The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.apz.19940913 AGENDA ----=- ----- --------=---=======-==-==================== ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 13, 1994, Tuesday --- ----- - ----========-===================== 4:00 - 5:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL JOINT MEETING WITH COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GMQS CODE AMENDMENTS, CINDY HOUBEN (FULL P&Z) ----===================-----============================-======== 5:00 P.M. SPECIAL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL 1. COMMENTS " commissioners Planning Staff Public II. MINUTES III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Williams Ranch SUbdivision/PUD Final Development Plan, Amendment to the Text of the City of Aspen Land Use Code Regulations, Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Amendment to the Official Zone District Map of the city of Aspen, GMQS Exemption, 8040 Greenline Review and Special Review for Open Space and parking, Mary Lackner IV. ADJOURN ..... L;- !Cl~l "! / L/ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Administrative Assistant RE: Upcoming Agendas DATE: September 13, 1994 Regular Meeting - September 20 Independence Place SPA Designation and Conceptual SPA Plan (LL) Aspen Youth Center SPA Amendment (LL) Mountain Chalet Change in Use & GMQS Exemption (KJ) MacCaskill Conditional Use Review for an ADU (KJ) 610 W. Hallam Landmark Designation (AA) San Serrano Conditional Use Review (KJ) Creektree Subdivision/PUD Amendment (ML) Overlay special Review - September 27 904 E. Cooper 1120 Black Birch Regular Meeting - October 4 709 W. Main Landmark Designation (AA) West End Traffic Update (Gish) Morrow Stream Margin Review (KJ) No Problem Joe Conditional Use Review for ADU (ML) KNFO-FM Conditional Use Review for Satellite Dish (KJ) a.nex MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission RE: Williams Ranch Final Review for Subdivision, PUD, Rezoning, 8040 Greenline Review, GMQS Exemption and Special Review FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner DATE: September 13, 1994 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- REQUEST: The applicant is seeking City approval for annexation, rezoning to the Affordable Housing zone district(AH), Planned Unit Development (PUD), Subdivision, GMQS Exemption, Special Review for parking and open space, and 8040 Greenline Review. The 12.7 acre parcel is proposed to accommodate 18 duplex units and 17 single family dwelling units for a total of 35 deed restricted units. The applicant is also proposing 15 free market lots, for a total of 50 units in this project. APPLICANT: Stephen Albouy's Estate, Smuggler Consolidated Mines Corporation. APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Tom Stevens, The Stevens Group, Inc. and Gary Wright, Esq., Wright & Adger. LOCATION: Williams Ranch is located on a 12.7 acre parcel which is bordered by Centennial, Spruce Street, and the Smuggler Mine. The project is more specifically located in Section 7, Township 10 South and Range 84 of the 6th P.M. ZONING: The property is currently located within Pitkin County and is zoned AF-1, which is a 10 acre zone district (one residence per 10 acres). The Board of County Commissioners will take final action on the Molly Gibson access road on September 27, 1994. BACKGROUND: During the Spring, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council granted conceptual approval for a 54 unit project that consisted of 16 free market lots and 38 fully deed restricted affordable housing units. City Council had concern regarding the proposed density of this project. For this Final application, the applicant has reduced the project to 50 units along with site design changes to improve the character of the project. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Staff has received the following referral comments. These comments are included in the Exhibit section of this memorandum. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District City Engineer City Parks Department City Water Department Environmental Health Department Historic Preservation Officer Housing Office Police Department PROCESS: The five step PUD review process including associated reviews is as follows: Step 1- P&Z Conceptual PUD, Rezoning, Subdivision, 8040 Greenline, GMQS Exemption and Special Review. Step 2- CC Conceptual PUD, Rezoning, Subdivision, 8040 Greenline, GMQS Exemption, and Special Review. Public Hearing. Step 3- P&Z Rezoning, Subdivision, Final PUD, and GMQS Exemption recommendation to Council. 8040 Greenline Review and Special Review final approval. Public hearing. Step 4- CC Rezoning, Subdivision, Final PUD, GMQS Exemption, Annexation, and First reading of Ordinance. Step 5- CC Rezoning, Subdivision, Final PUD, GMQS Exemption, and Annexation Second reading of Ordinance. Public hearing. Exhibit "A" contains a timeline of the review processes required for this application. The Planning Commission is being asked to take a final action on Special review for parking and open space, and 8040 Greenline review. STAFF COMMENTS: This section of the memorandum is broken down into the following categories to review compliance with the adopted land use regulations of the City of Aspen: I. Subdivision 7-1004 II. Planned Unit Development 7-901 III. Rezoning to Affordable Housing 5-206.2 and 7-1102 IV. GMQS Exemption 8-104 V. 8040 Greenline Review 7-503 VI. Special Review 7-401 VII. Compliance with Conceptual conditions of approval VIII.Project Issues The applicant has submitted a draft annexation agreement which is being reviewed by staff concurrently with this application. This agreement is located in Exhibit I of the applicant's application booklet. E I. Subdivision The creation of 41 lots requires subdivision approval from the City. Section 24-7-1004.0 sets the following review standards for subdivision applications: i.a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Response: The'Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) was adopted in January 1993. The Housing Action Plan identifies this site as "great" for low density single family or duplex lots..."This is a good place to test the small house, small lot idea." The applicant's proposal includes 35 affordable housing units, of which 17 are single family and 18 are duplex units. The remaining 15 parcels are free market single family lots. Staff believes this unit and site design is consistent with the intent of the Housing Action Plan. The Growth Action Plan recommends a minimum of 60% affordable housing with new residential subdivisions. The applicant will meet this goal as the AH zone district requires a minimum of 60 percent of the bedrooms of the entire project to be located within deed restricted units. Due to the close proximity of the Smuggler Mine (which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places) , the visibility of the project from other areas of Aspen, and the negative visual quality of Centennial, staff believes that it is important for the applicant to comply with the Neighborhood Character Guidelines currently established for this neighborhood. This has been identified as a recommendation from the Design Quality and Historic Preservation section of the AACP and suggested by the HPC. HPC is satisfied with the design of the affordable housing units, but has recommended that the free market units comply with the Neighborhood Character Guidelines. The Open Space/Recreation and Environment Action Plan recommends that Smuggler Mountain be purchased for open space and recreation. It further clarifies that it does not oppose housing on the lower portions of Smuggler with development no higher than existing development. As proposed, this development plan stays substantially below the elevation of existing development. The Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway System Plan - identifies Salvation Ditch as a primary recreation corridor throughout this area of town. The applicant is proposing to dedicate a trail easement along the Salvation Ditch as it crosses this property. This proposal does not appear to be in conflict with the AACP. i.b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in this area. 3 Response: Lower Smuggler Mountain contains a mix of multi -family, trailers, duplex and single family dwelling units, located primarily in the R/MFA zone district. The adjoining property in the County is zoned AF-1 which is a 10 acre zone district. Staff believes this application represents a transition between the moderate density of Centennial at 14 units per acre to the various low density metes and bounds parcels along Spruce Street which are generally one residence per one to five acres. However, the average 17,000 sq.ft. free market lot size in Williams Ranch is significantly more dense than the neighboring free market parcels. Williams Ranch equates to approximately four units per acre. 1. c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Response: There are several metes and bounds properties in the County which will most likely be developed with single family residences. Staff does not believe the development of Williams Ranch will adversely affect the future development of these surrounding properties. 1.d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this chapter. Response: The proposed development will be required to comply with the requirements of the AH zone district and relevant provisions of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. 2.a. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. Response: As discussed in the 8040 Greenline Review, staff has some concern with possible geologic hazards which include rockfall, drainage, and steep slopes and their potential affects on the residents of the proposed subdivision. 2.b. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. Response: No inefficient spatial patterns, premature extension of public facilities or unnecessary public costs will be created by the proposed development. Any infrastructure improvements or upgrades that are required to serve this project will be the responsibility of the developer. 4 II. Planned Unit Development The applicant has requested one variance through the PUD process. This is for the minimum side yard setback requirement for Lot 10 and Lot D of the affordable housing aspect of the project. The existing side yard setback requirements are a minimum of zero ( 0 ) f eet with a total' of f if teen (15 ) f eet f or both side yards. The applicant is requesting a variance to provide zero ( 0 ) feet and ten (10) feet for both side yards. This is a result of the configuration of these two lots. Staff has reviewed the site plan and supports this request for the variance on Lot 10 and Lot D. A copy of the Site Plan is included in the blueprint drawing package. In addition to the review requirements of the Subdivision regulations, PUD adds a requirement for density reduction for steep slopes. The slope density reduction calculation prepared for this property reduces the developable area from 12.7 acres to 9.9 acres. The applicant's proposed unit mix can be accommodated in the remaining 9.9 acres. Due to the steep slopes on the upper lots, the applicant should take note of Section 24-3-101 Yard (A)(5). This provision of the Code does not permit driveway or slab cuts greater than 30 inches below grade in the required yards. The applicant may request a PUD variance for this situation and make the request lot specific. The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan, an architectural site plan, lighting plan, public facility plan, and a traffic and pedestrian circulation plan for review by the Planning Commission. and City Council. These are included in the blueprint drawing package. III. Rezoning (Amendment to the Zone District Map) As part of the annexation of this property to the City, rezoning of the property is required. The applicant is requesting that the property be zoned AH when it is annexed into the City of Aspen. Section 24-7-1102 establishes the review criteria for a rezoning application. A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter. Response: The proposed development will need to comply with all provisions of the Aspen Municipal Code. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. 5 Response: As discussed under the Subdivision section of this memo, the applicant's proposal is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan if the recommendations made by staff are adhered to by the applicant. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Response: The surrounding neighborhood is a mix of residential uses including multi -family, trailer park, single family homes and duplex units. The Smuggler Mine and Smuggler Mountain are adjacent to the proposed project. This site is ideal for a transitional residential project. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Response: The applicant has reconfigured road access to the project since conceptual review. Only one residence (lot 5) will be accessed from Spruce Street. It has been determined that this project will generate the following traffic: Road Spruce Street Brown Lane (Centennial) Smuggler Mountain Road Total Units Served 1 6 43 50 Additional Traffic* 6-15 36-90 258-645 300-750 * Additional traffic numbers are calculated at 6 total trips per day per dwelling units at the low end, to 15 total trips per day at the high end. The Leigh, Scott & Cleary traffic report (Application Exhibit "K") indicates a projected 5% increase in traffic in the Smuggler area after this project is constructed, and that service levels of the road system will not decrease from their present level of "A". This report also identified three intersections that need to be improved, portions of pavement which needs to be widened to 20 feet, and pedestrian facilities that should be installed along the Brown Lane extension and along the roadway to Smuggler Mountain Road. The findings of this traffic report indicate that there is adequate capacity in the existing road system to serve this project. In a conversation with Dan Blankenship of RFTA, it was conveyed to staff that the Hunter Creek bus line, which serves Centennial, is the most utilized bus route within the City. Staff has concern C. that additional residents in Williams Ranch may negatively impact service levels on this heavily used bus route. Staff would like the applicant to consider a contribution to RFTA to be used to improve public transit services in the Smuggler area. This should be addressed in the annexation agreement with the City. The applicant has proposed to mitigate off -site road impacts by paying 5% of the costs to accomplish the minimum recommendations made in the Leigh, Scott and Cleary Traffic Report, but in no case more than $100,000. For the public to realize the $100,000 contribution, the City would have to spend $2 million on traffic and related improvements in the area. There are no plans for such improvements in the Smuggler area. The City has spent $350, 000 for pedestrian improvements in this area that should be credited with the impact fee offer. The contribution of this money to the City of Aspen will need to be specified in the annexation and subdivision improvements agreement. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Response: The applicable utilities have indicated an ability to serve this project. Recent long-range planning discussions have indicated increased level of attendance at the public schools. Since the affordable housing aspect of this project targets families, there will be an increased use on the school system. The school district will be submitting comments after this memo has been written. These comments will be presented at the meeting. As discussed in the conceptual review, there is a lack of usable open space in this neighborhood. The Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Board expressed an interest in keeping this parcel as open space, as did several Smuggler area residents. The applicant is providing approximately one acre of open space (about one-half acre will be public) as a buffer between Centennial and Williams Ranch. The applicant has an agreement with the County to improve Mollie Gibson park in exchange for an access easement across it, which is scheduled to be finalized by the Board of County Commissioners on September 27, 1994. Drainage and water are discussed under 8040 Greenline Review in Section V of this memo. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. K Response: Upon buildout of this project, there will be a change to the visual character of the site due to road and building excavation. A limited portion of the natural vegetation will be preserved as a result of this development. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Response: Staff has requested that the applicant comply with the Neighborhood Character Guidelines for the Smuggler neighborhood, and the applicant has complied with this request for the affordable housing units. The HPC has recommended that the free market units comply with the Guidelines through their homeowner's architectural review board, however, staff does not believe this would be an adequate review board. Since the free market homes are required to obtain 8040 Greenline review, staff believes the Neighborhood Character Guidelines should also be reviewed by P&Z with this review. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Response: Lower Smuggler Mountain has been the concern of the EPA for Superfund designation. It does not appear that the EPA's concerns will affect the proposed project. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter. Response: The proposal seeks to add private sector funded affordable housing to the community. The project supports the purpose of the AH zone district and the housing goals of the AACP. IV. GMOS Exemption Pursuant to Section 24-8-104 (C) (1) (c) all housing which is deed restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority is exempt from GMQS by City Council. The review shall consider the need for such housing, number, location, size, sale/rental mix, and proposed price categories of the units. The applicant is proposing 35 deed restricted units and 15 free market dwelling units. There are nine duplex buildings containing 18 units and 17 single family units. The deed restricted units are proposed as follows: # Type of Unit Size Price 4 1 Bedroom, Cat. #2 628 sq . f t . $69,000 8 6 2 Bedroom, Cat. #2 842 sq. ft. $79,000 4 3 Bedroom, Cat. #3 1,178 sq.. ft . $115, 000 6 4 Bedroom, Cat. #4 1,390 sq.ft. $195,000 15 4 Bedroom, RO 1,752 sq . ft . <$325, 000 Section 8-104(C)(1)(e) of the Code allows Council to grant a GMQS Exemption for up to 14 free market units per calendar year for units within AH zone districts. The applicant will need to phase the free market aspect of the project in order to obtain 15 exemptions. A revised Growth Management System is currently being reviewed by the Planning Commission. The applicant will be subject to all revisions that take place to GMQS prior to final development approval of this project (second reading at City Council). It is presently anticipated that these revisions will be in place prior to November 1994. V. 8040 Greenline Review Williams Ranch is subject to 8040 Greenline Review because the development is located at, above and within 150 feet below the 8040 elevation line. The project extends from the 7980 to 8090 elevation. The Planning and Zoning Commission may grant 8040 Greenline Review during this stage of the review process. The Commission should be looking at these review criteria to determine if the subdivision design, with the specific road and driveway alignments, building envelopes, utility easements, and proposed units comply with these standards. Although this review is establishing the lot lines and building envelope locations for the free market lots, these lots will need to obtain individual 8040 approval prior to construction of any residences. 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine substance and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. .If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the city. Response: Exhibit "L" of this memorandum, contains a geologic investigation of the property. This report covers rockfall, avalanche, landslide, steep slopes, drainage, subsidence, swelling/shrinking soils, and other geologic hazards. Rockfall has been identified as a potential hazard to the development, however the report states, "Occasional rockfalls can be stopped by the road on the east and southeast side of the development. This road can be graded to increase its rockfall- impeding capability." These roads separate the affordable housing from the free market housing. Therefore, the uphill free market housing is subject to rockfall, while the affordable units below the road would be protected from such rockfall. Staff believes rockfall mitigation needs to be more thoroughly addressed by a technical expert during the 8040 Greenline review on each of these lots. Within the property, slopes average less than 23%, however, there are local areas that exceed 30%. This geologic report recommends that, "Retaining walls and appropriate special earthwork and foundation designs may be needed in these areas." Staff will require that Lots 1 - 15 have an engineer evaluate the site conditions to recommend foundation design at 8040 Greenline review and all the affordable housing unit sites be reviewed prior to the issuance of any building permits. Williams Ranch is located within the EPA's Smuggler Superfund Site Operable Unit #2 Study Area. The Environmental Health Department has been administrating the Superfund project and have concluded that this project does not have any soils that contain lead, cadmium or other heavy metals above acceptable amounts. The Environmental Health Department has advised the applicant that no further action needs to take place regarding this Superfund area. