HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.su.240 Silverlode Dr.0037.2008.-~
THE CITY OF ASPEN
City of Aspen Community Development Department
CASE NUMBER
PARCEL ID NUMBER
PROJECTS ADDRESS
PLANNER
CASE DESCRIPTION
REPRESENTATIVE
DATE OF FINAL ACTION
CLOSED BY
0037.2008.ASLU
2737-07-4-29-001
240 SILVERLOADE DR.
JENNIFER PLENAN
WILLIAMS RANCH, APPEAL
GARY KELLY.
02/28/2009
Angela Scorey on 03/02/2009
...,
...y
__ ;,~
_~,
RESOLUTION NO.~
(SERIES OF 2009)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AFFIRMING AN
ADMINISTRA FOR THEISWII,LI MS RANCH SUBDIVI SON. STANDARDS
~ygEREAS, the Community Development Director issued an administrative
decision regazding dimensional standazds applicable to the Williams Ranch subdivision;
and, owner, Gary
WHEREAS, the Director rendered a K llst believes the Dire or exceeded his
Wright, on behalf of himself, his wife, and Gary Y~
jurisdiction and abused his discretion and sought an appeal b erd26.316h maynaffirm an
WHEREAS, the City Council, pars ~ t Community Development Director or
interpretation of the Land Use Code made by
reverse or modify the interpretation upon a finding that there was a denial of due process,
exceeding of jurisdiction, or abuse of authority in rendering the interpretation; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has taken and considereellants as well asrthe
testimony from Gary Wright on behalf of himself and other app rovided
Community Development Director, and as a result has found that the Director p
due process and neither exceeded his jurisdiction ur abused his authority in rendering the
interpretation;and,
WH oRrE~AeS romp on of public health, safety, and we farets Resolution fiuthers and
is necessary P
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council affirms the
Community Development Director's Administrative Decision regazding dimensional
standards applicable to the Williams Ranch subdivision.
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an
abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances
repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded
under such prior ordinances.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for
any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such
portion shall be deemed a sepazate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect
the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Resolution No. 7, Series of 2009. Page 1
r^
~..,
APPROVED by the Aspen City Council at its regulaz meeting on January 12, 2009.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. K , Ci Clerk
~, .
.;
a
Michael C. Ireland, Mayo
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~7'/'i~~
John Wprce§4 ,City Attorney
Resolution No. 7, Series of 2009. Page 2
,~„ -
r
Reeular Meetine Aspen City Council January 12.2009
Councilwoman Kasabach said she shares Councilman Johnson's concerns, especially the
scope of the plan.
Mayor Ireland said he is concerned about the role of the hospital in community health
caze; what will drive the growth and how to cope with it; the traffic and parking issues.
Mayor Ireland said analyzing a hospital in terms of client demands and how much money
can be made obstructs the vision of what a community health facility should be. Mayor
Ireland said the plan addresses how to take caze of people who are sick but does not
address how to restrain the need for these services. Mayor Ireland said he will have to be
convinced about the need for private rooms, especially with the diminishing number of
people covered by health insurance. Mayor Ireland said the statement was made that
detox is not part of a hospital's core competency but if not at a hospital, where and who
takes caze of these people. The role of the hospital in community health caze is
important.
Mayor Ireland said he does not subscribe to the maintaining market share model of the
hospital. Aspen does not control the rate of growth in the mid-valley, which will be
explosive. Mayor Ireland noted there has been zero growth at the hospital from Aspen
parents. Mayor Ireland said the roundabout is the Achilles heel; it is nearing capacity and
close to where it will be unable to function. Mayor Ireland said the number of people
required to serve town continues to come up from down valley and has to go through the
roundabout. Mayor Ireland said being able to expand this facility in another 20 or 25
years is very important. Mayor Ireland reiterated he has concerns about who we serve,
how we serve them, how they get into and out of the facility. Mayor Ireland said this is
everyone's hospital.
Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing.
Melody Durham, nurse at AVH, told Council she has worked in several units of the
hospital and currently directs the cardiac rehabilitation unit, which is a new service within
the last 15 years. Two patient care rooms were taken up to create the cardiac rehab
facility. Ms. Durham noted a major focus of the cazdiac rehab unit is preventative health
caze. There is no waiting room. One oCthe goals is to offer more in terms of prevention.
Councilman Romero moved to continue the public hearing to January 26, 2009; seconded
by Councilwoman Kasabach.
WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION -Wright Appeal
Gary Wright, appellant and speaking for Gary Kelly, Bob Morris and Susan Sparks, said
staff s memo does not relate the appellant's position or the issues. Wright said the code
that applies to the Williams Ranch subdivision, a 35 deed restricted units mixed with free
mazket units project, the issue is whether slope reduction should be applied to reduce the
FARs on the deed restricted houses and should the 500 squaze foot garage exemption
granted by the PUD be allowed or should the current code apply. Wright reminded
Council this was a 4 yeaz process which included Pitkin County and the federal
14
Regular Meeting Asaen City Council January 12, 2009
government; it was one of the first projects in the AH affordable housing zone district
where the developer received 15 free market lots subject to constructing 35 deed
restricted houses. Wright said no cash subsidies were provided and a park was dedicated
to the city. The Williams Ranch project went through afour-step process with the city.
Wright requested Council to allow the floor areas allowed under Ordinance #59, 1989,
and allow the same 500 squaze foot exemption for the garage. Wright noted there is a
restriction to the homeowners that only 10% cost of the original price can be recoverable
when sold. Anything over 10% does not get repaid. Wright said the homeowners should
be allowed to spend money on home improvements.
Mayor Ireland asked if the original PUD provided for the additional space. Wright said it
did. Mayor Ireland asked if that PUD expired. Wright said the vested rights expired.
Mayor Ireland said the subdivision was subject to rules of general applicability adopted
by Council, who adopted limitations to apply to this subdivision. Mayor Ireland said
Wright is arguing that the code should be changed to allow the garage exemption and that
slope reduction not apply. Mayor Ireland said this is a request for an appeal and the
standards aze that the administration abused its discretion, exceeded its jurisdiction or
there was a denial of due process. Mayor Ireland asked if Wright is alleging this. Wright
said he is not.
Mayor Ireland said the standards for an appeal are cleaz and Wright wants Council to
adopt zoning to allow things that were previously allowed. Wright said it is within
Council's jurisdiction to find that for this deed restricted housing, it is appropriate to
respect what was done by prior Council. Wright said he thought staff had some
discretion in their interpretation and thought this was the appropriate process. Mayor
Ireland said without a showing of denial of due process, that the administration exceeded
its jurisdiction or abused its discretion, Council cannot hear this or they would be zoning
property without notice.
John Worcester, city attorney, gave Council a memorandum setting forth the standards
for this type appeal. Worcester said Wright's argument should be made in an PUD
amendment application because there is no argument that meets the standazds of review
for an appeal. Wright admitted that those standards cannot be sustained. Worcester
recommended Wright file an amendment to the PUD. Worcester said the homeowners
will need a document to be recorded setting forth the dimensional requirements and the
only proper way to do that is to have an amendment to the PUD.
Councilman Johnson moved to approve Resolution #8, Series of 2009, affirming the
interpretation of the community development director; seconded by Councilwoman
Kasabach. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Johnson moved to adjourn at 9:35 p.m.; secot ed by Councilwoman
Kasabach. All in favor, motion carried.
Kat S. Koch, Crty Clerk
15
.~... ~-. ~ Off.
~.. .~.,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~J'~V`YI
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Directot~~
RE: Wright Appeal (Williams Ranch Subdivision)
MEETING
DATE: January 12, 2009
GENERAL BACKGROUND
In August of 2008, after meeting and working with members of the Williams Ranch
homeowner's association (HOA), the Community Development Director issued and
administrative decision (Exhibit I) with regard 'to the Williams Ranch Subdivision. The
determination was issued to clarify what land use code and dimensional requirements are
applicable to the subdivision. The owners of two properties (Gary and Jena Wright as well as
Gary Kelly) filed a notice of appeal (Exhibit 2) once the decision was issued and was
subsequently scheduled before the City Council.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Once an appeal is scheduled, the review body hears the appeal at a public meeting. Based solely
upon the record established by the original decision, the City Council shall consider whether:
1) There was a denial of due process; or,
2) The administrative body exceeded its jurisdiction; or,
3) The administrative body abused its discretion.
These standards ask whether the Director's actions were ethical. The City's code states that the
decision or determination made by the administrative officer shall not be reversed or modified
unless there is a positive finding on one of these criteria (Please see Exhibit 3 for the entire code
section 26.316.030, Appeal procedures). The appellants have not cited which criterion was met
with the determination made by staff.
i~
DETAILED SUMMARY:
The administrative decision was issued as a result of an initial inquiry fielded by staff with
regard to a proposed addition to the Wright residence. A representative for Mr. Wright first met
with staff to gather information on the dimensional standards (such as maximum height,
minimum setbacks and maximum floor area) associated with the lot. Staff originally confirmed
the underlying zone district as Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH/PUD). The
current AH/PUD section of the land use code states that "dimensional requirements are
established by adoption of a final PUD development plan." The ordinance approving the
Williams Ranch project (Ordinance No. 52, Series of ]994) did not memorialize most of the
dimensional standards for the subdivision making it unclear what if anything could be built on
~ .~.
~.. r..
Mr. Wright's lot. After this preliminary research, staff began having discussions with members
of the HOA to determine what steps should be taken next. Originally, staff had discussed
memorializing dimensional standards through a PUD Amendment; however, additional reseazch
showed that the AH zone district had previously contained zone district dimensional standards
and an administrative decision was issued stating that the former AH zone district dimensions
remained in effect..
Research showed that prior to the current AH/PUD zone district regulations, the original
Affordable Housing (AH) zone district was established in 1989 and included dimensional
standards, rather than standards being established through a PUD plan. Staff was able to
determine what dimensional standazds were in place at the time of the subdivision's approval. As
the current zone district standards for the AH/PUD zone do not include dimensional standards,
staff determined that the subdivision could rely on the Affordable Housing zone district
standards in effect at the time of the subdivision's approval (see Exhibit A, located within
Exhibit 1 of this memo).
In the administrative decision, staff also determined that the subdivision's vested rights had
expired in 1997 and current regulations of the city are applicable to new development within the
subdivision. Specifically related to this appeal, staff determined that slope reduction (where
allowable floor area is reduced by the presence of steep slopes on a lot) and the current
inclusions and exemptions for the calculation of floor area are applicable to development within
the subdivision. Depending on the topography of individual lots within the subdivision, the
maximum allowable floor area allowed may be reduced (by no greater than 25%). Additionally,
inclusions and exclusions in the calculation of floor area have changed since the subdivision's
approval. Three hundred seventy-five squaze feet of garage space is exempt from floor azea
calculations rather than five hundred square feet as was the case in the past.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW:
1. Due Process -With respect to due process,.staf~ Worked with both Mr. Wright and members
of the Williams Ranch homeowner's association (HOA) to determine the subdivision's
dimensional standards.
