HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.23 Williams Ranch Ct.A021.98 9 a 3 q a t tt~, a ai5' 'a i il.ae t' `tafl�� '. tta Jd i
4 q ! a t fl t to v E i°h,i >" L t t a�a�t�5y'dHP�fl s•3ak0 a
,yARCf.El2737 074 30 004 t # 1.�03/04/98 y 10 �� - �A021 98
`aq m..,. r00 .n, .._F_.,,. .,a . ,..,, .ut Via....:_ t,fl `�'sva '° _: ,�
.E!4M Wtlhams Ranch PUD Amendment so N, ` * Chris Bendon
PRQ i ppt 7
W am
Ranch (StiverLod_e Sub dE..).... ?$4a4.+ '!I_` P UD 2 h A m re nd.m. en.t.
.... t
y 3 �
5
[a!7 . .. a,.. . Q$ EJ 111'5 3 671
7 I T ,., I t
rQ A Rh Jo l Williams Join � Aspen CO 81611 a i925 4)4-Stevens, Thomas G StevHR312 AABC T ti7i [0 v . n h 4 m . '
eq
.',
.5:).. :L 1 y 50+270eng 720 !S ms 4 1 ....
B CME: _ : s' y7 ao " '> „ a :s d n try t1 i 4 a6 m ithi ��: q5tPs rs0 ra 5 , kn } y flt t 4t 'fl Q vRr t . : t r.uq G 1• qe , . , La , S .. 3 t i qa� ?g 15 drA i. 7
.
AMOMeganEEMC
�+�"i.Q+�tEEY t t
) � t t >
{, 3 alttia t to �q ttt.t q -s -" w-_ a t q a d t h tt !a��ht,!? t ytfl v
', :, fl aia y. a t i a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director PROVED
APPRO
FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner `n
RE: Williams Ranch First Amendment JUL 1 S 1998
COd1MUNIT(DEVE NOM ENT MEOW
DATE: July 10, 1998 qTy of ASPEN
Tom Stevens, representing Williams Ranch Joint Venture, has applied for an amendment
to the Subdivision/PUD plat. The amendments proposed affect property boundary lines,
easements, and vehicular access areas. A draft of this plat has been reviewed and the
applicant has responded to those concerns raised by our Department and the City
Engineer. The applicant has agreed to record, subsequent to this plat amendment, a plat
showing as-built locations of buildings on each lot. This should be done prior to final
acceptance of the Subdivision by the City.
This is an insubstantial amendment to the Subdivision/PUD plat. The Community
Development Director may approve insubstantial amendments to Subdivisions and PUDs
pursua t to Sections 26.88.060 and 26.84.080. I am recommending approval of this
with a conditions requiring a subsequent plat showing as-built
locations of the buildings on each lot be recorded prior to final acceptance of the
Subdivision.
APPROVAL:
I hereby approve this Insubstantial Amendment for the re-platting of the Williams
Ranch and Silverlode Subdivisions as proposed with one condition.
1. Prior to final acceptance of the Subdivision by the City of Aspen, the applicant
shall record a plat showing the as-built placements of the buildings on each lot.
�nt date l� �1 1 ��
Stanrson, ommunity Development Director
1e — Wi)inn-1 Ram
Williams Ranch Joint Venture
3214 Campanil Drive
Santa Barbara CA 93109
Office:805-687-8255 Fax:805-687-9745
5/5/98 L ,
Mr. John P. Worcester ���y Q 6 1998 �''d' r
City Attorney, Aspen CO
(L)
Subject: Various WR Closing Issues '
Dear John,
In advance I apologize for the length of this letter but since each of this issues will need to be dealt with I
might as well list them all in one letter. Here goes:
1. The Insubstantial Plat Amendment
On 5-4-98 I submitted the final mylar to Chris Benden of the Planning department. I requested that the
final signed mylar be returned to Darin at Land Title for the final recordation. He stated that it should
require one to two weeks to obtain the remaining City signatures. I would appreciate it if you would
insure that the Engineering department responds in a reasonably prompt manner. We responded to
their fourth iteration labeled "draft' which was submitted to us one week after you instructed them to
provide a"final" version (after a meeting weeks ago that you attended). If the Engineering department
proposes substantial changes I will question why it required four expensive iterations to reach this
point. If they propose minor additional changes I will question why minor changes are being requested
at this point. As I stated in my prior letter, hopefully you will agree with me that"enough" is enough.
Your assistance in guiding the signature process, particularly from the Engineering department would
be greatly appreciated.
2 The Park Department Request
Many discussions have occurred between the WRJV and the Parks Department regarding the City
accepting the ongoing maintenance of the Molly Gibson Park. Never was the issue of additional
funding to the City or the Parks Department mentioned. Nonetheless, due to the excellent relationship
that we have maintained during the past few years of the development, I will agree to your request for
a one-time payment of$13,500. In return, I request the following from the City 1)the City agrees to
accept immediate transfer of the Park and the adjacent roadway from the County with the recognition
that I have modified the Escrow agreement so that the City replaces the County to insure our
obligations per the County Letter defining a potential $29,800 obligation, 2) The City accept the
WRJV's obligations (outside of its repair/replacement obligations per the County Letter) as being paid
in full, and 3) No new additions beyond our prior County Commitments will be added by the Parks
department. In other words, at this point we will have received a partial release from the parks
department so that our only remaining financial obligation to the City in this area is the replacement
of dead or diseased trees per the County Letter. This replacement work will occur in June and then we
will contact the Parks department for a final signoff in this area and then request a release from you
for the $29,800 being held at Land Title to secure this work. The check for$13,500 is enclosed.
John Worcester-5-4-98-Closing Issues-05/05/98-9:11 AM
3. Additional Releases— Proposed Security for City
This month, the Alpine Bank loan for the WRJV will be paid off per terms of its original 1995
agreement. The construction loan with Pitkin County Bank for completing the AH units remains in
place (with proposed payoff in July, 1998). Alpine Bank's 1'' trust deed positions on SilverLode Lots
2, 3, and 8 will be released resulting in the City's 2nd positions then becoming l' TD positions. I am
requesting that you agree to a release of SilverLode Lot 3 (which will be needed so that Alpine can re-
• establish a P`TD position for a home development construction loan) and SilverLode Lot 8 which (as
we discussed in our last visit) will be closed on July I, 1998. The City will then have a 1'` TD position
on Lot 2 with a market value (its contract price) of$725,000. At most our current remaining
encumbrances to the City (excluding the completion of the AH units funded by the Pitkin County
Bank loan) is $150,000. Between July 1 and August 1, we agreed in our last meeting that the
remaining obligations would be defined and then secured for the benefit of the City. As of August 1,
we will need to obtain a release from you on Lot 2 as it is under contract for closing on that date. As I
stated to you in the last meeting I believe that by this time (as long as we can get a single list of
cleanup tasks from the Engineering department after their project inspection in early July) essentially
all obligations to the City will have been completed and therefore we would seek a full release from
the City, assuming your concurrence.
In addition you stated that"we should be able to work something our regarding the two-year
maintenance period requested by the City. I would appreciate having this item resolved by July 1,
1998. Ideally the City recognizes that by August 1, 1998 in reality, a two-year maintenance period for
the water system installation will have occurred and that no further financial obligations will be
necessary.
4. Final $50,000 Impact Fee Payment
Although I don't have our Agreement with me on this trip to Aspen, I believe that based on our most
recent closing, we now owe you the final $50,000 impact fee. The check is enclosed.
I would appreciate a prompt response acknowledging agreement(if it exists)on each issues 1-3. If not,
please respond with your requested changes. To properly close out this project, several more letters with
additional issues will undoubtedly be necessary. If you have any ideas for more efficient communication
on the remaining closing issues please let me know your thoughts. Thank you once again for your
ongoing assistance.
Sincerely Yours
eradel
John D. Markel
President, Mark IV, Inc.
General Partner, Williams Ranch Joint Venture
A0r-03-98 12 : 21P Silver-Lode Real Estate 970 963-4891 P.01
The Stevens Group, Incorporated
312 E Aspen Airport Business Center Ii c a "U
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 925-6717 (Phone) APR 6 1998
(970) 925-6707 (Fax) ASYCi'/ri i AIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FAX TRANSMISSION
Please deliver the following pages to:
NAME: John Worchester
COMPANY: City of Aspen
FAX NUMBER:
FROM: Tom Stevens
DATE: April3, 1998
RE: Williams Ranch
CC: Nick Adeh
Phil Overeynder
JackReid
Rebecca Schickling
Stephan Kanipe
Ed Van Wairaven
Tom Bracewell
Chris Bendon
Sara Thomas
COMMENTS:
Meeting Summary
The total number of pages including this cover being transmitted is 2. Please call if you
experience any difficulties with this transmission
Apr--03-98 12 : 21P Silver-Lode Real Estate 970 963-4891 P. 02
L7& V'GCet(b`- C
I N C O R I' O R A T E D
April 3, 1998
Mr. John Worchester
City Attorney
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: WILLIAMS RANCH
Dear John,
I appreciate the opportunity to have met with you and the City staff on March 23, 1998
with regards to the above referenced project. It was very helpful in our efforts to
continue the momentum towards completion of this development. Below is a summary
of that meeting. If you have any additional comments and/or clarification please contact
me immediately.
•
In attendance were; Nick and Ross from Engineering, Rebecca from Parks, Phil from
Water, Chris from Planning, and Stephen from Building, Tom Stevens from WRJV and
Hans Brucker from Banner Associates.
There are three separate activities under way at this time; 1.)Units 16 through 24 are in
the process of Certificate of Occupancy, 2.)Plat Amendment#1 is in the review process,
and 3.)Williams Ranch Joint Venture is planning on a Subdivision completion in late
summer 1998 and will be seeking review and release of financial securities. The process
for C.O. should not be delayed for Subdivision release issues as they are independent.
C.O. should be reviewed as to health safety and welfare issues associated with the
specific unit.
Water Department Issues
Phil has provided Hans Brucker with additional information required of the"as built"
drawings. Hans will add this information and provide revised drawings to Phil on
3/30/1998 (DONE). Hans and Phil will conduct a site walkthrough at same time. The
purpose of this walkthrough will be to turn the completed system over to the City water
Department.
The Water Service Agreement calls for financial security for the water system to be in
place for two years after completion. Tom will have John Markel call Phil to review
(DONE).
Engineering Department Issues
The solution for the "aesthetic" ditch along the Salvation ditch has not yet been resolved.
312 E,Aspen Airport Business Center,Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-6717 FAX: (303) 925-6707
Apr-03-98 12 : 21P SilverLode Real Estate 970 963-4891 P.03
Mr. John Worchester
April 3, 1998
Page 2
Site drainage is a concern for both spring erosion control and for C.O. issuance. Tom
explained that all rough grading and drainage has been completed and that landscape
grading will complete the site. This work is scheduled for first thing this spring as
weather permits.
The drainage structure above SilverLode lots 12 and 13 has not yet been installed. This
work is currently scheduled and will be completed per plan. Hans will be submitting for
staff review an alternative for this structure. If accepted, construction plans will be
modified to accept new plan. Hans to have detail to Ross 3/30/98 (DONE).
Hay bails should be located at all inlets to prevent silt buildup. This will be done as the
snow decreases on site.
Aspen Eartlunoving will cut all pipes flush with manholes.
Hans to provide Ross "as built" drawings for the site infrastructure systems once
complete but prior to final acceptance.
The roads will receive a final 2 inches of asphalt and all required repairs, which is
scheduled for June 1, 1998. Tom will contact Jack Reid for an inspection prior to final
paving.
WRJV should install No Parking signs along SilverLode and Williams Ranch Drives.
All private utilities are complete and proof of acceptance by individual private companies
is demonstrated by the change of account to homeowner and beginning of service.
Parks Department Issues
WRJV to install 8 foot"crusher fines"trail this summer. Tom to stake alignment for
Parks review prior to construction. WRJV is currently in the process of trail construction
from SilverLode lot 10, down through Williams Ranch lots 6 and 10 and on down to
property boundary. Plat call for dedication of trail easement from SilverLode lot 15 at
the south to the City parcel to the north. Tom will check documents to see if WRJV
constructs trail or simply grants easement.
Apr-03-98 12 : 21P SilverLode Real Estate 970 963-4891 P.04
Mr. John Worchester
April 3, 1998
Page 3
Plat Amendment Issues
Easement to Williams Ranch lot 35 has been finalized by Banner and in hands of Sara
Thomas. Chris to check.
Note to be added to plat on Williams Court saying"Public Access"
WRJV to prepare a plan(not part of Plat Amendment)depicting all building locations, lot
lines and SilverLode driveways.
Ross has another review memo. He will provide to Tom, Ann Kirwin and Wallace
Beedle(WE HAVE SEEN A DRAFT BUT NOT A FINAL AS OF THIS DATE).
C.O. Issues
Engineering has not completed review at this time. Concern over drainage. Ross to
schedule on site meeting to review(STATUS UNKNOWN).
Misc. Issues
WRJV has made initial $50,000 payment to City. The final $50,000 payment will be due
soon as well as School Impact Fee and RFTA Impact Fee
Again, if you have any comments and/or clarifications, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Sincerely,
Thomas G. Stevens
Project Manager, Williams Ranch Joint Venture
Cc: Nick Adeh, City Engineering Department
Phil Overeynder, Utilities Director
Jack Reid, Streets Superintendent
Rebecca Schickling, Assistant Parks Director
Stephen Kanipe, Chief Building Official
Ed Van Walraven, Fire Marshal, AVFD
Tom Bracewell, Superintendent, ACSD
Chris Bendon, Project Palmer
Sara Thomas, Zoning Officer
John Markel, Williams Ranch Joint Venture
Mitch Haas,02:34 PM 12/3/90 , Re: Reciprocal Easements,Will
X-Sender: mitchh @comdev
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 14:34:18 -0700
To: chrisb @ci.aspen.co.us
From: Mitch Haas <mitchh @ci.aspen.co.us>
Subject: Re: Reciprocal Easements, Williams Ranch &SilverLode
>X-Sender: philo @water
>Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 14:23:26 -0700
>To: Ross Soderstrom <ross @ci.aspen.co.us>
>From: Phil Overeynder <philo @ci.aspen.co.us>
>Subject: Re: Reciprocal Easements, Williams Ranch &SilverLode
>Cc: mitchh @ci.aspen.co.us, nicka @ci.aspen.co.us, geraldd @ci.aspen.co.us,
> marko @ci.aspen.co.us
>Ross,
>I received a copy of the plat notes and believe it is clear that the
>easement covers the water lines located in the emergency access way off of
>North Spruce St. I still would like to clarify the location of the
>structures on Lots 21 and 22 since in the field it appears that access to
>the water line in the easement between these two lots is very tight. What is
>the status of showing building footprints on one of the sheets of the
>proposed plat?
