Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
coa.lu.su.Gordon.19A86
W PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE PROJECTS GorjL7h Sojjivt�;on l pOO �, Stre�Ar�in RQvl,t,, APPLICANT'S' REPRESENTATIVE: State msttilS opr,d REPRESENTATfiVE'S PHONE: OWNERS NAME: S h2�rWn �� or� vh SUMMARY I 1. Type of Applications Pre-Q hcAlA aul p elir,+,NRr� W. �tr41t lit .l, do IISeA 2. Describe action/type of development being requested: 5. urk*t to V,14 a 2 1o,sd-dw'I'N AS kf- fy-ow 6b,dm5,4v;fir, LD� ° . / erg A c ces3 dwx., -Ut dit-h C vv S4), I f , I m Ls vs j" ,x I tip' 1,'nc S�i�e �oY bn L , 1�0 �0 ') ✓ 3. Areas in which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of reports requested: Policy Area/ Referral Agee Comments P,aM�r►'I _ cote({rns over PUD-r-ev,twl)joe3 cesljn,No-•,14Es)5itecover���Amy ,� h�j�i, Vl+vF� MPrctflar� �ttntlSG�,Oi�y�. S�e�fic, CDricerrly;r�lv�: rem►v�l ✓ f� i dJ,L, dtvel op�n� m fke dvff-sr eMrajow, Pl �� Nord v dr E t' 411 pYa�erfy S4h own Ckil.,�.WSJ,d•A�fr/��1�',,ft,�;,i_l,:`. Cf.cV, Fire WiArsflat +'n,,) � I�.���v4�� yo6q� �tvrn--A)bahi w;M/ � d Witty. Seri",�C to b1&• 4. Review is: &Z Only (CC/BOCC Only) (Pa8 then to CC/BOCC) S. Public Hearing: (YES) (NO)> 6. Did you tell applicant to submit list of ADJACENT PROPERTYI6v —w ; OWNERS? (YES) (NO)' Disclosure of Ownership: (YES) :"(NO) ?' 0o��p""k' �—% bob hvytlt ,5K 7. 'What fee was applicant requested to submit: ��rlR.ew� fo t-C11 8. Anticipated date of submission: 1+4��----- 9. COMMENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS. llpp),c'hi rior�o or,�lnVr,�J t IrGt►tfin W""� '�„ Psu1 T11jun� r�; �-� nM mt�• � Tem ��o?`t.__ - � �n�1r�t h�4t�� T4 IiGti7/lS11 S�bJ�� l�P/i : �. AP�O�)GJnI 5 G YD4 IgvC,(W,o 5,4. ririedikcn1 604J1'6,41JDCuWtl o s 4r4,++j 1 ' /�r(ui�l �vnI foir��re,2—!D y tip rt�r�Ies, o�� involy{1.�v�,.� conk,+'s Gppyov�'v1 Cv��Eirr..r `•.^, ,;L,n �.�,a;a,, e��f+,fsp �M?o4 vfm f. �. �000,1 iAelds to 12 5u4i, o D109-• res� C� 3.r�v��nnrk :nnl 1 S,�{ S — fr�.� k(b,�y �,f���hne.bw, Sfr ��►. 1�� J,r�C�nc�rns�(Qv� y• Ipts',�es Ih�. CAll 40) hiss A6 CoJm loty a PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PROJECT: �7 0 vA D0 � L;° j 5i�L I k9i0 APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: 5f4l, Zr� REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: O-iViy OWNERS NAME: 5 1d 4n e_' 01404 SUMMARY 1. Type of Application: 64,6 i"41 / prelmof4r.� 2. Describe action/type of development being requested: 3. Areas in which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of reports requested: Policy Area/ Referral Agent 4. Review is: (P&Z Only) (CC/BOCC Only) (PaZ then to CC/BOCC) 5. Public Hearing: (YES) (NO) 6. Did you tell applicant to submit list of ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS? (YES) (NO) Disclosure of Ownership: (YES) :(NO) 7. What fee was applicant requested to submit: 8. Anticipated date of submission: y 9 . COMMENTS/ UNIQUE CONCERNS: kcc, DOUGH FRANK 2141 EAST. HIGHLAND, *115 • PHOENIX. ARIZONA 85016 PHONES - HOME: (602) 956-0802 - OFFICE: (602) 955-9690 1 C G f U { N MAR 1 11987 March 6, 1987 Mr. Alan Richman, Director City of Aspen Planning Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear W. Richman: I reside at 1255 Riverside Drive and my property backs up to the Gordon Subdivision. This property has been the subject of recent zoning applications that will have an effect on my property. Inasmuch as I am out of town a good deal of the time, I would apprec- iate it if any notices concerning the Gordon Subdivision be sent to both my address in Aspen and to my address in Phoenix which is as follows: Doug Frank 5110 N. 32nd Street, #216 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Thank yo for your consideration. Sinc 1 , Do CIE . ank DEF:clh CC: Paul J. Taddune, City Attorney Steve Burstein, City Planner Robert Murray w MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney FROM: Steve Burstein., Planning Office RE: Gordon Subdivision Legal. Access DATE: February 3, 1987 Doug Frank questioned the validity of vehicular access to the Gordon Subdivision through Lots 7 and 8 of the Callahan Subdivi- sion in his October 1, 1986 letter. This memorandum contains the Planning Office evaluation of the issue and opinion on how the problem should be approached. HISTORY OF SUBDIVISIONS AND ACCESS EASEMENTS: The Callahan Subdivision was approved by the City on April 21, 1976. Lots 7 and 8 contain a 30 foot�,'sewer and water easement along the common property line; no access easement existed at that time. An easement was granted from Robert-S. Goldsamt to Jack E. Van Horn, Jr., Jane E. Van Horn and Reuben M. Ginsberg on September 23, 1976 (Book 316, page-961, Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder records) . This easement is referred to as a "Sewer Easement Across the Van Horn Tract". Granted is "a non-exclusive perpetu- al easement for ingress and egress and underground utilities only, over, across, in, through and under a strip of land 30 feet in width across a portion of Lots 7 and 8.... Callahan Subdivi- sion Pitkin County, Colorado, more particularly defined and described in the attached Exhibit A..." Robert S. Goldsamt, Fabienne Benedict and Fredric A. Benedict signed the Callahan Subdivision plat as the owners of the property. The Gordon Subdivision was approved by the City on 1979. \ Access to Lot 2 was as described above. Access to Lot 1 was based on another access easement through private property (b+eek-= 309, Page 165) . 8001C In a memorandum on conceptual subdivision/PUD review dated November 28, 1978 from City Engineer Dave Ellis, the issue of easements and access was generally discussed. Ellis wrote "...from reviews of earlier (Gordon development) proposals, we would anticipate that there are no significant problems with any of these easements, and the engineering department recommends conceptual approval at this time." No follow up on the status of access easements is evident in the file, and final plat approval was recommended by both the City Engineer and Planning Office. h sequently a single family house was built on Gordon Subdivi- sion Lot 1. Two separate GMP applications were submitted on December 1, 1983 and December 1, 1984 for residential development of Lot 2. Both were approved. The GMP allocation for the former project has since expired, while the latter continues to be a viable project. Finally in August, 1986 Sheldon Gordon requested conceptual and preliminary subdivision approval to build 2 single family homes on Gordon Subdivision Lot 2. This project involved neither of the prior GMP applications, but instead proposed use of the so- called "Lipkin TWO to develop the site. P&Z tabled action on August 19, 1986 due in large part to uncertainty over the legality of access. ISSUES: The private granting of access through the approved Callahan Subdivision/PUD was utilized for four City approvals: the original Gordon Subdivision, 2 GMP applications, and concept- ual review of the 1984 GMP resubdivision. There appears to be some degree of reliance on the ability to use the accesses described for development of the Gordon property. The City Subdivision regulations do not set out specific submission requirements or review criteria for access to proposed subdivi- sions. See Section 20-12(h), preliminary plat contents. w The problem of private easement conveyance is nonetheless very troublesome. Section 20`-5(c) Prohibited conveyances states "No t 4 loor parcel of land nor any interest there in, shall be trans ;�5 ferred, conveyed, sold, subdivided or acquired either in whole or a wy in part, so as to create a new nonconforming use or to avoid or awl circumvent or subvert any provision of this chapter."' It appears that the Goldsamt/Van Horn granting of easement was indeed a conveyance effecting Lots 7 and 8. The 30' road easement effects the developable area of the lot and sideyard set backs, as well as to create a use of Crystal Lake Road not anticipated in the Callahan Subdivision approval. An amendment to the Callahan Subdivision plat conveying this easement should be reviewed prior to or in conjunction with any other city reviews of resubdividing Gordon Subdivision Lot 2. I would be very interested if there is any case law that pertains to this issue. Doug Frank argues that the Gordon Subdivision should be considered illegal because of the problem. I am sure a lawsuit would result if the City took that position, and I do not know of any precedent in City action for declaring an 8 year old subdivision illegal because of roads. It seems preferable to try to undertake simultaneous reviews for an amendment to the Callahan Subdivision (for access through Lots 7 and 8 or for another access that the applicants are working on) and resubdivi- sion of Gordon Subdivision Lot 2. _Sau� There is another problem -with the access to Gordon's property. A -7 f t. wide hiatus exists between Gordon's property and the Callahan Subdivision which must be crossed by the pro osed driveway. I was told that the- owner, Fritz Benedict, will not °'s.