Meetings with members of the (HOA) occurred on and off again in 2008. At one of the last
meetings in which the Mr. Wright participated in, the administrative decision was provided and
staff suggested the Appellant, interested in building an addition, do an initial slope analysis to
determine if the current regulation would impact his proposal. Staff is not sure if this analysis
was ever undertaken. Staff also suggested the HOA consider submitting a PUD Amendment if
changes to the approvals were desired.
As required by the Land Use Code, the appellants were provided notice of tonight's meeting via
registered mail and all other affected parties were noticed by publication in the newspaper, as
required. Assuming tonight's meeting does not contain any procedural flaws; staff believes that
proper due process has been provided to the appellants.
2. Jurisdiction -The Director's jurisdiction to interpret the Land Use Code is established in
Chapter 26.210 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. This Chapter outlines the jurisdiction,
authority, and duties allocated to the Community Development Director. One of the Director's
duties outlined in the Chapter reads: "To render interpretations of this Title or the boundaries of
2
~-.
~~
duties outlined in the Chapter reads: "To render interpretations of this Title or the boundaries of
the Official Zone District Map pursuant to Chapter 26.306. " Staff believes this language is clear
and it does not appear that the applicant is questioning this provision of the code.
3. Discretion -With respect to abuse of the Director's discretion, the Director did need to use
his discretion in rendering the decision. The question is whether the Director abused that
discretion or acted unethically. }(r-
Once adevelopment's statutory vested rights have expired, any proposed development must
meet adopted standards of the city. Regulations change over time and new development is
subject to such changes. As noted in section 26.308.010 D., Expiration of Vested Rights, "afrer
expiration (of a vested right), a development order remains valid......but shall be subject to any
changes in the Land Use Code that have been adopted since the developments original
approval." The approvals for Williams Ranch continue to be valid and homeowners in the
subdivision can continue to rely on the AH zone district dimensional standards in place at the
time of approval. There have been changes to the land use code since 1994. Upon the expiration
of the development's statutory vested rights in 1997, new development must conform to those
changes. This includes slope reduction and the manner in which floor area is calculated.
TWO RESOLUTIONS:
Attached are two Resolutions. One finds that the Director acted correctly and affirms the
determination. The second finds that the Director exceeded his jurisdiction, abused his authority,
or failed to provide due process and reverses the determination.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff believes the Director's determination was rendered ethically and that no abuse of authority
or exceeding of jurisdiction occurred. Staff recommends City Council uphold the Director's
determination by adopting the proposed Resolution affirming the determination. If the
City Council finds the Director did not act correctly, City Council will need to render a new
determination. This may be more or less restrictive that the determination rendered by the
Director.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
RECOMMENDED MOTION: (all mOtionS must be made in the pOSltiVe)
"I move to approve Resolution No. Series of 2009, [affirming or reversing] the
Community Development Director's determination regarding dimensional requirements subject
to lots within the Williams Ranch Subdivision."
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT 1 -Administrative Decision '
Extt~e~T 2 - Submitted Appeal ~,'~
EXHIBIT 3 -Land Use Code Chapter 26.316, Appeals
3
~,.,. w
RESOLUTION N0. _, (Reversing Interpretation)
(SERIES OF 2009)
.:,
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN
APPEAL AND REVERSING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION REGARDING
DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION.
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director issued an administrative
decision regarding dimensional standazds applicable to the Williams Ranch subdivision;
and,
WHEREAS, the Director rendered a decision and a property owner, Gary
Wright, on behalf of himself, his wife, and Gary Kelly, believes the Director exceeded his
jurisdiction and abused his discretion and sought an appeal based on such grounds; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Chapter 26.316, may affirm an
interpretation of the Land Use Code made by the Community Development Director or
reverse or modify the interpretation upon a finding that there was a denial of due process,
exceeding of jurisdiction, or abuse of authority in rendering the interpretation; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has taken and considered written and verbal
testimony from Gary Wright on behalf of himself and other appellants as well as the
Community Development Director, and as a result has found that the Director either
exceeded his jurisdiction or abused his authprityyin rendering the interpretation; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and
is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfaze.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approves the appeal of
the Community Development Director's decision regarding dimensional standards
applicable to the Williams Ranch subdivision and reverses the decision as follows:
Section 1•
A. Certain provisions of Section 26.575.020 C., Lot Area, shall not apply to the
calculation of Floor Area for lots within the Williams Ranch subdivision.
Specifically, the subdivision shall not be subject to slope reduction in the
calculation of lot area. The following language shall not be applicable to the
subdivision:
"when calculating floor area ratio, lot areas shall include only areas with a slope
of less than twenty percent (20%). In addition, half (.50) of lot areas with a slope
of twenty to thirty percent (20-30%) ma}~c be counted towazds floor area ratio;
areas with slopes of greater than thirty p~;cent (30%) shall be excluded. The total
reduction in FAR attributable to slope reduction for a given site shall not exceed
twenty-five percent (25%)."
Resolution No. ,Series of 2009. Page 1
4,,
B. The provisions of Section 26.575.020 A3, Garages, shall not apply to the
calculation of Floor Area for lots within the Williams Ranch subdivision. Instead,
garage, carport and storage areas shall be limited to a five hundred (500) square
foot exemption.
Section 2:
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an
abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances
repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded
under such prior ordinances.
Section 3:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for
any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such
portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect
the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
;~
APPROVED by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting on , 2009.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
John Worcester, City Attorney
Resolution No. ,Series of 2009. Page 2
~.
v.
°~ ~~~ ~
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
NRISDICTION:
APPLICABLE ORDINANCE:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
City of Aspen
Ordinance 59 (Series 1989)
August 1, 2008
WRITTEN BY: p Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Director
APPROVED BY: I Chris Bendon,
Community Development Director
COPIES TO:
John Worcester, City Attorney
SUMMARY
This administrative decision is being issued in response to several inquiries that staff has
entertained with regard to the Williams Ranch subdivision (approved in 1994) and its
original approvals. In sum:
• The ordinance approving Williams Ranch subdivision (No. 52, series 2004)
regulates density, accessory dwelling units and height.
• Ordinance No. 59 (Series of 1989) regulates dimensional standards such as
Minimum Setbacks and Floor Area.
• New development is subject to regulations in the City of Aspen's Land Use Code
that are of general applicability.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this administrative decision is to interpret the ordinances and clarify the
dimensional requirements applicable to the Williams Ranch subdivision which is located
in the Affordable Housing (AH) zone district and has a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) overlay. This clarification is needed because the AH zone district standards have
changed over time.
BACKGROUND
In 1989, Ordinance No. 59 (Series of 1989) (hereinafter "AH Ordinance") adopted an
Affordable Housing zone district (Exhibit B) as a new zone district to the City of Aspen's
land use code. Staff further researched subsequent ordinances to verify whether any later
code amendments affected the content of the AH Ordinance prior to the Williams Ranch
subdivision being approved. Three ordinances were found that amended the AH
Ordinance: Ordinance No. 22 (Series of 1992) amended the Floor Area allowance for a
9,000 square feet or greater lot, Ordinance No. 68 (Series of 1993) amended Conditional
Uses permitted in the zone district, and Ordinance No. 12 (Series of 1994) affected
Page 1 of 4
-•.
~.. ~ .
permitted uses and dimensional requirements (Exhibit C). Other than the AH Ordinance,
only the final ordinance noted affected the Williams Ranch subdivision.
Ordinance No. 52 (Series of 1994) is an ordinance that granted subdivision, Planned Unit
Development, GMQS Exemption and Vested Rights for the Williams Ranch Project
(Exhibit D). The approval allowed for the construction of thirty-five (35) deed restricted
affordable housing units (Williams Ranch subdivision) and fifteen (15) free-mazket lots
(Silverlode subdivision). A PUD is site specific and certain dimensional requirements aze
permitted to be vazied, although the underlying zone district dimensional standards aze to
be used as a guide. Any approved dimensional variations are memorialized in the
ordinance approving the development. In the case of Ordinance No. 52 (hereinafter
"Williams Ranch Ordinance"), the following sections reference and memorialize certain
dimensional standards or requirements:
• Sub-section 1.1.£, "Pitkin County's definition for calculating height and
determining natural grade shall be used for this project."
• Sub-section 1.8., "All other lots aze subject to the 25 foot height limitation of the
City of Aspen, and aze calculated using Pitkin County's definition for height."
• Sub-section 1.15., "No accessory dwelling units are permitted to be constructed in
any of the Williams Ranch residences."
• The overall ordinance approved thirty-five affordable housing units.
Since the passage of the Williams Ranch Ordinance, amendments to the AH zone district
have occurred. For instance, the AH zone district is now called the Affordable
Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH/PUD) zone district and the dimensional
requirements for the subject zone district are established through the adoption of a final
PUD. In the case of the Williams Ranch approval, only certain dimensional standazds
were memorialized in the ordinance because the Affordable Housing zone district in 1994
had set dimensional standazds.
DISCUSSION
It is staff's interpretation that the properties within the Williams Ranch subdivision may
utilize the Affordable Housing zone district regulations in effect at the time of their
approval inclusive of Ordinance No. 59 (Series of 1989) and Ordinance No. 12 (Series of
1994) unless the Williams Ranch Ordinance supersedes these requirements. However,
the subdivision's vested rights expired in 1997 and any contemporary regulations of the
land use code that affect development such as lighting, fencing, calculations and
measurements, and slope reduction are applicable to any new development in the
subdivision as these regulations are of general applicability. To exempt the subdivision
from any regulations of general applicability, the PUD must be amended by the City
Council. Staff has discussed this process with representatives of the homeowner's
association of the Williams Ranch subdisvion.
Two other areas with regard to the PUD should also be clarified. Although the underlying
zone district allows for a greater potential density than the thirty-five (35) affordable
housing units that exists, the Williams Ranch Ordinance restricts the subdivision to
Page 2 of 4
.~ -~^~
~,,, 1
thirty-five units. An amendment to the PUD is required to increase the density. Another
area of clarification is with regard to the type of unit the affordable housing units are
considered and the resulting Floor Area scale to be used in calculating Floor Area. Each
dwelling unit is located upon an individual lot. As noted in Exhibit A, single-family
dwellings may have a zero (0) side yazd setback. A number of dwelling units shaze a
common lot line and need to be considered either two single-family residences or a
duplex. Since each dwelling unit is located upon its own lot and can have a zero (0) side
yard setback, each affordable housing unit is considered asingle-family (or detached
residence) for floor area calculations.
APPEAL OF DECISION
As with any administrative decision by the Community Development Director, an
applicant has the ability to appeal this decision to the Aspen City Council. This can be
done in conjunction with a land use request before City Council or as a separate agenda
item.
