Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.pu.580 S Riverside Ave.A29-97 CASri\.D SUMMARY SHEET - CITY Olr-'"'IpEN DATE RECEIVED: 4/22/97 DATE COMPLETE: PARCEL ID # 2737-181-00-019 PROJECT NAME: Project Address: APPLICANT: AddresslPhone: OWNER: AddresslPhone: REPRESENTATIVE: Bill Campbell AddresslPhone: 175 Big Hat Rd, Basalt, Co. 81621-9778 Win-River Insubstantial P.U.D. Amendment 580 S. Riverside Ave Lots 1& 2 WinWin, LLC 317 Park Ave. Aspen, Co. 81611 920-1851 same RESPONSIBLE PARTY: Applicant CASE # A29-97 STAFF: Mitch Haas Other Name/Address: FEES DUE PLANNlNG ENGlNEER HOUSlNG ENV HEALTH CLERK TOTAL $450 $110 $0 $0 $ $560. FEES RECEIVED PLANNlNG $450. ENGINEER $110. HOUSING $ ENV HEALTH $ CLERK $ TOTAL RCVD $560. # APPS RECEIVED 7 # PLATS RECEIVED 7 GIS DISK RECEIVED: TYPE OF APPLICATION Staff Approval Review BOdy Meeting Date I)ublic Hearing '? P&Z DYes DNo CC DYes r lNo CC (2nd reading) DYes DNo REFERRALS: o City Attorney . City Engineer (DRC) o Zoning o Housing o Environmental Health III Parks DATE REFERRED: . o Aspen Fire Marshal o City Water o City Electric o Clean Air Board o Open Space Board o Other: lNITIALS: 4- APPROVAL: OrdinancelResolution # cSfaff App~ Plat Recorded: o CDOT o ACSD o Holy Cross Electric o Rocky Mtn Natural Gas o Aspen School District o Other: DATE DUE: :i~6J6.. Date: Date: Book ~l''119't . , Page CLOSEDIFILED ROUTE TO: DATE: -.r{t'5lf1A' lNITIALS: -4- ^ ~ r" '" MEMORANDUM TO: RE: . Stan Clauson, Community Development Director Nt:..'O Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director~' p...1(1(~O . ~ ~~ ~ Mitch Haas, Planner , ",~ \. I.:. \~. l,O~ . \)v .. '(\J\\\'t.\.i . Insubstantial Plat Amendment --- Kastelic SUbdiVi~{fl4tbt 2 GOw-,w-,'J cll'tC'f October 9, 1997 THRU: FROM: DATE: On behalf of Win-Win Enterprises, L.L.C., Mr. Lawrence J. Winnerman has applied for an amendment to the subdivision development order for the Kastelic Subdivision/PUD. The lot in question (Lot #2) is located at 580 South Riverside Drive. The northwesterly corner of the building envelope, as set by the stream margin review's fifteen (15') foot "no-build" zone, crosses an elevation contour and contains the southerly edge of an existing retaining wall. To the west of the retaining wall, the elevation is approximately ten (10') feet lower than the unexcavated elevation of the land to the east of the retaining wall. When excavation of the building envelope is carried out, the result is that the elevation of the land on the eastern side of the retaining wall is approximately equal to that of the land on the western side of the retaining wall. Consequently, the retaining wall would no longer retain anything, but would, instead, be protruding out into the air some ten feet high. The final condition is one of a ten foot tall wall of unstable and potentially dangerous rock and dirt. The wall would be approximately two feet wide and highly susceptible to collapse (likely into the "no-build" zone). Section 26.88.060, Amendment to the Subdivision Development Order, provides that an insubstantial amendment to an approved plat may be authorized by the Community Development Director 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. . ." Staff believes the current request is such a situation, for it was not foreseen until actual earth-moving activities had begun. The affected edge of the building envelope was set by moving fifteen (15') feet to the east of a designated topographic contour line, and in this approval process, it was not anticipated that a ten foot tall fingerlpeninsula, so to speak, of dirt and rock would result from the excavation of the building envelope. ""'" , ,t'""\ ~..@ , Staff recommends that the Community Development Director approve the requested amendment to the development order with the following conditions: 1) The remaining portion of the retaining wall (to the north and west of the building envelope) shall be added onto with an extension toward the east in order to effectively retain all unexcavated lands adjacent to the excavated areas in the northwest corner of the building envelope; 2) The finished grade of the ground to the east of the retaining wall to be removed shall match that of the natural grade of the ground to the west of the retaining wall; and, 3) The applicant must submit as-built drawings of the project showing property lines, building footprint, easements, any encroachments, entry points for utilities entering the property boundaries and any other improvements to the 'Aspen Engineering Department prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Lot 2 of the Kastelic Subdivision/PUD. APPROVED: \0, l~.~1 on, Community Development Director 1"""\. WI N . WIN E N T ER P R I ~ _ S i""" L. L. c. October 8,1997. Mitch Haas City Planner Planning and Zoning City of Aspen Fax: 970-920-5439 Re: Win River 2, Kastelic Lot #2 Dear Mitch, As per our conversation the other day I am requesting that you grant an insubstantial amendment to our development order with regard to the retaining wall as shown on the attached drawing. During the excavation of the foundation we realized that this retaining wall would no longer be retaining anything but, would be sticking out into the air some 10 feet high. This condition will be unstable and dangerous. We are therefore asking for relief from this condition as drawn on the attached plan. This condition could not have been foreseen prior to the start of construction. Your prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated. Best regards, ..---., .",.-r''-- I ",,/,0' 0" /0/ awrence J. LJW~k RECEIVED OCT 0 9 1997 ASPEN I PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT j 317 PARK AVENUE ASPEN COLORADO 81611 TEL 303 9201851 FAX 3039201853 /---,.-/ .---- :::::::---- .:---- - -- \\.~~'.'lI " -- --- ----- -. '" ':'"" -;::- --=== ~ ~:-=:- -YJl-- \ --- " - I :. 249 pO &;5 ._---r-- .