� approve an easement across this property. SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends that the applicant be required to submit an amendment to the Callahan Subdivision/PUD for access through Lots 7 and 8 or any other access through this subdivision along with any request for further review of resub- dividing the Gordon Subdivision. The applicant must also resolve access across the Benedict hiatus. No building permit should be issued for development on Gordon Subdivision Lot 2 until these access issues are resolved. sb.34.1 CI MEMORANDUM DATE: November 3, 1986 TO:, Plann3 ng 4€-f-,c Engineering Department FROM: City Attorney RE: Gordon Subdivision Please comment on the attached letter from Doug Frank regarding the above matter. PJT/mc_ Attachment MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Gordon Property Lot 2 Subdivision Public Hearing Parcel ID# 2737-181-00-021 DATE: October 7, 1986 This applicants have requested that you table this case at this time in order to allow them time to make revisions to the submission. The Planning Office recommends that you table this case to a date certain of November 4, 1986. SB.17 DOUG FRANK 2141 EAST HIGHLAND. *115 • PHOENIX. ARIZONA 85016 PHONES - HOME: (602) 956-0802 - OFFICE: (602) 9W-9890 ' fl JCT October 1, 1986 Paul Taddune Attorney, City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Paul: The enclosed letter which was written prior to the approval of the Gordon Subdivision would seem to indicate that Gordon's attorney and others knew that the easement between Lots 7 & 8 could not be used for access to the proposed Subdivision. I doubt that the city was informed`of Cordon's knowledge at the time of the granting of this approval.. As the writer of the enclosed letter indicates, "If a vehicular easement was envisioned, it should have been dedicated at the time that the Callahan Subdivision Plat was filed;.I haven't the authority to alter that PUD," I think it is obvious to one and all that the Gordon Subdivision is illegal inasmuch as the Premises upon which it was.based, were not valid. It is incumbent -upon the city to revoke the Subdivision at this time and let Mr. Gordon reapply if he can meet the proper requirements of acces Sinter Doug asl�. ank DEF:clh J Enclosure cc: Stephen Burstein, Planner Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office September 2411986 TO:: THE ASPEN PLANNING & 20ING COMMISSION Welton Anderson, Chairman Ramona Markaunas Roger Hunt uist g Jim Columbo Al Bloom q David White Jasmine Tygre Mari Peyton FROM:. Bob Murray 1275 Riverside Drive 925-8793 home 920-2268 office On August 19th I met with you re_: the Sheldon Gordon plans ,for subdividing property adjacent to the Riverside Subdivision. At that time, Stan Mathis, Mr. Gordon's representative,. advised your panel that he'wished a decision that date in preference to the topic being tabled. when your panel denied by vote the Gordon plans, Mr. Mathis asked that you table the topic. The next meeting when this topic was to have been discussed was. scheduled for Tuesday, October 7th. I -rearranged leave plans to ensure that I would be present on October 7th. I also requested that I be included in any site examinations which Mr. Mathis would conduct for the Planning & Zor-ng Commission, Today I learned that Mr. Gordon's revised plans are not yet completed and that the October.7th.discussion has been post poned until November 4th. Having rearragned my plans to be present October 7th, I cannot 13e present on November 4th. It seems unfair advantage is being gained. by Mr. Gordon And Mr. Mathis in changing their request from a decision on August-19th to a table - and then to have extended time to revise their plans making it impossible for me to present my point'of view on November 4th. 1yllsv,� I would greatly appreciate your postponing discussion on this topic until I will be abbe to represent myself. Many thanks for your consideration. Low; n Ga Aspen/Pi 130 aspe Mr. Doug Frank 2141 E. Highland, #115 Pheonix, AZ 85016 Dear Doug, 0 ing Of f ice treet 31611 September 22, 1986 In response to your September 16, 1986 letter, I have the following comments: 1. I confirm your understanding that there is no access easement on the east side of Gordon Subdivision Lot 1. The Gordon Subdivision Plat, filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, Book 15 at Page 25, and given City of Aspen approval as shown by the signature of the Mayor of Aspen on August 8, 1983, is the current plat of record for this property. This plat shows a 30 foot wide General Utility Easement along the eastern border of Lot 1,•, distinguished from the 300 foot wide "Access and General Utility Easement" along the eastern border of Lot 2. 2. The current case under consideration, Gordon Subdivision, has been tabled and rescheduled bef ore the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 4, 1986 at the request of the applicant. The applicant is redesigning portions of the project and has not yet submitted the new application. If there is any change in the November 4 meeting date, the Planning Office will call you at your Phoenix Office. Sincerely, ASPEN/PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE Steve Burstein, Planner SB : jl-r DOUG FRANK 2141 EAST HIGHLAND. #115 • PHOENIX. ARIZONA 85016 PHONES - HOME: (602) 956-0802 - OFFICE: (602) 955-9690 September 16, 1986 Stephen Burstein, Planner Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 So. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Steve: I would appreciate it if you would advise me of the date and time that the Zoning Commission will have its meeting at the Gordon Property to examine the new proposal. I would like to attend that meeting and will need a few days notice inasmuch as I will be in Phoenix during that time. Stan Mathis stated at the hearing that there is no ingress and egress easement on.Lot 1 on the east side as there is on Lot 2 of the Gordon Subdivision. You confirmed this fact to me when I spoke to you recently and indicated that you would send a letter to that effect. I would appreciate it if I could receive that at your convenience. I have also brought up the point at the meeting with you and the City Attorney, as well as at the zoning hearing, that I felt that the Gordon Subdivision was not a legal subdivision inasmuch as it had been approved by the City with the understanding that there was legal access. They certainly would not have granted the subdivision approval if they were aware that the access was not legal. The designation of "Roads for the private use of the owners" in the subdivision plat of the Callahan Subdivision clearly indicates that this could not be used for public streets to other subdivisions. In addition, the error has been compounded because the private granting of the access easement between two lots in the Callahan Subdivision to the Gordon Subdivision without a public hearing also creates illegal access. If there was to be an amended road plan in the Callahan Subdivision, a public hearing would have been required for citizen inputs on the impact to the neighborhood. I believe that under the circumstances it is incumbent upon the City to rectify this problem before it is compounded by any further construction on -the property, and the subdivision should be declared illegal. If Mr. Gordon wishes to reapply he may do so and the citizens of the communty will have an opportunity to determine the direction of the road systems in the area, rather than having them bootlegged behind the backs of the City Planners. Thank ou for your consideration. Sin re1y� D uglas Frank DEF:cmm cc: Walter Anderson Chairman, Planning & Zoning Commission Aspen, Colorado 81611 Paul J. Taddune, City Attorney 130 So. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Robert Murray 1275 Riverside Drive Aspen, Colorado 81611 LA1-411ER'S - NGIIJEERS ,OX AO ;SHEN 81611 :OLOR/1D6 303) 925-3481 F I TZHUGH. SCOTT I I I , ATTORNEY AT LAVI . 117 SOUTH SPRING STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 RE: GORDON EASEMENT DEAR TAM: FRITZ ASKED PAT MADDAL'ONE AND IJE TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL FOR AN EASEtdc•t•IT FOR TH£ GORDON SUB- 01VIS10N. (PAT AND I FCRtdEP.LY OVI11£D THE "CALLAHAN" SURD I V I S-1 ON WI T-H' FRI TZ�. FRG'I.. A LEGAL STAt1DFO I NT 2 PAT AND I ARE MOST RELUC— TANT TO S I GN ANY DOCUWENT YIH I CH WOULD GRANT AN EASEMENT OVER LOTS SEVEN AND EIGHT AND WAY ALSO CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THAT PART OF THE CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION - IF A VEHICULAR EASEk.ENT WAS ENV I S I ONEDI • I T SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEDICATED -AT THE TIME THAT THE C:LLAHAN SURD. PLAT WAS FILED; I HAVEN'T THE AUTHORITY TO ALTER THAT PUD. FROM ANOTHER VIE-WPOI_NT ALTCGETHERq I CANNOT CONSIDER ENCOURAGING A Ri GHTOF WAY WHICH MIGHT PROVE DISTURBING TO OUR OLD FRIE1;11) AND NEIGHBOURS BOB MURRAY. 1. AIA SO SORRY ABOUT THIS, TAM I USUALLY TRY TO CO— OPERATE -WITH NEIGHBOURING LAND OVINERS. S I-NCERELY Y--URS j SEPT. 4/86 FABIENNE ,BENEDICT RECORD -OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING CONIS RSION AUGUST 19, 1986 Chairman Welton Anderson called the meeting to order at 5:03 PM with Commissioners Mari Peyton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre, Al Blomquist (arrived late), and Ramona Markalunas (arrived late) present. CONNISSIONERS' COMMENTS Hunt commented that he was happy to be holding this meeting in the old City Council Chambers (on the second ` floor of City Hall) and that he felt it was a more appropriate meeting space for this Commission. M_INOTRS August-5, 1986• Hunt moved to approve the minutes of August 5, 1986; Peyton seconded. All in favor motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING GORDON CONCEPT AL SUBDIVISION Steve Burstein, planner, explained the applicants request. He explained that the applicant had been given prior approval for the lot split creating the Gordon Subdivision Lots l and 2 giving the applicant the right to build one single family home on Lot 2. One development right has been purchased from Pitkin Limited for the new lot to be created. Anderson commented that parcel #2 was originally approved for 3 duplexes and is now going through the process again for 2 single family dwellings. Burstein added that a development right had been bought, therefore, the applicant -does- not have to compete for a GMP allocation. Hunt asked how many single lot splits an applicant could apply for. Burstein replied one. Hunt 'then asked if this property was a result of a previous lot split. Burstein showed the original Tot split plan explaining the applicant had purchased a development right, exempting them from the GMP process. Burstein explained the access to the property, outlining it on a map. He explained that there would be neighboring properties that may be effected by this access. Additionally, a number of trees will have to be removed. Burstein reviewed other concerns relating to the proposal 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR-igEETIN9 -PLANNING AND BONING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 198C (outlined in the Planning Office memorandum dated August 14, 1986). A Stream Margin review will be required, but would be more appropriate when more definite building plans are complete. Burstein said the Planning Office recommends approval subject to 17 conditions, outlined in the Planning Office memo dated Aug.14, 1986. Stan Mathis, project architect, gave the Commissioners a brief history of the previous lot split. Mr. Mathis explained that the driveway/access could not be a loop road, as suggested, because they have no easement past their lot line. Mr. Mathis also remarked that he had been contacted by the neighbors and agreed to fence off the access road with Ievergreen trees and stack the off street