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. Response: The applicant is proposing several detention ponds within the project. This drainage system should retain storm runoff from the affordable housing units and most of the road system. The free market units will be required to provide for on - site detention, prior to the issuance of any building permits. Soil erosion during construction will be controlled by the use of hay bails and/or rip rap placed in all natural and man-made channels discharging into Salvation ditch. A debris interceptor is proposed that will be located on the uphill side of the access road that runs along the northeastern boundary of the parcel. The Engineering Department is satisfied that the application meets City requirements for maintaining drainage on site. The City Engineer has recommended that final grading and drainage plans be approved by the Engineer Department, prior to any earthmoving work on -site. 10 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the city. Response: The applicant will need to comply with the City requirements which prohibit any woodburning devices, allow two certified devices per building, and permit an unlimited number of decorative gas appliances. The Environmental Health Department has asked that the applicant submit proposed mitigation measures to off -set the. increases of vehicle miles travelled (VMT) within Aspen's non -attainment area. The applicant has not submitted this information to the satisfaction of the Environmental Health Department. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. Response: The road system is proposed to follow the contour lines. However, there are cut slopes of up to 18' and filled areas of 14' along the upper access road due to the varying slopes which this road transects. Staff does not believe these cut and fill areas have been minimized as much as possible, as there is the potential for realigning the road to avoid some of this disturbance. The applicant has expressed concern that relocation of the road will reduce lot areas, and subsequently the permitted floor areas on some lots. The City Engineer has also identified that "tied back" wall construction can reduce the amount of cut slopes as opposed to the proposed laid back slopes that have been proposed by the applicant. However, this option is generally more expensive. It should be noted that the access road through Mollie Gibson park, under Pitkin County jurisdiction, is proposed to have cut slopes up to 46 feet in height. The County had requested that the access road cross the steep slopes in order to increase the flat usable area of the park. These cuts are made in the man made fill (mine tailings) and are concurrently being reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners. S. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. Response: The applicant has submitted a preliminary geologic report which assesses the subsurface conditions of the property. This report (Application Exhibit "P") discusses existing fill on the property and recommends treatment of these filled areas. There is not enough information to determine the location and depths of these filled areas to evaluate how much soil needs to be removed. Prior to first reading by City Council the applicant shall have the 11 filled areas accurately mapped including filled soil depths, so staff can determine the extent of disturbance. The grading plan indicates there will be grading to accommodate the construction of the affordable housing units. This grading plan illustrates disturbance over approximately 600 of the site, with elevation changes up to 12 feet above existing grade. Grading for the free market lots has not been shown on this plan, but it is anticipated that development of these parcels will require substantial grading on each lot. This will need to be addressed during 8040 Greenline review for the free market lots. Two underground detention ponds are proposed to be located in the private open space buffer between Centennial and Williams Ranch. This natural sage and grass flat area will be partially covered with up to 10 feet of fill and natural vegetation will be disturbed for the construction of these underground ponds. The applicant has committed to maintaining the mature cottonwood trees along the Salvation Ditch, where the ditch is not being culverted. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. Response: The entire 12.7 acre site is being utilized for development purposes. Staff made some recommendations under item #4 that can limit road cuts. The free market lots are located property and will be visible from along the same elevation line and the visual plane. on the higher elevations of the town. These lots are not located will offer a slight variation on The applicant has made efforts to reduce individual driveway cuts by proposing shared driveways on four of the free market parcels. Staff does have concern that the overall disturbance of the access road, driveway and homesite slope cuts from the free market units will be extremely visible from town. This development will "preserve the mountain as a scenic resource" above this site, but construction disturbance will take place on almost the entire site. The Engineer has recommended that the free market home construction take place without laid back slopes to reduce their negative visual appearance. In order to restrict the level of ground disturbance, staff recommends that all development and disturbance be contained within the designated building envelopes. Natural vegetation shall be preserved outside of the building envelope to maintain the natural character of the mountainside. 12 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. Response: The free market element of the subdivision will be located on 6.32 acres with an allowed floor area of approximately 3,660 sq.ft. per lot. This equates to roughly 58,560 sq.ft. of floor area. Page 3 of the application states, "The allowable F.A.R. for the Free Market Lots has been reduced by ten (10 % ) . " The applicant's supplement to this land use application has further revised this by reducing the allowed F.A.R. on the free market parcels by 20%, and owners wishing to build above this level are subject to special review by the HPC (hence Ordinance 35). Staff does not believe that this 20% reduction can be considered a permanent restriction of floor area. Staff believes the applicant's commitment to scale down free market housing from what is permitted in the AH zone district, due to their highly visible and geologically challenging location, is sincere. Therefore, staff recommends a condition of approval that the floor area for the free market parcels be 90% of what is permitted in the AH zone district. This language would ensure a permanent commitment that these highly visible lots will always be slightly less than what is permitted on any AH parcel. The applicant has scaled back the affordable housing portion of the project to reduce density and floor area. The proposed affordable housing floor area is proposed to be 46,903 sq.ft. (down sq.ft. from the sq.ft. proposed at conceptual review). The location of these affordable units are much less impactive to steep slopes and the public view of the mountain side than the higher free market lots. The Zoning Enforcement Officer has raised concern regarding the grade in which height will be calculated, since the "natural grade" is being altered. The City code would permit a site to be excavated and a three or four story structure to be placed within the excavation and still meet the height limit (East Cooper Affordable Housing). Staff recommends that the applicant comply with Pitkin County's definition for determining height, as this is calculated from natural or finished grade, whichever is the worst case scenario. The Pitkin County definition also reduces the height of structures permitted on steep slopes, thereby lessening grading, cuts, and disturbed areas. Since this parcel contains steep slopes, has proposed grade changes, and is highly visible from town, staff believes this is a prudent recommendation. Staff is also in the process of amending the City code to implement a similar version of the County's height calculation. The application indicates that all structures will be a maximum of two stories and the affordable housing units will be approximately 22 feet, where 25 feet is permitted in this zone district. Staff 13 believes this reduction in height greatly benefits the project. The HPC has reviewed the preliminary architectural design of the project and they approved the design. Further HPC comments are included towards the end of the memo in section VIII, Project Issues. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. Response: Rocky Mountain Natural Gas has not rendered an opinion on whether this project can be served. This shall be determined prior to first reading by City Council. The Aspen Water Department has adequate capacity to serve this project, however they have some problems with the design of the water system for the uppermost lots to obtain adequate water pressure. The Water Department has indicated they will not accept the proposed pump station to serve these lots into the City's infrastructure. Details of the pump station and maintenance responsibilities are discussed in the Water Department referral comments included in Exhibit 'IF". This raises issues regarding precedence for approving water infrastructure which will not be accepted by the City, but privately maintained by the homeowner's association. City Council will be working directly with the Water Department and applicant on the Water Service Agreement, prior to annexation of this parcel. The Fire District requires all free market lots to be sprinklered, and strongly recommends that the affordable housing units are also sprinklered. All other utilities have stated that they have adequate capacity to serve this project. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. Response: The applicant is proposing a private road system with public pedestrian access. The Leigh, Scott, & Cleary traffic report indicates a projected 5% increase in traffic in the Smuggler area after this project is constructed, and that service levels will not decrease from their present level of "A". This report also identified three intersections that need to be improved, where pavement needs to be widened to 20 feet, and pedestrian facilities that should be installed along the Brown Lane extension and along the roadway to Smuggler Mountain Road. The findings of this traffic report indicate that there is adequate capacity in the existing road system to serve this project. Because the roads are proposed to be private, maintenance and snow plowing will be the homeowner's association responsibility. 14 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. Response: The Colorado State Forest Service believes that the roadway system with three access points (Spruce Street, Brown Lane, and Smuggler Road) is adequate from a fire safety viewpoint. This allows simultaneous evacuation of residents with the arrival of emergency equipment. The Aspen Fire District has indicated that all access roads need to be a minimum of 20 feet in width, with no parking within this area. This width can be reduced if all structures accessed by a narrower road are sprinklered. The applicant has redesigned the access from Spruce Street to eliminate residential traffic, except for one unit, but to maintain emergency access. The emergency access road is proposed to be grass over paver blocks or an equal paving system to allow for large emergency vehicle passage along a 20 foot wide bench. This emergency access road must be maintained in a driving condition on a year round basis. 11. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/open space/Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use. Response: The Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway System Plan identifies Salvation Ditch as a primary recreation corridor through this area of town. The applicant is proposing to dedicate a trail easement along the Salvation Ditch as it crosses this property, however the applicant is also proposing to culvert this ditch for approximately 2301. The applicant will be dedicating a trail/pedestrian easement through the property to Smuggler Mountain, for future connection to other properties. The applicant had proposed sidewalks within the project at conceptual review, however, HPC believes these are too urban for this neighborhood. The Neighborhood Advisory Committee has reviewed the proposal and requests that the Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway Plan be followed, in respect to the recommendation that new development shall provide pedestrian facilities. NAC wants to see sidewalks throughout the project on both sides of the street, and one 8 foot sidewalk on one side of the access road. This is discussed further in section VIII Project Issues of this memo. VI. Special Review Parking and Open Space requirements are set by Special Review in the AH zone district. Final action on the Special Review elements of this project will take place at this time by the Planning Commission. 15 Parking: The applicant is proposing to provide two parking spaces per deed restricted unit. Parking for free market units will be based on one space per bedroom and will be reviewed by the Zoning Official when building permits are reviewed for these parcels. No parking will be permitted on the streets due to their narrow width, and for compliance with the requirements of the Fire Marshall. Staff has concern that no guest parking has been provided and this may place additional stresses on the already crowded neighborhood. For comparison three AH projects provided parking as follows: Ute Park- 2 parking spaces/deed restricted unit West Hopkins- 1 parking space/deed restricted unit E. Cooper- 1.5 parking spaces/deed restricted unit Centennial has a total of 239 units with 364 bedrooms and parking was developed at one space per be Residents of Centennial have identified that there are parking constraints in this area due to loss of spaces in the winter due to snow storage, lack of guest parking, and multiple car ownership in all sizes of dwelling units. Staff believes that the applicant should provide at least eight guest parking spaces throughout the project to anticipate this need. Open Space: The Open Space and Trails Board, Parks Department, Housing Board and neighborhood residents have all identified the lack of usable open space in this Smuggler community. As proposed, the applicant has designated two open space parcels totalling about 40,050 sq. ft. Staff does not believe it is appropriate that the open space area between Centennial and Williams Ranch be "private" due to the high densities and lack of open space in the area. Should the applicant dedicate this area public, staff recommends approval of the applicant's open space plan. There is no open space requirement in the AH zone district on a per lot basis. VI. Conceptual Review Conditions of Approval 1. The applicant shall contact the Aspen Consolidated sanitation District and address the issues raised in the letter dated January 25, 1994 from Bruce Matherly. Issues include District boundaries in relation to the project, line extension request, location of the line extension, and connection charges. Response: The applicant has applied to ACSD for a line extension. The applicant will need to meet the requirements of the August 25, 1994 letter from Bruce Matherly. A new condition of approval for ACSD has been added for this final review. m 2. To address the concerns raised by the City Engineer, the applicant shall prepare the following information prior to Final PUD review: a. The final development plan must include a clear access plan showing the edges of pavement or other driving surface and the edges of right-of-way and access easements for all connecting and circulating roads inside and adjacent to Williams Ranch, including circulation patterns, and designating traffic flow. The plan must include existing and proposed conditions. Response: This has been submitted in the blueprint map package. The City Engineer has identified several locations along Free Silver Road that are below the 20 foot width required by the Code. Staff recommends that the minimum pavement width throughout the project be 20 feet, except for the portion of Free Silver Road where the free market units are sprinklered. The Fire Marshall may approve a access road less than 20 feet. b. The applicant shall obtain a 40 foot wide easement between Spruce Street and the new access road to provide for 20 foot vehicular use, paved surface to meet City Code emergency access requirements, and to provide additional space for sidewalks, buffer space, street drainage facilities, and snow storage area. Response: The emergency access road will need to be a minimum of 20 feet in width and be maintained in a driving condition year round. c. The final development plan shall illustrate existing and revised topographical lines and cross sections for the proposed road every 100 feet. Response: Road profiles have been submitted in the blueprint map package. d. The applicant shall dedicate public right-of-way or easement for spruce street along the north property boundary. Response: This has not been done by the applicant. This will remain a condition of approval and shall be indicated on the Final Plat. The applicant shall also provide a seven foot snow storage space along Spruce Street for Lots 1-4. e. Easements for internal roads shall include public pedestrian use and be designed to the City of Aspen specifications. 17 Response: This has been indicated on the project mapping and will need to be included on the Final Plat. f. The Final development plan shall indicate street lighting which is similar in design and frequency as the Centennial project. Street lights shall be standard City antique lights at the intersections of the Williams Ranch roads with Spruce Street, Teal Court, and Park Circle. Response: The applicant has illustrated street lighting on blueprint map #6. The Engineer does not believe the lighting plan meets the design standards of the City. If the City standards were to be followed, the applicant would be required to install 18 street lights throughout the project. Staff has concern this is out of character with this neighborhood and low level street lighting should be in place at all intersections adjacent to and within the subdivision. Centennial has low level intersection lighting at interior intersection. g. The Final development plan must locate trash storage and recycling areas. Trash and recycling areas shall not be permitted in public rights -of -way nor within access and utility easements. Response: The applicant will need to include a general note on the Final Plat indicating that trash storage and recycle areas will need to be located on private property and not within access and utility easements. h. As part of the Final development review submission package, the applicant shall submit a Slope Reduction Plan which has been signed and stamped by a Colorado registered land surveyor, architect, or civil engineer. Response: This mapping has been included as part of the blueprint package and was prepared by Banner Associates. i. A drainage plan prepared by a licenced engineer shall be submitted as part of the Final development review submission package. Response: The applicant has submitted a drainage plan, prepared by Banner Associates, in Exhibit "O" of the application. The recommendations of this plan meet the requirements of the City. 3. As requested by the Environmental Health Department, the applicant shall a fugitive dust control plan for review by the Environmental Health Department at Final review. Response: This plan has been submitted and accepted by the Environmental Health Department. It has been included in the applicant's submission package as Exhibit "T". 18 4. As discussed by the Parks Department, the applicant shall submit the following information for review at Final: a. The applicant shall submit the road design as it crosses Molly Gibson Park and plans indicating the road cut required. Response: The road plan has been submitted in the mapping package. The Board of County Commissioners will be taking final action on this road alignment at their September 27, 1994 meeting. b. The applicant shall obtain an easement from the ditch owners for the proposed trail along Salvation Ditch. specific information regarding trail standards and materials shall be included in the application. The applicant should dedicate this as a public easement. Response: The plat depicts a ten foot trail easement along the Salvation Ditch. This easement should be dedicated parallel to the ditch on the north and not directly on top of the ditch so as to allow full utilization of the trail. If the trail easement is to remain on top of the ditch, then the easement should be dedicated at a twenty foot width. There is no information regarding construction of the trail or mention of an agreement with the ditch company allowing the trail to parallel the ditch. This will remain a condition of approval. c. A 14 foot public trail easement shall be provided through the subdivision for access to existing and/or future public lands. Response: A 50 foot open space, pedestrian, and utility easement has been provided over the Cowenhaven Tunnel. This easement will permit a public trail to cross the Williams Ranch parcel. d. As part of Final development review the applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan. Detail of trees six inches in diameter and over shall be indicated on the plan. Landscaping in any right-of-way should also be included on the landscape plan. Response: The Parks Department has reviewed the landscaping plan submitted in the application packet. The plan does not detail the trees proposed to be removed by the development. The plan also does not address irrigation systems which must be in compliance with the Water Conservation Code. Irrigation was also discussed by the Water Department in their referral comments and should be further addressed by the applicant prior to first reading by City Council. The Parks Department has also commented that the landscaping plan appears rather dense and consideration to scaling it back, slightly, should be given to allow for maturation and 0V viability of plants in the future. The Parks Department will have to sign off on the final landscape plan for this project which will be part of the Final Plat. 5. The applicant shall address the water issues raised in the January 20, 1994 letter from Phil Overeynder to Hans E. Brucker. Response: The issues of the Water Department have been addressed in the draft water service agreement application which is included in the application as Exhibit "N". Phil Overeynder of the Water Department does not believe all the requirements from the January letter have been adequately addressed, however several of these items cannot be done until the annexation agreement has been completed. Mr. Overeynder's referral comments are included as Exhibit "F" and the appropriate conditions of approval are noted in this memo. 6. The applicant shall comply with the draft Character Guidelines for the Smuggler neighborhood. Response: Amy Amidon, Aspen's Historic Preservation Officer, submitted comments that are included in Exhibit "H". The HPC reviewed the applicant's proposal in the late spring and made the following recommendations to the applicant: a. Concrete sidewalks should be eliminated. HPC believes that the proposed concrete sidewalks were too urban and are not consistent with the Neighborhood Character Guidelines for this area. The applicant has eliminated the sidewalks to be consistent with this recommendation of HPC. HPC is not adverse to the idea of defined pedestrian trail maintained in a usable condition on a year round basis. This issue is discussed further in the Issues section of this memorandum. b. Roof heights should be broken up. HPC believes that roof heights have been adequately broken up due to the design that steps these units down the slope. C. Only indigenous tree species should be used. HPC was concerned that non -indigenous vegetation planted on a site which is very visible in the City would be as intrusive as any overly large structures. The Parks Department has reviewed the landscaping plan and has recommended that it be scaled back. Parks does not have any concern regarding the proposed species. d. Outbuildings should be incorporated into the 20 development. Only one lot is proposing an outbuilding. HPC would like more information from the applicant to see how trash and other items will be stored. e. The free market lots should incorporate the Neighborhood Character Guidelines into the covenants. Staff believes that the Planning Commission should review compliance with the Neighborhood Character Guidelines as part of the 8040 Greenline review for the free market residences, instead of a homeowner's architectural review board. Ms. Amidon has concern regarding the parking design of the project. The Neighborhood Character Guidelines state, "Avoid creating pull -in parking that is directly off the street. This weakens the attraction of the street to pedestrians." The affordable units are orientated towards the south and west to take advantage of solar exposure and views (which is recommended by the guidelines) , but the project turns its back on the street, and overall appears to be very auto -oriented. The applicant should consider having shared driveways set along the lot lines with garages, or at least garage doors, facing the driveway instead of the street. 