The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.su.570 S Riverside Ave.A31-93 i.-\ ..........". CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 05t18f33 ,/, PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: :::::,', A'it:] 6j6l3t"D2737-181-00-019 & 022 A31-93 'I STAFF MEMBER: ' LL PROJECT NAME: KaStelic Subdivision/PUD and Stream Marqin Review , Project Address: 570 Riverside Drive Legal Address: APPLICANT: Estate of Anthonv Kastelic Applicant Address:c/o Lennie oates. Oates. Huqhes & Knezevich 533 E. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 REPRESENTATIVE: Glenn Horn. Davis Horn. Inc. Representative Address/Phone: 215 S.Monarch #104 Aspen. CO 81611 925-6587 -------------------------------------------------------------- --~--------------------------------------------------------- FEES: PLANNING ENGINEER HOUSING ENV. HEALTH TOTAL ~~~~} $ $ $ # APPS RECEIVED 13 # PLATS RECEIVED 13 TYPE bF APPLICATIO : STAFF APPROVAL: 1 STEP: 2 STEP:-X- P&Z Meeting DatZ f ~ PUBLIC HEARING: ~ NO / "TVESTED RIGHTS: ~ ~O f! q / ?j 1",,-, [)~rdlQ " <J I CC Meeting Date '--~ <:[ ~ PUBLIC HEARING: cYEs-i NO' D I o I ..:i I Cf 3 VESTED RIGHTS: ~ NO DRC Meeting Date '-:tf d{;)./., } --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- REFERRALS: . ~ ~ City Attorney~ Parks Dept. School District ~ City Engineer Bldg Inspector Rocky Mtn NatGas Housing Dir. -X Fire Marshal CDOT ~' Aspen Water r Holy Cross Clean Air Board City Electric Mtn. Bell Open ~a~ Board ,.-..:>ct Env~r.Hlth. -XJ ACSD V other.:1\.. .tJ~ ~~~I~.~""> ....-...1( Zom.ng Energy Center Other "-... ~~-:J' DATE REFERRED: to/t.-,-/ INITIALS: St1I DUE:~ . , ;~N~=;;;;~~~7================;;;;=;;~;;7=~2S1qJ==~;~;~;t7~ ___ City Atty ___ city Engineer ___Zoning ealth ___ Housing ___ Open Space Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: r- '-". '-17- Su- #365560 01./07/94 1.C';:5~~ I~ec $30.00 E*: 738 F'G 75 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 -, P.U.D. SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT KASTELIC SUBDIVISION THIS AGREEMENT is made this 10'l1\ day of .::J::xt.CR-lY\h<< , 1993, between MARGIE CASEY, INDIVIDUALLY and as PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANTHONY KASTELIC and BETTE JOHNSON (collectively the "Applicant"), and THE CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation, ("City"), RECITALS WHEREAS, Applicant owns that certain real property (the "Property") located in the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and zoned R-15 P.U.D., legally described as: Described in Exhibit "A" hereto WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted an application for, and received approval for the subdivision of the above referenced property from the City Council on &~ -<'5,1993, pursuant to Ordinance No. 49 (Series of 1993) (the "Ordinance"), for the division of the above described real property into two (2) lots to be known as Lot 1 and Lot 2, Kastelic Subdivision P.U,D" and R-15 Zone P.U.D. and WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted to the City for approval, execution and recordation a plat for the Kastelic Subdivision P.U.D. (the "Plat") and the City agrees to approve, execute and record the Plat on the agreement of the Applicant to the matters described herein, subject to the provisions of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen ("Code") and its other applicable rules and regulations; and WHEREAS, the City has imposed conditions and requirements in connection with its approval, execution and acceptance of the Plat and such matters are necessary to protect, promote and enhance the public health, safety and welfare, and pursuant to the Code, the City is entitled to assurances that the matters set forth herein will be faithfully performed by the Applicant and the Applicant's successors and assigns; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is willing. to enter into such agreement with the City, and to provide assurances to the City; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, and the approval, execution and acceptance of the Plat for recordation by the City, it is agreed as follows: A. The Applicant shall file the Plat to be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department. 1 ,-" ,-" . " ~"'6' ()</()"/94 j.,3:t;'3 Ho?c $30.00 ElK 73~_PI3 76 *k={e:h.:.hJ 0 H ~ M f ... D _ $ (H) Silvia Davls, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, oc :_'_, B. Applicant shall comply with all provisions contained herein and all material representations made during public hearings before the City Council and the terms and conditions of the Ordinance which are as follows: L Due to slope density reduction calculations, only a single-family home plus any accessory dwelling unit or building, is permitted on each lot pursuant to the Municipal Code for single-family homes in the R-15 zone district. 2. Prior to the issuance of any demolition, excavation or building permits for Lot 1 or Lot 2, stream margin review (if applicable), shall be required. 3. The rear yard setback for Lot 1 shall be varied from the required ten feet to five feet for the existing residential structure. The redevelopment of Lot 1, through the replacement of the existing residential structure, shall comply with the dimensional requirements of the R-15 zone district and the approved building envelope, unless varied through the PUD review process. If the existing residential structure on Lot 1 is damaged or destroyed in whole or in part, any reconstruction shall occur under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. This shall be noted on the subdivision plat, 4. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for Lot 1 or Lot 2, tree removal permits shall be required for any trees over 6" in caliper that are removed or relocated. 5. A final Plat shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering and Planning Departments. The plat shall include the book and page of the recording and current improvements as would be required for redevelopment. 6. The final subdivision Plat shall be filed with 180 days of final approval. Failure to file the Plat and this Subdivision Agreement within 180 days shall render the subdivision approval void. 7. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for Lot 1 or Lot 2, the Applicant shall consult with the City Engineer to determine whether a drainage analysis is necessary. 8. Upon redevelopment of Lot 1 or Lot 2, by the demolition and replacement of the existing residential dwelling on such lot, the developer of such lot shall upgrade all utilities on such lot and locate them underground as required on such lot. 9. The Applicant shall adhere to all representations made in the application and during the review process. 2 r- r\ .-i 6' " 01/07/94 1.5:53 Rec .30 ) BK 'M"';')~/""_ ...} M ~ _ ~ . Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc 738 F'G 77 $.00 10. Prior to the issurance of any building permits, a review of any proposed changes from the approvals, as set forth herein, shall be made by the Planning and Engineering Departments. 