parking in a garage, to help in mitigating their problems. The Building Department has said the access roadway could be narrowed from the 1.6 feet" shown on the plans to 12 feet in width. Mr. Mathis said they would also agree to replace and relocate all trees disturbed for the access road. Mr. Mathis said they could agree to all of the approval conditions, with the exception of 411 which they could not agree to because of a condition of sale when the property was purchase- d. Blomquist asked what caused the access road to be placed in its proposed location. Mr. Mathis replied that it was a conditi- on of the sale, with Mr. Enloe, that there would be no easement across his property. Blomquist commented if the road` height was lowered about 2 feet then there would be no impact with headligh- ts on the neighboring properties. Mr. Mathis said they would look into that possibility but he was unsure of the elevation of the sewer in that area. The issue of the trail alignment in relation to the property was discussed. Blomquist suggested adding to approval condition 44` that "the applicant will construct a bridge, as shown, sufficient to accommodate the Piston Bulley". Anderson opened the public hearing. Bob Murray, neighboring property owner, showed pictures of his °- property in relation to the proposed development area. Mr. Murr- ay said his was the oldest house in the area and gave a brief history of the area. He explained that the impact to his house was not only the headlights of the oncoming vehicles but rather the closeness of those vehicles to his door. Additionally, it will block all of the views from Mr. Murray's house, toward Aspen Mountain. E la go RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1986 Doug Frank, neighboring property owner, said the area in discuss- ion is an important part of the- Aspen forest and should be planned with great sensitivity. The property is highly visible. Mr. Frank thought this proposal was not good planning, using a maximum amount of paving, takes out most of the forest area, creates spra=wliag single strums urges without utilizing the advantage of the _terrain, and creates a street instead of a forest area behind the neighboring houses. Mr. Frank said the plat presented, showing the wooded area, misrepresents the extent of that area in that the area is much larger than shown on the plat 3 Frank told the Commission the trees average 15 to 20 feet high and are not small trees. In 1983, the applicant was granted a subdivision creating two lots, and the approval was state it was a one time only approval for a house on lot 1 and a new single family residence on lot 2. Frank told P & Z in 1985 the applicant made another request, which was not granted a t public hearing and the neighbors were not notified. Frank said the applicant cannot develop two houses without destroying the forest area and he should not be granted approval. Frank contended the applicant has not shown the Commission what development would be most suitable for the land. Frank said if this request is granted, the applicant will be back asking for more lot splits and density. Frank showed slides of the area in consideration, the surrounding area, and the access to the site. Frank pointed out it is possible the Gordon subdivision is not a legal subdivision because the facts the city relied upon were not accurate. The Callahan� subdivision roads are reserved on the plat for the private use of the owners of that subdivision and this road cannot be used as access to the Gordon subdivision. Frank submitted a petition from residents in the area stating these plans for development would be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood and to the environment. Frank said he feels the applicant has failed to show the ",'lack ' of adverse effect- of the proposed ~developpnent" as required by the Coder that this request should be denied. Frank showed, if the plan should be approved, where better access could be gained with half the pavement and not devastate the entire forest area. Frank said the proposed building envelopes are large and sprawled all over. Frank said the applicant should be willing to abandon any easements not used. Taddune said the issue should be addressed and from a planning perspective this is where it should be accessed. Taddune said if the project is going to proceed, it should proceed well planned and as harmonious as possible. Anderson asked what could be done about the easements , betwee;lots �7 n and 8' but something can be done about readjusting access within the property that is under review by P & Z. Taddune asked the applicant if they would abandon certain easements to an assurance to the city. Scott told the Commission that Gordon has nothing to say about lot 1, which belongs to Enloe. Stan Mathis noted part of the concern is the thought of further development. The planning office has asked for a deed restriction for this to be privately maintained open -'space, for the benefit of the city, and Gordon has agreed to that. Mathis pointed out at the time this lot split was approved, no public notice was required. Anderson closed the public hearing. Blomquist said he is in favor of this application. Ms. Markalunas said she is not in favor. Anderson explained the first lot split split off the Enloe house west of this parcel. Then there was a GMP competition and development rights were granted to 3 duplexes. Anderson questioned how an applicant could convert a GMP allocation into another lot split. Ms. Peyton asked how many times an owner could split a lot. Anderson answered normally only once. Taddune explain about Pitkin Reserve, is this necessary? °Hunt.-saidheis worried about the history,of he access to this property and would like to see past P & Z minute 6. Ms. Tyg r e said she is uncomfortable with the situation. It could be true the applicant could condemn access to a public road, it should be done; with the approval of other members of the subdivision. Ms.' Tygre said she does not feel the design of the access is the best for this property and would not like to see it build they was it is shown. Anderson said he does not feel the access is as sensitive as it could be. Anderson said he fee-ls.the suggestion of accessing both houses with one road - is very worthwhile. Also moving tho house down the hill is a good suggestion. Anderson said he feels the subdivision should be denied. The concerns expressed at the meeting could be looked at and addressed. Anderson requested the Commission get more bac:kgr,ound on this application. :Mathis requested staff set up a site visit- for the ,Commission, and he wr11 stake the building envelopes. Hunt moved to table this application to October 7; seconded by Blomquist. Roll call vote; Ms. Tygre, yes; Hunt, yes; Ms. Peyton, yes; Ms. Markalunas, yes; Blomquist, yes; Anderson, yes. Motion carried. Stcn Mcthls Architecture and Planning TtrFSE UUmJ3ERS ACE WH19T / coyne UP w ITH AFTER perLffEGK IVCx Trfe p/zl=vrou5 F=16FUPES PRO VI DE✓0 F5Y 5c++NEuSE R , Cro2Doti1 I M ErEe �NLsIr.1E��S. MINE Ar24�7 w I-TH1N I% OF-rHEws"rtl EY A2E )"!;EO dJ A Z' Go"Tourz J1JrEr2vAL FROM AU AE21 A(� 5012VE`r. Toe FL[xD- FLAIKJ IS V-)eom THE HOST RELErJT 6TO1.3Y T}4AT Tf}E CITY �N�InJE /tiGz UFFIGE SUPPL( so ME LAST SG/2IA-JCz_ LAKr2Y �. ;. 1 �- �` � '� � ._ . ,1 __ _ __ _ . _- - __ _. _. _: _ _ _ -_ �.- 1,�- �.. __ � .. J � � � �" �� � �..�., _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ __ I r 31 ! 17 _ - -0 c© 2z, 3 cow -- goal AOQI' L I o C a C� t ,_ TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning ,Commission FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Gordon Property Lot 2 Subdivision Public Hearing Parcel ID# 2737-181-00-021 DATE: August 14, 1986 LOCATION: Lot 2 Gordon Subdivision, City of Aspen, accessed off Crystal Lake Road and Riverside Drive, bordered by the Roaring Fork River on the south and east_ ZONING: R-15 (PUD) APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The Applicant requests conceptual and preliminary subdivision approval (excepting the Applicant .frOm the conceptual steps due to the insubstantial size of the development) to build two (2) single-family homes on a 2.187 acre site., Prior approval for the lot split creating Gordon Subdivi- sion Lots 1 and 2 gave the applicant the right to build one (1) single-family home on Lot 2. One development right has been purchased from Pitkin Limited for the new lot to -be created. BACKGROUND: On August 15, 1983, City Council granted to Sheldon W. Gordon an exception from the full subdivision process and an exemption from the Growth Management Quota System to split his property into two (2) lots. Subsequently, the Applicant participated in the GMP competition in 1983 and 1984, for additional development of Gordon Subdivi- sion Lot 2. In February, 1984, Council granted allotment through Resolution 84-7 for the development of three (3) duplexes on the property, consisting of three 3-bedroom free market units and three 1-bedroom employee units. The Applicant submitted a second residential growth management application on December 1, 1984, for Gordon Subdivision Lot 2 merged with six (6) lots of the Callahan. Subdivision. This application called for three (3) free-market units on the Gordon property and six free market units in the Callahan Subdivision and was also aDvroved. For purposes of this review, both GMP proposals are defunct. The Applicant is using one (1) free-market development right assigned by Pitkin Limited on April 23,- 1986 to Sheldon W. Gordon to 1 N accomplish this two (2) lot free-market subdivision. The site consists of four (4) physical sub -areas: (1) a plateau on the same approximate level as the Aspen Club parking lot, on the western edge of which runs the Riverside Irrigation Ditch; (2) hillside area with slopes up to 40 percent sloping toward the river; (3) plateau area directly adjacent to the river; and (4) steep river bank in the southwest corner of the land. There are presently several areas of thick brush and aspen groves. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE: The Applicant has requested that this application be handled as a subdivision exceptiOn utilizing the preliminary subdivision/PUD review criteria for P&Z and the final subdivision/PUD review criteria for Council, because so many aspects of the project have already been reviewed in prior applications. The Planning Office has worked witH the Applicant to obtain a submittal sufficient in detail for preliminary review. Procedures and contents of preliminary subdivision plat submittal are set in Sections 20-11 and 20-12 of the Municipal Code. It is the responsibility of the Applicant to "show the reasonableness of (his) application and plan, its conformity to the design requirements of this Chapter, the Lack of adverse effect of the proposed development, and the compliance with the intents and purposes of this (Subdivision) Chapter," according to Section 20- 6., Planning Commission responsibilities for review are stated in Section 20-9(b) and (c), as follows: " (b) The Planning Commission may deem land premature for subdivision when subdivision approval would create growth patterns of such physical form and size that governmental inefficiencies, duplication of facilities and unnecessary public costs and financial burdens may result from providing the extension of public services, and planned support facilities cannot be accomplished in a planned, ordered or efficient manner. (c) No Subdivision of land shall be approved which includes elements not in conformance with the provisions of any applicable zoning ordinance or other ordinance of the City of Aspen or law or regulation of the State of Colorado Because the Gordon Property is designated mandatory planned unit development, the development is also subject to the requirements of Section 24-8 of the Municipal Code. While most of the submittal requirements and review criteria are parallel to subdivision, there are several areas of concern in the PUD regulations pertinent to this project review. Architecture, landscaping and design features must be addressed in the preli- minary plan, according to Section 24-8.9. In addition, reduction 2 in density for slope consideration must be calculated, as provided for in Section 24-8.18. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: A. Referral Agency Comments - The following comments were received regarding this application. 1. Engineering Department - Major concerns stated in Chuck Roth's August 11, 1986 memorandum include: a. Water rights issues (regarding the Riverside Ditch that traverses the property and City of Aspen municipal water) should be addressed by the City Attorney. b. All waterline work must be done in accordance with City waterline specifications. C. All utilities should be underground, as was a condition of previous approval. d. The Applicant should continue to agree to join improvement districts. e. Slope reduction and land under water calculations should be corrected. f. Stream Margin Review must be approved prior to issuance of a building permit for structures within 100 feet of the high water line or within a flood hazard area. g. Any modification to the Riverside Ditch or ditch easements should be approved by the Ditch Company and such agreements submitted to the City Engi- neering Department for acceptance. 2. Water Department Jim Markalunas stated in a July 10, 19 86 , memorandum, that he had no further comments. In a memo dated December 13, 1985, Mr. Markalunas stated that the looping of the water main (still proposed) will improve reliability of service and upgrade the existing neighborhood distribution system. 3. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District - In a message from Heiko Kuhn, it- is noted that the eight (8) inch collection line contemplated must be built according to District specifications. 4. City Attorney - On August 13, 1986, the City Attorney stated that the Applicant shall show proof that the 3 W conditions of the Acc Callahan Subdivision S. Goldsamt and Jack met, therefore making particular, Condition agreement calls for strip of paving by easement lapses. If easement or a renewed access which exists t o ess and Utilities Easement across Lots 7 and 8, made between Robert E and Jane E. Van Horn, have been the easement still valid. In No. 7 of the September 20, 1976 construction of a 22 foot wide September 1, 1978, or else the the Applicant does not have this easement, there appears to be no the property. 5. Fire Marshall - In a memorandum dated August 13, 1986 from Jim Wilson, it is pointed out that the fire access is inconsistent with minimum fire department access. Alternative methods of fire protection, including fire sprinkled houses should be explored. Jim Wilson verbally stated that the proposed driveway width of 16 feet should not be reduced for reasons of emergency access. In addition, the proposed connection between Crystal Lake Road, Centennial Circle and Riverside Avenue is not necessary for emergency access. B. PLANNING OFFICE COMMENTS: In addition to the above comments from referral agencies,- the Planning Office has the follow- ing comments: 1. Many of the conditions of approval made by City Council during conceptual subdivision/PUD review on July 8, 1985, are still applicable. They have been carried forward in our recommended conditions of approval for this application. 2. The Crystal Lake Road - Riverside Avenue loop could potentially cause a great deal of traffic from and to the Aspen Club through a residential -area. This traffic should be confined to the Aspen Club property and not routed through the neighborhood. The Appli- cant's architect, Stan Mathis, has verbally suggested a gate system to limit traffic to the use of the resi- dents of this project and the Gordon Subdivision Lot 1 resident. We have not yet received a specific propos- al, but anticipate that one will be presented at the P&Z meeting. It appears that there is no need for the loop as Lot 1 already has access, and the Fire Marshall has not required the loop as necessary emergency access. In the interest of minimizing pavement and potential traffic, we recommend that the drive only serve Parcel 1 and not -complete the connection to Riverside Avenue. 3. There are advantages and disadvantages to the access _4 and driveway shown in this submittal oompared to the prior 1983 GMP plan given conceptual approval In its favor, the Plan provides a width acceptable to the Fire Marshall and shorter in distance requiring less ground coverage. Disadvantages include the necessity of removing_ more aspen trees, somewhat steeper grade (8 percent) and the need for some retaining_ wall. Both plans remain the same with regard to proximity to the property lines and the consequent effect on neighbors backyards and the -specific problem of the Callahan easement segment allowing car lights shining in the windows of the 1275 Riverside Drive residence. An alternative access has been suggested by neighbors that would entail Mr. Gordon obtaining an easement through Callahan Subdivision Lot 9 or the Maddalone Property, then entering the Gordon Property through the plateau meadow adjacent to the river. The potential advantages of this access are removal of driveways and parking areas near existing neighbors, nutting fewer trees on the Gordon property and not needing to traverse the hillside with a driveway. The Planning Office believes that there are ways to mitigate problems with the Applicant's proposal which should be implemented, The driveways should be well screened from neighbors on the Gordon property. Vegetation is preferable screening; some fencing may be necessary. Pavement should be reduced to the extent possible. While the aspen trees that would be removed are not especially large, they contribute to the forested character of this area and should be retained or replaced to better screen the paved areas and houses. The prior landscape plan called for more and larger trees to be Planted, and a similarly abundant landscaping scheme should be created for this subdivi- sion application. The two 5-bedroom houses do not appear to be signifi- cantly smaller than the three duplexes given allocation through the GMP process. The change in total bedrooms on the site has been reduced from 12 to 10. Environ- mental impacts of this proposal on the site appear to be of similar magnitude and require similar mitigation efforts. 4. We would like to see the top house sited to take better advantage of existing grassy areas and require fewer trees to be removed. 5. The Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recrea- tion/Open Space/Trails Element adopted July, 1985, 5 shows a proposed bridge from Gordon's property to Ute Children's Park. Two trail segments are also shown extending north along the Roaring Fork River bank and extending east across the Gordon Property to link with Riverside Drive. The Applicant has already dedicated an easement for the bridge and the trail leading north. The eastern trail segment has not been worked into the current development plan. This trail was not called for in prior reviews because the plan was not adopted. Several alternatives have been discussed with the Applicant for compliance with the Trails Master Plan. a. The Applicant has proposed to pay for construction of the pedestrian bridge in exchange for not dedicating a trail easement across his land. b. A Trail Easement can be aligned from the bridge, traversing the hillside, then following along the northern property boundary. At this border of the property, the trial ends, because no easement through Riverside Subdivision Lots 16 or 17 isyetin place. c. A trail can be constructed following the eastern boundary of the Gordon Subdivision located in the hiatus between the Gordon Subdivision and the Riverside Subdivision. These options are still being considered at this time. The Planning Office will have a recommendation to P&Z at your meeting. 6. The Planning Office agrees with the Engineering Department that the Stream Margin Review should be conducted when there are more definite building plans for the two homes. Given the conceptual nature of the footprints, and the large building envelopes including many trees, it is not possible at this time to evaluate all factors related to the Stream Margin Review. 7. The preliminary subdivision/PUD approval should establish the parameters of materials, height and bulk of buildings as required in Section 24-8.15, "Archi- tectural Review" of the PUD Ordinance. While there seems to be no purpose served in requiring final designs at this stage, the P&Z should be satisfied with the appearance of the houses, relationof these houses to their sites and surrounding land uses, and the need for clearing of the property. The objective of this architectural review is, in our 6 opinion, to encourage the proposed houses to complement the heavily wooded character of the area and the riverside. Natural building and roofing materials seem most appropriate, as have been proposed in the archi- tectural renderings. The east elevation of the sample house shows the peak of the roof at 24 feet, which we feel is an appropriate maximum height except where screened by trees. Calculation of the maximum allow- able FARs and the proposed size of houses will be presented at the P&Z meeting. 