HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.EC.488 Castle Creek Rd.022A-84oaaf\ - $A
J•T.E.M Venture - Lot Spli
Marolt property - withdrawn
E
cl
10 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
V
CASE NO. n Z ZI� - 944
STAFF: �yi k eAQ
PROJECT NAME: J y j+u re
/3DX 115 S'd
APPLICANT: .�. T M . l/r�Yla�, ram.„� r+h -r�K Phone:
-7 b
REPRESENTATIVE:( C�a �i�l-(x� Phone:
TYPE OF APPLICATION:
(FEE)
I. GMP/SUBDIVISION/PUD (4 step)
1. Conceptual Submission
($2,730.00)
2. Preliminary Plat
($1,640.00)
3. Final Plat
($ 820.00)
II. SUBDIVISION/PUD (4 step)
1. Conceptual Submission
($1,900.00)
2. Preliminary Plat
($1,220.00)
3. Final Plat
($ 820.00)
J
III. EXCEPTION/EXEMPTION/REZONING (2 step)
($1,490.00)V/
'
C
IV. SPECIAL REVIEW (1 step) (��c�(^�p�►�•'^�"""
($ 680.00
1. Special Review
2. Use Determination
3. Conditional Use
4. Other:
P&Z MEETING DATE: �"`��^1� CC MEETING DATE: DATE REFERRED:
REFERRALS:
ity Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Director
'/ Aspen Consol. S.D.
Mountain Bell
Parks Dept.
Aspen Water Dept. Holy Cross Electric
City Electric Fire Marshall
Environmental Hlth. \// Fire Chief
FINAL ROUTING:
City Attorney
Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
-170A)
8/z41/8
City Engineer
Other:
School District
Rocky Mtn. Natural Gas
State Hwy Dept. (Glenwood)
State Hwy Dept. (Grd.•Jctn)
Building Dept.
Other:
DATE ROUTED: O Zy g `7
V--'Building Dept.
sCC)z wi?i-IDeRwn7
ITtfbP-f��n� py�, �LlG4N�T
.0 o"VJ O'� 0- A da 4
7C47h I
tl.�-� rtcS) -vy\ wSA (�-AZ J-O II II qla,
40 Wuz-- ate a ��,o-f- fo oi/I
UnL�-
a
IC, Dom- a v� cx- 64,
EXHIBI`: "A"
A tract of land located in Section 12 and Section 12 and Section 13 of
Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Pitkin
County, Colorado, described as follows:
Beginning at a point, a No. 5 re -bar on the easterly Side of the County
Road right-of-way, whence the common corner of Sections 11, 12, 13, and 14
bears South 87*06' West 1016.20 feet; thence North 81'56' East 257.42
feet; thence South 06*42' East 308.07 feet; thence West 111.84 feet to tine
Easterly side of the County Road right-of-way, Lhv nce along the fenceline
North 31*21' West 73.89 feet, thence along the fenceline North 44*55' West
133.57 feet, thence along the fenceline North 52*30' West 184.31 feet to
the point of beginning, containing 36,001 sq:iare feet more or less.
County of Pitkin. State of Colorado.
0
i
4
4
l P
Z B
Si � cg
R�
W
a
$
a carry over trom rengei saia ne reit tnere is goo- y--= ---- — +i•Lblllp to and:
from Highlands. Councilman Behrendt asked if there were negotiations for the city to run'
the ski service to Highlands. nge1 said Highlands felt they co, not make it this year.
Councilman Behrendt asked if City would discontinue the dayti, vice to highlands
during the ski season. Fengel s d he would like to keep the servi going all the time
to Highlands.
Councilman Behrendt said he had talked to the ski Corp and assured them the city was not
running buses to Highlands during the ski season daytime because they are not paying for i
the service. Councilman Behrendt pointed out this could become a source of irritation
to the ski Corp because they are putting out a lot of money for the city to run the bus
system to the Ski Corp areas. Fengel said they had not put a ski corp bus on the route '
to Highlands, nor had they used a small bus on the ski corp routes. Councilman Behrendt
said that is not the issue; Councilman Behrendt said people will ride the city buses to I)
ski at Highlands and Highlands is not putting any money into the bus system like the Ski
Corp is. Jim Wentzel, Highlands, concurred there may be duplication during the ski season;
Highlands is running 7 buses and the skiers should ride the Highlands buses. Wentzel sai
he felt strongly about a city bus in the night time. Councilman Van Ness pointed out
there are skiers in town going to Aspen mountain that ride city buses, and the ski corp
does not pay for the in -town buses. Mayor Edel suggested the city face this next fall
and discuss this particular problem. Fengel agreed they would run the day and night
service to Highlands and come back.in October. In the meantime he will discuss this with
the ski corp.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE ttll, SERIES OF 1980 - Celia Marolt Annexation
Mayor Edel opened the public hearing.