11. The recorded final plat shall include the revised building envelopes indicating that the trees are being protected and that the envelopes are out of the proposed trail alignment. At the time of stream margin review applica- tion, the Applicant may request to vary the building envelope depending on them existing site conditions. This language shall be reflected on the final plat. C. The provisions of this Agreement shall run with and constitute a burden on the property and shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of Applicant and Applicant's successors and assigns and to the City, its successors and assigns. D. This Agreement may be altered or amended only by written instrument executed by all parties hereto with the same formality as this Agreement is executed. E. If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions hereof. F. This Agreement shall become effective upon the date of the last signature set forth below. CITY OF ASPEN 'L ,2 . ?Jt2/~~l~~ By MARGIE CAS , INDIVIDUALll AND AS John S. Bennett, Mayor PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANTHONY KASTELIC ~ ~. (3-~ "A' t- Co...... - Date: //'7/ cJ , 1993 ,{3~ ~,!WAA..""" BETTE JOH~N Date: j) ~ ~ 5' , 1993 Date: 1/7 , ,19'1 3 ,-" ,-., ~:_,65560 011 07 /94 1. 5: 53 Rec '.30. 00 Bf': 738 PG 78 Silvia Davi,;, Pitkin Cnty Clec'k, DDC: $.00 APPROVED:h-ro rtJ'cA c;?;t;f?~ , City Attorney Date: ~I ~/q4- , 1993 4 ,..,...,. ~\ fj':365560 01/07'/94 1.5: 53 "ec $30.00 Bf( 738 F'G 79 ,_,__~~_~__~~_~_~____~?_~~_~_~,.= ,___~:~~k i I~___~~.~_~. Cl e~:_~:__~_~~~_c.:____~_~_~?O ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 'JtIQ day Of~ 19c/i" by John S. Bennett, Mayor of the City of Aspen. " , Witness my hand and official seal. ~ It. '. My commission expires: ~ 7 'q6 or. '(SEAL) / j~' "'"(i I., i.' ~t1-,(!~ Not bilc STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 10 day of ::Die.-- , 1993, by Margie Casey, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Anthony Kastelic. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: My Commission Expires February 10, 1997 (SEAL) JkAf!Yi J,', ~/fAIxU'J Notary Public 5 l. . ...:J. .1"", , . J::.n!::'6 , .j....;...; () 01/0~?/94 11::",,~~... ~, c.l. . ' .....;..~3 Rec $30 00 Bf' Q:tVl<,3.DavlSP'i~I..." ..~~... , 1 ,'',In Cnt Cle"''- D - "' I 1":., DC STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF \\..Q 'be-. ) ) ss. ) .~ 738 F'G .0 $.00 7qA- The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thiS~day o~o1"1993, by Bette Johnson. Witness my hand and official sex. My commission expires: ~\?'D ~'1 (SEAL) 6 ~. ExhibitA ,10 I \ I f""'\" " ~l'~'~ City CouncH Approved By Ordinance CO\'\DOV\\\'\\'JV\':J )OD 20' W.C. \ K ',6:IO'W ,6t. } '~ '" '~ ~ ~. - % ~ '? 1, ~ ~ ~ 7~ ~ <, ~ .-p 'L \', ~ ., ;" 00 0<: &~ o o -;, 50.37" N T.50'2..W ~ I I I I I { , \ \ -. , 0 .0' .'., \ \ \ ~~ \ '~ \ \ \ \ \ .\ ~3C B<l5nf'i HOUSE ." ,. -< o o ......Q 8 LOT ~Z~IT 2 ~ ~, ;S,1.9<i3 3Q,FT .~/- BELOW HWL ROM> EASE. TOTAL 7.050 SO.FT..I- 5.097 4a.FT. .{- .4.110 SO,FT..'- 10' \1 a-CTTNW 6"-0. \ . ~ ~ ~ 111.51' QUILOING ENVELOPE IS' RE- \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~ 0, ~~ ;"-. -~ '1;~ ~ \ \ o ,......, ~ : LAW OFFICES OF JIlX[))TIJI[iJ~ j}J. AlL.lL.TB:.N 225 North Mill Stre~l, Suit~ 210 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Douglas P. Allen Patricia K. Massender (303) 925-8800 FAX (303) 925-9398 October 25, 1993 , Honorable John Bennett, Mayor City Council, City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Kastelic Subdivision/PUD Dear Mayor and Members of Council: This letter is written on behalf of both the Estate of Anthony Kastelic and each of the heirs, Margie Casey and Bette Johnson, At every level of this process since the objection filed with the Court by the City of Aspen to the division of this property into a parcel for each heir, the fact that the City of Aspen covets a public trail across each of these lots has been raised. Consequently, on behalf of the Estate and the heirs, this proposed trail has been objected to throughout the process. Each of the parties in interest involved in this process understood that as a result of statements by Glenn Horn, Lennie Oates, Paul Taddune, and myself there was very clear record that all of us objected to a "proposed" trail across either of these properties. Recently, it was brought to our attention that such objection may not be clearly part of the record regarding this process. The purpose of this letter is to strenuously object on behalf of the Estate and the heirs to any trail across either of these properties, However, this objection is not to the subdivision which has been recommended by staff, P&Z, and passed at first reading by Council. These properties have been historically very private and secluded oasis in the City of Aspen as they not only are located on the river, but on a private road which allows seclusion virtually unmatched by any other property within the City limits. The fact that part of this property is desired or coveted for trail purposes for the public would completely change the character of each of these lots. Not only that, but we have been informed that the proposed trail alignment would be in an area that would require removal of a significant portion of the trees giving i ,-. r-, Honorable John Bennett, Mayor City Council, City of Aspen October 25, 1993 Page 2 privacy to this property as well as impact the historic wetlands which are part of each lot. Thus, we further object to the removal of such trees. DPA/pjh LTR3\073 W~'2'Rtl/L . Douren Lennie M. Oates Paul Taddune ~ ,/,,",\ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council Amy Margerum, City Managem! Diane Moore, City Planning Directo'\Jff\ Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner THRU: THRU: FROM: RE: Kastelic - Subdivision, PUD Review and Vested Rights for 2 Single- Family Parcels, Second Reading Ordinance 49, Series of 1993 DATE: October 25, 1993 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -'-- ---------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The applicant, Anthony Kastelic Estate, represented by Glen Horn and Lenny Oates, propose to subdivide a 74,726 square foot parcel into 2 single-family parcels. The applicant also requests vested rights and a consolidated PUD review process for this subdivision. The Planning and Zoning Commission and Council at first reading recommended a consolidated review of this application. Please see attached Ordinance 49, Series of 1993. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council tabled second reading of Ordinance 49 so that the attorneys, representing the heirs of the estate, could work with staff to revise the conditions of approval. This memo and the Ordinance reflect the amended language. Council approved first reading of Ordinance 49 at the September 13, 1993 meeting. Council also requested that the applicant. revise the building envelopes to protect the trees and eliminate conflict with the proposed trail alignment. The applicant has revised the building envelopes to protect all but one of the significant trees.. The applicant has also pulled the building envelope out of the proposed trail alignment. A drawing of the revised building envelopes will be presented at the Council meeting and revised envelopes will be included in the recorded sUbdivision/PUD plat. STAFF COMMENTS: Background - The property is a single 74,726 square foot parcel zoned R-15 with a PUD overlay. Currently there are two detached single-family residences and an assortment of sheds on the property. The parcel is bordered by the Red Wood Condominiums to ,-,. r'-'" the north, Lot 1 of the Gordon SUbdivision to the south, Riverside Avenue to the east, and the Roaring Fork River to the west. 