8. As required in Section 24-8.19 of the Municipal Code, open space should be designated on the Final Plat and a legal instrument setting forth a plan for the permanent care and maintenance of open space should be submitted to the satisfaction of the City Attorney. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Gordon Subdivision Preliminary Plat subject to the following conditions 1. The Applicant shall verify with the City Attorney, that the Grant of Easement allows for the usage of the access associated with the two (2) houses proposed to the Gordon Property from Crystal Lake Drive and through Lots 7 and 8 of the Callahan Subdivision prior to approval of the Final Plat., 2. A Stream Margin Review shall be initiated and conducted prior to the Final Plat hearing by City Council. 3. Prior to Final Plat Approval, the Applicant shall provide the necessary documents to convey to the City of Aspen, water rights to the Riverside Irrigation Ditch in an amount corresponding to the additional use of the proposed three duplexes as far as legally possible.. 4. Trail and bridge easements shall be shown on the Final Plat. 5. Prior to Final Plat Approval, open space shall be designated on the Final Plat and a legal instrument setting forth a plan for the permanent care and maintenance shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the City Attorney., 6. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, park dedication fees for each new unit shall be paid. 7. Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, all water and sewer line work must be accomplished in accordance with the City Water Department and Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District specifications, respectively. 7 IR 9. The Applicants shall agree to join all improvement districts affecting this property and shall state such commitment in a Statement of Subdivision. 10. Prior to issuance of any buildings permits, slope reduction calculations shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the City Engineer., 11, The driveway to the house on Parcel 1 shall end there and not continue north ;to Gordon Subdivision Lot 1. 12 New site and landscape plans showing less pavement, accurate building footprints, more abundant vegetation screening of driveways and buildings and a fence as may be necessary to block lights shining into the house at 1275 Riverside Drive shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Planning Office prior to Final Plat Approval., 13. Exterior lighting on the property shall be minimal to reduce impacts on neighbors. 14, Natural building and roofing materials shall be used. The peak of the roof of the house on Parcel 1 shall not exceed 24 feet in height except where there is an existing stand of trees that provides screening to the east. FAR shall be limited to ____ on Parcel 1 and _ on Parcel 2. 15. A Statement of Subdivision shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the City Attorney prior to recordation of the Final Plat. 16, A Final Plat conforming to Sections 20-15 and 20-16 shall be recorded with the County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 17, An improvements agreement and guarantee shall be filed pursuant to the requirements of Section 20-16 of the Municipal Code to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department and City Attorney for: (a) the provision of water and sewer line connection; (b) landscaping on the site. The improvements agreement shall be in place prior to Final Plat approval SB.2 N Az nci4ws / —7 'e� 4��17 allzy( I�lr - � MEMORANDUM To: Steve Burstein, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, Assistant City Engineer C Date: August 11, 1986 Re: Gordon Property Conceptual Subdivision 1. This property has been reviewed a number of times and has been granted approvals. The city attorney and the city water attorney should be consulted as regards water rights issues of the approval. It appears from the Lot Split agreement dated August 15, 1983, that the applicant was divide the granted approval to parcel into Lots l and 2 with conditions relating to water rights, use and supply which should be carried forward and/or amplified upon. 2. The Engineering Department requests ,that an conditioned upon agreement to improvement y a pproval be current language available rthe from thecityattorney'soffice. 3. Details of waterline extensions as regards the requirement for looping, the size of the line, and location of fire hydrants should be obtained from the Water Department. All waterline work must be in accordance with city waterline specifications. The plans indicate the waterline extennions as VCP. This reviewer does not know what VCP pipe is. Ductile iron pipe is required for city water main extensions. 4. The following utilities should be contacted to see need utility easements: if they Holy Cross Electric Association, the City Water Department and the Sanitation District. City is currently engaged on a utilities undergroundin Since the all utilities installed by the g project, was a condition of the previous project should be buried. This . approval. 5• Since th Subdivision, i created lots tion) and Lot It is further be handled as 6. This errors e application is to subdivide Lot 2 of the Gordon t is suggested that the designations for the newly be Lot 2A (referred to as Parcel 1 in the applica- 2B (referred to as Parcel 2 in the application). suggested that at the time of platting, the action an amendment to the Gordon Subdivision and plat. application appears to contain similar mathematical as regards to the developable area calculations as appeared in the Gordon/Callahan application of December 1984. Per Section 24-8.18(a)(2), "for lands between 21% and 30%, the density shall be reduced to 50%" and "for lands between 31 and 40%, the density shall be reduced to 25%.« The showed 75% and 50% respectively for the calculationsapplItals o appears as though the area under water does not appear It also correctly presented. This reviewer finds 0.47 aces(20,288 square feet) to be under water on the two parcels. If the applicant desires to reaccess the allowable area for development, the Engineering Department would need to see some additional calculations and mapping for the area under water and corrections to existing calculations for the slope reductions. of the allowable floor area calculations will havThe remainder e to be checked and verified by other city staff. 7. The 1973 Trail System Plan shows a riverside trail which appears to follow the river through Lot 2, Gordon Subdivision, to the lower Aspen Club Bridge. This portion of the trail is shown on the east side of the river from the Cooper Street Bridge. 8. Note that prior to obtaining building development on these parcels which would be considered permitswithin100 feet of the'high water line or within the 100-year floodplain, a Stream Margin review application must be filed and approved. Also prior to any issuance of building must obtain permission from the Sa lvationtSDitche Companyapplicants regards modifications to easements whic supplied to the CityEn h agreements shall be Engineering Department for acceptance. 9. The plans must be reviewed by the fire marshall for accepta- bility of access and turn -around for emergency vehicles, especi- ally fire vehicles. Cc: City Attorney City Engineer Water Superintendent CR/cr/gordon.l ASPEN♦PITKIN REGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT orl MEMORANDUM Date: August 13, 1986 TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Office FROM: Jim Wilson, Fire Marshal c 1`✓ SUBJECT: Gordon Property Conceptual) Subdivision 1 have reviewed the conceptual submission for the Gordon Property Subdivision, and find the Fire Department access nc ron- Blatant with minimum standards. Access " eadways" for fire equipment must be 20 feet wide, clear and unobstructed, and extend to within 150 feet of all exterior walls of any building. What has been proposed is an access "driveway". The major difference between e roadway" and a "driveway" Is m'drivewaneays" "roadways" saremaintained virtually assured by a public agency and cad ee red o "r vay" while this proposed "driveway" schemehassuch assurance. All walls of the houses, as situated, a not within 150 feet of a publicly maintained "r oadway". Alternate methods, to include fire sprinklered houses,can be considered and should be explored. JJW:lo abgp.jw offices: ad address: S17 Emec Hopkins Avenue 506 East Mein Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303 R5-5973 Aspen, Colorado 81611 ASPEN/PITRIN PLAh.AG OFFICE_ _ 230 S. Galena Street a Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1020 Dear'►'-' This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its preliminary. review of your du ivts40^ application for complete- ness. We have determined that your application is complete. is not complete. The additional items we will require are as follows: Disclosure of ownership tone copy only needed) .' s8n� s Ea .crd t _v Adjacent pr4aac �pertywners list�one copy only nee ded).aO"� Additional copies ofentireapplication. a,b�'si ._ Authorization by owner for representative to submit application. Response to 'the attached list of items demonstrat- ing compliance with the applicable policies and regulations of the Code, or other specified materials. A check in the amount of $ is due. Since your application isAromplete, we have scheduled it for review by the _--HZ- on �r _s vik We will be calling you if we need any additio awl information prior to that date. In any case, we will be calling you several days prior to your hearing to make a copy of the review memorandum available to you. Please note that it (is) (is not) your responsibility to post your property with a sign, which we can provide you. B. Since your application is incomplete, we have not scheduled it for public review at this time. When we have received the materials we have requested, we will be happy to place you on the next available agenda. Please feel free to call S-l6u�rs�r, who is the planner assigned to this case, if you have any questions. Sincerely, Y ASPEN/PITXIN PLANNING OFFICE A?anichman, Plannin and Development Director AR:jlr ham. �c,bl s °0s 4£ 5 .Y Dear Friends & Neighbors on Riverside Drive. - It's important that you are aware of Sheldon Gordon's proposal to develop his property adjacent to Riverside Drive. Some years ago, Mr. Gordon assured me that only two houses could be built on his property. -One is now complete at the end of Riverside AVENUE and we're all well acquaintedwith i t. The second house was always presumed to be down along the banks of the Roaring Fork -- and that house is one -half of his new plans for subdivision. He. has added a very large house to abut the Riverside Drive lots -- And an access for both new houses to come in from the Aspen Club (the residences are planned for five cars each). This will.have profound and detrimental impact upon my residence at 1275 Riverside Drive and will affect perhaps less drastically, Your residences. Please read the attached description of the proposed Gordon Subdivision and my letter to the Planning & Zoning Commission Aspen City Council Any support or;advice on this will be most welcome. Thank you, inc 1 � Bob Murray 1275 Riverside Drive 925-8793 home 920-2268 office ..