>On a related matter, I asked John Worcester about the advisability of
>signing off on the plat and allowing the lots to record before the site
>improvement issues are resolved. I believe John has sent a letter to Mr.
>Markel describing the incomplete work. You and Mitch may want to discuss the
>plat recordation issue with John but he advised against signing it before
>the list oif items is resolved since we would no longer be dealing with the
>developer but the individual lot owners. These new owners will have no idea
>about what was promised to be delivered as part of the subdivision agreement
>and what remains as incomplete.
>Phil
>At 05:36 AM 3/10/98 -0700, you wrote:
>>Phil & Tom:
>>I have left copies in your mail boxes of the plat notes (23 & 24) from the
>>original Williams Ranch/SilverLode Subdivision Plat for each of you. I also
>>attached the sections (7.6) from the subdivision covenants for Williams
>>Ranch regarding these easements. I believe the corresponding sections in
>>the SilverLode Subdivision covenants are the same as the Williams Ranch
>>subdivision but with different lot numbers and subdivision names. I don't
>>have a copy of the recorded covenants for SilverLode Subdivision.
Printed for Christopher Bendon <chrisb @ci.aspen.co.us> 1
FAX TRANSMITTAL
City of Aspen
Engineering Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Date: 3/2 7/98
Time:
Reference: f' 9/4Ei. . - 'EJIEI.eJ tisane
TO: % 570145 FROM: Ross C. Soderstrom
Project Engineer
COMPANY / BUSINESS NAME: TELE. NO.: 19701920-5087
/ srt4EAis 6,eaP
FAX NO. : 915- 6 7O7 FAX NO. : 1970) 920-5119
COMMENTS: T;N ,' 78 Phu/6k) 7?C nom dtrinT3 rrf OLe CCfleesa
/S /4'- Zt5P6-Y (.3/297798) /?)73t avE-ge 1 Ggi- +-1 MGi A Jldrr F4'
_ . - P4'?v 4.E6 Ate/MS) i9ia4eE OF. ( icC ,Qn
EX,EG77)1 7716 1965/L4.1.5 Far mime, fcW Dr41/u.3GF I /SP/1 e T
Olt $ku4¢y 3/3D/98 (3 1 71f/VK 7$£246 AS 5774L stows /,a/t'2 6i4S 7S eve
CAR #/n 76 y r�9/L gu6,1v eirs`I ea4fieS) 6f IvC a r AG,eEE.wert7-
OF O7Hee At-SS .Z a° thee 75 AM a4 7314r 3 407-fcp/Gff salfriaE
7H15 Atiee n r (/,E ,der AiAir tn° DE1,o9 71-A5 /'LdT tae 779s i e) 4)
G.6 AGCF/J A 5/7t P/-9>1l or f171/Us7Ei) LeT L1055, IIWL-Dr6 faa/RernTSzWks)
,6U/GD/MG EntEI 'ES (566) ) PA.Lfi'16 SPACES 1 D ,'LE waY &franG4 5 (rem,
(AQet/ER 14P4OLJe9fJn) 7O LJ /FY Pmedifiai4 c✓/ 540E9 Par 17or/Baslas (S)
Cri lNEtr77atED trier 82 41,./Ilori�/ 7� itle tor ones er tors 33 31 (?) Neel/ .i
Un.PPc'S7 J /445 ,oar main an me Par ant ' I ATURE: a C
REP/e4) tar !✓out,o A#EAA o i 5t7b P/-4a/ (±) �o
NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS PAGE: /
ORIGINALS WILL WILL NOT e BE MAILED. Ac T.
CS5 6a/
FAXFORMA.DOC
DRAFT
MEMORANDUM
To: Chris Bendon,Project Planner
Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer
From: Ross C. Soderstrom,Project Engineer
Date: March 23, 1998
Re: Williams Ranch/SilverLode Subdivision/PUD Plat Amendment Review
Attachments: Appendix"A": List of Plat Corrections
Physical Address: Williams Ranch Drive and SilverLode Drive, City of Aspen, CO
Legal Description: Williams Ranch/SilverLode Subdivisons/PUD, City of Aspen,CO
Parcel ID No.: xxxx-xxx-xx-xxx
After reviewing the above referenced application and making a site visit,I am reporting the combined
comments made by the members of the DRC:
[Site conditions at the time of site visit: March 10, 1998 and during subsequent site visits; 2-4 foot snow
pack; some ground surface and features indistinguishable under snow and ice pack.]
N.B.: In this memorandum Williams Ranch Subdivision will be identified as"WRS"while SilverLode
Subdivision will be identified as"SLS".
Discussion: Due to the incomplete development and delivery of the public infrastructure improvements,
the City Attorney has recommended that the City not sign the subdivision/PUD plat amendment until the
status of the public improvements has been evaluated and the condition of the financial securities for these
improvements has been verified for sufficiency and liquidity. This is currently in progress and we expect to
have a status review by March 27, 1998.
1. Changes in Conditions: If the proposed use,density, geometry,or timing of construction
of the project change, or the site,parking, grading or utility plans for this project change subsequent to this
review, a complete set of the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering Dept. for review and re-
evaluation. The discussion and recommendations given in this memorandum apply to the application and
plans(dated December 16, 1997)provided for this review and such comments and recommendations may
change in response to changes in the use,density, geometry,or timing of the construction of the project,or
changes in the site,parking,grading or utility designs.
2. Subdivision/PUD Plat: The revised subdivision/PUD plat,consisting of five(5) sheets
dedicated to surveying,represents most of the amendments requested in the application and correction of
typographical errors and omissions from the Final Subdivision/PUD plat. However,in reviewing the
construction of the development there are several conflicts between the original design and actual field
1 OF 5
DRCM8c98.DOC
DRAFT
Memo-Williams Ranch/SilverLode Subdivision/PUD Plat Amendment Review
DRAFT
conditions which have not been addressed. Depending upon the resolution of several items discussed below
and the review comments of the other depai tinents,there may be additional changes to the plat. Our
revisions are listed in the attached Appendix A.
Although conceptually represented in the final plat for the PUD,the site plan, landscape plan, utility and
grading plan should each be updated to show the"as-built"conditions of the development. In the site plan,
the building footprints and associated parking spaces for the RO and affordable housing lots(with the
adjusted lot lines)in the WRS need be shown. The building envelopes(revised),driveways and driveway
easements should be shown for the SLS in the revised site plan. In order to evaluate the site plan and
approve of the building envelopes and lot lines,the revised site plan will need to be included with the plat
for review and recording. A signature block for the Chief Building Official needs to be added to the plat.
We understand that the"as-built"plans and drawings of the subdivisions will be prepared in August, 1998
after our meeting of March 23, 1998,with Tom Stevens and Hans Brucker. Neither a site,landscaping,
utility nor grading plan were included in the application packet for the subdivision amendment.
The applicant will be required to complete the standard requirements and conditions associated with the
form(s)of development requested in the application.
3. Easement Encroachments: As required in Ordinance 52, Series of 1994,there were to be no
encroachments(development)into"... any easement areas identified on the Final Plat."and a plat note to
this effect appears on the Final Plat. Without the benefit of having"as-built"plans and being able to review
the site without snow cover,there are concerns that some easements may in-fact be restricted or encroached
upon by development. Of particular concern is the 20 ft wide water main easement on the common lot line
of Lots 21 &22,WRS. Similarly,the driveway easement across Lot 11 for the benefit of Lot 10, SLS,
should be reviewed in the field. After the Spring, 1998, snowmelt the location and condition of each of the
utility easements should be verified in the field for conformance and possible corrective work prior to
acceptance of the subdivisions.
4. Vehicular Access and Parking Easements: In the Final Subdivision Plat,the Guest Parking
Easement(WRS)and the trail and utility easement along the southwesterly side of the subdivision
overlapped such that the trail run through three(3)parking spaces. To correct this,the Guest Parking
Easement was adjusted slightly and the parking spaces moved northeasterly to permit passage of the trail on
the outside of the parking lot without overlap into the parking spaces.
In the revised subdivision/PUD plat,the Guest Parking Easement has been identified by cross-hatching
and an arrow points to only the four(4)parking spaces labeled G-1 through G-4 located on Lot 32,WRS.
This appears inconsistent with the detail in the original subdivision plat(Sheet 5)which shows a
pentangular area across portions of lots 32, 33 and 34,WRS,which encompasses the driveway,aisle and
parking spaces which would permit access from the Brown Lane right-of-way and maneuvering space
within the parking lot itself. As such,the cross-hatching should be deleted,the label arrow extended to the
center of the parking lot, and the northerly side of the parking easement extended to close upon the adjusted
common lot line of Lots 32 and 36. To minimize the area of overlap between the Guest Parking Easement
with the trail and utility easement,two new lines should be added in the corner of the parking easement to
follow the outside edge of parking space G-1 and along the northerly edge of the driveway,and a distance
dimension added along this of the parking easement. Additional notes and dimensions are included in
Appendix"A".
2 OF 5
DRCM8c98.DOC
DRAFT
Memo-Williams Ranch/SilverLode subdivision/PUD Plat Amendment Review
DRAFT
Lot 35,Williams Ranch Subdivision,does not have contiguous connection with either a public nor private
right-of-way as it was originally platted. To remedy this,an exclusive 20 ft wide"vehicular alley access
easement"has been created to connect this lot to a right-of-way. As this is presently drawn,it does not
make connection with either the Guest Parking Easement across lots 32, 33 and 34,WRS,nor with the
public right-of-way of Brown Lane abutting the subdivision. The preferred route for this access easement to
complete connection to a right-of-way would be to continue the easement to the northwest until it reaches
the southerly line of the Guest Parking Easement(course N 57° 20' 10"E, 59.01').
The Final Subdivision/PUD plat showed several parking easements across the lots of the WRS to permit
vehicle parking on neighboring lots next to the lot benefited. Other than those on the cul-de-sac,these
parking easements have been eliminated from the draft of the plat submitted for this review under the
assumption that all of the parking spaces for each lot,respectively, are now located entirely on the benefited
lot. While there is still snow covering these parking spaces which prohibits verifying the location of the
parking spaces and the lot lines,this should be included in the contents for a subsequent plat amendment.
This may involve easements on Lots 19,23, 24,25,28,and 29,WRS, for neighboring lots.
5. Conflict of Trail and Utility Easement Over the Drainage Recharge Field: Within Lot 36,
WRS, is a storm drainage recharge field(an Infiltrator Drainage System)for the Williams Ranch and
SilverLode Subdivisions. This lot is also bisected by a trail and utility easement which appears to cross
over the area in which the recharge field is located. This creates a potential conflict between the recharge
field and possible use of this utility easement by a utility provider. Since this recharge field is a private
improvement of the joint homeowners associations, and is primarily made of plastics and washed aggregate,
there would be no one readily available who could locate the field nor an easy means of doing so since it is
non-metallic and does not carry an electric signal.If someone were to only refer to the survey plat of this
subdivision and did not knew to refer to the site plan or construction drawings for this subdivision,they
would not know of the existence of the recharge field which has only a few feet of ground cover when they
begin trenching to install future utilities. Due to the existence of the recharge field,the utility portion of this
combined easement is unusable in its present location.
There are two(2)possible solutions(enumerated below)to this conflict although each will require the
review and sign-off of each of the utility providers which signed the Final Plat since the utility easement has
already been dedicated with their endorsement.
A. Vacate the utility portion of the combined trail and utility easement entirely, if it is redundant
or unneeded.
B. Separate the utility portion of the combined easement from the trail portion and relocate the
utility portion to parallel and be contiguous with the exterior boundary of the WRS.
While either option is relatively easy,in consideration of completing the lot line adjustments in a timely
manner for the future homeowners,it is more expedient to add a note and cross-hatched area to the present
version of the plat identifying the extent of the recharge field, and then making another plat amendment to
permanently resolve the conflict of the utility easement and the recharge field. The authorization of the
future property owners to make additional revisions to the subdivision plat would need to be extended
beyond the present plat amendment in order to resolve this issue if it is not resolved in this plat amendment
itself.
3 OF 5
DRCM8c98.DOC
DRAFT
Memo-Williams Ranch/SilverLode subdivision/PUD Plat Amendment Review
DRAFT
6. Alignment of Trail and Utility Easement: In the field,the proposed location of the trail and
utility easement along the southerly boundary of the WRS is on a sidehill with areas having cross-slopes of
up to 45°, and is probably obstructed by obstacles such as existing trees,the tow ditch at the base of the
slope Lots 27-31,WRS,inclusive,and the lower portions of the newly built boulder walls along Lots 28 to
31,WRS. It would be beneficial to have this exterior subdivision boundary staked so the intended route of
the trail may be flagged in the field prior to constructing the trail. If there is no need for continuing the
existence of the utility portion of this easement,it appears that all of the utility providers should be
petitioned to vacate the utility easement and re-align the trail easement as necessary before constructing the
trail. (Refer to the discussion in the preceding section.)
7. Vacations of Other Utility Easements: The applicant has previously inquired about the
possibility of vacating other utility easements through this subdivision which were not used. In the interest
of making a timely processing of this plat amendment,city staff has recommended that this be postponed
for a later time since all of the utility providers would need to counter-sign or otherwise acknowledge the
vacation of the easement after reviewing and verifying their respective utility systems and future needs in
the area.
8. Salvation Ditch Company: This utility provider(irrigation water purveyor)has newly built
facilities located with the subdivision and has received utility easements through this subdivision however
was not a signatory in the Final Subdivision plat. A signature block has been included for this utility in this
plat amendment.
The Planning and Zoning Commission resolution(94-24)approving of this development contained a
condition that a"water feature"be included along the alignment of the Salvation Ditch to retain the
aesthetic character of the area. While this condition has not been fulfilled, if such a water feature is to be
constructed and it is located on the utility easement of the Salvation Ditch, a second easement would need to
be dedicated with the Salvation Ditch Company as a granting signatory.
•
9. Pitkin County Coordination: Since SilverLode Road passes through portions of Pitkin County,
it would be prudent to confirm the coordination of the rights-of-way and easements at the city-county line
against the event that any corrections need to be made in the plat(s).
10. Site Restoration of Lot 11, SLS: Since the former driveway easement across Lot 11, SLS,
for the benefit of Lot 10 is unused, it is appropriate to back ill this cut to minimize the area left disturbed as
discussed in the establishing of building envelopes for the SLS(conditions of Final Plat review)and in the
application for the relocation of the driveway. This backfilling work was previously recommended in the
review memorandum of May 21, 1996,review of the driveway alignments.
