HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19940215
SITE VISIT
ilf
...
4:00 P.K.
(meet behind City Hall)
WILLIAKS RANCH
~=========================================KS==========___=e======
AGENDA
=============================
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
February 15, 1994, Tuesday
4:45 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
City Hall
-
-==================
I. COMMENTS
Commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
II. MINUTES
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Bellock Conditional Use Review for an Accessory
Dwelling unit and Stream Margin Review, Mary Lackner
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. Williams Ranch Conceptual Submission for Annexation,
AH Rezoning, PUD, Subdivision, GMQS Exemption,
Special Review and 8040 Greenline Review, Mary
Lackner
V. ADJOURN
-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Administrative Assistant
RE: Upcoming Agendas
DATE: February 15, 1994
Special Meeting - February 22,. 4:30 P.M.
GMQS Code Amendments - Joint meeting with County P&Z
Special Meeting - March 1
Juan St. AH PUD, Subdivision, GMQS Exemption (LL)
loth Mountain AH GMQS Exemption, SPA Amendment (ML)
Herron Park Place Conditional Use for ADU & Stream Margin Review
(LL)
5:30 P.M.: GMQS Code Amendments - Joint meeting with County P&Z
Regular Meeting - March 8
Independence Place (Superblock) SPA Designation, Conceptual SPA
Plan, Text & Map Amendments, Commercial GMQS & GMQS Exemption
(LL)
Regular Meeting - March 22
303 W. Main St. Landmark Designation (AA) (4:15 P.M.)
Special Meeting - March 29, 4:00 P.M.
GMQS Code Amendments (Public Hearing) - joint meeting with the
County P&Z
Regular Meeting - April 5
Ute Trail Townhomes Substantial PUD Amendment (LL)
Hamrick Conditional Use Review for ADU (ML)
a.nex
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
RE: Red Butte Lot 6 Stream Margin Review and Conditional Use
for an Affordable Dwelling Unit
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner
DATE: February 15, 1994
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Red Butte
Lot 6 Stream Margin Review and Affordable Dwelling Unit with
conditions.
APPLICANT: Chuck Bellock, represented by Rob Okazaki of Ted Guy
Associates.
LOCATION: Lot 6, Block 1, Red Butte Subdivision, 1420 Red Butte
Drive.
ZONING: The lot is approximately 34,900 square feet and is located
within the R-30 zone district.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is seeking stream margin review
to construct a new residence on the property and conditional use
review to build an affordable dwelling unit. Both requests may be
granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Staff has received referral comments from the
City Engineer, Parks Department and Housing Office. These comments
are included as exhibits to this memo and comments are incorporated
into the appropriate review sections.
STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing
single family residence and replace it with a new structure. All
development is located adjacent to the Roaring'Fork River. Section
8-401(A) (1) (c) (1) requires that an accessory dwelling unit or cash -
in -lieu be provided with the new dwelling unit. Therefore, this
review contains Stream Margin review for- the new residence and
Conditional Use review for an accessory dwelling unit.
Section 24-7-504(C) Stream Margin Review
1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development
which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not
increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed
for development.
Response: The proposed development is not within a Special Flood
Hazard Area. The proposed development is proposed to be within
two feet above and ten feet horizontally from the 100-year
floodplain elevation.
2. 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 AACP identified the northern side of the Roaring
Fork River as an open space and trail corridor. There are no
trails designated on this property. The Parks Department, Planning
Office and City Engineer request that the applicant dedicate a
fisherman's easement along the edge of the river.
3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are
implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the
greatest extent possible.
Response: The Greenway Plan establishes goals for protecting the
natural river corridor. The natural character of the area should
be maintained for the benefit of those who see the area from the
Rio Grande Trail.
Following a site inspection by staff, it appears that the majority
of riparian vegetation along the stream bank has been removed. In
an effort to maintain the natural vegetation found along rivers,
staff recommends landscaping requirements including protecting
existing trees outside of the envelope, replant with wildflower and
native grasses on disturbed areas of the site, and limit urban turf
treatments that could adversely affect the river.
Staff further recommends that the proposed patio be relocated a
minimum of 10 feet back from the top of the stream bank in order
to increase the buffer zone between the river and development.
4. No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made that
produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank.
Response: The applicant offers that no erosion will take place
because of construction or slope changes. Moving the patio back
from the top of the stream bank will reinforce this requirement.
S. To the greatest extent practicable, the proposed
development reduces pollution and interference with the
natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary.
Response: The river channel will not be directly affected by this
proposal.
6. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water
Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation
of a watercourse, and a copy of said notice is submitted
to the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Response: Not applicable.
2
7. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is
altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and
his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the
flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished.
Response: The applicant will be required to obtain a new stream
margin review if the watercourse is being altered or relocated.
Should such a request be made, this requirement will be applied at
that time.
S. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state
permits relating to work within the one -hundred -year
f loodplain.
Response: No work is proposed within the 100-year floodplain,
therefore this requirement is not applicable.
Section 24-7-304 Conditional Use Review
A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals,
objectives and standards of the Aspen Area' Comprehensive Plan,
and with the intent of the zone district in which it is
proposed to be located; and
Response: The proposed dwelling unit has the potential to house
local employees, which is in compliance with the Aspen Area
Community Plan and the underlying zone district.
B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the
character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture
of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity
of the parcel proposed for development; and
Response: The covenants of the Red Butte Subdivision do not permit
any accessory dwelling units. The applicant has submitted
correspondence which indicates that the covenants are in the
process of being amended to permit accessory dwelling units within
the subdivision. The City has approved two accessory dwelling
units within the Red Butte Subdivision.
City Attorney, John Worcester has advised staff that prior to the
issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall record the
amended Homeowner Covenants which permit accessory dwelling units
within the subdivision.
The unit will not be visible as a distinct unit from the exterior
of the residence.
3
C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of
the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects,
including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular
circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise,
vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; and
Response: The accessory dwelling unit will be completely contained
within the proposed residence. Parking spaces are not indicated
on the site plan. The final development plan must indicate the
appropriate number of parking spaces for the development. However,
no parking is required to be provided for the accessory dwelling
unit.
As per past P&Z concerns, a recommended condition of approval
requires that the unit be identified on building permit plans as
a separate dwelling unit requiring compliance with U.B.C. Chapter
35 for sound attenuation. The applicant has proposed a roof design
that will shed snow away from the ADU's entrance.
Staff has requested that a pedestrian area be provided by the
applicant along the right-of-way of Red Butte Drive. This
pedestrian area shall be indicated on the final development plan.
D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the
conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable
water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection,
emergency medical services, hospital and medical services,
drainage systems, and schools; and
Response: All public utilities are adequate and in place
throughout the neighborhood and for the proposed residence and ADU.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the
incremental need for increased employees generated by the
conditional use; and
Response: The proposed ADU will satisfy the requirements of 24-
8-401(a) (1) (C) (1) for a demolished and replaced single family
residence. The applicant must file the appropriate deed
restrictions for resident occupancy, including a six month minimum
lease. Proof of recordation must be forwarded to the Planning
Office prior to issuance of any building permits.
F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional
standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Community Plan and
by all other applicable requirements of this chapter.
Response: This use complies with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
and all other applicable conditional use standards.
4
NOTE: As this accessory dwelling unit is 100% above grade, the
main structure is eligible for a floor area bonus per Section 24-
3-101.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends approval of the
Bellock Conditional Use for a 475 sq.ft. one bedroom accessory
dwelling unit and Stream Margin Review, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The owner shall submit appropriate deed restrictions to the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority for approval. The
accessory dwelling unit shall be deed restricted to resident
occupancy with a minimum six month lease. Upon approval by
the Housing Authority, the Owner shall record the deed
restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's
Office.
2. Prior to issuance of any building permits, a copy of the
recorded deed restriction for the accessory dwelling unit must
be forwarded to the Planning Office.
3. The accessory dwelling unit shall be clearly identified as a
separate dwelling unit on building permit plans and shall
comply with U.B.C. Chapter 35 sound attenuation requirements.
4. During building permit plan review, the Zoning Enforcement
Officer shall make the final determination that the unit meets
the minimum size requirement of 300 sq.ft. net liveable as
defined in the Housing Authority Guidelines. The accessory
dwelling unit cannot be less than 300 sq.ft.
5. As recommended by the City Engineer, the applicant shall
comply with the following conditions:
a. The applicant shall sign and execute a sidewalk, curb,
and gutter agreement with the City Engineer prior to the
issuance of any building permits.
b. The applicant shall designate parking spaces, the
pedestrian walkway space, fisherman's easement, building
envelope, and the trash area on the final development
plan, prior to issuance of any building permits. Once
this final development plan is approved by the Engineer
and Planning Office's it shall be filed with Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder's Office.
C. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment license for
the fence which encroaches -into the public right-of-way
or relocate the fence onto private property, prior to
issuance of any building permits.
5
1-1
ID
d. The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080)
for design considerations of development within public
right-of-ways, parks department (920-5120) for vegetation
species, and shall obtain permits for any work or
development, including landscaping, within public rights -
of -ways from city streets department (920-5130).
e. A drainage plan prepared by a registered engineer shall
be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer, prior
to issuance of any building permits.
6. Erosion fencing and geogrids shall be erected immediately
adjacent to the building envelope during all phases of
construction. No construction equipment is permitted outside
the northern edge of the building envelope. This shall
prevent any construction debris, soil, rock or vegetation from
impacting the stream bank and river.
7. No existing vegetation shall be removed between the building
envelope and the river.
8. A fisherman's easement must be filed with the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder, prior to the issuance of any building
permits. This easement shall include the land area under the
Roaring Fork River, and on land, a five foot distance measured
horizontally from the high water line.
9. Prior to removal of any trees, the applicant shall obtain a
tree removal permit from the Parks Department. The applicant
is required to either guarantee that the trees survive for up
to two years after relocation or, should they die, that they
are replaced with comparable trees. Excavating around
existing trees will need to be done outside of the dripline
of all trees.
10. For new landscaping and irrigation, the applicant shall comply
with Ordinance 37, Series 1991 for Water Conservation. This
includes protecting existing trees outside of the envelope,
replant with wildflower and native grasses on disturbed areas
of the site, and limit urban turf treatments that could
adversely affect the river.
11. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant
shall record the amended Homeowner Covenants which permit
accessory dwelling units within the subdivision.
12. The applicant shall relocate the proposed patio at least 10
feet back from the top of the stream bank in order to increase
the buffer zone between the river and development.
13. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
0
Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other
conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Conditional Use for a
475 sq.ft. attached accessory dwelling unit and Stream Margin
Review for the Bellock residence located at 1420 Red Butte Drive
with the conditions recommended in the Planning Office memo dated
February 15, 1994."
Exhibits:
"A" - Engineering referral memo
"B" - Parks Department referral memo
"C" - Housing Office referral memo
7
Exhibit A,
MEMORANDUM
To: Mary Lackner, Planning Office
Thru: Bob Gish, Public Works Director
From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer
Date: January 31, 1994
Re: Bellock Conditional Use for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and Stream
Margin Review
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. Sidewal& Curb & Gutter - As required in Sections 19-98 through 19-100 of the
Municipal Code, the applicant must sign and execute an agreement to construct sidewalk,
curb and gutter at such time in the future as deemed appropriate by the City. The
Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway Plan does not require concrete sidewalks in this
neighborhood, however, at a minimum, a pedestrian usable space in the public right-of-
way off of the vehicular pavement is necessary. In the future, curb and gutter may need
to be constructed in this neighborhood to improve storm runoff control.
There is existing vegetation and boulders in the public right-of-way which must be
relocated in order to provide for pedestrian use of the space. The final development plan
must indicate the pedestrian walkway area.
2. Parkin - The application does not discuss parking. Presumably there will be one
parking space per bedroom including the ADU. The final development plan must indicate
those spaces to confirm number, location and size.
3. Trash Storage - The final development plan must indicate the trash storage, and
recycling if practicable, areas. Trash storage may not be located in the public right-of-
way.
4. Drainage - The applicant must provide for run-off from the roof, patio, and other
impermeable surfaces to be maintained on site such that no storm runoff greater than
historical will enter either Red Butte Drive or the river from the property. This must be
designed by a registered engineer.
In the application, response number S to the Stream Margin Review standards states
that erosion fencing and geogrids will be used at the 100-year floodplain boundary." This
partially meets the intent of preventing construction site runoff from reaching the river but
I
is not adequate for protecting the existing riparian vegetation as required by the "Roaring
Fork Greenway Plan."
A site visit showed that there currently is a flat space, presumably a lawn when there
is no snow on it, that extends from the house to the top of a bank. We recommend a
condition of approval that preserves the existing riparian vegetation on the bank. We
suggest that the applicant be restricted from disturbing any existing riparian vegetation on
the river bank. Disturbance would include setting erosion fencing and georgrids in that
area.
The vegetation on the bank is mostly cottonwood trees with a few native shrubs.
It appears that cottonwoods larger than 6" diameter have not been shown on the
development plan and must be shown on the final plan.
5. Wetlands - The applicant must provide a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers,
and/or the Colorado Division of Wildlife, that accepts the applicant's development
proposal.
6. Fence Encroachment - The fence at the northwest corner encroaches slightly into the
public right-of-way. The applicant must obtain an encroachment license for the fence or
preferably relocate the portion onto private property.
7. Fisherman's Easement - There is not a requirement for applicants to provide
fisherman's easements for Stream Margin Reviews, but the applicant is requested to do
so for their land in the Roaring Fork River and on the shore for a distance of five feet
from the high water line. This if for the use of fishermen fishing up and down the river
only, and not for access through private property to the river. If the applicant is willing
to convey such a fisherman's easement, we would provide the standard easement
agreement form for executing and recording.
8. Permit to Construct Driveway - The design of the driveway appears to meet the
requirements of Section 19-101, however:
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).
A permit is needed from the City Streets Department, approved by Public Works, to
construct the driveway and the pedestrian space.
9. Utilities - Any new surface utility needs must be located on easements on private
property and not in the public right-of-way. M94.48
---- --- - �� Exhibit B
TO: Mary Lackner, Planning Office F E 2
FROM: Rebecca Baker, Parks Department
THRU: George Robinson, Parks Director
DATE: January 31, 1994
RE: Bellock Conditional Use Review for anAccessory Dwelling Unit and Stream Margin
Review
We have reviewed the documents submitted by Theodore K. Guy Associates for the development
of Lot 6, Red Butte, and have two concerns.
Since several trees of significant size are to be relocated in the course of construction, a tree
removal permit should be submitted. The developers are required to either guarantee that the trees
survive for up to two years after relocation or, should they die, that they will be replaced with
comparable trees. Additionally, any excavating around existing trees will need to be done outside
of the dripline of all trees.
What type of grass does the applicant propose to plant? No bluegrass is allowed per the Water
Conservation Ordinance. Also, the irrigation system should be within the guidelines of the same
ordinance.
Finally, we request that a ten -foot fisherman's easement along the edge of the river.
1
\�D
Exhibit C
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mary Lackner, Planning Office
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office
DATE: February 10,. 1994
RE: BELLOCR REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
Parcel ID No.
The applicant has not submitted enough information for a thorough
review of his request. If the applicant's accessory dwelling unit
is within the following conditions, the Housing Office will approve
this request. The proposed attached accessory dwelling unit must
abide by Chapter 24, Section 5-510, of the City of Aspen Municipal
Code:
Accessory dwelling units shall contain not less than three hundred (300) square feet of allowable floor
area and not more than seven hundred (700) square feet of allowable floor area. The unit shall be
deed restricted, meeting the housing authority's guidelines for resident occupied units and shall be
limited to rental periods of not less than six (6) months in duration. Owners of the principal residence
shall have the right to place a qualified employee or employees of his or her choosing in the
accessory dwelling unit.
The floor area requirement is for net liveable square feet as
defined by the Housing Office below:
Net Liveable Square Footage is calculated on interior living area and is measured interior wall to
interior wall, including all interior partitions including, but not limited to, habitable basements and
interior storage areas, closets and laundry area. Exclusions include, but are not limited to,
uninhabitable basements, mechanical areas, exterior storage, stairwells, garages (either attached or
detached), patios, decks and porches.
The kitchen must also be built to the following specifications:
Kitchen must contain a minimum of a two -burner stove with oven, standard sink, and a 6-cubic foot
refrigerator plus freezer.
The unit must also have a separate entrance, must not house the
mechanical room for the principal residence, in other words, the
accessory dwelling unit must be a completely private unit.
Before the applicant can receive building permit approval, he must
provide to the Housing Office actual floor plans of the proposed
accessory dwelling unit containing net liveable square footage, and
a•signed and recorded Deed Restriction, which can be obtained from
the Housing Office. The Housing Office must have the recorded book
and page number prior to building permit approval.
- \word\referral\bettock.adu
11
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
RE: Williams Ranch Conceptual Review for Subdivision, PUD,
Rezoning, 8040 Greenline Review, GMQS Exemption and
Special Review
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner
DATE: February 15, 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 16 townhomes, 12 duplex units,
and 10 single family dwelling units for a total of 38 deed
restricted units. The applicant is also proposing 16 free market
lots.
APPLICANT: Stephen Albouy, 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).
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
Colorado State Forest Service
Environmental Health Department
Housing Office
Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Board
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
review all elements of this application in a conceptual design
nature. Staff has included the review criteria to illustrate issue
items.
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:
Subdivision 7-1004
Planned Unit Development 7-901
Rezoning to Affordable Housing 5-206.2 and 7-1102
GMQS Exemption 8-104
8040 Greenline Review 7-503
Special Review 7-401
The applicant is concurrently preparing information to be eligible
to annex this property into the City of Aspen.
Subdivision
The creation of 35 lots requires subdivision approval from the
City. Section 7-1004.0 sets the following review standards for
subdivision applications:
1.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.
K
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 38 affordable housing units, of which 10 are single
family, 12 are duplex units and 16 are townhomes. The remaining
16 parcels are free market single family lots. Staff would like
the applicant to consider increasing the number of small (one to
three bedroom) deed restricted single family and duplex units on
small lots and reduce the number of townhomes to achieve 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 draft character guidelines currently
being established for this neighborhood. This has been identified
as a recommendation from the Design Quality and Historic
Preservation section of the AACP.
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.
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 is significantly more
dense than the neighboring free market parcels.
3
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 debris
flow, drainage, rockfall, and subsurface conditions and 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.
Planned Unit Development
The applicant has requested that the 60/40 bedroom count be varied
under the PUD provisions, however this provision does not allow a
variance from the 60/40 bedroom requirement. This request is
discussed under the Project Issues section of this memorandum. If
the applicant wanted to vary the bedroom mix, then a code amendment
would be required. No other variances are requested through the
PUD provisions, however the applicant is requesting a PUD overlay
on the project. Staff supports this request for a PUD overlay due
to the steep slopes on the parcel.
4
\XJ
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.
At Final review the applicant will be required to submit 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.
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 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.
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 determined that this project will
generate the following traffic:
5
Road
Spruce Street
Brown Lane (Centennial)
Smuggler Mountain Road
Total
Units Served
7
16
31
54
Additional Traffic.
42-60
80-94
186-312
308-466
This traffic report does not discuss the existing level of service
in the area and road capacity. This report identifies the location
of the nearest RFTA bus stop at 1000 feet from the development and
that the residents will be inclined to use public transportation.
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
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 and this
should be addressed in the annexation agreement with the City.
Staff agrees with the applicant that the use of three access points
into the subdivision will disperse traffic impacts throughout the
neighborhood instead of concentrating all of the traffic into one
area.
Staff recommends that the applicant submit a traffic analysis
addressing the road capacity at Final Review, as there is not
enough information to adequately determine if the road system can
accommodate this additional traffic.
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 increase use on the school system.
Staff will refer this application to the school district for
comment, prior to Final Review.
As stated in other sections of this memorandum, there is a lack of
park space in this neighborhood and transit impacts need to be
evaluated in more depth at Final Review.
R
M
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the
natural environment.
Response: Upon buildout of this project, there will be a change
to the visual character of the site due to road and building
excavation. There should be no significant impact to the natural
.environment.
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
draft Character Guidelines for the Smuggler neighborhood as these
are being prepared by the Historic Preservation Committee, with
subsequent review by P&Z and Council. By following these
recommendations, staff believes architectural design will be more
diverse and appealing. The integration of free-market residences
increases the diversity of residential units in the lower Smuggler
neighborhood. The scale of the project, which is more dense on the
lower portion and dissipates as it increases in elevation, is an
appropriate site design. Staff does have concern that the free
market lots are still much more dense than neighboring parcels.
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 affordable housing to the
community which is provided by the private sector. The project
supports the purpose of the AH zone district and the AACP.