----><- w (f) :;) o :t: /- " y-' '-: > \- ~~ uo ,..u w% V>- -- -- -- " .t N "} ~ ~O ~ "J __.-1. <)-t . ~~ ot: (j') ........ . . , , '\ .'- o. , 8..0 " ...:~ " ~ " ,.. "- "-.-. .(j') ,..w u.'" .U 0< '" ... ",,,, <0'" 0>'" ,f'- "- \ " - ",0 /----- -- - -- --- ~- - --- ---- , '" --.", - u -- ------ ..- " -.tit." " -- --=- "-- <0 '1950 ~ ~ LL UJ o o cr: U !J) LL' .' r-:: o ~ ~ '" (... ..... "" " 0 '" \ " o '" '" '" " ...J ...J <1 c:: LL o '" 0- /' , z o if'; > ,.. z UJ ::E Lei W c:: o - <<: o CD -::J if'; , I / . '" ./' <",/ -<""", " -~, ;--, ~ MEMORANDUM , TO: THROUGH: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Directo~ ~ . ?'r\O\J'C.o jl~~-'~? Mitch Haas, City Planner I~ ~ ~~, WinRiver Insubstantial PUD Amendment. Par&l'-t.6. No. t~~ 181-00-019. u~e\l~~'( CO~VJv..\\'. C\\'{ Or f>,s\,~v.. FROM: RE: DATE: July 9, 1997 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting approval of an Insubstantial Amendment to a PUD. The applicant proposes to adjust the limits of the designated building envelopes on Lots 1 and 2 of the Kastelic SubdivisionlPUD. The proposed amendment would modify the designated building envelopes by making them conform to the stream margin review conditions of approval (Resolution 97-2, attached as Exhibit D) while allowing enough flexibility to accommodate field conditions and slight adjustments of the footprints that may be required during construction. The adjusted building envelopes would still maintain the minimum setbacks required in the underlying zone district while continuing to allow the preservation of significant trees on the site. Community Development staff recommends approval, with conditions, of the Insubstantial PUD Amendment to adjust the building envelopes on Lots 1 and 2 of the Kastelic Subdivision/PUD. APPLICANT: WinWin, LLC, represented by Bill Campbell. LOCATION: Lots 1 and 2 of the Kastelic SubdivisionlPUD are located at 570 (Lot I) and 580 (Lot 2) South Riverside Drive in the City of Aspen. The lots are bounded by the Redwood Condominiums to the north, Lot 1 of the Gordon Subdivision to the south, Riverside Avenue and then the Riverside Subdivision to the east, and the Roaring Fork River then the Calderwood Subdivision to the west. ZONING: Moderate-Density Residential (R-15/PUD) CURRENT LAND USE: Detached single-family residential LOT SIZES: Lot 1 (570 S. Riverside Dr.) = 30,616 square feet, of which 8,600 square feet are below the high water line and another 4,227 square feet are contained within a road easement, resulting in"a net area of 17,789 square feet; this net area is subject to further reductions such as those associated with slopes of 20% or greater. ,,-.., , r-, 'Lot 2 (580 S. Riverside Dr.) = 44,110 square feet, of which 7,050 square feet are below the high water line and another 5,097 square feet are contained within a road easement, resulting in a net area of 31 ,963 square feet; this net area is subject to further reductions such as those associated with slopes of 20% or greater. ALLOWABLE FAR: Lot 1: 4,347 square feet; and, Lot 2: 4,856 square feet (both of these FAR calculations are estimates only; they may not take into account slope reductions, sub-grade areas, garage area calculations, or any potential FAR bonuses). PROPOSED LAND USE: Two, detached single-family residences, each with a corresponding accessory dwelling unit. Detached residential dwellings are permitted uses on lots of 15,000 square feet or greater in the R-15 zone. Due to condition number one (1) of Section 3, Ordinance 49, Series of 1993 (the ordinance approving the Kastelic SubdivisionlPUD, attached as Exhibit C) and slope density reduction calculations, only one single-family residence and ADU per lot are permitted within the Kastelic Subdivision. BACKGROUND: The Kastelic SubdivisionlPUD consists of two residential lots. It was approved and granted vested rights status for three years (to October 25, 1996) by City Council via Ordinance 49 (Exhibit C) in 1993. The stream margin review of the subject parcels was approved with conditions at a public meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on January 21, 1997, and adopted via Resolution Number 97-2 (attached as Exhibit D). As a result of that approval, the final plat must be amended to clearly show the revised building envelopes for Lot 1 and Lot 2 with top-of-slope corresponding with the 7954' elevation contour. The fifteen (15) foot no development setback from the top-of-slope must also be delineated on the revised and recorded plat. Pursuant to Section 26.84.080 of the code, the applicant has submitted a request for an Insubstantial PUD Amendment in order to adjust the building envelopes associated with Lots One and Two such that the conditions of the stream margin review approvals would be reflected by the amended plat. The proposed amendment calls for the following changes from the existing, platted building envelopes: On Lot One, the new building envelope will be limited on the western side by the eastennnost edge of the "no build zone," as designated by Resolution 97-2, Stream Margin Review approval; also, the easterly, or front setback line established by the amended envelope would be parallel to and not less than five (5) feet from the access/utility easement line; lastly, the southerly building envelope line would be moved an additional five (5) feet to the north, for a total of ten (10) feet from the property line, in order to comply with the minimum side yard setbacks ofthe R-15 zone district. The northerly, side setback line established by the amended building envelope would be modified to adjoin the amended front (easterly) and rear (westerly) building envelope lines. 