11. Trail Crossing at the Lower Parking Lot: In the construction of the pedestrian crossing in
the driveway of the lower parking lot,the City will request the installation of an elevated pedestrian tablet
of 3"height,by the length of the driveway width by a depth necessary to create the desired undulation in the
vehicles crossing the pedestrian tablet.
4 OF 5
DRCM8c98.DOC
DRAFT
Memo-Williams Ranch/SilverLode Subdivision/PUD Plat Amendment Review
DRAFT
12. Contents of a 2nd Plat Amendment: In the preceding discussion several items were mentioned
which may need to be revised in a future plat amendment. These are:
Re-alignment of the trail along the southwesterly boundary of Williams Ranch Subdivision
Vacation of unused utility easements
Verification and dedication of parking easements in WRS,particularly for duplex lots
Verification and depiction of"as-builts"of the driveway locations in SLS
Verification and locations of"as-built"utility easements
Verification of any encroachments into utility easements or rights-of-way
13. Improvement Districts: The property owner is required to join any future improvement
districts formed for the purpose of constructing public improvements which benefit the property under an
assessment formula. The agreement would be executed and recorded concurrent with recording the
subdivision plat.
14. As-Guilts: Prior to subdivision acceptance,the developer will be required to submit to the
Aspen/Pitkin County Information Services Dept. as-builts drawings for the project showing the property
lines,building footprint, easements,encroachments,entry points for utilities entering the property
boundaries and any other improvements.
15. Work in the Public Rights-of-Way: Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public rights-of-way and easements,we advise the applicant as follows:
The applicant must receive approval from: City Engineering(920-5080) for design
of improvements, including landscaping and grading,within public rights-of-way;
Parks Department(920-5120)for vegetation species and placement,and irrigation
systems; Streets Department(920-5130)for mailboxes, street and alley cuts; and
shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping,within
public rights-of-way from the City Community Development Department(920-5090).
DRC Meeting Attendees:
Applicant: none
Staff&Referral Agencies: Tom Bracewell,Rebecca Schickling,Ross Soderstrom,Jack Reid,Amy
Guthrie,John Krueger,Chris Bendon,Phil Overeynder, Stefanie Levesque
5 OF 5
DRCM8c98.DOC
DRAFT
DRAFT
ATTACHMENT "A"
To: Aim Kirwin, Esq., Ireland, Stapleton,Pryor&Pascoe
Tom Stevens, Williams Ranch Joint Venture
Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer
-to CL ott
From: Ross C. Soderstrom,Project Engineer
p.c.: Wallace Beedle, PLS, Banner Associates, Inc. �a t} r geka
John Worcester, City Attorney
Chris Bendon, Project Planner
Sarah Thomas, City Zoning Officer
Rebecca Schickling, Assistant Parks Director
Date: March 23, 1998
Re: Attachment for Review Memorandum for the 1st Amendment to the Williams Ranch /
SilverLode Subdivision Final Plat
In making a review of the revised 1st Amendment to the Williams Ranch / SilverLode Subdivision
Final Subdivision Plat, (dated: 02/20/98 and consisting of five (5) sheets), I have noticed the following
items which need to be corrected, clarified or for which we need additional information. Dependent
upon the comments of other departments and resolution of various details, this list will be further
refined to include the changes for the 1st amendment to the Final Plat.
Please deliver and coordinate future correspondence through the project planner, Chris Bendon.
Notes and Legend of corrections and comments:
Date of last subdivision plat recorded: 4-6-95, at Book 37,page 4,Pitkin County
Recorder's Office
WRS Williams Ranch Subdivision
SLS SilverLode Subdivision
( ) make corrections as indicated
(K) verification or information provided by Ms. Ann Kirwin
1 OF 3
DRCM8a98.DOC
DRAFT
DRAFT
Sheet 1:
1. Insert a forward slash between the words Subdivision and PUD in the plat title: "First
Amendment to the Final Subdivision/PUD Plat of SilverLode Subdivision and
Williams Ranch Subdivision ..."
2. Change the date of the plat to the date of recording.
Sheet 2:
Amendment Notes:
10G. Correct item 2 for the new acreage of Lot 17, Williams Ranch Subdivision.
2. Insert a forward slash between the words Subdivision and PUD in the plat title: "First
Amendment to the Final Subdivision/PUD Plat of SilverLode Subdivision and
Williams Ranch Subdivision ...
Also change in the title block at the bottom of the sheet.
(7-3.)Add a signature block for the Chief Building Official, Pitkin County/City of Aspen.
Chief Building Official Approval
This First Amendment to the Final Plat of SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION and
WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION was approved by the City of Aspen Chief Building
Official this day of , 1998.
Stephen Kanipe, Chief Building Official
Sheet 3:
I. Insert a forward slash between the words Subdivision and PUD in the plat title: "First
Amendment to the Final Subdivision/PUD Plat of SilverLode Subdivision and
Williams Ranch Subdivision ..."
Also change in the title block at the bottom of the sheet.
Sheet 4:
Lot 35,WRS: Lengthen the vehicular alley access easement for the
benefit of Lot 35 to connect with the Guest Parking Easement and narrow the width
that it not encroach into the building on Lot 34.
2. Insert a forward slash between the words Subdivision and PUD in the plat title: "First
2 OF 3
DRCM8a98.DOC
DRAFT
DRAFT
Amendment to the Final Subdivision/PUD Plat of SilverLode Subdivision and
Williams Ranch Subdivision ..."
Also change in the title block at the bottom of the sheet.
The modifications described below for Sheet 5, item 3, should be reflected in the regular
view of the Guest Parking Easement on Sheet 4,with the details more clearly shown in
the enlarged detail in the upper left corner of Sheet 5.
Sheet 5:
C Lot 4, SLS: Change the note for the former non-exclusive access easement: "Non-
exclusive access esmt. for the benefit of Lot 6 extinguished by this instrument."
2. Insert a forward slash between the words Subdivision and PUD in the plat title: "First
Amendment to the Final Subdivision/PUD Plat of SilverLode Subdivision and
Williams Ranch Subdivision ..."
Also change in the title block at the bottom of the sheet.
Refer to detail of Guest Parking Easement and Parking Area (Sheet 5)
C3) Lots 32, 33 and 34,WRS: See Williams Ranch Declarations, section 7.7, sentence 1,
which describes"... an access and parking easement over and across a portion of
Lots 32, 33 and 34 for access and parking ...". From this description and the layout of
the parking lot, simply depicting the guest parking spaces as the Guest Parking
Easement does not include the access driveway and the hammerhead for turning around
from the parking spaces. It appears that the three(3) lines of lengths 59.01', 66.50',
and 47.38' represented three of the five sides of the Guest Parking Easement and the
description in section 7.7 corresponds. (line 47.38 no longer closes due to the lot line
adjustment.) The Guest Parking Easement as represented over only the parking spaces
conflicts with the previous description of the Guest Parking Easement including
parts of Lots 32, 33 and 34.
It appears that to be consistent with the description in the declarations;
a) the original exterior boundaries of the Guest Parking Easement should remain
as originally drawn;
b) the two (2) lines of lengths 26.06' and 60.34' may be removed;
c) the cross-hatched shading may be removed;
d) the line of length 47.38' should be extended to the common lot line of Lot 32
and Lot 36;
e) the arrow from the descriptive label should point to the center of the Guest
Parking Easement (an area with closing boundaries); and
f) the label"Guest Parking"may be elongated to cover the four(4)parking spaces
which should also retain the individual labels G-1 through G-4.
4/The above modifications should be reflected in the regular view of the Guest Parking
3 OF 3
DRCM8a98.DOC
DRAFT
DRAFT
Easement on Sheet 5, with the details more clearly shown in the enlarged detail in the
upper left corner.
Miscellaneous:
1. Will amendments to the subdivision declarations be recorded to reflect clarifi-
cations/changes in the description of the subdivision exterior boundaries and potential
clarifications of the Guest Parking Easement?
2. Change to covenants that homeowners will provide maintenance of Infiltrator System and
debris basins and outfalls and for sedimentation pond next to Centennial.
3. Verify who maintains sidewalk,walking areas(if any exist)
4 OF 3
DRCM8a98.DOC
DRAFT
Apr-10-98 10: 16A Banner Associates , Inc. 970 243 3810 P. 03
INNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
.777 CROSSROADS BLVD. GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81506
JOB NUMBER: 8256-REPAIRED
SUBSTITUTE FOR 8256-SLG-VOID, 6256-AMENDED, ETC. WITH VARIOUS
CORRECTIONS MADE, ALL MALFUNCTIONS REPAIRED, CORRECT FILES ARE
COPIED HEREIN. FEB. 3, 1997, 8256, WEB. 8256
SCALE: 1 INCH = 12 FEET
COORDINATE BOUNDARIES:
NORTHING = 2461. 5820 TO 2542. 0128
LASTING = 3776. 9497 TO 3856. 2801
+ 199+
I a ( CS
see � p . c'7 Ca
`\D6 // , L0 + 23 \^7a
�Q� / / / . 772 / 6435
191
f 6784 fiat + 84216423
10•5? II 1
aeatr- 1 6426--4-642# 6428
/ 6774 •778 6771
,J f _
/[l d,rg 11 r4763 6712 _
6974
73 I
6769 -'fig'— - K6HT 10-------::::64.9
6431-7
+ 6812 fins
fA33F 6434
�o i Z_ 4
m— 6773 ��j
t6726 6711 t
` 3°o4 .04- S1=
677 729 —? 6727 O. O etc . ri
51 _ 1 "1
/- t
I 1 4191
76
Apr- 10-98 10: 16A Banner Associates , Inc. 970 243 3810 P .02
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. .
2777 CROSSROADS BLVD. GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81506
JOB NUMBER: 8256-REPAIRED
SUBSTITUTE FOR 8256-SLG-VOID, 8256-AMENDED, ETC. WITH VARIOUS
CORRECTIONS MADE, ALL MALFUNCTIONS REPAIRED, CORRECT FILES ARE
COPIED HEREIN. FEE. 3, 1997, 8256, WEB. 8256
SCALE: 1 INCH = 30 FEET
COORDINATE BOUNDARIES:
NORTHING = 2494.4880 TO 2601. 7081
EASTING = 3634.8155 TO 3854. 8437
L 0-- 2 2.
1ao c41/4ba}e }
Y
NO C 0-^-ne - - -
Lor 3o42 sF
� 1 q ? � a.041oac_
1VCV804f j�ocyeo
Zy+ C `' r 270 S '
�N1V�Mr 4t 4 • 4, cos
`01eacks 111 Cry fvh
Y AL, P -• -4 W41V 1 �� I /0
"11 NR^J as bUi(�z,. itv* `�iCY• �D 1, Skied,
lictAk QU -g�{
MEW/ YC 4 OfI,cM.t (4J
( . toga( t - 40S (W
Q ugfr4 a4 `FIFE.. ( Mon- ; 01 ok•
'1. sue:, f.,S ` ai& cute% P&f i� �`' c off o+ 43Z
3 SWAS oA (.1k>> db k grit 0A-.3 JUUtk• i n zr S L
w: Luivisaa,1 57nr cJ a- o o(t rrff�, 1 /
pi dQ c a °ro- u� 313`
90 :i e v s cw.4 4 & Rows 1" f d n,, Yg•
utf FBI I f getarifUe4 rem
44(-or kiwtS 6.L lz "
AL out a‘eNt aukAnirAi
.1 u„& C-i►ilt:uwa
u i 1l red one not 02444. �ur�vgc l se.I�adu�.
v,i1� Cto fvok I, -coaw,i,. wl Jam• 114
l X411� I I '
dp,nt t"'/ I r f iAi SUniMA(
eit a 'I J47/ 4'r1
6M4W � -� Ste.
leCCA 0410— 9(74,6;1
- 'D hm46 as btdi-5.
(tRef- ok otrierittiet
?rule Giitib►'
do'? fi aQ t o{ acepiara
3/044
Ross Soderstrom, 08 : 30 AM 3/10/98 , Re: DRC Mtg this Wed.
To : Ross Soderstrom <ross @ ci . aspen. co.us>
From: Phil Overeynder <philo @ci . aspen. co.us> iu
Subject : Re : DRC Mtg this Wed.
Cc : nicka, johnw,marko, geraldd, ryanm n
Bcc: / //
X-Attachments : /4 QG� ) SS y�
Ross,
I will forward you copies of previous correspondence from June 20,
1996 and March 7, 1997 regarding the status of water system
improvements and acceptance of the water system under the terms of
the April 26, 1995 Water Service Agreement . Only one item needs to be
updated since that time . This refers to item c) of my 6/26/96 memo
(attached to hard copy of this e-mail) . The Water Department has
received a $10, 000 payment for an engineering evaluation of water
rights .
With respect to the remaining issues addressed in the above memos
the following will summarize what is required to be completed.
Please be advised that since June of 1996 we have been on record
with the position that no further certificates of occupancy should
be issued for new structures until these items are satisfactorily
addressed.
a) The Water Service Agreement requires a 2 year maintenance bond in
the amount of $200, 000 . No security has been posted.
b) Submission of final record drawings of the water system
improvements are required. The final record drawings need to address
the 6 items listed in the March 7, 1997 letter to Hans Brucker from
Mark O'Meara (attached to hard copy of this e-mail) . There is no
record that there was a response to the changes requested in the
preliminary drawings submitted for the Water Department' s review of
the preliminary drawings .
c) A walk through inspection of the system is required to verify the
operational status of all water system controls and to ensure all
valve boxes were brought to finished grade and are accessible
following final paving of roads . (refer to March 7, 1997 letter from
Mark O'Meara) .
Thanks for coordinating this review. By way of information I checked
with Tom Bracewell of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District who
says that they have not accepted the sewer system because of similar
issues regarding the lack od as-built drawings and the required
maintenance bond. Please feel free to call me at x5111 if you have
questions regarding these comments or the status of water system
improvements .
Printed for Phil Overeynder <philo @ci .aspen.co.us> 1
Ross Soderstrom, 08 : 30 AM 3/10/98 , Re: DRC Mtg this Wed.
Phil
At 05 : 00 AM 3/8/98 -0700, you wrote :
>1) We have received an application from Williams Ranch Joint
Venture for a
>plat amendment (insubstantial) for the Williams Ranch & SilverLode
>Subdivisions /PUD which I will present at this week' s meeting after
the 2
>ADU cases which Chuck is reviewing.
