HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19930824A G E N D A
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
August 24, 1993, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
City Hall
I. COMMENTS
Commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
MINUTES
NEW BUSINESS
A. Ute Park GMQS Exemption Amendment, Kim Johnson
IV. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Aspen Meadows Traffic Mitigation Plan Review, Kim
Johnson (To be tabled to September 7, 1993)
B. Kasteiic PUD/Subdivision, Leslie Lamont
IV. ADJOURN
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Administrative Assistant
RE: : Upcoming Agendas
DATE: August 24, 1993
Regular Meeting - September 7
103 Park Stream Margin Review Amendment (KJ)
935 E. Hyman Survey Monument Landmark Designation (AA)
Aspen Meadows Traffic Mitigation Plan Review (KJ)
Aspen Highlands. Village Referral (LL)
Souki Conditional Use & 8040 Greenline (LL)
Regular Meeting - September 21
835 W. Main St. Landmark Designation (AA)
Snow Queen Lodge GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing and Special
Review for FAR in the LP Zone District (KJ)
a.nex
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
RE: Kastelic Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Review -
Public Hearing
DATE: August 24, 1993
SUMMARY: The Kastelic Estate, the applicant, proposes to subdivide
a 74,726 square foot parcel into two residential lots. Two single-
family homes currently occupy the property and no new development
or redevelopment is proposed at this time. The property is zoned
R-15 with a PUD overlay.
Subdivision is a two step review process at the Commission and
Council.
PUD review is a four step review unless consolidated.. Staff
recommends the consolidation of this PUD review because a four step
review process for a two lot subdivision, when no development is
proposed, is redundant and serves no public purpose. However, the
Commission and Council may, during review, determine that the
application should be subject to both conceptual and final plan
review, in which case consolidated review shall not occur.
Staff recommends approval of this application and a consolidated
PUD review.
APPLICANT: Estate of Anthony Kastelic as represented by Glenn
Horn, Davis Horn, Inc.
LOCATION: 570 Riverside Drive, Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: R-15 PUD
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Subdivision and PUD review for the creation
of two residential parcels.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Referral Comments are attached to the memo.
Please see Attachment A.
STAFF COMMENTS:
A. site Description - The Kastelic property is a single 74,726
square foot parcel. Currently there are two detached single-
family residences and an assortment of sheds. The parcel is zoned
R-15 with a PUD overlay. The property is bordered by the Red Wood
Condominiums to the north, Lot 1 of the Gordon Subdivision to the
south, Riverside Avenue to the east, and the Roaring Fork River to
the west.
B. Background - Mr. Kastelic died in 1989. Two family members
seek to equitably divide the property into two lots while
maintaining a single-family residence on each lot. There is no
development or redevelopment contemplated at this time.
If the two seperate parcels are created through this subdivision
process only a single-family home is the permitted use on Lot 1
because of the lot size in the R-15 zone district. Lot 2, because
of the lot size, could support a duplex. A Growth Management Quota
System allotment or exemption shall be required at the time of
development of a third dwelling unit. Because this subdivision
application does not propose development'or redevelopment of the
property, GMQS review is not required at this time.
Similarly, because redevelopment is not proposed at this time,
staff has declined to conduct a stream margin review. Stream
margin review is more effective when considering an actual
development proposal. In the past, developments based upon stream
margin review that used theoretical building envelopes have been
problematic.
Finally because no new development is proposed and few if any
impacts, typical public amenities that are usually acquired during
subdivision and/or GMP review cannot be exacted during this
subdivision review. However, staff and the Commission may request
various amenities but cannot link subdivision approval to the
acquisition of those amenities. An assessment of impacts related
to growth will occur at the time of redevelopment of the property.
C. Project summary - The applicant proposes to create two single-
family parcels in the R-15 zone district. A lot split is not being
pursued because a vacant lot is not being created for future
development purposes. Therefore, subdivision is more applicable
for the creation of two parcels each with existing structures.
Lot 1 is proposed to be 30,616 square feet and Lot 2 is proposed
to be 44,110 square feet. Each parcel will support one of the two
existing single-family structures. For Lot 1, the rear yard
setback is proposed to be varied from the required ten feet to five
feet in order to accommodate the existing structure. When
redevelopment of Lot 1 occurs, the rear yard setback shall be
brought incompliance. (This shall be noted on the subdivision
plat.)