2 .r--, 1""\ < 'On Lot Two, the new building envelope will be limited on the western side by the eastemmost edge of the "no build zone," as designated by Resolution 97-2, Stream Margin Review approval; in addition, a thirty (30) foot long portion of the north side of the existing envelope would be squared-off in order to accommodate the proposed design of the residence while still preserving the trees in the area. REFERRAL COMMENTS: The comments from the City Engineering and Parks Departments are included as Exhibit B. STAFF COMMENTS: In order for this proposal to qualify as an Insubstantial Amendment to the PUD, the request must not violate any of the provisions of Section 26.84.080(A). The provisions of said section of the code follow, along with staffs response to each. ], The proposed amendment does not change the use or character of the project; RESPONSE: The approved use of Lots 1 and 2 of the Kastelic SubdivisionlPUD is single-family residential, each with an ADD. The proposed amendment would have no affect on the approved use or character of the project. 2, The proposed amendment does not increase the overall coverage of structures on the land by more than three (3) percent; RESPONSE: The proposed amendment would result in a significantly smaller building envelope than exists today. The rear (west) sides of the envelopes would be moving a good deal to the east in order to comply with the conditions of the stream margin review approval. Also, on Lot 1, the southern side of the existing envelope would move an additional five (5) feet to the north in order to ensure compliance with the minimum side yard setbacks of the R-15 zone district. In total, the proposed amendment would not result in an increase of overall lot coverage. 3. The proposed amendment does not substantially increase trip generation rates or the demand for public facilities; RESPONSE: Trip generation rates would be unaffected since the number of owners/residents would not change. The proposed amendment would not increase the demand for public facilities either. 4, The proposed amendment does not reduce the amount of approved open space by more than three (3) percent; RESPONSE: As explained in the response to standard number two (2), above, the proposed amendment would result in significantly less buildable area than currently exists; thus, the amount of approved open space would not be reduced by more than three (3) percent. 3 , r'" ('"', 5. The proposed amendment does not reduce existing off-street parking or loading space by more than one (1) percent; RESPONSE: The proposal would not affect existing/approved off-street parking or loading zones. The approved number of off-street parking spaces would be unchanged. 6. The proposed amendment does not reduce required pavement widths or rights-of-way for streets and easements; RESPONSE: The amendment, as proposed, would not have the affect of reducing required pavement widths or rights-of-way for streets and easements. 7. The proposed amendment does not increase the approved gross leasable area of commercial buildings by more than two (2) percent; RESPONSE: The Kastelic SubdivisionlPUD is limited to single-family residential use; therefore, this criterion is not applicable. 8. The proposed amendment does not increase the approved residential density of the development by more than one (1) percent; and, RESPONSE: The approved residential density of the Kastelic SubdivisionlPUD would not be changed by the proposed building envelope adjustment. 9. The proposed amendment is consistent with the conditions and representa- tions of the project's original approval and does not require a further variation from the project's approved use or dimensional requirements, RESPONSE: The proposed amendment would not change the approved use of the subject parcels. Variation from the project's approved dimensional requirements are not needed, nor are any sought, for the proposed amendment. In fact, the amendment would rectify past variations from the dimensional requirements associated with the R -15 zone district (explained in the response to standard number two, above). The amendment would also designate a building envelope that complies with the conditions of the stream margin review approval, as outlined in Resolution 97-2. All conditions of the project's prior approvals would continue to be met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Insubstantial Amendment to the PUD to allow the proposed building envelope adjustments on Lots One and Two of the Kastelic SubdivisionlPUD with the following conditions: 1. All conditions of prior approvals, as described in Ordinance 49, Series of 1993, Resolution 97-2, and the Resolution granting conditional use approval for two accessory dwelling units on the subject lots, remain in full force and affect as conditions of this approval. 2. The above stated and referenced conditions shall be included on the revised SubdivisionlPUD plat. The amended plat shall be approved by the City Engineer 4 .. .~ 0. .' prior to the issuance of any building permits for either Lot 1 or Lot 2 of the Kastelic SubdivisionlPUD, and shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any. Certificates of Occupancy for either Lot 1 or Lot 2 of the Kastelic SubdivisionlPUD. 3. No trees shall be removed or relocated unless the appropriate permit(s) have been issued by the Parks Department. All trees shown to be preserved must have construction or snow fencing placed around the perimeter of the drip line of the trees, and no excavation or placement of fill shall occur within the driplines of these trees. 