7. At Final Development review the applicant shall submit a landscape plan, an architectural site development plan, a lighting plan, a public facility plan, and a traffic and pedestrian circulation plan. Response: The applicant has submitted these plans as part of the mapping package. Staff believes they are satisfactory. S. A traffic analysis, prepared by a licenced engineer, addressing the road capacity shall be submitted at Final Review. Response: A report jointly sponsored by the City of Aspen and the applicant has been prepared by Leigh, Scott & Cleary. The report summarizes that the traffic increase from this development falls within the level of service capacities of the Smuggler road system. As part of the annexation agreement, the City will specify what road improvements shall be completed by the developer as part of this project. 9. A geologic report addressing the potential for debris flow, drainage, rockf all and subsurface conditions ( from underground mines and tunnels) shall be submitted at Final Review. Response: The applicant has submitted a report, which is Exhibit 21 .a "L" of this memo. Staff does not believe the applicant has adequately addressed avalanche and rockfall mitigation. A condition of approval has been added to obtain this additional information, prior to first reading by City Council. 10. At Final Review, the applicant shall address the methods used to control runoff and soil erosion during all phases of the project. Response: The Drainage Report in the applicant's application package addresses drainage and soil erosion during construction. The City Engineer has recommended a condition that requires the applicant to obtain approval for drainage and soil erosion mitigation prior to each phase of the construction process. This meets the requirements of the City. 11. A comprehensive grading plan indicating the extent of cuts, fills and regrading shall be submitted prior to conceptual review by City Council. Response: As discussed under the 8040 review criteria, there will be substantial earthmoving to accommodate this project. The grading plan is included in the mapping package in the applicant's submittal. 12. The applicant shall provide two parking spaces per townhome unit in addition to a minimum of three guest spaces. As proposed the applicant shall provide at least 35 parking spaces for the townhome component of the project. Response: The townhomes have been eliminated from the project. The applicant is proposing two parking spaces per deed restricted unit and one space per bedroom for the free market units. Parking requirements for this project are more specifically addressed in the Special Review section of this memo. 13. The applicant shall redesign the project to create an open space buffer between Centennial and the Salvation Ditch. Centennial should still be considered an access point but it may need to be downsized to accommodate the open space area. Response: A redesign of the project from conceptual review has reduced development in this area, but has not eliminated it. Staff has concern that 230 feet of the Salvation ditch is being culverted to accommodate the development of two duplexes over the present alignment of the ditch. Staff encourages maintaining open ditches as this adds to the historic character of the area. 14. The applicant shall submit the final road design with proposed landscaping of Molly Gibson Park at Final Review. Response: Map #22 in the blueprint package indicates the proposed W road alignment and park plan that will be reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners for final approval on September 27, 1994. 15. The applicant shall either eliminate Lots 15 and 16 or propose measures to reduce the mass and bulk of the homes permitted on these parcels. Response: Lot 16 has been eliminated from the project. The applicant has committed to a 10% reduction in the permitted floor area of Lot 15 and a voluntary height reduction to 18 feet. This has been made a condition of approval and shall be noted on the Final Plat. 16. The applicant shall comply with any amendments made to the Resident occupied and GMQS regulations which are presently being reviewed by the City. Response: The applicant will need to comply with any revisions that are made to the R4 and GMQS regulations before second reading of this project by City Council. 17. The Spruce Street access should be redesigned to prohibit through access by the residents of Williams Ranch. However, it should be able to accommodate emergency vehicles to access the remainder of the subdivision. Response: This has been done by the applicant. 18. In addition to standard Final submission requirements, the applicant shall indicate designated common areas, parking spaces, trash access areas, snow storage areas, and exterior site lighting on the final site plan. Response: The applicant has indicated some of these areas within the site development plan. Some parking areas do not meet the minimum requirements of the Code and staff has requested that these be redesigned prior to first reading by City Council. 19. Submission of a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one year of approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to do so will nullify the conceptual approval unless an extension is granted by City Council. Response: The application, which is presently being reviewed, satisfies this requirement. 20. Within the Final submission application, the applicant shall address project phasing and shall include appropriate assurances guaranteeing construction of the affordable housing units. Response: The annexation agreement makes reference to deeds of 23 trust in lieu of a letter of credit or bonding for affordable housing assurances. This is being reviewed by the City Attorney's office. The applicant is proposing to start infrastructure improvements immediately after Final approval by City Council and the appropriate documents have been finalized. The applicant is anticipating this to be in November. This phase of development is predicted to take four months to complete. The deed restricted units on Lots 1 -12 are proposed to be constructed starting March 11 1995 and completed by November 1995. The remaining deed restricted units will begin construction subsequent to Lots 1 - 12 being completed, however, they are projected to be completed by July 1996. Free market lots will be offered for sale after filing the Final Plat documents. Construction on these lots will be at the discretion of the individual property owners after they receive 8040 Greenline approval. 22. The applicant shall address physical improvements or cash contributions to RFTA, the road system, and for usable park space in the Annexation Plan which shall be submitted to the City prior to Final development review submission. Response: The applicant has not addressed any contributions of cash or improvements to RFTA. Road system improvements have been addressed in the Leigh, Scott & Cleary traffic report and the applicant commited to paying 5% of the recommended improvements up to a maximum of $100,000. The Mollie Gibson park plan has been submitted as part of this application and will be upgraded at the developers expense. 23. 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 the recommended conditions. Response: This is a standard condition that will remain on the Final Plat. VIII. PROJECT ISSUES A. Tap Fee Waiver The applicant has requested in the annexation agreement to waive water "tap fees" for the Category 2 and 3 affordable housing units. This proposal is not consistent with the current City of Aspen policies regarding waiver of water utility connection fees for affordable housing projects as expressed in Resolution 90-8. This policy requires that the entire project satisfy the "qualified employee housing" definition as established by City Council and administered by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. 24 B. Affordable Housing Deed Restrictions The Housing Office is satisfied with the following unit and category mix proposed by the applicant. Type of Unit Size Price 4 1 Bedroom, Cat. #2 6 2 Bedroom, Cat. #2 4 3 Bedroom, Cat. #3 6 4 Bedroom, Cat. #4 15 4 Bedroom, RO 628 sq . f t. $69, 000 842 sq . f t. $79,000 1,178 sq. ft. $115,000 1,390 sq.ft. $195,000 1,752 sq . f t. <$325, 000 All units are located within a duplex or single family structure. The townhome buildings proposed at conceptual review have been broken up into these smaller structures. The City has been working on adopting RO guidelines for the past several months, but has not reached a final decision. The applicant is proposing that one-half of the Resident Occupied (RO) units have no asset or income restrictions and the other one-half have realistic asset and income restrictions. Staff is not in support of this two level deed restriction approach unless City Council formally identifies these two categories in the RO program. Staff can only support RO deed restrictions that meet the 1994 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines that define the City of Aspen restrictions for RO housing. Essentially, this City policy permits a gross household income of $150,000 and net assets of $400,000. Staff cannot tell from the application materials if the applicant can meet these current requirements for the realistic category of RO housing. Should City Council be able to finalize the RO discussions within the next several months, staff believes it would be appropriate for the 15 RO units proposed in this project to comply with the new regulations. C. Park Development Fee Waiver The applicant is requesting a park dedication fee waiver due to the applicant's commitment to improve Mollie Gibson Park. The applicant is presently obtaining approvals from Pitkin County to construct the Williams Ranch access road across this County owned property. This parcel was also identified by the EPA to be used as a repository for contaminated soils removed from the Smuggler Superfund site. In exchange for the access easement from the County, the applicant has provided the County an alternative repository on the Smuggler mine parcel and has agreed to improve Mollie Gibson park. 25 The applicant is dedicating a 20,000 sq.ft. parcel of land for public park purposes with a picnic table and children's play area. This lot is located between Centennial, Spruce Street, the emergency access road and the private open space buffer between Williams Ranch and Centennial and is heavily vegetated with Aspen trees and undergrowth. A public trail will connect this park with the Salvation ditch trail across the remainder of the Williams Ranch property. The open space buffer between Centennial and Williams Ranch of approximately 20,000 sq.ft. is also proposed. City Council and staff had originally requested that the applicant increase the size of this buffer to include all the land below the Salvation ditch. The applicant has not increased the size of this buffer, as three duplexes are proposed in this area and the ditch is being culverted for approximately 230 feet. Staff has concern that this open space area is designated as "private open space" and the applicant has not detailed who is permitted to use this area. Staff recommends that due to the proximity and historic use of this area by Centennial residents, that this area be designated a public open space. The revised 50 unit Williams Ranch development is required to pay the City park dedication fee of $157,360. Section 24-5-608 permits a developer to construct a park and dedicate them to the City of Aspen in lieu of paying the park development fee. The applicant needs to follow the procedures outlined in this section, prior to 1st reading by City Council, in order for staff to make a recommendation on whether the proposed park improvements and dedications off -set the impact fee. D. Public vs. Private Roads The applicant is proposing the road system to be private. One benefit of private roads to the City is that the City is not responsible for maintenance and snow removal. A benefit to the developer is not being required to meet the land use code design standards for right-of-way widths (60' for local streets vs. the 40' easement in Williams Ranch, Ute Park, Aspen Chance, etc.). Staff has questioned if it is desirable for the community to increase the amount of town that is private roads and perhaps "gated communities". Although the applicant will be providing public pedestrian easements through the subdivision, does this preclude other public uses such as bicycling and what are the affects of these private roads on the City in the future? The Neighborhood Advisory Committee discussed public vs. private rights -of -way at their September 1, 1994 meeting. They were concerned about creating roads that are not within public rights - of -way and the narrowness of a 40 foot right-of-way. 26 E. Sidewalks The Engineering Department, Parks Department Planning staff and the Neighborhood Advisory Committee (NAC) believe the elimination of sidewalks in a family oriented affordable housing neighborhood is a critical issue. Employee housing units have traditionally been recognized as being close enough to town to encourage residents to be less reliant on vehicular travel and more pedestrian oriented. These areas are also used as play areas for young children. The City has spent $350,000 to construct the Smuggler and Neale Avenue sidewalks in the past two years that serve this neighborhood. The Historic Preservation Committee recommended that the concrete sidewalks be eliminated when they reviewed the project last spring, due to their urban appearance in this neighborhood. The applicant has submitted for Final review the elimination of sidewalks from this project. HPC believes pedestrian paths or trails would be appropriate for pedestrian circulation, yet more in character with the area than concrete sidewalks. The 1990 Bikeway and Pedestrian Plan recommends construction of sidewalks for all new development (with the exception of the West End). The NAC has recommended that sidewalks be provided throughout the project on both sides of the streets and along one side of the access road from Smuggler Road. Sidewalks are recommended to be five foot in width and a minimum of five feet from the edge of road pavement. Curbs and gutters should also be installed so as to protect the sidewalk from drainage impacts. Staff recommends that hard surface pedestrian paths be constructed throughout the Williams Ranch project on both sides of the street, except along the Smuggler access road where it can be along the park side of the street. These paths shall be maintained in a usable condition on a year round basis. Snow removal and maintenance shall be discussed in the covenants and shall be the responsibility of the abutting property owner or of the homeowner's association. SUMMARY: Staff believes the applicant has adequately addressed the relevant sections of the Code to proceed with this review before the Planning and Zoning Commission. There are several outstanding technical issues (rockfall, avalanche, parking design, outbuildings, sidewalks, floor areas, calculation of height, and fee waivers) that staff is requesting more information on prior to review by City Council. These issues will most likely be main discussion items at both the Planning Commission and City Council hearings. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the applicant's final development plan to City Council subject to the following conditions: 27 E. Sidewalks The Engineering Department, Parks Department Planning staff and the Neighborhood Advisory Committee (NAC) believe the elimination of sidewalks in a family oriented affordable housing neighborhood is a critical issue. Employee housing units have traditionally been recognized as being close enough to town to encourage residents to be less reliant on vehicular travel and more pedestrian oriented. These areas are also used as play areas for young children. The City has spent $350,000 to construct the Smuggler and Neale Avenue sidewalks in the past two years that serve this neighborhood. The Historic Preservation Committee recommended that the concrete sidewalks be eliminated when they reviewed the project last spring, due to their urban appearance in this neighborhood. The applicant has submitted for Final review the elimination of sidewalks from this project. HPC believes pedestrian paths or trails would be appropriate for pedestrian circulation, yet more in character with the area than concrete sidewalks.. The 1990 Bikeway and Pedestrian Plan recommends construction of sidewalks for all new development (with the exception of the West End). The NAC has recommended that sidewalks be provided throughout the project on both sides of the streets and along one side of the access road from Smuggler Road. Sidewalks are recommended to be five foot in width and a minimum of five feet from the edge of road pavement. Curbs and gutters should also be installed so as to protect the sidewalk from drainage impacts. Staff recommends that hard surface pedestrian paths be constructed throughout the Williams Ranch project on both sides of the street, except along the Smuggler access road where it can be along the park side of the street. These paths shall be maintained in a usable condition on a year round basis. Snow removal and maintenance shall be discussed in the covenants and shall be the responsibility of the abutting property owner or of the homeowner's association. SUMMARY: Staff believes the applicant has adequately addressed the relevant sections of the Code to proceed with this review before the Planning and Zoning Commission. There are several outstanding technical issues (rockfall, avalanche, parking design, outbuildings, sidewalks, floor areas, calculation of height, and fee waivers) that staff is requesting more information on prior to review by City Council. These issues will most likely be main discussion items at both the Planning Commission and City Council hearings. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the applicant's final development plan to City Council subject to the following conditions: 27 T e z _j° �neht_ dh .1 O C a °ndltio ng Enf chdltio ppl i can ns o orcem hs Of a. �' f approVa off ic rov, al t er ha all the s s rec Nat deVel enVelo hall bemfiended des 0 ral �e fient a�s On, the adhere notegl7 ted bo ut?on dlsturfree ma b, b NO n the pin Ing enhaII a,bnce pro et lots easefieVelOentpfie al plat elopes• mai't ed fo-neclrsha2 c condithl tio areas shall This 017 put PriO n shall bident•. lber-fii pion r e I t a °pogra t0, the noted oil on tt d tO e bui registhlcal a cdel elO n the F e FinacrOach . d, lding pe•d, lad bOuim•nt O nal plat plat?�' The free Perini t, nil survey serve each e per bedro market yor and shallot' a Floor O.M. units s Subini tee preps pz o area hal d re f, n the Fib s shag 1 prOVid with The a , al plat. be bas e one pa . CI fI cerpl I cant ed °n the rking spQ E m calcu councl glneer most meet lot area I l , an s prfinitio heighto Clete p?ann'Ith th Identifi oJect• n for de staff Ine wh f pr?O Zonin e g. Duet termini recommat gra r cle to 1s Enfor should th• Ste ng h•Igh nds tha will t read . ment croVlsio ake not slo t shall bpatkine used by Cot n to pes e C t0 yards great r the Of sect . the u used fo�nty,s situatiOThe apthan 3p e dOeSn 24, pper lot this h, All n and lIcant Inches not Per, p1 Yarsd the a krork h•Ights -make the t r•9'ue l ow git Or - ) �S) cant for big' drI ClaWiand FAR equest a pU de inve h ay or This th l�l I ca t , I g pe s are S al cul a t . of specific. . requir ab 2. i s l e v on Packet fiI t re ubmi t to I °ns s fI c • for th ed _ AS s ide el °f r d V.zew. d to the b IS pplicarnitlfied .View• ° not on draw .Build , verifl a • shall mecl y the ntain ad gs in g Depa When oand surf ake theXIstOr,ic equate tided ir�ment n the plce pede followin Preser •tail the at andstrian walk g changestlOn Off r theseIng ar to thacer areas sheas shill pz-Oject the 28 all be I be maintdenti fi wined i d n suitable walking condition on a year round basis. The Covenants shall specify whether the Homeowner's Associations or individual property owners are responsible for snow removal and maintenance of these walkways. b. The free market units shall comply with Neighborhood Character Guidelines through 8040 Greenline Review. C. Prior to review by City Council, the applicant shall add outbuildings for trash and storage areas and redesign the parking layout to reduce the auto dominance appearance of this project. 