According to the draft plat, Lot 1 will be reduced by approximately
12,827 square feet (land under high water and road/utility
easement) for floor area purposes and for Lot 2 approximately
12,147 square feet will be reduced. These calculations shall also
be indicated on the final plat.
K
D. Applicable Review
I. Subdivision - In order to create two separate parcels
the applicants propose to subdivide their 74,726 square foot parcel
into two seperate lots. Pursuant to Section 7-1004 C.1., the.
General Requirements for subdivision are as follows:
1. (a) The proposed development shall be consistent with the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: The land uses of the site will not change with this
subdivision. If the properties are redeveloped in the future the
land uses on the site will continue to be residential and without
a rezoning of the property, to enable a smaller minimum lot size,
only one more residential dwelling unit is possible on the
subdivided parcels.
(b) The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the
character of existing land uses in the area.
RESPONSE: The character of the surrounding land uses is
residential. Although there is a multi -family building (Redwood
Condominiums) to the north of the subject property, the subdivision
will not alter the single-family or duplex character or lot sizes
in the neighborhood.
(c) The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the
future development of surrounding areas.
RESPONSE: The creation of two single-family parcels (with the
potential for a duplex on Lot 2) will not compromise future
development or redevelopment of the surrounding residential area.
The neighborhood is comprised of detached single-family and some
multi -family housing.
For many years the City has proposed the installation of a
pedestrian/bike path along this side of the Roaring Fork River to
complete the City-wide pedestrian/bike path along the river.
Recently, the City successfully completed negotiations with the
owners of the Gordon/Callahan subdivision (to the south of Lot 1
of the Gordon subdivision) to secure trail and bridge easements
along the river.
The existing structures on the Kastelic property are well away from
any proposed trail alignment that has been considered through the
property. The PUD review process and available dimensional
variations may be necessary to ensure that redevelopment of the
property is not compromised by a pedestrian/bike trail and there
is enough room -.to install the trail.
(d) The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all
applicable requirements of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The subdivision complies with all applicable standards
of subdivision. The subdivision will eliminate the non -conforming
status of the property - two detached residences on one parcel that
is not historically landmarked.
Pursuant to Section 7-1004 C. 2 - 5, the pertinent subdivision
requirements are as follows:
2. (a) Land Suitability - The proposed subdivision shall not
be located on land unsuitable for development because of
flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rock
slide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any
other natural hazard or other condition that will be
harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the
residents in the proposed subdivision.
RESPONSE: The parcel is located along the Roaring Fork River.
Although stream margin review is not being considered at this time
the building envelopes for future development are being located
outside the flood hazard area. There are no natural hazards that
exist on the site that would endanger the welfare of future
residents.
�b) Spatial Pattern - The proposed subdivision shall not be
designed to create spatial patterns that cause
inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of
public facilities and unnecessary public costs.
RESPONSE: There are no unnecessary public costs associated with
this proposal. The site is currently served by the necessary
utilities. However, when the properties are redeveloped public
facilities may need to be upgraded. The property is at the end of
Riverside Avenue which is a public ROW. A dedicated 30 foot access
and utility easement -to the .southern property line will be provided
through the proposed subdivision.
All future public improvements will be borne by the applicant.
3 & 4. Improvements and Design Standards - following is a review
of the relevant subdivision standards:
(a) WATER - The property is already served with public water.
Should the parcels redevelop, the Aspen Water Department has
sufficient capacity to service ' the redevelopment. However,
new service taps and service line extensions may be necessary.
(b) S EWER, ' - The District currently provides service to the
existing residences. New development may be required to
participate in upgrades of downstream constraints of the
wastewater collection system.
4
X
(c) ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE, NATURAL GAS AND CABLE TV - All
required extensions will be located underground at the time
of redevelopment.
(d) EASEMENTS - A thirty foot utility and access easement is
proposed to the southern property line.
(e) SIDEWALK, CURB, AND GUTTER - There are no existing
sidewalks, curbs, or gutter in the near vicinity of the
subdivision. The property is located at the end of Riverside
Avenue and access onto the property is via a private, 15 foot
easement. No sidewalks, curbs, or gutters are proposed for
this private drive.
(f) FIRE PROTECTION - There exists sufficient flow and
pressure in the service lines to provide adequate fire
protection from the existing fire hydrant which is within 150
feet of the site's improvement. Should future redevelopment
locate structures beyond this distance a new hydrant will be
required.