26.316.030(A) APPEAL PROCEDURES
Any person with a right to appeal an adverse decision or determination shall initiate an
appeal by filing a notice of appeal on a form prescribed by the Community Development
Director. The notice of appeal shall be filed with the Community Development Director
and with the City office or department rendering the decision or determination within
fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision or determination being appealed. Failure to
file such notice of appeal within the prescribed time shall constitute a waiver of any
rights under this Title to appeal any decision or determination.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A - Summary of Dimensional Standazds
Exhibit B - Ordinance No. 59 (Series of 1989)
Exhibit C -Ordinance No. 12 (Series of 1994)
Exhibit D -Ordinance No. 52 (Series of 1994)
Page 3 of 4
,,-, ~,
~.„, t
Exhibit `A'
Summary of Dimensional Requirements:
Dimensional Standard Re uirement Notes
Minimum Lot Size 3,000 sq. fr. Ordinance No. 12 (Series of
1994). Based upon `fathering'
lot reater than 27,000 s . ft.
Minimum Lot Area Per 3,000 sq. ft. Ordinance No. 12 (Series of
Dwelling Unit 1994). Based upon `fathering'
lot reater than 27,000 s . ft.
Minimum Lot Width 30 feet Ordinance No. 59 (Series of
1989)
Minimum Front Yard Principal Building: 10 feet Ordinance No. 59 (Series of
Accesso Buildin : 15 feet 1989)
Minimum Side Yard 0 ft. for each side yard with a Ordinance No. 59 (Series of
total of ] 5 ft. for both side 1989)
yards. Minimum of 5' for
yards which are contiguous to
any other zone district other
than the affordable housing
zone district.
Minimum Rear Yazd Principal Building: 10 feet Ordinance No. 59 (Series of
Accesso Buildin : 5 feet 1989)
Maximum Height 25 feet Ordinance No. 52 (Series of
1994). Measured per Pitkin
Coun code
Minimum distance between Sfeet Ordinance No. 59 (Series of
Buildin s 1989)
Floor Area 3,000-6,000 = 2,400 sq. ft. of Ordinance No. 59 (Series of
floor area, plus 28 sq. ft. of 1989)
floor area for each additional
100 sq. ft. in lot area up to a
maximum of 3,240 sq. ft. of
floor azea.
6,000-9,000=3,240 sq. ft. of
floor area, plus 14 sq. ft. of
floor area for each additional
100 sq. ft. in lot area up to a
maximum of 3,660 sq. fr. of
floor area.
Note: This is provided as a summary reference only and does not create a vested right. Please
refer to original ordinances for actual language. In the case of any discrepancies between the
summary and the ordinance language, the ordinance language prevails. Regulations may change
over time and affect the validi of this summa
Page 4 of 4
.-. ,-~
ORDINANCE NO. 59
(SERIES OF 1989)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AMENDING CHAPTER 24,
ARTICLE 5, DIVISION 2 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE TO CREATE A NEW
SECTION 5-208, AFFORDABLE HOUSING {AH) ZONE DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council (hereinafter "the Council")
has received the recommendations of the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission with respect to amendments to the requirements for the
creation of an Affordable Housing (AH) zone district; and
WHEREAS, the Council recognizes that the Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission has held a public hearing for the creation of
this zone district on March 28, June 13, July 11 and July 25,
1989; and
WHEREAS, the Council is aware that in order to accomplish
their affordable housing goals a zoning tool such as the
Affordable Housing zone is essential;
WHEREAS, the Council has held public work sessions on the
Affordable Housing zone on June 8 and Auqust 14, 1989; and
WHEREAS, both the Council and the Planning and Zoning
Commission recognize the importance of affordable housing to
preserving the fabric of the Community; and
WHEREAS, in 1987, the draft Affordable Housing Production
Plan identifies a 250 unit affordable housing shortfall; and
WHEREAS, the Affordable Housing zone district is part of the
City's implementation strategy for the Affordable Housing
Production Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section i
That Article 5, Division 2 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations
be amended by the creation of a new Section 5-208, Affordable
Housing (AH) zone district which shall read as follows, and the
renumbering of all subsequent ,sections in this Division
accordingly:
Sec. 5-208 Affordable Houe' __ _
3n0' /AH1
A- puroose The ur ose of
p p the Affordable Housing (AH)
Zone District is to provide for the use of land for the
production of low, moderate and middle income
affordable housing and Resident Occupied Units. The
zone district also permits a limited component of free
market units to off-set the cost of developing
affordable housing. It is contemplated that land may
also be subdivided in connection with a development
plan. The Affordable Housing (AH) Zone District is
intended for residential use primarily by permanent
residents of the Community. Recreational and
institutional uses customarily found in proximity to
residential uses are included as conditional uses.
Lands in the Affordable Housing (AH) Zone District
should be scattered throughout the City to ensure a mix
of housing types, including those which are affordable
by its working residents; at the same time the
Affordable Housing (AH) Zone District can protect the
2
,. ,--,
. , ~ ,,
City~s neighborhoods from rezoning pressures that other
non-community oriented zone districts may produce.
Further, lands in the Affordable Housing (AH) Zone
District should be located within walking distance of
the center of the City, or on transit routes.
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of
right in the Affordable Housing (AH) Zone District.
1. Residential uses restricted to low, moderate and
middle income affordable housing guidelines and
resident occupied units must comprise at least 70
percent of the unit mix, of the development. Free
market development may comprise up to 30 percent
of the unit mix, and 40 percent of the bedroom mix
of the development. Residential uses may be
comprised of single-family, duplex and multi-
family dwelling units;
2. Home occupations; and
3. Accessory buildings and uses.
C. Conditional uses The following uses are permitted as
conditional uses in the Affordable Housing (AH) Zone
District, subject to the standards and procedures
established in Art. 7, Div. 3.
3
1. open use recreation site;
2• Day care center;
3• Satellite dish antennae; and
4. Dormitory
D. Dimensional re~i amen ~
The following dimensional
requirements shall apply to all permitted and condi-
tional uses in the Affordable Housing (AH) Zone
District.
1. Minimum lot size (sq.ft.): },,-egg 3,000
2• Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (sq.ft.):
Detached residential dwelling: 3,000
Duplex : 3; 9gg-1', 500
For multi-family dwellings on a lot of 27,000
sq• ft. or less or for lots of 43,560 s,f. or
less when approved by special review pursuant
to Art. 7, Div. 4, the following sq. ft.
requirements apply:
studio: 300
1 bedroom: 400
2 bedroom: 800
3 bedroom: 1,200
Units with more than 3 bedrooms: one 1
( )
bedroom per 400 square feet of lot area.
For multi-family dwellings on a lot of more
4
-~~•.
~,,., ~ .
than 27,000 sq. ft. (except when varied by
Special Review) the following sq. ft.
requirements apply:
studio: 1,000
1 bedroom: 1,250
2 bedroom: 2,100
3 bedroom: 3,630
Units with more than 3 bedrooms: one (1)
bedroom per 1,000 square feet of lot
area.
3. Minimum lot width (ft.):-¢g 30
4. Minimum front yard (ft.):
principal building: 10
accessory building: 15
5. Minimum side yard (ft.): The minimum sid e yard for
single-family and duplex dwellings is 0 ft. for
each side yard; 15 ft. total minimum for both side
yards. (Minimum side yard shall be 5~ for yards
which are continous to any zone district other
than Affordable Housing.]
The minimum side yard for multi-family dwellings
shall be 5 feet.
6. Minimum rear yard (ft.):
principal building: 10
accessory building: 5
7. Maximum height (ft.): 25; increasable up to 30' by
5
special review pursuant to Art. 7, Div.4.
8• Minimum distance between buildings on the lot
(ft.): 5
9• Percent of open space required for building site:
to be established by special review pursuant to
Art. 7, Div. 4; open space may be used for off-
street parking by special review, pursuant to
Art.7, Div. 4.
10. External floor area ratio (applies to conforming
and nonconforming lots of record).
DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS
Lot Size
Allowable
SO Ft
0- 3,000 S6 80 sq.ft. of floor area for
each 100 sq.ft. in lot area,
up to a maximum of },,-566 2,400
sq.ft. of floor area.
3,000- 6,000 },-569 2,400 s
q.ft. of floor
area, plus ~9 28 sq.ft. of
floor area for each additional
100 sq.ft. in lot area, up to
a maximum of 8,-}Ag 3,240
sq.ft, of floor area.
6
~- ~,
6,000- 9,000 ~,-}gB 3,240 sq.ft. of floor
area, plus }g 14 sq.ft, of
floor area for each additional
100 sg, ft. in lot area, up to
a maximum of ~,-4A9 3,660
sq.ft. of floor area.
9,000+ 2,-489 3,660 sq.ft. of floor
area.
DUPLEX
Lot Size Allowable
_ fSO.Ft 1 _ SO Ft
0- 3,000 68 90 sq.ft. of floor area for
each 100 sq.ft. in lot area,
up to a maximum of },-&99 2,700
sq.ft. of floor area.
3,000- 6,000 ~,-&69 2,700 sq.ft. of floor
area, plus 30 sq.ft. of floor
area for each additional 100
sq.ft, in lot area, up to a
maximum of 2,-7-6g 3, 600 sq. ft.
of floor area.
6,000- 9,000 ~,-}99 3,600 sq.ft, of floor
7
area, plus ~g 16 sq.ft. of
floor area for each additional
100 sq.ft. in lot area, up to
a maximum of }-389 4,080
sq.ft. of floor area.
;,,
9,000+ },-398 4,080 sq.ft. of floor
area.
MULTI-FAMILY
Allowable
Lot Siz e
SU Ft
0- 27,000 s.f 1.1:1
27,001 s.f- 43,560 s
f
. .36:1, increasable to 1:1
by special review,
pursuant to Art. 7,
Div. 4.
43,561 s.f- 3 acres
.36:1
> 3 acres- 6 acres
.33:1
> 6 acres- 9 acres
.30:1
> 9 acres- 18 acres
.27:1
>18 acres
.24:1
li. Internal floor area ratio: no requirement
8
,.°~, ^~
1u.~ ti_/~
E. Off-street parkino reouirement The following off-
street parking spaces shall be provided for each use in
the Affordable Housing (AH) Zone District.
1. Residential uses: established by special review
pursuant to Art. 7, Div. 4. The maximum number of
parking spaces required shall not exceed 1
space/bedroom or 2 spaces/dwelling unit whichever
is less.
2. All other: N/A.
Section 2. Article 8,8-104 (C)(1) Growth Management Quota
Systems Exemptions by City Council of Chapter 24
of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, are hereby amended to read as follows:
"8-104 (C)(1)(e) Affordable Housin Zon District"
The development of no more than fourteen (14) free
market dwelling units for entire City in one
calendar year.
Section 3.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or
unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such
portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent
provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
9
r ~
__..
Section 4.
Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to affect any
right, duty or liability under any ordinance in effect prior to
the effective date of this ordinance, and the same shall be
continued and concluded under such prior ordinances.
section 5.
A pu~b/`lic hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
day of ~'lG-~-~~-~-~/ 1989, at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council
Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days
prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once
in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by
the City Council of the City of Aspen on the ~/~ day of
~, 1989.