�,, Ntuperty is scheduled for Mr* Gordon has ahead two residences onl very Large house. ro y built. The y, one of which Present Proposal, adds another Of concern to the nieghborhood of Riverside Drive and in particular to the signature to these new houses:Of letter, is the via the Aspen Clubproposed driveway approach directly into the Propert s entrance road and y from Centennial Circle. The Engineering Department advised me access was ring el some years ago Private road dubiously y legal insofar as it was a 9 that fh s don't compound thasndaccess. The Planning Department's offa be examined. epartment's records legality of this road might Nonetheless, this approach, if approved y residence ' will head cars directly into Porch. Headlights -at night and theprelatiVeithin a few yards of m the oldest in Riverside Subdivision y host. Unless some alternativeprivacy which my house, house intolerable to live in. i3d years) will be dramatically vein, is found it will probably make my An equally viable approach might be found via (as apposed to Riverside Drive) It seems appropriate,iverside Avenue to encourage past Mrs Gordon'sG°rdexisting ou se. instead of impingingu 9 to consider that alternative Pon his neighbors. The houses which. Mr. the Riverside Subdivisionohomesnandare enormous in comparison to complementing such estates will createhsignificantthe ntraff of vehicles The drastic effect traffic. can be seen by si will have upon my residence in _1 a visit to the site. particular I lould appreciate very Cordon's proposal to �' much your most severe examination of Mr. his Proposed access road dwill have ivide his Property Riverside Subdivision neighbors. f not ll the effect if not all, of his zncer y,be t MurrayRobe 925-8793 home 920-2268 office STAN MATHIS orchlitecture Ord planning P.O. box 1984 aspen, colorodo 81612 May 30, 1986 Aspen,.Pitkin County Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81612 RE. The Gordon Property Planning Staff: This submission seeks to gain approval of,prelimina ry -plat for the lots to be used for the construction of single family residences-withinexisting of separate P.U.D, zone. RIS, The property is described as lot two of the Gordon Subdivision. to the Roaring Fork River and west of Centennial Circle and Riverside Dr. it is loca tedcoaddjaacent approximately 2.19 acresparcel owned by the applicant, Sheldon'Gordon. ins . Thea applicant does not own nor have an option to purchase any adjacent propert The y The applicant has purchased one development right f construction of one freerom Pitkin Limited, which allows the -market, single famil yenceGMP, or (b) provide any employee housing or.casheindlieu hereoufhaving to go (a) through It is the intention of the applicant to develop a residence on parcel two a deuce on the market for sale. The a and put the resi- pplicant intends to then construct a residence on parcel one and to retain ownership for his personal use. Major emphasis in this proposal has been placed on. creating two individual maximum separation and privacy. By creating only two units, both physical anut nivisualh impacts on the sight can be reduced, reinforcing the concepts of separation and privacy. cy. The main access to the two lots will be throe h an existin access and utilit easement acres tie Callahan u ivis on rom Centennial Circle. provided as s i do cafe on s eef°. Hard surface paving wil r. Ut`lities will be extended through the same easement from Centennial Circle. Water service and fire protection will be provided by connecting existing water lines as indicated on sheets one and seven. g shown on�she f ve Fan runobst acted ;width .af,y 22' Re `AGMR 0S4Y4 pragos maintenance _e. ui went to. ,theroperty. The ac ' adequate €oraccess ,by fire and , - 4 - �_._� access.drive is _ �.�y.w.., �._.._ tenrial Circle across the property and conned `o""erside Dranned-.tn..roat ro Cen- �r »; ,�...:.:_. ... tic#, @..�. m so 2s to provide a "K" e d turn to enable fire and maintenance equipment'toiturrias b e a ned the property. j The site is suitable for this tdevelopment e analysis on sheet two) and therepare noapparenttgeologici Itshazards. few steepsections (see slope went will not have any adverse effects on the natural watershed of theeDe site. Detention proposed develop - ponds have been provided to slow runoff from hard surface areas and prevent the resulting -rosion and pollution. g MATHIS 0. box 1984 and planning pen, colOrOcb 81612 Slopes resulting from regrading for drivewa tect them from erosion. Ys and buildings w only: where necessary Regrading of the site has been ke t ill be revegetated to of detention Y to provide an 8� slo P to a minimum. Pro Ponds and to Provide P at driveways, to allow for It is shown e positive drainag the installation Adverse effects on a away from the ProPosed residences, are planned for the air. Quality caused .b both residences. Y this Proposal will be minimal. may be allowed in other However, Will this Fireplaces Proposals, the`potentiau for is proposal contains fewer units than On both parcels ? air Pollution has been. reduced. parcels. � the residences cane. have This can be accomplished because�k out lower levels at this with little or no the,, have the riverside of the from the P regrading of t Y been, sited in locations which allow Proposed trail. which crosses site. The residences are both residents and trail users a held back site in the northwest corner. This affords desired privacy aloe This proposalforg the river... compared two single family residences P to a more dense provides man than would be likely with proposal. Grading of existing Y desired Qualities when have been maintained b Proposal containingg top°8aphy is much ;less severe the a y setting more units. The existin appearance of multi-stor g the residences into the slopes g iar,& farms large amount of y structures. sy limiting peg on the site, thus avoiding natural terrain remains unaBy li ti the a number of. tractive considering units to tte.wo, a g the adjacent uses and the amount of river frontage on -This is the sit at - Proposed architecture will make a mountain environment. use of materials with colors the site. 11 be similar fie• earth tones and roughand textures a The filar to that which exists on textures appropriate in eight for proposed architecture. the adjacent Property 3 The of which in the RIS Maximum buildin P perty to the north. See sheet zone, 25 feet. Maximum 8 height will be the it consists largely of Existing vegetation on the site is indicated sheet tas Is hree. g Y cottonwoods mixed The Proposed Of plan is indicated n tsheetesiXnditr°und cover of ee, materials, coniferous native grasses. deciduous and ornamental. ' Provides a varlet is to provide screening between the The major focus of. the y of plant The existing irrigation ditch. Proposed residences and from landscape Plan residence on Parcel one. may be relocated and inco the adjacent propert3es. end stream Mention ponds have been incorporated into the design of the Pollution n controlling rporated to help prope�y� � irrigation system ng the rate of runoff from the impervious cover onthe the proposed vegetation. Y �l be installed to aid ih establishing and rive` maintaining ,parking,,p � are indicated for each residence. ;ence will contain four �.�....,.„. t is edrooms. This would allow two Ispacesnforitheea that each resi- ne for each additional bedroom. The total anticipated P ed Population is lOroperty owner and evelopment and construction are id of the residence to scheduled as follows. id of a by fall residence be located on Parcel Construction of two shall begin in spring the access drive 'ring 1988 and be com Construction of the .residence o g 1987. plete by fail I989. n Parcel one It shall be �incide with the developmentInstallation of shall begin in the ntennial Circle and Riverside Dr. she hall beinstalled unities and Zandsca in it will Parcels. The proposed driveway P connecting Provide access for fire a fled when Y connecting equipment. initial construction begins, ........ ..... . .. 4; W PUBLIC NOTICE RE: GORDON PROPERTY CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION Parcel ID# 27 37 -181 -0 0 _0 21 NOTICE Tuesday, IS HEREBY GIVEN August 19� that a public hearing will be held on before the City 1986, at a meeting Chambers, 13Q SY Council of Aspen g to begin at y C Council Galena Street Colorado, in City Council application submitted b ' Aspen, Colorado, to consider an subdivision to y Sheldon Gordon requesting approximately subdivide an unimprosed conceptual contain a 81,900 s. f into two se parcel consisting of along the Roaring family dwelling The p parcels, each to g unit. The property is located g Fork River on Riverside Drive in Aspen. For further information, contact the AS e Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado 81631 p n�Pitkin Planning 223 . (303) 92 5-2020 , ext. SLC�etton Antler ��r Chairperson, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the.. A City of Aspen Account. en on July 3l� 1986. NA Ate. ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: STEVE BITRSTEIN, FROM: JIM MARKA;LUNAS PLANNINGGFFI E 4- SUBJECT: GORDON PROPERTY CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION � DATE: JULY. 101 SIGN 1986 We have reviewed the ------------------------------- above referenced a than those PP7zcation and have no additional comments other he previously JNi: ab stated. I hereby certify that on thi 198 , a �true and correct �_� day, o f ropy of the attached fi1a c40P—ublic xearin was deposited in the United States mail, first-class posi-aae nrez)ai.d. to the adjacent property owners as indicated on the a-ttaclied-lis-t of adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Plannaing office by the applicant in regard to the case named on the public notice. ';cC Cre i 19 STAN MATHIS PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. Title Insurance Company 601 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 DATE: JUNE 26, 1986 (303) 925-1766 Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the State of Colorado hereby certifies the following list is a current list of adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the subject property set forth on Schedule "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof, as obtained from the most current Pitkin County Assessors Tax Roll. NAME AND ADDRESS BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION SHELDON M. GORDON 11611 SAN VICENTE BOULEVARD, SUITE 515 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90049 RIVERSIDE JOINT VENTURE C/O ENLOE P.O. BOX 225644 DALLA, TEXAS 75265 ANTHONY KASTELIC 570 SOUTH RIVERSIDE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 LUIS SNEIDER SYVIA SNEIDER LEIZOREK CARLOS SNEIDER PATRICIA SNEIDER BEER EDUARDO SNEIDER GUTENBERG 231 MEXICO 5, DV MEXICO NORMA J. McCLAIN P.O. BOX 832 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 ELIZABETH MARIE JONES P.O BOX P ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 LINDA SOULE PRESTON 2340 GRANDVIEW AVENUE CINCINNATI, OHIO 45206 SUBJECT PROPERTY LOT 1, GORDON SUB. METES and BQUNDS LOT 12, CALDERWOOD SUB. LOT 11, CALDERWOOD SIB. LOT 10, CALDERWOOD SUB. LOT 9, CALDERWOOD SUB. NAME AND ADDRESS _ BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION HENRY S. HOYT & JUDITH U. HOYT LOT 8, CALDERWOOD SUB. 54 CHAMPLAIN ROAD CHATHAM, MASSACHUSETTS 02633 SUZANN L. RESNICK P.O. BOX 4485 LOT 7, CALDERWOOD SUB ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 UNDIVIDED 25% INTEREST. JOHN G. SPERLING 320 EAST VIRGINIA LOT 7, CALDERWOOD SUB. PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85004 U NDIVIDED 25% INTEREST HERBERT R. MOLNER & PAULA 280 CEDAR STREET MOLNER LOT 7, CALDERWOOD SUB. HIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS '' 60035 UNDIVIDED 25% INTEREST - GAIL COTTINGHAM KOCH P.O. BOX 797 LOT 7, CALDERWOOD SUB ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 UNDIVIDED 25% INTEREST FREDERIC A. BENEDICT & FABIENNE, 12 INTEREST METES and BOUNDS FRED C. LARKIN, - INTEREST 1280 UTE AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 FREDERIC A. BENEDICT, FABIENNE BENEDICT, 45% INTEREST METES and BOUNDS FRED C. LARKIN, 50% INTEREST PATRICIA E. MADDALONE, 5% INTEREST 1280 UTE AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 FRED C. LARKIN ONE COVE LANE METES and BOUNDS LITTLETON, COLORADO 80123 CITY OF ASPEN 130 S. GALENA STREET UTE CEMETARY ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 UTE CHILDRENS PARK AND UNKNOWN PARCEL COUNTY OF PITKIN 506 MAIN STREET UNKNOWN PARCEL ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 U.S DEPT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE 806 W. HALLAM ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 U.S. DEPT . OF INTftIOR , BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 50629 HIWAY 6 & 24 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 NAME AND ADDRESS BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION POWDERHOUSE ENTERPRISES LOT 16, CALLAHAN SUB. P.O. BOX 40 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 ASPEN CLUB INTERNATIONAL, INC. LOT 15,CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION 1450 CRYSTAL LAKE ROAD ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ANDREW V. HECHT, TRUSTEE SUITE 201 601 E. HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 RSG DEVELOPMENT, INC. 1450 CRYSTAL LAKE ROAD ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 KAY ELLEN HAMRICK 1315 RIVERSIDE DRIVE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 KATHLEEN BUTTERWORTH WILSON 58 HAWTHORNE ROAD ROCK ISLAND, ILLINOIS 60201 PAUL A. CHESLEY FRANK G. CHESLEY JEAN M. CHESLEY P.O. BOX 94 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 ERIKA GROB a/k/a/ MRS. ROBERT MURRAY 1275 RIVERSIDE DRIVE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 D.F. PROPERTIES, INC. C/O DOUG FRANK 5110 NORTH 32nd STREET, NO. 216 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85018 DR. JON WOODFORD STUEBNER INGRID E. STUEBNER DR, RICHARD HAMILTON, 1/8'INTEREST DR. WAGNER J. SCHORR, 1/8 INTEREST C/O DR. JOHN WOODFORD STUEBNER 6304 EAST DORADO CIRCLE ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 80111 CAROL PHILLIPS WILLIAM MATTO MATUIK 1245 RIVERSIDE DRIVE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 LOTS 14, 14A, CALLAHAN SUB. ,. LOTS 9, 8, 7, 6, 5 CALLAHAN SUB. LOT-21, BLK 1, RIVERSIDE LOT 20, BLK.1, RIVERSIDE SUB. LOT 19, BLK 1, RIVERSIDE SUB LOTS 18, 17, BLK. 1 RIVERSIDE SUB. LOT 16, BLK. 1, RIVERSIDE SUB. LOT 14, BLK. 1, RIVERSIDE SUB LOT 15, BLK. 1, RIVERSIDE SUB NAME AND ADDRESS . BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION BETTE J. KALLSTROM 1225 RIVERSIDE DRIVE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 DOROTHY KELLEHER P.O. BOX 1 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 CRESTHAUS LODGE, INC 1301 EAST HIGHWAY NO. 82 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 JUDITH G. JONES P.O. BOX P ASPEN, COLORADO ROBERT SIMONS KAY F. SIMONS 1240 RIVERSIDE DRIVE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 MAGILLICUTTY CORPORATION 128 RIVERSIDE DRIVE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 FOWLER P. STONE, III RUTH D. FOWLER 611 FRED ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 GARY A. WRIGHT DEBORAH D. WRIGHT 1300 RIVERSIDE DRIVE SUITE 106 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 CHARLES MADDALONE MARLENE POPISH MADDALONE 1325 RIVERSIDE DRIVE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 CALDERWOOD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION RIVERSIDE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION CALLAHAN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 3 LOT 13, BLK. 1, RIVERS�DE SUB. LOT 12, BLK 1, RIVERSIDE SUB METES and BOUNDS LOT 8, BLK 1, RIVERSIDE SUB LOT.9, BLK. 1, RIVERSIDE SUB LOT 10, BLK. 1, RIVERSIDE SUB LOT 7, BLOCK 1, RIVERSIDE SUB LOT 6, BLK. 1, RIVERSIDE SUB METES and BOUNDS June 23, 1986 J Pitkin County Planning Office To Whom It May Concern: I hereby authorize Stan Mathis to speak to you on my behalf regarding the Gordon Subdivision. Sin erely, r Sheldon M. Gordon 11611 San Vicente Blvd. Suite 515 Los Angeles, CA 90049-5193 213-826-7800 412 East 59th St. New York, NY 10022 212-593-0063 m MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer Aspen Water Department spen Consolidated Sanitation District Fire Marshall FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: GordonProperty Conceptual Subdivision Parcel ID#2737-181-00-021 Case No. 019A-86 DATE: June 19, 1986 Attached for your review is an application submitted by Stan Mathis on behalf of Sheldon Gordon requesting approval of conceptual subdivision for the purpose of subdividing Lot 2. We believe the applicant obtained the right to build on Lot 2 through a previously granted lot split application. The appli- cant is purchasing one development right- from Pitkin Limited, for the new lot to be created from this subdivision request. Please review this application and return your referral comments to the Planning Office no later than July 20, 1986, in order to allow us adequate time to prepare for its presentation before the Planning Commission at a public hearing. Thank you. M.3 LOW IF G-'Clt&* THIS S oM h i�►�a.�... � ��w���� '4e—00a.f/..� TO 'rN R' 0—Aa.s / r S A-! !c.4a rlia Y /i nfa C,* ti?e-vn ^t/,-e 91 C 4 n- 4+ a C. r/ o ... L Y S re ry / C I./ ^ L. s r T !`I s_ f3 a i'S I s. T A t c v .s 4/ - c ?"O t�isrn.IC.r S nr c.S . S �p �. G a'�-Suomi oaTg� 1�rST.e.re�- t� i a �. TAN MATHIS - architecture and planning p.o. box 1984 aspen, colorado 81612 May 30, 1986 Aspen, Pitkin County Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81612 RE. The Gordon Property Planning Staff: mote This submission seeks to gain approval of'preliminary .plat for the creation of two separate lots to be used for the construction of single family residences within an existing R15, P.U.D. zone. The property is described as lot two of the Gordon Subdivision. It is located adjacent to the Roaring Fork River and west of Centennial Circle and Riverside Dr. It contains approximately 2.19 acres. The parcel is owned by the applicant, Sheldon Gordon. The, applicant does not own nor have an option to purchase any adjacent property. The applicant has purchased one development right from Pitkin Limited, which allows the construction of one free-market, single family residence without having to go (a) through GMP, or (b) provide any employee housing or..cash in' lieu thereof. It is the intention of the applicant to develop a residence on parcel two and put the resi- dence on the market for sale. The applicant intends to then construct a residence on parcel one and to retain ownership for his personal:; use. Major emphasis in this proposal has been placed on creating two individual units with maximum separation and privacy. By creating only two units, both physical and visual impacts on the sight can be reduced, reinforcing the concepts of separation and privacy. The main access to the two lots will be through anexisting access and utility easement across the Callahan Subdivision from Centennial Circle. Hard surface paving will be provided as is indicated on sheet5. Utilities will be extended through the same easement from Centennial Circle. Water service and fire protection will be provided by connecting existing water lines as indicated on sheets one and seven. The access drive proposedand shown on sheet five have an unobstructed width of 22', adequate for access by fire and`` maintenance equipment.to the property. The access drive is planned to continue from Cen- tennial Circle across the property and connect to Riverside Dr. The drive has