(g) DRAINAGE - Any development or redevelopment of the two
parcels shall require a drainage plan, complete with
calculations and must be provided by an engineer registered
in the State of Colorado submitted to the Engineering
Department. The drainage engineer must also certify that
drainage structures have been built as designed (prior to
final inspection) . Also, the applicant should indicate how
the existing street drainage is to be maintained, but not
necessarily included in the calculations.
(h) ROADS - There are no new roads proposed in the
subdivision.
(i) Final Plat - The final subdivision plat shall be filed
within 180 days of final approval. Failure to file said plat
and subdivision agreement within 180 days shall render the
subdivision/PUD approval void.
5. Affordable Housing - No affordable housing is required of the
subdivision at this time. No dwelling units are being replaced and
no new lots are being created for development purposes. When the
existing residences are redeveloped, Ordinance 1 housing
requirements will apply. If a third unit is developed (creating
a duplex on Lot 2) a GMP allocation or exemption is necessary for
development of the third dwelling unit.
II. PUD REVIEW,- The property is zoned R-15 with a PUD overlay.
PUD is an overlay that adheres with the underlying zoning and is
intended to allow site design flexibility within the confines of
underlying zoning. The PUD review criteria are essentially the
same as the General Requirements for Subdivision, 7-1004 C.1, and
have already been addressed in that review.
Although the subdivision does not contemplate redevelopment of the
property it i.s necessary to utilize PUD review to vary the minimum
rear yard setback for Lot 1. The R-15 zone -district requires a ten
foot rear yard setback for a primary dwelling unit, a five foot
rear setback for accessory buildings and a twenty foot rear setback
for all buildings except residential dwelling units and accessory
buildings.
According to the application, a covered porch on the existing home
on Lot 1 will be demolished and the remaining structure will then
be five feet from the rear yard line. Therefore, a five foot
variance is requested to allow a five foot rear yard setback verses
a ten foot setback. The applicants agree that any future
redevelopment of the property will comply with all dimensional
requirements of the R-15 zone district unless varied through a PUD
review.process. Please note, the future building envelop for Lot
1 provides a 20 foot rear yard setback, ten feet more than
required. This was proposed to accommodate the applicants.
The Land Use Code does not identify specific review criteria for
dimensional variations. However, the review of a reduction in
dimensional requirements should consider whether the variation will
adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. This variance
request for the Kastelic property is necessary to address an
existing situation and will be remedied at the time of
redevelopment.
In addition, identification of the specific property boundary that
divides Lots 1 and 2 has been a difficult process. It has been
ongoing for three years. Staff supports the five foot variance
with the condition that redevelopment shall comply with the R-15
zone district dimensional requirements.
As mentioned above, redevelopment may require PUD variations to
ensure that the proposed pedestrian/bike trail alignment does not
impact future structures on the site.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends consolidation of PUD review.
Staff recommends approval of subdivision and PUD for the Kastelic
property for the creation of residential parcels each of which are
currently occupied by a single-family dwelling unit with the
following conditions:
1. Only a single-family home is permitted on because of the
lot size in the R-15 zone district. L e-r of
,size_, coin a &upp ram -pup l ex .
Prior to any dew--&- p_t of a welling unit, a Growth
Management Quota System en emption shall be required.
6
3. Prior to the issuance of any demolitions, excavation or
building permits, a stream margin review shall be required.
4. The rear yard setback for Lot 1 shall be varied from the
required ten feet to five feet. Redevelopment of Lot 1 shall
comply with the dimensional requirements of the R-15 zone district
unless varied through the PUD review process. This shall be noted
on the subdivision plat.
5. Lot areas for floor area purposes, for Lots 1 and 2, shall be
indicated on the final plat.
6. The City requests a 14 foot trail easement along the Roaring
Fork River through the property.
7. Prior to filing of final plat a revised landscape plan shall
be submitted detailing all significant trees over 6" in caliper and
proposed building envelopes.
8. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, tree removal
permits shall be required for any trees over 6" in caliper.
9. A final plat shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering
Department. The plat shall include the book and page of the
recording and current improvements as would be required for
redevelopment.
10. The subdivision plat and subdivision agreement, to be reviewed
by the Planning Department and City Attorney.
11. The final subdivision plat shall be filed within 180 days of
final approval. Failure to file said plat and subdivision
agreement within 180 days shall render the subdivision approval
void.
12. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the
redevelopment of either Lot 1 or Lot 2, the applicant shall submit
a drainage analysis performed by an engineer registered in the
State of Colorado to the engineering department.