/~ ~~ ~
'~ ~ll~ z
William L. Stir ing, Mayor
ATTE T:
1 ~-
Kathryn S Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ~~~ day
of ~GC~Ls~-C~2-'/ , 1989.
i
1/~t2~~
William L. Stirling, Mayor
ATTEST:
~ 7
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
ah.zone.ord.cc.lst.read2
l0
~g~`~-
ORDINANCB N0. 12
(SERIES OF 199
AN ORDINANCE OF THS CITY COIINCIL OF THE CITY OF ABPE17, AMENDING
B~IORN 2 405-2p6.2~T0 REDIICED TH~ N BIZ(IIlL~LOT TBIZS ~ FOR ABI~ LEa
FAMILY AND DIIPLSS DWELLING IINITB TO 1,500 BQIIARE F88T PER DWELLING
iJDiIT ON PARCELS L866 THAN 27, 000 BQIIARS F88T IN THS AFFORDABLE
80IIBINti IONS DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, Section 24-7-1103 of the Municipal Code provides that
amendments to Chapter 24 of the Code, to wit, "Land Use
Regulations", shall be reviewed and recommended for approval by'the
Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission
at public hearing, and then approved, approved with conditions, or
disapproved by the City Council at public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director did receive from the Aspen
Pitkin County Housing Authority ("Applicant") and has reviewed and
recommended for approval a text amendment to Chapter 24 associated
with the development of affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed -the
proposal and did conduct a public hearing thereon on March 1, 1994;
and
WHEREAS, upon review and consideration of the text amendment,
agency and public comment thereon, and those applicable standards
as contained in Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, to wit, Division
li of Article 7 (Text Amendments), the Planning and Zoning
Commission has recommended approval of the text amendment
recommended by the Planning Director pursuant to procedure as
authorized by Section 24-6-205 (A)(5) of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen city Council has reviewed and considered
1
the text amendment under the applicable provisions of the Municipal
Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered those
recommendations and approvals as granted by the Planning and Zoning
Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at public
hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the text amendment meets
or exceeds all applicable development standards and is consistent
with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan;.and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers
and is necessary for public health, safety, and welfare; and
W88REA8, the City Council finds that the proposed text
amendment will allow and promote better site design, encourage
small, family-oriented affordable housing, promote housing
proposals that reflect surrounding neighborhood characteristics,and'
will be consistent with the public welfare and the purposes .and
intent of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code.
NOW THEREBORB 88 IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY CODNCIL O$ TH8 CITY O$
ASPEN COLORADO:
Seation i•
Pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 of the Municipal Code, the City
Council finds as follows in regard to the text amendment:
1. The proposed text amendments as set forth are not in conflict
with the provisions of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code or the
Aspen Area Community Plan.
2. The proposed text amendments will not adversely impact traffic
generation or road safety when taken into consideration with
the other aspects of the Municipal Code.
3. The proposed text amendment will promote the public interest
and character of the City of Aspen.
2
Section 2:
Section 5-206.2 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of
Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended, which new text shall read as
follows:
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as
of right in the Affordable Housing (AH) zone district.
1. Residential uses restricted to the
affordable housing income and category
guidelines, as defined by the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and
adopted, by Council in effect at the time
of approval, and resident occupied units,
as defined by the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority and adopted by Council
in effect at the time of approval, must
comprise at least seventy (70) percent of
the unit mix, of the development. Free
market development may comprise up to
thirty (30) percent of the unit mix, and
forty (40) percent of the bedroom mix of
the development. Residential uses may be
comprised of single-family, duplex and
multi-family dwelling units;
The following changes are proposed for Section 24-5-206.2 D.:
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional
requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional
uses in the Affordable Housing (AH) zone district.
1. Minimum lot size (square feet) on a lot of 27,000
square feet or less: 1,500
2. Minimum lot size (square feet) on a lot greater than
27,000 square feet: 3,000
3. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet):
Detached and duplex residential
dwelling on a lot of 27,000 square
feet or less: 1,500
Detached and duplex residential dwelling on a
lot greater than 27,000 square feet:
Detached residential dwelling: 3,000
Duplex: 1,500
3
BYatiOII 3•
This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall
not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now
pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded
under such prior ordinances.
seatioa 4•
if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion
of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid ,'or
unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such
portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent
provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
section Ss
public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on then-S day of
1994 at 5:00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City
all, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a
public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of
general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODIICSD, READ AND ORDERED PIIBLISHSD as provided by law,
by the City Council of the City of Aspen on tha o~- day of
, 1994.
Q~ ~3-
John Beaaett, Mayor
as
lcathrya Hoah, C ty Clerk
/7_ FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ~ day of
~/ _, 1994. ~-yy~
~~~/,.,.
John B aaett, Mayor
Att is C
xathrya Rosh, City Clerk
4
(`~, "~_ l
37954k R-7'75 F~•-&2r 43/49/95 G]2:43F' RG 1 DI= :L1 REC DDC
55. 44
SILVIR I7RVIS F'TTN,IN CDUNTY CLERK & RECORDER
' ORDINANCE NO. joZ
(SERIES OF 1994)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN GRANTING FINAL REVIEW
FOR SIIBDIVISION, PUD, GMQS EXEMPTION,
AND VESTED RIGHTS FOR THE AZLLIAMS RANCH PROJECT TO CONSTRUCT
35 DEED RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AND
15 FREE MARRET LOT ON A PARCEL LOCATED IN SECTION 7,
TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6TH PM
WIiEREAS, the Smuggler Consolidated Mines Corporation
("Applicant"), represented by Tom Stevens and Gary Wright,
submitted an application to the Planning office requesting approval
of the Williams Ranch development which consists of 35 deed
restricted affordable housing units, 15 free market lots, Planned
Unit Development, Subdivision, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption,
Annexation, 8040 Greenline Review, and Special Review; and
WHEREAS, the Williams Ranch property is located immediately
~ adjacent to the City of Aspen in the AF-1 zone district of Pitkin
County; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant did file on December 12, 1991 with the
City Clerk of the City of Aspen a Petition for Annexation to annex
the subject property to the City of Aspen, and
WHEREAS, on January 13, 1992, City Council did adopt
Resolution No. 4, Series of 1992, finding substantial compliance
with Section 31-12-107(1), C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution No. 12, Series of
1992, at its regular meeting on March 23, 1994, did find and
determine, following a public hearing, said Petition for Annexation
to be in substantial compliance with _31-12-104 and 31-12-105,
C.R. S, and
379604 E;~-775 P-B23 03/04/95 0^c:03P F'G c OF it
WHEREAS, the Applicant and the City of Aspen have consented
to that certain Annexation Agreement dated _, 1994; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the
Applicant's request at a public hearing on September 13, 1994, at
which time the Commission recommended approval to City Council for
the Subdivision, Rezoning, PUD, GMQS Exemption, and Annexation.
The Commission also granted 8040 Greenline review and Special
Review for parking and open space, subject to conditions in
Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 94-_ ; and
WHEREAS, the Commission voted 4-0 to recommend approval of
this project to City Council; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-7-1004 Subdivision, Section
24-7-901 Planned Unit Development, and Section 24-8-104 GMQS
Exemption, City Council may approve the Applicant's request; and
WHEREAS, City Council considered the Applicant's request at
a duly noticed public hearing on November 14, 1994 at which time
Council determined that this project complies with the applicable
requirements of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, City Council has found that a multi-year development
allotment for one free market unit pursuant to Section 24-8-103(D)
is appropriate to accommodate this project; and
WHEREAS, the approvals granted herein are specifically
conditioned upon City Council approval of said Petition for
Annexation by Ordinance duly adopted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED HY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
2
379E~DA R-77°, F'-0:='4 C~3/O9/9b ~ZIc.O3F' F'6 CJF i 1
Section 1: Pursuant to Section 24-7-1004 Subdivision, Section 24-
7-901 Planned Unit Development, and Section 24-8-104 GMQS
Exemption, City Council does hereby approve the applicant's request
subject to the terms and conditions of said Annexation Agreement
and upon adoption by the City Council of an Annexation Ordinance
annexing the subject property to the City of Aspen; and subject
further to the following conditions:
1. The Zoning Enforcement Officer has recommended the following
conditions of approval that shall be adhered to by the
applicant:
a. Building envelopes on the free market lots shall contain
all development and disturbance proposed for those lots.
Natural vegetation shall be maintained outside the
designated building envelopes. This condition shall be
noted on the Final Plat.
b No development shall be permitted to encroach into any
. easement areas identified on the Final Plat. This
condition shall be noted on the Final Plat.
c. Prior to the development of each lot, a separate
topographical and boundary survey with corner monuments
shall be prepared by a registered land surveyor and
submitted with the building permit.
d. The free market units shall provide one parking space
per bedroom.
e. Allowed floor area square footages shall be based on the
lot areas identified on the Final Plat.
f. Pitkin County's definition for calculating height and
determining natural grade shall be used for this project.
g. Lots 3 - 15 have received a PUD variance for the front
yard that addresses the requirement of Section 24-3-101
Yard (A)(5), which permits driveways or cut slabs greater
'
.
than 30 inches below grade within the required yards
h. All heights and FAR calculations shall be verified when
- 3
379604 8-775 R-825 03/09/95 02:03R RG 4 OF it
working drawings are submitted to the Building Department
for building permit review. The drawings included in the
application packet do not contain adequate detail for
this level of review.
2. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions
regarding pedestrian areas:
a. The Final Plat shall identify pedestrian easements on all
lots that are adjacent to roads.
b. Hard surface pedestrian walking areas shall be placed on
one side of all roads within the subdivision and along
one side of the main access road across Mollie Gibson
park to Smuggler Mountain Road.
c. All hard surface pedestrian walking areas shall be
maintained in a suitable walking condition on a year
round basis.
d. The Covenants and approvals shall specify whether the
Homeowner's Associations or individual property owners
are responsible for snow removal and maintenance of these
walkways.
3. The applicant shall complete an ACSD Collection System
agreement, and shall comply with ACSD Rules, Regulations, and
Specifications, prior to the issuance of any building permits.
4. The following conditions of approval from the Environmental
Health Department, shall be adhered to by the applicant:
a. The applicant shall adhere to the fugitive dust control
plan filed in the Environmental Health Department.
b. The applicant shall file a fireplace/woodstove permit for
each structure with the Environmental Health Department,
prior to the issuance of any building permits.
c. Construction hours shall be limited to 7:OOam to 10:00pm
to minimize construction noise on neighboring properties.
5. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions as
they relate to the Housing Office:
a. The applicant may choose the first time purchasers of the
affordable housing units, as long as each purchaser
complies with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines
and each purchaser has been approved by the APCHA.
b. All resale affordable housing units shall come under the
jurisdiction of the APCHA and its guidelines.
4
~"~
~7460A R-77S p-FJ?6 23/09/4` Nc:GsG PG v GF 11
c. The Master Deed Restriction shall be filed and approved
by the Housing Office within 180 days of City Council
approval of the project.
d. Ten of the Resident Occupied "RO" units shall comply with
the RO requirement for the City of Aspen in the 1994
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office 1994 Affordable
Housing Guidelines. The remaining five RO units shall
meet all the requirements of the Housing Guidelines,
except there will be no asset or income limitations for
these residents.