GMOS Exemption
Pursuant to Section 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 38 deed
restricted units and 16 free market dwelling units. The deed
restricted units are proposed as follows:
7
A
—t— Type of Unit Approx. Size Price
4 1 Bedroom, Cat. #2 Townhouse 633 sq.ft. $69,000
12 2 Bedroom, Cat. #2 Townhouse 877 sq.ft. $79000
6 4 Bedroom, Cat. #4 Duplex 1,400 sq.ft. $193,500
6 4 Bedroom, RO Duplex 1,-600 sq.ft. Market
10 4 Bedroom, RO Single Family 2,200 sq.ft. Nit
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 with the other AH projects
so as not to exceed 14 new units per year.
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 June 1994.
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. At Final Review the Planning Commission grants
8040 Greenline Review. This provision is included in the
conceptual review so that potential issues and concerns can be
identified.
Staff would like to see that 8040 Greenline review and approval
take place on each lot within Williams Ranch at Final Review. This
would preclude each lot coming before the Planning Commission
subsequent to the Final development approval. Therefore, staff is
requesting comprehensive information to be submitted for Final
Review.
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: The applicant has submitted a preliminary geologic
report which assesses the subsurface conditions of the property.
Unfortunately the report does not provide enough information to
evaluate whether there are any geologic or subsurface conditions
8
that would affect the development potential of the site. Staff
believes that an additional geologic analysis addressing the
potential for a debris flow, drainage, rockfall, and subsurface
conditions (from underground mine and tunnels) is required to
address this requirement of the Code, prior to final review.
Eight of the free market lots have building envelopes proposed that
contain some slopes in excess of 40 percent. However, the majority
of development will take place on slopes less than 30 percent.
The applicant has obtained a soils study and has submitted this
report to the Environmental Protection Agency for analysis and
review. Staff has not received any comments from the EPA at the
time this memo was prepared, but we will present the EPA comments
at the meeting.' Staff has also discussed the potential Superfund
issues in the Project Issues section of this memorandum.
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 will need to take appropriate measures to
control runoff and prevent soil erosion both during construction
and post -construction phases of the development. At Final Review
the applicant shall address the methods used to control runoff and
soil erosion during all phases of the project.
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. Any measures which reduce individual
automobile use will decrease potential air quality impacts, however
none have been proposed in the application.
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
to lessen the need for cut and filled slopes. No cut and fill
analysis has been submitted by the applicant, even though*it has
been requested by staff. The road system is compatible with the
site terrain.
5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable,
disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land
features.
9
0
Response: The geologic report indicates that cuts and fills of
five feet or less may be required to level building areas, to
construct the access road, and to build driveways. The report
further states, "No new construction should be placed on existing
fill at this site. All existing fill should be removed and
replaced as recommended in the 'Site Grading' section of this
report." The Site Grading section recommends that, "the ground
beneath the fill should be stripped of organic matter and topsoil
prior to placing fill."
Staff has concern that grading may be significant as there is no
information in the application which identifies the depth of the
existing filled surfaces. The conceptual site grading plan only
indicates grading along portions of the access road, but no grading
within the building sites. The Planning Office does not believe
enough information regarding proposed grading has been submitted
and would like this additional information prior to conceptual
review by City Council.
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 utilized for development
purposes. The higher density deed restricted units are
concentrated on the lower areas of the property.
The free market lots are located on the higher elevations of the
property and will be visible from town. These lots are not located
along the same elevation line and vary quite significantly. This
gives the appearance of less uniformity in the division of lots but
permits development on the higher elevations of the property,
however the density of these parcels is at least four times greater
than neighboring free market parcels. The Planning Office believes
the lot layout lessens homogeneity, but is too dense. We do have
concern that individual driveway and house design may require
significant mountain side scaring. Therefore, the Planning Office
requests that more specific information regarding driveway and
homesite grading be submitted at Final Review.
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.
m
The deed restricted segment is allowed about 19,300 sq . ft . of floor
area for the townhomes, 24,480 sq.ft. of floor area for the duplex
units, and 34,500 sq. ft. of floor area for the single family homes.
The total floor area permitted for the deed restricted units is
78,280 square feet on 4.23 acres. As discussed in the Subdivision
section, staff believes that reducing the bulk of the townhomes by
creating several one to three bedroom single family and duplex
units would lessen the visual mass of the project and provide a
better transition to the mountainside.
No preliminary architectural design has been submitted. Staff
recommends that preliminary design be submitted for review at Final
Review. We further recommend that architecture of the entire
subdivision follow the Character Guidelines for the Smuggler
neighborhood.
The application indicates that all structures will be a maximum of
two stories. The height limit of the AH zone district is 25 feet.
Although the AH zone district permits an increase in height to 30
feet by Special Review, the applicant has not requested this
increase. Staff does not feel a height increase would be
appropriate for this development.
8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are
available to service the proposed development.
Response: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, Aspen Water
Department, and Holy Cross have indicated that they have and
adequate capacity to serve the Williams Ranch project. Additional
information needs to be submitted to Rocky Mountain Natural Gas and
US West Communications before they can render a decision regarding
service.
9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed
development, and said roads can be properly maintained.
Response: Additional information regarding the -impact to the road
system will need to be submitted at Final Review.
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, Teal Court,
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 will need to approve
the final road system at Final Review. Snow removal equipment can
be accommodated if the roads are designed to City road standards.
This will need to be indicated on the Final Review plans.
il. 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.
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 the Planning Commission at Final
Review.
Parking: The applicant is proposing to provide 1.5 parking spaces
per townhome dwelling unit and two spaces per deed restricted
single family and duplex units. Parking for free market units will
be assessed by the Zoning Official when building permits are
reviewed for these parcels. A total of 27 parking spaces will be
provided for the townhome portion of the project.
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 bedroom. Residents of Centennial
have identified that there are parking constraints in this area due
to loss of spaces in the winter due to snow, lack of guest parking,
and multiple car ownership in all sizes of dwelling units.
Staff believes that the applicant should provide two parking spaces
per townhome unit in addition to a minimum of three guest spaces,
due to the parking pressures which already exist in this
neighborhood. Therefore, the applicant should revise the site plan
to show a minimum of 35 spaces for the townhome portion of the
project.
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
20,800 sq.ft.
Staff reviewed the Ute Park, West Hopkins, and East Cooper AH
projects and found that none of these developments provided any
usable open space. Although, this developer is proposing two open
space parcel, staff does not believe this is adequate due to the
12
neighborhood conditions. Staff recommends that an open space
buffer between Williams Ranch and Centennial be provided by the
applicant. This alternative is discussed in the Project Issues
section.
PROJECT ISSUES:
Superfund Site
The entire Williams Ranch project is proposed within the
Environmental Protection Agency's Operable Unit #2 (OU2)
boundaries. Soil studies assessing the lead content of the soil
have been submitted to EPA for review. This study indicates that
the lead content of soil at Williams Ranch is less than the action
level established by the EPA which would require remediation.
(Planning staff has not received referral comments from the EPA at
the time this memo was drafted, but we will present these comments
to the Planning Commission once they are received.) The applicant
will be required to comply with all local and national regulations
regarding development within a Superfund Site.
Molly Gibson Access Road
The applicant needs to obtain an access easement from the Pitkin
County Board of County Commissioners to cross Molly Gibson Park to
access the upper road shown on the site plan. An issue which is
still unresolved is using Molly Gibson Park as a repository for
lead containing soil. Current negotiations with the EPA have
excluded this park from use as a repository, as other sites are
being considered.
The Open Space and Trails Board has expressed concern that an
access road across this park may degrade the size of the park for
use and desirability as open space. The Parks Department has
requested that if the County grants access through the park, that
the access road avoid the flat areas of the park. The Planning
Office further recommends that the access road be adequately bermed
and revegetated to eliminate potential conflicts between park users
and the road. A, road design and landscaping plan shall be
submitted at Final Review.
60140 Bedroom Mix
The applicant is proposing 116 deed restricted bedrooms and 80 free
market bedrooms, resulting in 59.2% deed restricted and 40.2% free
market. This does not meet the Affordable Housing Zone District
requirement of 60% deed restricted and 40% free market bedrooms.
This development proposal consists of:
13
Type of Unit
# of Units
# Bedrooms
Total Bedrooms
Free Market
16
5
80
AH- Single Family
10
4
40
AH- Duplex
12
4
48
AH- Townhome (1-bed)
4
1
4
AH- Townhome (2-bed)
12
2
24
The applicant's alternative development plan eliminates the 4 one -
bedroom townhome units and replaces them with 4 two -bedroom
townhome units. Although this enables the applicant to meet the
60/40 requirement it does not meet the Housing Office's priority
of needing one and three bedroom units. The Housing Office has
recommended that the applicant increase the number of one bedroom
dwelling units and convert some of the two bedroom units into three
bedroom units in order to meet the 60/40 requirement.
Another alternative would be to reduce the size of the free market
units on Lots 15 and 16 to less than five bedrooms. Staff believes
that the improvements on these two lots be reduced in size to
minimize the impacts on Centennial units located on Free Silver
Court.
Open Space Buffer Between Centennial and Williams Ranch
One of the concerns raised by neighbors was the need for an open
space buffer between Centennial and Williams Ranch. Several of the
referral agencies have also indicated the need for more usable open
space in this immediate neighborhood. Staff recommends that the
applicant redesign the project to include an open space buffer
between Centennial and Williams Ranch that extends from Teal Court
to the Salvation Ditch. Staff would also like to see the access
road through Centennial be maintained to keep traffic impacts
dispersed.
To further lessen the visual impacts on Centennial, a limitation
on how far down the hillside development should take place on Lots
15 and 16 should be established. Staff also recommends that the
applicant consider locating smaller structures on these sites,
perhaps the small one -three bedroom single family homes that should
replace several of the townhome units.
Park Dedication Fee Waiver
As a result of the applicant's proposal to improve Molly Gibson
Park, he is requesting a waiver from the Park Dedication Fee
requirements of Section 5-601 of the Code. It is the position of
several referral agencies and the Planning staff that in exchange
for the access easement granted by the County, the applicant shall
be required to improve Molly Gibson Park. Therefore, staff does
not support the applicant's request for this waiver.
14
-1�
If the applicant provides and improves an open space buffer between
Centennial and Williams Ranch this could be considered to offset
the park dedication fee requirement.
Resident Occupied
The proposal contemplates the construction of sixteen resident
occupied (RO) dwelling units. The City is presently reviewing the
existing RO regulations and will be adopting revisions within the
next several months. As required with the RO lot in the East
Cooper AH project, Williams Ranch will need to comply with any
amendments to the RO requirements.
