HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.pu.580 S Riverside Ave.A29-972737-181-00-019 A29-97
Win+River Insubstantial PUD Amendment
�•JI
�17.37-/,�r/-eo -
Aspen/Pitldn Community
Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 920-5090
City Land Use Application
Fees: yr� o d
00113-63850-041
Deposit _
-63855-042
Flat Fee
-63860-043
HPC
-63885-268
Public Right -of -Way
-63875-046
Zoning & Sign Permit
-N4R01 I
Use Tax
10000-67100-383
Park Dedication
15000-63050-480
AH Commercial
15000-63065-482
AH Residential
County Land Use Application Fees:
00113-63800-033
Deposit
-63805-034
Flat Fee
-63820-037
Zoning
-63825-038
Board of Adjustment
Referral Fees:
00113-63810-035
County Engineer
00115-63340-163
City Engineer--_%^---�---
62023-63340-190
Housing
00125-63340-205
Environmental Health
00113-63815-036
County Clerk
00113-63812-212
Wildlife Officer
Sales:
00113-63830-039
County Code
-69000-145
Copy Fees
Other
r
E
F
Total e O-
Date: as Check: a / / U
Project:
Case No: - Xz
No. of Copies __7
CASEl61D SUMMARY SHEET - CITY OPEN
DATE RECEIVED: 4/22/97
DATE COMPLETE:
PARCEL ID # 2737-181-00-019
CASE # A29-97
STAFF: Mitch Haas
PROJECT NAME: Win.River Insubstantial P.U.D. Amendment
Project Address: 580 S. Riverside Ave Lots 1& 2
APPLICANT: WinWin, LLC
Address/Phone: 317 Park Ave. Aspen, Co. 81611 920-1851
OWNER: same
Address/Phone:
REPRESENTATIVE: Bill Campbell
Address/Phone: 175 Big Hat Rd, Basalt, Co. 81621-9778
RESPONSIBLE PARTY: Applicant Other Name/Address:
FEES DUE
FEES RECEIVED
PLANNING
$450
PLANNING
$450.
# APPS RECEIVED 7
ENGINEER
$110
ENGINEER
$110.
# PLATS RECEIVED 7
HOUSING
$0
HOUSING
$
GIS DISK RECEIVED:
ENV HEALTH
$0
ENV HEALTH
$
CLERK
$
CLERK
$
TYPE OF APPLICATION
TOTAL $560. TOTAL RCVD $560. Staff Approval
REFERRALS:
❑ City Attorney
® City Engineer (DRC)
❑ Zoning
❑ Housing
❑ Environmental Health
■ Parks
DATE REFERRED: Z3
❑ Aspen Fire Marshal
❑ City Water
❑ City Electric
❑ Clean Air Board
❑ Open Space Board
❑ Other:
INITIALS:
APPROVAL: Ordinance/Resolution #
a f Approv
Plat Recorded:
CLOSED/FILED DATE: qlINITIALS:
ROUTE TO:
❑ CDOT
❑ ACSD
❑ Holy Cross Electric
❑ Rocky Mtn Natural Gas
❑ Aspen School District
❑ Other:
DATE DUE:
5,
Date:
Date: : 1'j 9�
Book _,Page
0
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director ,
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director
FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner .� :( 1 +=•,1g�� Av�
RE: Insubstantial Plat Amendment --- Kastelic SubdivisignIptup�tht 2
DATE: October 9, 1997
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 finger/peninsula, so to speak, of dirt and rock
would result from the excavation of the building envelope.
•
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:
Stan Clauson, `Community Development Director
011
WIN -WIN E N T E R P R I O,
I. . 1. 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,
Lawrence J. Wnnerman
LJW/jk
RECEIVED
OCT 0 9 1997
ASPEN I PITKIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
317 PARK AVENUE ASPEN COLORADO 81611 TEL 303 920 1851 FAX 303 920 1853
Il�,�: ��y..r�. � r 7
��
„ � w r
� , �� � ��
i - � ��,
�,
� ,. �M�
;,� t
.• /,
:1��.t; �
V
AO.
STONE SET CAR
RETAINING IN CONC cP \ \
II
/22- WALL 1 S ID GAP
Ci 14'
13' (14 Z,
cp
TTNW I \ rn
/z
12'
sa
26'
1 .' 19 ` ` \ \ O
10 N 0
SH EAST — - ------------ s
G)
1 \10
9 S,71 HOUSE 01 ul
CTT z �o 0
bo 23 7 'o
S H E
Ilk
\ 1 ` '
31.963
SQ.FT .
` ' , :50
0 73377 ACRES S89 1 10
TBM 7.967.0 G)
LOVE I rn \S. ' i 4 -CTTN
` \
6--9
2'JEW
EAS EN
C) 2!49 G 63'
' I \
CTTNWD
AMENDED
\BUILDING ENVELOPE
40. 5�
16'
C;rN S 8900*35 00*
58.07
14'Yi
CORDON SAD I
BOUNDARY LINE AOREEMENT
1 30. 20' ❑ 76. 60' 1
S 87-42-00-
\ P I LLARS FE:
TO: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director
THROUGH: Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Directo _ Ov0
FROM: Mitch Haas, City Planner
4 �91
RE: WinRiver Insubstantial PUD Amendment. ParA.�. No.
181 00-019. GOMM���v �� OF PSpEN
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 Subdivision/PUD. 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 Subdivision/PUD are located at 570 (Lot 1)
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.
1 0 0
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
Subdivision/PUD, 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 Subdivision/PUD 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 easternmost 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 of the 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.
PJ
On Lot Two, the new building envelope will be limited on the western side by the
easternmost 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 staff s
response to each.
1. 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 Subdivision/PUD is
single-family residential, each with an ADU. 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
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 Subdivision/PUD 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 Subdivision/PUD 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 Subdivision/PUD 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
Subdivision/PUD plat. The amended plat shall be approved by the City Engineer
4
prior to the issuance of any building permits for either Lot 1 or Lot 2 of the
Kastelic Subdivision/PUD, and shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any
Certificates of Occupancy for either Lot 1 or Lot 2 of the Kastelic
Subdivision/PUD.
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 and 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:
�i
Ttaa-Ca
Community Development Director
2)
3)
(indicate street dC •• ems, lot & block rnabr, legal description where
apprvpri. ;;e)
Present Zordxq � � 4) Lot Size ✓ 0 T Z ^ 0 S - r
5) Applicant's Name, Address
& Phone w (U l.-) I tz
L-LG
� i I Pn-,Q- ��-
-(kV A�2 � F Co f3 [ G [
► 'I ZC) -
6) Representative I s Piave, Address & Phone $ -L,(-) t t- L L
poe--1 cam►--�
n,J 5o�_ 1 Sid. �� L� :Ek
W ►�Z► - ����
-
92_1 442j
7) Type of Application
(please check aU that apply):
Conditional Use
dal SPA
Conceptual Historic Dev.