6. The turnaround at the intersection of Freesilver Road and
Williams Ranch Drive shall be redesigned subject to approval
of the City Engineer and the Fire Chief. Alternately, the
applicant shall install residential sprinkler systems in all
residential units.
7. Lots 1 - 15 shall have a residential sprinkler system
installed and these shall be indicated on the building permit
drawings.
8. Development on Lot 15 is limited to eighteen feet in height
(plus five feet to the mid-point), as calculated by Pitkin
County's Land Use Code. All other lots are subject to the 25
foot height limitation of the City of Aspen, and are
calculated using Pitkin County's definition for height.
9. The water pump serving the upper lots shall have adequate
records of pump maintenance and servicing available for
inspection by the Fire Marshall.
10. The emergency access road shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide
and maintained in a passable condition on a year round basis.
The improvements agreement, declarations, and covenants shall
specify that snow removal will be provided by the Homeowner's
Associations for the emergency access road.
11. The allowable floor area for the free market parcels shall not
exceed 90% of what is permitted in the AH zone district. If
the proposed floor area for any free market parcel is over 8D°s
of the permitted floor area for the AH zone district, then a
complete 8040 Greenline Review by the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall be required prior to the issuance of any
building permits for that lot. In the 8040 Greenline Review
process, particular attention shall be focussed 'on
requirements 7 and 8, which provide for the preservation of
the mountain as a scenic resource and design to blend into the
open character of the mountain.
12. Lots 1 - 15 shall have an engineer evaluate the site
5
379E04
a. The free market units shall be required to provide for
on-site stormwater detention, prior to the issuance of
any building permits.
b. Soil erosion controls and the debris interceptor shall
be indicated on the Final Plat drawings. Construction
drawings for each phase of work shall be designed by a
licensed engineer and indicate appropriate runoff control
measures. The plans shall be submitted and approved by
the Engineering Department, prior to any earthmoving
activities.
c. The applicant shall dedicate public right-of-way or an
easement for Spruce Street along the north property
boundary on Lots 1 - 4 and provide a seven foot easement
for snow storage along these lots.
d. All access roads shall be a minimum of 20 foot driving
width. This also applies to the "driveway" called
Williams Court.
e. The "grass over paver blocks" or similar system for the
emergency access lane off Spruce Street shall be designed
and engineered to handle emergency response vehicle
loads. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Fire Marshall, prior to the issuance of any building
permits.
f. The applicant shall submit construction drawings and
specifications, stamped by a registered engineer, and
obtain written permission from Engineering prior to any
road work, utility construction, or grading/drainage
construction.
g. Prior to signing the Final Plat, the applicant shall
submit a letter by a registered engineer stating that the
road designs meet the requirements of Section 24-7-
1004(C)(4)(a)(10) and (13).
h. The Final Plat shall indicate a 20 mph speed limit signs
to be installed by the applicant as identified in the
G
13
8-775 G-8c7 G3/09/95 02:G3p PG 6 DF ii
conditions to recommend foundation design, prior to building
permit review on each parcel.
A licensed engineer shall submit a report addressing the
foundation design for the affordable housing units, prior to
the issuance of any building permits.
14. As discussed in the referral comments dated August 24, 1994
from the Engineering Department, the applicant shall comply
with the following:
379604 H-775 F'-Q28 03/09/95 0~e03P r'G 7 or- li
Traffic Report.
i. In addition to the required 100 foot diameter turnaround
for the intersection of Freesilver Road and Williams
Ranch Drive, a seven foot buffer shall be designed
outside this turnaround that will be for drainage, snow
storage space plus a five foot pedestrian path. This
shall be identified on the Final Plat.
j. An easement for the snow storage areas within the
development shall be indicated on the Final Plat.
k The applicant shall provide three single globe antique
. street lights for this project, one at the intersection
of Williams Drive and Teal Court, one at the
intersection/turnaround of Williams Ranch Drive and
Freesilver Road, and one at the intersection of Williams
Ranch Drive and Freesilver Road. Intermediate, low level
street lighting shall be provided between intersections.
Design, style and location of these lights shall be
approved by the City Engineer.
1 All utilities, except natural gas, shall be stubbed out
. to the property lines prior to paving the access roads.
m. Any property monuments removed or disturbed during
construction (including landscaping) shall be reset by
a land surveyor.
n Prinz to Final Plat approval, property corner monuments
. shall be set on the external boundaries of the
subdivision.
o. The Final Plat and subdivision agreement shall include
a note specifying that trash storage and recycle areas
will be located on private property and not within access
and utility easements.
p. The Final Plat must meet the requirements of Section 24-
7-1004(D) of the Municipal Code. The Plat shall also
include certificates of plat approval for utility
location and easement width by all utility companies and
approval by all easement holders on the property.
q. The "Final Plat" will consist of all boundary,
certificate, site, engineering, and architectural
drawings approved by the City. All sheets containing
engineered drawings must be stamped by a registered
engineer.
r. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement
districts which may be formed for the purpose of
7
2,746k~4 B-775 P-8c9 O3/iD9/45 O~:O:,P PG 8 OF 11
constructing improvements in the adjacent Smuggler area
public rights-of-way.
s. The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080)
for design considerations of development within public
rights-of-way, parks department (920-5120) for vegetation
species, and shall obtain permits for any work or
development, including landscaping, within public rights-
of-way from the city street department (920-5130).
t. Guest parking areas shall be delineated on the Final Plat
and all pull in parking spaces shall be redesigned to
comply with the requirements of the Municipal Code.
15. No accessory dwelling units are permitted to be constructed
in any of the Williams Ranch residences.
16. As stated in the Parks Department referral comments dated
September 7, 1994, the applicant shall comply .with the
following:
a. The applicant shall obtain an easement from the ditch
owners for the proposed trail along Salvation Ditch.
Specific information regarding trail standards and
materials shall be included in the application. The
applicant should dedicate this as a public easement.
b. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the
applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan that
identifies trees six inches in diameter and over.
Landscaping in any right-of-way should also be included
on the landscape plan. The Parks Department will review
and approve the final landscape plan to be recorded with
the Final Plat documents.
c. The applicant shall comply with Ordinance 37 Series of
1991 as it relates to irrigation methods.
17. The applicant shall pay the $157,360 park development impact
fee prior to the issuance of any building permits, unless the
applicant provides a cost breakdown of the park improvements
as specified Section 24-5-608.
18. The Final Plans shall indicate a small ditch water feature
along the Salvation Ditch alignment to maintain the historic
character of this area.
19. The applicant shall provide a Final Plat and Subdivision
Improvement Agreement, satisfactory to the City Attorney,
Engineer and Planning Office, detailing the costs of all
proposed public improvements within 180 days of City Council
review. The guarantee of these improvements shall be in place
_. S
379E~4 P-775 F'-$„~ ~3/VJ9/95 ~2~c:k~3F' F'C, 9
OF 11
before the issuance of any building permits. A11 public
improvements shall be completed, in place and accepted by the
appropriate agency before issuance of any certificate of
Occupancy's.
20. The applicant shall explore restricting residential
development on the remaining 30 acres in Pitkin County, with
the exception of a night watchman's quarters, not to exceed
1,500 square feet in floor area.
21. The city Engineer shall pursue a text amendment to allow
variations of subdivision design standards as set forth in
Section 29-7-1004(C)(4) of the Aspen Municipal Code.
22. Only Lot 5 shall have access via Spruce Street.
23. Prior to the commencement of any construction activities on
this property, the applicant shall receive final Annexation
and Rezoning approvals from the City of Aspen.
24. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations made by
Bruce Collins in his geologic report dated January 19, 1994.
25. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and public meetings shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended
by other conditions.
26. The applicant shall grant a Public Recreation Easement to the
City of Aspen for the open space parcel adjacent to Salvation
Ditch.
27. The applicant agrees not to seek any variances to the 25-foot
height limit for structures, as based upon the Pitkin County
regulation pertaining to the measurement of building heights.
Section 2: Pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, City Council does hereby grant the Applicant vested rights
for the Williams Ranch Subdivision site development plan as
follows:
1. The rights granted by the site specific development plan
approved by this Ordinance shall remain vested for three (3)
years from the date of final adoption specified below.
However, any failure to abide by the terms and conditions
attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said
9
379EO4 8-775 F'-831 03/09/95 O2:03P F'G 10 OF 11
vested property rights. Failure to timely and properly record
all plats and agreements as specified herein or in the
Municipal Code shall also result in the forfeiture of said
vested rights.
2. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of
referendum and judicial review.
3. Nothing in the approvals provided by this Ordinance shall
exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent'
reviews and/or approvals required by this Ordinance or the
general rules, regulations or ordinances of the City provided
that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the
approval granted and vested herein.
4. The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not
preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which
are general in nature and are applicable to all properties
subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen, including
but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and
mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site
development approval, the developer shall abide by any and all
such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical
codes, unless.an exemption therefrom is granted in writing.
Section 3: The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to
be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City
of Aspen, no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption
hereof. Such notice shall be given in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval
of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a
vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68,
Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following
described property:
The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said
notice.
Section 4: This ordinance shall not become effective unless and
until the City Council approves the Petition for Annexation by duly
enacted ordinance annexing the subject property to the City of
u
10
37964 B-775 F'-8.''.'c 0.:~/Q~9/9:i ~?i2s2~3P F'O 11 OF it
Aspen.
Section 5: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
day of _~~, 1994 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council
Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. Fifteen (15) days
prior to the hearing a public notice of the hearing shall be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of
Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PIIBLISHED as provided by law, by
the City Council of the City of Aspen on the ~ day of x~~.
1994.
Q.,c~. <7~t.,,..~-~-
Joh Bennett, Mayor
,,P•u~Pr~o.. r_ ..
`ATTEST:
-~uxn~
~.. ,.• .
(FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this -°sday of
1994.
John ~~e/'n'n~e/tt, Mayor
nuuuii~i~i'y. ~rl'/\
Rz~t~y~ 1~3.ch, City Clerk
' ~ ~'
•o@~. cc. ah . y 5,1#~'ranch. Final
<'y~ •~ •R RpO~
'~ 11
,,... . ~.
,_,. .., ~-~jgR ~
APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
Appellant: Homeowners from Williams Ranch Subdivision
Date: Monday, r8 August 2008
Appeal from: Administrative Decision re: Dimensional Requirements, etc.
Contact Information:
Gary and Jena Wright
zoo Silverl.ode Drive
Aspen, Colorado
Mailing address:
7i5 West Main Street, Suite 2oi
Aspen, Colorado Si6u
Telephone: 925-5625
Facsimile: 925-5663
i•'•
\.„I
APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
Appellant: Homeowners from Williams Ranch Subdivision
Date: Monday, i8 August 2008
Appeal from: Administrative Decision re: Dimensional Requirements, etc.