Annexation of the Entire Parcel
Some interest has been raised by neighbors and referral agencies
regarding the possibility of annexing the entire 40 acre parcel
owned by the applicant. If the remainder of the -Smuggler mine
property is annexed, the entire property can be reviewed for future
development by the City, instead of being split between two
jurisdictions. Instead of concentrating the 54 unit Williams Ranch
project on only 12.7 acres, the lower portion of the Smuggler mine.
should be used to accommodate a portion of the proposed
development. The proposed road through Molly Gibson Park would not
need to be constructed as access could be accommodated through the
Smuggler mine parcel. The Smuggler Mine could be maintained and
surrounding property developed as usable open space and buffer area
between the mine and residential uses. Staff believes that this
option would allow a comprehensive development analysis of the
entire site, reduce impacts of new road construction, provide and
preserve usable open space, and reduce the units per acre on
Williams Ranch to create a better transition to the mountainside.
Staff would like the applicant to addresses these issues at the
Planning Commission meeting.
Spruce Street
A significant neighborhood concern is the potential of Williams
Ranch residents to access the entire subdivision from Spruce
Street. The design proposed'by the applicant indicates a through
street that will serve all duplex and single family lots, although
the application indicates that only seven of these units will be
accessed via Spruce Street. Staff would like to see that a through
access be provided that would be available to emergency vehicles,
but not permit all residents from accessing Spruce Street.
Annexation
As part of the annexation proceedings, the City may request the
developer to -provide off -site public improvements in exchange for
annexation to the City. Staff has raised several issue areas
15
within the this memorandum which we request the developer to
address in the annexation agreement. These items include: physical
improvements or cash contributions to RFTA, the road system, and
for usable park space. Specific annexation issues and
contributions will be addressed in the Annexation Plan which is
required to be submitted to the City prior to final development
application submission.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
On January 26, 1994 the Planning Office held a neighborhood meeting
on the Williams Ranch proposal. The Smuggler neighborhood was
invited to attend and learn about the project, what the process is,
and to give input regarding the proposed project. About 80 people
attended this meeting with public opinion both for and against the
project. The following comments represent the mix of public
comments from this meeting:
o Increased traffic where there are already some traffic
and intersection problems (Spruce, South, Park, Lone
Pine, Neal, Gibson).
o Increased density in the most dense section of Aspen.
o Increased traffic and the conflicts that this would
create with children who play in the street.
o Dust control during construction is critical.
o Need additional active open space in this area of town.
o Create an open space buffer between Centennial and
Williams Ranch. Buffer should be the area below the
Salvation Ditch.
o How will access from Spruce Street be limited if the road
connects to the entire Williams Ranch project.
o The access point through Centennial is inappropriate.
o A strong transit plan which mitigates traffic and air
pollution should be implemented as part of the Williams
Ranch project.
o It may be premature to be reviewing a project which
consists of Resident Occupied (RO) units when no
standards have been adopted by the City or County.
o Some concern of fairness and special favors were raised
because the developer has the ability to select the
residents for the affordable housing.
16
\�f
o Project allows people to stay in the Aspen area and
increases inventory for "move up" units (single family
and duplex), eliminates some commuters on SH 82.
o Private funds used to develop affordable housing project
is a positive sign.
o Project provides significant number of affordable housing
units that helps us meet the goals of the AACP.
SUMMARY: There are several outstanding issues relative to the
applicant's request for conceptual approval. The provision of
usable open space and the increase of traffic within this
neighborhood are threshold issues.
Several of the alternatives in this memo should be given
consideration by the applicant and the Planning Commission prior
to approval of conceptual review.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the applicant's conceptual
development plan to City Council subject to the following
conditions:
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.
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.
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.
C. The final development plan shall illustrate existing and
revised topographical lines and cross sections for the
proposed road every 100 feet.
17
3.
4.
e.
The applicant shall dedicate public right-of-way or
easement for. Spruce Street along the north property
boundary.
Easements for internal roads shall include public
pedestrian use and be designed to the City of Aspen
specifications.
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.
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.
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.
i. A drainage
submitted
submission
plan prepared by a licenced engineer shall be
as part of the Final development review
package.
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.
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.
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.
C. A 14 foot public trail easement shall be provided through
the subdivision for access to existing and/or future
public lands.
d. As part of Final development review the applicant shall
submit a detailed landscape plan. Detail of trees six
18
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.
5. The applicant shall address the water issues raised in the
January 20, 1994 letter from Phil Overeynder to Hans E.
Brucker.
6. The applicant shall comply with the draft Character Guidelines
for the Smuggler neighborhood.
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.
8. A traffic analysis, prepared by a licenced engineer,
addressing the road capacity shall be submitted at Final
Review.
9. A geologic report addressing the potential for debris flow,
drainage, rockfall and subsurface conditions (from underground
mines and tunnels) shall be submitted at Final Review.
10. At Final Review, the.applicant shall address the methods used
to control runoff and soil erosion during all phases of the
project.
11. A comprehensive grading plan indicating the extent of cuts,
fills and regrading shall be submitted prior to conceptual
review by City Council.
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.
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.
14. The applicant shall submit the final road design with proposed
landscaping of Molly Gibson Park at Final Review.
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.
16. The applicant shall comply with any amendments made to the
Resident Occupied regulations which are presently being
reviewed by the City.
19
1�
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.
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.
19. Prior to Conceptual review by City Council, the applicant
shall address the various design alternatives discussed in
this memorandum. They are:
a. Elimination or downsizing of Lots 15 and 16.
b. Redesign of several townhome buildings to be small (one
to three bedroom) single family or duplex houses on small
lots.
C. Increasing the lot area of the free market parcels to be
about one acre in size. This might only be accomplished
if more of the applicant's property is annexed into the
City.
d. Annexation of the remaining portion of the applicant's
property to use the existing road to access the site and
to spread the 54 units on more acreage. Create a usable
park/open space area in the vicinity of the Smuggler
mine.
20. 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.
21. Within the Final submission application, the applicant shall
address project phasing and shall include appropriate
assurances guaranteeing construction of the affordable housing
units.
22. The applicant shall address physical improvements or cash
contributions to RFTA, the road system, and for usable park
in the Annexation Plan which shall be submitted to the City
prior to Final development review submission.
22. 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.
we
PROPOSED MOTION:
Ranch Affordable
Council, subject
1994 memorandum
Commission."
"I move to recommend approval of the Williams
Housing Conceptual Development Plan to City
to the conditions outlined in the February 15,
from the Planning Office to the Planning
Application packet and blueprints
Exhibits:
A- Timeline of review process
B- Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
C- City Engineer
D- City Parks Department
E- City Water Department
F- Colorado State Forest Service
G- Environmental Health Department
H- Housing Office
I- Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Board
J- Various public letters
apz.ah.williamsranch
21
t��
1
It
It u
23
Ai
m
0 ` /
LL
/;' 1, ca.
/ / ''/ �i , � ''�` -a, / �o oY8 ►moo � � � - C /
IF
IL
I
oFD
Jc
ai o
m oI'lli;1 iIn
ire' I`l',i '/ t �n,J n /_!/ / \r
0 +,I� ;�''(•ii;;�l ���'1 I,�,i�, - -, -. . ;�_. ;,1 ^ � ���_--- % o ✓ -`- 1, Irk
o
o'ii�
0
Ib
o
'4t
0 If
4,x
I I /' :l /' �,II � � 1 1 I 1 !�� � `�'' I' 1, �(rl I � • lo', .�. � - � � O r 11`1 111 /,,�' /i
l I 1 11\� ,� I ., I I I 1 �'. ) `��` 1, I I �-� ., 1 •� r 11 / / /' 1 i 'W 1 ��' / `\\
1_It�l\ ly \x '� ,'� I Q� . �) \\'\ I II-N� • I •1( ,r \`.�\ �1�— ,��/ \`\
1'f li %1 :1 11; \ �� .�( \ > v' I F� a o
0 j I .�� 7r {}1
I V /
�� � I i I , � , ,•\r , � 1 .M J C " - 0'�'� i ! ' 1111
it -Cf
// .� 1 ��,1' I ( r• 1� ! /� ,�� / I �� ` 10_� �'' r��:��Y� re
u
/�/t'
JI
b rvoo- -M ' I
Cie
r.
d�kv
/ It/// //// /, 1
l// /If
It
o o 0/ /,a ! / It
00)
It
a0 t�L
/ /
10
011
Aff
It
JI
,° 1 ,� �/, •/. 1 - �t-
10
IT
ji
Itill
iL
%CD
li 111 l� o \ ,',\ \ "'O'• I �•� ;i/// �/
Ilili%/\�I'III.I'I
-------------
If
oz
cz
' ' J•If
Fes" {...,1-r'� / •// ��� /�'� i` �� � i :� � �:' � T �. r�0
,
`� � asp �' % �/. ✓� �� ,_
b r
O b a
N_.
co b O t)
'd oca �
b ;o
a
'0v, b N
cv O �l b
to c c n'
El-
H b
�
c
n - M
l<
�--- n cr c ---►
o `< cm
C
� � o
N
o� aa�
b O
oc ]
a
r-+
O
O
CD
DO
C4
r
'62
Exhibit A
��4
Exhibit B
Tlele. (303) 925-3601
Sy Kelly - Chairman
John J. Snyder - Treas.
Louis Popish - Secy.
January 25, 1994
Mary Lachner
Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
FAX #(303) 925-2537
JAN L 6
Re: Williams Ranch Conceptual Submission
Dear Marv:
Albert Bishop
Frank Loushin
Bruce Matherly, Mgr.
The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently has
sufficient line and treatment capacity to serve this project. As
usual connection to the District system is contingent upon
compliance with the District's rules, regulations and
specifications, which are on file at the District office.
This application will require the applicant to submit a line
extension request: to extend the public system to a point that
-can intercept flows from the property, and a collection system
agreement: that will cover the terms and conditions of the
extension and connections.
It appears as though the entire project lies within our District
boundaries, but this would need to be verified by the applicant
through tax records. If portions of the project are outside our
boundaries, then we would require the owner to petition for the
inclusion of these areas into our District prior to our
committing to serve the project.
The applicant is encouraged to contact our office for approval of
line extension alternative alignments that meet district
specifications. The District may require that the extension be
designed by the District's engineer at the applicant's expense.
The extension must be located in a public right of way accessible
to the District for routine maintenance.