3. The applicant shall complete an ACSD Collection System agreement, and shall comply with ACSD Rules, Regulations, and Specifications, prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4. The following conditions of approval from the Environmental Health Department, shall be adhered to by the applicant: a. The applicant shall adhere to the fugitive dust control plan filed in the Environmental Health Department. b. The applicant shall file a fireplace/woodstove permit for each structure with the Environmental Health Department, prior to the issuance of any building permits. C. Construction hours shall be limited to 7:00 am to 10:00pm to minimize construction noise on neighboring properties. 5. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions as they relate to the Housing Office: a. The applicant may choose the first time purchasers of the affordable housing units, as long as that purchaser complies with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines and that purchaser has been approved by the APCHA. b. All resale units shall come under the jurisdiction of the APCHA and its guidelines. C. The Master Deed Restriction shall be filed and approved by the Housing Office within 180 days of City Council approval of the project. d. All RO units shall comply with the RO requirement for the City of Aspen in the 1994 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office 1994 Affordable Housing Guidelines, unless RO housing has been updated prior to second reading by City Council. 29 6. Lots 1 - 15 shall be required to obtain 8040 Greenline review, prior to the issuance of any building permits for these lots. 7. Prior to first reading by City Council, the applicant shall have the filled areas accurately mapped. This mapping shall includr filled soil depths and shall be prepared by a licenced engineer. 8. Lots 1 - 15 shall have a residential sprinkler system installed and these shall be indicated on the building permit drawings. 9. Lot 15 is limited to eighteen feet in height (plus five feet to the mid -point), as calculated by Pitkin County's Land Use Code. All other lots are subject to the 25 foot height requirement of the City of Aspen, and are calculated using Pitkin County's definition for height. 10. Guest parking areas shall be delineated on the Final Plat and parking areas to meet City Code requirements shall be redesigned, prior to first reading by City Council. 11. The water pump serving the upper lots shall have adequate records of pump maintenance and servicing available to be inspected by the Fire Marshall. 12. The emergency access road shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide and maintained in a driving condition on a year round basis. The improvements agreement, declarations, and covenants shall specify that snow removal will be provided by the Homeowner's Associations for the emergency access road. 13. The allowable floor area for the free market parcels shall be 90% of what is permitted in the AH zone district. 14. Rockfall mitigation shall be more thoroughly addressed by a technical expert during the 8040 Greenline review on Lots 1 - 14. 15. Lots 1 - 15 shall have an engineer evaluate the site conditions to recommend foundation design at 8040 Greenline review. 16. A licensed engineer shall submit a report addressing the foundation design for the affordable housing units, prior to the issuance of any building permits. 17. Engineering Comments a. The free market units shall be required to provide for on -site detention, prior to the issuance of any building permits. 30 b. Soil erosion controls and the debris interceptor shall be indicated on the Final Plat. Construction drawings for each phase of work shall be designed by a licensed engineer and indicate appropriate runoff control measures. The plans shall be submitted and approved by the Engineering Department, prior to any earthmoving activities. C. The applicant shall dedicate public right-of-way or an easement for Spruce Street along the north property boundary on Lots 1 - 4 and provide a seven foot easement for snow storage along these lots. d. All access roads shall be a minimum of 20 foot driving width. This also applies to the "driveway" called Williams Court. e. The Fire Marshall must approve the Williams Court "turn around", prior to first reading by City Council. f. The "grass over paver blocks" or similar system for the emergency access lane off Spruce Street shall be designed and engineered to handle emergency response vehicle loads. This shall be approved by the Fire Marshall, prior to first reading by City Council. g. The applicant shall submit construction drawings and specifications, stamped by a registered engineer, and obtain written permission from Engineering prior to any road work, utility construction, or grading/drainage construction. h. Prior to signing the Final Plat, the applicant shall submit a letter by a registered engineer stating that the road designs meet the requirements of Section 24-7- 1004 (C) (4) (a) (10) and (13) . i. The Final Plat shall indicate a 20 mph speed limit signs to be installed as identified in the Traffic Report. j. The diameter of the turn -around in middle of the private road is less than the 100' specif ied in the City Code and must be approved by the Fire Marshall, prior to first reading by City Council. In addition to the diameter necessary for emergency vehicles, a seven foot buffer, drainage, snow storage space plus a five foot sidewalk on one side of the turn -around must be identified on the Final Plat. k. Prior to Final Plat approval, the applicant shall clarify the names of the streets. There is reference to both 31 Free Silver Road and Free Silver Drive. 1. An easement for the snow storage areas within the development shall be indicated on the Final Plat. M. The Engineering Department shall approve street light locations on the Final Plat. n. All utilities shall be stubbed out to the property lines prior to paving the access road. o. Prior to first reading by City Council, the applicant shall submit a letter clarifying both avalanche and rockfall hazards. Rockfall and avalanche hazards shall be addressed in 100-year event terms. This letter must indicate if the regraded road covers the length necessary for rockfall protection within the subdivision. The applicant must also submit grading plans for this work. p. Any property monuments removed or disturbed during construction (including landscaping) shall be reset by a land surveyor. q. Prior to Final Plat approval, property corner monuments shall be set on the external boundaries of the subdivision. r. The Final Plat and subdivision agreement shall include a note specifying that trash storage and recycle areas will be located on private property and not within access and utility easements. S. The Final Plat must meet the requirements of Section 24- 7-1004(D) of the Municipal Code. The Plat shall also include certificates of plat approval for utility location and easement width by all utility companies and approval by all easement holders on the property. t. The "Final Plat" will consist of all boundary, certificate, site, engineering, and architectural drawings approved by the City. All sheets containing engineered drawings must be stamped by a registered engineer. U. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in the adjacent Smuggler area public rights -of -way. V. The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way, parks department ( 92 0-512 0 ) for vegetation 32 species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, of -way from the city street department h (920 513oin ublic rights- 18. Rocky Mountain Natural Gas shall render an opinion on wh this project can be served ether Council. prior to first reading by City 19. No accessory dwelling units are permitted to be contt in any of the Williams Ranch residences. ructed 20. Parks Department Comments a. The applicant shall obtain an easement from the ditch owners for the proposed trail along Salvation Ditch. Specific information regarding trail standards and materials shall be included in the application. The applicant should dedicate this as a public easement. b. Prior to the issuance of any building permits t applicant shall submit a detailed landscape he p details trees six inches in diameterand an over Landscaping in any right-of-way should also be included on the landscape plan. The Parks Department will review and approve the final landscape plan to be recorded with the Final Plat documents. C. The applicant shall address irrigation methods, prior to first reading by City Council. 21. The applicant needs to follow the procedures outlined' Section 24-5-608 regarding park development impact fee waivers, prior to 1st reading by City Council in order staff to make a recommendation on whether the proposed for improvements and dedications off -set the impact fee. park 22. Prior to first reading by City Council, the applicant redesign the Salvation Ditch alignment to eliminate the shall230 foot culverted section. The applicant shall strive 0 minimize culverting as much as possible. to 23. The applicant shall provide a Final Plat and Subdivision Improvement Agreement, satisfactory to the City Attorney, Engineer and Planning Office, detailing the costs of all proposed public improvements within 180 days of City Council review. The guarantee of these improvements shall be in before the issuance of any buildin Place improvements shall be completed, in place r and acce At 1 public appropriate agency before issuance of any Certificate by the Occupancy's. 1040 Greenline and spacial Review Conditions of Approval 33 1. Lots 1 - 15 shall be required to obtain 8040 Greenline review, prior to the issuance of any building permits for these lots. 2. Lot 15 is limited to eighteen feet in height (plus five feet to the mid -point), as calculated by Pitkin County's Land Use Code. All other lots are subject to the 25 foot height requirement of the City of Aspen, and are calculated using Pitkin County's definition for height. 3. The floor area for the free market parcels shall be 90% of what is permitting in the AH zone district. 4. Rockfall mitigation shall be more thoroughly addressed by a technical expert during the 8040 Greenline review on Lots 1 - 14. 5. Lots 1 - 15 shall have an engineer evaluate the site conditions to recommend foundation design at 8040 Greenline review. 6. A licensed engineer shall submit a report addressing the foundation design for the affordable housing units, prior to the issuance of any building permits. 7. Building envelopes on the free market lots shall contain all development and disturbance proposed for those lots. Natural vegetation shall be maintained outside the designated building envelopes. This condition shall be noted on the Final Plat. 8. Construction for Lots 1 - 15 shall take place without laid back slope grading techniques to reduce their negative visual appearance. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to recommend to City Council approval of the Williams Ranch Affordable Housing Final Development Plan for subdivision, rezoning, GMQS exemption and final PUD, subject to the conditions outlined in the September 13, 1993 memorandum from the Planning Office to the Planning Commission. I move to approve 8040 Greenline Review and Special Review for parking and open space." Application packet and blueprints Exhibits: A- Supplemental application information B- Timeline of review process C- Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District D- City Engineer E- City Parks Department F- City Water Department 34 G- Environmental Health Department H- Historic Preservation Officer I- Housing Office J- Police Department K- Zoning Office L- Geologic Report M- Public Notice apz.ah.williranch.final 35 Exhibit A WRIGHT & ADGER GARY A. WRIGHT, P.C. ALLEN H. ADGER, P.C.* * ALSO ADMITTED TO TEXAS AND LOUISIANA BAR City of Aspen Planning Office 130 Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 LAW PARTNERSHIP 201 NORTH MILL STREET, SUITE 106 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ASPEN TELEPHONE: 303-925-5625 BASALT TELEPHONE: 303-927-9090 FACSIMILE: 303-92 5-5663 12 August 1994 Re: Authority to Represent Williams Ranch - Smuggler Mine Development Dear Mary and Leslie: OF COUNSEL: PHILIP J. O'CONNELL" **ALSO ADMITTED TO FLORIDA BAR hand delivered I am writing to confirm that the forty-two (42) acres, which constitute the Smuggler Mine and Williams Ranch continue to be subject to a Real Estate Contract for purchase by Stefan Albouy or Smuggler Consolidated Mines Corporation from Smuggler -Durant Mining Corporation. In spite of Stefan's untimely death, we are continuing forward with the Project approved at Conceptual Submission. As the corporate Secretary of Smuggler Consolidated Mines Corporation, a Colorado corporation in good standing, I am authorized to confirm that Wright & Adger Law Partnership and The Stevens Group, Inc., by Gary A. Wright and Thomas G. Stevens respectively are authorized to represent the current Real Estate Contract Purchaser of the Williams Ranch and Smuggler Mine properties in the Final Submission and Final Plat Application process. I will provide more additional information upon request. Sincerely, Smuggler Consolidated Mines Corporation WRIGH & ADGER By: By: G ry A. Wright, Secretary Ga6 A. Wright GAW:cp R, > > ca Ro ar o 46 X r) > t-- c cr C% 0 .< X a CM cl EXhibit B .aspen (Ponsolidated Sanitation 1�istrictEAbit C 565 North Mill Street Tele. (303) 925-3601 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Sy Kelly Chairman FAX #(303) 925-2537 Albert Bishop - Treas. Michael Kelly Louis Popish - Secy. Frank Loushin August 25, 1994 Bruce Matherly, Mgr, Mary Lackner Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Williams Ranch Detailed Submission and Final Plat Dear Mary: The applicant has recently submitted which will ba line extee reviewed by our Board on the 6th ofnsion request September. I anticipate that the request will be approved. Following approval, the applicant will need to complete a District Collection System Agreement which will cover the specific requirements for the extension of service. I would request that the fo a condition of approval, if approval ]]owing be made an ACSD Collection is suggested: completion of System Agreement, and compliance with ACSD Rules, Regulations, and Specifications. We currently continue to have sufficient line and treatment capacity proposed development. to serve this The District will require the developer to deposit funds with the District to cover the expense Of our review and observation of the construction of the line extension. Profiles of We are still waiting for the proposed extension. Technical details of the line extension can be addressed in the C I ollection System Agreement. If service is stubbed out to individual lots within the development, the District will require Payment Of a stub out fee (40% of the estimated total connection charges) at the time that the service Is stubbed to the lot. Agreement., page 8I noted in the Annexation P section 4.71 that the applco water tap fees in an amount equal to ACSD icant feesmmits to pay typically run 40% to 50% of Our fees the standard water ta have been a typographical error. p fees. This may Please call if You have any questions. Sincerely, Bruce Matherly District Manager EPA AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE 1976 - 1986 - 1990 REGIONAL AND NATIONAL Exhibit D MEMORANDUM To: Mary Lackner, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department e_/ C, Date: August 24, 1994 Re: Williams Ranch Detailed Submission & Final Plat Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made several site inspections, the Engineering Department has the following comments: ANNEXATION AGREEMENT 1. Section 4.2 Construction and Phasing .... and financial assurances. The applicant proposes an unusual method of financial assurances involving deeds of trust in lieu of a letter of credit. The City Attorney's office should be consulted for the acceptability of the proposal. Prior to the release of any financial assurances associated with an engineered portion of the work, the applicant should be required to provide a letter, stamped and signed by a professional engineer, that the work was performed in accordance with the design and applicable specifications and standards. This statement should be contained in Section 4.4.2 in lieu of, or in addition to, the contractor's warranty. The Attorney's office should also comment on the duration of the construction warranty indicated in that section. 2. Section 7 Off -site Impact Fee Since the Traffic Report indicates that the project will only add 5% to the existing traffic conditions, and since the existing and proposed post -development traffic conditions are below the roadway system capacity, the impact fee that is proposed appears to be satisfactory. However we recommend against approving the language "to accomplish the minimum recommendations made by LS & C...." The "LS & C" report makes recommendations only for minimal improvements related strictly 1 <f to vehicular traffic. There is potentially a need for wider pavements in the Smuggler area to provide for bicycle lanes. There is the need for additional sidewalk, curb and gutter and for associated street drainage improvements. The community may want to install street lights. It appears that for the public to realize the $100,000 that is offered, the City would have to spend $2 million on traffic and related improvements in the area. Upon completion of the Neale Avenue sidewalk, the City will have spent some $350,000 in pedestrian improvements in the area for which the City should be credited retroactively with the impact fee offer. The City does not currently have any plans in place for constructing $1,650,000 - nor any plans or budget at all - of improvements in the Smuggler Area. Perhaps there should be a ten year time period specified for the City to be able to draw on the $100,000. It would be appreciated by the City of the applicant merely donated the impact fee to the City. This would be similar to the Moore and Highlands projects with their financial offers to improve the Highway 82 intersection. The City would then construct the improvements identified in the Traffic Report, which probably would also include street drainage and right-of-way acquisition costs which were not discussed in the report. Access, Roads, Pedestrian Use 3. The pavement width at Sections 19 and 20 of Free Silver Road are below Code width requirements of 20'. Section 19 indicates a large amount of fill which may be one reason for the sub -standard width design. Since Section 20 reflects little roadway fill, it appears that if the road section were realigned slightly, the amount of fill necessary could be reduced and the width could be increased to 20 feet. It also appears that part of the reason for the narrow road width designs is to provide larger lot areas with larger FAR's. We recommend a condition of approval that the minimum paved width for all roadways be 20 feet. This also applies to the 14 foot wide "driveway" called Williams Court. The "driveway" serves three duplex units and should be paved for the full 20' width. The Fire Marshall must approve the "turn around" conditions for emergency response vehicles on Williams Court. The "grass over paver blocks" or other system for the emergency access lane off Spruce Street must be designed and engineered to handle emergency response vehicle loads. The improvements agreement, declarations and/or covenants should specify that snow removal be provided for the emergency access. 4. Driveways and Parking_ Spaces - The applicant is advised, and perhaps the improvements agreement should state, that the maximum permitted driveway slope for 20 Pa feet in from a property line is 12%. The maximum slope for a parking space is also 12%. 5. Road Cuts - The plans indicate road cuts up to about 46 feet in height. The highest cuts are outside of City limits and are associated with the efforts to maximize the area of the Molly Gibson Park. The cuts are through man made fill (mine tailings) which are therefore not areas of natural grade. According to the project engineer, approximately three quarters of the road cut of Free Silver Drive from the subdivision boundary to Smuggler Mountain Road is through man made fill that was placed during the construction of Centennial. If there is concern about vegetation impacts of these or other cuts (or fills), perhaps the applicant should be required to stake out the limits of the roadway cuts prior to signing the final plat so that any areas of vegetation that are desirable to save can be identified and preserved by design changes as needed. As to the heights of the cuts for project roads both in the City and in the County, the engineering concern is that the slopes and retaining structures be stable. The aesthetics may actually be improved because of the EPA requirement of installing a foot of topsoil and reseeding. We note that there is associated benefit of the high road cuts with the increased size of the proposed Molly Gibson Park. It should be noted that it is possible for construction to be performed which results in vertical "cuts" and no laid back slopes. The technique is called "tied back" wall construction. The technique is more costly than laid back, cut slope construction. This method of construction has been discussed for the Hoag Lot 3 driveway and Greenline approval where there are mature evergreens that would be lost with laid back, cut slope construction. The City does not have an earthmoving permit in place at this time. Normally no permit would be required for a private property owner to build private roads. It should therefore be a condition of approval that the applicant submit construction drawings and specifications, stamped by an engineer, and obtain written permission from Engineering and Planning prior to road construction. 6. House Cuts From an 8040 Greenline review and visual impact perspective, it would be best if the residential construction blended into existing grades on the hillside without excessive cut and fill slopes. As with the road discussion above, it is possible to construct without laid back slopes. Since houses fill up the space that is left open above a road, it should be feasible to require structures to be set directly against and stepped or terraced down the hillside with no visible, up -hill cut slopes. 