Special Review
Final SPA
Final Historic Dev.
8040 Q:eenline
Gbnoeptual PUD
Minor HistorIC DW.
Strum Margin
Final PUD
Historic Demolition
Mountain View Plane
Subdivision
Historic Designation
Gbrricca.inb ra i za ti on
Tlext/Map AmendIlmnt
GKr S Allotment
rot SpliVT-0t Lirp
GK�S Exemption
Adjustment
8) Des=:Lptian of EKIsti q Uses (nIMber and ttr.�►pe of � stems;
appr=dmate sq. ft. ; nnnber of bedrooms; any previous appals meted to the
PAY)
I > 2-too OU V-) 3 TsI -
9) Description of Developmat-it Application
1 T'H pry �
10) Have you attached the following?
LS Response to Attact=rrt 2, M i nilnam ,311ixn ion oantents
�- Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents
Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application
I iJ S� t'�s Tw-n ►,� r� t-1, , i T o P) , t D
V& Win Erdeiprl m LLC
317 Perk Ave.
aspen, Ct3 81811
9mle51
December 23, 1996
To whom k may ca n:
Wigiarrs S. OwnPWI, Afuhitect PC, 175 Big Hat Rd, Basaft, CO Bte21-9778, A27-44;Z5, is my
represwiv&e in maitt m conowTiN the properties described as Lot 1 and L.012, Kssteftc SubdivWim
and located at SM and fib S. Riveraide Av., Aspen, Co_
TOTAL P.01
1 L-G J--1770 �::�•_lr'11� ;-(;I_II IJ II II:�f (.I C�lfl rr'I,'\IJ CJ �. .IG �.�i ��- I'J JG IC..'�U1 f r.lG
CONSENT AND T►Ui'HARI:S2tZ'70ta TO PROC$86 SUILMNO PERMIT AND LAND USE
A►PPLICATM
The underuigned owners hereby authcrize Larry Winnerman whose
address is 317 perk Ave., Aspen, CO. 81611, (phone 920-1851), and
his selected architect, attorney or other consultants, as
applicable, to process an applicaticn fcr a building permit and any
and all other land use applications necessary for or related to the
issuance of a building permit for the following property located in
the City of Aopcn: Lot 2, KASTELIC SUBDIVISION, PUD, according to
the plat thereof recorded in Book 33 page 62 of the records of
Pitkin County, Colorado.
Dated: october--<�, 1996
OWNERS t
MAp 'E CASEY ; "
1717 8. tiL3.'17-mdaB
Denver, CO. 30210
303-i77-8915
vts�C?A
FRANCIS CASE
ST. 1717 S. MILWAUKEE T.
Denver, CO. 80210
303-777-8916
TOTAL P.02
n� �- T P'iP.TFI STREET LRW UFr ICES i �)
:,Ci 25. 96 i2 22P(1 WES z . .
CONe
..T ANT) Al BU111DINa vKA*:YT Aafl 1:A1�p
APELICATIM
The undersigned owner hereby authorizes Larry W-nnerman whose
address is 317 Park Aver Aspen, CO. S16ll, (phone 920-1851),
and
his selected architect, attorney or other coneultanto, as
applicable, to process an applioation for a building permit and any
and all other land use appl cativris neceeeary for or related
to he
seuance of a building permit for the following property located in
the City of Aspen: Lot 1, XASTELIC SUBDIVISION, PUpr accc.dir.g to
the plat thereof recorded in Book 33 pea90 62 of the records of
Pitkin County, Colorado.
Dateds October jq, 1996
0wNER:
B.A. POWELL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
i
BY: le I
• �y JQ on, General Partner
za14 Sidd n valley Dr.
Grand Junction, CO. 81503
970-241-0277
5
a
-r\j
rYl.4 PAPS Me C~ M.A.
Aspen
01
G
Marum lake
we
oo�
2-3
of
Pod
Awe OL ft
—
M-wh
bb—
LAwd CL
r
*7
AM. %I- Ek -
A.&— cx
r—r-34
aaT
D,
=At:L—
OmkWw
L
----F4
142
OA I—,
n
Ddd
G3�s
O"dDA 3
M..b.
Let* no
-----.CW2
E4
ES
SeM� lk—
G-1
ma
C=
w
2.2
M
D5-2
F6
,
P—',PA--F40
—
--4
Ud
CmdcC&
C.ad
A----
—]2
6—
—IG5M
fade
C-J1.3
JW43
Tw
Cb.dbm #A-
Lm
L_ oL
td L.
1�7
7-8
CY,W Lft NL
a$S
D.k I--
D— Sul
M4
F-I
— --------
Mi. SL_041-3-3
7
ftn YL ------- — JG4t--*-6
ALPHA
MAPS
A
A
A
Is
jdak TO
Oft
A
�11
7
PROJECT: Win -River, Kastelic Subdivision, Insubstantial amendment to 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.
MEMORANDUM
To: Mitch Haas, Project Planner
Thru: Nick Adeh, City EngineeV4�
From: Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer
/C
Date: July 2, 1997
Re: Win River Building Envelope Insubstantial Amendment
Physical Address: 570 & 580 Riverside Avenue, Aspen, CO
Legal Address: 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 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 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
OF 2
DRCM8C97.DOC
Memo - Win River Building Envelope Insubstantial Amendment Review, Last Revised July 2, 1997 •
slope of 10(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; 1) 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):I(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 utilities, 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 Subdivision/PUD Plat: The above conditions shall be included in the revised
subdivision/PUD plat recorded prior to issuance of a building permit for either Lots 1 or 2 in the Kastelic
Subdivision/PUD.
2OF2
DRCM8C97.DOC
•
0
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 of fill 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.
• •
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
APPLICANTS PLEASE NOTE!!
Applicants or their representatives are
encouraged to attend the DRC meeting to
discuss the project. The DRC Meeting has
been scheduled for Wednesday, _April 23 ,
1997 at 10:30 am in the Sister Cities Room of
City HAIL
Planner: Mitch Haas Phone No. 920-5095 Fax No. (970)920-5439
Applicant: WinWin, LLC Phone No. Fax No.
Representative: Bill Campbell 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 envelopes in response to affects of
stream margin review.
Residential Units: SF MF Affordable ADU:
Acreage/Square Feet: FAR Ratio Allowed: FAR Proposed:
Zoning: Existing: R-15 Proposed: R-15
REQUESTS TO BE PROCESSED
Amendments
Growth Management Q.S.
Site Plan Review
Text
Exemption
Special Review
Map
Residential/Tourist Accom.