4. Silt fencing must be placed along the eastern edge of the "no build zone," as defined by the stream margin review approval contained in Resolution 97-2, and no excavation or placement of fill will be permitted within the "no build zone." 5. A drainage report and plan for the development of both lots, completed by a currently registered Colorado civil engineer (bearing an original wet ink signature and seal), must be provided to and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. The plan shall provide specific design details for drainage along and away from the sides of the structures. The construction details of the drainage report and plan shall be shown and incorporated in the plan sets submitted for the building permit application. The drainage system shall be reviewed for approval of the installation by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for either of the buildings (Lots 1 and 2). 6. An engineering report and design shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to assure that the width, support system arid drainage of the road/access/utility easement continues to maintain the ability to facilitate use, servicing and maintenance of the roadway and any utilities contained therein. 7. All material representations made by the applicant in this application shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by the Community Development Director, the City Engineer, or a Board/Commission having authority to do so. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - Application Packet Exhibit B - Referral Comments from the Engineering and Parks Departments Exhibit C - Ordinance 49, Series of 1993 Exhibit D - Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 97-2 Exhibit E - The Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution granting Conditional Use Approval for two (2) ADUs, with conditions APPROVED BY: ~ as, 1,\4-,11 Community Development Director 5 ,-"~'t '. .' 2') .. ~6J 'QWP"QSIDL;: A:J. 3) 5) ~~: r:tion 5~'(-~,v,~~ ':>80 (wtlJi1. Le1'"'S l 'f'1. I~~Y\ G ~U\3D\ \I\'SI oN (irdicat13 stxeet ...:kb.esos, lat & blcck nmber, legal dcsc:ription'l.bere afP"'-'l:'..L:l:.e) . / u,T'1 - 30,ollo ~f, a_eJent ZOI\i.llq Q.- l S 4) Lot Size Lor 1. ~ tf4; 110 S'-r. lIpplicant's Name, 1.ddress & ~ t W ("-l V-> I ~ u.-.c. 4\\ p~\? ~. A=>rl2;l-..): w ~!bll '1.1.0- 16S1 Representative's NaIne, ~ &.Phone' Lv/LA..A ~ C~l-\lp'f::,\B..C M4h'~'~.A" 0.c.. ns-e,l.<4. l~- R-k. ~kV\ Go S(~l" - q1j6 I Q1...1' 442.~- Type of lIpplication (please <::heck all that apply) : 6) 7) Conditional Use _ o:..~ SPA _ Final SPA _ COlloeptual roo _ Final. roo _ 0Xl0eptUal Historic Dev. _ Final Historic ow. _ Minor Historic 1):......,. _ Historic OelIDUtion _ Spec;'" .Review 8040 Greenline _ StJ:eam Margin Mountain ViJi!,r Plane _ SUbdivision _ Historic Designation - . _ eorXkmi.ni.umiztion _ 'l'ext;IMap 1lmei.w.1t _ GQS AUot::ment _ Lot SpUt;IIot Line _ GO> ~ lldju.-l..w.a.t ..:::L (;1\'\-\i:=.\'2.. ~ 8) Desc:l:ipt:ion of ~ Uses (%UlCer an1 type of EllCisti.n:1 ~: apprtllCiJDate sq. . ft.: J"I,.n..,. of l....c14.........: a1rf previ.cxzs awrovals gx:anted to the property) . LoT J- ~'l.- 4 . OI-T 12./E.S1 Ot5J.J1lAL... 0") ~\Od0nlM....( l\ bv ~U') I f-.:G1 c:., 2too ~.r. (?IJV') t ; (ceo s.F, I i{),->r) ( ~ -e~ 'L6~ 9) Description of !:\'!vA' 'V""'lt ~1.ication S,I WG,t...::::- -r~ \'--'1 ~\V)~CG l.u \\'1-\ ~O\j. 00 ~A- wT ~ ~ f ~ 10) Have you attached. the fol..1.olii.rq? \~ Response to At:t:ac:hrIIent 2, MiniauD Slr~;=ion O:lntents ' ta! ~1~ to At:tac::tlment :I, Specific &..r..;...,ion COntent:s ~ ilA$pollS6 to At:tac::tlment 4, Review Sta.l1dax'ds for YCA.lr l.f.p1ication \l!. \tJ~tJ~:,sT"""\I kL.. ^~-u...-\\:E)I..lv.J H.t:::NT TO ..",?~ 9.1.l,0. ~. t1J/'J ~. _.,..:..,..;..;:.'..... ,.".r...... -- ~ ('"'\ ~WIn~U.C 317 Perk Ave. AIIpen, CO 81611 ftlJ-1851 December 23, 19116 'rowhom IlllIlY conlllIfn: WIlIum 8. Ca/npIJlJlI, AIoI1III.d PO, 175 BIg Hal Rd., Buaft, 00 61021-11778. 927-44Z5. 1$ mv '!lPfIIJJlf8tit1" In ~~ lIle propertlee dee.lIbed lIB Lot 1 and l.ot 2, Ka8telio SUblIWlioft 4IIld looaIed.ll7O and 68 S. Aiwlllids A".. A8pen. CO. .{Y / /..., . .it ,-- .... I I / . --- I ,r.. #t-v;e~ Nee.J ?i//.N,v-l"',"",+J.-v /)'/'" 1I/41/~7 /-1<J~eA' TOTRL P.01 --., 1.2-23-1S'::;b 10'9- .::l.Mi'l r:RCi"j '.Nlnnerman rM,'\\..:.0:::i.. ';;i.::;;0J.'.:i:::i3 . ../-"\ ,w j':'l'i;:l::'OJ. r-'.~o:::: f\ '. ea..zUT AND AU~9n~!gAT!OR TO PROO!.S BUILDING PKRMtT 1Rn LAND USE APP2.fca'J:fOX The underoigned owners hereby authorize Larry Winnerman whose address is 311 Park Ave., Aspen, CO. 8l611. (phone 920-1851). and his selected architect, attorney or other consultants, as applicable, to process an &ilplication fer a builcling permit and any and all other land ulle appllcationa necessary for or related to the issuance ot a building permit tor the following property located in the City ot Aspen: Lot 2, KASTELIC SUBDIVISION, POD, aceording to the plat thereof recorded in J500k 33 page 62 of the reeord. of pitkin County, Colorado. Dated: .octoher"<l, 1996 OWNERS I '--r1-' .....V")p:..i' 9~"'(r.".;,J...u: <.1 IW!3IE CASEY / 1717 a. ~crLW~1 ST. Denver, CO. 80210 303-777-8916 IS 1717 S. Denver, CO. 80210 303-777-89 Hi wi.\CJA TOTAL P.02 -,. -- -- -_.~ ~_'_~~'i . ",-", '."1., "..;:; ',.';:>.1, . "-"..,..............~ ../';'<.JJ.~.,j ~.. ~ OCT 2.3. '9J:;: :C2:22A1"i-([1':}jRl.N '5:TR'E('r' 'CRW-OFFICES , '. r'-, ~.::.ft:l.:,.OJ. r.i:..iJ. ~. 1 PO j CONsnT un AUTBOa1ZA.!rIOH TO PROC!S~ BUIlI[HII~ "r:;lUlXT ABI> LAUD un APPLICA'tIOll , The und.reigned owner hereby ""chori".... L,u'ry Winnerman whOlle address is 317 Park Ave., A.pen. CO. 81611. (phone 920-1851). and his selected architeot, attorney or oth~r consultants. as applicable, to process an applioation for a buildin9 permit and any and all other land ute application.. naceesory for or related to the issuance ot a building permit for tho following property located in the City cf Aspen: Lot 1, KASTELIC SUBDIVISION, pun, according to the plat thereof recorded 1n Book 33 pa9" 62 of the records of Pitkin County, Colorado. Dated I October I~, 1996 OWNER: B.A. POWELL LIMITED pARrNERSHIF BY; _1n\C'P~.2 -~ 1""'\ . ~. . ci\ :3 '{\ .