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 single-family homes are the permitted use on both lots due to slope density reduction calculations performed as part of PUD review. Because this subdivision application does not propose development or redevelopment of the property, GMQS review is not required. 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 using theoretical building envelopes have been problematic. Finally, because there is no new development 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. Although, obtaining various amenities cannot be linked to a subdivision/PUD approval, staff requests, although not requiring, a 14' trail easement through the property. An assessment of impacts related to growth will occur at the time of redevelopment of the property such as compliance with Ordinance 1. 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 purpose:;;. Therefore, subdivision is more applicable for the creation of two parcels each with existing structures. Please see proposed site plan, Exhibit A. 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 into compliance. (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 Lot 2 will be reduced by 2 I"', r-, approximately 12,147 square feet. These calculations shall also be indicated on the final plat. APPLICABLE REVIEW - I. PUD - 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 most significant aspect of PUD review for this proposal is reduction in density for slope consideration and variation of minimum rear yard setback. Please see Exhibit B for specific PUD review. II. Subdivision subdivision review. Please see Exhibit C for specific III. Vested Rights - The applicant requests vested rights status to protect the development approvals for three years from changes in the Municipal Code, Chapter 24. Necessary vesting language is included in the Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to Council consolidation of PUD review. The Commission also recommends to Council approval of subdivision and PUD for the Kastelic property for the creation of two residential parcels each of which are currently occupied by a single-family dwelling unit with the following conditions: 1. Due to slope density reduction calculations, only a single- family home plus any accessory dwelling unit or building, is permitted on each lot pursuant to the Municipal Code for single- family homes in the R-15 zoned district. 2. Prior to the issuance of any demolition, excavation or building permits for Lot 1 or Lot 2, stream margin review (if applicable), shall be required. 3. The rear yard setback for Lot 1 shall be varied from the required ten feet to five feet for the existing residential structure. The redevelopment of Lot 1, through the replacement of the existing residential structure, shall comply with the dimensional requirements of the R-15 zone district and the approved building envelope, unless varied through the PUD review process. If the existing residential structure on Lot 1 is damaged or destroyed in whole or in part, it shall be reconstructed under the applicable provisioris of the Municipal Code. This shall be noted on the subdivision plat. 4. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for Lot 1 or Lot 2, tree removal permits shall be required for any trees over 6" in caliper that are removed or relocated. 3 1""\ .~ 5. A final plat shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering and Planning Departments. The plat shall include the book and page of the recording and current improvements as would be required for redevelopment. 6. 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. 7. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for Lot 1 or Lot 2, the applicant shall consult with the City Engineer to determine whether a drainage ~nalysis is necessary. 8. Upon redevelopment of Lot 1 or Lot 2, by the demolition and replacement of the existing residential dwelling on such lot, the developer of such lot shall upgrade all utilities on such lot and locate them underground as required on such lot. 9. The applicant shall adhere to all representations made in the application and during the review process. 10. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a review of any proposed changes from the approvals, as set forth herein, shall be made by the Planning and Engineering Departments. 11. The recorded final plat shall include the revised building envelopes indicating that the trees are being protected and that the envelopes are out of the proposed trail alignment. PROPOSED MOTION: "I, move to approve consolidated PUD review of the Kastelic PUD plan as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission." "I move to adopt Ordinance 49 approving subdivision, PUD review and vested rights for the Kastelic property creating two single-family parcels as recommended by the Planning and Zoning commission with the conditions outlined above and amended by staff." CITY MANGER COMMENTS: Ordinance 49, Series of 1993 EXHIBITS A. site Plan B. PUD Review criteria C. SUbdivision Review criteria D. Proof of publi9 Notice 4 ,""'" ~ EXHIBIT ~ - PUD REVIEW Pursuant to Section 24-7-903.B.l, the General Requirements for PUD plan review 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. Due to slope density reduction calculations, no more than one single- family home per parcel is permitted, unless accessory dwelling units are approved per lot. (b) The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. RESPONSE: The character of the surrounding neighborhood 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 character or be inconsistent with surrounding lot sizes in the neighborhood. (c) The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. RESPONSE: The creation of two single-family parcels 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 the building envelopes of any redevelopment are not compromised by a pedestrian/bike trail and there is enough room to install the trail. (d) Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. Response: GMQS allotments are not required for this 1 1"'. ~ development plan. There are two existing single-family homes on the property. The PUD/subdivision propose to create 2 lots each maintaining a single-family home. Due to slope density reduction calculations no more residential development is permitted on either parcel, unless accessory dwelling units are proposed or a rezoning of the property. section 24-7-903.B.2 addresses density standards for PUD review. a. General. The maximum density shall be no that