been planned so as to provide a "K" turn to enable fire and maintenance equipment to turn around on the property. The site is suitable for this type of development.) It has few steep sections (see slope analysis on sheet two) and there are no apparent geologic hazards. The proposed develop- ment will not have any adverse effects on the natural watershed of the site. Detention ponds have been provided to slow runoff from hard surface areas and prevent the resulting erosion and pollution. i 7 i STAN MATHIS archiitecture and planning p.o. box 1984 aspen, colorado 81612 Slopes resulting from regrading for driveways and buildings will be revegetated to pro- tect them from erosion. Regrading of Ghe site has been kept to a minimum. It is shown only where necessary to provide an 8% slope at driveways, to allow for the installation of detention ponds and to provide positive drainage away from the proposed residences. i Adverse effects on the air quality caused by this proposal will be minimal. Fireplaces are planned for both residences. However, because this proposal contains fewer units than may be allowed in other proposals, the potential for air pollution has been reduced. On both parcels, the residences can have walk out lower levels at the riverside of the parcels. This can be accomplished because they have been sited in locations which allow thiswith little or no regrading of the existing site. The residences are held back from;the proposed trail which crosses the site in the northwest corner. This affords both residents and trail users a desired privacy along the river. This.proposal for two single family residences provides many desired qualities when compared to a more dense proposal. Grading of existing topography is much less severe than would be likely with a proposal containing more units. The existing land forms have been maintained by setting the residences into the slopes on the site, thus avoiding the appearance of multi -story structures. By limiting the number of units to two, a large amount of natural terrain remains unaltered!'on the site. This is especially at- tractive considering the adjacent usesand the amount of river frontage on the site. The proposed architecture will make use ofmaterials with colors and textures appropriate in a mountain environment. Ue. earth tones and rough textures) The character of which will be similar to that which exists on the adjacent property to the north. See sheet eight for proposed architecture. Maximum building height will be the same as is allowed in the R15 zone, 25 feet. Existing vegetation on the site is indicated on sheet three, it consists largely of cottonwoods mixed with aspen and ground cover of native grasses. The proposed landscape plan is indicated on sheet six, it provides a variety of plant materials, coniferous, deciduous and ornamental. The major focus of the landscape plan is to provide screening between the proposed residences and from the adjacent properties. The existing irrigation ditch may be relocated and incorporated into the design of the residence on Parcel one. Detention ponds have been incorporated to help prevent erosion and stream pollution by controlling the rate of runoff from the impervious cover on the property. An irrigation system will be installed to aid in establishing and maintaining the proposed vegetation. Fiveparking spaces are indicated for each residence. It is anticipated that each resi- dence will contain four bedrooms. This would allow two spaces for the property owner and one for each additional bedroom. The total anticipated population is 10. Development and construction are scheduled as follows: Construction of the access drive and Ofthe residence to be located on.Parcel two shall begin in spring 1987. It shall be complete by fall 1988.. Construction of the residence on Parcel one shall begin in the spring 1988 and be complete by fall 1989. Installation of iuilities and landscaping.will coincide with the development of the separate parcels. The proposed driveway connecting Centennial Circle and Riverside Dr. shall be installed when initial construction begins, as it will provide access for fire equipment. I i + ASSIGNMENT OF FREE MARKET DEVELOPMENT RIGHT THIS ASSIGNMENT is given this Z 3rd day of P2�c. 1986, by:PITKIN LIMITED, a Colorado corporation ("Assignor"), to SHELDON GORDON r('"Assignee"), with reference,to the following: RECITALS A. By virtue of (i)'the Precise Plan and Subdivision Agreement for Smuggler Mobile Home Park recorded in Book 424at Pages 780, et seg., of the Pitkin County, Colorado real property records ("Records") and the completion of the development; `activity contemplated therein, and (ii) the P.U.D. and Subdivi- sion Agreement for The Pitkin Reserve recorded in Book 423 at Pages-417, et sec., and amendments thereto recorded respectively in Book 447 at Pages 59, et sere ., and in Book 468 at Pages 853, et seq., of the Records (collectively herein the "Land Use Agreements"), and the development activity contemplated therein ' and completed to date, Assignor is the owner and holder of several freely transferrable and alienable free market develop- ment -rights ("Development Rights'") conferred upon it by the City of Aspen, Colorado, which represent exceptions to and exemptions from the free market development allotment review processes 'of the Growth Management Quota System contained in Article XI;, Sections 24-11.1, et �„ of the Municipal Code of the Cityof Aspen, Colorado ("GMP j B. Assignee wishes ito acquire from Assignor and Assignor is willing to transfer to Assignee one (1) of the Development Rights. W I TN EiS S E T H: IN CONSIDERATION of the foregoing recitals and thelsu of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable considera- tion passing from Assignee to Assignor, the receipt, sufficiency and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, Assignor hereby assigns unto Assignee one (1) Development Right and, in respect of the foregoing Assignment, Assignor warrants that: 1. It is the owner and holder of the Development Right with full and free right to convey, transfer and assign it to Assignee; I 2. The Development Right hereby assigned represents a valid and subsisting exemption from or exception to the GMP i 1 I and is subject to no limitations except as may be expressed in the Land Use Agreements; 3. It has ;done and completed that which it was required to do under the Land Use Agreements to vest in itself the Development Rightsland render their use unconditional, and it will neither do or cause or suffer to be done, by commission or omission, any act o thing that would defeat, interfere with or impair the Development Right hereby assigned; and 4. The Development Right hereby assigned will enable .Assignee to build one free-market, single-family dwelling without having to go (a) through GMP, or (b) provide any employee housing or cash in lieu thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Assignment has been executed and given as of the day and year first above written. PIT IN LIMITED, a Colorado cor orati By Michael B Lipkin, President STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) .The forego: this 3 day of , Colorado corporation, WITNESS my My commissi Lg instrument was acknowledged before me PAU-Z, , 1986, by Pitkin Limited, a by Michael B. Lipkin, its President. and and off'c' s n expires:_?N-1 ota -2- GORDON SUBDIVISION (LOT 2) 1986 LU AU fi 43 �, '• t' i I I � I � p • , d . 3 u � ,•�.v !x xi.^ } iC �J , ii `f fir.^ �.' +,, h� y 4'.I . • 1 d, s aa" 4 a it rl•,'q'T Asti .,.Y ., �- i i= t \ •.� � .:r1 I a �11� `.�\ re ? ���r iP �R•.o� 'y 'T, . . f ` 9,4 sS. sll V .v 11 i `� "�y^! k v) nCll.rr WM 7 � 06 ��j h !F NlTI LOT x 0,4 37' I.i'n,. 1 L oa 1 MARGARET MEADOWS (u'• I \ • . N •• 4 e , :• �' ' j ° 1"� �a i.. . _ �! i � SUBDIVISION 26 7 a t oil : %�1 • 54/ r ray r Q ,�.oad•-�._'�. of 00 • I ,-0 A' nr s i.y� ANDERSON !o ( 04? t. y.• I i p ,i.. i_ SUBDIVISION f fp ` L i _ El1CYw 1lT O \ C, �/ :0, i z SlJBOIVION - 1�o°�.J 7 a �N O19 RN ON d 'NUE' a I Ne9-44E— "' • 4„r n qr r H ��: ^ 531� O 100.00 \ c a 12, all °tom �w P oz D o SR Y y 1 S ' 1 J\ r\ 2.4 PC. .0 "— `:U N 23�?O bJ T • �.• 4 ry �- 001 6` d ,,��''y�, d 'j5"J 02y V "'' •�•� , �2 ��� `, �� a�9• PARK NOS-44E 2".30 ... N U 1 q 1� m i €€r, 4 3 I 1 �° �'9 zN J - 2jr ®� 3 2 toll ^ �('���� ` i R m •, a' � f *z1 NERStS10�1 CA 4LE FRWO 0 66 �S .4,,.W J 6 v zT ��.�i �. n T ox Tj + E k '•'1 N I Z 4 kRNER$10 23 COO 29 �.rx 3� P489, 52 E: vti ' iI RC L�� r = t OGx 3 \ F � 2 � ° � ; u Ii;• 3 4 00� �1 €, ' A �� abY�, o05 '004 tir�� ;'max 13 B 12500 € oi4 nTe4�r R � LITECALLAHAN CEMETERY SUBDIVISION A L.�. CRYSTAL UTE C 4 N€ ` c W4h. r€ E15 �\ 4SPEN CIUe 1 I R' TAX D, TR1r'T 1 lf' nu w'rOo'o-ooi !' �\ 13 y TAX T N o° Tie-�--- n tiu ,tir f 15 TAX H G 9ipr1. i MpUN14ry H4q H`401 w4r „� J o 1 f i 1 ti aCALL 2 AN SUBDIVISION f Q �, ►- ow ; a ' 300 , 3 78 AC xoo W LOT 17 ASPEN CITY LIMIT LOT 18 F 36.3 AC. r I PREP -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PROJECT: Glerdbhu��14iSioN AAPLICANT' S REPRESENTATIVE: J't4n MA1414 REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE OWNERS NAME. Sl�e1�s�► �' 1. Type of 2. ! -' Describe U1naIj I 1 6 t SUMMARY Application:_ScQ;y4ics, Stream fwi&I"1k keyici b action/type of development being requested: n AW11 4•tva S Lft0t.., .A_ /A47 /+ ®. c.. P...._ 3. Areas in which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of reports requested: Policy Area/ Referral Aggnt Comments 00 �r �i i Rn fdrl �� t $seM$►V _ 01�9 �I A", Cgtde2'xPr'oLlc+ t4/�+� "�jt � !� Lid b �-at ►9�83gmf' "'wel ban, ` dyle _ P����rr►►v�l�r� Svb�i. reV,�w 4. Review is: (P&Z Only) (CC/BOCC Only) (P&Z then to CC/BOCC) 5. Public Hearing: (YES) (NO) 6. Did you tell applicant to submit list of ADJA PROPERTY OWNERS? (YES) (NO) Disclosure of Ownership: (YES) �: f�NO) 7. What fee was applicant requested to submit: F_ee Carry-®ver�ro�, Gi P�eviewa r,e$v�s�ed 8. Anticipated date of submission: ty,'i "A 9. COMMENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS: wi+k;4 f)-for6c� I� I -1 //f 7 - j ij I! A Aga- --- Z--f 4-C--Q _ ILI 0 3W �Z _U a1 C: ;uELunt �Z�W a� vc t`� Q �'-+'Y'""x.,'.*nT+' ' [La, ' � N^ ' I ,1�'• - ,' 1 41 -gip g� oWQ ow ? J 0 ; v rye 4 ,41 ?Z.7vw� wz _iw yo-v?70LZu:w0U ZZ2 tf) >< } �J .1 i ,in w 1L1 lt1 Z Lt � Ll rr < < Ldto u _._.. 72 O` � ` � o d OE-cy ;Cv ............ .'... ••'l�s� J� 3 , _._ .....cial5.. ........... �- �A �I�9 EN T o v... r� ..... • D .57 7 _ s - r Ln