>2) On a related but different scope of review and comment, the
developer
>is approaching the final stages of work and will complete the
transfer of
>most residential lots when this plat is recorded, so we are
requesting that
>each dept . which has some interest in this subdivision make an
inventory of
>the present state of completion/ compliance for their respective
areas of
>responsibility in the Williams Ranch development . Please copy
John W. ,
>Nick A. and myself that we may assemble a comprehensive inventory
for the
>subdivisions before proceeding with the review, evaluation and
acceptance of
>the subdivisions by the City. I believe we want to get an
overview of the
>development first (initial broad brush response) and then fill in
the
>details with a closer look.
>Ross S .
Printed for Phil Overeynder <philo @ci .aspen.co.us> 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: NICK ADEN, CITY ENGINEER
FROM: PHIL OVEREYNDER, WATER DIRECTOR
DATE: JUNE 20, 1996
SUBJECT: WILLIAMS RANCH WATER SYSTEM
Water Department staff has reviewed the supporting material submitted by Banner Associates in
connection with their request for acceptance of the water distribution system for Williams Ranch in
connection with the April 26, 1995, Water Service Agreement. These materials included preliminary
as-built drawings and test results for leakage and bacteriological contamination. The City's
engineering inspection of the water system during construction was performed by Leonard Rice
Consulting Water Engineers.
The Water Department is prepared to operate the system and to conditionally accept the water system
as constructed, subject to the following:
a) Provision of a maintenance bond in the amount of$200,000 to be posted over the
two-year warranty period as provided under paragraph 6 of the Water Service
Agreement.
b) Submission of Final Record Drawings of water system improvements in both mylar
and CAD dish format. The final drawings need to address the points listed in the
Water Department's June 19,1996 letter (attached).
c) Verification that all required payments for engineering evaluation of water rights and
conveyance of all required easements and structures to make use of the water rights
have been satisfied in accordance with paragraph 7 of the Water Service Agreement.
d) No further certificates of occupancy for units in either Williams Ranch or Silverlode
Subdivisions beyond the R.O. units already completed will be cleared by the Water
Department until items b) and c) are satisfied.
cc: Neal Goldsborough
Jerry Detlefsen b
PO:rd
/mem.75
•
•
•
•
March 7, 1997
•
•
`_ - THE CITY OF ASPEN
•
WATER.-Hans Brucker ATER DEPARTMENT 1d do Williams Ranch Joint Venture
312EAABC
•
Aspen, CO 81611 • -
•
• Subject: Williams Ranch and Silverlode Subdivision As-Builts
Dear Hans:
•
Thank you for submitting the above mentioned drawings for review by the Water Department.
Through the review, we found the following items still need to be addressed:
1. It is not clear how the pump station is valved. Please show an insert for details labeling the
normally closed valves for zone isolation.
•
2. There is a private line from the pump station intake to the intersection valve at Williams
Ranch Drive and Silverlode Drive. This needs to be identified.
•
3. Please note the normally closed isolation valve on the private line. -
4. The fire hydrant at the end of the line on Silverlode Drive needs to be verified whether it is
. a 4-inch or 6-inch line. The appurtenances for the hydrant also need to be verified and
changed on the map as to what is there.
5. We need three 'ties to each valve for location on the map. Please include them on the
drawings.
6. The valve locations on the existing 12-inch water line are not correct. Please.include them
as they are shown on the enclosed map and label the existing line as 12 inch.
The City of Aspen'Water Department will not accept this system until a field inspection has been
performed and the problems found on the inspection have been corrected. The inspection will include
• operating all valves, map verification to the locations of the system appurtenances as listed on the
drawings, and changes made in the field to the drawings. We request that you don't call us for a
walk-through until all the roads are paved and the valve boxes are brought to final grade.
•
•
•
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • .ASPEN,COLORADO 81611-1975 • PHONE 970.920.5110 • FAX 970.9205117
Printed on Recycled Paper
Mr. Hans Brucker
March 7, 1997
Page 2 •
If you have any.questions regarding this matter, please call me at the Water Department at 970-920-
5112.
Sincerely,
•
Mark O'Meara, Chief Plant Operator
cc: ‘-/:hll Overeynder, Water Director
Nick Adeh, Engineering Department
David Chase, Banner Associates
MO:r1
/kV 17brucker
•
_ 1sprn (Jonsojjafcolc anifafion < isfricf
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Iele. (970) 925-3601 FAX#(970) 925-2537
Sy Kelly • Chairman Michael Kelly
Paul Smith • 'Ireas. Frank I.oushin
Louis Popish • Secy. Bruce Matherly, Mgr.
March 13, 1998
REC:E /ED
Chris Bendon
Community Development 8p',r< ' A 1998
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611 COMM LIN DEVELOPMENT
Re: Williams Ranch plat amendment
Dear Chris:
The only concern that we have in reviewing the minor changes suggested in the Willians Ranch
plat amendment is to ensure that sewer easements are identified, granted and documented where
needed. A copy of the utility as-builts would help identify what part of the collection system is
located in the public right of way and what part needs easements. The easements should be
described and developed according to our standard format. Ideally, the sewer easements will be
located seperate from secondary utilities (electric, gas, cable, phone).and away from the water line
alignment as required.
Sincerely,
22
Bruce Matherly
District Manager
EPA Awards of Excellence
1976 • 1986 • 1990
Regional and National
Ross Soderstrom,11:11 PM 2/3/98 -, Re:Williams Ranch
X-Sender: ross @comdev
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 23:11:38 -0700
To: Stefanie Levesque <stefanie @ci.aspen.co.us>
From: Ross Soderstrom <ross @ci.aspen.co.us>
Subject: Re: Williams Ranch
Cc: stephenk @ci.aspen.co.us, chrisb @ci.aspen.co.us, rebeccas @ci.aspen.co.us,
sarat @ci.aspen.co.us,johnk @ci.aspen.co.us, nicka @ci.aspen.co.us,
chuckr @ci.aspen.co.us,johnw @ci.aspen.co.us
I returned a list of corrections (pre-submittal survey info but not a formal
review of the lot line adjustment) for the plat to Tom Stevens, his attorney
& surveyor last week. Tom wanted to get as many details clarified and
corrected as possible before submitting a revised plat with his next
amendment application. On Monday (3/2/98) Tom S. (and John Markel, Pres. of
Williams Ranch Joint Venture a.k.a. SilverLode Joint Venture by Mark IV,
Inc.) told John Krueger and I, he (they) would submit the copies of the
plat "as is" (without making the changes which still need to be incorporated
in the plat) with the application for the lot line adjustment this last
Tuesday (3/3/98) to get the formal process on the calendar. I do not know
if he has made that application.
As a note of clarity, Tom did not file the 1st revised plat for the
insubstancial amendment which he made 2 yrs ago and which was approved 11/2
yr ago - he said it "slipped" through the cracks of his consultants. His
surveyor has had trouble proof reading his own work and has been working on
the 1st plat for over a year. Tom S. now has to apply for a 2nd amendment
to the subdivision/PUD plat.
In the cover memo I sent to Tom, his attorney and surveyor last week, I
asked Tom to direct future correspondence through Chris Bendon (on behave of
Com Dev) which I hope will nudge Tom to complete a formal application so
this will move to completion.
At 09:09 AM 3/4/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Just wondering if you could update me on the Williams Ranch progress. Have
>you seen the amended plat drawings and are they in Comm Dev.?
>Talk to you soon!
>Stefanie
Ross S.
Printed for Christopher Bendon <chrisb @ci.aspen.co.us> 1
( _
MEMORANDUM
t....,,,,,...,
,......'f.e.:?"`
THE CITY OF ASPEN
TO: Planning and Engineering Department CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
FROM: John P. Worcester c.92 ,
DATE: June 28, 1995
RE: Williams Ranch
Attached please find an outline of action items that we need to keep an eye out for the Williams
Ranch project.
We need to get together to determine who will ensure that everything is done in the proper time
frame. Many of the tasks run out several years and my fear is that no one will be on top of this
Cover the years.
Please advise when we can meet to discuss this matter.
1
OUTLINE OF ACTION ITEMS ARISING OUT OF THE WILLIAMS RANCH
DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION
I. Overall Timetable for Construction of AH Units.
a. Williams Ranch must commence construction of AH units on
or before May 9, 1997.
b. Williams Ranch must complete 1/2 of the AH units (18) on
or before May 9, 1999.
c. Williams Ranch must complete all 35 of the AH units on or
before May 9, 2001.
II. Landscaping Plan.
All landscaping shown on the Final Landscape Plan (Exhibit I
to the Annexation Agreement) must be completed no later than the
first growing season after completion of all 35 AH units. Williams
Ranch developers must promptly replace any plantings which have not
survived for at least one growing season following the issuance of
a certificate of occupancy ("CO") for the last (35th) AH unit in
the development.
III. Public Improvements. (roads, hydrants, sidewalks, trails,
water lines, sewer lines, and common areas as shown on all
annexation agreement exhibits. )
7 No more than 5 of the free market lots may be sold until all
of the public improvements have been completely constructed.
As the public improvements are constructed the City Engineer,
when requested by Williams Ranch, shall, within 5 days of the date
of the request, inspect the constructed improvements and upon
approval and acceptance of the same, authorize the partial release
of the Aspen DOT to the extent of the value of the accepted public
improvements.
All public improvements shall be warranted to comply with
accepted standards of good workmanship for a period of one year
from the date of City Engineer acceptance.
IV. Construction of Mollie Gibson Park.
All improvements required by the Parks Department must be
constructed and accepted before the sale of all of the free market
lots.
V. Offsite Impact Fee.
$50, 000 is due and payable when Williams Ranch has either sold
1/2 (18) of the AH units or 5 free market lots, whichever comes
first. 2C C( -4 501\150 u153--
An additional $50, 000 is due and payable when Williams Ranch
* has sold 26 of the AH units or 10 free market lots, whichever
occurs first.
VI. RFTA Impact Fee.
Williams Ranch must pay RFTA $6,000, due and payable when 26
Ah units or 10 free market lots are sold, whichever comes first.
VII. School Impact Fee.
Williams Ranch must pay Aspen, for the benefit of the Aspen
tSchool District, $15, 000, due and payable prior to the sale of the
last (35th) AH unit.
VIII. Water Department Fee for Groundwater Investigation.
On or before April 1, 1996, Williams Ranch must pay $10,000 to
the Water Department for investigation of the feasibility of
groundwater development.
IX. Tap Fees.
Tap fees at the following rates are due at the time of
application for a building permit for each of the approved units.
Category Total tap fee due per ECU
AH Cat. 2 $2,217. 00
AH Cat. 3 $4,434. 00
AH Cat. 4 & RO $7, 390. 00
Silverlode Sub.
Free Market Units $7,390. 00
X. Releases of Encumbrances under the Deed of Trust and Escrow.
Attached are the three pages from the AH Construction
Agreement which set forth the schedule for the required releases.
XI. Remedies in the event of default are set forth in detail in
Section 4 and 5 of the AH Construction agreement.
381193 8-780 P-447 05/09/95 02:58P PG 76 OF 84
( 3.1.1 The Aspen Deed of Trust shall provide that one(1)or more -
of the eight (8) Free Market Lots shall be released from the Aspen Deed of Trust upon
satisfaction of one (1) or more of the following terms and conditions:
O
(a) WRJV shall have the right to have one (1) or more
of the encumbered Free Market Lots released_from the;Aspen . .
s Deed of Trust by substituting as collateral therefore the same ,H;t
number of the other Free Market'Lots which are not then4du y
encumbered by the Aspen Deed of Trust;
(b) After the sale of eight(8)Free Market Lots, WRJV,
at its sole discretion, may substitute in place of the Aspen Deed of
Trust,,a General Warranty Deed to two (2)of the remaining Free
Market Lots, which General Warranty Deed shall be deposited into
the Escrow described below for the use and benefit of Aspen and
to secure WRJV's performance of the balance of the WRJV
Obligations and the WRJV Covenants. Upon deposit of the : , r
General Warranty Deed into Escrow, all of the encumbered Free
Market Lots shall be released from the Aspen Deed of Trust, "
(c) For each three (3) Affordable Housing Units for
which certificates of occupancy- are issued, together with
Csubstantial completion of each one-eighth (1/8) increment of the
WRJV Obligations, Aspen shall release one(I) of the encumbered -, -Free Market Lots from the Aspen.Deed of Trust; z f,,
• (d) Upon the sale of a Free Market Lot,,.such Free
Market Lot shall be released from the Aspen Deed of Trust if all
of the sales proceeds resulting from such sale are paid in accor-
dance with Section 2.5 (Free Market Lot Sales Proceeds) and no
portion of such sales proceeds are paid to WRJV; or
(e) Upon WRJV's complete performance of the,WRJV •
- Obligations, all of the encumbered Free Market Lots shall be,,;
released from the Aspen Deed of Trust; -
3.1.2 Aspen agrees to release the Free Market Lots from the
Aspen Deed of Trust in accordance with the terms and conditions of Section 3.1.1. To obtain
the release of a Free MarketLot, WRJV shall provide a written request("Release Request"),to,?z rr
Aspen which cY` ` "t `
k41
:+ , -4 _` (a) identifies the Free Market Lot to be released, st. , ,.r a
k g ..\1347J=3lahwau 3 nl3-6.952:31pm J
" .- •
rr^ ` t
e yT' ig "fir b f;y�4,Vr1 'Kn.' - ;-+ T r t
y i' v C t s'3,, +>f f�/k P� Yf f f 1i�[[ r \ } `Srr /,T : y xY / t"? (( Si 70 v
>�+. ti,� t3.e srli' •'V. % f .A x4 , , d 1 ( l,' 1L, -`1'' ! ' ¢ 'fi£ C t: l 4,I {a S2 t} i, ,
F i b i^R L ['9 1 ,-'� v+ t#17:4241/4131.14{-c.y-}tn .Y.- � '- `n5.4 4 YV t N
141'...t .�..•�. � 7 ,y � .�`� r.�r S/ . :,F.. 3L -5-7?-; ,�»4-,y r s ,Ii-e. d� L4y�a
381193 B-780 -448 05/09/95 02:58P PG 7° OF 84 1 .
(b) identifies which condition set forth in Section 3.1.1 - 1
( the request is based upon("Release Condition"); and
(c) includes proof to the reasonable satisfaction of
Aspen that the Release Condition has been or will be satisfied.