13. Prior to redevelopment of Lot 1 or Lot 2, all utilities shall
be upgraded and located underground as required.
14. The applicant shall adhere to the all representations made in
the application and during the review process.
15. Prior to filing a final plat the Zoning Officer shall review
the plat to confirm proposed building envelopes.
16. Prior to the issuance of any earth moving, excavation,
demolition or building permits, a review of proposed changes shall
7
be made by the Planning and Engineering Departments.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend a consolidated PUD
review."
"I move to recommend approval to Council of the subdivision and PUD
review for the creation of two residential parcels on the Kastelic
property with the conditions listed in the Planning Office memo
dated August 24, 1993."
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Referral Comments
B. Site Plan
8
MEMORANDUM
To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer
Date: August 9, 1993
Re: Kastellic Subdivision/PUD
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. Stream Margin Review - This review does not include stream margin review. No
development is permitted within the 100-year floodplain or within 100 feet of the high
water line without stream margin approval. "Development" includes planting of vegetation
or removal of living or dead vegetation, construction of patios, decks, gazebos, stairs, etc.
If the property owner is unclear as to the definition of "development" for stream margin
situations, please contact the Planning Office. (Please note that at least two of the
applicant's comments concerning stream margin review do not appear to be acceptable.)
2. The page numbering of our copy of the application indicates that page 2 is missing.
I called Davis Horn Inc., and it is a typo. There is no page 2.
3. Does the date of the title policy meet Code requirements? I would usually expect the
surveyor's certificate to reference a title commitment performed within the past 12 months
for the purposes of plotting easements on the plat.
4. Although the surveyor's certificate makes reference to "the reference title commitment,"
I am unable to find such reference elsewhere on the plat.
5. Slope reduction - Prior to final plat approvals, the applicant must submit a copy of the
slope reduction calculations to the Engineering Department for review. The slope
reductions must be shown by lot in order to confirm developable area of each lot.
6. Site drainage - Any development on the subdivided parcels must comply with Section
24-7-1004.C.4.f concerning maintaining storm runoff on site and note conveying it to public
rights -of -way.
7. Survey Monumentation - One survey monument is lacking at the northeast corner of
the property and must be set prior to final plat. The interior monuments must be set
prior to conveyance of either parcel.
8. Plat - A Planning Director's approval certificate must be added. There are . a number
of boulder and stone masonry retaining walls that must be indicated on the final plat.
9. Trash area, parking - Given the site area and existing conditions, there do not appear
to be any problems meeting on -site trash storage and parking requirements.
10. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -
of -way, we advise the applicant as follows:
The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for design
considerations of development within public rights -of -way, parks department
(920-5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or
development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from city
streets department (920-5130).
11. Historic considerations - There are sheds and rock walls on the property that should
be ' examined for possible value for historic preservation.
12. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts which may be
formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in the public right-of-way.
cc: Bob Gish, Public Works Director
M93,372
\0
14wr 0 //-y7
RE:
DAZE:
ASPENTITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone 920-5090 FAX 920-5197
MEMORANDUM
City Engineer
Aspen Water Department.
Environmental Health Department
Parks Department
Zoning Administration
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Aspen Fire Protection District
HPC
Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
Kastelic Subdivision/PUD
Parcel ID No. 2737-181-00-019
June 24, 1993
f
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by the Estate of Anthony
Kastelic.
Please return your comments to me no later than July 30, 1993.
The Design Review Committee will be meeting on July 22, 1993, at 3: 00 p.m., 1 st floor City
Council Chambers.
Thank you.
a�
,\
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO leslie lamont
From: Chris Chiola
Postmark: Jul 21,'93 8:39 AM
Subject: KASTELIC SUBDIVISION
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Message:
There are no environmental health concerns with the Kastelic
Subdivision land use review.
MESSAGE DISPLAY
Leslie Lamont cc George Robinson
Patrick Duffield
From: Rebecca Baker
Postmark: Aug 20,93 8:28 AM
Subject: Kastelic Subdivision Application
Message:
The Parks Department has reviewed the Subdivision Application
submitted by the Kastelic Estate. We would like to request
consideration of a 14 foot pedsetrian/bicycle easement parallel to
the river but out of the any wetlands sensitive areas. We also would
like to request a revised landscape plan from the applicant
detailing all significant trees over 6" in diameter with the building
envelope overlays. We would also remind the applicant that when ready.
to pursue building permits a tree removal permit must be obtained
prior to removing any trees for construction.