Councilman Isaac moved to read Ordinance #11, Series of 1980; seconded by Councilman
Parry. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #11
(Series of 1980)
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A TRACT OF LAND KNOWN AS THE CELIA MAROLT PROPERTY
LOCATED IN PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, WHICH ANNEXATION IS ACCOMPLISHED
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE COLORADO MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION ACT OF
1965 was read by the city clerk
Joe Wells, planning office, told Council this parcel is 36,000 square feet and the origin
al planning office recommendation was to zone it R-15A. There was some concern that an
R-15A without a restriction against further subdivision would have the effect of elimin-
ating possible employee units on the site. R-15A as a single lot, a duplex would be
permitted with the second unit deed restricted; however, on a 36,000 square foot parcel,
the creation of a second lot would be less than 20,000 square feet necessary to create
two units. Only two free market single family units would be permitted in the event a
lot split had been accomplished. Wells pointed out the Opal Marolt property, which is
being annexed, is recommended R-15A mandatory PUD, and the mandatory PUD designation
should apply to this site as well. Mandatory PUD triggers the slope reduction formula;
this formula recognizes that steeply sloped 'sites are less developable and should have
less density potential. The PUD designation reduces the allowable density to 20,000 square
feet which would allow a duplex situation. The planning office ieels the PUD designation
should be added.
Councilman Behrendt said there is a claim that there might be a bandit unit in the build-
ing at this time and asked if staff had checked this out. Wells answered this has not
been checked out because the tenants are not in town. Lennie Oates, representing the
applicant, told Council this has never been used as a duplex; it is not set up like that.
Wells told Council the PUD designation has been applied to the adjacent site for the same `
reasons the planning office would like it applied to this site. Ms. Smith told Council I
the P & Z had recommended R-15A with restriction against subdivision of the lot, so that t
the effect is basically the same. Oates said the applicant felt there were some advantage*
of coming into the city at the R-15 designation. Their zoning request was R-15A without
the PUD. P & Z recommended zoning as long as there was a contract arrangement so that
there was not a lot split. Oates said he would like to have the right to come back and
go through the subdivision process; however, he agreed not to avail Ordinance #3, which is,
automatic lot split. Wells said the planning office would prefer to leave this unannexed
if the city does not get the benefit of the employee.unit. I
City Attorney Stock said he felt it was inappropriate to apply to one site in a zone some-j
thing which is unique and different to it and not apply to all sites within the zone. To
restrict R-15A would be subject to challenge. Stock recommended R-15A/PUD. Councilman
Isaac said he felt the Council should go with planning office and attorneys recommendations
Councilman Isaac moved to adopt Ordinance #11, Series of 1980, as amended with PUD added
in Section 2; seconded by Councilman Van Ness.' Roll call vote; Councilmembers Collins,
nay; Parry, aye; Van Ness, aye; Isaac, aye; Behrendt, nay; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion
carried.
Ord.,
Ob.'..
Arran -.
.10
_Z1
-try
.'n
' Of
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Colette Penne, Planning Office
FROM: Pat Webster, Project Engineer
DATE: August 1, 1984
RE: J.T.E.M. VENTURE Lot Split and Exemption from
Manatory P.U.D. - Case No. City 022A-84
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
As you requested, here are the slope reductions for the lot. These
are based on our 50 scale topo maps which are accurate to eithin
+1 foot. The applicants map is a blowup of this 50 scale topo
and is correspondingly more inaccurate (i.e. +2 to 3 feet).
0 - 20% Slope
20% - 30% Slope
30 % - 40 % Slope
over 40% Slope
PW/co
= 19,362.50
sq.
ft.
= 3,525.00
sq.
ft.
= 2,875.00
sq.
ft.
= 10,238.50
sq.
ft.
REQUEST FOR ZONING
WHEREAS, Celia L. Marolt, in the Petition to which this
request is attached, has requested the City Council of the City
of Aspen to annex the land described in the Petition for Annexa-
tion to the City of Aspen; and,
WHEREAS, the land which is contiguous to that property
described in the Petition is zoned AF-2.
NOW, THEREFORE, Celia L. Marolt requests that the City
Council of the City of Aspen direct the Planning and Zoning
Commission of the City of Aspen, at the earliest possible con-
venience of the Planning and Zoning Commission, to commence pro-
ceedings to rezone the subject property R-15-A, the granting of
such zoning classification being a condition of annexation.
Celia L. Marolt
a w
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Joe Wells, Planning Office
RE: Castle Circle Annexation (Celia Marolt)
DATE: April 22, 1980
You will recall at the first reading of the annexation rezoning request on
the Celia Marolt property that our office expressed concern that if R-15A
zoning is applied to the parcel, the 36,000 square foot parcel would be
eligible for further subdivision,to create a second single family home -
site. Creation of the second lot would eliminate the possibility of
duplex construction on the existing lot whereby the second unit would be
permitted as an employee unit. (The two lots would be of insufficient size
to permit construction of duplexes of one free market unit and one restricted
unit on each lot, so logically two free market single family units would be
the end result of such an action.) The annexation in our mind would not bene-
fit the City unless the result is one employee unit.