The Williams Ranch homeowners involved with this project wish to thank Jennifer and
Chris for the time and hard work they did on ascertaining applicable zoning and building
requirements for Williams Ranch.
Introduction:
Williams Ranch and SilverLode subdivisions were the result of more than five years of
planning and reviews with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Department of
Justice, the State Mine Land Reclamation Division (as it was called then), Pitkin County, and
the City of Aspen.
Williams Ranch was, beginning in 1989, one of the first projects developed under the
then new AH Zone concept. After getting approximately thirteen acres of the Superfund
Operable Unit 2 Study Area determined to be free from heavy metals and particularly lead, by
the EPA and the Department of Justice, the developer entered into a consent decree with the
United States. Thereafter, the developer sought and obtained a subdivision from Pitkin County
and annexed those thirteen acres into the City of Aspen with the zoning of AH.
After going through numerous planning meetings as well as conceptual approval from
City Planning & Zoning and City Counsel, and then detailed submission and final review
approval, again with Planning & Zoning and City Counsel, the developer was granted approval
for i5 free market lots, subject to constructing thirty-five deed restricted homes. No cash
subsidies were provided and, in addition to building the thirty-five homes, the developer also
built the Molly Gibson Park.
In the late i98os and early i99os, the concept of an AH (affordable housing) zone
district was a relatively new one. The PUD evidenced by Ordinance No. 59 (Series 1989) and
Ordinance No. 52 (Series of 1994) and the underlying requirements were specifically designed
for and tailored to this project. Here, this project's topography, number of units, and the site
plan that identified both deed restricted and free market lots were the result of many hours of
work and collaboration among City staff, APCHA staff, hopeful local homeowners, the
contractor and the developer.
Page i of 4
Appeal of Administrative Decision
Appellant: Homeowners from Williams Ranch Subdivision
Date: Monday, r8 August zoo8
Additionally, this project was one of the first to have both what was then called a
Category 5 that had at that particular time higher income and asset allowances and the
experiment of five lots that were called RO that had no asset or income limitations, but did have
the requirement that the owners be full-time employees in Pitkin County.
Dimensional requirements for all thirty-five deed restricted homes are specified in
Ordinance No. 59 (Series 1989) and set out in Exhibit A to this Appeal, which exhibit was
prepared by Ms. Phelan and marked "draft 6/t~/o8." Note that Exhibit A was prepared with
the benefit of the plans for building permits issued for the construction of the homes as
maintained by the City of Aspen.
Issues on Appeal:
There are two issues with the interpretation of the applicable limitations on the size of
additions to the existing homes as set forth in the Administrative Decision.
i. Floor area allowed by the Ordinance No. 59, Series 1989 should not be
subject to slope reduction.
2. Exempt floor area allowed by the PUD should not be reduced.
Discussion:
i The floor area allowed by the P.U.D. should not be subiect to slope reduction.
Imposition of Slope Reduction. The homeowners believe that because the dimensional
requirements and floor areas were specifically planned for the Williams Ranch deed restricted
homes, and Staff, P&Z and City Counsel all considered the topography of the site in establishing
the standards set forth in Ordinance No. 59 (Series 1989), those dimensional requirements should
not be reduced by any slope reduction formula.
Page 2 of 4
Appeal of Administrative Decision
Appellant: Homeowners from Williams Ranch Subdivision
Date: Monday, 18 August 2008
Slope reduction serves to reduce development and increase development costs. Here,
development will be effectively limited by the current expense of construction and the ten
percent (10%) limitation for expenses that can be added onto the maximum resale price. Having
to provide a slope reduction survey and slope reduction calculation is also an unduly burdensome
expense for a deed restricted home. Also, with the ten percent (10%) limitation on expenses for
approved improvements that can be recovered on resale as enforced by the APCHA, the amount
that can be spent and recovered will serve to minimize additional development.
Development in the form of small additions to the deed restricted homes at Williams
Ranch will ultimately benefit future homeowners. Today, the deed restricted homes at Williams
Ranch are very popular because of the combination of their proximity to town and to public
transportation, in addition to the purchase cost for the size and amenities of the homes.. Compare
for example to North Forty where several home resale prices have exceed $1,000,000.
z The exemnt floor area allowed by the P.U.D. should not be reduced.
The homes that have garages were designed with a five hundred (500) square foot
exemption from the square footage that counts against the overall allowance. The homeowners
believe that this size exemption should be allowed to continue. The as-built garages from the
original construction were allowed to be five hundred (500) square feet without counting
against maximum allowable size. The reviewing City Counsel and P&Z were of the opinion that
additional garage size was a good idea to allow for storage and to keep boats, bicycles,
motorcycles, etc. from ending in the front or back yards, etc.
~. Summary.
The PUD for the deed restricted homes constructed at Williams Ranch went through a
four-step process of conceptual review by P&Z and City Counsel, and detailed and final
submission, again by P8rZ and City Counsel. Staff provided input throughout the multi-year
process. The PUD was carefully reviewed and considered topography, siting, architectural style,
size, location of homes, mixture of Cat 2 through RO, just to mention a few of the relevant
criteria that support maintaining the PUD dimensional requirements and square footage
exemptions established by Ordinance No. 59 (Series 1989)•
Page 3 of 4
,~
,,:
Appeal of Administrative Decision
Appellant: Homeowners from Williams Ranch Subdivision
Date: Monday, i8 August 2008
Relief Requested:
The homeowner appellants from Williams Ranch request that City Counsel grant this
appeal by modifying the Administrative Decision to maintain the dimensional requirements set
forth in Ordinance No. 59 (Series of 1989), establish that such requirements are not limited by
any vested rights limitation and are not subject to slope reduction. Additionally the
homeowners request that up to five hundred (Soo) square feet of garage space shall continue to
not count against allowed dimensional limitations.
The homeowners suggest that City Council codify the granting of this appeal by
authorizing the recording of Exhibit A as setting the dimensional requirements for Williams
Ranch.
Contact Information:
Gary and Jena Wright
715 West Main Street, Suite 2oi
Aspen, Colorado 8i6u
Telephone: 925-5625
Facsimile: 925-5663
Page 4 of 4
DDRESS
OT NO.
OT SIZE
(SQ. FT.)
BLD.
PERMIT
MAX
FLOOR
AREA FIOOR
AREA
BASED
ON ORD.
NO 59
(1989)'
BLD.
PERMIT
USED
FLOOR
AREA
340 SILVERLODE DR 1 5,732 6305.20 3164.96 2340.50
320 SILVERLODE DR 2 5,766 3174.48 3174.48 2122.02
149 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 3 4,311 2767.08 2767.08 2035.31
300 SILVERLODE DR 4 6,029 3248.12 3244.06 2294.75
137 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 5 4,551 2834.28 2834.28 2250.26
280 SILVERLODE DR 6 7,896 3770.88 3505.44 2444.29
115 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 7 5,064 2977.92 2977.92 2035.31
101 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 8 6,058 3256.24 3248.12 2238.60
87 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 9 8,455 3583.00 3583.7 2490.72
260 SILVERLODE DR 10 6,768 3455.04 3347.52 2613.57
240 SILVERLODE DR 11 8,392 3909.76 3574.88 2681.98
220 SILVERLODE DR 12 5,347 3057.16 3057.16 2024.09
420 SILVERLODE DR 13 6,422 7 3299.08 ?
410 SILVERLODE DR 14 6,504 3381.12 3310.56 ?
400 SILVERLODE DR 15 6,691 3433.48 3336.74 ?
390 51WERLODE DR 16 3,293 ? 2482.04 ?'
380 SILVERLODE DR 17 3,001 ? 2400.28 ?
370 SILVERLODE DR 18 3,849 2637.72 2637.72 ?
360 SILVERLODE DR 19 3,626 2575.28 2575.28 7
160 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 20 3,040 2411.20 2411.2 1028.72
150 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 21 3,022 2406 2406.16 756
140 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 22 5,377 2637.72 3065.56 1184.11
130 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 23 3,229 2464.10 2464.12 917.59
120 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 24 3,086 2424.08 2424.08 1103.00
110 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 25 3,007 2401.96 2401.96 708.73
100 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 25 4,909 2934.52 2934.52 1138.14
80 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 27 6,549 3316.00 3316.86 1409.84
70 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 28 3,293 2428.00 2482.04 906.83
60 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 29 5,795 3182.60 3182.6 1925.19
50 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 30 3,778 2617.00 2617.84 657.36
40 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 31 4,116 2712.00 2712.48 917.69
27 WILLIAMS RANCH CT 32 8,107 3829.96 3534.98 980.32
23 WILLIAMS RANCH CT 33 4,577 2807.40 2841.56 889.73
15 WILLIAMS RANCH CT 34 4,985 2955.00 2955.8 884.00
11 WILLIAMS RANCH CT 35 5 125 2995.00 2995 1144.00
Notes: ' Slo a Reduction is not accounted for in this calculation
-- a~a ~ ~-
nl~znl. ~ ~rt~
p ~~°t'~~
Csun.c5 ~ti~i`F~
W/
Mlnl. 'Fra~'C Y~d1`,
~a~ ~
M~n1. ~'~c~c=Y~
O//S/
Mi rJ . CLAY' `f+~D
~'
Mkt ~~~tT
EXHIBIT
a
2
.~,,.
~~~~~ ~
Chapter 26.316
APPEALS
Sections:
26.316.010 Appeals, purpose statement.
26.316.020 Authority.
26.316.030 Appeal procedures.
26.316.010 Appeals, purpose statement.
The purpose of this Chapter is to establish the authority of the Board of Adjustment, Growth
Management Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and City Council to heaz and decide
certain appeals and to set forth the procedures for said appeals. (Ord. No. 17-2002 § 2 (part), 2002)
26.316.020 Authority.
A. Board of Adjustment. The Board of Adjustment shall have the authority to hear and decide the
following appeals:
1. The denial of a variance pursuant to Chapter 26.314 by the Planning and Zoning Commission
or Historic Preservation Commission.
B. City Council. The City Council shall have the authority to heaz and decide the following appeals:
1. An interpretation to the text of this title or the boundaries of the zone district map by the
Community Development Director in accordance with Chapter 26.306. An appeal ofthis nature
shall be a public meeting.
2. Any action by the Historic Preservation Commission in approving, approving with conditions,
or disapproving a development application for development in an "H,", Historic Overlay
District pursuant to Chapter 26.415. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting.
3. The scoring determination of the Community Development Director pursuant to Chapter
26.470. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting.
4. The allocation of Growth Management Allotments by the Planning and Zoning Commission
pursuant to Chapter 26.470. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting.
5. Any other appeal for which specific authority is not granted to another boazd or commission as
established by this title. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting.
C. Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall have the
authority to hear and decide an appeal from an adverse determination by the Community Development
Director on an application for exemption pursuant to the growth management quota system in
accordance with Section 26.470.060(D).
City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007.
Part 300, Page 35
~.,, ,~`
'~.. `w'
D, Administrative Hearing Off cer. The Administrative Hearing Officer shall have the authority
to heaz an appeal from any decision or determination made by an administrative official unless
otherwise specifically stated in this title.