We have recently received a general summary of the types of units
being proposed and have worked up a very rough estimate of
connection charges for the project. Once detailed plans of the
improvements are available we will be able to refine our
comments.
Sincerely,
Bruce M a t h e r•Y'y EPA AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE
)restrict Manager
1976 - 1986 - 1990
REGIONAL AND NATIONAL
Exhibit C
MEMORANDUM
To: Mary Lackner, Planning Office • .
Thru: Bob Gish, Public Works Director/
From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer 61C
Date: January 26, 1994
Re: Williams Ranch Conceptual Submission for Annexation, AH Rezoning, PUD,
Subdivision, GMQS Exemption, Special Review & 8040 Greenline Review
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
ANNEXATION
1. The boundary of the proposed annexation area meets and exceeds the state statute
requirements for annexation for contiguity with the existing City Limit line of the City of
Aspen. State statute requires 1/6 contiguity (16.67%). The proposed annexation area is
40.90% contiguous with the City of Aspen.
2. Annexing the proposed area into the City of Aspen will result in an incremental
increase in City staff workload based on a combination of factors such as the increase of
area to the City, the number of lots, the number of additional residents to the City, the
zoning, the administration of the proposed development, and so on.
3. Annexation Map - Label City Limit line. Indicate in a general note that bearings and
distances match bearings and distances of record of city limit line, or indicate in
parentheses or by note the city limit line bearings and distances of record where they
differ from the applicant's information.
PUD, SUBDIVISION, & 8040 GREENLINE REVIEWS
Access, Roads, Pedestrian Use
4. The access plan that was submitted is unclear. The final development plan must
include a clear access plan showing the edges of pavements or other driving surface and
the edges of rights -of -way and access easements for all connecting and circulating roads
inside and outside of Williams Ranch, including circulation patterns, designating one-way
Pp
or two way traffic flow. (There is currently a one-way street involved which is not
indicated in the development plan.) The plan must indicate existing and proposed
conditions. I have called the applicant to discuss this.
5. Access from Spruce Street at northeast of Williams Ranch - It should be a condition
of approval that the applicant obtain a 40 foot wide easement between Spruce Street and
their internal, private road to provide for 20 feet 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.
At the public meeting of January 25, concern was expressed about the design of this
future intersection as well as other existing intersections in the neighborhood. Although
it is not appropriate with this application to require improvements to existing street
intersections in the vicinity of the proposed development, it should be a -condition of
approval for this application to provide for the new intersection design and construction
to be approved by the City Engineer.
6. Access from Park Circle - The Engineering Department recommends that the southern
access to Williams Ranch be from Park Circle and not from Smuggler Mountain Road.
It is difficult to determine from the application the full extent of the road cut and
the visual impact. The final development plan must show existing and revised topographic
lines as well as cross sections for the proposed road every 100 feet. The visual impacts
of this access road cut will probably require special treatment to meet 8040 Greenline
Review criteria. The road drainage must be provided for as discussed below in order to
meet 8040 criteria for reducing impacts on the natural watershed and surface runoff. The
treatment of the road cut must be designed "so as to- reduce impacts of unstable slopes,
rock falls, mudslides, and to aid in the transition of agricultural and forestry land uses to
urban uses."
7. Dedicate public right-of-way or easement for Spruce Street along north property
boundary.
8. Provide easements on internal private roads for public pedestrian use.
9. Provide 5 foot wide concrete sidewalks on each side of the road, adjacent to the
property lines. (Concrete curb and gutter will not be required except within the
townhomes project.) This permits a five foot buffer between the edge of pavement in
which would be located the drainage ditch and where snow could be stored during the
winter. This is the requirement to meet the guidelines of the City of Aspen "Pedestrian
Walkway and Bikeway System Plan." Handicap ramps must be provided at corners and
elsewhere as needed, with culverts underneath for drainage. Sidewalks and handicap
ramps must meet City of Aspen specifications.
10. Internal roads
The sub -base, compaction and paving requirements must meet City standards in
Chapter 19 of the Municipal Code. The roadway design standards must meet the
standards of Section 24-7-1004.C.4.
The internal roads must be paved 20 feet wide in order to meet Code requirements
of 20 foot wide emergency access.
Section 24-7-1004.C.4.a(13) stipulates maximum road grade at intersections be 4%
for a distance of 100 feet from intersection. This must be provided for on the
private roads and new intersections with existing roads.
The private road must be indicated on all drawings as a private road, not as an
access driveway.
The radius of the turn -around in middle of private road must meet Fire Marshall
requirements plus a five foot buffer/drainage/snow storage space plus five foot
sidewalks.
Drainage
11. Site drainage - The new development plan must provide for no more than historic
flows to leave the site, including drainage from the private access road. This is addressed
in Section 24-7-1004.C.4.f in the Code. The site runoff must also respect historical
patterns in terms of releasing no new runoff onto Spruce Street, Teal Court, and Park
Circle.
Additionally, during construction, no runoff from soils exposed by excavation may
be permitted to leave the site.
Utilities
12. Any surface facilities such as transformers and pedestals shall be located within
private easements outside of the 40 foot access and utility easement. Specify that the
utility easement is for buried utilities only.
13. We recommend a condition of approval that utilities must be stubbed out to property
lines in order to prevent excavation in the newly paved subdivision roads.
14. There is currently wide spread, low level lighting at the Centennial Condominiums -
in parking areas, along pedestrian routes, and along streets. We recommend a condition
of approval that Williams Ranch be required to provide similar lighting within the project
boundaries and also to provide standard City antique street lights at the intersections of
their access roads with Spruce Street, Teal Court, and Park Circle.
Survey Monumentation
15. There is a consistent problem within the community of survey monuments being
removed during construction (including and especially landscaping) and not being replaced
as required by state statute. Please provide a condition of approval to require certification
by a registered land surveyor at the beginning of construction concerning existing
monumentation and at the end of construction (including landscaping) that all original
monuments remain in place or have been reset. I have called the applicant to discuss this.
Development Plan
16. Sheet 2: The extent of the access and utility easement is not clear as indicated
adjacent to Teal Court.
17. Sheet 8 (Proposed Access Plan): This sheet is sketchy and unclear and must show
Spruce Street right-of-way boundary lines and dedication of additional right-of-way along
north boundary.
18. Trash Areas The final plan must 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.
Slope Reduction Plan
19. This sheet must be signed and stamped by Colorado registered land surveyor,
architect, or civil engineer.
Final Plat
20. The final plat must meet the requirements of Section 24-7-1004.D of the Municipal
Code.
21. The plat certificates must include certificates of plat approval for utility location and
easement width design by all utilities.
General
22. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts which may be
formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in the public right-of-way.
SPECIAL REVIEW
23. The application mixes and matches its review criteria by applying County standards
to some portions of the application and City standards to other portions. In the context
of providing on -site parking for the development, the Engineering Department conceptually
recommends that the guidelines of one parking space per bedroom be maintained, but
suggests that the Parking and Transportation Director be consulted for a current parking
policy statement. The guideline of one parking space per bedroom would enhance the
availability of on -site guest and visitor parking in the event that residents do not fully
utilize the one space per bedroom parking requirement. There is no on -street parking
available in the vicinity of Williams Ranch. Please note that the Housing Authority
confirms that there has proven to be inadequate parking at Marolt Housing.
General Comments
24. 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).
The Engineering Department recommends that a condition of approval for the proposed
development be that the private roadway easement be encumbered with the above
requirement so that no inappropriate development occurs within the private roadway
easement which would detract from the intended function of the private roadway
easement.
M94.34
34
Exhibit D
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mary Lackner, Planning Office
THRU: George Robinson, Parks Director
FROM: Rebecca Baker, Parks Department
DATE: Wanuary 28, 1994 (Revised)
RE: Williams Ranch Conceptual Submission for Annexation, AH Rezoning, PUD,
Subdivision, GMQS Exemption, Special Review & 8040 Greenline Review
The Parks Department has reviewed the application submitted by Stephan Albouy for development
of the Williams Ranch parcel. The Parks Department has a number of concerns regarding this
development.
Mollie Gibson Park: The Aspen Area Community Plan recognized the need for an active park in
this area of town. The City has been working on a Parks and Recreation Master Plan and has been
looking for suitable parcels in the Smuggler area for an active park. We have considered the Mollie
Gibson Park for a possible neighborhood park with such amenities as a playground and picnic
area. The access road proposed by the applicant is of some concern due to impacts to the park. If
the County does allow access through Mollie Gibson, the Parks Department. would like to work
with the county and the applicant to minimize the use of the flat area of the park for a road.
Additionally, if the applicant is to develop the park for mitigation of an access agreement and in lieu
of payment for park dedication fees, we would require the applicant to submit a design proposal
for the park and road prior to final approval of an access agreement. The visual impact of the road
cut should also be considered. We would request details of the slope cut prior to final approval.
The representatives for the developer have stated they will meet with the City and County and
submit a park design proposal prior to the February 15th meeting with the BOCC, but to date, no
meeting has been scheduled.
A separate application is being submitted to the County for a mine master plan. This plan is
referenced on page 31 of the Williams Ranch Submission and the applicant states "there are no
easements which encumber the Smuggler Mine Property, however, the owner has historically
permitted public use of approximately six hundred (600') feet of its property, at an elevation of
approximately 8,400 feet, where Smuggler Mountain Road traverses it. Continued public use
is contemplated by the Applicant." Considering the history of the access issues on
Smuggler Mountain Road and Hunter Creek, the County may wish to address this issue as part of
its access agreement across Mollie Gibson.
Trails and Open Space: The application proposes a trail along the Salvation Ditch. An easement
agreement with the ditch owners should be obtained by the applicant prior to the public hearing
before City Council. Will the applicant be constructing the trail, and if so, what standards,
materials, etc., are they proposing? This trail should be dedicated as public and a 14' public trail
easement should be provided through the subdivision for persons wanting to access the.public land
above Williams Ranch.
The square footage for the open space areas shown on the site development plan do not total .47
acres as stated on the plan. The square footage only totals .24 acres.
Sidewalks: The Pedestrian Plan recommended sidewalks be installed for all new development.
The development plan states no sidewalks are proposed for the subdivision. Sidewalks are very
important for pedestrian areas and should be constructed for this development. Additionally,
handicap accessability should be addressed for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA). The homeowners/property management company will be responsible for snow removal
on all sidewalks.
Landscaping: A detailed landscape plan should be submitted prior to final approval. Detail as to
trees over 6 inches in diameter require a tree removal permit and should be indicated on the
oldP ape plan. Landscaping in any right-of-way should also be included on the landscape plan.