permitted in the underlying zone district. densities may be reduced if: greater than Furthermore, (1) There is not sufficient water pressure and other utilities to service the proposed development; Response: There are sufficient utilities to service this PUD plan. (2) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance to the proposed development; Response: The property is accessed by the public ROW of Riverside Avenue. The 15 foot private drive that accesses the property will be enlarged to 30 feet. (3) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of its slope, ground instability, and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers; Response: The site is free of avalanche, rock and mud flow hazards. (4) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution; Response:, Currently no new development is proposed. At the time of redevelopment a full stream margin review shall be required in order to prevent runoff and erosion that could be detrimental to. the river and surrounding watershed. (5) The proposed development will have a deleterious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the city; Response: The PUD plan does not increase the amount of development that currently exists, and has existed for many years, on this property. Therefore, the air quality 2 1"""\ 1"""\, is not impacted. (6) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Response: The proposed building envelopes of Lot land Lot 2 have been redesigned to avoid the significant spruce and cottonwood trees that were originally included within those envelopes. One 10" spruce is still within the buidling envelope of Lot 1. However, the PUD review process may be employed by future developers to vary setbacks to further avoid that tree or the proposed City pedestrian/bike trail alignment. B. Reduction in density for slope consideration. (1) In order to reduce wildfire, mudslide, and avalanche hazards; enhance soil stability; and guarantee adequate fire protection access, the density of a PUD shall also be reduced in areas with slopes in excess of twenty percent in the following manner. (a) For lands between zero and twenty percent slope, the maximum density allowed shall be that permitted in the underlying zone district; (b) For lands between twenty-one and thirty percent slope, the maximum density allowed shall be reduced to fifty percent of that permitted in the underlying zone district; (c) For lands between thirty-one and forty percent slope, the maximum density allowed shall be reduced to twenty-five percent of that permitted in the underlying zone district; (d) For lands in excess of forty percent slope, no density credit shall be allowed. 2. Maximum density for the entire parcel on which the development is proposed shall be calculated by each slope classification, and then by dividing the square footage necessary in the underlying zone district per dwelling unit. 3. For parcels resting in more than one underlying zone district, the density reduction calculation shall be performed separately on the lands within each zone district. 4. Density shall be further reduced as specified in Article 3, Definition of Lot Area. 3 ,...., .-, Response: According to the application the following slope density reduction and lot area analysis applies to this proposal. This has been confirmed by the Engineering Department. Land category (Slope) square Ft. of Land Area Max. Density Allowed Resulting Lot Area (SF) ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- 0-20% 24,000 100% 24,000 21-30% 14,000 50% 7,000 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% 0 Total Land Area 74,636 33,062 The minimum lot area requirement for the R-15 zone district is 15,000 square feet per single-family dwelling unit. Therefore, two single-family parcels may be created out of the 33,062 square feet of land area after slope density reduction calculations. subtracting the land under water and the land under road for each newly created parcel, the resulting land area for floor area purposes is: 30,616 sq. ft. for Lot 1 and 44,110 sq. ft. for Lot 2. The allowable floor area for Lot 1, based upon current code standards, is 5087 sq. ft. The allowable floor area for Lot 2, based upon current code standards, is 5938 sq. ft. section 24-7~903.B.4 addresses dimensional requirements. dimensional requirement shall be those of the underlying district, provided that variations 'may be permitted in following: The zone the minimum distance between buildings, maximum height, minimum front yard, minimum rear yard, minimum side yard, minimum lot width, minimum lot area, trash access area, internal floor area ratio, and minimum percent open space. Response: The R-15 zone district requires a ten foot 4 ~. ,-" 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 2 will be demolished and the remaining structure will comply with the dimensional requirements of the R-15 zone district. However, the existing home on Lot 1 is 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 applicant agrees 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. 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. In addition, staff recommends PUD variations be employed to futher protect the 10" spruce on Lot 1. 5 ~. ,-., EXHIBIT cz. - SUBDIVISION REVIEW In order to create two separate parcels the applicant proposes to subdivide their approximately 74,726 square foot parcel into two seperate lots. Pursuant to section 7-1004 c.!., 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. Due to slope density reduction calculations,' no more than one single- family home per parcel is permitted, unless accessory dwelling units are approved per lot. (b) The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. RESPONSE: The character of the surrounding neighborhood 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 character or be inconsistent with surrounding 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 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 the building envelopes of any redevelopment are 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 1 ,-..., 1"""'\ 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) SEWER - The District currently provides service to the existing residences. New development may be required to participate in upgrades of downstream constraints of the 2 /"""", t""'\ wastewater collection system. (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. The City cannot exact a trail easement as part of this sUbdivision. (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 which is being expanded to 30 feet. 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 subdivision. There are no new roads proposed in the (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 or other reviews may apply. 3 APPU (~'T NonCe .