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Leslie Lamont
From: Larry Ballenger
Postmark: Aug 20,93 8:41 AM
Subject: Reply to: Kastelic subdivision
Reply text:
From Larry Ballenger:
The Water Dept has no concerns with the subdivision. Infrastructure
is in place to serve the lot split. New water service will require an
application for a service line tap. No main line extensions or Water
Service Agreements will be required. Aspen Water Dept does have the
capacity to serve the the proposed subdivision.
Preceding message:
From Leslie Lamont:
i still have not received referral comment memos from youse guys.
PLEASE ceo me your comments even if they are nothing. ASAP i need to
incorporate into memo before noon on friday!!!
-"X
MESSAGE DISPLAY
Leslie Lamont CC Bill Drueding
From: Suzanne Wolff
Postmark: Jul 06,93 4:54 PM
Subject: Kastelic Subdivision
Message:
Concerns on the plat (from Bill, via me!):
1. Have we decided on the front yard? (Where is the access? What is
setback?) Refer to Sec 3-101(B) - required yard adjacent to private
road. -I need to discuss the setback with you.
2. Does the building envelope allow other incursions, i.e. on grade
construction, above grade decks, landscaping, berms, overhangs, etc.?
3. We need a current topo before any demo or land excavation.
4. Any trees or vegetation to address?
4
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation (Astrict� 00
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele, (303) 925-3601 FAX 1(303) 92572537
Sy Kelly - Chairman
John J. Snyder - Treas.
Louis Popish - Secy.
July 8, 1993
Leslie Lamont
Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Kastelic Subdivision /PUD
Dear Leslie:
Albert Bishop
Frank Loushin
Bruce Matherly, Mgr.
It is my understanding that the above referenced project proposes
a lot split without any further development to the two existing
dwelling units currently existing on -site. Each single family
dwelling unit has a single sanitary sewer service line connecting
to the District system. The.boundary line pro -posed to divide the
existing lot into two parcels appears to allow each service line
to be located exclusively on the appropriate property of the
newly created lot. If this is correct then the proposed
development will have no adverse impacts upon the District
system.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Bruce Matherly
District Manager
EPA AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE"
1976 -1986 - 1990
REGIONAL AND NATIONAL
02/09/1993 11:07 FROM Banner Associates Inc. TO 9255180
3
€
Aspen (Ponsohdated Sanitation Distv'Id
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
7ble, (303) 925-3601
Sv Kelly - Chairman
John J, Snyder - 'Leas
Louis Popish - Secy.
F.01
FAX #(303) 925-2537
Albert Bishop
Frank Loushin
Bruce Matherly, Mgr.
February 5, 199S
Bob Daniei
Banner b Assc.
605 E. Main St. Suite 6
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Kasteilic subdivision and PUD
Dear Bob,
At the present time the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
has sufficient wastewater treatment and collection line capacity to
serve this proposed application.
New sewer service lines will most likely need to be run to the
main line in Riverside Ave, These services may need to be pumped
depending on the elevation of the new residences. The old sewer
service lines will have to be excavated and capped at the
District's main sewer line.
The developer will be required to participate in downstream
constraints of the wastewater Collection system.
The District will continue to comment on this proposal as it
moves.through the application process.
e ely
r
!Tj�&s acewei
. C-o11ecVion Systems Superintendent
EPA AWARDS QF EXCELLENCE
- .1976 -1986-1�....
HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC.
3799 HIGHWAY 82
P.O. DRAWER 2150
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602
May 13, 1993
Mr. Bob Daniel
Banner and Associates
605 East Main Street, Suite 6
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Kastellic Subdivision
Dear Bob:
The above mentioned development is within the certificated
service area of Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc.
f303! 945-5491
(FAX' 945-4081
Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc. has existing power
facilities located on or near the above mentioned project. These
existing facilities have adequate capacity to provide electric
power to the development, subject to the tariffs, rules and
regulations on file. Any power line enlargements, relocations,
and new extensions necessary to deliver adequate power to and
within the development will be undertaken by Holy Cross Electric
Association, Inc. upon completion of appropriate contractual
agreements.
Please advise when you wish to proceed with the development of
the electric system for this project.
Sincerely
HOLY Zl Cgp
#y 'A . Ftanke ,
ng Engineer
JAF: rjm
Area 90
C ASSOCIATION,
Z,�
INC.
COMMUNICATIONS
May 12, 1993
Robert Daniel
Banner Associates, Inc.