You will recall that the attorney for the applicant argued that the same
zoning should be applied to his client's land as is being contemplated for
the Opal Marolt property adjacent, requesting in effect equal treatment for
both parties. We agree with that argument; the zoning description presently
considered for the Opal Marolt property, however, is R-15A PUD,', not simply
R-15A. The R-15A PUD zoning has been recommended for the Opal Marolt property
because of the extent of steep slopes on a portion of the site. For the same
reason it is appropriate to apply the PUD designation to the Celia Marolt
property.
The Celia Marolt site is generally fairly level only for that portion of the
parcel on which the existing structure and driveway are located. The balance
of the site drops off sharply. Based on calculations at 1" = 100' scale,
approximately 16,400 square feet of the 36,000 square feet site is between
0% add 20% grade, 5,800 square feet is between 20% and 30%, and 2,800 square
feet is between 30% and 40%. The balance of the site (approximately 11,000
square feet) is in excess of 40% grade.
The PUD procedures which would be followed on both the Marolt parcels under
the PUD designation would reduce the density potential on the sites. The
effect of this reduction has already been taken into account in the Opal
Marolt proposal. Because of the steepness of the Celia Marolt parcel, the
amount of land eligible for density calculation purposes would be reduced from
36,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet. Only 15,000 square feet would be
required to permit the construction of a duplex; 30,000 square feet would be
required for the creation of the two single-family lots. In both cases, con-
siderable upzoning from present County zoning (two acre minimum lot size)
is contemplated and we would recommend that you adopt R-15A PUD zoning for
the parcel.
a
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Office
RE: Castle Circle Annexation - Zoning (Celia Marolt)
DATE: March 3, 1980
Application has been received for annexation and zoning of a parcel of land
of 36,000 square feet, owned by Celia Marolt adjacent to the Opal Marolt
property just off Castle Creek Road. The request was for an R-15A zone
designation. The property is a triangle of land in the southern end of the
Opal Marolt property and immediately across from the City's Water Plant site.
The property is currently zoned AF-2 (two acre minimum lot size) as was the
Opal Marolt property. Immediately southeast of the property, the zoning
changes to the AF-1 (ten acre minimum lot size).
The request for this zoning designation had been delayed pending the outcome
of the annexation and rezoning request on Opal Marolt. As you know, the
zoning recommended for that site was R-15A/P.U.D./S.P.A. As Council has
adopted that zoning, the R-15A designation for Celia Marolt now appears to
be very consistent with it. In addition, that designation is consistent with
the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan, which shows this property within a band of
single family residential, buffered by open space.
R-15A zoning on the Celia Marolt site at 36,000 square feet would permit:
2 single family units by lot split (exempt from GMP), or
1 duplex (2 units with a unit deed -restricted to employee price guidelines)
On February 26th, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission approved a recommen-
dation of R-15A zoning for the site, as it was consistent with surrounding
zoning and considering the benefits to be derived of a duplex with one unit
deed -restricted. (There is currently a single family house on that site.)
However, the Planning & Zoning Commission considered that the annexation and
rezoning would not be consistent if the results were to be a lot split
with two single family houses resulting where currently there is only one.
Therefore, the Planning & Zoning Commission also conditioned their motion
on a recommendation that the annexation be conditioned on a prohibition
against a lot split. In previous similar annexations, the City Council has
expressed concern over the difference between the floor area ratio requirement
in the County and the lack thereof in the City. The Planning Staff believes if
a lot split is prohibited and the only result is a duplex with one unit deed -
restricted, then the floor area ratios considerations are a moot point. The
Planning Office concurs with the P & Z's recommendation.
Recorded 3:09 PM Mai 23 1980 Reception?,,,: ,,,,, Loretta Banner Recorder
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
room 9 C. ►. MOtcKeI .. 9.. L. CO.
ORDINANCE NO.
( Series- of 1980 )
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A TRACT OF LAND KNOW14 AS THE CELIA MAROLT
PROPERTY LOCATED IN PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, WHICIi ANNEXATION IS
ACCOMPLISHED PURSUAIIT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE COLORADO MUNICIPAL
ANNEXATION ACT OF 1965
WHEREAS, there has been submitted a,Petition for Annexation
of a tract of land known as the Celia Marolt Property located in
Pitkin County, Colorado, to .the City of Aspen, which petition has
been found to be in compliance with Section 31-8-107(1)(c), C.R.S.
1973, a part of the Colorado Annexation Act, and
.WHEREAS, the City Council has further considered the proposed
annexation as described in the Petition for Annexation (hereiri-
after "Petition") and accompanying plat, and has determined treat:
1'. The signatures on the Petition represent the owners of
one hundred (100) percent of the land proposed for
annexation.