Special. Planned Area (SPA)
Administrative Review
Office%ommercial
Subdivision Plat
Insubstantial
Historic Reviews
Lot Line Adjustment
Appeals
Exemptions
Lot Split
Change in Use
Minor
Condominiumization
Conditional Use
Conceptual
Timeshare
ADU
Final
Final Plat
Other
Landmark
Temporary Use
Environ. Sensitive Area
Landmark Lot Split
Variance
Stream Margin Review
Demolition/Relocation
8040 Greenline Review
Significant w/SPA or PUD
Exemption
Ord. 30 Residential Review
View Plane Review
Planned Unit Development
Exemption
Conceptual
Hallam Lake Bluff
Final
Exemption
1 a***h atAMMdment
SPECIAL ISSUES:
Agency
Issues
H yulie \pro-Veter4.doc
4
MEMORANDUM
To: Mitch Haas, Project Planner
Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engine ji�a
From: Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer �.
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
1 OF 2
DRCM8B97.DOC
• • •
Memo - Win River Building Envelope Insubstantial 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 wall(s) as currently
established by the Colorado Dept. of Transportation (CDOT) at the time of building permit issuance.
2. Revised Subdivision/PUD Plat: The above conditions shall be included in the revised
subdivision/PUD plat recorded prior to issuance of a building permit for either Lots 1 or 2 in the Kastelic
Subdivision/PUD.
2OF2
DRCM8B97.DOC
•
E
Cp�-r s-rAtA oAft577
1-r c AN...
pF,S1.Cxa �f�'.t��!i�tova,
MEMORANDUM
To: Mitch Haas, Project Planner
Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer
From: Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer &5
Date: April 30, 1997 response is updated to May 9, 1997 final 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
l OF 2
DRCM897A.DOC
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
unchanged (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 Subdivision/P.U.D. plat, a tree
legend table should be added to the site plan and tree locations should be identified by circled numbers
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 Subdivision/P.U.D. plat reflected in this Insubstantial Amendment and further stating that all
other conditions of the previous Subdivision/P.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.
2OF2
DRCM897A.DOC
bJ CAMPBELL ARCHITECT
97092?8561
t1L� 1'ltl_jIJ1J
MA'i' 14 ' 9? 15 : C5 No . 003 P.01
•
ARCHITECT, P.C.
175 Big Hat Road
Basalt, Colorado 81621
(303) 927-4425
Mitch Haas
Community Development Department
i;30 S. Galena St
Asper,. GO 61611
14 May, 1997
Dear Mitch,
have reviewed the 9 May 97 comments from the engineering depuilment regarding the Win River
Building Envelope Insubstantial Amandrnerrt_ I have the following comments:
Items 1 U. The proposed changes to the bulldlnp envelopes were established to provide flexibility in
determining the final building location. Moving the envelopes closer to the proposed buildings reduces
that flexibility, The new envelopes on the East side are located along existing fence lines which means that
they enclose yards vWk ii are already developed. Since a "shallower set back is workmble" I would request
that they bo left as proposed. The foundations of the proposed residence will be much deeper than the
utilities son undermining should not be a problem. A retaining wall along the southeasterly odge of the
envelope will provide protection from vehicles.
hem 3: 1 feel this is a subjective oomment. The circular drive is a design issue not an engineering problem.
Item 4: We will include all required Items on the plat.
Item 5. We will submit any substantial changes for review.
Sinoorely;
V'fjIliam B. Campbell
Agent
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 of fill 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.
.�e
VAA on
�` v"� .•
�. KASTELIC SUBDIVISION. P.0 D.
} 2. �A 1;_,;-__ Aspen PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
rN17^ILA• NAS -El LPFc ,NO APPROVED} IV TOO CITY OF ASK* Pt A1Mi1M DIRECTOR •f; A AL'. •EN a T,fSF PAEJt+rl ••,A• E CA :AaEr FA ..M. PF,RLJE+iA• F O --2
'N17 �Dllc_
OF ANitONY AASTFL'C, DECEA]E7, MRO'E [. SFYNluIoiV SEER OF '.E •fLE1N DESCF'7F0 AF t_ AOIFI•. .N:)CR )rt AkITEL iC K'NS •rf SEES,
A10 EW:iNtE Dtnl Af nF •f 411k N hSJ FEC ACA_ rAO,EL •Y
'N -,E c:" OF AM%, I'TA:M COkPV` CO.Oa oo 'JO •ERt1' "'so of Nok P.R'
,,OVER" +Mro :.OTS AID J MSTLLIC SI■DIVIS,OY, rL Awwt4 JN J! r "•1'oE.. .... IT
A,/I M, PIIAIN CoU%1,, [OAORAO" ANL ..o N4490V .k L.CA'L . , !Atl YL Yt, AS )N•1rY "LA!'In
IIMI,O7E3 tj '.'ENGeO.
.. � � � l �E,.G • , A En , .- �� l 7Bi
0'E <A7 V EASONat �FiRFfEMTA*• E OF rlE Ef T�•fc-O'F AiliNOkr A]•E, i
11 CxlvE =fL)A AAE RAOIW ARC ANENT C pAO Q3 1 BFM INo C,
� -Nye +t- •. `�!J c )Too*35' 0:0 is 70.{7- 10. IS' LO. M' f 17.0'0O-f x]
•r'Na,. ir•. _IrE IEMIw )17TAIMM p /
�- - DA•E^`ry/(J iIP7.i
1 _ 2 ) YN DO'E J I BETTE J010/ IYIDU,
i ; r af13-24'■ a 00 K STATE OF CN.OIIADOI
A W!4 00 E as
a
i SITE c 'x crlTY OF r: rAlN I '
THE FONEb I•q vWMER f CEATIF'CATE MA3 ACFNOWAFDOED BEOF Fk ,f IY IAA110FE ,:AfF" A) rLASONA'
Af�rRI.E'fENT At ,f of t1rE E7•AfE JF ANT-1 AASTE'_'C ANL M r')Uµ.r • :iJ'�_. DAY OF
L1tAysr4lG .9i .. SO. J)'--'.
•.1 .. :J ' h S50 74'• P'_•E3. "r MND AND Off 11
��P 1\I
r •
' ..•^•'�� 'o 3� "r COPM'Sa'ON ExP:RE
' 30' ... t_ ...