3 7. Provide easements on internal private roads for public pedestrian use. Public vs. Private Roads & Rights -of -way This has been discussed some among City staff. One benefit of private roads for the City is that the City is not responsible for maintenance and snow removal. A benefit to the developer is not being required to meet the land use code design standards for right-of-way widths (60' for local streets versus the 40' easement in Williams Ranch, Ute Park, Aspen Chance, etc.) and other design standards such as sidewalk, curb and gutter, and street lights: Staff has questioned if it is desirable for the community to increase the amount of town that is private roads. Do we want a "gated community"? The Neighborhood Advisory Committee discussed public rights -of -way versus private roads at it meeting of September 1. They were concerned about creating roads that were not within public rights -of -way. They were also concerned about the narrowness of a 40 foot right-of-way when the County standard is 60 feet. If the rights -of -way were to be dedicated to the public, then we need to consider a text amendment which permits variations by special review of the design standards of Section 24-7-1004-C.4 such as right-of-way width. 8. Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter - As a result of comment from the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC), staff has been discussing reduced pedestrian facilities from those discussed at conceptual submission. It is our understanding that the HPC prefers to offer no pedestrian spaces alongside the roads within Williams Ranch. Public works and engineering have discussed this, and the minimum pedestrian facility that the we can recommend is for a five foot wide path on one side of the streets in the subdivision and construction of the trail in the indicated trail easement. The path could be constructed of at least a four inch mat of compacted road base, crusher fines, asphalt, or recycled and crushed asphalt with a 6" compacted sub -base and redwood, landscaping edging along the path. The City will be experimenting with these alternate materials in the upcoming Main Street Sidewalk Project. The improvements agreement and declaration or covenants should state that (1) the property owners on each side of the street are mutually and equally responsible for maintenance and snow removal or perhaps preferably that (2) the homeowners association is responsible for maintenance of and snow removal from pedestrian paths. The Traffic Report recommends that the existing sidewalk system be extended into the Williams Ranch Subdivision along Brown Lane and along the access road to Smuggler Mountain Road. These sidewalks would connect to existing concrete sidewalks on Brown Lane and Park Circle, and they should be concrete and maintained by the homeowners association. 2 The Neighborhood Advisory Committee also discussed sidewalk requirements for Williams Ranch at their last meeting. They voted 6-0 that 5' sidewalks be required on both sides of the streets and a wider sidewalk on one side of the access road to Smuggler Mountain Road. If this plan is approved, the sidewalks could be installed with the roadway in order to provide a unified design from lot to lot. If sidewalks are built in segments by owners as building permits are obtained, there could be problems of continuity of the sidewalks from one lot to the next. Or the applicant could provide the full design of the sidewalk system with individual property owners required to construct their segments prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy. Another aspect of right- of-way width is providing the flexibility in the future to widen streets to allow on -street parking or bicycle lanes. The City Public Works agency recommends concrete sidewalk on at least one side of all streets. Note that in the Smuggler Area and Neale Avenue Sidewalk Projects, we have found it necessary to construct curb and gutter at the same time as the sidewalk in order to protect the sidewalk from drainage. Curb and gutter also improves pedestrian protection. 9. Internal roads a. Prior to signing of the final plat, the applicant shall submit a letter by a registered engineer stating that the road designs meet the requirements of Section 24-7-1004.C.4.a.(10) and (13), or this information may be contained in a note on the roadway design sheets of the final plat. b. The final plat must indicate 20 mph speed limit signs to be installed as recommended in the Traffic Report. C. The diameter of the turn -around in middle of private road is less than the 100' specified in the City Code and must be approved by the Fire Marshall. In addition to the diameter necessary for emergency response vehicles, include a seven foot buffer/drainage/snow storage space plus a five foot sidewalk on one side of the turn -around. d. Prior to construction of any roadways, the applicant shall provide a set of construction bid drawings and specifications that is stamped and signed by a registered engineer. The applicant shall receive approval of the plans in writing from City Engineering prior to construction. e. Street name inconsistency - Some sheets show Free Silver Road and others Free Silver Drive. W 10. Traffic - The Leigh Scott & Cleary report indicates a projected 5% increase in traffic in the Smuggler area if the project is constructed. The report indicates that there will be essentially no service level reductions at the intersections due to the small increase in traffic. The intersections currently function at an " A" level of service. After Williams Ranch build -out, the intersections will continue to function at an "A" level of service. Indeed, from a traffic engineering perspective, the "A" level of service capacity will only be some 30% utilized. The report recommends that three intersections be improved, that pavement be widened to 20' where narrower, and that pedestrian facilities be installed along the Brown Lane extension and along the roadway to Smuggler Mountain Road. Drainage 11. Site drainage - The application is responsive to meeting City requirements for maintaining drainage on the project site. The application indicates detention ponds in the open space area above the relocated Salvation Ditch (sheet 12 of the final plat). The applicant is considering installing a sub -grade infiltration system by stripping off the existing surface vegetation and replanting surface vegetation after construction. This detention structure will account for storm runoff drainage from the affordable housing units and from much of the road system. The final plat must clearly indicate the drainage swales between affordable lots that are part of the runoff collection system. The free market units will be required to provide for on -site detention with design by an engineer prior to issuance of building permits. The portions of the roads, including the road segment in the County that connects to Smuggler Mountain Road, that do not drain to the detention structures discussed above will drain to other detention structures that are shown on sheets 11 and 13. This meets the minimum requirements of the Code. As suggested above for road construction work, we recommend that the applicant be required to submit construction drawings and specifications, stamped by an engineer, and to obtain Engineering and Planning approval in writing of final grading and drainage plans final to any grading and drainage construction. During construction, no runoff from soils exposed by excavation may be permitted to leave the site. Soil erosion controls and a debris interceptor were discussed in the drainage improvements report. These must be indicated on the final plat. Construction drawings for each phase of work shall indicate appropriate runoff control measures. Snow Storage - A snow storage area is indicated on the Site Development Plan, but an easement for the areas not reflected on sheet 5. Presumably, each lot would have spaces on the lot where driveway and parking area snow removal would place snow. For the street system, the snow might be plowed to the side, which is another reason for supporting a separate sidewalk area for pedestrians so that they are not forced to walk in the streets. Currently there are no requirements in T the Code for the amount of snow storage space. Therefore we are unable to determine if the amount of snow storage area meets possible needs of the subdivision. It is a common practice in town for snow to be hauled away from private property to private snow dumps. I me ..t 12. The geologic report references both rockfall and avalanche hazards. It is not clear if any of the building sites may be affected by avalanche hazards. Prior to signing the final plat, the applicant shall submit a letter clarifying both avalanche and rockfall hazards. Rockfall and avalanche hazards should be discussed in 100-year event terms in the same manner that rain, snow, and river flooding events are discussed. If mitigation of these hazards for possible 100-year events is needed, design and financial assurances must be provided prior to any site development work. The report discussed regrading of an existing road to provide rockfall protection. The final report must indicate if the regraded road covers the length necessary for rockfall protection within the subdivision. Avalanche hazard mitigation is typically provided for in conjunction with building permit issuance. Utilities 13. As suggested during conceptual, the applicant has provided for surface facilities such as transformers and pedestals to be located within private easements outside of the 40 foot access and utility easement. The utility easement in and alongside the roadway is for buried utilities only. Electric Service - Note that the area is outside of the City of Aspen Electric Department service area and therefore will be served by Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc. 14. During conceptual review, we recommended a condition of approval that utilities be stubbed out to property lines in order to prevent excavation in the newly paved subdivision roads. In the final application, on page 58, it states that the requirement is not applicable to the Williams Ranch Project. This requirement is contained within the Code's subdivision design standards at Section 24-7-1004.C.4.e.(7). Discussion with the applicant's engineer indicates that it is their intention to comply with this requirement, but we would like to maintain the condition of approval that all utilities be stubbed out to property lines prior to paving the roads. -.fig 15. The indicated location of the new street light for the Brown Lane (Teal Court) - Williams Court intersection appears to be at too great a distance from the intersection. City Public Works shall approve the final location of the light prior to installation. 7 The design standards in Section 24-7-1004.C.4 require that street lights be installed. In town, the typical streetlight pattern is at each corner and at about 150 feet in between, and at alleys. If the design standards were followed, this project would also provide street lights at the intersections within the subdivision and at the intersections of (1) Spruce Street (2) Free Silver Drive and Smuggler Mountain Road, and (3) Smuggler Mountain Road and Park Circle as well as intermediate locations for 11 more street lights within the subdivision and 4 along Free Silver Drive to Smuggler Mountain Road. Note that Centennial provided low level intersection lighting at the intersections of Brown and Nicholas Lanes and Park Circle. Page 36 of the application states that exterior site lighting is indicated on the Site Development Plan, but the only lighting indicated is the street light at Williams Court and Brown Lane. Survey Monumentation 16. As discussed in our conceptual review memo, there is a consistent problem within the community of survey monuments being removed during construction (including landscaping) and not being replaced as required by state statute. Please provide a condition of approval stating that any property monuments removed or disturbed during construction (including landscaping) must be reset by a land surveyor. Also, property corner monuments will be required to be set on the external boundaries of the subdivision prior to final plat approval. State statute requires that internal subdivision monuments be set on lots within one year of the sale of a lot. Please provide a condition of approval that individual lot property corners be set prior to issuance of building permits and that the monuments be shown as set on the site improvement surveys. Development Plan 17. The easement for Spruce Street along the north boundary, within Lots 1-4, still is not indicated. The easement must provide for the road surface plus a seven foot snow removal storage space. 18. Trash Areas - At conceptual, we suggested that the final plan or the subdivision improvements agreement should indicate trash storage and recycle areas on parcels or provide a general note indicating that trash storage and recycle space will be located on private property and neither within public rights -of -way nor within access and utility easements. This has been partially responded to and may be completed prior to signing the final plat. E: s:. Final Plat 19. The final plat must meet the requirements of Section 24-7-1004.D of the Municipal Code. 20. The plat certificates must include certificates of plat approval for utility location and easement width design by all utility companies. 21. The "final plat" will consist of all boundary, certificate, site, engineering and architectural drawings approved by the City. In the index, sheets 4 and 5 should be titled "Subdivision and Lot Boundaries." All sheets containing engineered drawings must be stamped and signed by a registered engineer. 22. Sheet 5 and relevant dedication language must indicate ' ublic" pedestrian access "easement" for Williams Ranch Drive, Free Silver Road, and the emergency access corridor. Financial Assurances 23. See item 1. General 24. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in the adjacent and Smuggler Area public rights -of -way. SPECIAL REVIEW Parking 25. The current parking proposal for the number of spaces per unit appears to be satisfactory. However a number of the parking configurations shown on page 6 and subsequent pages should be redesigned. City Code permits maximum width driveways of 18 feet. Some reasons for the requirement are to reduce the number of parked vehicles that pedestrians must walk behind and to improve streetscape designs of neighborhoods by reducing expanses of parked vehicles. It is suggested that the "mini," four space parking lots be required to be stacked so that the width is only two spaces wide across the street. This applies to Lots D, E, F, H, I, J, D-1, D-2, and D-3. X General Comments 26. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights- of -way, we advise the applicant as follows: The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way, parks department (920-5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from city streets department (920-5130). 21. The improvements agreement for Williams Ranch may be very complex. The agreement for the Aspen Meadows P.U.D. may serve as good model. Engineering and Public Works will provide assistance as needed for the preparation of the agreement. cc: Bob Gish, Cris Caruso ......................::. KM94.319 10 Exhibit E MEMORANDUM TO: Mary Lacher, Planning Office THRU: George Robinson, Parks Director FROM: Rebecca Baker, Parks Department DATE: September 7, 1994 RE: Final Submission Approval for Williams Ranch Development We have reviewed the application submitted by the Smuggler Consolidated Mines Corporation for development of the Williams Ranch. In addition to the comments provided during the County review submitted to Ellen Sassano on 8/8/94, there are several items that are not sufficiently detailed in this application that are of concern. Trails: The plat depicts a ten foot (10')trail easement along the Salvation Ditch. This easement should be dedicated parallel to the ditch on the north and not directly on top of the ditch so as to allow full utilization of the trail. If the trail easement is to remain on top of the ditch then the easement should be dedicated at twenty feet (20')wide. In regards to page 32 of the application, there is no further description regarding construction of the trail. The Parks department recommends the trail be graded and proper drainage should be addressed as well. There is no mention or agreement listed from the Salvation Ditch Company allowing the trail to parallel the ditch. Sidewalks. Curb and Gutter: While the Historic Preservation Committee has recommended the deletion of sidewalks, curb and gutter from this development, it should be reconsidered as a requirement of this development. The residences in this neighborhood are predominantly employee housing units. These units have traditionally been recognized as being close enough to town to encourage residents to be less reliant on vehicular travel and more pedestrian oriented. The presence of sidewalks and trails encourage pedestrian and other alternative modes of transportation. Additionally, the City of Aspen has spent over $150,000 on the construction of the Smuggler sidewalk due to the demands of the neighborhood to provide easier and safer pedestrian access into town. The NAC has recommended installation of sidewalks on this property and the 1990 adopted Pedestrian and Bikeway plan recommends construction of sidewalks for all new development (with the exception of the west end). Snow removal on the sidewalks will remain the responsibility of the respective homeowners or homeowner's associations. Landscape Plan: The landscape plan does not detail the trees proposed to be removed by this development. While it is not a requirement for this review, it is encouraged for large developments to allow for better planning and mitigation considerations prior to submission of the building permit. The landscape plan does not address irrigation systems, which must be in compliance with the Water Conservation code. Additionally, if Council agrees with the installation of sidewalks within the development, then a buffer zone (minimum of five feet between curb and sidewalk) with street trees such as cottonwoods or other appropriate street trees, should be provided. Lastly, the landscape plan appears to be rather dense and it may be considered to be scaled back slightly to allow for maturation and viability of the plants in the future. It should be stressed again, that no waiver of park dedication fees should be made until an agreement is reached as to the final design of the Mollie Gibson park. While the City has been consulted for design of a park for this parcel, the park has not been deeded to the City and the maintenance of the park has not been addressed yet either. The Parks Department will continue to work with the applicants on an acceptable design for the park being suitable to the needs of the neighborhood. MEMORANDUM TO: Ellen Sassano, County Planner THRU: George Robinson, Parks Director FROM: Rebecca Baker, Parks Department DATE: August 9, 1994 RE: Smuggler Mine/Williams Ranch Detailed Submission/Final Plat, 1041 Hazard Review and Scenic Overlay Parcel ID# 2737-074-00-008 We have reviewed the application submitted by the Smuggler Consolidated Mines Corporation and offer the following comments. In regards to page 9 of the application, where it states "The park is being constructed by the applicant in lieu of the City's Park Dedication fee and as a subcontractor for the County.", we would request further clarification of the requirements by the EPA for the contractor/subcontractor relationship proposed for development of the park, if the park were to be deeded to the City prior to park construction. The City has received a variety of input on the proposed uses of the Mollie Gibson Park, whether is should be an active or passive park. At this time, the conceptual design for the park is a combination of active and passive uses based on input from the Aspen Area Community Plan and the Parks and Recreation Master plan. However, a final site design has yet to be determined and should be resolved by public meetings prior to construction of the park and full waiver of park dedication fees. The park dedication fees should not be waived until an agreeable site design has been developed, and at that time, mitigated comparably to park impact fee amount. The sidewalk parallel to the road and the alternate trail to access Smuggler Mountain Road are important for pedestrian and bicycle travel and should be required regardless of final park design. Additionally, the snow stacking area depicted on the access road plan must not occur on the sidewalk and should be removed so as not to impede pedestrian flows. Maintenance of the sidewalk is also not addressed by the plan. In regards to the proposed conceptual design of the Mollie Gibson Park (Map #6) and the Engineer's Cost Estimate, Mollie Gibson Park Schedule "B", the items that are not currently addressed are parking for the park, an irrigation system for the park and water tap fees. An irrigation system for a park of this size could be up to $25,000 and tap fees would be assessed if a raw water source for irrigation was not available. Parking could be in the range of $10,000 depending upon grading and number of spaces provided. The estimate provided for the volleyball courts are somewhat low and would be closer to $10, 000 to $12,000. The cost estimate for a playground is also low and more in the range of $15,000 to $25,000 depending upon size and set up of the play area. CC: David Bellack, Assistant City Attorney Mary Lackner, City Planner Exhibit F MEMORANDUM TO: MARY LACKNER, ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE FROM: PHIL OVEREYNDER, WATER DIRECTOR ' DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 SUBJECT: WILLIAMS RANCH DETAILED SUBMISSION AND ANNEXATION Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject application. The Aspen Water Department has received a concurrent application for a water service agreement to serve the proposed development which we are reviewing for consistency with applicable city water policies and construction standards. We have worked with the applicant's engineer and performed a hydraulic analysis of water service requirements to the subdivision. That analysis, performed by Enartech, and the applicant's proposed water utility plan appear to resolve the major engineering design issues associated with the