2. Not less than one -sixth (1/6) of the perimeter of the
area to be annexed is contiguous to the City of Aspen.
3. There exists a community of interest between the tract
to be annexed and the .City of Aspen; the tract to be
annexed is urban or will be urbanized in the near fu-
ture; and the tract to be annexed is integrated or capa-
ble of being integrated with the City of Aspen.
4. The annexation will not affect the constitution of any
existent school district.
5. The petition satisfies the statutory requirements of the
Municipal Annexation Act, both as to substance and form;
and
WHEREAS, the Colorado Annexation Act provides that where a
Petition is signed by an owner of one hundred (100) percent of the
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
I /OOM V C. P. M01 QL 9. C •
property proposej to be annt:Xt.-.:, the City -Counci.l may, by ordi-
nance, annex without notice or hearing (other than that incident
to ordinance adoption) and without election, and the City Council
now wishes to so proceed;
WHEREAS, the City Council has further considered the zoning
as requested in the document attached to the Petition for Annexa-
tion and the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended the
amendment of Section 24-2.2-of the Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
'Section 1
That the following described tract, situate in Pitkin County,
Colorado, be and hereby is annexed to the City of Aspen, Colorado,
pursuant to the provisions of the Colorado Municipal Annexation
Act:
A tract of land located in Section 12 and Section 13 of
Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th Principal
Meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado, described as follows:
Beginning at a point, A No. 5 re -bar on the easterly side of
the County Road right-of-way, whence the common corner of
Sections 11, 12, 13, and 14 bears South 87°06' West 1016.20
feet; thence North 81*56' East 257.42 feet; thence South
06*42' East 308.07 feet; thence West 11.84 feet to the
Easterly side of the County road right-of-way, thence along
the fenceline North 31*21' West 73.89 feet, thence along the
fenceline North 44*55' West 133.57 feet, thence along the
fenceline North 52*30' West 184.31 feet to the point of
beginning, containing 36,001 square feet more or less.
That Section 24-2.2 (Zoning District Map) is hereby amended
by including the following -described area in -the R-15- zone
district:
A tract of land located in Section 12 and Section 13 of
Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th Principal
Meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado, described.as follows:
Beginning at a point, A No. 5 re -bar on the easterly side of
the County Road right-of-way, whence the common corner of
Oa
J
sm 389 . i',1G� 303
s...•t.CO.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
Sections 11, 12, 13, and 14 bears South 87"06' West 1016.20
feet; thence North 81*56' East 257.42 feet; thence South
06*42' East 308.07 feet; thence West 11.84 feet to the
Easterly side of the County road right-of-way, thence along
the fenceline North 31*21' West 73.89 feet, thence along the
fenceline North 44*55' West 133.57 feet, thence along the
fenceline North 52*30' West 184.31 feet to the point of
beginning, containing 36,001 square feet more or less.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or por-
tion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconsti-
tutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and
such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining por-
tions thereof.
Section 4
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the
day of , 1980, at 5:00 P.M. in
the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, 15
days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published
once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of
Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by
the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of
1980.
. Michael B rendt
Mayor Pro Tem.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S Koch
City Clerk
3
,- e
rA6E 304
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORK Ac. r, nert•rL 8. a. 0 L. to
FI14ALLY adopted, passed and approved on the day of
1980.
He an Edel
Mayor
ATTEST. ,
,
Kathryn S. ch
City Clerk
I
MEMORANDUM
TO: Colette Penne, Planning Office
FROM: Pat Webster, City Engineering �lV
DATE: July 21, 1984
RE: J.T.E.M. VENTURE Lot Split and Exemption from
Mandatory P.U.D. - Case No. City 022A-84
----------------------------------------------------------
Everything for a conceptual presentation appears to be in
order, their calculations are accurate and there are no
apparent engineering problems with regards to service and
accesibility. However, the lot is shown as zoned R-15
P.U.D.; the annexation ordinance (ORD. #11, 1980) zoned
it as R-15-A P.U.D.
PW/co
REHoRAMDoM
TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney
Jay Hammond, City Engineer
Jim Markalunas, Aspen Water Department
Heiko Ruhne, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Steve Crocket, Fire Chief
FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office
RE: J.T.E.M. Venture Lot Split and Exemption from Mandatory
PUD - Case No. City 022A-84
DATE: June 26, 1984
Attached for your review is material submitted with respect to the
J.T.E.M. Venture Lot Split and Exemption from Mandatory PUD application
submitted by Jim Curtis on behalf of J.T.E.M. Venture. The property
is located at the old Celia Marolt residence and consists of 36,001
s.f of land. Please review this material and return your referral
comments to the Planning Office no later than July 24, 1984, in order
for this Office to have adequate time to prepare for its presentation
before P&Z on August 7, 1984.
Thank you.