- ~ If v li~H iIDI . , J ; \\' i ~. I ..,~ ,...:) a 7' . r". ,-, F '. PROJECT: Win-River, Kastelic Subdivision, Insubstantial amendment 10 approved PUD LOCATION: 570 & 580S. Riverside Avenue Representative: Bill Campbell OWNER: Winwin LLC Description of proposal: The applicant proposes to modify the existing PUD building envelopes as shown on the accompanying site plan (sheet 2,changes marked in red). Specific Submission contents: 1 . The existing building envelopes for Lots 1 and 2 are shown on the accompanying site plan (sheet 2) 2. The proposed changes to the envelopes are shown in red on sheet 2 . A closed traverse will be shown on the amended plat. 2. A site plan (sheet 2) is included with the application, proposed amendments are shown in red. 3. Previous development approvals: a Ordinance 49, Series of 1993, Subdivision Exemption Kastelic Subdivision PUD, October 25, 1993. b. Resolution No. 97-2, Resolution of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission for the approval of Stream Margin (ESA) Review for two detached single family residences on Lots 1 and 2 of the Kastelic Subdivision PUD, January 21, 1997. c. Recorded Plat, Book 33, Page 62, January 7,1994. 4. Copies of recorded documents: a. Ordinance 49 b. Resolution No. 97-2 c. Recorded plat, Book 33, Page 62. Review standards (response to attachment 4): 1 The final development plat anticipated that a Stream Margin Review would occur. Plat note No.9 allows the applicant to request changes in the building envelopes because of existing site conditions. The stream Margin Review created technical changes to these site conditions (original envelopes) which could not be reasonably anticipated during the approval process. Therefore the proposed modifications to the building envelopes constitute an insubstantial amendment to the approved PUD. 2. The proposed modifications are consistent with and enhance the approved final development plan. The building envelope changes are consistent with the underlying R-15 zoning. The plat notes call for increasing the "rear" yard set back on Lot 1 to 10 feet if eXisting buildings are removed. This has been accomplished. The project is further enhanced by the establishment of a "no development zone" which effectively moves the building envelope an additional fifteen feet or more to the East of the Roaring Fork River. 3. The project has been reviewed and approved under current community policies and regulations and thus insures its compatibility with current community conditions. 4. The proposed changes are shown on sheet 2, eXisting conditions & topography, prepared by Aspen Survey Engineers, RLS 16129. ..' -. " To: Thru: Prom: Date: Re: !""""\ l~ \ &(Itt8rr 8l MEMORANDUM Mitch Haas, Project Planner Nick Adeh, City Enginee~~ Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer ;p'[,j July 2, 1997 Win River Building Envelope Insubstantial Amendment Physical Address: Legal Address: 570 & 580 Riverside Avenue, Aspen, CO Lots 1 & 2, Kastelic Subdivision, P.U.D., City of Aspen, CO After reviewing the above referenced application, making a site visit and conducting a meeting with the applicant's representatives (William Campbell and Herb Klein, esq.) and yourself on May 28, 1997, and subsequent revisions, these are the recommendations of the city Engineering Department. Only those items listed below have been further refmed frorn the previous recommendations of our memorandum of May 9,1997. 1. Easterly Building Envelope of Lot 2: Based upon the building footprint shown on the proposed site plan, this proposed building envelope may be adjusted to lie five (5) ft westerly of and parallel to the access easement line along the southeasterly side of the building envelope under the following conditions: A) That a drainage report and plan for the entire lot, completed by a currently registered Colorado civil engineer (bearing an original wet ink signature and seal), is provided to. and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for Lot 2. The plan shall provide specific design details for drainage of the easement shedding water toward the proposed building along the southerly and easterly sides of the building. The construction details of the drainage report and plan shall be shown and incorporated in the plan sets submitted for the building permit. The drainage system shall be reviewed for approval of the installation by the City Engineer prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the building; B) That a vehicle guardrail be installed on Lot 2 by the property owner, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the building, along the westerly line of the access & utility easement where the building lies within ten (10) ft of the paved edge of the access easement driving surface. The guardrail may end where the graded shoulder of the roadway is greater than ten (10) ft in width and has a I OF 2 DRCM8C97,DOC '. I""" , f', . Memo. Win River Building Envelope Insl,Ibstantial Amendment Review, Last Revised July 2, 1997 slope of 1 O(H): 1 (V) between the edge of pavement and the breakpoint of the embankment. The design of the guard rail will be provided to and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 2. The guard rail design shall meet or exceed the applicable standards for guard rails as currently established by the Colorado Dept. of Transportation (CDOT) at the time of building permit issuance; and C) That an engineering report and design be completed, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, to analyze and design the type of lateral support necessary for the roadway and any utilities where either; I) a cut or embanked slope exists within ten (10) ft of the edge of pavement nearest the building envelope after final grading, and the finished grade separation of the access easement driving surface to the lower floor elevation of the garage is greater than four (4) ft vertical, or 2) the embankment slope exceeds 1.5(H):1(V), at any point (measured perpendicular to the easement