I yT C;- �- � ; -nary l0, t61i
rELpFE STATE OF CaoA ADOI
A Ott cook" OF I"", I•r
\ I,b ilE FgEGDItPO OMIERS [EIITIFIUTE WAS ACANOWI.EDOEO PEFJAE IS eY aETTE 1WN]ON •N'S •,il-
r ) R \ OF
f
r 1 5 5 •) � \ � � '�Ai 11 n Al itEtl MY .,A10 MD OFG Ic_1 ALA REAL tA_Rv
'\ ,. )0 p):-i -I S,`b a 1•Y COIMIS3I04 EXPIRE]-\•y.1",' f / ,.0�
I., :o F[t'
N70't E STATE OF COLORADO HM1r
- ; - SURVEYOR'S CER T I F i CATE
f'_E SO FT •r -
A\ \ \ IKON IWL I ao0 ». FT.. _ ',AIOER RATE*, T
.N TIE
' - O \ W' ROAD EA7f 1. 2
27 SO.FI - I I, MT,» VID W. IIDE, A SE017TEIE9 LAID 3URY:Y»
-- -, 7, I = 'Y A\ Tin I o
r _- ._ a /a • \ , � o q 'TOTAL )0 616 ]4.FT ^ I CERTIFIES TPNf THIS aLAT WAS PREPARED IT, Y HE FRA f'KO SURY Y IWEfORr'ED MDIR MY
THE .AOENS .PIED A DUL AU WI. FD AEIIESEkTAri•E )F • •• h :OV\') A ` I \ +
! r. _ -r1 SUPERVISION IM DEC. 'NNO TNAOI I.T. IPOS AM IS TR,.E AND ACCLri ATE r0 'h KEPT 0
fD
M KNOWLEoE A&&LIEF MMA
TITLE{ INC REGISTERED 10 )O SU5!%05 'h •.•RIM CJ•�A+'r, .J .A ADO, 'OES .0-A ' �•\ .• - I r
» OID ENTAT1011 Is 'N AGCOAOA„CF ■I r" LONA00 AtV SCD 3TA'Uk3
:EaEIj CERTIFY •MT TIE fE470Ns i e A$ :A"aE43 0+ 3 •.At "'AL" LEE i 117) 31:51:101 M REVISED FROM TIIE TO T11f f1E CONtROI ].Alvkr 'AS A PRK IS ION ONEwItA 31roLE TITLE r0 T1E AITNIN DFSCR BEO ,EA= PROPEar,, EE AAo 3ION 1'. r0.000
.T1AD. .' m '»
LIENS \ND EPICI1111eRAMCE] EXPFI• rw)E -•s EO N ,k .,NEWS :E•T FICA•& A IV 16 o'N ,I- - rfKe 11
A1
RQ_ 3 f103E0 TNI7 r�-�DAr OF DEC,
,Lf., -` S _FR. F A.S 1. t' p -•�� %
µ TNDJ0II rt SfL IEYE TrE FACTS STA•EP Jh 1- .7 ," AIt ( .• `\ DAVID -IRI Rlf INIJf
:7 N01 To FE COM, rRLFD A7 AN Al sYR.Gt OF c, `•Oa =Okc
.N�N--S
. :[ IS uOfgT000 1-0N]IIFED TMT A iA'r OGM.r T. .E, NC ''k "•EP iaJE7 - 0 Lf M fx13 oA'N
)OR WILL sE CTtARGED o'TN ANY I MNCI . DE ;°A•'JIR •, ."AT7Gf,EI i mac'. 1°• m CITY ENGINEER'S APPROVAL
Dy fUIY fTA1 T 'AIIEC •EAE'Y I' �•N -
/ 1 ��. ' AV� r' ,S 1 rN17 ILAT Mf REVIEEO AND NPaOYED 1V T3E CITY OF MINOR. MimmfNa DEP,•MNT
Ci krINT nI iil[-----�A•� )(1 CAP
DAY aF-sr+1, 6'.r, 'NNE
If TRIM COWrY /il.�. 'N:. , " ' .I 'N COPC
STATE OF COL 1•` • ) = ( ''M►
CWMTY DF I I Is I _. ; '• / CC I KiR
,Ln
TI E7I DEMOOOfPrTA`N OIMT'II T1 IRE NCCf NDREgiEP aEf01RE 'E i^,.•.r CE'v vi GEMS AS .� J . s _ _2 .00 ' r r`' IIA Il l�
I !Z I? � gb 7-� -'' � try. � 1 r � PLANNING & ZONING APPROVAL
WIrlES1 ItY Iwo AID OFF'C1AL SEµ �j -�. �f •�,. VS. Y
! \-r"RI Ne IfY COMMON EXPIAEf 4 �:.' I 'W
_ �• V TNIf /LA1 EA7 aEV No AP/ROVED 1Y THE C' TV OF N5M, /LAYSIM AID ZONIM
'1"'•1 '.x CR�ArO.aTDAQIM NOTNY I .0 'ff ' ,VJ' I}.»' Ilia N , I{.:OFNIIIION t.%Yi�*.DAY JF_ _�a�-. I.�AN "--.
LEGAL A"1f.. i..N. T I ON / _ i `# ,° ' _ SIO[O TN13 MA__DAY of -, 11«,
< <: 611611Y '; P 1
t" J 1. 'C
,ct et :aY M.,] . Wr•'. oA :t t5• a •.:.,�• )t,cP! N.: S:ILII o 1 I 4 1
a•e•tr•c[ 'P wt r AOu t A . s.en o. u. f...•• 'e N■ t %\ F�� �' A L
lip I
C O U
P , . r,ta.. cv,.•Y rOlRTfOR
- _ a..oY>d.4 ry ..•• .l IN. r.ol•ro4 cN.a,aRt..P e•rt., - o m I I C I T i N �,
I `.B.P•.•'° ..4 f ..Nt a .a r.N. ;,. Nt w v-r, I 1 -. _ '
• * ° ,4 r 1,w or tar I,?om I'r '� '_OT SIZE . i ») SO.FT MIS PLAT W RfYIEYE9 AID NfROVEO IT rPE Clir CoaAfCIL OF TP[ CITY of A)fHi
37f 35'E I ]0---__�.1 Z f IPSIa Oa011Wa NlOfa w f0R 1es 13 W4»OEO IN
W. t.ax r:..,y • •W.+r I. f.c tf f.K (� �` I 1 SELON NIL ' 'So So FT • �- "-`�- i U No". DAv OF
AT NO TE_S ` IOOf'�AT PAii )lf P rM PITRIN CRAWY KV-OAOS AM 44EW TPE LIIY W ASnR
',•a f'.N r v r • - '�,; I I ROAD EASE. S )NI )4. FT.• I i
Rf'1, if r l.rr t. \ A,,*Il, III LEDlUR SBENTf Af f,totw N NNORL
P Sf':S f .ff.rP , w, P• , .t a•raxur�y Ae.I ,aV rurr OLE, TO SLOPE OEMI•Y RfOUCT'ON ALCULAT'Oh] r t TOTAL M. 0 fO.
oK A i NOLE-FAMILV ROPE PLW MY ACCifSON� D�fc.L•NO i MII i V-'� a Jf0 iNli� OF ;a'•S
w° . f •f'w't :'wa ..Ar t.•t ., . ror Arr r .vi.. nA. •A111» WILD,".'.1 EaMITt20 ON EAOI .4T GRattuAT �Iw -
M'CIPµ CODE FR 3IN0.E-FAMILY r1"1 'N :•E R.IS 204
F •n`-.