N /S 1R/` 0J L - % ,) /S r' J 1; A -r t) /S Y
A 5 T (J At !4 ,- i -) h. ! 4- N O ..., a -0 n-, �' a2 Ii S �• ••. T /t
4
/ — 4 It A s 7- m F-r 'j-1 F- 04— 1 Es /4 /3 o on
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT I 'JUN 2 7 1984 s
MEMORANDUM ASPEN / PITKIN CO.
PLANNING OFFICE
TO: COLETTE PENNE-PLANNING OFFICE
FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS
SUBJECT: J.T.E.M. VENTURE
DATE: JUNE 27, 1984
I have reviewed the application referred to above and do not foresee a problem in
respect to water availability. However, because of the location of Lot 2, it
may be rather difficult to obtain water unless an easement is provided for
this purpose to the 20" transmission main located along the northern boundary
of Lot 1. Since service would have to be from the 20" transmission main, we
will require special shut-off provisions in order to maintain operational
integrity of the water main. We also concur with the recommendation for a
fire hydrant tap to service both parcels.
cc: J.T.E.M. Venture
Mr. Jim Curtis - Real Estate Affiliates
J
420 E. HOPKINS STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TO: Colette Penne, Planning Office
FROM: Steve Crockett, Chief
RE: J.T.E.M. Venture Lot Split
DATE: July 22, 1984
Upon reviewing the J.T.E.M. Venture Lot Split application, I would
like to request the following addition;
1) That the developer place a fire hydrant at the
begining of the driveway on the left hand side of the driveway
as you are turning off Castle Creek road into the driveway
accessing both lots one and two.
r
•
g � 1 �� �� 1 �� ��
420 E. HOPKINS STREET
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Office
FROM: AVFD Plans -checking Committee
RE: J.T.E.M. VENTURE LOT SPLIT
DATE: JULY 22, 1984
Herewith.find our review of the named application before your office.
Thank you.
AVFD Plans checklist 1283 Cover
•
420 E. HOPKINS STREET
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
The Aspen Volunteer Fire Department welcomes the opportunity to participate within
the framework that is determining the future configuration of our town. Insofar
as our concern is the protection of life and property, we have prepared the following
guidelines to establish a sense of balance between our capabilities as a department
and the locations we might be called upon to defend.
To insure fairness and equality of application, the most recent edition of the
Uniform Fire Code will serve as final authority in our evaluations.
This review of plans is intended to impact final approval of a given project. There-
fore we see most plans in a "conceptual" form. In many cases specific items of inter-
est are simply not available for review as they don't exist in hardcopy.
It is recommended that this checklist be reviewed at some subsequent time to
insure that these items of concern have been addressed. We at the department
will gladly perform this check at the direction of the Planning Office or in
cooperation with the Building Department.
Each item of the checklist is preceeded by three possible indicators: (OK); (ID),
which stands for Insufficient Data; and (NOT OK). General comments and clarifications
will appear at the end of the prepared list.
AVFD Plans checklist 1283 Page 1
•
ROADWAYS
fy(NOT OK) (ID)
roadway to be considered as access for fire apparatus shall be an all weather
driving surface of not less than 24 feet of unobstructed width capable of supporting
the imposed loads of the apparatus. All turning radius shall be adequate and a
minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet, 6 inches shall be maintained.
Ve(NOT OK) (ID)
equired width of access shall not be obstructed in any manner, including
parking of vehicles. Legal signs and/or other appropriate notice prohibiting
obstruction shall be required and maintained.
(OK (NOT OK) (ID)
n access roadway shall be extended to within 150 feet of all portions of the
exterior wall of the first story of any building. Where this access cannot be
reasonably provided, approved fire protection and suppression systems may be
substituted, subject to review and approval by the Fire Chief.
OOK (NOT OK) (ID)
rb cuts shall be a minimum of thirty feet for commercial or multi -family
driveways. Curb cuts for public roadways shall be determined by the Town
Engineer.
OK (NOT OK) (ID)
vate circulation drives shall be a minimum of 22 feet wide excluding parking,
except where water mains are laid when they shall be a minimum of 30 feet wide
excluding parking.
OK (NOT OK) (ID)
e driveway in a parking lot shall be a minimum of 22 feet wide excluding parking,
except where water mains are laid when they shall be a minimum of 30 feet wide
excluding parking.
OK) (NOT OK) (ID)
us at 90 degree turns shall be a minimum of 25 feet at the inside curb and
50 feet at the ourside curb.
bK) NOT OK) (ID)
ends that exceed 150 feet in length shall be provided with turnaround
provision. "K turns" shall be a minimum of 75 feet long and 15 feet wide.
Cul-de-sacs shall provide a radius minimum of 50 feet.
K) (NOT OK) (ID)
access roadways may be used for pedestrian and/or bicycle traffic. Roadways
so used will ensure ease of access to pedestrians by their design. It may be
necessary to eliminate access to such roadways by unauthorized vehicles by
posting of legal signs and/or a design device. In no case may such limiting
design or device prohibit immediate access by emergancy vehicles.