development. Enartech's review concluded that the layout of the water mains contained in the conceptual submission is adequate and that the size and location of the proposed water mains and valves is acceptable. The study also concluded that water service to lots with structures above elevation 8,070 will have insufficient water pressure without the installation of in-house water booster pumps. Availability Of Raw Water For Proposed Annexation Aspen Water Department also contracted with Enartech to provide an update to the 1984 Raw Water Availability Study to determine the physical ability to serve the Williams Ranch annexation and other pending water service applications. The 1984 Study concluded that by 2005, raw water shortages would occur during late summer and late winter of a dry year, such as occurred in 1977, if the City wished to meet its objective of maintaining minimum streamflows. The shortages projected to occur in the 1984 Study were dependent upon the extent of water service commitments and expected growth within the City's water service area. An update of the Raw Water Availability Study was necessary to evaluate new data on streamflow, hydrologic conditions, current water demands, and projected water demands under six different scenarios. The purpose of evaluating water demand for the six scenarios was to provide Council with a rationale for extending its water service, consistent with its available supplies. The preliminary results of the Raw Water Supply Availability Study indicate that there is sufficient treated water capacity water rights and streamflow available to meet the projected water demands within the City limits and areas proposed to be annexed to the City. Extension of service to areas outside the City limits not currently served by the City will likely require additional raw water storage, groundwater extraction capability through the construction of new wells, water conservation measures, or a combination of strategies. Provision of water service to anticipated development within the City and areas proposed to be annexed can be satisfied without the requirement for significant unplanned capital expenditures. Proposed Water Pumping Station The applicant's engineer has responded to this issue by proposing the addition of a shared domestic/fire booster pump for lots located on the upper loop. This proposal is conceptually acceptable to the Aspen Water Department provided that the pump station is owned, maintained, and operated by the homeowners' association or similar entity. The Aspen Water Department will not accept this portion of the water system for operation, repair, replacement or maintenance because of the inherent nature of the system and its higher operation and maintenance costs. A practical way of ensuring that this occurs is to require the CC&R's for the subdivision to reflect the ownership, operation and maintenance responsibilities for the pumped portion of the water system as part of the homeowners association. Acceptance of these increased costs is inconsistent with adopted City water policies. A review of the proposed CC&R's for the subdivision does not indicate that these responsibilities will be assumed by the homeowners. It is recommended that an acceptable means of ensuring that the proposed water pumping station is privately owned and maintained be included in the proposed annexation agreement. Water Line Easements The application indicates that legally sufficient easements will be provided to the City for all proposed water mains. While this appears to be the case for lands within the subdivision, there is no indication that arrangements have been made to secure easements across the Centennial project to make the required connections at Spruce Street and Teal Court. The annexation agreement should require that adequate easements be provided for all water lines serving the Williams Ranch Subdivision. Proposed Water Main Ali ng ment While the water system is generally acceptable, the proposed water line to be located in Free Silver Road should be extended to the easterly property line of the subdivision to accommodate future service extensions in adjoining areas. This should be reflected as a requirement of annexation. 2 Potential To Upgrade Water Main Sizing The Water Department's review of the proposed water line sizing and configuration shows that the proposed 8-inch distribution line will be adequate to meet the needs for serving the proposed development. The Water Department requests that the annexation agreement include a provision which would enable the City to upgrade the main distribution line from an 8-inch to a 12-inch line at the City's expense, based on the incremental cost of the larger main. The larger 12-inch main would serve the purpose of partially completing a looped distribution system in the northern portion of the City, connecting the existing 12-inch Hunter Creek crossing with the existing 12-inch main located in Park Avenue. While this improvement is not necessary to serve the project, it would improve the water delivery capacity and operational flexibility for the entire northeastern portion of the City at a modest incremental cost. The Water Department recommends that this option be included in the annexation agreement. Proposed Fire Hydrant In Lieu Of Air Valve The proposed fire hydrant in lieu of an air valve at the high point of the distribution system is not acceptable from an operational standpoint. An air valve should be installed at the high point of the upper 8" water main proposed on Free Silver Road. This change should be included in the detailed water system improvement plans. Proposed Duplex PumpingStation tation The design of the proposed private pump station should accommodate both fire flow requirements and peak demand flow requirements. The final design of the system should be compatible with the fire suppression requirements for the proposed upper ten lots as established by the Fire Marshall. The Water Department will coordinate the establishment of design requirements and review of the design drainage for the pump station. The final design drawings will be subject to review and acceptance by the Aspen Water Department and verification that the pump station will meet both fire flow and normal operating requirements. A backup system will be required to ensure that the system is capable of providing water for fire suppression in the event of a concurrent disruption of power service. These requirements should be reflected in the proposed annexation agreement and review of the detailed water system improvement plans will be necessary to ensure that the design flow and operational characteristics of the pump station is acceptable. Ownership of Private Service Lines in Public Right -Of -Way The application shows two private water service lines, one serving Lot 5 and one serving Lot 14. To clarify ownership and maintenance responsibility of these lines, the lines should either be relocated to run perpendicular to the centerline of the right-of-way or specifically identified as private service lines. 3 Use Of Raw Water Existing City policy requires the use of raw water for irrigation where feasible. Prior to annexation, Council should determine consistency of the project as proposed with this policy or specifically address requirements for the use of raw water in the annexation agreement. The potable water system connection for the proposed Mollie Gibson Park shown on the water system plan may be inconsistent with this policy. Similarly, the water requirements for the areas proposed to be "seeded", (shown on the landscape plan), appear to require an imgation system for maintenance of vegetation in common areas. The water requirements for these areas appears to be beyond the allowances provided for irrigation requirements for the areas shown to be "sodded." Only the "sodded" areas appear to be included in the potable water requirements shown under irrigation in the water demand calculations, contained in Exhibit C of the Water Service Request. Because the Salvation Ditch traverses the property and there are other potentially developable untreated water sources available on the site, Water Department staff believes it is feasible to develop raw water sources to meet at least a portion of the irrigation requirements for the proposed subdivision and proposed park. Staff also believes that shares in the Salvation Ditch are available for purchase to meet these needs. If Council agrees that use of raw water for irrigation of the site is feasible, the annexation agreement should include provisions to require the use of raw water, including revision of the water demand estimates and verification that adequate supplies of raw water have or will be developed to meet outside irrigation requirements. If the use of raw water for irrigation is not found to be feasible, the potable water demand requirements should be revised to reflect water demand for both the "sodded" and "seeded" areas shown on the landscape plan. Review Of Detailed Water System Improvement Plans The annexation agreement should provide for Water Department review and approval of the detailed water system improvement plans and specifications to ensure the project complies with design and operating requirements of the water system. Proposed Construction Schedule The water system improvements are scheduled to begin in December, 1994. Ground conditions will not reliably permit this work to be scheduled until the spring of 1995. Conveyance Of Water Rights The existing City of Aspen water policy requires the dedication of water rights sufficient to serve the project needs or payment of an in -lieu fee adequate to provide the water necessary to serve the project's needs. The Water Department has expressed its willingness to accept the water rights in the Cowenhoven Tunnel and the applicant's 4 participation in obtaining a groundwater right sufficient to meet these needs to satisfy this policy. If this is not acceptable to Williams Ranch, it is recommended that the "in -lieu" fees for water rights be accepted. Based on analysis performed by the City's former water attorney and typical water demands, the Water Department estimates the value of water rights necessary to satisfy the project's needs at $1,000 per ECU served. Proposed Water Utility Connection Fee Section 4.7 of the draft annexation agreement includes a provision to waive water "tap fees" for the Category 2 and 3 Affordable Housing Units included in the application. This proposal is not consistent with current City of Aspen policies regarding waiver of water utility connection fees for affordable housing projects as expressed in Resolution 90-8. The adopted policy requires that the entire project satisfy the "qualified employee housing" definition as established by the City Council and administered by the Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority. Security Requirements for Completion Of Water System The Water Department recommends that the annexation agreement provide for review and approval of the adequacy of the security deposit for water system improvements to be installed by the developer following completion and approval of the detailed engineering design. General Conditions In submitting the water service application, Williams Ranch has agreed to the standard conditions of approval of water service extension (see attached page 6 and 7 of the water service application). All of the standard conditions with the exception of paragraph B, dealing with annexation, should be incorporated in the annexation agreement (see attachment). PO:11 cc David Bellack, Assistant City Attorney (with attachments) Bob Gish, Public Works Director Larry Ballenger, Water Superintendent \phil\williamsranch. mem 5 APPLICANT UNDERSTANDS AND AGREES THAT ANY WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF ASPEN WILL CONTAIN, AT THE CITY'S REQUEST, AT LEAST THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS: A. All construction of new facilities or upgrading of exist- ing facilities shall be done at Applicant's sole expense, to Aspen's standards and specifications, and construction shall be completed within a time frame agreed to by'the parties. B. Prior to the start of construction, the owner of the Subject Property shall enter into an agreement with Aspen for annexation of the Subject Property -if the Subject Property is contiguous or becomes contiguous to the Aspen and Aspen determines such annexation is desirable. Such agreement shall be recorded., and shall be a covenant running with all of the Subject Property. Alternatively, a petition for annexation of the Subject Property may be submitted prior to the start of construction. C. Prior to the start of construction, Aspen shall require performance, payment and maintenance bonds and conveyance of water rights or cash in lieu.thereof. D. Construction must be inspected by the City's engineers or other designated personnel prior to burial or final installation, and must be certified by a registered professional engineer at Applicant's cost. E. Before As"pen will accept any mains, lines or facilities, Applicant shall convey or cause to be conveyed to Aspen, in form satisfactory to Aspen -Is attorneys, all easements necessary to enable Aspen to operate and maintain the water service system when it is completed. F. Upon completion of construction, all distribution and transmission mains and all associated water lines and facilities must be tested at Applicant's expense and approved by Aspen, and thereupon conveyed (excluding individual service lines) to Aspen free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, by deed in form acceptable to the City Attorney. G. As -built drawings of the water mains, lines and asso- ciated facilities, and all other utilities, shall be provided to the City on reproducible sepias with a maximum size of 2411 x 3611, and on an "auto cad disk data transfer file" tied into one (1) set of state plane coordinates. . H. Tap fees and system development fees for the water ser- vice provided by Aspen shall be assessed utilizing Aspen's prevail- ing applicable tap fee .at the time of application for a building permit for the structure for which service is sought, or, if water service is sought for an existing structure, the tap fee shall be paid prior to delivery. of water to that structure by Aspen. No -6- Water &mce 4VJ=nm (T= 09193) water service shall be provided to any structure absent payment of the appropriate tap fee and any applicable hookup charges. Applicant, by execution of this Application, certifies that it has read and understands the foregoing, and that, to the best of Applicant's knowledge and belief, the information supplied in this Application, the Request for Consideration, and all attached docu- ments are correct and complete. Dated: 29 Julv 1994 APPLICANT: ggler Consolidated Mines Corporation By �; - Title: etary Gary A. Wright r Witer Service Application (Tan 09193) To: From: Through: Date: Re: ASPEN*PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT �M � 1�►� C��7:�►17iJ►�i Mary Lackner, Planning Office Chris Chiola, Environmental Health Department Lee Cassin, Senior Environmental Health Officer August 26, 1994 Williams Ranch Detailed Submission & Final Plat Parcel ID #2737-074-00-008 Exhibit G The Aspen�/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the Williams Ranch Detailed Submission land use submittal under authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has the following comments: ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Section 23-55 'All buildings, structures, facilities, parr, or the like within the city limits which use water shall be connected to the municipal water utility system.' The provision of potable water from the City of Aspen system is consistent with Environmental Health policies ensuring the supply of safe water. The City of Aspen Water Department shall determine if adequate water service is available for the project. The City of Aspen water supply meets all standards of the Colorado Department of Health for drinking water quality. SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Section 11-1.7 -lt shall be unlawful for the owner or occupant of any building used for residence or business purposes within the city to construct or reconstruct an on -site sewage disposal device." The plans to provide wastewater disposal for this project through the central collection lines of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) meet the requirements of this department. The ability of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to handle the increased flow for the project shall be determined by the ACSD. The applicant has provided information that the applicant and the service agency are mutually bound to the proposal and that the service agency is capable of serving the development. WATER QUALITY IMPACTS: Section 11-1.3 -For the purpose of maintaining and protecting its municipal water supply from injury and pollution, the city shall exercise regulatory and supervisory jurisdiction within the incorporated limits of the City of Aspen and over all streams and sources contributing to municipal water supplies for a distance of five (5) miles above the points from which municipal water supplies are diverted.' A drainage plan to mitigate the water quality impacts from ' drive and parking areas will be evaluated by the City Engineer. This application is not expected to impact down stream water quality. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 recycled paper 303/920-5070 AIR QUALITY: Sections 11-2.1 9t is the purpose of [the air quality section of the Municipal Code) to achieve the mmdraum practical degree of air parity poulle by requiring the use of all available practical methods and techniques to control, prevent and reduce air pollution throughout the city..' The land Use Regulations seek to "oe sea congestion' and 'avoid transportation demands that cannot be met' as well as to 'provide clean air by protecting the natural air sheds and reducing pollutame- The major concern of the Environmental Health Department is the impact of increasing traffic in a PM,,, non -attainment area. Under the requirements of the State Implementation Plan for the Aspen area, any traffic generated by this development must be fully mitigated, or the SIP will have to be revised. The applicant has supplied a VMT (vehicle miles of travel) count for the proposed development that shows an increase over present levels. Increases in VMT must be offset in one way or another to conform with the SIP. A condition of approval for this application is that the applicant provide information to the Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department which documents that mitigation measures committed to are sufficient to offset any increases in PM,,, caused by the project. If the project does not fully mitigate its increase in PM,,, emissions, it would not meet the city policy of use of all available practical methods to maximize air purity. It would also be necessary to seek approval for a state regulatory action changing the Aspen/Pitkin County PM,,, SIP by having the City adopt other pollution reduction measures. The applicant has suggested that the project will not contribute to air pollution because of the close proximity to town and easy access to the bus system. This does not offset traffic that will still be generated by the project. The applicant must still develop mitigation measures which ensure there will be no more traffic, such as increasing bus service to the area, constructing linking bike paths, incentives for not using cars, paving dirt roads or other measures. The documentation that these measures are enough to eliminate increases of PM,,, in the non -attainment area is still required by this Department. The applicant must present a plan to this Department outlining the offset of VMT increases. FIREPLACE/WOODSTOVE PERMITS: The applicant or representative must file a fireplace/woodstove permit for each structure with the Environmental Health Department before the building permit will be issued for that structure. Metropolitan areas of Pitkin County, which includes this site, may have two department certified devices and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. New homes may NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel. Barns and agricultural buildings may not install any type of fireplace device. FUGITIVE DUST: The applicant has provided this Department with a fugitive dust control plan which includes, but is not limited to wind fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from 2 crossing the property line or causing a nuisance. This plan must be adhered to during construction to prevent wind blown dust moving off -site. CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS: NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 16-1 -Me city council finds and declares that noise is a significant source of environmental pollution that represents a present and increasing threat to the public peace and to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen and it its visitors. .....Accordingly, it is the policy of council to provide standards for permissible noise levels in various areas and manners and at various times and to prohibit noise in excess of those levels.