Parks Department has copies of streetscape guidelines if the applicant is interested.
CC: Ellen Sassano, Planning Office
Mark Fuller, Pitkin County Open Space and Trails
/� re
Exhibit E
JAN 2 U
January 20, 1994
Mr. Hans E. Brucker
F
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
605 E. Main Street THE CITY OF ASPEN
Aspen, CO 81611
- Dear Hans:
SUBJECT: ' WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION --
REQUEST FOR WATER SERVICE OUTSIDE EXISTING CITY LIMITS
The City of Aspen is in receipt of your Request for Consideration of Water Service Extension
for the proposed Williams Ranch Subdivision. The. City has reviewed the. request and made a
preliminary determination that water system capacity is available to provide municipal water for
domestic and fire protection purposes to the Williams Ranch Subdivision as described in the
Request for Consideration.
This preliminary determination does not constitute the City's commitment to provide water
service. A Water Service Agreement will be required to be executed by ordinance through City
Council approval before any Water. service is provided. The preliminary, determination that
water system capacity is available is valid for one year from the date of this letter unless a Water
Service Agreement is executed or the property is annexed to the City. In the event that an
annexation agreement is reached as a result, incorporating the 12.7 acres contained in the
application, it is anticipated that related water service issues would be included in the annexation
agreement.
You should be advised that the City has received several large competing applications for water
service concurrent with your request. The City staff is also performing a raw water supply
availability study to determine the extent that natural streamflows 'are available to support its
rights to divert water in a manner consistent with decreed water rights and in accordance with
City policy regarding the protection of in -stream uses and minimum streamflows. Depending
on the extent of the conformity with City land -use and water policies, the City may choose to
prioritize the competing requests for water service prior to entering into a Water Service
Agreement.'
I am enclosing a Water Service Application form, as well as a fee schedule. I have been advised
by Kris Sund in our customer services .office that you have contacted her separately for a
preliminary determination on water utility investment charges. Both this preliminary
determination and preliminary schedule of charges, provided by customer services are based on
your plan submission to the Planning Department dated November, 1993. These plans differ
significantly from those submitted as part of your Request for Water Service, which were dated
November, 1991.
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PHONE 303.920.5000 FAx 303.920.5197
- Ptred m ncycW papa
Mr. Hans E. _Brucker
Page Two
January 20, 1994 ,
Along with the information required as part of the Application for Water ' Service; I would
request that you provide the following:
Provide a hydraulic profile on the 12-inch water main or the 8-inch connecting mains that
supply water to the Williams Addition. This analysis will be required to demonstrate the
ability to provide sufficient pressures and flow rates to meet project demands. Existing
information we have on water pressure is data from .flow tests performed by the Aspen
Fire Department.
• Hydrant #993, located at Park Circle flowed at 919 gpm with
a static pressure of 85.0 psi. The test was performed on August
30, 1990.
• Hydrant #999, located at the east end of Free Silver Court in
the Centennial Complex flowed at 839 gpm with a static pressure
of 70.0 psi. The test was performed August 29, 1990.
If proper flow rates cannot be achieved in the existing system without adversely affecting other
City water customers, the applicant will have the following options.
• Install a new 12-inch main from the existing 12-inch water main at Park Circle and
Midland Avenue, south in Midland, to connect with the existing 14-inch water main in
Highway 82 at Midland.
• Install a new 12-inch water main from the existing 12-inch main in Spruce
Street and Gibson Avenue west, to the existing 12-inch water main at Mill Street
and Gibson.
• Other combinations of water main connections or the provision of on -site water
storage to reduce peak flow rates.
You should also be advised that any Water Service Agreement executed by the City must contain
a contractual obligation to annex the portion of the property benefitted by the agreement. Since
the application to the Planning Department includes an annexation request this will not likely
cause concern to your clients.
Mr. Hans E. Brucker
Page Three
January 20, 1994
Please feel free to call me if you require further clarification about our application process or
information requirements necessary to complete the review of your application.
Sincerely; J
PhilOvereynde
Director of Water
PO:11
cc Bob Gish, Public Works Director
Larry Ballenger, Water Superintendent
Kris Sund, Customer Service Supervisor
Mary Lackner, Planner
Cindy Covell, Alperstein & Covell, P.C.
\phiRwilliams.ran
February 1, 1994
W hibit F
O
FOREST
SERVICE
State Services Building
222 S. 6th Street, Room 416
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
Telephone (303) 248-7325
Ms. Mary Lackner
Aspen/P i tk i n Planning Office
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611 FLU 2
Re: Williams Ranch 1041 Wildfire Hazard Review
Dear Ms. Lackner,
I visited the site of this proposed development on January 27,
1994. There are high hazard fuels (flashy and continuous)
throughout the proposed development area. This combined with the
slopes and southern aspect normally would make this a high
wildfire hazard area. However, there are a number of design
factors that mitigate this hazard to acceptable levels:
1. The proposed main roadway traverses the slope through the
middle of the site providing a very effective fuelbreak.
2. This roadway (as mapped) provides multiple, separate
ingress and egress. This can be critical for evacuation
of residents simultaneously with the arrival of emergency
equipment.
3. The upper lots (1-14) will likely have to have driveways
that parallel the slope below the houses. These driveways
will also serve as a fuelbreak in the event of a
wildfire.
The high density, lower lots would likely not require any
existing vegetation manipulation to mitigate wildfire hazards,
because it will all be replaced with landscaping. The upper lots
on the steep slopes may require some natural vegetation
modification, and I have enclosed a couple of publications that
give good guidelines.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal.
Sincerely,
l
John W. Denison
District Forester
cc: Steve Crockett, Pitkin Co. Sheriff's Dept.
Tom Stevens, The Stevens Group, Inc.
Aspen Vol. Fire Dept.
Enclosures: "Fire Safe Vegetation"
"Home Fire Protection"
Exhibit G
MEMORANDUM
To: Mary Lackner, Planning Office
From: Chris Chiola, Environmental Health Department
Through: Lee Cassin, Senior Environmental Health Officer
Date: January 26, 1994
Re: Williams Ranch Conceptual Submission for Annexation, AH Rezoning, PUD,
Subdivision, GMQS Exemption, Special Review & 8040 Greenline Review
Parcel ID# 2737-074-00-008
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the Williams Ranch
application under authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has the
following comments.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Section 11-1.7 'It 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 applicant plans to provide wastewater disposal for this project through the
collection lines of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD). This meets the
requirements of this Department. The applicant needs to provide documentation that
the applicant and the service agency are mutually bound to the proposal and that the
service agency is capable of serving the development.
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Section 23-55 'All buildings, structures, facilities,
parks, or the like within the city limits which use water shall be connected to the municipal water utility system.'
The applicants plan to provide 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 will determine if adequate water is available for the
project. The City of Aspen water supply meets all standards of the Colorado
Department of Health for drinking water quality.
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 expected by the City Engineer in the detailed submission. Otherwise there are no
concerns from this Department.
1 °�,
AIR QUALITY: Sections 11-2.1 'The city council hereby finds and declares that air quality is an important
component of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens and community of the City of Aspen and that the air quality in and
around the City of Aspen is threatened by various pollutants. The City council finds and declares that it has a duty to protect and
improve the air quality in and around the City of Aspen for the health, safety and general welfare of the city but also for the
economic and aesthetic well-being of the city as a resort community and to preserve the scenic natural resources of the community.
To this end, it is the purpose of this section to achieve the maximum. practical degree of air purity possible by requiring the use
of all available practical methods and techniques to control, prevent and reduce air pollution throughout the City.'
The major concern of the Environmental Health Department is the impact of increasing
traffic in a non -attainment area designated by the EPA. To be consistent with the State
Implementation Plan for the Aspen area, traffic generated by this development must be
offset by decreases in traffic (or other PM-10 sources) elsewhere in the non -attainment
area. This is compared to the levels present today.
The applicant must determine the amount of traffic generated by the project. Specific
mitigation measures must then be included where the PM-10 reduction equals the
projects emission increases. This office will determine the sufficiency of the proposed
mitigation measures. This project cannot be approved by this Department without such
a mitigation package.
FIRE PLAC E/WOODSTOVE: The applicant must file a fireplace/woodstove permit with
the Environmental Health Department before the building permit will be issued. This
project, which is in the non -attainment area, may have two department certified devices
and unlimited numbers of decorative gas appliances per building regardless of the
number of dwelling units in the building. New homes may NOT have wood burning
fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel.
FUGITIVE DUST: A fugitive dust control plan is required which includes, but is not
limited to 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 crossing the property line or causing a
nuisance.
COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH REGULATIONS:
NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 16-1 'The 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 cannot exceed maximum permissible sound level standards
and 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. As the result of this, it is
imperative that the applicant contact the Environmental Protection Agency for necessary
approvals prior to moving soil.
'The applicant has stated that soil samples have been taken which indicate lead levels
are lower than the action level established by the EPA which would require remediation.
This office has requested that the sample data be provided to verify the statement. The
attorney for the project indicated the sample data would be forthcoming. It seems to
be well understood that this project will be treated no differently than any other within
the Superfund Site. Compliance with applicable orders, regulations and laws will be -
equally applied.
A significant issue which is still unresolved is the one of access to the project using a
proposed road across the Molly Gibson Park (Park). As part of Pitkin County's
settlement with the EPA, discussions have been held which included use of the Park
as a repository for lead containing soil. However, current negotiations have excluded
the Park from use as a storage site for additional soils. Other options are being
explored which will perhaps allow for soils to be hauled to areas within the Smuggler
Mine site property, to the Pitkin County Landfill, or to other (as yet undefined) sites
fitting the criteria established by local, state and federal governments. Currently there
is no detailed plan regarding where the lead containing soil will be stored or how it will
be treated once deposited on the chosen property.
... D:JT ENV:WP:LAND USE:WMS.RANCH
3 ,�
Exhibit H
FEB 7
TO: Mary Lackner, Planning Office
'�
FROM: Tom Baker, Housing Office
�1
DATE: February 7, 1994
RE: Housing Referral Comment: Williams Ranch
REFERRAL COMMENT: These referral comments address the concerns of
the Housing Office in the area of unit mix, size and type; category
mix and price; issues pertaining to deed restrictions or fee
waivers, etc. This memo does not address land use concerns such as
density, open space, parking, etc.; however, on occasion the
Housing office will make comments of a general nature regarding
land use issues. We refrain from making regular comments on land
use issues so that we do not confuse our role with the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
The Williams Ranch proposal can be summarized as follows:
Unit
Type
Category
Size
Price
4-1
bdrm
Cat #2
633
sf
$69,000
12-2
bdrm
Cat #2
887
sf
$79,000
6-4
bdrm
(Dup)
Cat #4
1400
sf
$193,500
6-4
bdrm
(Dup)
RO
1600
sf
Market
10-4
bdrm
(Homes)
RO
2200
sf
Market
AH Zone Requirements - The AH Zone requires that any development
have a minimum of 700 of the unit count and 60% of the bedroom
count as affordable housing. This development has 70% of the unit
count as affordable housing, however, only 59 0 of the bedroom count
is affordable housing.