(OK) (NOT OK) 0
Buildings 3 stories or higher must provide at least 2 clear means of access for
a snorkle apparatus to a site no closer than 5 feet or no farther than 25 feet
from the first floor of the building at the exterior wall.
AVFD Plans checklist Page 2
HYDRANTS AND FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS
OK) }(NOT OK) (ID)
premises where buildings or portions of buildings are hereafter constructed
and are located more than 150 feet from access roadways shall be provided with
an approved fire hydrant or other fire suppression system as reviewed and approved
by the Fire Chief.
OK (NOT OK) (ID)
om closest point of roadway access to a given building a maximum distance to
the nearest hydrant shall be established. In residential areas the maximum
shall be 600 feet, in commercial areas 300 feet, in the core area the maximum
shall be 2 city blocks as they exist or are to be built per the proposal being
reviewed.
OK)� (NOT OK) (ID)
1Y hydrants shall be located at least 50 feet from all structures in the
vicinity whenever possible.
OK) (NOT OK) (ID)
hydrants shall be located on the high side of the fire access road. Hydrants
shall be a minimum of 10 feet from the paved surface or "edge" of the access road.
The center of the "steamer" connection shall be a minimum of 3 feet above the
.finish surface of the access road and shall be situated so that the "steamer"
connection shall face the road. Clearance shall be maintained around the hydrant
so as to allow the use of all outlets without kinking the hose and to allow the
use of a 24 inch hydrant wrench on the stem nut without having to remove the wrench.
(OK) (NOT OK) (ID) P�Iql
Fire hydrants located within parking lots must be accessible without obstruction
but protected. This protection will be no closer than 5 feet from all sides of
the hydrant and a minimum of 8 inches high. One access area centered on the
'•steamer" connection shall be maintained at least 20 feet wide.
(OK) (NOT OK) Peveloper
The builder or is required to demonstrate that the proposed complex or
individual buildings will fall within the storage and distribution water systems
ability to deliver fire flow. Computations required shall be ISO "Procedures
for Needed Fire Flow", 1980 edition. No combustible construction shall start
at a planned site until such computations demonstrate adequate protection.
(OK) (NOT OK) ID)
The Builder or dpvroper is required to check the Uniform Building and Fire
Codes for requirements of automatic sprinkler system and audio/visual alarm
systems.
(OK) (NOT OK) (ID
In buildings to a provided with standpipe connections, the proposed locations
of the siames and any associated audio/visual alarms shall be approved by the
Fire Department. Clear access to all connections shall be provided for and
maintained.
(OK) (NOT OK)olation,
In a standpipe a charged outlet shall be available to within
150 feet of every dwelling unit in the building.
AVFD Plans checklist Page 3
GENERAL REVIEW CRITERIA
(OK) (NOT OK) ID
Firefighter access into a building shall be provided for both by design and
special provisions if necessary. (Fire key boxes in security situations for
example.)
(OK) (NOT OK) Presses
Posted street ashall be visible from the nearest access roadway and/or
at the driveway curb cut of
of buildings set back out of sight.
(OK) (NOT OK) (ID) /� 4
Bridges shall conform to all the same criteria as access roadways.
(OK) (NOT OK)_ VD
Electrical cutall be reasonably accessible, subject to approval of the
Fire Chief.
(OK) (NOT OK . (ID
Unusual vegeta on conditions may exist in rural cases. Limitations may be
imposed for wildfire control.
AVFD Plans checklist Page 4
Recorded at -----o'rinrk M.,--------
_-Reception No. _—_. —._-..-.-..-_ ~. _'—"der.
FIUN(: STAAI I• —
IPlus DEED, Made this 2nd day of August
I19 82.between CELIA L. MAROLT
.(the Cu..tyuf Pitkln *n4Stutv..f
Colorado, of the first part, rnJ
J. T. E. M. VENTURE, a Texas Joint Venture
whose legal add reso is P.O. Box 11558, Fort North, Texas 76109
Texas
.(the County of Tarrant *nJ sl. to uG(YN,gxdb, of the *scoot part:
W ITNESSETH. That the said party of the first part, fur and in consideration of the sum of
,TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration-----tltsttAtty-
to the said party of the first port in hand paid by the said party of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby
ca.r ..eat and acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold and cunvcyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain,
I .a•11, convey and confirm, unto the said party of the serund part, his heirs and **signs rorv.er, all the following
described lot or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in Lite -
I, County of Pitkln and State of Colorado, to -wit:
PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND
INCORPORATED HEREIN BY THIS REFERENCE.