* During construction, noise can not exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. It is very likely that noise generated during the construction phase of this project will have some negative impact on the neighborhood. The applicant should be aware of this and take measures to Minimize the predicted high noise levels. SMUGGLER MOUNTAIN SUPERFUND SITE ISSUES: The project is located within the boundaries of the Smuggler Mountain Superfund Site. The applicant has conducted soil tests on the property for lead contamination. The results from these tests show that the levels of lead do not exceed accepted amounts. The applicant needs to take no further action on this subject. ... WP:LAND—USE:WMS.RANCH.CITY.DET 3 Exhibit H TO: Mary Lackner, City Planner FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation, Officer RE: Williams Ranch Detailed Submission and Final Plat DATE: August 25, 1994 The Aspen Historic Preservation Committee reviewed the Williams Ranch project for compliance with the "Neighborhood Character Guidelines" at two meetings, May 18, 1994 and June 8, 1994. HPC's recommendations were that the concrete sidewalks be eliminated from the proposal, that the applicant study breaking up roof heights and that only indigenous tree species be used. The applicant was also to study the use of outbuildings for trash, etc. since there are no alleys in this development. In addition, the covenants which apply to the free market lots were to incorporate the "Neighborhood Character Guidelines." The final development submission for this project has complied with the HPC's request to eliminate the sidewalks. The applicant has only included a detached outbuilding on one site. More study needs to be given to how trash and other items will be stored. The site plan shows that the majority of the lots have parking located directly off of the street. This condition was not proposed previously and conflicts with the NCG standard which states "Avoid creating pull -in parking that is directly off the street. This weakens the attraction of the street to pedestrians." The building orientations focus on taking advantage of sun and views to the south and west (which is recommended by the guidelines), but the project turns its back on the street and, overall appears to be very auto -oriented. The applicant should consider having shared driveways set along the lot lines with garages, or at least the garage doors, facing the driveway instead of the street. The project has included trails as pedestrian amenities. In terms of the landscaping, HPC was concerned that non -indigenous vegetation placed on a site which is very visible in the City would be as intrusive as any overly large structures. The applicant does not propose any major landscaping improvements other than crabapple trees. These will not provide any screening for the development. Other types of vegetation, including lilacs or evergreens might help to serve that function. The HPC's recommendation did include a comment that they in support of the overall layout of the project. However, reconsideration of the parking arrangement and outbuildings are important refinements that ought to be undertaken. Exhibit I �021�WZNIVMNV TO: Mary Lackner, Planning Office FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office DATE: August 31, 1994 RE: Williams Ranch Residential Development Referring back to Tom Baker's referral comments dated February 7, 1994, the applicant was proposing the following: Unit Type Category Size Price 4 1-bedroom Category 2 633 s.f. $ 69,000 12 2-bedroom Category 2 887 s.f. 79,000 6 4-bedroom duplexes Category 4 1,400 s.f. 193,500 6 4-bedroom duplexes R.O. 1,600 s.f. Market 10 4-bedroom (homes) R.O. 2,200 s.f. Market What the applicant is proposing as of today is the following: Unit Tyke Category Size* Price 4 1-bedroom Category 2 628 s.f. $ 69,000 6 2-bedroom Category 2 842 s.f. 79,000 4 3-bedroom Category 3 1,178 s.f. 115,000 6 4-bedroom Category 4 1,390 s.f. 195,000 15 4-bedroom R.O. 1,752 s.f. <325,000 *Average size The AH zone requires that any development have a minimum of 700 of the unit count and 600 of the bedroom count as affordable housing. This application adheres to this policy. In the February 7, 1994, memo, the Housing Office suggested that the applicant increase the one bedroom units and convert the two bedrooms into three bedrooms. The applicant has provided 4 3-bedrooms with a reduction in the 2- bedroom units. The Housing Office recommends approval of the category mix. The applicant is also requesting one-half of the RO units have no asset or income restrictions and the other half of the RO units to have "realistic" asset and income restrictions. According to the 1994 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines, the City of Aspen has defined the criteria to purchase RO units as follows: V I i . A. Household Income - $150,000 (gross) B. Net Assets - $400,000 C. Initial Sales Price to be set by the developer. D. Maximum Resale Price/Appreciation - The maximum resale price is the purchase price plus four percent (4%) [simple, not compounded] of the purchase price for each year or portion thereof, that the unit is owned. If an RO unit is sold prior to three full years of ownership, then the owner is not entitled to any appreciation. Once the RO unit has been owned for over three full years, then the owner is entitled to a maximum of four percent (4%) (simple) annual appreciation for each year or portion thereof that the unit is owned (including years one through three). E. Unit Size - A maximum of 2,000 gross square feet; a maximum 500 square foot garage; and a maximum 1,000 square foot basement. If a larger garage or basement is constructed, then all square footage over 500 or 1,000, respectively, will be counted as a part of the 2,000 square feet of space allowed. F. Employment Requirement - Applicants must demonstrate that they are qualified employees and that they have two years of consecutive full-time employment, as defined by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office Affordable Housing Guidelines, in Pitkin County immediately prior to application. Seniors who are retired are required to demonstrate that they were qualified employees based upon the definition in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office's Guidelines for five consecutive years immediately prior to retirement. G. Primary Residence - Consistent with the Affordable Housing Guidelines any RO unit must be the owners' primary residence. Proof of residency, including, but not limited to, voter registration and automobile registration, shall be required. H. Income/Earnings - Applicants must demonstrate that their income/earnings are earned primarily in Pitkin County (80%). Applicants must demonstrate that they pay Colorado Income Tax as a Colorado resident. Sales and Marketing - In terms of sales and marketing of RO units, the Housing Office shall only qualify prospective purchasers and review and approve contract terms. Units will be bought and sold in the private sector; however, each sale shall contribute a one percent (1%) fee (of total sale price) to the overall housing program. This fee will be collected in the same fashion as the FNMA fee at closing. (If the Housing Office markets and sells Resident Occupied units, then the seller shall contribute a 2% fee [on total sale price] to the overall housing program.) Therefore, staff recommends that the RO restrictions adhere to City policy. Should the RO restrictions change and become less restrictive, the applicant has the ability to change to the less restrictive policy. Because Williams Ranch is a private sector development, the applicant has the opportunity to choose first time purchasers as long as that purchaser adheres to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines and that purchaser has been approved by the APCHA. Any resale of the units would come under the jurisdiction of the Housing Office and its Guidelines. K With regard to the request for waiver Category 2 and 3 units, the Housing efforts to review the current water tar City's policy changes, then we suggest to this development. \referra1\wms—rnc.rd 3 of water tap fees for the office supports the City's fee waiver policy. If the that this new policy apply Exhibit J MEMORANDUM TO: Mary Lackner ✓ Planning Department FROM: Becky Blaine Police Department DATE: August 19, 1994 RE: Williams Ranch Annexation Mary, a preliminary review indicates a minimal impact of the Police Department primarily due to the roads remaining private. I do not anticipate a noticeable increase in calls for service in the area. The one possible exception in an increase in demand might be if the free market lot homeowners felt a need to alarm their homes. We do experience a moderate demand when a number of homes in an area are alarmed as the department responds to a substantial number of false alarms. Alarms are the only area of anticipated demand on the police department, and at this time, I cannot predict how many homeowners might choose to alarm their residences. Thus, the police department is not requesting an increase in personnel nor in support funds for the annexation of Williams Ranch. Please contact me with any questions that might arise. Exhibit K MEMORANDUM TO: Mary Lackner FROM: Bill Drueding RE: Williams Ranch DATE: August 30, 1994 Please be specific when defining "building envelope". I am assuming that building envelope will mean the same as a setback or "Yard Requirement" (Section 3-101, Yard). Any other activities in the setbacks or outside of the envelope should be described, i.e. landscaping, fences. On Plat Page 6, Lots 10 & 11 show the envelope adjacent to the open space easement. What will be allowed to project into that easement: building eaves, decks, landscaping? Remind the applicant that all units will be required to pay an park dedication fee pursuant to Section 5-601. Reminder the applicant that the free market units will be required / to provide one parking space per bedroom. It is sometimes confusing because Section 5-206(E)(1) refers to the restricted units and not to the free market units. The building envelopes should be far enough back from the street to permit stacked parking. All surface easements should be clearly identified and it should be determined at this point whether they will be deducted from lot area, which would affect the allowable FAR. Will each lot provide a separate signed survey as required by Section 6-206 (C) (2) ? There is a topographic survey of existing conditions and one of regraded condition. The calculations of height and FAR are taken from existing/natural grade (refer to definition section). So as to avoid a situation similar to that at East Cooper Affordable Housing, we must establish the grade to be used for the height and FAR calculations. Because of the slope involved, I wish to caution that Section 3- 101, Yard (A)(5) has been causing problems with driveway cuts. Driveway or slab cuts are not permitted greater than 30 inches below grade in the required yard (outside of the building envelope). Will the open space definition (Section 3-101) be used to calculate open space or will open space be calculated as area not being built atop. This should be clarified with the applicant. I understand the unit drawings are preliminary and all FAR and height calculations are not verified by me with the information provided. e 8 S �e public hearing and ordinance adoption procedures for City Council public hearing.19 6) Add the requirement for a site improvement survey to the submission requirements of Section 24-6-202(B): Staff from Engineering, Zoning, Parks and other departments are regularly asked to comment on land use applications. We frequently hear from these departments that an improvement survey prepared by a registered land surveyor would provide more accurate and reliable information for their review purposes. This adds some up front costs to the application process, but would ultimately be required for building permit submittal. Section 6-202 B. should read: B. Application. All development applications shall include, at a minimum, the following information and materials. 1. The applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed ny the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 2. The street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur. 3. A disclosure of ownership of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments. liens,. easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 4. An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. S. A site improvement survey, including topography and vegetation, performed within one (1) year of the date of submission of the application certified by a registered land surveyor licensed in the State of Colorado. (This requirement may be waived by the Planning Director if the project is determined not to warrant a survey document.) 6. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the develoument auplication. 7 add a definition of "building envelope": There has been - confusion in the past about the term building envelope because the land use code does not specifically define it. During the East Cooper AH Subdivision review, building envelopes were platted but people involved with the project formed different opinions on the nature of the envelopes. In order to prevent this situation from happening again, staff proposes the 5 following definition change in Section 3-101: "building envelope: For purposes of subdivision, PUD, SPA or other land use approvals, a described building envelope shall equate to "setback" and 1*yard11 as defined by this section and be subject to those restrictions applicable to "setbacks'• and "yards". However, building envelopes may be further conditioned by a land use approval to further restrict development between the building envelope and the property line to protect slopes, vegetation,water courses, privacy or other considerations. Such conditions shall be described on the recorded plats, development p plans, ordinances or resolutions, and building permit site plans." 8) emend definition of -I' loarea" to exclude op ne ditch easements When calculating lot area for proposes of determining allowable floor area. In an effort to -promote and protect open irrigation ditches which are an important character element in some Aspen neighborhoods, staff wishes to codify a Planning Office policy to include the area encumbered by ditch easements in lot area for purposes of calculating FAR. The recommended language alters the definition Of "lot area" in Section 3-101 as follows: "lot area means the total horizontal area within the lot lines of a lot. When calculating floor area ratio, lot area shall exclude that area beneath the high water line of a body of water and that area within an existing dedicated right-of- way or surface easement, but shall include any lands dedicated to the City of Aspen for the public trail system, lands covered by an open irrigation ditch easement, or any lands subject to an above or below surface easement. (the rest of the paragraph remains unchanged) 9 ) Amend the definition of "fence" A couple of years ago the Building Department revised the Municipal Code to delete a provision specific to fences and similar visual obstructions on corner lots. This needs to be inserted into the definition of fences in the land use regulations because it is an important safety issue. The proposed addition to Section 3-101 is: "Fence means a structure which serves as a barrier intended to prevent escape or intrusion, to mark a boundary, to shield or screen view, or to serve any similar purpose. Fences shall be permitted in every zone district provided that no fence shall exceed six (6) feet above natural grade. Fences visible from the public right-of-way shall be constructed of wood,stone, wrought iron or masonry. On corner lots, no fence, retaining wall, shrub, tree or similar object shall be erected or maintained which obstructs the traffic vision, nor on corner lots shall any fence, 6 08/26/1994 13:43 3039455397 B A COLLINS PAGE 01 Exhibit L BRUCE A. COLLINS, Ph.D. 13% OAK WAY AYENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS COi ORADO 91601 (303) 945-5397 January 19, 1994 Mr. Stefan Albouy Smuggler Consolidated Mines Corporation P.O. Box 128 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Dear Mr. Albouy: In accordance with your instructions of January 5, 1994, I have examined the tract identified as the Williams Ranch Residential Development, as well as pertinent maps and other documents. The property consists of deed -restricted townhomes, duplexes and single -fancily homes, free market lots, dedicated open space, roadways, and easem nts and rights of way totalling approximately 12.7 acres, located on the lower slopes of smuggler Mountain, immediately northeast of the city of Aspen, Colorado. The tract is located in the southeast J of section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, near the center of the Aspen 7.5-minute quadrangle. Physical site examination was hampered by the presence of up to two feet of snow. TOPOoiaP!! , So:Ls , & Vsos:s::on The tract itself consists primarily of the northerly portion of an old alluvial fan at the base of a steep, narrow gully on the lower westerly face of Smuggler Mountain. The fan has been much - modified by human activity, with some original fan/glacial drift material apparently excavated in the west -center portion and fill deposited unevenly through the center part, with several primitive roads. Nevertheless, the general form of the fan is preserved. Slope angles are steepest around the upper margin of the fan, where they average approximately 12.6', or 22.2%. Elevations within the tract vary from 7,880 ft. to 8,095 ft., for a total relief of 215 feet. Where undisturbed the fan is vegetated with Gambol ("scrub") oak, mountain big sagebrush, serviceberry, and a variety of grasses; soils belong to the Ueacca, moist-Mergel complex. l U.S. Geological Survey 1960, photorevised 1987. 2 D. K. ALxvAv: ono D. WszLAYD , 1992, BatL &RVX? OF ]lrae-4rr@oK FIRMA, Cbsoaaao, PAUT8 Of 1 MR, (Ksltss.a AnD PiTnsn CbenTIxe, U. S. Soil Cormervatian Service, sheet 25 and p. 73-74. Soils an the site are the subject of two detailed reports by CTL/Th nwon, Inc., 1991 and 1994, and Natural wi l l not be further df3.acusaed here. / Resource / \ Consultant 08/26i1994 13:43 3039455397 B A COLLINS PAGE 02 W2LLfA118 & ICU Page 2 fl3 I D!R! 1 AL DITILOPKRNT The lower slopes of Smuggler Mountain rise steeply immediately east of the development. Slope angles change abruptly from a maximum of 18.8' calculated on lot 6 to an average of 26.2' and a maximum measured of 32.6 % These slopes, and locally steeper ones in limited areas of rock outcrop, reflect both the glaciated nature of the Roaring Fork Valley and the steep northwesterly dip of the underlying rocks. Elevations range from 8,095 f t. on the southeast edge of the development to 9,600 ft. at the top of the small drainage that produced the alluvial fan discussed above, for a total relief of 11505 feet. With the exception of limited exposures of the Belden Formation (discussed further below), and a very small area near the top of the drainage, these slopes are covered with glacial drift, which varies in thickness from a few inches to several hundred feet' and consists almost entirely of sands, pebbles, cobbles, and boulders derived from the Precambrian metamorphic terrain to the east. The soils on these slopes are described by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) as Mine loam. Vegetation is Gambel oak and serviceberry with a variety of grasses; aspen and a few evergreens (spruce -fir woodland varieties) occur on the north -facing slopes of the upper drainage. At the very top of the drainage, a small acreage of Ansel-Anvik soil association exists', on thick glacial drift. vegetation is aspen and spruce -fir woodland. 020Loas As stated above, the proposed Williams -Ranch Residential Development itself is located on a portion of an alluvial fan that has been modified by human activity. There is no indication of recent water or debris flow across or deposition on the fan, although thorough examination was hindered by partial snow cover. Where apparently undisturbed, the surface cover of metamorphic cobbles and boulders appears to be nearly identical to the glacial drift covering adjacent areas. Bedrock under the steeper slopes immediately to the east consists of Belden Formation limestones and shales of lower Pennsylvanian age. Belden rocks are exposed in places along the minor drainage which forms the alluvial fan, where they dip to the northwest at approximately 40' to 50'. it is probable that at least part of this drainage is controlled by one of the Della -Smuggler system of faults, a group of northwest -southeast trending normal faults which dip southwest at 30' to 40' and which were significant in J J. E. SrvRR , 1898, GcoLooi or !ss Aarxx I tNiza DteTRlcs , CbLORADO : U.S. Geological Survey Mcra*xaph 31, p. 245. 4 ALslA?s & WKzLaxD , 1992, sheet 25 and p. 57. S ALsTaTT S WRRLAwv, , 1992, sheet 25 and pp. 19-20. ©8/26/1994 13:43 3039455397 B A COLLINS PAGE 03 WILLIAMS FAxaa Page 3 Rxs t DlNT I &L DRVZLOPMBXT localizing the rich silver ore deposits of Smuggler Mountain. The smuggler and Free Silver shaft sites are immediately south of the proposed development. The J. C. Johnson Tunnel dump occupies a small area in the minor drainage above the development. The Jones (Trueworthy) Shaft is present on the hillside below and southwest of the Johnson Tunnel. It is probable that the contact between the Belden Formation and the overlying Maroon Formation occurs under the alluvial fan, and that this contact strikes northeasterly under the adjacent slopes as well. The location of this contact has not been defined. The lower Maroon Formation consists of grayish -red to red locally calcareous conglomerates, sandstones, and siltstones. The tan to brown sandstones, siltstones, and occasional limestones of the Gothic Formation may occur between the Belden and the Maroon, although the Gothic Formation has not been identified in the immediate Smuggler Mountain area. Orange sandy siltstone and silty sandstone found on a small prospect dump immediately east of the development boundary could be either Gothic or Maroon. As previously stated, the slopes of Smuggler Mountain are mostly covered with a veneer of glacial drift which ranges from 0 to 400 ft. in thickness. These deposits consist of sandy clay, sand, and slightly to moderately -rounded pebbles, cobbles, and boulders derived almost entirely from the Precambrian terrain to the east. The till is thought to be of Bull Lake origin (very late Pleistocene)', although some may be earliest Holocene. These materials have created a deep, well -drained soil. The vegetation assemblages discussed previously add to its stability. There are no known landslide deposits in the immediate area. The Williams Ranch Residential Development is located on a Holocene alluvial/debris fan. The natural material contained in the fan is quite similar to the till found higher on the slopes, and in fact it is hard to differentiate between the deposits based only on surficial examination. The essentially unconsolidated nature ' R. J. Srsaxa , D, W. BxaTi , AND T. B. Teoxreow , 1990, fpx (Piolx or Tax AP -Ps -fir-Ba DSPosi:s si llsrxx, CbLORaDO, BLsxD or (kOLOCIC awD (kOCaxxICaL SCUDIxs or Tax 59909LXR OrtxsODT : Economic Geology Monograph 7, pp. 266-300. See also B. BRYAx? AND V. L. Pksxxax , 1977, (koLooic 8arxaRT oar Tax AsPxv Axla, BDOTSIRw AaCx! 169STAINN, In H. K. VlxL, xD., &PLORATION FRONTIRRP OF Tax CBXVX ►L AND SovTvxn* Rbcxlxs : Rocky Mtn. Assoc. of Geologists, Deliver, pp. 441-449. 