Unit Mix, Size and Type - The unit mix which the applicant is
proposing can be altered slightly to achieve what the Housing
Office perceives to be the demand for one bedroom and three bedroom
category #2 units and also to achieve the 60% affordable housing
bedroom count required in the AH Zone. The Housing Office suggests
that the applicant increase the one bedroom units and convert the
two bedrooms into three bedrooms. This can be done in a fashion
which also allows the applicant to meet the requirements of the AH
Zone. The unit sizes are consistent or larger than the guidelines
require.
1
cf
Category Mix and Price - The Housing Office finds that the balance
between RO and Category # 2 units is attractive. The Housing office
finds that unit prices meet the current guidelines. These
guidelines will change in April of 1994 and likely allow sightly
higher prices in each category.
Site - The Housing Office finds that this site is an appropriate
site for affordable housing and is consistent with the AACP.
Tap Fee Waiver - The Housing Office supports the City's efforts to
review the current water tap fee waiver policy. If the City's
policy changes, then we suggest that this new policy apply to this
development.
Parking - The applicant is requesting special review for parking to
an average of 1 1/2 space per unit. As the Planning Office is
aware, parking was one of the primary issues on East Hopkins and at
the Williams Ranch neighborhood meeting it was also mentioned as a
concern. Adequate parking is an important part of making a
development fit into the neighborhood.
Deed Restriction - The applicant is requesting that the deed
restriction for these units give priority for residents that have
been in the valley a -minimum of 10 years. The applicant is allowed
to sell these units to any person as long as they qualify as full-
time employees. Therefore, the applicant can sell these units to
persons who have been in the valley 10 years or more. The Housing
office will not permit the applicant to alter the deed restriction
to give priority to persons in the valley longer than 10 years.
The applicant will be required to record a standard deed
restriction. Therefore, the developer may initially sell a unit to
any qualified employee; however, when the unit comes up for resale
the seller and buyer must comply with the guidelines in effect at
that time.
Resident Occupied - The applicant should be aware that the RO
concept is being discussed and finalized. Any change in the unit
or category mix, type, price resulting from changes in the RO
concept for this development must be referred to the Housing Office
for additional comment.
Free Market GMQS Exemptions - The AH zone allows 14 free market
GMQS exemptions per year. The Williams Ranch development is
requesting 16 free market GMQS exemptions. The AH zone has been in
effect since 1990 and only 12 GMQS exemptions have been requested.
The Housing Office finds that it would be reasonable to look at
past year allotments to supply the additional 2 free market GMQS
exemptions. This rationale applies only to the current GMQS
system.
Open Space - Some members of the Housing Board indicated that an
active park is needed in the lower smuggler area.
2
�,X`
Exhibit !
TO: MARY LACKNER /
FROM: MARK FULLER
J
RE: WILLIAMS RANCH APPLICATION
DATE: January 28, 1994
The following issues are raised relative to the impact of the
proposed Williams Ranch development on Open Space and Trails:
1. OPEN SPACE
The Smuggler neighborhood is already the highest -density
residential neighborhood in the Aspen Metro Area and it would also
seem to have the lowest ratio of residents to public park lands.
Some residents of the Centennial complex have already appeared
before the Open Space and Trails Board to express their concern
with the loss of open space that this development would mean to
residents of that project. Also, the face of Smuggler Mountain was
identified by the Aspen Area Community Plan as a high priority for
open space acquisition. These interests are contradictory in that
Centennial is most concerned about the Ranch area that is lowest
on the slope and closest to them while the rest of the community
that has a view of Smuggler Mountain would be more impacted by
development of the upper part of the parcel. Without going into a
more detailed analysis, it would appear that a reduced density and
increased clustering to leave more of the parcel undeveloped, would
be an appropriate response to these concerns.
2. TRAILS
We are strongly supportive of the proposal to dedicate a trail
easement through the Project along the Salvation Ditch. It has been
our experience that the Ditch Company is reluctant to grant trail
easements because of concerns about liability, ditch maintenance
and water quality, but the Open Space and Trails Board is anxious
to take advantage of these pre-existing alignments whenever and
wherever possible.
3. MOLLIE GIBSON PARK
We are supportive to any action that will make Mollie Gibson
Park more useful, particularly as an active park space for Smuggler
Neighborhood residents. We are concerned, however, that access
through the park could degrade the park's usefulness or
desirability. We would like to see the access modified in a way
that would preserve the maximum amount of land area within the
useable park area. If the County is to give up any land to provide
access to the development it should be compensated with equally
useable land in the adjacent development area.
Ar
Exhibt J
TO: ASPEN CITY COUNCIL Sept. 7, 1993
PITHIN COUNTY COM-MISSIONERS
PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING
CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING
L
f - -I -. e ri n
e 1_l rit_ie i, s 1 a ne,,j . a re pro I- r s. re s idi I i !2� at t "i
ID r C). i r, t 1 i e- 2 1 Ti v r:t psi"'fill. The p u r p c, s e of t h 1 s r) e .-ion i S to v o 1i C e
t,71-th j-t_;'ards *--o the y.,.Iiiams Subcili ,-J, 'on. ;fie: ree I
r:iizii1,1,c, c:iin inf cori.muni t\h:L1 Ij
11 e r S e 11 ir e L
I') r S Mist take in"t-c-1 -. cola tnCi e llz-llit-of I of empiovees
�
aireadv 1.ivin5 ;n L- that �:ii .,-:? af.4..
deveici-oment The area to be affected b-,- the Williams f-L'art-Ch Subdivision
is alreadv hotjsin!:'_, a dis-rr,D_',-)(Drt*i,-)nate number of reside?-!_s wh:D work in
Ihe 'Communitv. relative to other areas around toi,:n. The .Jevelopers ha-,,-e
a-.-5ued that it's ok-av to Out more units in this area it is
.-I''readv much mere dense than it should be, due to tine nature of the
Prit ennia'l HLint e r (__,ree 1z, and Midland Part Units. Tfie acceptance of
this assumi-)tion is dan�'t�rou_- in that it only- make- a baci overcrowdinz
T) C, w I have a nermanen-
M W The dtecis� ons made on this p4ro J e � t
T-
effect on mane homeowners in the area. ke are askini4 that you ,please
consider the needs of the Deopie who ha-ve already made their homes here.
and balance those needs with future housinz -Drojects.
tiAME _ADDRESS SIGNATURE
7a- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - ---- - �- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
--- sq ---------- 3�=�- - :T�k 1 - -c--- �- --------------
--- --- -- ---
------------4 --------------- ------- ---- - -------
--
----- -----
-------
-- -
-------------- ---
94 Ed F-,,K4-.Q -F--F- -,�07:5 Te-aL- -C�� -------
-Xf ----------------- ol
----�--:1�-------- --- --- =�
------------ ---- -------
LLL, L)
---------------
GaX-E�[------------ Zt�_�2EESL��%E1Z�'_------
_�GnSiuv_. e�2 1' \oyrE.l 1-------*+-"--�c..es1 Lt�Qil a-y _'__
--..a.2�c�!AJL'
qz,� Teo c f -
--------------------------------------
alo
-C--Z
A �/ --------- JA Z r -------- ------
fik -ee filleel CY -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
`HARLAN C. CLIFFORI )
Box 12204 r Aspen, Colorado 81612 • (303) 925-8489
January 26, 1994
To: Pitkin County / City of Aspen
Greetings:
Please consider the following comments during your review of the proposed development
at Williams Ranch. I was unable to attend today's hearing due to illness.
The page numbers listed below refer to the Williams Ranch - Smuggler Mine Land Use
Application To The City of Aspen.
--The applicant's decision to preserve the aspen trees on the western part of the property,
plus others near the center of the parcel, is a good one. However, I urge consideration of
moving all the townhomes, and their associated parking, to the uphill side of the Salvation
Ditch, and retaining the lower meadow between the ditch and the Teal Court parking lot as
open space and a buffer between Centennial and Williams Ranch. This is an important area
not only for its visual benefits, but for its value as a dog -walking area and children's play
area. That value will only increase with more people living in the neighborhood.
--The development has too many access points. Centennial, which is much larger, manages
with one, and Williams Ranch could do with fewer than its proposed three. 8040 approval,
which the applicant is seeking, demands minimal road construction; I think the applicant
should reduce the roads and total paved areas within the development to one or two access
points.
--The applicant states on Page 23 that the Spruce Street access is "a driveway serving eight
units, but it appears from project plans that this driveway connects through to the access
them end of the project, near the Smuggler ler Mine. I urge you to minimize the
from the sou p � gg g
number of units accessed off Spruce Street to Lots 1-5 only. Spruce is currently a quiet
street often used by children as a play area.
--The applicant's claimed legal access through Centennial is well designed in that it serves
parking only for the lower townhomes. However, to better preserve the open space
between Centennial and Williams ranch, please consider moving the parking (as noted
above) and the access to that parking above the Salvation Ditch. Access to Centennial and
the nearby bus stop could be maintained by a walkway / trail through the open. space.
Although the applicant may have legal access through Centennial, I believe 8040 approval
demands serious consideration of the idea of eliminating that access point in favor of access
from the Smuggler Mine area. If vehicle access is maintained through Centennial, please
limit it to the fewest possible units. Centennial's roads are already burdened by traffic. (A
traffic count on Centennial's roads may be a good idea.)
--On page 72, in his argument for 8040 approval, the applicant asserts that residents of
Williams Ranch will "resort to foot, bicycle and public transportation." This is a highly
dubious assertion. Although RFTA probably will see some increase in ridership due to this
development, to infer that this project will not add to Aspen's traffic, parking and PM 10
woes is ludicrous. Centennial is much closer to the RF I A stop, and yet most cars in the
parking lots at Centennial move every day. I'd like to know how this project is going to
mitigate its PM 10 effects, given the EPA's demands that the city reduce existing air
pollution levels. From what I can tell, no serious mitigation is planned -- I think active
mitigation of traffic and pollution must be required for 8040 approval.