3.1.3 -Upon receipt of a Release Request, the Aspen City Attorney ,i
s will promptly and in good faith review such request and determine if the Release Condition has
been or will be satisfied. Within ten (10)business days after such receipt, Aspen shall inform r.p
WRJV in writing that (a) the release will be granted, or (b) if the release will not be granted,
the reasons why it will not be granted. If the release will be granted, Aspen shall execute and. .
deliver to the Escrow Holder and the public trustee under the Aspen Deed of Trust such
documents as may reasonably be required to release the Free Market Lot from the Aspen Deed
of Trust("Release Documents"), which Release-Documents shall be delivered by Aspen upon.:. .-
such terms and conditions are may be reasonably necessary to insure Aspen that the Release
Condition will be satisfied. •
1
3.2 General Warranty Deeds. Aspen and WRJV shall also establish
an escrow ("Escrow") at Land Tide Guarantee Company ("Escrow Holder"), 533 E. Hopkins
Street,Suite No, 102, Aspen, Colorado. WRJV shall deposit into the Escrow one (1) general 's
warranty deed for each of the lots upon which the Affordable Housing Units shall be constructed
("Affordable Housing Lots"), or a total of thirty-five (35) general warranty deeds ("General"
Warranty Deeds"), and if applicable, the General Warranty Deed described in Section 3.1.1(b)
above ("Free Market Lots General Warranty Deed"). Each General Warranty Deed shall
provide for the conveyance of the Affordable Housing Lot described therein to Aspen, and each 4
General Warranty Deed shall contain an exception for the Alpine Bank Deed of Trust. The Free ;-:,.e. f
Market Lots General Warranty Deed, as described in Section..3.1.1(b), shall provide for the }tzs
conveyance of two (2) Free Market Lots to Aspen. The purpose of the General Warranty Deeds
and the Free.Market Lots General Warranty Deed is to secure .WRJV's performance of the
WRJV Obligations and the WRJV Covenants.
3.2.1 WRJV and Aspen shall execute and deliver escrow
instructions to the Escrow Holder which provide as follows:
(a) : WRJV shall deliver the.General Warranty-Deeds to
the Escrow Holder who will hold the General Warranty Deeds , ::f
subject to the terms and conditions of the escrow instructions
(b) The Escrow Holder shall not record the General
'� Warranty Deeds or t c Free Market Lots General Warranty Deed �,,k�}
t3
unless and until it has received from Aspen a-writtenrnotice that$$
I WRJV has defaulted in the performance of the WRJV Obligauons;,` t ail
or the WRJV Covenants. :•The,default notice shall specify the 4:::
manner in which WRJV has defaulted. Promptly after the Escrow'f'; ' ,.
' ✓ r- .
- 6 -
tic...\1 3473-3\ahcante..lam13-6-95231pm ('':fen
Y .
- Sa?r° 7 6 i yw. : ' 4 't YA t r , >. S- r t vt.'. .1- i. w .� a 413 ,t,. 2 S1wr
�` s }ti 51"^ x • "'. as,%. ,ti M �A - ---- '? S S ;+pq- A,IK st �
.. .. .,�1.?'..< ' t.: Ta, t._ ,
' ,. • 381193 B-780 —449 05/09/95 02:58P PG 8r OF 84 ■
Holder's receipt of Aspen's default notice, it shall forward a copy
of the default notice to WRJV. WAN shall have ten(10) business
days to forward a written reply to the Escrow Holder which shall
contain one (1) of the following two (2) responses:
(i) WRJV agrees that it has defaulted in the
performance of the .WRJV .Obligations or the WRJV _ k
Covenants, in which event, the Escrow Holder shall record,, ,,
the General Warranty Deeds and the Free Market.tots, ,..:;
General Warranty Deed; or
(ii) WRTV denies that it has defaulted in the
performance of the WRJV Obligations or the WRJV
Covenants, in which event the Escrow Holder: shall not
record the General Warranty Deeds and the Free Market
Lots General Warranty Deed and Aspen and WRJV shall
each have the right to have the dispute resolved by arbitra-
don under the American Arbitration Association's then
current rules for commercial arbitration. The arbitration
hearing shall take place in the City of Aspen within sixty
(60) days after the date of delivery of WRJV's response to
Aspen's notice of default. Before arbitration commences,
each party shall pay the American Arbitration.Association. . r
one-half of the expected cost of the arbitration proceeding.
'\ At the conclusion of the arbitration proceeding, the .
arbitrator shall award to the prevailing party all,of its
arbitration costs and its attorneys' fees and costs, .which _
shall be paid by the losing party.
3.2.2 The escrow instructions shall direct the Escrow Holder to
deliver to WRJV the deposited General Warranty Deed for each Affordable Housing Unit for
which a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued to allow WRJV to sell such unit.
3.2.3; Upon WRJV's performance of all of the WRJV Obligations
to the reasonable satisfaction of Aspen, Aspen, within ten(10) business days of being requested
to do so, shall instruct the Escrow Holder to return to WRJV each General Warranty Deed and
the Free.Market Lots General Warranty Deed which remains in Escrow at that time.
ii
4. EVENTS OF DEFAULT.
4.1 .;. WRJV Obligations.. WRJV shall be in default of its .WRN- 4-'a-
Obligations upon the occurrence of any of the following events: ,?.
ig
yc:.V13473 3Vah�>W...14m13-6-9SL3Ipm:t _ .-1
yin.. -•r, a 3 wh 1; S;•i 3 ti s 'YI quota
. 7*! w la i k"},, �tv.„ K 'f .d .s iv 4 -4 '.ar _.
,,---, a ...,s.:......,.,54,f/-7.,,7 9 3 _., ..S n' Yom.•.,H et
restrictions and it is essential for WRJV to have fixed criteria prior to recording the Plat
Map, ASPEN and W V have expressly agreed that:
5.1.1 Ten (10) of the RO single family homes will have income and asset
limitations of $150,000 and $400,000 respectively'.
5.1.2 The remaining five (5) RO single family homes will have no income or
asset limitations on their purchasers and will be otherwise subject to the restrictions
set forth on Exhibit "O
5.1.3 In no event shall any owner of any RO single family home be required
to move or sell their home as a result of any adjustment in income or asset
restrictions revisions made by ASPEN or an increase in their income and assets
subsequent to their purchase of any RO single family home.
6 GMOS EXEMPTION:
6.1 Based on the totality of the situation and the community good served by
WRJV's construction of Affordable Housing Units, ASPEN agrees that WRJV's GMQS
Exemption for the WILLIAMS RANCH project will be based on the GMQS provisions in
effect at the time WRJV submitted its Conceptual Review Land Use Application to
ASPEN.°
- OFF-SITE IMPACT FEE:
7.1 WRJV will pa ASPEN One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) to
address an e o -stte traffic impacts))ne-half(1/2) of WRJV's payment under this
se . - • . . . • o • ` - • GP y a ter WRJV has sold one-half(1/2) of the Affordable
Housing Units or one-third (1/3) of free Market Lots, whichever shall first occur. The ,'
remaining one-half (1/2) of WRJV's payment under this section shall be paid to ASPEN
only after WRJV has sold three-quarters(3/4)of the Affordable Housing Units or two-thirds /
(2/3) of free Market Lots, whichever shall first occur. WRJV's financial obligation for th
off-site impact fee shall be secured by the ASPEN DOT and AH CONSTRUCTS
AGREEMENT described in paragraph 4.2 above.
' Subject to annual-adjustment-by-the-'..:' ... 'ousing Authority.
° 8 November 1993.
IAM\FIN.DOCS ANNEX 00a 10
•
Williams Ranch/SilverLode
First Amendment to the Final Subdivision PUD
Plat of the SilverLode Subdivision and the
Williams Ranch Subdivision
March, 1998
Submitted By: Williams Ranch Joint Venture
C/o The Stevens Group, Inc.
312 E Aspen Airport Business Center
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 925-6717
INTRODUCTION:
This application seeks to amend the recorded plat for the Williams
Ranch/SilverLode Subdivisions. This shall be the first amendment to that plat
and PUD. An application for an amendment was submitted on March 15, 1996 to
amend access locations to SilverLode lots. This was determined to be an
insubstantial amendment and was granted staff review approval on July 3, 1996
(see attached Exhibit F). To date, this amendment has not been recorded. While
work has been ongoing from the time of approval, the amendment has now grown
to encompass all revisions required for both the Williams Ranch Subdivision and
the SilverLode Subdivision.
The Williams Ranch/SilverLode Subdivision was approved in November 1994
via Ordinance 52, Series 1994. The plat was subsequently recorded in May of
1995.
Specifically, this amendment will seek to record those access locations for the
SilverLode Subdivision approved July 3`d 1996, revise the duplex lot lines within
the Williams Ranch Subdivision (now that the buildings are constructed, accurate
lines have been surveyed which represent the common dividing line between each
two duplex units. Prior to this point, this dividing line could not be accurately
established) and "clean up" all plat related issues on the existing recorded plat that
are incorrect. All duplex lot lines that bisect a duplex structure have been revised.
The exterior lot line for a duplex structure remains as platted. Those revised
property lines that bisect a duplex unit shall apply to Lots 16/17, 18/19, 20/21,
23/24, 25/26, 27/28, 30/31, 32/33 and 34/35.
Those items which are being "cleaned up" are the result of City of Aspen
Engineering Department review of the existing recorded plat. These items
include typographic errors, mathematics and geometry errors and inconsistencies.
II. MINIMUM SUBMISSION CONTENTS
1. This application is being submitted by:
Williams Ranch Joint Venture
C/o the Stevens Group, Inc.
312 E Aspen Airport Business Center
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 925-6717
All correspondence should be sent to Thomas G. Stevens at the above
address.
2. See attached Plat Maps.
3. See attached Plat Maps. As the subdivision if now partially still within
ownership of Williams Ranch Joint Venture and partially within private
ownership, proof of ownership is on two forms. The Williams Ranch
Joint Venture ownership is confirmed by the recorded plat Book 37, Page
4. For ownership of transferred properties, consent of ownership and
necessary mortgagee will be recorded along with this amendment.
4. See Exhibit G.
5. See attached Plat Maps.
III. SPECIFIC SUBMISSION CONTENTS
1. Existing Conditions - General
As of this date, 9 of the 15 SilverLode lots have transferred ownership and
all 9 are either under construction or construction has been completed.
Two additional lots are under contract and scheduled for closing this
spring.
The Williams Ranch development has 12 units completed and occupied
and the remaining 23 units are under construction. Of the 23 under
construction, 7 are complete as of this date, February 20, 1998, have
received final inspection and in the City's Certificate of Occupancy
process. The remaining 16 units will be completed in times ranging from
February 23`d through April 30'h 1998.
All subdivision infrastructure is complete with the exception of the final
layer of asphalt paving and miscellaneous clean-up items.
2. Existing Conditions to be Amended
As described in the introduction of this application, there are three items to
be amended within this application.1.Tishe first is to rec rd the previously
approved access locations for the SilverLode lots. Z econd is to revise
the lot lines which divide ee h duplex unit now that accurate survey
information exists. Lastly` frere are several "clean-up" items on the
existing plat which are to be revised.
The Williams Ranch/SilverLode Subdivision was approved in November
1994 via Ordinance 52, Series 1994. The plat was recorded in May 1995
and is located at Book 37, page 4. The first amendment was submitted
March 15, 1996 and was approved July 3, 1995 (See Exhibits E and F).
No changes to the PUD development order as outlined in Section
26.84.080 of the land use code will occur due to this amendment to the
plat.
IV. REVIEW STANDARDS
This application only seeks to amend the recorded plat for the Williams
Ranch/SilverLode Subdivision. As such, all of the general requirements have
already been reviewed and approved. The approved PUD development plan
established density, land use, dimensional requirements, off-street parking, open
space, landscaping, architecture, lighting, clustering, public facilities and traffic
and pedestrian circulation. This application for an insubstantial plat amendment
to the existing recorded plat will have no effect on these issues.
Exhibit A
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Chris Bendon,920.5072 DATE: 1.29.98
PROJECT: Williams Ranch PUD Amendment
REPRESENTATIVE: Tom Stevens
OWNER: listed on the plat
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 0 Step-- Staff Review
DESCRIPTION: Insubstantial plat amendments. If substantial amendments are requested,the application
would need review and approval by P&Z and Council
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.84.080 PUD Amendments
Review by: Staff, Development Review Committee(Referral Agencies)
Public Hearing: No. If substantial amendments are requested,then public hearing would be required
Referral Agencies: Engineering, Parks, Zoning, Fire Marshall, Water, ACSD,Electric Department or HC
Planning Fees: Planning Deposit ($450)
Referral Agency Fees: Engineering, Major($270);
Total Deposit: $ 720 (additional hours are billed at a rate of$180/hour)
To apply, submit the following information:
1. Proof of ownership
2. Signed fee agreement
3. Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name,
address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.
4. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a
current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado,
listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages,judgments, liens, easements, contracts and
agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application.
5. Total deposit for review of the application
6. 10_ Copies of the complete application packet and maps.
HPC= 12; PZ= 10; GMC =PZ+5; CC = 7; Referral Agencies= 1/ea.; Planning Staff=2
7. Additional materials as required by the specific review. Please refer to the application packet for specific
submittal requirements or to the code sections noted above.
8. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed
development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include
existing conditions as well as proposed.
9. Copies of prior approvals.
Disclaimer:
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning,which is
subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a
legal or vested right.
Exhibit B
LAND USE APPLICATION
PROJECT:
Name: W////g .47f-in / iIvGIP-1 e
G 1;/ /e..0-7
Location:Location: GI Rhted P/Qt fry-Aa/ 5 443-ow „4,5 r777f70"vl
(Indicate street address, lot& block number, legal description where appropriate)
APPLICANT:
Name: it/) ./ nt rich ./o/nf Ue' 774/.
Address: 3/S.'. A c,.ei i A/rrUV"-" , 't25 ✓ c Cn re k-
Phone#: J2' ' Co7/ 7
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name:
Address: /2 ,4-,c i7 A �%pv✓f �jds/h-e S5 ce,r/tre
Phone#: ° c 617/ 7
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
❑ Conditional Use ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Conceptual Historic Devt.
❑ Special Review ,zi Final PUD PUD Amendment ❑ Final Historic Development
❑ Design Review Appeal ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ Minor Historic Devt.
❑ GMQS Allotment ❑ Final SPA(& SPA Amendment) ❑ Historic Demolition
❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Subdivision ❑ Historic Designation
❑ ESA- 8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption(includes ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/
Margin,Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion
Mountain View Plane
❑ Lot Split ❑ Temporary Use j Other:}
❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Text/Map Amendment l 41 to 41 e/nAm tMt
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings,uses, previous approvals, etc.)