~ ~ PUBLIC NOTICE RE: KASTELIC SUBDIVISION/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 12, 1993 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 pm before the Aspen City Council, Council Chambers, 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 Avenue, Aspen, CO. For further information, contact Leslie Lamont at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO 920-5101 stJohn Bennett. Mavor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on September 24, 1993 The notice for the public hearing by the Aspen Planning and Zoning commission incorrectly identified the property location as 570 Riverside Drive. The correct address, noted above, is 570 Riverside Avenue. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: KASTELIC SUBDlVI. SION/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW . NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a pubnc hear- Ing wlll be.held on Tuesd<ly, October 12, 1993, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 pm belate the Aspen'Clty Council, Council Chambers, CUY Hall, 130 S. G.lllena, Aspen. CO, to consider an applicatIon submllted by the Estate of Anthony K:lslelle:. cia Lenny Oates, Oates, Hughes & Knezevich. 533 E. Hopklns. Aspen. CO, request- ing subdivision approval to crea!e two lots, each wIth an existing slnsle.famUY residence, and rUQ,revlew for floodplain. slope andhllure building envelope conslderatlons. The proper. Iy is locatedal 570 Riverside Avenue. Aspen CO. ~\1rthcr Information, conl3cl Lc:sUe t.1lnont aftl~.A.spen-Pltkln PJannlnlLQllice, 130 s. ~lCM, Aspen. CO, 92o..s101 . $/Jolln Bennett, M.,yor; Aspen eu)' Councll P\lbllshed In the Aspen TIme:s on S<.>plember 24.1993, &rI~ , , &w'~IIJ ,... ^ Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. P.O. Box 2506 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone/Fax (303) 925-3816 SEPT. 16, 1993 JOB NO. 19777 RECEIVED SEP 22 1993 CITY ENGINEER CHUCK ROTH CITY ENGINEER 130 S. GALENA ST. ASPEN, CO. 81611 REFERENCE: KASTELIC SUBDIVISION APPLICATION DEAR CHUCK; THE FOLLOWING TABLE SHOWS THE AREAS CALCULATIONS WE HAVE PREFORMED ON THE KASTELIC PROPERTY FOR THE ABOVE REFERENCED LAND USE APPLICATION. THE DETAILED MAPPING SHOWING THESE AREAS ARE AVAILABLE AT OUR OFFICE FOR A MORE DETAILED REVIEW IF REQUIRED. AREA TABULATION TOTAL AREA 74,726 SQ. FT. +/- AREA UNDER WATER 15,650 SQ. FT. +/- 0-20% SLOPES 24,000 SQ. FT. +/- 21-30% SLOPES 14,000 SQ. FT. +/- 31-40% SLOPES 8,250 SQ.FT. +/- OVER 40% SLOPES 8,000 SQ.FT. +/- EXISTING ROADWAY 4,826 SQ.FT. +/- WE TRUST THAT THIS WILL MEET WITH YOUR APPROVAL AND THAT WE MAY BE OF FURTHER SERVICE TO YOU. SINCERELY YOURS; TO: THRU: THRU: FROM: RE: DATE: .~ .-,. MEMORANDUM Mayor and Council Amy Margerum, City Manager Diane Moore, City Planning Dire~ Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner Kastelic - Subdivision, PUD Review and Vested Rights for 2 Single- Family Parcels, First Reading Ordinance , Series of 1993 September 13, 1993 ---------------------------------------- -----------------------------.-----.------ SUMMARY: The applicant, Anthony Kastelic Estate, represented by Glen Horn and Lenny Oates, propose to subdivide a 74,726 square foot parcel into 2 single-family parcels. The applicant also requests vested rights and a consolidated PUD review process for this subdivision. Subdivision and PUD review (if consolidated) is a two step review process. The Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed this application at their August 24, 1993, meeting. The Commission recommends, to Council, consolidated PUD review and subdivision approval for this proposal. Because this is a two lot subdivision with existing development, a four step PUD review process was determined by the Commission to be redundant and it served no public purpose. However, Council may determine that the application should be subject to both conceptual and final PUD plan review, in which case consolidated review shall not occur. Please see attached Ordinance , series of 1993, Exhibit A. STAFF COMMENTS: Background - The property is a single 74,726 square foot parcel zoned R-15 with a PUD overlay. Currently there are two detached single-family residences and an assortment of sheds on the property. The parcel 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. 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 single-family homes are the permitted use on both (""'\ /""'" variation of minimum rear yard setback. Please see Exhibit C for specific PUD review. II. Subdivision subdivision review. Please see Exhibit D for specific III. vested Rights - The applicant requests vested rights status to protect the development approvals for three years from changes in the ~unicipal Code, Chapter 24. Necessary vesting language is included in the Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and zo~ing Commission recommends to Council consolidation of PUD reVlew. The Commission also recommends to Council approval of subdivision and PUD for the Kastelic property for the creation of two residential parcels each of which are currently occupied by a single-family dwelling unit with the following conditions: 1. Due to slope density reduction calculations, only a single- family home-is permitted on each lot. 2. Prior to the issuance of any demolition, excavation or building permits for Lot 1 or Lot 2, a stream margin review shall be required. 3. 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. 4. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for Lot 1 or Lot 2, tree removal permits shall be required for any trees over 6" in caliper. 5. 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. 6. The subdivision plat and subdivision agreement shall be reviewed by the Planning Department and City Attorney. 7. 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. 8. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the redevelopment of Lot 1 or Lot 2, the developer of such lot shall submit a drainage analysis performed by an engineer registered in the state of Colorado to the engineering department. 3 ,~ ~ 9. Prior to redevelopment of Lot 1 or lot shall upgrade all utilities and required. Lot 2, the developer of such locate them underground as 10. The applicant shall adhere to all representations made in the application and during the review process. 11. Prior to filing a final plat, the Zoning Officer shall review the plat to confirm proposed building envelopes. . 12. Prior to the issuance of any earth moving, excavation, demolition or building permits, a review of any proposed changes from the approvals, as set forth herein, shall be made by the Planning and Engineering Departments. 13. Prior to second reading, the applicant shall submit to the Engineering Department Survey maps and calculations for slope density reduction .verification. Based upon the revised landscape plan submitted by the applicant, staff also recommends the following condition of approval: 1a. Prior to second reading, the applicant shall redesign the building envelopes to avoid as many significant trees as possible. PUD variations may be employed to adequately avoid the trees. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve consolidated PUD review of the Kastelic PUD plan as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission." "I move to approve subdivision, PUD review and vested rights for the Kastelic property creating two single-family parcels as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission with the conditions outlined above and amended by staff." "I move to approve Ordinance , Series of 1993, on first reading." CITY MANGER COMMENTS: EXHIBITS: A. Ordinance __, Series of 1993 B. site Plan C. PUD Review criteria D. Subdivision Review criteria 4 ~ ,.