- .l»Ir rrewwrrraaeaa+�«d «v «r1..►
I
TOGETIIER with all and singular the hereditaurcuas and uppurt,tian, a lheretu belonging. or in anywise apper•
taining, and the ryverswn and reversions, reniainder sand n•uramd,r.. r.-nt s, is.ua s ..nJ profits thereof; .,,.I all the
.state, right, title, interest, claim and demand whutsua•vvr of the• said purly of the first part, either in low or equity. of,
' in and Lathe above bargained premise , with the hvre- Into ,•njj''"" rod al.purla•n.nca•s.
To HAVE AND TO IIOLD the suit paean rsv. �` rlt IN.�mJ Je.a bed. with the appurtenances, unto the said
party of the second part, his heirs a s s f Am he said party of the first part, for himself, his heirs,
j eaea•ulurs, and administrst.rs, dues co a vurgain, and sgrve to anti with the said party *(the second part,
his heirs and *,signs, that at the time of the emraling and delivery of these presents, he is well seised of the prvnniaes
j above ranveyed, as of good, sure, perfect, absrduty and indefeasible estate of inheritana•e, in law, in fee simple, and has
guuJ right, full power and law(u1 ruth.r.ty to grant, bargain, sell and convey Lite same in manner and form as
! aforesaid. and that the same are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes,
�I assessments and encumbrances of whatever kind or nature sueve•r.. EXCEPT general taxes for 1982,
;'due and payable in 1983. and SUBJECT TO reservations and excepts as contained
I;in U.S. Patent recorded in Book 55 at Page 35 regarding the right of a proprietor
to extract ore; easements and rights of way as set forth on hap recorded in
Plat Book 9 at Page 70; terms, conditions, obligations and restrictions of
Ordinance No. 11 (Series of 1980) as set forth in instrument recorded in Book 389
at Page 301; easements and rights of way * (continued on reverse)
and lhv aboved bargained promise. in the quirt and pv.... We p... saion of the said party of the second part, his
heir. and assigns agsinsl all and every person or persons lawfully claiming or to claim the whole or any part thereof,
the said party of the first part shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DF:F'END. The singular number shall
include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, lh. s.id party of the first part has hereunto set his hand and seat the day and year first
above written.
ISEALI
--t- — ISEALI
-- -- ----- I .- - ---------------ISEALI
STATEOFCOLORADO �s*
County of Pitkin q
The forvrying instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
it82 ,by CELIA L. MAROLT. "�V1
Uy commission expires a)Ijs� .19 Wit/n�etism/yhand and official ssat.
Address:'C/O _. Cu.ICS�CE __t -_! WLf[ht—__
l TRACY TITLE, LTD. j �•a••x ttiaiu-
B0-y1 1_E Hyman, SuNa 103 —
No.x,
32A. N.aYY.a\ih nl Lit. �`COi ��8t1_YrWlwa h,KYi„a,frll W.YaAw..L.\reeN.fO tqi.—/�sM IlNaea—MI_
C� t
•
u
Lot Split
J T E M Venture Property
June 15, 1984
Submitted to: Aspen Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
925-2020
Applicant: J.T.E.M. Venture
P. 0. Box 11558
Fort Worth, Texas 76109
Project Manager: Mr. Jim Curtis
Real Estate Affiliates
117 South Monarch Street
Aspen, Colroado 81611
920-1395
1
This application is for a lot split under the following provisions of
the Code:
1. GMP exemption as provided for under Section 24-11.2(d).
2. Mandatory PU D exemption as provided for under Section 24-8.13.
The property is owned by J.T.E.M. Venture, contains 36,001 sf., is
zoned R-15 PUD, and has one existing house (the old Celia Marolt
residence).
The Lot Split is illustrated by the attached drawings.
1. Lot Split
2. Slope -Zoning
Full size drawings have been submitted to the Planning Office
separately.
The allowed density for the property is 2.5 units based on the
density reduction formula for slopes per the City Code as illustrated
on the Slope -Zoning drawing.
As shown on the Lot Split drawing, Lot 1 is approximately 21,000 sf.
and contains an existing house. The existing house is approximately
2,200 sf. The existing garage of the house will be relocated to
provide driveway access to Lot 2. Relocating the garage will elimin-
ate a non -conforming item of Lot 1 as the garage as currently con-
structed is within the 25 ft. front yard setback of R-15 zoning. As
constructed, the garage is only 8 feet from the Castle Creek Road
R.O.W.
Lot 2 is approximately 15,000 sf. The building envelope is approxi-
mately 4,800 sf. Access will be from the existing driveway of Lot 1.
The portion of Lot 2 northeast of Lot 1 will be deed -restricted to
open space as illustrated on the drawing.
The proposed building envelope is characterized by a sloping upper
bench (avg. 15% slope) which falls to a steeper embankment edge. The
extension of the driveway and the majority of the building footprint
will be located on the upper bench. The existing tree cover and
scrub oak along Castle Creek Road will be maintained by the 25 ft.
front yard setback from the Castle Creek Road R.O.W. The building
envelope is basically similar in character and topography to the
existing house site.