' I� lf: f .. 1: .'wt .:..n tF�r ✓L.aveyC.. 5:f'R'CAT
■.NJat,.u: t-r an rwt c .I r E I 1` •y�Y011 [ItY ttEN
•< t f 2S•1• I •, f• Iwt :N PA 4, Y'1 "r +a J PAIOI 'O 1)fuANCE GF ANY DEIDLI T'oh EXCAVATION oa $ oli ' I 'I•I =•I J
UII:Arv.,W fuDO. v-.-,a W".O!•11 •FOI,II IS FOa LOT 0R :.01 J• f�REAN Ma8lM REV IEN
cA•w A VI'IO- r + CN :w •I.W aw rvc• t tY MN•t :AN ie<A IiF 0Z CARLt I, SNARL WE
NEW)I RED.
aN,w I lt'10' I fa .AK dear, ,t. t 'M s,.r: eS P.x• ; TIE AE. A rAAO fFT IACNIACA FON LOT I atMLL 1E VM ED FROM 1\ 1 11 , N `
r - .E RE•Xl RED 'kN Fir ° F Ve FEET FOR 'NE El•$TIND RESIDENTIAL , r- -r CL_E 11 bI RECORDL_F S ACC& ,
- a_wrJ 5 .wn•.r.. r. �t :c. A ,r +Y 51NUCtU1E •1E Rk OERELOM'EVt Jf 10T '-dOLIBA nE A.ILACt` T i
c•„a f SITS lu' Y tl Pf •.K 9 -c. •G: f,wst t.rerOw •E El(ISr •rN NkX 5wiAL $IIUCT,lEi SML_ ,.GIII./ '•" IE -
reel Nir•r to t5A[ :.�.MYry .Iw C I,a '.o )f
AALL-•.L :!a •a PART '■..: w I' �,. atL. .P• .. AH NIIoNAL REou1 REiENrs a THE R ofE ? s; a.c. .ro ••E \ I.sI wILDI•. fwvELOPE O N
lr. caaNa. t AP•H l . 1 f •.ety - a ,ci.t"a NovEO 1U1_D'NB iNA Ea NfI .xiLF 75 A11 ED FAOI)0/, 'E IW RFV.E1 {
NuA tff fc /yf t LwKy I,a nres:'w »\CF$s F •E Cx'S•INB 11CS!OENTt AI STRUCTURE ON ,.0• If ONMNED '�� \ '� TMIf KAT W .MIIPH FOR AF(DaDINB IR TPE aK:CI OF 7Pf QLY AND RECN:.E• AF
afAaa 1 ■1'AI f It I ON 'ff7TR0YFO N DOLE » N IMI AMv AECOMl rS T'OM lMµl rICCUR \ IS ,
: '41 '"E i,l U■Lf rNOv ]IONS df TIE MIAVIc. PAL •_ODE. I `� .� P'IRIN COUNTY, COIORAW NI] SAY Of • N.I Al �IpO ": Ot
R of•:f I ...» rwa w :Aa fwta•r.r 5a yFY3
�rr.Y :. Aawa ,II ,L r•P tit ,t •5, P!a rar rrcot ,. ,R'JA TD BPS. MICE Of ANY WIL51)IJ PERMIT FOI 0• ' M 'OT ), IN Pt.Ar 4)0■� A7 IAE RFCIPr•OY ARAsfa
a r-.lw,Yr.1 •.o N,.,, w,aOrr� ..r ewa ..r _Pt Aw.: •...fA .0 TNEE RdOv1: •EMITS IItµL IE IOU Ian FOR
ANY •NE OVEM t- IY ) a�12'00'f
yfSs K fraw 1' Vr • .. :,alar.: .;AL:rFs MI ARE ROtDV[0 » AELOGAffO. .J '♦ ■_C __--_ II
:•)1 3f' , )i I,ftw fYc".t.: w•r MA D❑/� 7
L R •F'lf' ■ )♦ a0 rw< I.•.,rI..KJ .twat•wI •c tL a•ut of .•pf _A.rJ ? rRla ' I»f.rCf of ANY 1UILDIM'EMITS F» 'Or I NN 'OT J, GORDON AE VIL ICMT >•M:= CO 1 NIT" r,E C'1V' EWOI•EIN TO Df TERMITE .VOTES A;•\C. :
{ ca wrl ON P.TW:A. STAtS1O :OLJIA•D �ETK# A MAMrE ArA�nlf :) NFt-if■ARY JC. PREPARED 11 +
- - a YOM RfOE rE•Lo rtMt OF OT M OT 2, fl )EAtOIITION AM AEf LAA'DEY• µL EASEPENT7 OF RECORD 47 'Ri.GrEO
OF iPai EXIli IMO REl &OEM&&µ 04LLIIIA ON SUCH tOT r"f *%*Lg EN OF SUXN GY fIr111N DDNITY' TITLL NC. II'AI SrEEt SITE PLAN, CFR` F'CA •f S, _EaA. DESCR ,• ON ENGINEERS
LOT ]MLR 3TIME ALL UTILIrIE1 oN fA1O1 LOT AM !"CITE r' :eIIERa°uo CWNItPtfNt-ftT-sa 1,3 iATep 1,-alwp ASPEN SURVEY INC
47 4EWiINEO OM SVC.:oT. -AVE N*A .4- IEaEAF1
Tl[ NPLICANt SAAALL ADfE#E TO AL' REf REfENi ArIWn wAOE IN TE S SEET J EX'STIN1 CyrplT oMf, 10IO4APNr 110 s EA SONG sTNFCT
MILIGTIM AM TANNING THE RE EN
PROCESS J. 2oNE DISTRICT it Na- na.e - n r r r 0 SON )SO0
i E - ■ Palw TO TAE .fSWAC� of Arr WILDING IEaMI r7 A REVIEW OF ANY O ) coNri77 $6 17-o1•S) W. • REY/ WIT" I cwrr W ,w rrt at•ItNca aaM .aw .[ ALEIh CARD 0'11'
r rrOPOffD CIMN�7 fROM rlE N,ROYALI AN SET FOR IEOE IN. (PALL WE "AD6 PLM.IC WS 'aI JN• OR K 'S'�- M nRe ,lA» rr0 .wr
WV "S PLASMIIIW AND ENW NEARI• DE/�11 TTENTS. r.o J+.,r I■rra • �• r rA•SIE.ifX IJOJt IIA M'B
j E FaxW "Vey Po A►IENT 31* SRW 3 SoR uarAaab w,a 0•IM u' true
1 TNIa ,IIML r Ar AFFLKTS '.,E ■EYIs" WILDIMW T:IVKOPE7 i.DIUTIMB 017Ca1PT10N. �� w c,tAOlsa Isa •'T.w
ti 1PIaT TTE EXIITILAT rKS7 ARE IM fA4�r`.0 TfD ASD TMf PE E/C.£-5 ME WT • TtIIS n, r w � ".LC. • G� L RE.I)m ]EC N] .SNJ
we OF STNEAN IIAANIN UVIE,,T•r1 'PI• W.
KASTELIC SUBDIVISION. P.U.1D.