--Many of the units on this project are defined as "resident occupied." As recently as last
week, elected officials admitted they have no legal definition of the RO unit. The cart is
before the horse here. While we all like the RO concept, our concepts may not all be the
same. Before any RO units are approved, the term must be defined in law.
--The balance of the applicant's property is the Smuggler Mine. It is my understanding that
development of Williams Ranch will allow Mr. Albouy to pay for the mine property. I'd
like to know what his plans are for that property: Specifically what development, and what
mining activities, if any, does he contemplate?
--On Page 21 the applicant states the AH units will "generally" be less than two stories
high. Please require that no unit shall be more than two stories high.
--On Page 31 the applicant states that continued public use of the Smuggler Mountain Road
across the applicant's property is "contemplated" by the applicant. ,Such access should be
guaranteed as a condition of approval.
--In his Jan. 16 1994 letter to Kim Johnson, Tom Stevens promises the Salvation Ditch
will be "extensively" planted with cottonwoods. I'd like to see a clearer definition of this
promise: when, how many trees, how big, what sort of spacing, etc.
--The architect's rendition of the four-plexes shows an unvarying roofline from one end of
the structure to the other. Please consider varying this for better visual effect.
--The variance for AH zone parking, cutting it to 1.5 spaces per unit, is a good idea.
--Lastly, I and my neighbors would be happy to host any city or county staff, elected or
appointed officials on a tour of the upper reaches of Centennial so that you may see this
project from our perspective.
Signed:
Hal Clifford
JP44 27 194 12:59 ROGER KERR ARCHITECT ASPEN,COLO. 3039258289 TO: P02
roger Kerr ano associates architects
406-0 pacific avenue aspen, colorado 8 1611 303 925-8289
27 January 1994
Dianne Moore
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Dept,
Aspen, Co. 81611
Dianne,
Thank you and the planning staff for the opportunity to learn about and
participate in the approval process for the Williams Ranch Development,
Like many other long time locals attending the presentation, I have a need
for stable affordable housing. After l wing in "Old" Snowmass for 20 years
and raising a family, i now fired myself single and in need of community
oriented living quartets,
Stephan Albouys commitment to a Quality, low density, affordable
development has the promise of fulfilling on many locals dreams, I feel his
commitments along with those of the locals that will be housed in the
Williams Ranch development will contribute to finding solutions for a safe,
viable and nurturing community,
The tow density is an appropriate transition to the undeveloped lands
adjacent to it and will create a pleasing edge for the city.
The quality materials End enemy use concerns that will be incorporated into
the project are extremely important, A sustainable future requires that
development be more sensitive to how we use up our natural resources and
energy, This developers commitment to these concerns are way beyond the
normal affordable housing project.
This development deserves our support, prompt review and approval due to
the benefits it will provide to the locals who are committed to living in and
contributing to a thriving community.
Sincerely Yours
r
Roge N. Kerr
JAM 27 194 13:00 ROGER KERR ARCHITECT ASPE4,COLO. 3039258289
TO: P03
A'SPEN
LVALLEY
. HOSPITAL
0401 Castle Creek Road • Aspen, Colorado 81611 - 303/925.1120
January 27, 1994 '
Diann* Moore
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Dept,
Aspen, Colorado Q1+611
Dianne Moore,
JAN 2 719
i
The ao=anity meeting held on Wednesday night
provided an opportunity for me to learn more about
the proposed affordable employ -to housing complex.
As a full time► health oars professional
employed by the Aspen valley Hospital for four
years, I look forvard to continuing to improve
health sure in the most positive nays possible in
my work as a physioal therapist, I'd like to wake
this impact here in our community,
Yet unless this type of housing oad be made a
priority to flourish vithzn Aspen olty limits,
professionals like Myself with a vested interest in
our current community Are directly encouraged to
plan our futures elsewhere. I support our local
community of co=itted, long term working
professionals that contribute to the functioning,
and authentsorty of our, town, and so I support the
proposed employee housing project, with an emphasis
on responsible and onvironmenta lly seneztive
construction.
Sinoerely
r
Ca t Z imm e i
vl+A . C/R. M Vosumary 4=0als of ArTw►iaa, Inc.
Fed 10 N 8"79030e
roiM�Wlo� .
1
I -A
� a.
�`d�--�
AFFIDAVIT
I certify that a Public Notice (see attached) for the Lot 6% Red Butte/Bellock Conditional Use hearing
has been mailed according to the standards prescribed in Section 6-25(f)(3)(c) of the Aspen Land
Use Code.
Applicant
Signature
Date
��� �/t-- �.�n. Wiz-, �� � -�f" � � (.,�2�cz-�-� G / �! % �'�
The stated objective of these ordinances Is to develop affordable
housing for employees living In Aspen, While other citlesihave developed
such bousIng through public, housing authorities supported by federal and
local tax revenues paid by the population as a whole and not at the
expense of a 11milted number of private landowners, thelse ordindnces force
private owners of private homes to create a stock of such affordable
employee housling for business owners of the City of Aspen, at the expense
of private homeowners. Although a United States president once seized
property of the United States Steel Corporation without due process nor -
compensation, it is 9R now the stated public policy of the City of Aspen to,
In effect, seize private property without compensation and dedicate the
use of such property inn. urtherance. of a public policy goal of the City of
Aspen, i.e., private su Nsld 1z a Lion of Aspen's public housing program. This
effort is objectionable for the following reasons.
(1) These ordinances represent a taking of the private property and
values of certain homeowners without due process and without
compensation, all contrary to the United States arid Cok)rado Constitutions,
(2) The application of these ordinances is not uniform. 'This Is so
because the ordinance contains varlous exclusions, Including the 5B zone
A
which prohibits accessory housing units in that single family home.zone
district Why? Because the homeowners of that area, when it was annexed
to Aspen, insisted upon retention of single family zoning. Thus, the City of
Aspen abdIcated and gave away its supposedright to the exercise of police
power and gave up creation of affordable public housing in that annexed
area. All such exclusions represent a dental of equal protecdon of the laws
to other home owners not so situated. I
(3) it Is arbitrary and capricious for the City of Aspen to engage In a
process of spot zoning In largely single family areas byintroducing
accessory dwelling units, either detached or otherwise. In those areas
previously zoned and dedicated to single family occupancy and use, the
City of Aspen, by fiat, has decreed a mixture of single family units and
double family units thereby confl.scating the values of remaining sing - -
use. Spot zoning has bee.n. vloprously coi-ldcm tied In the. past 1)ccits. .se it
depreciates and confiscates property values and destroys wbatare
otherwise homogeneous neighborhoods.
(4) These ordinances require a single family home owner, at his ow.n
expense, to provide arid operate the business of renting affordable housing
for the benefit of employees of Aspen businesses on the private land of the
home owner without due process and without compensation. Private home
owners do not share In the profits of Aspen businesses, On the other hand,
the City of Aspen has made it Its business to stib.5idtze the econonlic
success of Aspen, businesses and thereby reduce obligation of businesses to
provide shelter for Lheir own employees and to e.-tiable reduct,lon of
transl-mDrtation. costs to employees of such businesses. It Is beyond the
police power of the City of Aspen to mandate that a limited number of
private homeowners engage in the building of apartments It Is wholly
disingei)uous to incorrectly characterize the building on one single family
site of an additional free standing house or an apartment as an accessory
housing unit. The effect of these ordinances Is to require a private
homeowner, against his will, to engage In the house or apartment rental
business for the benefit of the City of Aspen, to subsidize transportation
costs of employees of private NsIness and to subsidize business enterprise
or to suffer a penalty In the form of so-called impact fee..
(5) The effect of such ordinances deprives the single family
homeowner of certaln types of single famlly federally Insured housing and
purports to place perpetual deed restrictions on the use of such private
property which constitutes an Illegal restraint on the free alienation of
property, again all without due process nor compensation.
(6) The City of Aspen ordinances also purport to Impose an
affordable housing impact fee based upon the "public cast„ to provide
affordable housing," The so-called "public cost" is really a private
assessment for public purposes imposed against a limited number of
property owners. This "fee" Is, in fact, an ujilawful tax on a Hinited
number of private homeowners and an unlawful attempt to provide
affordable public housing at private expense and without reasonable
uniformity of application and, beyotid the jurisdiction of the City of Aspen
to so ordain.
(7) These ordinances retroactively divest existing, valid property
rigbts under existing zoning ordinances and private protective subdivision
restrictioas and covenants, without due process nor compensation.
(8) Although the City claims that there is an obligation to provide
affordable housing for the benefit of.Aspen businesses and employees
thereof, the cost thereof is to be borne by the owners of such single family
homes, which represents a denial of equal protection of the laws.
(9) These ordinances greatly reduce side yard requirements (three
feet permitted) which reduces available sunlight, fresh air and living
space, These ordinances improperly increase population density through
the guise of zoning without compensation and not properly in accordance
with trine comprehensive planning,
(10) The housing impact "fee" is In reality a tax on the occupancy
and use of land and as such is an ad valorem tax, which violates principals
of equality and uniformity. 'I'his conclusion is fortified. by Section 5-702
which bases deferral of the impact fee based upon the assessed valuation
or appraisal of the dwelling unit and upon determining the cost, of
providing an affordable unit..
(1.1) Numerous other provisions of these ordinances Impermissibly
delegate Iegislat.ive p -)wers to others, such as the Aspen-Pitkin County
Housing Auth6rity.
(1.2) These ordinances impair the reasonable free use of property
and of the right of free assoclatio n withifi the confines of a single family
home and of the right to privacy, all contrary to the United. States and
Colorado Constitutions.
(13) These ordinances are confiscatory, contrary to the united States
and Colorado Constitutions.
=WU 31,
• O
b i
� It
D
01
Ir a I � JH3n3iv31
I6 r 1.1 nu.n
i—
I
4
t ` DZ
r
an J
-0.
gt±A14
I
IT
�11 I i 111 v i I
a I
N I (f(Act I O
ov .Yk r ,OZ� r
- t L' 1 1
7 > * I
i YZ — U
H 9'S a
r* �
I L1 I ^,
owv m07
v
Zz
-.... _ ._ 9%L4
m t af
83AI8 ��03 �Ni�dob gad s
0
a' >
z p
� �
1
Y
C5 -a n
D
b 1
.ijtb
pp
m
Tt
_____________-__------'- -i -----�------ --------�
1 bi,. f• i It - � t :°' • .. � _ f n � � ..