�So an d vr5/<� �Gh t e at/014217/aq
P/ter 7" re?:G%- G / i&vv /9 y S
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
f n^fi iie �l�r t vra4c /y appmvi%c! Lf r ccss
i 7-7>IS r�1/a 5 F /1 4 ip/ - /at //Ae art:Hstnh &vt fit
Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ 72O.
® Pre-Application Conference Summary
Attachment#1, Signed Fee Agreement
® Response to Attachment#2, Dimensional Requirements Form
Response to Attachment#3,Minimum Submission Contents
® Response to Attachment#4, Specific Submission Contents
❑ Response to Attachment#5, Review Standards for Your Application
Exhibit C
•
•
ATTACHM@1TI.
•
City of Aspen Development Application Fee Policy
The City of Aspen,pursuant to Ordinance 43 (Series of 1996),has established a fee sttncaae for the
processing of land use applications. A flat fee or deposit is collected for land use applications based
on the type of application submitted. Referral fees for other City departments reviewing the
application will also be collected when necessary. One check including the deposit for Planning
and referral agency fees must be submitted with each land use application,made payable to the
Asnen/Pitldn Community Development Department Applications will not be accepted for
processing without the required application fee.
A flat fee is collected by Planning for Staff Approvals which normally take a minima and
predictable amount of staff time to process. The fee is not refundable.
A deposit is collected by Planing when more extensive staff review is required as hours are likely
to vary substantially aom one application to another. Actual staff time spent will be charged
against the deposit After the deposit has been expended the applicant will be billed monthly based
on actual staff hours. Current billings must be paid within 30 days or processing of the application
will be suspended. If an applicant has previously failed to pay anpiication fees as required.. no new
. or additional applications will be accepted for processing until the outstanding fees are paid. In no
• case will Building Permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid.
Alter the final action on the project any remaining balance from the deposit will be refunded to the
applicant
Applications which require a deposit must include an • c - _ „- • v '..
Application Fees. The Agreement establishes the applicant as being responsible for payment of all
costs associated with processing the application. The Agreement must be signed by the party
responsible for payment and submitted with the application in order for it to be accepted.
The complete fee schedule for land use applications is available at the Community Development
Department
•
•
•
ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees
(Please Print Clearly)
CITY OF ASPEN(hereinafter CITY) and 'inn f Ven/V7'e.
(hereinafter APPLICANT)AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
I. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for P/4t
Atio 1IInl ai t • (hereinafter,THE PROJECT).
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen.Ordinance No.43 (Series of 1996)
establishes a fee structure for land use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a
condition precedent to a determination of application compieteness.
3. APPLICANT and C.111 agree that because of the size.nature or scope of the proposed
project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing
the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the pardes to allow
APPLICANT to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit adatnonai costs to be
billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by reninina
greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they
are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the grater retrain-of
recovering its full costs to process APPLICANTS application.
4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete
processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to
enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project
approval. unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision.
5. Therefore. APPLICANT agrees that in consider-anon of the CITY's waiver of its right to
collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an
initial deposit in the amount of S which is for hours of Planning staff time, and if
actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit. APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings
to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including
post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of thebilling date.
APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension
of processing.
• CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT
Signature:
Stan auso Date: 2 , Zo. Se,
Community Development Director Printed Name: -r- eTeYeNS
. City of Aspen Mailing Address: .3/z AAf •
f}�j co 8/44 l
Exhibit D
ATTACHMENT 2
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM
Project: PO fi ra,vvi 5 f v4c14/�✓//v'e,v°1--fie loSi rrl sl ovr
Applicant: W!/h 4444 } Vllifii . Jch-i t Vni t-zi P.
Location: <7Lr/. GI7A>4/ta'd pia t u14,1 S
Zone District: A
Lot Size: /. ., 7 dares
Lot Area:
(for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas
within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the
definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.)
Commercial net leasable: Existing: Proposed:
Number of residential units: Existing: 'j'0 Proposed:
Number of bedrooms: Existing: Proposed:
Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): /./A
DIMENSIONS: /4"/-P�✓ App/' vGG1 � (J O. f/Glib/
Floor Area: Existing: / Allowable: Proposed:
Principal bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed:
Access. bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed:
On-Site parking: Existing: Required: Proposed:
% Site coverage: Existing: Required: Proposed:
% Open Space: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Front Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Rear Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Combined FIR: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Combined Sides: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Existing non-conformities or encroachments: A/ nZ-
Variations requested: A.)0/26..,
Exhibit E
SilverLode Subdivision
PUD/Plat Amendment #1
March 15, 1996
Submitted By: Williams Ranch Joint Venture
do The Stevens Group, Inc.
312 E Aspen Airport Business Center
Aspen Colorado, 81611
(970) 925-6717
n1L_Th
INTRODUCTION:
This application seeks to amend the approved and recorded Plat and PUD
Development Plan for the SilverLode Subdivision. The purpose of this amendment
is to revise the access easements which allow for driveway construction. During
the course of infrastructure and Phase One construction of the Williams
Ranch/SilverLode Subdivisions, it became apparent that the approved access
easements did not represent the most efficient and least disruptive access route to
the individual SilverLode lots.
Within the approved application for this project (Ordinance 52, Series 1994), no
driveways were represented for the SilverLode lots, only access easements where
access across adjacent lots were required. However, at this time, the Applicant is
submitting for review the actual driveway layouts with grading as well as easement
revisions (see attached driveway plans). It is the intention of the Applicant to
construct the driveways prior to sale of the lots. This will ensure that the impacts
to the site of driveway construction are absolutely minimized.
'7
At this time, only one lot within the SilverLode Subdivision has sold, Lot 15. A
building permit has been issued for this lot and construction has begun. The
balance of the lots are still within ownership of the Applicant.
SilverLode Drive provides access the all SiverLode lots and has been conveyed to
the City of Aspen via recordation of the Final Plat. Subsequently each driveway
requires an individual curb cut permit. At this time, permits have been issued for
Lots 1, 2, 3, 7, 11, and 14 as these lots required no revisions to any access
easements. Specifically, this application for amendment requests access
easement revisions for the remaining lots, lots 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 13.
II. Review Criteria:
The specific areas of review for this requested amendment are as follows:
1. Insubstantial change to Subdivision, Section 26.88.060
2. Insubstantial change to PUD, Section 26.84.080
3. 8040 Exemption, Section 7-503(b) (old Code)
I. Amendment to subdivision development order, Section 26.88.060
This section provides the ability for an Applicant to seek an insubstantial
amendment to a subdivision plat to be approved by the Community Development
Director based on technical or engineering considerations first discovered during
actual development which could not reasonably be anticipated during the approval
process.
As stated above, the subdivision approvals granted to this project did not include
driveways to the free market (SilverLode) lots. Instead, access easements were
provided where it was anticipated that future owners would locate driveways and
only if they needed to cross adjacent lots. Upon completion of SivlerLode Drive
road grading, it became apparent that the anticipated alignments of driveways
could be improved. Additionally, the Applicant felt that by constructing the
driveways prior to sale of the lots, the impacts of construction could be controlled
and thus minimized.
The new alignments require access easement revisions. These revised easements
have been depicted on the attached Plat maps and PUD plan as well as the
individual driveway plans. The easements as well as the actual driveways will
require less grading, less paving and less retainage than previously anticipated. In
the case of several lots, access will combined to limit the quantity of driveway
intersections with SilverLode Drive.
In summary, the precise location and alignment of driveways was not provided at
final approval of the subdivision, only easements based on anticipated alignments.
Upon completion of road grading, alignments which represent less grading, less
pavement, less retainage and increased undisturbed ground have been designed.
II. Amendment of PUD development order, Section 26.84.080
Section 26.84.080 (A) provides the Community Development Director the ability
to authorize and insubstantial amendment to a development order for a final
development plan providing the following criteria is not met or exceeded:
1. A change in use or character of the development. No change in use or
character are proposed, only driveway alignment revisions.
2. An increase by greater than three (3)percent in the overall coverage of
structures on the land. This proposed amendment will affect on overall
coverage of structures on the land. It will however, reduce the amount of
coverage on the land by driveway pavement.
3. Any amendment that substantially increases trip generation rates of the
proposed development, or the demand for public services. No increase of trip
generation nor demand for public services will result from this amendment.
4. A reduction by greater than three (3)percent of the approved open space.
This proposed amendment will actually increase,very slightly, the amount of
open space.
5. A reduction by greater than one (1)percent of the off street parking and
loading space. The proposed amendment will have no effect on the off street
parking or loading space. Parking was established by Special Review for
SilverLode Subdivision during the approval process and will remain the same.
6. A reduction in required pavement widths or rights of way for streets and
easements. No pavement widths or rights of way will be varied by this
amendment. A copy of the approved subdivision plat as well as the proposed
revisions has been attached.
7. An increase of greater than two (2)percent in the approved gross leasable
floor area of commercial buildings. Not applicable.
8. An increase by greater than one (1)percent in the approved residential
density of the development. The proposed driveway alignments will have no
effect on development density.
9. A change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the
project's original approval or which requires granting a further variation
from the project's approved use or dimensional requirements. Condition 1
(g.) of Ordinance 52, Series 1994 which granted this project's approval
provides a PUD variance for driveway grading. This variance will still be
required but needs no revision. No other conditions or representations of the
approvals address driveways for SilverLode.
III. 8040 Greenline Review, Section 7-503 (B.) Exemption
The expansion, remodeling or reconstruction of an existing development shall be
exempt from the 8040 Greenline review if the following standards are met:
1. The development does not add more than ten 00)percent to the floor area of
the existing structure or increase the total amount of square footage of areas
of the structure which are exempt from floor area calculations by more than
twenty five (25)percent. The proposed driveway alignment revisions will have
no effect on allowable FAR for a lot not the method of calculating FAR an a
lot.
2. The development does not require the removal of any tree for which a permit
would be required pursuant to section 13-76 or the applicant receives a
permit pursuant to said section. The Applicant agrees that if the removal of
any tree requiring a permit is necessary, said permit shall be obtained prior to
construction/
3. The development is located such that it is not affected by any geologic hazard
and will not result in increased erosion and sedimentation. See attached
engineering report.
BANNER
CONSULTING ENGINEERS S ARCHITECTS
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
2777 Crossroads Boulevard
Grand Junction, Colorado 81506
1303)243-2242
March 13. 1996 FAX(3031243-3810
605 East Main,Suite 6
Aspen,Colorado 81611
(303)925-5857
Ms. Suzanne Wolff
Community Development
City of Aspen/Pitkin County
130 South Galena, 3rd Floor
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION
SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION LOTS 1 THROUGH 14
Dear Suzanne:
This letter is written in response to the relocation of the driveways on the subject property.
The proposed driveway revisions to the SilverLode Subdivision Lots 1 through 14 have been
designed to reduce overall impacts to the site. By having the developer construct the driveways
rather than the purchasers; alignment, grading, drainage and retainage will be controlled and
subsequently minimized. For this reason, any erosion and sedimentation originally associated with
driveway construction will be minimized if not eliminated.
During the approval process all geological hazards associated with this development program
and the development site were addressed. The proposed alignment of driveways will have no effect
on the only hazards which are steep slopes (slopes of 15 to 25% gradient). On the contrary, the
proposed driveway alignments and grading will benefit the overall site by minimizing grading on
steep slopes.
If you have any further questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely.
Hans E. Brucker
Aspen Projects Manager
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
HEB:jal
C:AhebletteAsilver.let
BANNER
CONSULTING 'NGINEERS IC ARCMITUCTS
BANNER ASSOCIATES,INC.
January 22, 1996 27 7 OmasrCo Boulevard
Gran o Junetlon,Colorado 3)2 .125 02
(03 0012612262
FAX IS0312�bp610
Mr. Chuck Roth 805 East Main,Suits 6
Aspsn,East Main, 81611
City of Aspen Engineering Dept. 'ora9281617
130 S. Galena Street, 2nd Floor
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION
Dear Chuck:
This letter is written in response to your letter dated January 3, 1996 as it relates to
construction of the driveways on the subject project.
Radius of driveway flare at road edge-City specifications provide for a radius of 3'-0". Many
of the plot plans show larger radii which are not approved.
This is acceptable since we will not be paving the driveways at this time and therefore the
radius of the asphalt will not apply.
Grading for driveway within public right-of-wav and emergency access, pedestrian, utility
easements-No grading of driveways is permitted. The driveway grade within the public right-
of-way and the easements must be the same as the roadway and the topography in order to
permit pedestrian and utility construction use.
You and I agreed that we can grade the driveways from the easterly side of the proposed
ditch or from 5 feet inside the public right-of-way. This is because we are providing a pedestrian
walking hard-surface path on the other side of SilverLode Drive and because all of the utilities for
this project are already in place. As far as the grading of driveways across easements, we discussed
that we have not installed any utilities in any of the easements, and therefore. no utilities will be
affected by the driveway construction. We realize that Parks must comment on the 40 foot wide
pedestrian access and utility easement.
Driveway width -The maximum width permitted for a driveway is 18'-0". This is the width
of the curb cut, not the transverse width of the driveway. That is, for driveways entering the
street at an angle and not perpendicularly,the width is not the width of the driveway but the
length of the curb cut.
We do not anticipate that the driveways will exceed 18'-0" measured transverse along the
edge of SilverLode Drive.
Lots 1,2,3,4,11 - The plot plans are approved by Engineering as revised.
We recognize that these have been approved by you.
BANNER
January 22, 1996
Mr. Chuck Roth
Page 2 of 3
Lots 5.6 -The plot plans are approved by Engineering except that:
a. That plat easement sheet (sheet 4 of the recorded plat) must be amended, or
easement documents provided,that permit access across Lots 3,4 and 5 for Lots 5 and 6; and
We will provide recordable easement documents (descriptions) and record said documents
as discussed to mitigate this concern prior to producing an amended plat. We understand that a
P.U.D. Amendment may be required as part of this process.
b. The driveway crosses a drainage easement. You indicated that alternate plans for
drainage are in effect. This must be documented by a letter from a registered engineer and
the drainage easement must be deleted by a revised plat sheet or other document.
A letter from a Professional Engineer has been provided under separate cover.
c. The driveway crosses a utility easement. Are the utilities in place? Provide
discussion of this in the letter from the engineer. Letters that approve your design may be
needed from the utilities.
As discussed, no utilities have been installed in the subject utility easement locations. Since
all utilities will be installed in these easements after the driveways have been constructed, any
potential conflicts will be avoided. As we discussed, we do not feel that a letter should be required
from the utility companies since their facilities have not yet been installed.