-" EXHIBIT C - PUD REVIEW Pursuant to Section 24-7-903.B.1, the General Requirements for PUD plan review 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. Due to slope density reduction calculations, no more than one single- family home per parcel is permitted, unless accessory dwelling units are approved per lot. (b) The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. RESPONSE: The character of the surrounding neighborhood is residential. Although there .is a mUlti-family building (Redwood Condominiums) to the north or the subject property, the subdivision will not alter the single-family character or be inconsistent with surrounding lot sizes in the neighborhood. (c) The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. RESPONSE: The creation of two single-family parcels 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 the building envelopes of any redevelopment are not compromised by a pedestrian/bike trail and there is enough room to install the trail. (d) Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. Response: GMQS allotments are not required for this 1 .~ ,.-. development plan. There are two existing single-family homes on the property . The PUD/subdivision propose to create 2 lots each maintaining a single-family home. Due to slope density reduction calculations no more residential development is permitted on either parcel, unless accessory dwelling units are proposed or a rezoning of the property. section 24-7-903.B.2 addresses density standards for PUD review. a. General. The maximum density shall be no that permitted in the underlying zone district. densities may be reduced if: greater than Furthermore, (1) There is not sufficient water pressure and other utilities to service the proposed development; Response: There are sufficient utilities to service this PUD plan. (2) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance to the proposed development; Response: The property is accessed by the public ROW of Riverside Avenue. The 15 foot private drive that accesses the property will be enlarged to 30 feet. (3) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of its slope, ground instability, and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers; Response: The site is free of avalanche, rock and mud flow hazards. (4) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution; Response: Currently no new development is proposed. At the time of redevelopment a full stream margin review shall be required in order to prevent runoff and erosion that could be detrimental to the river and surrounding watershed. (5) The proposed development will have a deleterious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the city; Response: The PUD plan does not increase the amount of development that currently exists, and has existed for many years, on this property. Therefore, the air quality 2 ,...., ,--. is not impacted. (6) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Response: The proposed building envelope of Lot 1 encompasses 5 spruce trees greater than 6" in caliper. The proposed building envelope of Lot 2 encompasses 6 significant trees: 5 cottonwoods and one 12" spruce. Redevelopment of the property, utilizing the .building envelopes as proposed, could eliminate significant vegetation - critical natural features of this property. However, it is possible to USe the PUD review process to vary setbacks. Staff recommends a redesign of both building envelopes to avoid any impacts to those significant features during redevelopment. B. Reduction i~ density for slope consideration. (1) In order to reduce wildfire, mudslide, and avalanche hazards; enhance soil stability; and guarantee adequate fire protection access, the density of a PUD shall also be reduced in areas with slopes in excess of twenty percent in the following manner. (a) For lands between zero and twenty percent slope, the maximum density allowed shall be that permitted in the underlying zone district; (b) For lands between twenty-one and thirty percent slope, the maximum density allowed shall be reduced to fifty percent of that permitted in the underlying zone district; (c) For lands between thirty-one and forty percent slope, the maximum density allowed shall be reduced to twenty-five percent of that permitted in the underlying zone districti (d) For lands in excess of forty percent slope, no density credit shall be allowed. 2. Maximum density for the entire parcel on which the development is proposed shall be calculated by each slope classification, and then by dividing the square footage necessary in the underlying zone district per dwelling unit. 3. For parcels resting in more than one underlying zone district, the density reduction calculation shall be performed separately on the lands within each zone district. 3 ,....., .,....", 4. Density shall be further reduced as specified in Article 3, Definition of Lot Area. Response: According to the application the following slope density reduction and lot area analysis applies to this proposal. This has been confirmed by the Engineering Department. Land Category (Slope) Square Ft. of Land Area Max. Density Allowed Resulting Lot Area (SF) ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- 0-20% 24,000 100% 24,000 21-30% 14,000 50% 7,000 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% 0 Total Land Area 74,636 33,062 The minimum lot area requirement for the R-15 zone district is 15,000 square feet per single-family dwelling unit. Therefore, two single-family parcels may be created out of the 33,062 square feet of land area after slope density reduction calculations. Subtracting the land under water and the land under road for each newly created parcel, the resulting land area for floor area purposes is: 30,616 sq. ft. for Lot 1 and 44,110 sq. ft. for Lot 2. The allowable floor area for Lot 1, based upon current code standards, is 5087 sq. ft. The allowable floor area for Lot 2, based upon current code standards, is 5938 sq. ft. section 24-7-903.B.4 addresses dimensional requirements. dimensional requirement shall be those of the underlying district, provided that variations may be permitted in following: The zone the minimum distance between buildings, maximum height, minimum front yard, minimum rear yard, minimum side yard, minimum lot width, minimum lot area, trash access area, internal floor 4 r- ~ area ratio, and minimum percent open space. Response: 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 2 will be demolished and the. remaining structure will comply with the dimensional requirements of the R-15 zone district. However, the existing home on Lot 1 is 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 applicant agrees 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. 