605 E. Main Suite 6
Aspen, Colo. 81611
RE: Kastellic Subdivision
Dear Sir:
We have reviewed the utility plan for this project
and we will be the service company for the telephone
facilities within this subdivision. Any questions please
feel free to contact me at 945-7435.
Sincerely,
4Gar(Gibson
Manager- Engineer
U.S. West Communications
\N
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
OF APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
(Pursuant to Section 6-205 E. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations)
State of Colorado)
SS.
City of Aspen )
The undersigned, being duly sworn, deposes and says as
follows:
I, Janet Lynn Raczak, personally, certify that Public Notice
of the application for the Kastellic Estate land use approval
application was given by posting notice containing the information
required in Section 6-205 E, which posting occurred on August 5,
1993, in a conspicuous place (as it could be seen from the nearest
public way) and that said sign was posted.
Applicant:
The Kastellic Estate
BY'��'�o✓
Anet Ly Raczak
The foregoing Affidavit of Public Notice was acknowledged and
signed before me this of August, 1993, by Janet Lynn
Raczak on behalf of Th Kastelli Estate.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
lc
N Y PUBLIC
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: KASTELIC SUBDIVISION/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, August 24, 1993 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room,
City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO to consider an application
submitted by the Estate of Anthony Kastelic, c/o Lenny Oates,
Oates, Hughes & Knezevich, 533 E. Hopkins, Aspen, CO, requesting
subdivision approval to create two lots, each with an existing
single family residence, and PUD review for floodplain, slope and
future building envelope considerations. The property is located
at 570 Riverside Drive, Aspen, CO. For further information,
contact Leslie Lamont at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S.
Galena, Aspen, CO 920-5101
s/John Bennett, Mayor
Aspen City Council
Published in the Aspen Times on August 6, 1993
City of Aspen Account
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
KASTELLIC PUBLIC NOTICE
I hereby certify that on this 5th day of August, 1993,
true and correct copies of the Kastelic
Subdivision/Planned Unit Development Review Public Notice
(copy attached) were placed in the US Mail, first-class
postage prepaid to individuals on the attached List of
Property Owners Within 300 Feet of the Subject Kastellic
Property.
J, et Raczak
Raczak Administrative Services, Inc.
LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS
WITHIN 300 FEET OF SUBJECT
RASTELLIC PROPERTY
Russell B. Penning
Richard L. and Marsha Ann
Jay L. Adler
1201 Riverside Drive
Fried, Jr.
F. Margaret Adler
Aspen, CO 81611
841 Bishop St., Suite 1900
230 Yale Avenue
Honolulu, HI 96813
Colorado Springs, CO
George & Eileen Traykovski
80904
80 Central Park West
Nicholas Cipollino
New York, NY 10023
North Stratton Road
Betty Jane S. Gerstley
P.O. Box 379
Louis Gerstley, III
Dan T. Ballard
Stratton, VT 05155
16th & JFK Blvd.
1223 West Main St.
Rm, 335
Tupelo, MS 38801
Ezra V. & Sharon B.
1 Penn Center
Wehsener
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Bernard Gray
4014 Mt. Terminus Drive
P.O. Box 3099
San Diego CA 92111
BJ & K Larbalestier
Winston-Salem, NC 27150
Mirvac Trust Bldg., Chamber
Frank Clemente
807
William J. Robinson
40 River Street
165 Elizabeth Street
940 Waters Avenue, Unit 2-F
Troy, NY 12180
Sydney AUSTRALIA 2000
Aspen, CO 81611
Claire Richelme
Judith R. Bielinski
Brigitta Jacobsen &
BP 19
1529 Basswood Circle
James Robert Barash
Saint Francois
Glenview, ILL 60025
50 West Cheyenne Mountain
GUADALOUPE, F.W.I 97118
Rd.
Paul Allen Anderson
Colorado Springs, CO
Dr. Robert & Melanie Dean
1004 East Durant Avenue #3
80906
Joseph V. & M. Eliz. Ravenis
Aspen, CO 81611
P.O. Box 2800
Vaughn E. Counts
La Jolla CA 92038
Healthcare for Woman
Rebecca Counts
A Salinas Medical
2045 West Main
Karl Baker
Corporation
Houston, TX 77098
Robert Boden
250 San Jose
Box 276
Salinas, CA 93901
Shira A. Scheindlin
Mantua NJ 08051
Stanley Friedman
Donald R & Judy Anker
124 Pacific Street
Jack O. O'Neil
Wrigley
Brooklyn NY 11201
Doris A. O'Neill
P.O. Box 3399
0331 Buck Point Rd.
Aspen, CO 81612
The Richards Family Trust
Carbondale, CO 81623
c/o Joseph Q. Joynt, Esq.