7 See B. BRiaw r , 1979, GkoLoa: or Tax AsPxw 15-si ■vsx QvaaRzaOLs , PI TRi R awn Qaax x so■ Cbox:I xs , CbLoaaao : U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1073, pp. 23-40 for a detailed discussion of the Belden to Maroon sequence in the Aspen area. Spurm, 1898, P. 245. g BicYasT AND FkxxtAAx , 1977, Fig. 5 and pp. 448-449. VVf LVf J. JJ"' .6 J. -7 wJ I.J V. J"•J ♦J 1JJ I 1J H VlJt�L..1I lvJ W1LL1aK5 MXC8 Hi01DZXT1KL NT=LOPKINT of the alluvium produces deep, well -drained soil. Depth to bedrock is unknown. The man-made fill was not examinedi4. GXOLOaic SasaRDD ROC" LS. AVALMCSES & LANDSLIDES Page 4 Slope angles within the proposed development are not conducive to rockfall hazards. Steeper slopes in the area in average in excess of 45% have the potential for rockfalls and avalanches which could affect the proposed development area11. No known avalanches and no significant rockfalls have occurred in the area of interest in historic time. For the most part, the glacial drift boulders are less than two feet in diameter, subrounded to subangular, are an integral part of the soil cover, and are further stabilized by surrounding vegetation. There is no evidence of landsliding, and no landslides or landslide -prone geologic units are mapped in this area by the state . As in all other developed steep -slope areas of the Roaring Fork Valley (Red Mountain, the base of Aspen Mountain, and adjacent portions of Smuggler Mountain to the north and southeast are immediate examples), there remains the possibility that a boulder or boulders may be dislodged by man-made or natural processes. occasional rockfalls can be stopped by the road on the east and southeast side of the development. This road can be graded to increase its rockfall-impeding capability. It is beyond the scope of this report to discuss site drainage for the proposed Williams Ranch Residential Development after construction, and there is no utility in discussing the drainage characteristics of the area prior to construction. The drainage area and soil types contained therein of the small gully above the development, and which crosses it from lot 12 through duplex lot 6 and lot 16, have been discussed in general 10 See CM/7baq*m reports. 11 H. C. wtxDSR , N. B. IaxK, AND B. A. FLORQo 1 Os , 1974, %)zRzna PbnK AND OXTOTAL %%LLSTB - Air BITZRONKlcrlaL AND EkOINZIBRixa CkOLOUT StODT, &CLs, G►RrzsLD, GbwxzDox aRD PzTKi■ CounTise, CbLORADO: Colo. Geol. Survey Envircestin tal Geology 8, Erivircatental and Geologic Constraints leap, South Part of Plate II. 12 OLAXVZR , Lamm AxD ftoRQu t eT , 1974, as cited above. Wi LLiAme Raxca PxezDx*TtkL DtYRLOPKZXT Page 5 terms above. The runoff from a 100-year 24-hour storm event has been calculated for this drainage to the southeasterly boundary of the development, using Soil Conservation service criterials and a runoff program developed by the U.S. Department of the Interior14. The peak runoff is estimated at 2.68 cubic feet per second (cfs), with a total discharge of 1.01 acre-feet. Assumptions used are as follows: SCS Type 2 24-hr storm 100-yr 24-hr precipitation: 2.6 inches Hydraulic length: 3,500 feet Elevation change: 1,400 feet Drainage area: 89.1 acres (planimetered) Curve Number (CN): Rock outcrop: 4.5 acres or 5% at CN = 95 Soil type 9: cover type woods, good condition: 7.81 acres or 8.8% at CN = 55 Soil type 77: cover type brush, fair condition: 75.3 acres or 84.51% at CN = 56 Weivhted average CN = 56.92 SCS Upland Curve 5 (nearly bare - overland flow and alluvial valley fans) Watershed type: disturbed (note: alternatives are forested or agriculture) It should be noted that a substantial portion of this runoff will be diverted from the drainage in question by the Smuggler Mountain road as currently configured. Structures or channels to pass this drainage through or around the proposed development should take into account that some of ef` the material from the Johnson dump may be eroded and transported down the drainage during a high -precipitation event. STNZP PL QPSS The rockfall and landslide potential for the slopes east of the proposed development have been previously discussed. Within the development itself, slopes average less than 23%. However, there are local areas that exceed 30%. Retaining walls and appropriate special earthwork and foundation designs may be needed in these areas. 13 S. Q. W=Lxse AND E. C. Ktno, 1980, PsocsDORs$ FOR DelzaKtiiso Psac FLOW$ is 001LORaa0 (IecOR:ORATZB ADD MPPLXKZXTB 7kaaatcaL RsLsaas No. 55, UtRAW HFDROLOGT FOR ScaLL 1kT2ReXsn$ ): U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service; and & B TATT AND W R S L1twD , as cited in Note 2. 14 Office of Surface Mining, S70 M version 6.21. L PAGE 06 WILLIANN F4LNCX ft8IVZW?IAL DBVZL*pXg tr Page 6 Soil "creep" is the imperceptible downslope movement of soils over time, and occurs on virtually all soil -covered slopes. All other factors being equal (soil depth and composition, water content, vegetation, etc.), the steeper the slope the faster the creep, although measurable movement may still be measured in Years, decades or longer. Retaining walls and other structural devices, as well as grading and/or vegetation can be used to retard creep where necessary or desirable. The Cowenhoven Tunnel passes under the southern portion the proposed development in an almost east -west direction. Smuggler Consolidated Mines is currently engaged in locating the tunl with more precision than has been possible to date. However, data accumulated so far suggest that minimum depth over the tunnel, which is indicated on maps and in photographs to be approximately 8 to 10 ft. in width and approximately 8 ft. in height, is 75 ft. or more, and cover increases rapidly to the east. Considering the small size of the tunnel and the nature of the overlying material, subsidence related to the tunnel is considered to be unlikely. Bii LLING OR S MIN Ilia SOILS There are no known minerals in the glacial till, alluvium, or underlying Belden, Gothic, or Maroon formations in es the that should lead to swelling or shrinking soilsU. seetheCTL/Thompson soils reports for comments concerning the man -ma fill found on the site; considering the size differences fo de the glacial till and other alluvial materials on the site the in same compaction procedures are recommended for these materials where they are to be used for structural or utilitypurposes. p p ses. Earthquakes up to a magnitude of approximately scale have been recorded in histortimeinhe Ca the Richter Aspen area. Their origin is unknown, Carbondale - usually do not damage structures'of adequatesconstruc such magnitude although they may cause pictures to fall off walls, dishes fall off counters, and so on. s to The naturally -occurring glacial and other alluvial materials Porous and well -drained. However, depth to the water tableisre not known. There are no other known geologic hazards that might affect ect this 15 See CTL/T'l=won soils reports. WI L L t �►M S R�►x c n Ri�IDsxllllL DIYZLOPMXXT Page 7 if you have any questions or require -*any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Q�EESS10NAt �Ep�O O�Q ..�`,�K11 M9E q ••'•� off gn • � ti4�� 1•�'�r BRUC'� *, ery truly :yaurs,f� r Bruce A. Collins, Ph.D. Exhibit M PUBLIC NOTICE RE: WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION/PUD FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE REGULATIONS# CHAPTER 24 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE, AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, GMQS it TION, 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW AND SPECIAL REVIEW FOR OPEN SPACE AND PARKING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 13, 1994 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO to consider an application submitted by Smuggler Consolidated Mines Corp., c/o Wright & Adger, 201 N. Mill St., Suite 106, Aspen, CO requesting Final PUD approval to develop 35 deed restricted units and 15 free market units on the property. The Williams Ranch property is bordered by Centennial, Spruce Street and the Smuggler Mine; Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. For further information, contact Mary Lackner at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO 920-5090 s/John Bennett Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on August 26, 1994 City of Aspen Account 1 17 WILLL4MS RANCH - FREE SILVER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SUPPLEMENT TO: LAND USE APPLICATION 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW and FLOOR AREA RATIO CALCULATIONS AND UNIT SIZE REDUCTIONS I. INTRODUCTION: On 2 August 1994 the Applicant, Smuggler Consolidated Mines Corporation submitted its Final Submission and Final Plat Application (the "Application") which requested Annexation, Final Planned Unit Development, Text/Map Amendment, Subdivision, Growth Management Quota Exemption, Vested Property Rights, Park Development Impact Fee (waiver) and Special Review. This 8040 Greenline Review Supplement (the "Supplement") address certain additional information requested by the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office. The elevation of the Williams Ranch Project, subsequent to annexation into the City of Aspen, makes it subject to "8040 Greenline Review". The minimum submission. requirements, consistent with other review sections, are included in the Final Submission and Final Plat Application. The review standards are addressed below. II. 8040 REVIEW CRITERIA: This application requests 8040 Greenline Review approval for all thirty-five (35) Affordable Housing Units and the fifteen (15) Free Market Lots. The project has been designed as a Planned Unit Development to take full advantage of site amenities and minimize the impacts of the development. All roads and Affordable Housing Units will be WPR1AI 1T8040.WRK 1 WILLL4MS RANCH RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SUPPLEMENT TO: LAND USE APPLICATION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW and FLOOR AREA RATIO CALCULATIONS AND UNIT SIZE REDUCTIONS constructed by the Applicant. Extensive design information was provided as part of the Final Submission and Final Plat Application. Further, any re -construction or re -modeling is strictly limited by the Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions for Williams Ranch P.U.D., a draft of which is included with the Application as Exhibit "U". The Free Market Lots have had the building envelopes and access carefully designed by the Applicant. Individual homes will be designed and constructed by the future purchasers, subject to recorded Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions for Free Silver P.U.D., a draft of which is included with the Application as Exhibit ' V". To control design and construction with the same level of sensitivity as the Affordable Housing Units, strict covenants have been prepared for the lots which follow the "Pfister Guidelines" utilized in several other projects to minimize visual impacts. The covenants in conjunction with the dimensional requirements of the "AH" zone district will insure compatible design. To further minimize the impact of development on this site, all units have been reduced in size. The Affordable Housing Units have been reduced by ten (10%) percent (of floor area and total square footage) over that approved at Conceptual Submission. The Free Market Lots have been voluntarily reduced in allowable FAR by twenty (20%) percent. Owners who wish to build homes greater than eighty (80%) percent of allowable FAR will require Special Review Approval from the Historic Preservation Committee. For reference, WPF\1AM\! ! 8040. WRK 2 WILLL4MS RANCH RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SUPPLEMENT TO: LAND USE APPLICATION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW and FLOOR AREA RATIO CALCULATIONS AND UNIT SIZE REDUCTIONS this reduces the average FAR allowed by right per lot from 4,233 square feet to 3,386 square feet. Collectively, this reduces the allowable FAR by 12,600 square feet within the Free Market Free Silver P.U.D. alone. III. SPECIFIC CRITERIA: No development shall be permitted at, above or 150 feet (150') below the 8040 greenline unless the Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate to soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the City. This application has demonstrated the development capabilities of the proposed site by including slope studies, soils and geologic analysis. All development has been proposed within the portions of the site considered suitable for development. The Williams Ranch was included by the EPA in the Smuggler Superfund Site, Operable Unit #2 Study Area. Consequently, extensive soils testing has been preformed by both the Applicant's and the EPA's sub -contractors. A study and test results summary prepared by Industrial Compliance of Golden, Colorado was included in the Conceptual Application. These tests have established that the Williams Ranch does not have any hazardous levels of lead, cadmium or other "heavy metals". The EPA's EE/CA, when adopted later during the Summer of 1994, will release the Williams Ranch from the Smuggler Superfund Site. WPF\lAK! ! 8040. WRK 3 WILLMMS RANCH RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SUPPLEMENT TO: LAND USE APPLICATION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW and FLOOR AREA RATIO CALCULATIONS AND UNIT SIZE REDUCTIONS 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. A Grading and Drainage Plan was submitted with the Application as Mapping 7 & 8. A Drainage Report, prepared by Banner & Associates, was included in the Application as Exhibit "O". These plans establish that all on -site and off -site drainage patterns will be preserved. Runoff generated by the proposed development will be contained and released at historic rates. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the City. The proposed use is strictly residential and will comply with all Clean Air Regulations in effect at the time of approval. It should also be noted that the proposed development is located near an existing RFTA transit route an is within close proximity to the Aspen downtown area minimizing the requirement for auto traffic. The result of this proposed development not being constructed is that those families who wish to live here, will be forced down valley and must commute. An Air Quality Impact Report and Fugitive Dust Control Plan have been submitted for review to the Environmental Health Department with this application. 4. The design and location of any development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. Substantial effort has been made to "fit" the roads, trails and structures to the site. As the Grading and Drainage Plan depicts, this has been accomplished as grading is minimal for the construction of the road, See Mapping 7,8,9 &10. Structures have been individually designed to optimally suite their respective sites, allowing for units to accommodate grade changes. As an example the Affordable Housing Units accommodate grade changes within the lot by stepping into the slope rather than requiring a flat bench for siting of the unit. The result is a significantly reduced impact to the site. WPR1AM\!!8W.WRK 4 WILLMMS RANCH RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SUPPLEMENT TO: LAND USE APPLICATION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW and FLOOR AREA RATIO CALCULATIONS AND UNIT SIZE REDUCTIONS 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practical, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation, and natural land features. The roads, trails and structures have been carefully designed to minimize grading, as explained above in number 4. The Applicant will construct all Affordable Housing Units to control design and construction features as well as to minimize site disturbance. The design is sensitive as to site placement and all Affordable Housing Units are single-family or duplex rather than multi -family. The design of the specific units minimizes grading, as described above in number 4 and in the Application (see Application III, Proposed Development, E. Architectural Description page 11). There is little vegetation on the site in the area of the proposed development such that impacts to vegetation are minimal. Large vegetation such as the mature Cottonwood trees along the ditch have been saved as a result of the location of the proposed structures. The natural land features will be preserved by means of sensitive architectural design and placement of the structures as well as roads. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. The slope of the site has identified the building sites for the Free Market Lots within the Free Silver P.U.D. while the Affordable Housing Units have been clustered into relatively tight development areas. The clustered Affordable Housing Units are adjacent to the Centennial Condominiums meaning visual impacts will be minimal. As explained in number 4 above, the structures have been designed to utilize the grade which results in a proposed development that will preserve the overall land forms of the subject property. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. The proposed density decreases as the elevation up the site increases, providing more open space between structures. The structures are WM1AM\! ! 8040. WRK 5 WILLIAMS RANCH RESIDENTL4L DEVELOPMENT SUPPLEMENT TO: LAND USE APPLICATION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW and. FLOOR AREA RATIO CALCULATIONS AND UNIT SIZE REDUCTIONS predominately single family detached, minimizing the bulk as compared to multi -family structures such as the Centennial Condominiums. All structures will be a maximum of two stories. For the Affordable Housing Units the maximum allowable building height has not been approached as even the tallest of these units is several feet lower than the maximum allowed by right in the AH zone district. Reduced building heights have been accomplished by stepping the units into the slope, by shortening the second story wall top plates and extending the roof lines. While the Applicant will not be developing the free market units, the draft Free Silver P.U.D. Covenants provided in the Application will require the same level of architectural sensitivity. 3. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. Section III, Proposed Development, H, General Site Improvements/Public Facilities, 5. Utilities., confirms that all utilities are available and have sufficient capacity to service the project. See also Exhibit "L" to the Application, the Utilities Will Serve Letters. 9. Adequate roads are available to service the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. Section III, Proposed Development, H, General Site Improvements/Public Facilities, 1. Access verifies that the roads providing service to this development parcel have the capacity to service the proposed development. The Applicant has secured an access easement from Pitkin County to allow access directly from Park Avenue to the development site. Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Traffic Consultants, under contract with the City of Aspen, have provided a traffic impact report provided with the Application as Exhibit "K". 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. wP1F\1aM!!8040.wxx 6 WILLL4MS RANCH RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SUPPLEMENT TO: LAND USE APPLICATION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW and FLOOR AREA RATIO CALCULATIONS AND UNIT SIZE REDUCTIONS All roads have been designed to Pitkin County Standards for the type of unit being served, which will provide adequate service. In addition, Emergency Access has been provided off Spruce Street. This access will be limited to emergency vehicles only and will provide a third point of access to the project site. See the Application, Mapping 6. 11. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area- Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use. The trail along the Salvation Ditch will have a dedicated easement providing for public use. This proposed development has also included additional trails and public park development as represented in the Application. These have been dedicated to public use either in lieu of the Park Development Impact Fee for Mollie Gibson or as a charitable donation in the case of the proposed park adjacent to the Centennial Condominiums and Spruce Street. IV. FLOOR AREA RATIO CALCULATIONS AND UNIT SIZE REDUCTIONS: The sizes of the Free Market Lots have all been noted on the Final Plat. These lot sizes - will be used to determine the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) for each lot in conformance with the applicable City of Aspen guidelines for the AH Zone district. For the purpose of this review, the average lot size is used. The average lot size for the fifteen (15) Free Market Lots in the Free Silver P.U.D. is 17,189 square feet. The "AH" Zone dimensional requirements specify 3,660 square feet allowable FAR for 9,000 square feet of lot area and an additional 7 square feet of allowable FAR for each additional 100 square feet of lot area. This formula provides and an average WpF�1AM H8040.WRK 7 WILLIAMS RANCH RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SUPPLEMENT TO: LAND USE APPLICATION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW and FLOOR AREA RATIO CALCULATIONS AND UNIT SIZE REDUCTIONS FAR of 4,233 square feet for a Free Market Lot. Generally all fifteen Free Market Lots are about the same size. 1. FAR CALCULATION: 3,660 per 9,000 s.f. of lot, plus 7 s.f. per 100 additional square feet of lot area. 17,189 - 9,000 = 8,189 s.f. add. lot area. 7 x 81.89 = 573. 31660 + 573 = 4,233 s.f. 4,233 x .80 = 3,386 s.f. The Applicant proposes to reduce the allowable FAR by twenty percent (20%) to minimize the impacts of the project and maintain a balance in size between the Affordable Housing Units and the residences constructed on the Free Market Lots. This proposed twenty percent 20% reduction provides an average FAR for a Free MArket residence of 3,386 square feet and an overall reduction of constructed FAR of 12,600 square feet. Since impact is a product of design and not size exclusively, the lot owner shall be able to increase the FAR up to 100% by seeking approval from HPC. This will provide owners an incentive to design units in character with Aspen and the balance of the Williams Ranch project. WPF\1A"! ! 8040.WRK 8 y r. 1 r ` .. Y •, .; � '�.. i }s f�•,J.'�,Ti�r �1�� n� 5:�. i.'��I�t '��.� c� F'�, �'�1 ? 'i .► r ,i; ,� ,two i �y 1 �� jjq r�l.tlAA... s �• •y j,° I,. il'� �'1 I%�h {X,.,ri,l,t� I �'��I PUBLIC NOTICE ��Cynl� i► +l'' i�qq DATES ,� ,� �►* ��,� , �,#,� TIME1,1>� Iwk tr,, �f PLACE c 7,r PURPOSE Piz f t y t s 7D R• ,;� �" �'.�y` +ref•" �' �� a�}�r 1.,• ,� re. � �_ _ _ �,n11F�0',!�'•)11��1��y V �l�ii t�h _ i.�i *4VVV��'�': ti. 1 jjj 1 �,yl� I `► �,�` rY�'c