Lot 7 - The Plot plan is approved by Engineering except the driveway crosses a sewer
easement. Please provide a letter from the Sanitation District approving the design.
As we discussed,the sanitary sewer easement shown on the plat is specifically dedicated to
Mr. Albert Timroth. A private sewer service will be constructed in the easement after the driveways
have been constructed and therefore, Mr. Timroth's sewer service will not be affected by the
proposed driveway construction. We, therefore, do not feel that a letter should be required from the
Sanitation District as suggested.
Lots 8 and 9 -The plot plan is approved by Engineering except that the plat easement sheet
must be amended. or easement documents provided, that permit mutual access across the lot
or else the driveways must be widened to function as a common driveway as anticipated in
Section 19-101.
We will provide recordable easement documents (descriptions) and record said documents
as discussed to mitigate this concern prior to producing an amended plat. We understand that a
P.U.D. Amendment may be required as part of this process.
BANNER
January 22, 1996
Mr. Chuck Roth
Paste 3of3
Lots 12 and 13 -No plot plan was provided for Lot 12. I copied the plot plan for Lot 13 and
relabeled it for Lot 12. The plat easement sheet must be amended. or easement documents
provided, that permit mutual access across the lot or else the driveways must be widened to
function as a common driveway as anticipated in Section 19-101. The driveways are shown
on a utility and drainage easement. The plot plan is unclear by not indicating that the
easement that the driveways cross in also a utility easement. The drainage easement
encompasses a natural drainage. Drainage may need to be piped under the boulder wall and
driveways . Provide discussion of this in the letter from the engineer. Letter that approve you
design may be needed from the utilities.
We will provide recordable easement documents (descriptions) and record said documents
as discussed to mitigate this concern prior to producing an amended plat. We understand that a
P.U.D. Amendment may be required as part of this process. Please refer to Engineer's letter
regarding natural drainage. As discussed, no utilities have been installed in the subject utility
easement locations. Since all utilities will be installed in these easements after the driveways have
been constructed, any potential conflicts will be avoided. As we discussed, we do not feel that a
letter should be required from the utility companies since their facilities have not yet been installed.
Lot 14-The driveway crosses a utility easement. Are the utilities in place? Provide discussion
of this in the letter from the engineer. Letters that approve your design may be needed from
the utilities.
As discussed, no utilities have been installed in the subject utility easement locations. Since
all utilities will be installed in these easements after the driveways have been constructed, any
potential conflicts will be avoided. As we discussed. we do not feel that a letter should be required
from the utility companies since their facilities have not yet been installed.
If you have any further questions regarding this matter. please contact me.
Sincerely,
elP
Hans E. Brucker
Aspen Projects Manager
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
HEB:heb/jal
c:\heblette\drives.let
^
01 4
1 / I I , / ,
, "144f /
iii
7
I
i A A , / 7, Lut
, _____---- \i, . /
______,
... /
, 7 _,..?" , , _ 0
0 ,
v,
7
ii., . ,
---. .." 4 c
00fir- ii ,,-
' ,,,,,,, - rt4 / / „--
41 Pir- 4 , u..
w
SilVert-Od
it I
'
Silve °Ce' -
fr y
_ �
FEET 30 00�
-I-1-n-• I iJAL i -._, 1 8020
--------OR APHIC SCA / `��
hI ch s-3O I %_- j -)C - L OT `
\ \r
/ 800 \ \ eV
LQT--2--- \ \ )
I . /
— ��oQ/
f
v
,- ,- egoO opr.:)telike.-0,,,,. -as j
' Booms \- \ V 7. op t /
LOT 1 ^
I-.0_-AL- / -
'7946 / �i� /4.
i
i
a .
NIverLode ---y ___---- „ r,. ■ i
.._
of 3
. ---
. N . -------i0 - ----
EET 3C1------------0 ,.--- - , 30 FT E T
GRAPHIC, SCALE/ `) , ": //
----_____ I inch': / 30, fl. \-- •--
__-
.-- _
----- W_T 4
------ \e _ _-
--
--
---
/t\---
J .
A
-\
•
, -----
,
,-
,
. 4"7----_--------
, —--
Sz'
8020
_
...__
„„--
- \ __-------- ' i
- -----7.-
. .,
\---- __ L0f1,------- ---- ,----
„...-- . .-
„, Illt
erpl
.„.... ,.....
----- ----\-- so °
toK.-
_.>1 0 ____\---- Ak,,, also.
‘...
411011a
Lo_T__z---------c N_- --c/ iz -, vosigitori
...„
. _
•fr z ' '41.5
ec 0° 0.7 0°'zlier , 7 >
0.7 t T 7 /
/--
....,_,/
■/////
.-/
7 0 ___,,,._.._,,,°
7''''.. .........”
•
SilverLode
Lot 4 4
FEET 30 1 0 FEET
r
GRAPHIC—SCALE \ .\ " -...„..
1. inch = 30_ 11. -
o
6
,tJ 1
'ti 5
/// so
1 _
A
II E •-E-
\ � ' I1' NvEI ♦
Bvito!
LOT\4 \ 80.
i B
/� �aA-
/ tip, ,_ �\ �` a�30 -.
�/ { _\_
1 jai 01111111 .
�oA
` 8020
_
s020 /
-------" \ — Xthakr
---LOT i\
aiZA4(
\ - \,0_, ,cols, .-:---- . i _ , 0.
---\. \____------\/ 121 /i Illir
p �
SuverLod
Lot e 5
FEET 30
30 FEET
iimilm GRAPHIC S a\_ _
I inch 30 f l.\
11�\� -- Q X060
o / 2a .
0 6063
,M
, 1 �_ + ENvEVTE. 1
gulE01 8os,. LOT A
030
LOT 4 - A , oQ �' °'
\
1 y1 1�\ el,0 \ NV
1�
l6 E
Ilrigirls
A '5 - J "
�:.,_
I'i= '�
�i y.%'
_f_ �-�= L rim®.
.2,44, / _____ __, fit --__:---pi•ts-o -.me ___ __ _ __
SilverLode
30
Lot 6
FEET 30 0 FEET
GRAPHIC SCALE
f i§EA o 30 f I.
eo
90
is
_ p 20,0o,
— soap
a
0
so ) —� to 0
7 so�o —._- - - 807G—
/—� _____
\ I I - __ _ _
'7 1
8060 I L '..l \ E
_NVEI`E LOT-6— /
� z 8050
Iv
4 -- -- - -- - -- f - :/
- ,� 101 L I G E ' .
�3 ENV e
B�L �.� _c'� •tea ,e" --
��� - --.
0 ,� ' �1. -' �---
®��
I!i-ice °
000 I
rte - �.`�� /®� �.., - _.
\\\\ .
Ad/Otte — \ 1
SilverLode
4 Lot 7
FEET 30 0 30 FEET
1111 , 111111 t
GRAPHIC SCALE
81Q0 ' I inch : 30 ft.
809
�,�_
— eoao 8080-
--- �- _
8070
--- 20 p0. _
Lt.:
8060
8.7
r
A ' � 8050 ' �- 8.060
(.0 LOT, "7 / f
- _ - ~l� —�� % '. • LOT _$
:UIL•ING - !;, SO• � �.�
�• s
c+
_ - \'�' m
!--- _ ` .4.: <• X80 0 �
_ 4
40LIftl%4\LS:1 ..c. .0,
,411111%11rAlli_,
A
SilverLo
.., Lot de 8
FEET 30 0 30 FEET
t a m i l ` i i i I
- GRAPHIC SCALE
-._ ---`d I inch X30 f1.
80gp
20 pp.
12 1
—taj
8060` J 807p
I
a I -
w 1
►T 7 ' II L ' 8060 I \
Ic if -- -- / \
4aCV ;t LOT -8 / c
. - •PE rallacp, _ -�� a°S° ' ' ,�
i
411aLle- Igilli44,.._113/411 C \ _R_0ie4.
p tqo 1
I%
t � IN- ��QAI 9 x.
a •
1\° \�
iiTh.
F
A /
----- -_ / IS: 0111*\41N/
NN
SilverLode
Lot 9
FEET 30 0 30 FEET
Ititalittil I
\,
GRAPHIC, S311—E
t_I .
_ .
--__
----....._
c_
------, (90
-__ a.
--_,
— - - T-- -7_-_- -- - - -- &O? ---__° - ----
/- -
N
.
/0 coc
- _
_
1
,_,_
LOT__a - , --
_ ) /
---.........___
so
// / /r-
//
E
. __
8
, __ °So -
- .
1 1 - / /7
•T 9 /
,
,
6,0 _
i____
//
804o
. //
Ae;
//0-/ LOT 10
(N.44
I
,•
"Ps:skk‘
l , \
\ /
€90
Ci
\ / / /
—.44%, \ 41111111/411/4'7 C 1
. \
\4,'-
SilverLode
Lot 10
T 34 0 30 FEET
RARHIC S LE
l m. ' 30 It. \
908 4-- - 1
V
"^,,.
■
6060 \
� , 6 ..„
/ 90 -\\..,
// / // \ \\
// J// 80 \
UT s //
/// V \
/ , /
/N LOT 10
a
°o op
/ \0
e.
/ / / \
/ / 9 4.11 II / <<Y o /
a LOT 11
Nip44,
/
Situ : rLod
Lot
11
y , CO \� EEE)T �• 1 • 0 FEET
oo h
I I I 1 GrHIC SCALE 1
/, \ \ \, , 1 ' c4 - 30 It.
`4 1
Cg A �,\
O
I
,
LOT II TI
-rrA 'v y� , V O fi
1 // \
• ii d p
Y
�'� ���/14� \b^2a 08� , ��, �. /x.
s,•� \ �//
NN
--17111111111,-- \ \ > d\ . /
\fi ` i �r
ikt�t:y.IVY tater , LOT I
V Q'��\ \� \Oq\\\‘ON 1 �
v
'Sv
` % \
,
Sil
:ode
of ��
li
€ �� • 0 30 FEET
�G APHC 4GAL€
/ \ I msh�0 30 1t. 9,
/ _0 0 \ 00
/ / \\
LOT 10 / 0\
•
°°°/ �
/
a0" / /
/
' / P o / \
\ '�
... ,,,Z i '
LOT 11�
/
/\ \
Xii \ / N 0
awl
LTA 1
t. t%••„- earatiltr,_ -414•4 I
LO 12
"...SIN.,
.1•••••._-.441/ N
ili ii erL d
/ L t.nr\
FEET 30 0 3 FEET
809p � �� GRAPHIC ;CALE
/ / \ „ . I inch c 30 H.
/ \
I
/
I j
LO 12 -� ;
,;� i
V%� °e° / 4 ■� I � ,
`�. \cam / /', _
\'. �, \°. c” ✓ , 1
4,.
X--' •4.:'‘, ilikititi, csk\
�0���I/ ,
L` \ �\• it LOT'.., 1 /.._
G •
\� i� < �
i v
r.
its
AS
AO\ ' t IV* \t? (<7/ / -- - \ \
tt*. , \p0 / / \ 0
'
KI`I/ i/
°v`` S LOT 14 '
Nv*et
Oak \ ____0.. -,‘, „9,..,, ,,G , ,
, „I...I. \ _. \ ..4 . . .
.0,„„„, . /
\ c
-..:-.-C__ \ \ a \ 4)
P Xi TAT t Vii' y\ v
BANNER
CONSULTING ENGINEERS S ARCHITECTS
January 22, 1996 BANNER 2777 Crossroads Boulevard
Grand Junction,Colorado 81506
(303)243.2242
Mr. Chuck Roth FAX(30312433810
605 East Main,Suite 6
City of Aspen Engineering Department Aspen,Colorado 81611
(303)9255857
130 S. Galena St., 2nd Floor
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION AND WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION
DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE ISSUES
Dear Chuck:
This letter is written in response to your letter dated January 3, 1996 with regard to the
subject project. Banner's original design proposed a drainage inlet structure be installed on Lot 5,
in the drainage easement. This drainage inlet was proposed to handle surface runoff generated from
the drainage basin above. We understand, however, that Mr. Albert Timroth is now constructing
a residence in the area above this easement, and thereby slightly changing the natural drainage
pattern. At this point we are now proposing that a swale be constructed from the north property line
south to the proposed access drive for Lot 5, as shown on the enclosed plot plan. Along with this
swale, a 24" culvert will be constructed underneath the access drive and daylight into SilverLode
Drive. Rip-rap will be installed at the outlet to prevent erosion. It should be noted that this drainage
easement will not be vacated.
As far as the natural drainage between Lots 12 and 13 is concerned, we are proposing to
locate the inlet structure for the 36" culvert far enough to the east(above the driveway boulder wall)
so as to avoid any potential conflicts in this area.
Please feel free to give me a call should you have any questions or comments regarding this
issue.
Sincerely,
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. +�":">>>A
osPpO RFgislll it
i�`� E Cyr Flo
David E. Chase, P.R. j 24991 ■
Senior Vice President-Offiey iager .��i
/
,+`I1
•\ ok%`G
Exhibit F
0-h• —Cr/ S
�lali n
MEMORANDUM
TO: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director
FROM: Suzanne Wolff
RE: SilverLode Subdivision Insubstantial Subdivision/PUD Amendment and 8040
Greenline Exemption
DATE: July 3, 1996
SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting to amend the recorded plat and PUD Development
Plan for the SilverLode Subdivision to revise the access easements which allow for construction
of driveways to the individual lots. An 8040 Greenline Exemption is also requested to
accommodate the proposed driveway amendments. The application, driveway plans, and
amended plat are attached as Exhibit "A".
APPLICANT: Williams Ranch Joint Venture
REPRESENTATIVE: Tom Stevens •
LOCATION: SilverLode Subdivision
ZONING: AHI/PUD
BACKGROUND: By Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994, the City Council granted Subdivision
and PUD approval for the development of 35 deed-restricted affordable housing units (Williams
Ranch Subdivision) and 15 free-market lots (SilverLode Subdivision). The Final Plat was
recorded on March 15, 1995, in Plat Book 36 at Page 77.
REQUEST: Access easements for the SilverLode lots were provided on the plat only where it
was anticipated that driveways would have to cross adjacent lots. During infrastructure and
Phase One construction, the applicant determined that the approved access easements did not
represent the most efficient and least disruptive access routes to the individual SilverLode lots.
The applicant intends to construct the driveways prior to sale of the remaining lots (Lot 15 has
already been sold, and construction is in progress) in order to control and minimize the impacts
of the alignment, grading, drainage and retainage of the driveways.
The following revisions are requested:
• The existing easement to access Lot 4 across Lot 3 will be extended to provide access to
Lots 5 and 6. This amendment will eliminate an additional steep cut off of SilverLode
Drive.