line), between the near- edge of pavement and the building envelope. The retaining wall or structural equivalent will be located on the private property outside of the easement, and will be constructed so as to maintain access to existing ntilities, provide lateral support to the roadway, and not reduce the clear width of the roadway below the existing 18 ft (20 ft minimum if the existing shed is removed) so as to maintain emergency vehicle access. The design of the retaining wall shall be provided to the City Engineer for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 2. A currently registered Colorado civil engineer shall design any required retaining structure (plans bearing an original wet ink signature and seal) to the standards of the City Engineer. The construction details of any required retaining structure shall be shown and incorporated in the plan sets submitted for the building permit. Construction and approval of any retaining structure shall be completed before issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for Lot 2. 2. Vehicular Access: 'Access to the property is through the access and utility easement which also serves the adjoining property to the south. The access easement should remain at least twenty (20) ft in width (excepting the existing sheds if they remain). The maximum permissible grade for a driveway meeting either a public or private right-of-way is 12% grade within twenty (20) ft of the property line which impact the grading of the proposed circular driveway. Depending upon the final geometry used for the fire department access, the grade of the access easement may need to be even flatter than the 12% grade stipulated for private driveways. Rather than wait until building permit issuance to resolve the fire department access needs, this need should be resolved in conjunction with this present action. In the final site grading, fill material may be needed at the toe of the access easement leading to the property south of Lot 2 and/or the access easement may need to be re-graded in order to reduce the grade of the finished driving surface into the adjacent property. 3. Revised SubdivisionIPUD Plat: The above conditions shall be included in the revised subdivisionIPUD plat recorded prior to issuance of a building permit for either Lots 1 or 2 in the Kastelic SubdivisionlPUD. 2 OF 2 DRCM8C97.DOC \ " I"""'- ('. Memorandum TO: Mitch Haas, Community Development Planner FROM: Rebecca Schickling, Parks Department DATE: May 14, 1997 RE: Kastelic Insubstantial Amendment and Conditional Use Review cc: John Krueger, Trails Coordinator We have reviewed the applications submitted for the Kastelic (Win-River) properties and offer the following comments. The trees proposed to be relocated on Lot 1 must survive a minimum of two years after transplanting. A tree permit should be applied for prior to applying for the building permit, however, the best time to relocate the trees would be in the fall. The trees are currently contained on the west by a concrete/rock wall which should help the relocation effort. All trees shown to be saved must have construction or snow fencing placed around the perimter of the drip line of the trees and no excavation or placement of fill shall occur within the driplines of the trees. Additionally, silt fencing must be place along the 7960 line with no excavation and no placement offill is to occur in the "no build zone" per the stream margin resolution #97-2. The City is still pursuing a trail in this area and would still encourage the applicant to work with the Parks Department on a trail easement. (""'"\ r-, CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611-1975 (970) 920-5090 AGENCY REFERRAL FORM The City of Aspen Community Development Dept. has received a land use request as highlighted below, Your comments are an important part of the evaluation process, In order to review all appropriate agency comments and incorporate them into the staff evaluation, your written comments are due back to this office on ;P;~rc:3iiD-No~~_~7:,/:181cCQ.,c;rL_,___._.___._______ : APPLICANTS PLEASE NOTE!! I Gus.':': Nt~moe!'" A'?9 - 9: ! . ._~- , . . - ------------.---.------ .t\np:;:'9~iS 0:- their represent2i::vcS are I IJr-!i13 S(~;~t A"",\'j ')3 1~"I!r! ~, --~-~-' I.,. ,.,/-, .&., .~." ____.__~_.__._.,_._.__ ---"-"- en:;:!~raged!o a!tend the DRe r!1aetlr.g ~o : ~'~€:a!ln~ D~te. l'p B~ \t\n:1olJnc~::d i ;~'l'''"''- tr\e:. "'roiec- Tb- DRe ~1(.'etin'" h"'s I C'Rr" -'1' ti ,.... 6-':. A- '~;I' 2~".~ .:.:9-:;.----- ---.-----.-- = ....~....,.::.:I.I... t', J I '::: .. . -.: . :::: c::. I _ ....' i\ l;:~ .f ~ 3h... _.~_,' .P.'" .,. ~':" I.i'='.', '____'__'_',_"_":-",-:-;_'____ = O{~e:1l sct,ed!1ic-d fOi VV€anes.:i~:i. ...AprU ,2~,_ I L:".'''inO-::rrg L~~.ro'ral L)I/e f-. P ......,..:3' r.~n'....... "C,t(,., = _.~. ~,. ...... . . . '~_'.~ .'~_".' ._1... .. ~U IO....,'.__._,~~"I,.c,-',!.,.,'-:..__'__., ~f:~~!at1:'.~~\..;ar:-l::~tj;eSIS~erCIi.;esHo,:}I':'i~/ '>' f" 'D e,.. '."."19"'.' I........:r~er '(~.cr;"c.iIS uc; r:: I:.:ngir"'€.erlOf,." ""\f.~i',_;>\-l'...." ....I~,_i ;,t"I~"II'::''' . . J.., 1 ....1. . . .- ._,,_.- ._._-- -..- ,_._,-.... -'-'- - -.-.-.- - - ,_.,-,- - -' --' - - - - -- Planner: Mitch Haas Phone No, 920-5095 Fax No, (970)920-5439 Applicant: WinWin, LLC Phone No, Fax No. Representative: 8iil Campt;>ell Phone No, 927-4425 Fax No, 927-8561 Location of Property: 570 and 580 S, Riverside Ave, (Lots 1 and 2 of Kastelic Subdivision/PUD) Summary of Request: Insubstantial PUD Amendment to alter the building enveiopes in response to affects of stream margin review, SF MF FAR Ratio Allowed: R-15 Proposed: R-15 Affordable FAR Proposed: ADU: Residential Units: Acreage/Square Feet: Zoning: Existing: Amendments Growth Management Q,S, Site Plan Review Text Exemption Special Review Map Residentiaf/Tourist Accom. Special. Planned Area (SPA) Administrative Review Officelcommerc;al Subdivision Plat JnsubstanUal Historic Reviews Lot Line Adjustment Appeals Exemptions. Lot Split Change in Use Minor Condominiumization Conditional Use Conceptual Timeshare ADU Final. . Final Piat Other Landmark Temporary Use Environ, Sensitive Area Landmark Lot Spilt Variance Stream Margin Review Demolition/Relocation 8040 Green/ine Review Significant wlSPA or PUD Exemption Ord, 30 Residential Review View Plane Review Pianned Unit Development Exemption . Conceptual Hallam Lake Bluff Final Exemption 'iM@~!tlll#ll!ffl!