(Ord. No. 17-2002 § 2 (part), 2002; Ord. No. 27-2002 § 23, Ord. No. 12-2007; 2002)
26.316.030 Appeal Procedures.
A. Initiation. Any person with a right to appeal an adverse decision or determination shall initiate an
` ,; appeal by filing a notice of appeal on a form prescribed by the Community Development Director. The
nootice of appeal shall be filed with the Community Development Director and with the city office or
departrnent rendering the decision or determination within fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision
or determination being appealed. Failure to file such notice of appeal within the prescribed time shall
' constitute a waiver of any rights under this title to appeal any decision or determination.
B "; .Effect of Jling an appeal. The filing of a notice of appeal shall stay any proceedings in
furtherance of the action appealed from unless the Community Development Director certifies in
. . -;wnttng to the chairperson of the decision-making body authorized to hear the appeal at a stay poses
an imminent peril to life or property, in which case the appeal shall not stay further proceedings. The
chairperson of the decision making body with authority to hear the appeal may review such
certification and grant or deny a stay of the proceedings.
h 4
aC iming of appeal. The decision-making body authorized to hear the appeal shall consider the
C t~ ~ ~a =within thirty (30) days of the date of filing the notice of appeal or as soon thereafter as is
s~
.~,under the circumstances.
! lice requirements. Notice of the appeal shall be provided by mailing to the appellant and by
`~' - zi to all other affected parties. (See section 26304.060(E)).
d of review. Unless otherwise specifically stated in this title, the decision-making body
hear the appeal shall decide the appeal based solely upon the record established by the
rich the appeal is taken. A decision or determination shall be not be reversed or modified
r a finding that there was a denial of due process, or the administrative body has exceeded
a or abused its discretion.
the decision-making body hearing the appeal. The decision-making body hearing the
erse, affirm, or modify the decision or determination appealed from, and, if the decision
X11 be deemed to have all the powers of the officer, board or commission from whom the
t; including the power to impose reasonable conditions to be complied with by the
decision-making body may also elect to remand an appeal to the body that originally
it for further proceedings consistent with that body's jurisdiction and directions given, if
y hearing the appeal. The decision shall be approved by written resolution. All appeals
§§ 4, 5; Ord. No. 27-2002 § 24, Ord. No. 12-2007, 2002)
Use Code. August, 2007
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
OF
Aspen, CO.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
~~ ~~ ~iYl 12 P S _00 0 ry~ , 200
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
I t~ln~. ,(~~'~ ~u~~~ (name, please print)
being or repres nting an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
~Publicatiorz of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public heazulg. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Deparhnent, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six
(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
and was continuously visible from the _ day of , 200_, to
and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted
notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public heazing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeazed no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(continued on nextpage)
Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt
requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to
the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of
development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those
on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions that
create more than one lot, Planned Unit Developments, Specially Planned Areas,
and COWAPs aze subject to this notice requirement.
Rezoning or text amendment: Whenever the official zoning district map is in
any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision
of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such
revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use
regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other
sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and
addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be
waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public
inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing on such amendments.
igna e
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 29 day
of Q.el~tM.~eS , 200 $ , by ~~rr.~
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My commission expires: ~ ~6' ~ 0' ~ l~
Notary Public
LAURA
MEYER `
~'IENTS AS APPLICABLE: uj'.,, ,'
TION 9~r*'rp~.d~'
' POSTED NOTICE (SIGN pg~lp~~p10
AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCI~'~~5~
BYMAIL
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIREDBYC.RS. §24-65.5-103.3
December 22, 2008
Mr. Gary and Jena Wright
715 West Main Street, Suite 201
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: ADMINISTRATIVE
SUBDIVISION)
DETERMINATION APPEAL
Dear Gary and Jena,
THE CITY OF ASPEN
(WILLIAMS RANCH
As required per Section 26.316.020 D., Notice Requirements, of the land use code notice is
hereby given that a public hearing will be held on Monday, January 12, 2009, to begin at 5:00.
p.m. before the Aspen City Council, City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S: Galena St.,
Aspen. The purpose of the hearing is to consider an appeal of an administrative determination,
submitted by the both of you and Gary Kelly.
The administrative determination provided information on land use ,code and. dimensional
standards applicable to new development within the subdivision. Your requests aze to allow fora
lazger floor azea exemption for gazages, carports and storage areas than allowed by the
administrative determination and to exempt development from a reduction of floor area when
steep slopes are present on a lot. The subject property under review is legally described as
Williams Ranch subdivision. For further information, please feel free to contact me at
970.429.2759 or by email Jennifer.P}telan(cr~ci.aspen.co.us. A memo will be emailed to you in the
near future.
Regaprd^s~, / (^ C
Jenifer Phelan
Deputy Director
13O SOUTH GALENA STREET ~ ASPEN, COLORADO S16n-I97S ~ PHONE 970.92O.SOOO ~ PAX 970.92O.S197
www. aspengov.com
ramea o~ Re~ydea raper
^ Complete Rems 1, 2, end 3. Also complete A
item 4'rf Restdcted Delivery is desired. X
^ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can retvtrl the card to you. a.
^ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the troll if space permits.
1. ARicle Addressed to:
M~'•~i
516 ~ ~~~ ~-
^ Agent
delivery address different from Rem 17 LJ Ye:
If YFS, enter delivery address below: ^ No
3. ce Type
rtifled Mail ^ Express Mail
^ Registered ^ Retum Receipt for MmcharWise
^ Insured Mail ^ C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (EMra Fee) ~ Yes
^ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete A. Si~gr(afGre
~ /
^
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. !
X
~
% ~ Agent
^ Print your name and address on the reverse ~ < ^ Addressee
so that we Can return the card to you. g. Feive by (Printed Name) C Date f Delivery
'
^ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, ~ /
z.
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to: Js delivery address diffemntfrom item l? ^Ves
If YES, enter delivery address below: ^ No
M~'. ~
r ~ $ `(O ~ I 3. Se ce Type
~ertified Mail ^ F~cpress Mail
/^Registered ^ Return Receipt for Merchandise
^ Insured Mall ^ C.O.D.
4. Restdcted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ^ yes
2. Article Number
(Mans/er/rom servicelabeQ 91 718 2133 3934 3814 0862
-__ __
PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 7oz595-0z-M-7540
^ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also wmplete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
^ Print your n~;ne and address on the reveres
so that we can return the card to you.
^ Attach this card to.he back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
t. Article Addressed to:
~,~Ry rt:"J~- W~cttr
'll S W . Wit,,,, 5~'c~'
a..~.+~Jla~ ~ ~
A.
g Received by (Printed Neme)
D. Is deliv~ d~~m from nem t? U rep
^ No
If YES, enter delivery address below:
G l ~ l 1 3. ~Sejvice TYpe
~elJor. O ` ~Q Certified Mail ^ 6rpress Mail
7 ~ •~f4 - /0 R~~ar~ ^ Retum Receipt for Merchandise
^ Insured Mail ^ C.O.D.
4. Restdcted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0_ Y~~
z. ArticleNUmber 7108 33 3934 38 L`+ uor,
ransfer from service label) 91 2 ~' ---- __- - -----
(~ ---- - 702595-02-M-1500
Domestic Return Receipt
PS Fonn 3811, February 2004
Jennifer Phelan
From: Gary Kelly [gkaspen@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 5:40 PM
To: Jennifer Phelan
Subject: FW: Gary Kelly, owner; Williams Ranch Lot 6
Jennifer, the first email came back. Hopefully, you will get this one. Please see below. Thank You! Gary
From: Gary Kelly [mailto:gkaspen@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 5:27 PM
To: 'From: Jennifer Phelan '
Subject: Gary Kelly, owner; Williams Ranch Lot 6
Dear Jennifer,
Re: 280 Silverlode Drive, Aspen
Williams Ranch Lot 6
Please let this email suffice for my above referenced property, being included in the
appeal of administrative determination for the benefit of 280 Silverlode Drive,
Aspen. (Lot 6 Williams Ranch) This appeal was filed by Gary Wright on my
behalf.
Please contact me at your convenience if you need anything else from me.
Otherwise, I will be present on November 24, 2008.
Regazds,
Gary Kelly
Gary P. Kelly,
516 E. Hyman Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
t970-925-8810
m 970-379-2900
f 970-925-8821
kasnen ,comcast.net
WRIGHT ~S'C LASALLE, LLP
Gary A. Wright
gaw@wrightlasalle.com
Jennifer Phelan
Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
12 August 2008
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Appeal of Williams Ranch Administrative Decision
Dear Jennifer:
by email
original by U.S. Mail
I am writing to advise of the wish to file an appeal of certain portions of the
Administrative Decision, effective on 1 August 2008, and first provided to me by your email
transmission of 4 August 2008.
My office just contacted Community Development and was advised by Bonnie that prior
to filing an appeal we had to provide notice to you. Please consider this correspondence such
notice. Additionally, when my office inquired about the form prescribed under §26.316.030 by
the Community Development Director, we were advised that there is no such form and to
provide a letter. Because Bonnie advised that we submit our appeal in letter format directly to
Chris Bendon, I will be sending the same to him later today or tomorrow.
We aze appealing the portion of the administrative decision that imposes slope reductions
when an extensive study of this area was done as part of conceptual and detailed reviews by both
City P&Z and City Counsel, to determine the appropriate floor azea, without any deductions for
slope. In other words, slopes were considered and the current allowances were based on
topography and should be allowed to remain. Additionally, the City P&Z and City Counsel spent
considerable time before they decided the garage exemption would be 500 squaze feet. This was
based on the belief that people need places to store bicycles, etc., and a gazage is a preferable
option to the front or back yard.
I request that any home owner that wishes to proceed under the Administrative Decision
that is being appealed be allowed to do so. A successful appeal will only create the situation
where home owners have the opportunity to add more square footage to their homes.
Sincerely,
WRI HT~ALLE, LLP
By: u
Copy to: Williams Ranch Board
Chris Bendon
Gary A. Wright
DECEIVED
Au4 ~3 ze~E
www.wtightlasalle.com
715 West Main Street, Suite 201
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone: (970) 925-5625
Facsimile: (970) 925-5663
„~ s `r OF ASPEN
?2h'UNITY DEVELOPMENT
v,
APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
Appellant: Homeowners from Williams Ranch Subdivision
Date: Monday, i8 August 2008
Appeal from: Administrative Decision re: Dimensional Requirements, etc.
Contact Information:
Gary and Jena Wright
24o SilverLode Drive
Aspen, Colorado
Mailing address:
715 West Main Street, Suite 2oi
Aspen, Colorado 8i6u
Telephone: 925-5625
Facsimile: 925-5663
APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
Appellant: Homeowners from Williams Ranch Subdivision
Date: Monday, i8 August zoo8
Appeal from: Administrative Decision re: Dimensional Requirements, etc.
The Williams Ranch homeowners involved with this project wish to thank Jennifer and
Chris for the time and hard work they did on ascertaining applicable zoning and building
requirements for Williams Ranch.