{ RI'VER5IDE AVE
•20'
"1
0 20 40
. I W
C,JRVE a. rA ANGLE R:J JS ARC r4NGENr CHORD CHORD BEARING IouLDrR I =I
C ti5.00'SS920 15 BO 47 40 26' 80 44' N )`J•40'OO'E r•u e.44
D I
C - 8 so ll' i
cc-
\ \ _lvtr ,t 1. •''i I\ _ / 'a
I SLAND A. c.T V LICK
\ i A.
-1 SS-E ,IW '.,1 ct
N7E
1. 11 • rl il. �.� 'I J1 I \
v I 'tOUSf
0r;EAIC
am vq
Ao
1. I ,rv. / r. - • I T A,_ ) I ij v •�
i!. I l E rl0 ,SNFII�j�'II�1 y, - A •-r
Vo
� "•7JSE
� Ip 1 p ly
ay 1 e y it II •� GT `f i `; 1
:- ,i .{; ....1:. ... r � JI IA %�-(fit .1 _ _- •I/ / I \ y{p I t
'4{�� RASArENrA
crl Pv{) w
. R.L AL SAN
G 0 R D 01` 1 :; Ij S O
80WVDAiV Ne -:AE'E NT
.. � BN 266 IG _)'
not ICE'
A�11� TE COL4»DN LAW r4R1 Pl/i Wm_ rrR LLBK .1I W MSA4 JfN AM US,
WITNPI 71f1 YEARS M NO M0M, CI SOOVSR fKM GIILCI IN w EYLSQ. AMY ANY "I ION eASLD 'JVA
} ♦ APM V140Or IN ra14 N.wr ■a oaRFFFc■o raalE TIrM ra •aAAo FaoY ,.a o.TL s Ti unlFlurlaA
.li+vtfb'.
Av
SLAI(J 'Ea1 XAO'ES
�
FO.xD SIMVE• ,IofaAE1
S'pVE♦ M1I NT ED S.TM
AND 1 M 5 ISUS N
rJ IE_.0, CAP AESMI
CO,A.TOI*S -OM AEa.I
•
S,,9161 COW-" 10 N'
N7
A _I•Y Pak
CWIIOAIEA.•M _AND
roe r.r'_E .NSURAAIGE
WAS iIMD h '.•E ME
r
AENCV
OVERNEAO .:' L'f ES
I ER'L 'S A I'rr- 0A
S:.YC'Y'SI ON AS FIE_
ASIE, "NEE
Y,. R
V
CON'F" 'SEE
.OT r4111,W0 rREE
Tl
�. 5 I'4G COND 1 I W-5 11AP
!I
• MEPAPIED BY
ENGI..EER'S I`
I GORDON S,.AK S I Off ro s NALkrw sT
' N o NOx 2lO6
AsKh. COLoRAJO 6,612
t SIC 5) S75- ".6 JOB
NL vIS[G w x VO tOTi'
SH T 2 OF 2WEE TEs axt r)J-u
L1.
0
e
•
•
A
•I
0
0
0
CURVE D LTA ANGLE RADIUS
C 1 05 000 ' 35 ' 920 25 '
SCAM
I INCH - 20 FEET
0 10 20 30 40
CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 2 FEEI
N '9046'00"W
3 47'
ARC TANGENT
30 47' 40 26'
t
CHORD CHORD 3EARING
30 44' N 73040'00'r
RIVERSIDE
AVE
HALL, SIb4
I
iJ J 1 i \J �./ I \J cI
(N/
C, FOLNG SUF(VFY MONJM,_N( AS CESCRIBEO
SURVEY ORIN1EC W,T,, rOJND MONt,MEN-S rOR. CORNERS
5 ANO 6 M S 390 AM S 45'W ISi CO BRASS CAP
AN0 YELLOW CAP RESPECTIVE-Y
J SE1 SPIKE SURVEY CONTHO-
POWcr• PO,E
CON 6N%EALTr-- ANJ T11LE INSURANCE COMPANY' CONWITMENT
FOR Ti%i INSURANCE CASE NO PCT-5062 C2, DATED 16i01790
WAS USED ;N rhE ?REPAkA11CN OF lr: S SURVEY
---X---- WAS USED tr4 'HE "REPAWICN OF TH S SURVEY
- -- ,i---- -- CVERHEAD JT I; I' I S
2-4 F`-T 01 ::NOW CJVERED THE PRGPFR(Y AT THr TIME
OF Tn1S SURVEY.
Ate_ SJBCIV'.SION CORN:k5 SET ON 12-01-93 NO. 4 REEIAR
W11H PLASTIC CAPS-16129' OR '16129 WC'
_ IOC YEi,R FLOOD PLAIN FROM THE BAN :8. 9v1 STu-)Y EY
1 SCHMUESER GORDAN MEYER
e s �p
e Jl I I 98
v' ° 3.78 /E NO�� 20'� I , a
PUMP 7,6.00' T ASPEN 'NEE
1 kOC % i C<7 I J�nf`�OlF
/ I H F CSC (v o.
/ N 69 3 IOW¢0 4 46j j�\ \� u„ t -- - •
�\f
CTTN 'N\ \ r-_ 42 9' mt' ' -S CONIFtn 1RE'-
CJ 89.45'05'W �'2`� m• I y11 I 1 ` �
WEAK J a v, \ umi,
9
1� 1 l .✓� I 0• { m 11COTTCNAOOD TR'F
w •� � �,. t � 1 , I It z � � n
l �L. STONE G ASP
/ I /22 RETAINI G SE C P
d
�.. Y� WALL IN CXX u, N Vt II
- rR 2 I SIRI 1 m TI �•. J' j may, !.' 11 ' / \ / ?TN,r I I 14' lu -0 t �I '- \ \ \ GAS', I. .
!- 'I' BOUT@c°k RETAINING WA_L
"I
s oo l off/ ' ' f2 ` -,' 12 t �In I L
Ci o o4
_ ,o
. i \ S8 O'E - SHFl� I 6•
��i T'(t, a
y 9 -9- r
CT TNWDS I S,,
n,)USE it (� 4 Fi '` .� I r� - [AT O' nI i
2 ' 1 ��
C
0-1 ; t_rt0T
OAll
SHED0 I I ( T L j oo
l „i .T ! ORES 40X 213 50 FT 3 009 50 F1
o I jr i I I �l i ..(G! I ' SLOPE: SOx aC%. - - -- ev7 to
SO -'- --I-5 708 50 FT �.
yrA u'' -OPLS 20x .3Gx 2 43 SO r'
i S_OPLS (20x -�- 2 232 SO F T 18. 14O SG F T
\ I18 CTTNW�-
J
6--9 s�1 ' - :�EVELO ABLr AREA I 7 199 SO FT 51.963 50 A )j
o AHcA BELOW HW_ - 8 .600 $0 F T I 7 0-0 -SO.:-]
—- — --__
p�' kC.>C r tSc.MENT I - 4 227 SO r ( - - - 5_097 SO_r1_i
8 -CTTNW •i /� �"^_`i _ i 2Ed k I —i
/l ��11 r- EAsr EN r-- ---- -
DnVID W. Mc BRIDE. A kEGIS tkEG LAND SURVEYOR IN 1FE SIATE J � � 1�� , \ I � � � - ------------ - --�---------•
\� 7 \ 8K 249 G b3�
OF COLORADO. HEREBY CERTIFY THAT T-IIS PLAT WAS PREPARED FROM111 52 Y JILO �. CTA, >RcA 30 6'6 $O F'. 44 r10 SC F!