@l@jlJtt;tiW t@Wmt:jMMt REQUESTS TO BE PROCESSED SPECIAL ISSUES: Agency Issues H:l,luffW/lprocess\refer4.dO'C ,e ~ ,- f'. I': MEMORANDUM To: Mitch Haas, Project Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engine~ a From: Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer /2C5. Date: June 10, 1997 Re: Win River Building Envelope Insubstantial Amendment [Lots 1 & 2, Kastelic Subdivision, P.U.D., City of Aspen, CO] After reviewing the above referenced application, making a site visit and conducting a meeting with the applicant's representatives (William Campbell and Herb Klein, esq.) and yourself on May 28, 1997, these are the recommendations of the city Engineering Department. Only those items listed below have been further refined from the previous recommendations of our memorandum of May 9, 1997. 1. Easterly Building Envelope of Lot 2: Based upon the building footprint shown on the proposed site plan, this proposed building envelope may be adjusted to lie five (5) ft westerly of and parallel to the access easement line along the southeasterly side of the building envelope under the following conditions: A) That a drainage report and plan for the entire lot completed by a currently registered Colorado civil engineer (bearing an original wet ink signature and seal) is provided to and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for Lot 2. The plan shall provide specific design details for drainage of the easement shedding water toward the proposed building along the southerly and easterly sides of the building. The drainage system shall be reviewed for approval of the installation by the City Engineer prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the building; B) That a vehicle guardrail be installed by the property owner, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the building, along the southeasterly edge of the building envelope where the envelope lies less than seven (7) ft from the access easement line plus an additional four (4) ft at each end to return the ends of the guard rail. The design of the guard rail will be provided to and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 2. The guard rail design shall meet or exceed the applicable standards for guard rails in residential areas as currently established by the Colorado Dept. of Transportation (CDOT) at the time of building permit issuance; and I OF 2 DRCM8B97,DOC .' . r--. (\ ., ~ Memo - Win River Building Envelope lnsubstantial Amendment Review, Revised June 10, 1997 C) That a retaining wall system or structural equivalent be constructed by the property owner, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the building, along the southeasterly edge of the building envelope where the envelope lies less than seven (7) ft from the access easement line plus an additional two (2) ft at each end to transition the retained embankment to the grade of the finished garage floor. The design of the retaining wall shall be completed by.a currently registered Colorado civil engineer (bearing an original wet ink signature and seal) and shall be provided to and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 2. The retaining wall design shall meet or exceed the applicable standards for a vehicular roadway supported by retaining walles) as currently established by the Colorado Dept. of Transportation (CDOT) at the time of building permit issuance. 2. Revised SubdivisiQnJPUD Plat: The abo cwr'~ ~? ded in the revised subdivisionIPUD plat recorded prior to issuance of a bl -'/tf 00 a IZ or 2 in the Kastelic SubdivisionIPUD. s.el-reHce:,J\DO... ~ ~~ fQ.MIP -Q> 615 tA5' 6',",!~ l~ ~:- ~N sR~~olOt.c' 2 OF 2 DRCM8B97,DOC .-, n '!"-' <-. MEMORANDUM , , To: Mitch Haas, Project Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer/'1Lt/ . / From: Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer Res Date: April 30, 1997 response is updated to May 9, 1997 fmal response Re: . Win River Building Envelope Insubstantial Amendment [Lots 1 & 2, Kastelic Subdivision, P.U.D., City of Aspen, CO] After reviewing the above referenced application and making a site visit, I am reporting the comments of the city Engineering Department: 1. Proposed Building Envelope Changes on Lot 1: The proposed changes to the building envelope would shift the eastern edge of the building envelope to within a couple feet of the westerly access easement line at a skew angle to the easement. Based upon the building footprint shown on the proposed site plan, this alignment does not offer any advantage in positioning the house nor in site design therefore we recommend that the building envelope line be established parallel to and not less than five (5) ft. from the access/utility easement line. The space separation will provide a buffer for working space and lateral support between the existing (and future) utilities in the easement and the foundation of the building, particularly when excavating. For comparison purposes, a lot in this zoning district served by a 30 ft access easement would typically have a 40 ft setback from the access/utility easement line however given the "no build" zone on the westerly side of the lot, a shallower setback is workable. Moving the southerly building envelope line an additional five (5) ft. northerly, for a total of ten (10) ft from the property line, is acceptable. 