Introduction:
Williams Ranch and SilverLode subdivisions were the result of more than five years of
planning and reviews with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Department of
Justice, the State Mine Land Reclamation Division (as it was called then), Pitkin County, and
the City of Aspen.
Williams Ranch was, beginning in 1989, one of the first projects developed under the
then new AH Zone concept. After getting approximately thirteen acres of the Superfund
Operable Unit 2 Study Area determined to be free from heavy metals and particularly lead, by
the EPA and the Department of Justice, the developer entered into a consent decree with the
United States. Thereafter, the developer sought and obtained a subdivision from Pitkin County
and annexed those thirteen acres into the City of Aspen with the zoning of AH.
After going through numerous planning meetings as well as conceptual approval from
City Planning & Zoning and City Counsel, and then detailed submission and final review
approval, again with Planning & Zoning and City Counsel, the developer was granted approval
for is free market lots, subject to constructing thirty-five deed restricted homes. No cash
subsidies were provided and, in addition to building the thirty-five homes, the developer also
built the Molly Gibson Park.
In the late i98os and early i99os, the concept of an AH (affordable housing) zone
district was a relatively new one. The PUD evidenced by Ordinance No. 59 (Series 1989) and
Ordinance No. 5z (Series of 1994) and the underlying requirements were specifically designed
for and tailored to this project. Here, this project's topography, number of units, and the site
plan that identified both deed restricted and free market lots were the result of many hours of
work and collaboration among City staff, APCHA staff, hopeful local homeowners, the
contractor and the developer.
Page i of 4
,-.
l.,
Appeal of Administrative Decision
Appellant: Homeowners from Williams Ranch Subdivision
Date: Monday, i8 August 2008
Additionally, this project was one of the first to have both what was then called a
Category 5 that had at that particular time higher income and asset allowances and the
experiment of five lots that were called RO that had no asset or income limitations, but did have
the requirement that the owners be full-time employees in Pitkin County.
Dimensional requirements for all thirty-five deed restricted homes are specified in
Ordinance No. 59 (Series 1989) and set out in Exhibit A to this Appeal, which exhibit was
prepared by Ms. Phelan and marked "draft 6/t~/o8." Note that Exhibit A was prepared with
the benefit of the plans for building permits issued for the construction of the homes as
maintained by the City of Aspen.
Issues on Appeal:
There are two issues with the interpretation of the applicable limitations on the size of
additions to the existing homes as set forth in the Administrative Decision.
i. Floor area allowed by the Ordinance No. 59, Series 1989 should not be
subject to slope reduction.
2. Exempt floor area allowed by the PUD should not be reduced.
Discussion:
t The floor area allowed by the P.U.D. should not be subject to slope reduction.
Imposition of Slope Reduction. The homeowners believe that because the dimensional
requirements and floor areas were specifically planned for the Williams Ranch deed restricted
homes, and Staff, P&Z and City Counsel all considered the topography of the site in establishing
the standards set forth in Ordinance No. 59 (Series 1989), those dimensional requirements should
not be reduced by any slope reduction formula.
Page 2 of 4
Appeal of Administrative Decision
Appellant: Homeowners from Williams Ranch Subdivision
Date: Monday, t8 August 2008
Slope reduction serves to reduce development and increase development costs. Here,
development will be effectively limited by the current expense of construction and the ten
percent (10%) limitation for expenses that can be added onto the maximum resale price. Having
to provide a slope reduction survey and slope reduction calculation is also an unduly burdensome
expense for a deed restricted home. Also, with the ten percent (10%) limitation on expenses for
approved improvements that can be recovered on resale as enforced by the APCHA, the amount
that can be spent and recovered will serve to minimize additional development.
Development in the form of small additions to the deed restricted homes at Williams
Ranch will ultimately benefit future homeowners. Today, the deed restricted homes at Williams
Ranch are very popular because of the combination of their proximity to town and to public
transportation, in addition to the purchase cost for the size and amenities of the homes. Compare
for example to North Forty where several home resale prices have exceed $1,000,000.
2 The exempt floor area allowed b~he P.U.D. should not be reduced.
The homes that have garages were designed with a five hundred (500) square foot
exemption from the square footage that counts against the overall allowance. The homeowners
believe that this size exemption should be allowed to continue. The as-built garages from the
original construction were allowed to be five hundred (500) square feet without counting
against maximum allowable size. The reviewing City Counsel and P&Z were of the opinion that
additional garage size was a good idea to allow for storage and to keep boats, bicycles,
motorcycles, etc. from ending in the front or back yards, etc.
:t. Summary.
The PUD for the deed restricted homes constructed at Williams Ranch went through a
four-step process of conceptual review by P&Z and City Counsel, and detailed and final
submission, again by P&Z and City Counsel. Staff provided input throughout the multi-year
process. The PUD was carefully reviewed and considered topography, siting, architectural style,
size, location of homes, mixture of Cat z through RO, just to mention a few of the relevant
criteria that support maintaining the PUD dimensional requirements and square footage
exemptions established by Ordinance No. 59 (Series t989).
Page 3 of 4
,~,,
~w
Appeal of Administrative Decision
Appellant: Homeowners from Williams Ranch Subdivision
Date: Monday, i8 August zoo8
Relief Requested:
The homeowner appellants from Williams Ranch request that City Counsel grant this
appeal by modifying the Administrative Decision to maintain the dimensional requirements set
forth in Ordinance No. 59 (Series of 1989), establish that such requirements are not limited by
any vested rights limitation and are not subject to slope reduction. Additionally the
homeowners request that up to five hundred (500) square feet of garage space shall continue to
not count against allowed dimensional limitations.
The homeowners suggest that City Council codify the granting of this appeal by
authorizing the recording of Exhibit A as setting the dimensional requirements for Williams
Ranch.
Contact Information:
Gary and Jena Wright
~r5 West Main Street, Suite 2oi
Aspen, Colorado 8i6u
Telephone: 925-5625
Facsimile: 925-5663
Page 4 of 4
;.d
d,
DDRESS
OT NO.
OT SIZE
(SQ. FT.)
BLD.
PERMIT
MAX
FLOOR
AREA FIOOR
AREA
BASED
ON ORD.
NO 59
(1989)'
BLD.
PERMIT
USED
FLOOR
AREA
340 SILVERLODE DR 1 5,732 6305.20 3164.96 2340.50
320 SILVERLODE DR 2 5,766 3174.48 3174.48 2122.02
149 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 3 4,311 2767.08 2767.08 2035.31
300 SILVERLODE DR 4 6,029 3248.12 3244.06 2294.75
137 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 5 4,551 2834.28 2834.28 2250.26
280 SILVERLODE DR 6 7,896 3770.88 3505.44 2444.29
115 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 7 5,064 2977.92 2977.92 2035.31
101 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 8 6,058 3256.24 3248.12 2238.60
87 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 9 8,455 3583.00 3583.7 2490.72
260 SILVERLODE DR 10 6,768 3455.04 3347.52 2613.57
240 SILVERLODE DR 11 8,392 3909.76 3574.88 2681.98
220 SILVERLODE DR 12 5,347 3057.16 3057.16 2024.09
420 SILVERLODE DR 13 6,422 ? 3299.08 ?
410 SILVERLODE DR 14 6,504 3381.12 3310.56 ?
400 SILVERLODE DR 15 6,691 3433.48 3336.74 ?
390 SILVERLODE DR
380 SILVERLODE DR 16
17 3,293
3,001 7
? 2482.04
2400.28 ?
?
370 SILVERLODE DR
360 SILVERLODE DR 18
19 3,849
3,626 2637.72
2575.28 2637.72
2575.28 7
?
160 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 20 3,040 2411.20 2411.2 1028.72
150 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 21 3,022 2406 2406.16 756
140 WILLIAMS RANCH DR
130 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 22
23 5,377
3,229 2637.72
2464.10 3065.56
2464.12 1184.11
917.59
120 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 24 3,086 2424.08 2424.06 1103.00
110 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 25 3,007 2401.96 2401.96 708.73
100 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 26 4,909 2934.52 2934.52 1138.14
80 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 27 6,549 3316.00 3316.86 1409.84
70 WILLIAMS RANCH DR
60 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 28
29 3,293
5,795 2428.00
3182.60 2482.04
3182.6 906.63
1925.19
50 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 30 3,778 2617.00 2617.84 657.36
40 WILLIAMS RANCH DR 31 4,116 2712.00 2712.48 917.69
27 WILLIAMS RANCH CT 32 8,107 3829.96 3534.98 980.32
23 WILLIAMS RANCH CT 33 4,577 2807.40 2841.56 889.73
15 WILLIAMS RANCH CT 34 4,985 2955.00 2955.8 884.00
11 WILLIAMS RANCH CT 35 5 125 2995.00 2995 1144.00
Notes: `Slope Reduction is not accounted for in this calculation
Mbt~.l•~T `d17.Fi'
ntiZn1, --~4- ~clfca~.
V4~Jy~' .
-~' Del ~o ~'~
C~lJwcS ~ti~~~
M,N . 4-.~- Wtdl~'h
W/
M1n1. Frartrt YrdtJ
~~! ~
Mt r~1. ~~~ c= Y~
O~/S/
M i n~ . fL~(' `f+afD
A^~~~,'j,~~
~a. s2 ~ ~ia~~
EXHIBIT
e
~eccl # 239 -oa - `} -Z`1- o ~ ~
Ede 6dh gecord fyavigate F9rm RePnis Forma[ Ie6 kidP _. _..
_ - _.. ,
0 ~-''J hX hd hJ 3~ .T3 ~ ~ ;~ .~ ~' N ~ i +l ^ ~ ~ lump 1 . ~ I ~ B..
_.._ _.
c '~, Maul Lustom Fields I Altachmentsl FologUp Nolibdier¢ l Fees I CDndlbns i Actions l Fee Summary I Pucels I Suh PemYa I Routing History I Roulug Slalus I Valualic
v '. Pamit type aslu -Aspen Land Use Permi b 0037.2008.ASLU
-ti','I, Address 290 37LVERLODE DR J Apt/Suite
#c City ASPEN Slate CD ~ Zip 81611 J
" ~I Permtlrfamation - _ _..
Masld Pdmit~-~ RaWin9 Duane aduD7 Applied 08J39I2W8 J
Project J Status pending Appoved ~-
Descrgtien LAND USE APPEAL; WILLIAMS RANCH Issued ~-J
Final ~-J
Suyn~t~ Lbok Burning Days ENplres OBf19J2009 J
Droner. _ _....
Last Name WHIlE RIVER MANAGEMEN' J First Name ~---- PD BOX 10253
SPEN CD 81612
Phone ~-
r Owns is Appkan[? _ __.. _.._ _....
ApPkant __
Last Name WR[GHT ~ First Name GARY 715 W MAIN ST
SPEN CO 81611
Phone 197019255625 Cust p 26D08 J. _ _
Lender
Last Name ~-J Fust Name
Phone ~--
24 oa5
Bh9 ~