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 during subdivision review, redevelopment may require PUD variations to ensure that the proposed pedestrian/bike trail alignment does not impact future structures on the site. In addition, staff recommends PUD variations to redesign the building envelopes to better protect the existing vegetation from impact during redevelopment. 5 -, ,-. EXHIBIT D - SUBDIVISION REVIEW In order to create two separate parcels the applicant proposes to subdivide their approximately 74,726 square foot parcel into two seperate lots. Pursuant to Section 7-1004 C.l., 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. Due to slope density reduction calculations, no more than one single- family home per parcel is permitted, unless accessory dwelling units are approved per lot. (b) The proposed subdivision shall be qonsistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. RESPONSE: The character of the surrounding neighborhood 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 character or be inconsistent with surrounding 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 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 the building envelopes of any redevelopment are 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 1 ,-" ~ 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) SEWER - The District currently provides service to the existing residences. New development may be required to participate in upgrades of downstream constraints of the 2 i""'" i""'" wastewater collection system. (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. The City cannot exact a trail easement as part of ,this subdivision. (e) SIDEWALK, CpRB, 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 which is being expanded to 30 feet. 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 subdivision. There are no new roads proposed in the (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 or other reviews may apply. 3 r~. .1'""'\. .. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning ~nd Zoning Commission FROM: , . Leslie Lamont, Sen10r Planner RE: Kastelic Subdivi~ion and Planned unit Development Review- Public Hearing I DATE: August 24, 1993 ----------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------1--------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The. Kastelic Estc(te, the applicant, proposes to subdivide a 74,726 square foot parcel into two residential lots. Two single- family homes currently ocqupy the property and no new development or redevelopment is propo$ed at this time. The property is zoned R-15 with a PUD overlay. i , Subdivision isa two ste!;> review process at the Commission and Council. , i 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 andlserves no public purpose. However, the Commission and Council m~y, during review, determine that the application should be subject to both conceptual and final plan review, in which case conslolidated review shall not occur. , Staff recommends approval iof this application and a consolidated PUD review. APPLICANT: Horn, Davis Estate of Antlhony Horn, Inc. ! I I Kastelic as represented by Glenn LOCATION: 570 Riverside D~ive, Aspen, Colorado. I ZONING: R-15 PUD APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Subd~vision and PUD review for the creation of two residential parcels!. I , REFERRAL COMMENTS: Refer~al Comments are attached to the memo. Please see Attachment A. ! I , \. ~. ~ 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. 2 /\I .~ - , " 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.!., 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 maybe 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 propo~ed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this chapter. 3 ~ 1*'\ ,-. 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) SEWER - 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 ~ r--, !""'\ (c) ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE, required extensions. will of redevelopment. (d) EASEMENTS - A thirty foot utility and access easement is proposed to th~ southern property line. NATURAL GAS AND CABLE TV -All be located underground at the time (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 b~ 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 subdivision. There are no new roads proposed in the (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 5 I '0 r"""'" ,.-, 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 is 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 Lot 1 because of the lot size in the R-15 zone district. Lot 2, because of the lot size, could support a duplex. 2. Prior to any development of a third dwelling unit, a Growth Management Quota System allotment or exemption shall be required. 6 \0 t""I .t""I 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 '\ ~ 1"""\ be made by the Planning and Engineering Departments. RECOMMENDED MOTION: review. " "I move to recommend a consolidated PUD "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 ~ /"""') t'""I 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 TO CC Leslie Lamont Patrick Duffield cc George Robinson 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. -------========x========------- \"J ~ ~ MEMORANDUM To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer d-f2- Date: August 9,. 1993 AUG 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 Marlrin 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 ~ ,.-,.. 1"""'1 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 M93.172 \0 ^ /"",\, ~ 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 stJohn Bennett, Mavor Aspen city Council Published in the Aspen Times on August 6, 1993 ================================================================= city of Aspen Account Ceff) h 1) ;;p_ ~'\l^c W' i r-~ f;=l@:.=r.nn ';' ~r." 11\\--1 L-l..- ,,~.....\.,,- I . l~';'.;, \~,' ~f.:l ;\ I : i ! ',j lE::, '~:~. L,~:, ~.; \-., ~~:::, ll'. I ". '.. "..-'---' -". -'''-'-'''-~.I, II ,; ! ,1: ~ n ~ li//,'; . d P ,( , 6 ; I'll 111"1..' Air -::1,1 I'..' r1UII:J .....) I ,! I \ 'j ~ .' I : IU' 'Ii IU/ i UL-..___,..,_----iL/ I .~ -~.."j r- r- '. CBRTXFXCATB OF HAXLXNG KASTBLLXC PUBLXC NOTXCB 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 Kastel1ic property. ~~ J~et Ra k Raczak Administrative Services, Inc. Russell B. Penning 1201 Riverside Drive Aspen, CO 81611 George & Eileen Traykovski 80 Central Park West New York, NY 10023 Dan T. Ballard 1223 West Main St. Tupelo, MS 38801 Bernard Gray P,O. Box 3099 Winston-Salem, NC 27150 William J. Robinson 940 Waters Avenue, Unit 2-F Aspen, CO 81611 Brlgitta Jacobsen & James Robert Barash 50 West Cheyenne Mountain Rd. Colorado Springs, CO 80906 Vaughn E. Counts Rebecca Counts 2045 West Main Houston, TX 77098 Shira A. Scheindlin Stanley Friedman 124 Pacific Street Brooklyn NY 11201 The Richards Family Trust clo Joseph a. Joynt, Esq. 350 S. Peck #4 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Robert Sl1maeff 13142 Kuen Place Van Nuys, CA 91401 David & Nora Meneghetti 10933 Westwood Drive Palos Hills, IL 60465 r-. LJ:ST OJ' PROPERTY ODlERS WJ:THJ:H 300 J'EET OJ' SUBJECT KASTELLJ:C PROPERTY Richard L and Marsha Ann Fried, Jr, 841 Bishop St., Suite 1900 Honolulu, HI 96813 Nicholas Cipolfino