2. Proposed Building Envelope Changes on Lot 2: Differing from the case on Lot 1, the building envelope line should maintain a ten (10) ft buffer from the access easement line and not be extended closer to the access/utility easement line due to the topography in this area of the lot. The roadway and access easement slope downward from the Gordon Subdivision such that surface drainage will shed toward the building envelope. Since the existing roadway lies within a couple feet of the easement line in this section and the roadway surface from the Gordon Subdivision is a northerly exposure, this section of the driveway becomes icy which may contribute to loss of control of a vehicle . I OF 2 DRCM897 A.DOC 1"""'. o . ~~, Memo ~ Win River Building Envelope Insubstantial Amendment Review which would slide toward the building envelope on the downhill side. Based upon the building footprint shown on the proposed site plan, this proposed building envelope alignment change does not offer any advantage in positioning the house therefore we recommend that the building envelope line remain lll1changed (i.e. 10 ft separation and parallel to the access easement) along the southeasterly side of the building envelope. Squaring-off the southerly portion of the building envelope line (on the northerly side of the building envelope), where it lies in a northeasterly-southwesterly orientation, is acceptable. 3. Site Access Lot 2: In lieu of the circular driveway shown on the proposed site plan, a single driveway curb cut of not more than 18 ft in width is recommended. Neither the proposed building footprint nor other site conditions necessitate the use of a circular driveway. 4. Recordation of Conditions of Approval from the Stream Margin Review: Since the conditions of approval established by the previous stream margin review (Planning and Zoning Commission, Resolution 97-2) have not been recorded on a revised plat, these should be incorporated in the plat recorded for this Insubstantial Amendment. These include Conditions 1 through 9, inclusive, of Resolution 97-2. If a site plan sheet is included as part of the revised SubdivisionIP.U.D. plat, a tree legend table should be added to the site plan and tree locations should be identified by circled nnmbers instead of oversized graphic symbols to improve the ease of reading the site plan. An explanatory note(s) shall be added to the plat enumerating and describing the changes from the previous SubdivisionIP.U.D. plat reflected in this Insubstantial Amendment an.t further stating that all other conditions of the previous SubdivisionIP.U.D. plat, not changed or amended hereby, are still in affect and valid. 5. Future Reviews of Site Design and Development: The preceding comments and recommen- dations are based upon the conditions proposed in the submitted site plan (revision date 01/31/97). If these substantially change, particularly site grading, drainage, building footprint(s), or placement of building footprint(s), the proposed development should be reviewed again by the Engineering Dept. to verifY the recommendations against any subsequently proposed revisions to the site conditions. 2 OF 2 DRCM897A,DOC OJ LHI~t"J:ll:LL ARCHITECT ~9709278561 WUJJIAM n. (~AMPJn~U.J ARCHITECT, P.C. l75 Big Hat Road Ba&all, CDlorado 81 621 (303)927-4425 Mitch Haos Oo/l1lnl.lfiily 08\lolopment OeplU\llWnt 130 S. Galena St.. Asp"n. 00 81611 14 May, 1997 OaQr Milch. I have nwiewed the 9 May 97 commentlllrom the engineering department regarding the Win River Building Envelope IllBllbsfantlal Amendmenl. Ilwie th& foIlowirlg oomments: MAY 14'97 ~ , . 15:05 No.003 P.Ol Items 1 &2. The proposed ohanges to the bUlldlng envelope$ were 8$lablished to provide fllllCibmly in dotorminin~ the final building Iocatlon. MovflYil 1M envetope&clO5ef to the proposed buUdinQs reduces that f/9Jl.ibiliIY. The new envelopes on thEJ Ea9lafds 1m> IoGatod along exislill9 fe/WtllirJ!l$ which meall9lhat th~ el"lCloE.& yarde whioh are already dw@ped. Since Ii "sh9llow&r *"" back is WOIiIllble" I WC>UId request that th9y be left as proposed. The foundations of the proposed residence wiU be much deeper than the u1Hitiell 6P undermining should not be a problem. A rellllning wall along the IlOUlheasterly edge of the envelope will provide proteollon f\'l:Im vehicles. . Item 3; I feellhls is a subjootive cornman!' The ciroolar drive Is a d9llign issue not an engineering p~lem. Item 4: We wIlllnolude all required Items on the plat. Item 5. We willsubmll any subslanlial cl1llng8$ for review. ;::;:;~ WiIIBm B. Calq)baII Agenl ,./ - t""'" 1"""', Memorandum TO: Mitch Haas, Community Development Planner FROM: Rebecca Schickling, Parks Department DATE: May 14, 1997 RE: Kastelic Insubstantial Amendment and Conditional Use Review cc: John Krueger, Trails Coordinator We have reviewed the applications submitted for the Kastelic (Win-River) properties and offer the following comments. The trees proposed to be relocated on Lot 1 must survive a minimum of two years after transplanting. A tree permit should be applied for prior to applying for the building permit, however, the best time to relocate the trees would be in the fall. The trees are currently contained on the west by a concrete/rock wall which should help the relocation effort. All trees shown to be saved must have construction or snow fencing placed around the perirnter of the drip line of the trees and no excavation or placement of fill shall occur within the driplines of the trees. Additionally, silt fencing must be place along the 7960 line with no excavation and no placement offill is to occur in the "no build zone" per the stream margin resolution #97-2. The City is still pursuing a trail in this area and woUld still encourage the applicant to work with the Parks Department on a trail easement.