1
• A combined driveway will be constructed between lots 8 and 9.
• The easement to access Lot 10 across Lot 11 will be eliminated.
• A combined driveway will be constructed between Lots 12 and 13.
Curb cut permits have already been issued for Lots 1, 2, 3, 7, 11 and 14, as no revisions were
required for these access easements.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Comments from the Parks and Engineering Departments are
attached as Exhibit`B".
Parks Department: One of Rebecca Baker's concerns is the encroachment of the proposed
driveway to Lot 10 across the Open Space Easement. This issue is addressed below with the
PUD amendment standards (#4). Ms. Baker's concern regarding the portion of the open space
easement between SilverLode Drive and Williams Ranch Drive was addressed by the applicant;
pedestrian access will be provided to Brown Lane and the nearby RFTA bus stop.
En ing eering Department: Ross Soderstrom states, "the overall alignment and grading of the
driveways for Lots 1-14 has been improved by the proposed design and the potential for erosion
has been minimized by the inclusion of this work prior to selling the subject lots." Engineering
has approved the proposed alignments and grading plans, subject to clarification of certain issues
addressed in the attached memo. These issues include:
• The common driveway to Lots 3-6 appears to exceed the maximum allowed grade of
12%where it departs from Reciprocal Easement No. 2.
• Conveyance of drainage through and/or around the proposed boulder walls adjacent to the
driveways to Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 14.
• A final grading plan and drainage plan shall be approved by Engineering.
• The required 3' radius at the driveway intersection with the street shall be depicted on the
site plans.
• The curb cut shall not exceed 18' in length.
A revised subdivision plat shall be approved and recorded to reflect the changes.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Insubstantial Subdivision Amendment: Section 26.88.060 authorizes the Community
Development Director to approve an insubstantial amendment to an approved plat,provided the
amendment is limited to technical or engineering considerations first discovered during actual
development which could not reasonably be anticipated during the approval process, or the
change has no effect on the conditions and representations which limit the approved plat. During
the course of infrastructure and Phase One construction of the Williams Ranch/SilverLode
Subdivisions, the applicant determined that the easement and driveway alignments could be
improved to lessen the impacts of driveway construction.
2
Insubstantial Pi ID Amendment: Section 26.84.080 of the Aspen Municipal Code authorizes the
Community Development Director to approve an insubstantial amendment to an approved PUD,
if the amendment does not:
1. Change the use or character of the development;
Response: The use and character are not being changed.
2. Increase the overall coverage of structures on the land by more than three percent(3%);
Response: The amendment will lessen the amount of retainage required for the driveways.
3. Substantially increase trip generation rates or the demand for public facilities;
Response: The amendment will not increase trip generation rates or demand for public facilities.
4. Reduce the approved open space by more than three percent (3%);
Response: The applicant represents that the open space will actually increase slightly due to the
revised driveway alignments. The applicant determined that the approved access easement across
Lot 11 to Lot 10, which crossed the entire width of the 40' open space easement between the lots,
is unnecessary. The proposed driveway to Lot 10 will encumber only half(20') of the open
space easement. The applicants represent that it is not feasible to construct a driveway on Lot 10
which would entirely avoid the open space easement.
5. Reduce the off-street parking and loading space by more than one percent(1%);
Response: Off-street parking will not be reduced.
6. Reduce the required pavement widths or rights-of-way for streets and easements;
Response: No pavement widths or rights-of-way will be reduced.
7. Increase the approved gross leasable floor area of commercial buildings by more than
2%;
Response: Not applicable.
8. Increase the approved residential density of the development by more than 1%;
Response: The residential density will not be increased.
9. Create a change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the project's
original approval or which requires granting a further variation from the project's approved use
or dimensional requirements.
3
Response: Condition#1g of Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1994, grants a PUD variance for the
front yards of Lots 3-15 which permits driveways or cut slabs greater than 30"below grade
within the required yards. The proposed driveway amendments comply with this requirement.
8040 Greenline Review Exemption: Section 26.68.030 exempts development from 8040
Greenline Review if the following standards are met:
1. The development does not add more than 10% to the floor area of the existing structure
or increase the total amount of square footage of areas of the structure which are exempt from
floor area calculations by more than 25%; and
Response: The driveway alignment revisions will not affect floor area or exempt square footage.
2. The development does not require the removal of any tree for which a permit would be
required pursuant to Section 15.04.450 or the applicant receives a permit pursuant to said
section; and
Response: The applicant agrees to obtain permits if tree removal is necessary.
3. The development is located such that it is not affected by any geologic hazard and will
not result in increased erosion and sedimentation.
Response: The new alignments will lessen the impact on steep slopes and reduce the number of
driveway cuts.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of an insubstantial amendment to the
SilverLode Subdivision/PUD and 8040 Greenline Exemption, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The applicant shall adhere to all conditions of approval as required by Ordinance No. 52,
Series of 1994.
2. The applicant shall submit an amended plat within 180 days of this approval, for review
and approval by the City Attorney, City Engineer, and the Community Development
Department.
3. The applicant shall provide the grading and drainage information requested by the City
Engineer prior to submission of the amended plat for recording.
4
I hereby approve the insubstantial amendment to the SilverLode Subdivision/PUD and 8040
Greenline Exemption, subject to the conditions noted above.
Stan Cla on, Co r unity Development Director Date U�
E
APPROVED
xhibits:
A. Referral Comments lt1L 4896
B. Application (OMM�MC�OF AS EN �PEGSOM
5
MEMORANDUM
•
:i.
•
To: Suzanne Wolff, Planner -
' •
Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer 4
From: Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer A/'S'
Date: May 21, 1996 (Revised) ((ss//
Re: Silverlode Subdivision PUD/Plat Amendment No. 1
(Lots 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 13, SilverLode Subdivision, City of Aspen, CO)
After reviewing the above referenced application and making a site visit I have the following comments:
Discussion: The overall alignment and grading of the driveways for Lots 1-14 has been improved by
the proposed design and the potential for erosion has been minimized by the inclusion of this work prior
to selling the subject lots. The proposed driveway grading of Lots 3 - 15 is also consistent with the
condition 1.g, Ordinance 52, 1994, Final Review for Subdivision , PUD, GMQS Exemption and Vested
Rights for this project. Driveway permits for Lots 1, 2, 3, 7, 11, and 14 have been previously approved
by the Engineering Dept. as noted on the detail sheets for each driveway. A revised Subdivision Plat
recorded with the County Clerk and Recorder will be required to memorialize these changes to the
original subdivision plat.
1. Driveway Easements and Grading Plan: The proposed alignments and grading plans for the
several residential driveways proposed in this application are approved with the following exceptions and
comments.
Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6: Although previously approved, it appears that the proposed alignment for the
driveway to lot 3 (and lots 4, 5 and 6) will produce a grade greater than the maximum permitted 12%
noted on the detail sheets, where it departs from the Reciprocal Easement No. 2. The applicant is
requested to meet with the Engineering Dept. to discuss the feasibility of raising the finished grades in the
upper portion of Reciprocal Easement No. 2, approximately the last 100 ft immediately below the
Silverlode Drive cul-de-sac, in order to reduce the grade into the`common driveway serving lots 3-6
inclusive.
What utilities have been or will be located in the utility easement on the west side of Lot 5?
DRCM6a46.DOC
Memo-Silverlode Subdivision PUD/Plat Amendment No. I
How is the drainage from the drainage easement on the east side of Lot 5 conveyed through and/or around
the proposed boulder wall placed at the intersection of the driveways serving Lots 5 and 6? Where is the
discharge point on to the public right-of-way of this concentrated drainage discharge?
What is the impact upon the approved building envelopes of realigning the driveways and the proximity
of the driveways to the building envelopes?
Lot 7: How will the drainage be conveyed through and/or around the proposed boulder wall to be
placed on the uphill side of this driveway? Where is the discharge point on to the public right-of-way of
this concentrated drainage discharge?
Lots 8 & 9: How will the drainage be conveyed through and/or around the proposed boulder wall to be
placed on the uphill side of this driveway? Where is the discharge point on to the public right-of-way of
this concentrated drainage discharge? Otherwise accepted.
Lot 10: The proposed alignment of this driveway violates condition 1.b, Ordinance 52, that states
that no development shall encroach into a dedicated easement, i.e., the Pedestrian Access and Utility
Easement on the eastern portion of Lot 10. Given the design grading of Silverlode Drive, the proposed
driveway location provides the best access to Lot 10 without violating the maximum driveway grade
adjacent to a public right-of-way. The applicant will need to meet with the Engineering Dept. to discuss
the feasibility of leaving the driveway intersection point in its proposed location although making the
westerly traverse with the driveway alignment to reach the building envelope of Lot 10.
In either case, mitigating landscaping and trail access will be required.
The former Lot 10 access easement originating on Lot 11 and crossing the Pedestrian Access and Utility
Easement will be abandoned from the Lot 11 side. Any disturbance of the native vegetation or
topography will be re-stored to pre-construction conditions.
What utilities have been or will be placed in the utility easement between Lots 10 and 11? Which utilities
have not been placed in Silverlode Drive?
Lot 11: How will the drainage be conveyed through and/or around the proposed boulder wall to be
placed on the uphill side of this driveway? Where is the discharge point on to the public way of this
concentrated drainage discharge? Otherwise accepted as proposed.
Lots 12 & 13: The debris interceptor, culvert in-let and a new manhole have been positioned to
intercept the drainage flows in the natural drainage between these lots where the common driveway is
proposed. These structures, if properly sized and constructed, will suffice for conveying the historic
drainage flows through the site. Accepted as proposed.
2
DRCAt6a96.DOC
Memo-Silverlode Subdivision PUD/Plat Amendment No. I
Lot 14: How will the drainage be conveyed through and/or around the proposed boulder wall to be
placed on the uphill side of this driveway? Where is the discharge point on to the public way of this
concentrated drainage discharge? Otherwise accepted as proposed.
2. Revised Subdivision Plat: The revised subdivision plat must be submitted for review and
acceptance by the Engineering Department prior to recording.
3. Design and Construction Requirements and Standards: The applicant has agreed to the
following design and construction requirements and standards:
• The 3 ft radius at the driveway intersection with the street is not accurately noted nor depicted in the
site plans. This requirement applies to the placement of fill material upon which the finished surface
of the driveway is constructed as well as the finished surface itself.
• The curb cut at the pavement edge will not exceed 18 ft in length, regardless of the angle of
intersection of the driveway to the street or public right-of-way.
4. Final Grading Plan: We require that the applicant meet with the Engineering Dept. and receive
approval prior to changing the approved grading plans and that a revised final grading plan be submitted
by the applicant whenever there is a change from the previously approved grading plan.
5. Construction Plans: The applicant has yet to submit construction plans for this project and
formalize permission to proceed with construction as required in Ordinance 52, (Series of 1994).
6. Drainage Plan: The drainage plans submitted to date are insufficient to completely
evaluate the effectiveness of the design and review the construction details. Additional detailed plans and
specifications are needed before continuing with the construction.
7. Dependence of Certificates of Occupancy Upon Acceptance of Public Work: Per the
requirements of Ordinance 52, (Series 1994), no Certificates of Occupancy will be issued until all public
improvements are completed, in place and accepted by the appropriate agency (Condition 19, Ordinance
52. Series 1994).
8. Salvation Ditch: The several unresolved issues impacting the Salvation Ditch, including
historic drainage patterns, required water feature along the ditch alignment, pedestri tra
an il along the ditch
alignment. recently discovered drainage basin and conduit into the existing open!ditch, and the adequacy
of the drainage study and proposed improvements will be discussed and reviewed in a separate meeting of
the concerned parties.
3
DRCNI6a96.DOC
Memo-Silverlodc Subdivision PUD/Plat Amendment No. I
Except as noted above, this application for establishing and revising residential driveway easements and
alignments is accepted. Future correspondence on this application shall be addressed directly to Ross
Soderstrom, 920-5087, Engineering Dept.
4
DRCM6a96.DOC
MEMORANDUM 4 F\,
TO: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development APP 0 2 1926
FROM: Rebecca Baker, Parks Department
DATE: March 29, 1996
RE: Silverload Subdivision, PUD/Plat Amendment#1
We have reviewed the proposed driveway locations and have particular concern about
Lot# 10 and it accessing across the 40 foot pedestrian access/utility easement. This is
not acceptable and the proposed design negates the use of this easement as an access
easement. From inspecting the site there should be no problem using the existing lot
boundary that fronts the street for a driveway for Lot# 10. The grades are not extreme
(appears to be 5-7%) and could be workable for a driveway. In addition, the 20'
driveway easement from Lot 11 that goes half way into the 40' pedestrian/utility
easement must be abandoned. It dead ends into the middle of the 40' area and is not
usable. As it appears from the drawing of the driveway location on Lot 11 it seems as
though there is no need for this easement anyway.
The final comment is the lower portion of the 40' easement that crosses through the
affordable housing section between Silverlode Drive and Williams Ranch Drive should
also have access through it. The grades should be made along Lots 9 & 10 to allow for
pedestrian access through this area.
•
CC: Ross Soderstrom, Engineering Department
WmRnchDR.doc
Exhibit G
O _ _ 10 i t
_ ,, �� I i
:1 ,777' \'1/?r: \'‘\ -- C.._ l'' )W4\1\jAk 1 --- --
1 ;
_/___/
1: \*S. . seAreat iy
r_s_____Th \\ ---\ \__N...._ 1 .t....:„i__L. ciao°,roolosierir.>%,,,,,, _-
�aa" _
11
�(�d eY' fie. �� \\L- wiims
t .
. o 2 ', wa e, e i
- la -iiirlik. ific L-- ..S'I P '- ' . ii-•
��� � :n Avon . e
,,* "� 4 4 ' •k.41 `�ii , e, 4 ;Project Site '-� e,
s
/ ao '. t!\'�il�llyy 44.1* � °$ 1 ' m0 ONO
d 27„, %'qt r: 1 .14,1 t a O G
l
1
,,Lersienineas-4,
X111 \1‘ e' �,Nce ..7\ ,/__ \A:Lytwei \' v
ic '
;II /11\\ 61"I'd \ ''''\' j°1k1 :Q1 \ t--v- wl \ t\--'' / 'K
o '"
64 -- ri G ..I Pits \
l �4:.� 1 :wry
7
..�� 00 \‘‘,/t„ ,\ i, \\ /,
34(' /jI , T' , m \ \) .
\y, t)e l'' .ci° . M LN\ + i' :os1/4t
\ --,-,N. 0 1416 ‘. ..
� Lc\°