Charles Karasik
350 S. Peck #4
James Hindman
Box 1818
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Andriana P. Hindman
Aspen, CO 81612
Trustees of Hindman Rev.
Robert Shmaeff
Trust
William W. & Catherine C.
13142 Kuen Place
4819 Fernglen Drive
Foreman
Van Nuys, CA 91401
Santa Rosa, CA 95405
7211 W. Cypress Head Drive
Parkland, FL 33067
David & Nora Meneghetti
10933 Westwood Drive
Jonathan E. Anderson
Palos Hills, IL 60465
Box 2836
Aspen, CO 81612
1
Adam Z. Cherry
Joseph M. & Arlene M.
Gail Craig
135 Ninth Street
Samalion
1195 East Cooper Ave.
Del Mar, CA 92014
540 Solano Prado
Aspen, CO 81611
Coral Gables, FL 33156
Patricia Callahan
Aspen River Friends
0184 Mountain Laurel Drive
Karen C. Speck
c/o H.M. International
Aspen, CO 81611
Box 9912
5810 East Skelly Drive,
Aspen, CO 81612
#1000
Harry Uhlfelder
Tulsa, OK 74135
Box 1165
Mark & Millinda Sinnreich
Aspen, CO 81612
428 S. Hibiscus Drive
Charle & marlene Maddalone
Miami Beach, F 33139
Trustees
William H.T. Murray
Box 20124
Box 4505
Herbert R. & Paula S.
Sedona, AZ 86341-0124
Aspen, CO 81612
Molner
2344 N. Lincoln Park W.
Frederico Longoria
Duane & Marianne Alexander
Chicago, ILL 60614-3486
Dennis Nixon
4713 Manor Lane
Box 1359
Ellicott City, MD 21043
John Sperling
1200 San Bernardo
4615 East Elwood
Laredo, TX 78042
Ed M. & Nancy W. Sullivan
Phoenix, AX 85040
Sarah S. Robinson
570 S. Riverside Avenue -
Box 1324
Gail Cottingham Koch
Riverside Addition Owner
Aspen, CO 81612
134 E. Hyman
2414 Hidden Valley Drive #2
Aspen, CO 81611
Grand Junction, CO 81503
Van Trinh McGaughey
Mark D. McGaughey
Kent Stephens
Anthony Kastelic
225 Foster Drive
Box 271889
1717 S. Milwaukee St.
Des Moines, IA 50312
Houston, TX 77277
Denver, CO 80210
Frank B. & Margaret B. Day
William E. Bindley
Thomas & harriet A. Larkin
As Trust. Karyl Cohn
4212 West 71 st Street
1025 Waters Avenue
c/ o Concept-Boulderado
Indianapolis, IN 46268
Aspen, CO 81611
Hotel
2115 - 13th Street
Iva & Browne Green
John & Georgeanne W.
Boulder, CO 80302
13535 Lucca Drive
Hayes
Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
1112 Waters Avenue
Leslie Holst
Aspen, CO 81611
Box 12287
Thomas & Harriet Larkin
Aspen, CO 81612
1025 Waters Avenue
Henry & Judity Hoyt
Aspen, CO 81611
54 Champlain Rd.
William Howard Engelman
Chatham, MA 02633
Elizabeth Nell Engelman
United States Forest Service
1113 Waters Avenue
William Hoffner
Aspen, CO 81611
Aspen, CO 81611
520 S. Riverside Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Pakanala Kalei Mau
Susan Geary Griffin
5800 Hannum Avenue 219A
Bonnie Geary Greeney
Edward Gregorich
San Diego, CA 92122
5700 County Road 129
Box 142
Westcliffe, CO 81252
Aspen, CO 81612
Ted A. Koutsoubos
419 E. Hyman
Lee Audrey
Aspen, CO 81611
4541 Brighton Road
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
6,
Albert Anderson
Edwin Anderson
Box 1862
Mc Alester, OK 74501
Donald & Elizabeth Fisher
61 Green Valley Rd.
Pittsford, NY 14534
Riverside Joint Venture
A Texas Joint Venture
100 Crescent Ct., Suite 1740
Dallas, TX 75201
Sanford & nancy Richman
Marshall & Barbara Sher
1268 Sheridan Rd.
Highland Park, IL 60035
David Milton
2025 S. Brentwood Blvd.
St. Louis, NO 63144
George Walker
2461 Shannon
Northbrook, IL 60062
Peggy Wise
1401 Tower Rd.
Winnetka ILL 60093
Betty Weiss
Box 1595
Aspen, CO 81612
Jere McGarrey
c/o Foley and Lardner
First Wisconsin Center
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Robert L. Orr
500 Patterson Rd.
Grand Junction, CO 81506
P.S.W.D. Investment Co.,
Ltd.
