences. In addition, to link the sidewalks to the trad system under the topic "pedestrian
movement" is inappropriate as the trail system, with the exception of the vertical trail, was never
intended as a vehicle for pedestrian movement _
Because Mr. Markel has just undergone surgery and cannot come to Aspen and I have an
appointment on the East Coast that I have been unable to change, neither of us wAl be in
attendance at 'Tuesday night's continued public hearing. On behalf of the applicant, WMams Ranch
Joint Venture, we urge approval of the Resolution by the Planning Commission. Please distribute
this Memorandum to membem of the Commission. 'Thank you.
P'LA�WIWII(N�G� ANID� Z�,O�W111W1G C;0)MIMII��;SaliO�
MEETING DATE: 12/14/99 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
NAME OF PROJECT: WILLIAMS RANCH SUBSTANTIAL PUD
AMENDMENT
CITY CLERK:
JACKIE LOTHIAN
STAFF: CHRIS BENDON
WITNESSES: (1)
JOHN KRUEGER
(2)
FRED SOYKA, CENTENNIAL HOA PRESIDENT
(3)
CHET TOMAZAK
(4)
LISA MARKALUNAS, LOT 34 WILLIAMS RANCH
EXHIBITS: 1
STAFF MEMO DATED 12/14/99 & RESOLUTION #99-27
2
LETTER FROM APPLICANT DATED 12/13/99
3
MAP OF THE AREA
MOTION: ROGER HUNT MOVED TO ADOPT RESO #99-27 SUBJECT TO
THE AMENDMENTS DISCUSSED AT THE MEETING. TIM MOONEY
SECOND.
VOTE: YES
6 NO O
ROBERT BLAICH
YES X NO
ROGER HUNT
YES X NO TIMOTHY MOONEY YES X NO
ROGER HANEMAN
YES X NO STEVEN BUETTOW YES X NO
RON ERICKSON
YES _X_ NO
PZVOTE