T� .
A FIELD SURVEY PREFORMED UNDER MY SUPERVISION IN----.°y } -�-_-- ING Eno- GPL- -I. -- 1-- I ^((�� \' / \ �` \ `---.-----_ _---- --1-------------_-�.----------- .-----
199- AND IS TRUE AND CORRECT `G T-1E BEST OF KNOWLEDGE AND
BELIEF. THIS CER'T1=(CATION IS VOID UNLESS WET STAMPED ON ),,N
ORIGINAL BLUEPRINT. C1TIN \ / \ /7 / /
S I GNcD THIS -- DAY OF _--. 199-. r 40. 55
i 30.20- Q 76.60' �,X6Ti�4 ar'-Ittl 'f1 �� 1 -i
DAVID N. Mc BRIDE RLS 16129 ___---- \ �� GCR�JL,rI J�iB�J I lJ I S I ON �PIL_AkS / S 8742'00-E
BOUINDAR) INE AGREEMENT
PREPARED 8)
6K Bc; rG 26;
ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS. INC
210 S. GALENA 5TREET
ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU WJST COMIENCF ANY LEGA, ACTION P.O. BGX 2506
BASED UPON ANY DCFECT IN THIS 'LAT WITHIN TitREE YCARS AFTER YOU
ASPEN. COLD. 816:1
FIRST 515COVERED SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT. MAY ANY ACTION BASED
PHONE/FAX 19701 525 3dlo
UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS PLAT BE LOYYENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS
FROM THE DATE OF THE CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.
JOB NO !9777D JAN. 31 1997
•
•
•
-
•
SCALE -
I INCH - 20 FEET
0 10 20 30 40
CONTOJR INTERVAL IS 2 FEET
N 19°46'00"A'
3 47'
1 �`� 'E7&eo
DAVID W. Mc BRIDE. A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR IN TFE S?ATL
OF COLORADO. HEREBY CERTIFY THAT 7115 PLAT WAS PREPARED FROM
A FIELD SURVEY PREFORMED UNDER MY SUPERVISION IN
199— AND IS TRUE AND CORREC' '0 TIE BEST OF KNOWLEDGE AND
BELIEF. THIS CER'TI (CATION IS VOID UNLESS WET STAMPED ON AN
ORIGINAL BLUEPRINT.
CURVE DEL TA ANGLE
C I 05 °00 ' 35 "
RADIUS
920 25 '
RE,Dw�.�D
ARC TANGf_-n'T CHORD
90 47' 40 26' BO 44'
C'
CHORD BEARINGte,,�Q�(�C
N 73°40'00'"c3��'ua�
x�
A
1, Abw 6z �
2
i RIVERSIDE AVE
i 0 x
' 111 � •o /
t
20. W c�
\ \ \ \ d c S OPt P�icE
AS
0
i c /
45
F i GH WATI.R MART( ' 2 L0:
FIELD LOWED%\ 12K`i \ 12
RUC APRUC- '`* �• �` /
`! I SLAND S70N RE7AIN
S EN1 j wall! rF F:K I NG rlh
7
2
CTT y w� 4
UC
V C `r I{r
JNIve oL
3 28 t� i.'
1 .7 i T. J A
* ` PUMP J� 00 1 J f
{ k'Gc I HOF t CSC ( t
j N 89'3 iil 10'W 20 46'4!C)
CTTN
f^, WEAK
! / f
9
?Z. STONE L` /
s 1 22' / RETAIN• G \;� sE' P /
WALL + IN cJF,C
2
TTNAv I I+
12• �_ I
C o. o s 1= I
s \ s8 " ISH I !/ 6-
� - I
6) i 1 o
CTTNWDS
s 1 / \ o j SHED
o
0 0 0)
°, �t I i L i
I�
G OVE i
I j
IF B CTTNW�
s 6
�' ,'' 1 / ti I r MM• � 1 � /
D O \ 1 l
o . /
OO 4 i
CP
I8' TTNWD
,
JJ. \ j �bJI
n vlb
,VISI
N 00'14'00'E '
�o EL.
•° cT -r
r
I
m , BOULDER %" W
WALL i
p
<�_/
O'- O
11 z
} 1
N
\ In
� I
1 � I
ul, ,
It
rl
v 1 I
a ,
A .1
sP _ ,o
14'cl
a+ _
-
-
N ¢
o
I ,
-L - HED
1 ` 'O I vlm. 1 1
1 2 '�EN k , 1
L FAS ENJ
8K 2,49 G 635
FOLN, SUP.VFY MONJIMEN( AS CESCP.iBED
SURVEY ORINTFC W�Tn F0'JNC MON,MFN-S FOR wkNERS
5 AND 6 M S 390, AM S 4`'W I51 CO' BRASS CAP
AND YELLOW CAP kESPECTIVELY
SE1 SPIKE SURVEY CONTRO_
0 POWct• POLE
COkWGNWEA-Tn ANJ TILL- INSURANCE COMPANY COMMITMENT
FOR TilLi iNSURANC' CASE NO PCT-5062 C2. DATED 10/Glib
AAS USED ;N fhe ?REPAkATICN OF 'L. S SURVEY
-----4----- NAS USED IN !HE 'kEPARAT ICN OF 1H S SURVEY
- — — r -- CVERHL,,D JT 1: 1 t 1 .5
2 4 FELT 01 SNOW CJVERED THE FROPE'RTY AT TH: TIML
OF. THIS SURVEY.
A,.- SUBDIV SION CORNERS SET ON 12-0-9.3 NO. 4 REEIAR
W17H FL ASTtC. CAPS-16129' OR '16129 WC -
IOC YEAR FLOOD PLAIN FROM THE JAN-. :8. 1991 STuDY EY
/ SCHMUESER GORDAN MEYER
ASPEN TREE
CONIFtk IRE,.