2
Based on a conversation with Mr. Heiko Kuhn of the Aspen Sanitation
District, Lot 2 will connect to the new sewer line installed to
service the Country Day School and the Music Camp. The line is on
the north side of Castle Creek Road adjacent to the property. Heiko
stated Lot 2 will have to "force pump" sewage up to the line which is
higher than the property, and that pumping is allowed by the
District. Applicant shall comply with the standard connection
policies of the District. The existing house on Lot 1 is serviced by
an individual septic system.
Based on a conversation with Mr. Jim Ma rkalunas of the Aspen Water
Department, Lot 2 will connect to a 20" main distribution line
northwest of the property. The existing house is connected to the
line and Jim recommended the existing Lot 1 line be reworked to allow
Lot 1 and Lot 2 to use a single line to connect to the 20" main.
Applicant shall comply with the standard connection policies of the
Water Department and with Jim's recommendation concerning the
connection.
Electric, telephone and gas will be provided by the respective
utility company.
GMP Exemption
The proposed lot split complies with Section 24-11.2(d) which pro-
vides for the construction of one single-family residence on a lot
subdivided after November 14, 1977, where the following conditions
are met:
1. The tract of land which was subdivided had a preexisting
dwelling unit;
2. No more than two (2) lots were created by the subdivision.
Mandatory PUD Exemption
The intent of mandatory PUD zoning is to plan for larger develorm ents
rather than individual homes as stated under Section 24-8.13 which
provides that "in no event, however, a PUD designation
notwithstanding, shall compliance with this article be required for
the construction of a single-family residence on a separate lot."
Notwithstanding, the proposed lot split complies with the planning
criteria of the PUD zoning as outlined below:
•
3
8.13(a)
The density of the proposed lot split is consistent
with the density allowed for the PUD parcel after
adjusting for slopes.
8.13(a)(1)
Existing city utilities are available and have capa-
city to service the new unit.
8.13(a)(2)
The driveway is private and will be maintained by the
lot owners. The driveway is so short that a fire
truck may easily pull in and back out. A fire hydrant
will be placed on the property if recommended by the
Fire Marshall and Jim Markalunas .
8.13(a)(3)
The proposed building envelope is characterized by a
sloping upper bench (avg. 15% slope) which falls to a
steeper embankment edge. The extension of the driveway
and the majority of the building footprint will be
located on the upper bench. The site is basically
similar in character and topography to the existing
house site. No ground instability, mud flow, rock
falls or avalanche problems have ever occured to the
existing house.
8.13(a)(4)
The new house will have no major impact on area drain-
age nor will it increase area water pollution.
8.13(a)(5)
The new house will have no major impact on area air
quality.
8.13(a)(6) The driveway will be an extension of the existing
driveway with no new road cut to Castle Creek Road.
The extension of the driveway will be virtually level
with minimal cut and fill. The majority of the build-
ing footprint will be located on the sloping upper
bench of the building envelope. Any building along
the embankment edge will either be dug into the slope
or cantilevered over the slope.
8.13(a) (7 ) A grading plan for the property shall be prepared
based upon the specific house design for the property
and shall be submitted as part of the building
permit.
4
8.13(a)(8) Similar to the existing house, the new house will have
limited visibility from Castle Creek Road for two
reasons:
1. The existing vegetation and tree cover along
Castle Creek Road will be maintained by the 25
ft. front yard setback of the building envelope.
Where the extension of the driveway is
constructed, new planting will be added.
2. The center of the building envelope is approxi-
mately 10-12 f t. below Castle Creek Road.
Miscellaneous Items
Proof of Ownership - Appendix A, Property Deed
Adjacent Owners - Appendix B, List of Adjacent Owners
APPENDIX B
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
Surrounding property owners names and addresses are from the Pitki n
County Assessor Office and are complete and correct to the knowledge
of the applicant.
1. (Old Marolt Property)
City of Aspen
c/o Aspen Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
2. Castle Ridge Associates, Ltd.
c/o Gene M. Zafft, Esq.
Suite 1414
7777 Bonhomme
St. Louis, Missouri 63105
II;IGII:_ II In
TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney
�, a Hammond, City Engineer
.�J'im Markalunas, Aspen Water Department
--ITe-'3'ko Kuhne, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
,Efeve Crocket, Fire Chief
FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office
RE: J.T.E.M. Venture Lot Split and Exemption from Mandatory
PUD - Case No. City 022A-84
DATE: June 26, 1984
Attached for your review is material submitted with respect to the
J.T.E.M. Venture Lot Split and Exemption from Mandatory PUD application
submitted by Jim Curtis on behalf of J.T.E.M. Venture. The property
is. located at the old Celia Marolt residence and consists of 36,001
s.f of land. Please review this material and return your referral
comments to the Planning Office no later than July 24, 1984, in order
for this Office to have adequate time to prepare for its presentation
before P&Z on August 7, 1984.
Thank you.