c/o Carl Linnecke
215 S. Monarch, Suite 101
Aspen, CO 81611
Harry Moore
M&I Bank
c/o Bonnie Wetter
500 E. Grant Avenue
Beloit, WI 53511
James & Joy Du Bose
Box 2990
Ft. Worth, TX 76113
Stefan Edlis
c/o Apollo Plastics Corp.
5333 Elston Avenue
Chicago, IL 60630
Brendan Lee, Jr.
615 Lae Street
San Diego CA 92109
Richard Reynolds
1020 E. Durant avenue, Suite
303
Aspen, CO 81611
Mary Handelin
16299 Pearson Lane
Fort Bragg, CA 95437
Michael Wall
Box 8524
Aspen, CO 81612
Aleksander & Nona Feur
Box 876
Aspen, CO 81612
Judith Jones
1230 Riverside Drive
Aspen, CO 81611
Russell Trust of 1980
Attention: Maurice Smith
Box 327
Provo, UT 84603
Pumpelly Family Limited
Partnershi
1280 Riverside Drive
Aspen, CO 81611
Robert Murray
1275 Riverside Drive
Aspen, CO 81611
Donald & Judith Norris
3400 Greenbriar Lane
Riverwoods, ILL 60015
Elliott Robinson
1245 Riverside Drive
Aspen, CO 81611
David Behrhorst
Donna Fisher
1235 Riverside Drive
Aspen, CO 81611
Bette Kallstrom
1225 Riverside Drive
Aspen, CO 81611
Dorothy Kelleher
Box 1
Aspen, CO 81612
Cherie Oates
1205 Riverside Drive
Aspen, CO 81611
Edgar & Helen Richard
Trustees under Richard Trust
24055 Paseo Del Lago
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
George Benedict
74 South Main Street
South Hampton, NY 11968
Andrew Dolan
Nancy Dolan
Bryant Dolan
Chris Leverich
735 W. Bleeker
Aspen, CO 81611
3
These include.standards related to density,- land uses, off-street
parking, open space, landscape plans, lighting, architectural site
plans, clustering, public facilities, traffic and pedestrian
circulation and the general requirements of the PUD section. PUD
Sections 7-903 B.(2)(b), Reduction in Density for Slope
Consideration, and 7-903 B.(4) are specifically addressed in- the
following sections of this application.
Reduction in density for slope consideration
Section 7-903 B. (2) (b)
In order to reduce hazards related to steep slopes (wildfire,
avalanche, mudslide, etc.), a formula has been established to
reduce density on steeper slopes. This density reduction formula
has been calculated for the subject site by Dave McBride of Aspen
Survey Engineers and is shown below.
TABLE 1 - Slope Density Reduction Formula
Lot Area Calculation*
Land Category
Square.Feet.
Max. Density
Resulting
(Slope)
of Land Area
------
Allowed
s-----�����������������C�O
Lot Area OF)
-----
0-20 %
24,000
100%
241000.
21-30
14,000
50%
71000
31-40 %
8,250
25%
2,062
> 40 %
8,000
0%
0
Land Under Water
15,560
0%
0
Land Under Road 4,826 0
Total Land Area: 74,726 - F331062
- - - - - - - - - - - - 0__ 0__
* Slope analysis by Aspen Survey Engineers.
The density reduction formula is used to calculate the lot area for
determining allowable density for the subject site as well as for
calculating the allowable floor area for the lots creatad. The
Aspen Land Use Regulations define lot area as follows:
LOT AREA means the total horizontal area within the lot lines
of a lot. When calculating floor area ratio, lot area shall
exclude that area beneath the high water line of a bode of
water and that area within an existing dedicated right-of-way
or surface easement, but shall include any lands dedicated to
the City of Aspen for the public trail system or any lands
subject to an above or below surface easement.
7
TIME
pIA:E
pi1P^^SE
491
'UOLIC NOTE
DATE
TMR _
ACE
wino -