,ram
COTTCNw00D TR C
,• 90J,.DER REMAINING W4!L_
1 '1'
1'
1 A!-JL_A
T i ViV
01
L07
—
SLOPIS >4Ux
1221
SO FT !
i-
3 004 SO FT
I
LOPES 30x 40x
bj7
SO FT
I
5 708 SO FTl7�
! 20x 3Cx
2 43i
SO 1"
106 Suu^.FT
;
.OPEs
OPES <20x
2 232
SO F1
8 140 SC FT
I
I
EVEL.O ABLE AREA
I
'89
SO FT
il.963 SO FT
Nr.A BcLolk H6•'._
8 boo
S0. F T
7 050 50. - I
j
II
rASEMEN'T
I 4 217
SO 1
/ 1
S 097 SO.-�
•r
OTAL AREA
.50 b'b
..0 •F7
•; ,
44 110 Su
S I GNED TH I S —._ DAY OF _____—. 1 99—... _ ••�--- - -
�_ \ � 43-7 W.C. 158.07- -- _ - h„- � n ` i _ . 30.20_ QS B� 2'00 ,F4u. J>\ _ �
DAV 10 4. McGk I DE RLS 16129 \ GO R D,C S U B V I J I S I O ti ,/3 �,Ql�'
"�p61I��O�OIIE, BOUNDARY , IivE AGREEMENT w;4-
',PREPARED BY
e-r BY Y•)6K t,;: PG 26 I Gv , Q ��ttTT
(REso.9� n���1� SPEN Sl Rl EY ENGINEERS. INC
� 210 S. GALENA STREET
00
ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LL�,A GAL ACTION _ GYM./' ` 1•" ASPEN. COLD. P.O. BOX 25
BASED UPON ANY CEFEC) IN 1HIS 'LAT WITHIN fFIREE YCARS AFTER YOU
'1 `�v �p ,�� Jai
61b.l
� „\��
FIRST jISCOVERED SUCH DEFECT IN NO EVENT, MAY ANY ACTION BASEC P�10NEiFA). 19701 925-381G
�lY i
UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS PLAT BE (:OIMIEMQD HONE THAN TEN YEARS ,{
FROM THE DATE OF THE CERTIFICATION SHOWN HERLON. 'v-
JOB " � 4"�'D JA'J 31 I ti'�+ '
•
•
•
Mr. Herb Klein
201 North Mill Street, Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Herb:
AsPEN ' PITKIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
April 1, 1997
This letter is intended to correct. clarify and serve as a follow-up to the letter of March
25, 1997. In the previous letter, it was stated that, "provided the vested rights associated
with the original approvals are allowed to expire, the lots in question are left
unencumbered, without building envelopes. Thus, an insubstantial PUD Amendment to
modify the building envelopes would not be applicable." Upon further review of the
Municipal Code and subsequent discussions with the City Attorney, it has become
apparent that this opinion is incorrect.
In fact, Planned Unit Development (PUD) approvals in the City of Aspen do not expire,
rather only vested rights associated with such approvals expire. That is, under the Aspen
Code, vested rights provide property owners with an assurance that any approvals granted
vested rights status will not be affected by subsequently ,enacted changes to the City's
regulations. Thus..vhile the vested rights expire after three years, the PUD approvals last
forever, unless and until amended. Consequently, the building envelopes approved as
part of the Kastelic PUD/Subdivision are still in full force and effect, and remain legally
binding unless and until amended pursuant to the provisions of Section 26.84.080 of the
Aspen Municipal Code.
Revising the designated building envelopes can be done as either an insubstantial PUD
amendment or as a significant PUD amendment. An insubstantial PUD amendment
would be accomplished administratively (i.e., Community Development Director's sign -
off), while a significant amendment would _require City Council approval after staff
review and a Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation. If an insubstantial
amendment is pursued, the proposed/revised building envelope will need to comply with
all of the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district, including minimum
side and front yard setbacks. If the proposed envelope is designed to allow for
development that would not comply with the dimensional requirements of the underlying
zone district, the proposal would be considered a significant amendment.
If a significant PUD amendment is to be pursued, the City Council is permitted to vary
the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district, including front, rear and
side yard setback requirements, minimum distance between buildings, minimum.
percentage of open space. and/or other dimensional requirements, as outlined in Section
130','L? 1- -._ENA STR-ET • A47EN, COLoR_k.x S1611-1975 • PHONE 970.920.5090 • FAx 970.920.5439
. "-•ra'r reeve d.d Papa
26.84.030(B)(4) of the code. The review criteria by which such variances can be granted
are the same as the criteria by which a PUD is reviewed, namely those requirements
contained in Section 26.84.030(B)(1)(a-d) of the code.
As mentioned in the foregoing, City Council review of a significant PUD amendment
requires that the proposal first be brought before the Planning and Zoning Commission in
order to obtain their recommendation. The hearing before the Commission can include
both the conditional use review for the proposed accessory dwelling units, and the review
of the PUD amendment request. Of course, any conditional use approvals granted by the
Commission at such a hearing would be contingent (conditioned) upon Council approval
of the requested amendment.
When applying to amend the PUD Development Order to revise the building envelopes,
whether it be through the insubstantial amendment process or the significant amendment
process, the proposed/new envelopes will need to be designed to accommodate the
accessory dwelling units, while maintaining the ability to presen e the significant trees
that exist on each of the sites. The amendment(s), if approved, ' vill need to be recorded
in the form of a revised plat.
There are many potential design solutions that can be pursued. For instance, the proposed
locations of the ADUs could be revised to fit within the minimum setback requirements,
they could be moved to above/below the garages, or variances could be sought. It is
recommended that City staff be conferred with prior to deciding on a single solution
and/or direction. If you would like to arrange a meeting, or if I can be of further
assistance to you in any way, please do not hesitate to call me at 920-5095.
Sincerely.
Mitch Haas,
Planner, City of Aspen
•
Mr. Herb Klein
201 North Mill Street, Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Herb:
AsPEN • PITKIN
Commu.\m, DEvLLOPmENT DFP.%RTVE\7
March 25, 1997
This letter is intended to serve as a follow-up to our meeting of Tuesday, March
25, 1997. In discussing the disposition of Lots 1 and 2 of the Kastelic
PUD/Subdivision with the Assistant City Attorney, David Hoeffer, my opinions
have been confirmed.
That is, provided the vested rights associated with the original approvals are
allowed to expire, the lots in question are left unencumbered, without building
envelopes. Thus., an insubstantial PUD Amendment to modify the building
envelopes would not be applicable. Rather, the conditional use approvals
should be pursued via Planning and Zoning Commission review; as part of the
Commission's review, a variance from the dimensional requirements of the
underlying zoning (i.e., minimum side yard setbacks) can be requested by the
applicant.
The building envelope for each lot would not need to be designated until the
applicant_ is ready to apply for a building permit. These envelopes should be
.designed to accommodate the accessory dwelling units approved by the
Commission, while maintaining the ability to preserve the significant trees that
exist on each of the sites.
Hopefully, this will clarify the process that your client will need to follow to
achieve his/her goals with respect to the development of Lots 1 and 2 of the
Kastelic PUD/Subdivision. If I can be of further assistance to you in any way,
please do not hesitate to call me at 920-5095.
4 Sin
_-ly
P12nner, City .Aspen
cc:\ Bob Nevins, Planner
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Deputy Director
130 SOLTII G:\LE\A SFRLFT Ai ['E\, COLORADO 81611-1973 NONE 9"0.920a090 FAx 970.920.Jd 39
Rioted- R"'I'd Paper