North Stratton Road P.O, Box 379 Stratton, VT 05155 Ezra V. & Sharon B. Wehsener 4014 Mt. Terminus Drive San Diego CA 92111 Frank Clemente 40 River Street Troy, NY 12180 Claire Richelme BP 19 Saint Francois GUADALOUPE, F.W.I 97118 Dr. Robert & Melanie Dean Joseph V. & M. Eliz. Ravenis P.O. Box 2800 La Jolla CA 92038 Karl Baker Robert Boden Box 276 Mantua NJ 08051 Jack O. O'Neil Doris A. O'Neill 0331 Buck Point Rd. Carbondale, CO 81623 James Hindman Andriana P. Hindman Trustees of Hindman Rev, Trust 4819 Fernglen Drive Santa Rosa, CA 95405 1 1"'\ Jay L Adler F. Margaret Adler 230 Yale Avenue Colorado Springs, CO 80904 Betty Jane S. Gerstley Louis Gerstley, III 16th & JFK Blvd. Rm, 335 1 Penn Center Philadelphia, PA 19103 BJ & K Larbalestier Mirvac Trust Bldg., Chamber 807 165 Elizabeth Street Sydney AUSTRALIA 2000 Judith R. Bielinski 1529 Basswood Circle Glenview, III 60025 Paul Allen Anderson 1004 East Durant Avenue #3 Aspen, CO 81611 Heaithcare for Woman A Salinas Medical Corporation 250 San Jose Salinas, CA 93901 Donald R & Judy Anker Wrigley P .0, Box 3399 Aspen, CO 81612 Charles Karasik Box 1818 Aspen, CO 81612 William W. & Catherine C. Foreman 7211 W. Cypress Head Drive Parkland, FL 33067 Jonathan E. Anderson Box 2836 Aspen, CO 81612 ~ Adam Z. Cherry 135 Ninth Street Del Mar, CA 92014 Patricia Callahan 0184 Mountain Laurel Drive Aspen, CO 81611 Harry Uhlfelder Box 1165 Aspen, CO 81612 William H.T. Murray Box 4505 Aspen, CO 81612 Duane & Marianne Alexander 4713 Manor Lane Ellicott City, MD 21043 Ed M. & Nancy W. Sullivan Sarah S. Robinson Box 1324 Aspen, CO 81612 Van Trinh McGaughey Mark D. McGaughey 225 Foster Drive Des Moines, IA 50312 Frank B. & Margaret B. Day As Trust. Karyl Cohn c/o Concept-Boulderado Hotel 2115 - 13th Street Boulder, CO 80302 Leslie Holst Box 12287 Aspen, CO 81612 William Howard Engelman Elizabeth Nell Engelman 1113 Waters Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 Pakanala Kalei Mau 5800 Hannum Avenue 219A San Diego, CA 92122 Ted A. Koutsoubos 419 E. Hyman Aspen, CO 81611 Joseph M. & Arlene M. Samallon 540 Solano Prado Coral Gables, FL 33156 Karen C. Speck Box 9912 Aspen, CO 81612 Mark & Millinda Sinnreich 428 S. Hibiscus Drive Miami Beach, F 33139 Herbert R. & Paula S. Molner 2344 N, Lincoln Park W. Chicago, ILL 60614-3486 John Sperling 4615 East Elwood Phoenix, AX 85040 Gail Cottingham Koch 134 E. Hyman Aspen, CO 81611 Kent Stephens Box 271889 Houston, TX 77277 William E. Bindley 4212 West 71 st Street Indianapolis, IN 46268 Iva & Browne Green 13535 Lucca Drive Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 Thomas & Harriet Larkin 1025 Waters Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 United States Forest Service Aspen, CO 81611 Susan Geary Griffin Bonnie Geary Greeney 5700 County Road 129 Westcliffe, CO 81252 Lee Audrey 4541 Brighton Road Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 2 .~ Gail Craig 1195 East Cooper Ave, Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen River Friends c/o H.M. International 5810 East Skelly Drive, #1000 Tulsa, OK 74135 Charle & marlene Maddalone Trustees Box 20124 Sedona, AZ 86341-0124 Frederico Longoria Dennis Nixon Box 1359 1200 San Bernardo Laredo, TX 78042 570 S. Riverside Avenue - Riverside Addition Owner 2414 Hidden Valley Drive #2 Grand Junction, CO 81503 Anthony Kastelic 1717 S. Milwaukee St. Denver, CO 80210 Thomas & harriet A, Larkin 1025 Waters Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 John & Georgeanne W. Hayes 1112 Waters Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 Henry & Judity Hoyt 54 Champlain Rd. Chatham, MA 02633 William Hoffner 520 S. Riverside Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 Edward Gregorich Box 142 Aspen, CO 81612 r", , . 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 III 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., Ud. c/o Cart Unnecke 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 Eiston 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 3 ,-' Donald & Judith Norris 3400 Greenbriar Lane Riverwoods, III 60015 Elliott Robinson 1245 Riverside Drive Aspen, CO 81611 David Behrhorst Donna rlSher 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 ,--- --- iI, .. 1: 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. Mavor Aspen city Council Published in the Aspen Times on August 6, 1993 City of Aspen Account ;r--./' I"""'. ~'" ~ Date: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE SUMMARY SHEET ~ Chairperson: A(iyv) . " . . A..A::5 "" case Name. Case REFERRAL COMMENTS SUMMARY: city Engineer: (memo forthcoming: ~no ) county Engineer: (memo: yes no ) Environmental Health (memo: ~ no ) Fire Department: (memo~ no ) LA c",-" r ~, V - Building Department: (memo: '.4'Z,,"V~a~ yes((~ ""-, (memo: ye~) Housing Authority: Attorney: (memo: yes:CD~r::;" General Comments: ,....,. ~ MESSAGE DISPLAY TO leslie lamont From: Postmark: Chris Chiola Jul 21,93 8:39 AM Subject: KASTELIC SUBDIVISION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Message: There are no environmental health concerns with the Kastelic Subdivision land use review. -------========x========~------ " rr- .,....... r; MESSAGE DISPLAY TO CC Leslie Lamont Patrick Duffield cc George Robinson From: Rebecca Baker Postmark: Jul 20,93 7:12 PM Status: Previously read Subject: Kastelic ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Message: I have just reviewed for Thursday's meeting but question why we are not processing Stream margin at this time? Is it appropriate to discuss trail easement at Thurs meeting??? The standard PUD subdivision approval really doesn't impact our department from what I have read so far except for just a minor comment that all landscape plans, particularly ROW, need to be submitted to our office. But that won't even be an issue until redevelopment occurs. So unless we can discuss trail easement issues (pedestrian 'and fisherman) is there any need for us to attend meeting? -------========x========------- " I ,.... .,.... flspen !9onsolidated Sanitation !l);strict- 565NorthMil1S~t A~pen. Colorado 81611 , Thla(303l925.S601 FAX 1(303)926-2537 July 8, 1993 ii' ~: ~~~~I u\lL J~ AlhertBiehop Frank Lou.hin BruceMatherly,Mgr. Sy Kelly. Chairman JohnJ.Snyder.Treaa. Loui.Popi8h-&q. L".lt"LaIllOl'lt Plannl..., Of rica 1;:10 S. Galen. Aspen. co 81611 Re, Kastelic SubdivIsion IPUP Dear Lealie: It t. my understandlni th..t the above teterenced project prepos.s . lot splIt without any turther development to the two .~l.tln, d".111", unit. currently exl.Union-slt... Eachslngl" ,...",fly dwellln; unit h..... 81n,le sanitary s.."n ..rvlce II". connectlnll to the District syste... The boundary lIne propollltd to dlvid.. tne existing lot Into tw" pal"oal..pp..rs to allow each ..orvtc.. line to ba located exclusivaly on th. appropriat. prop.rty of the n.wly cr..t..d lot. If thl. Is carr.ct th..n th. proposed d.v.lopm.nt wll I ".'1" no ad"..r"" lmpaots upon t"e District .yst.... PI....ec.11 if you h.v..ny qu."tlon... Slnc.r..Iy, il-_ "'''-''2l Bruoe/'lathlO,.ly Otat,.iot Nana"..,. EPA AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE 1976.1986.1990 REGIONAL AND NATIONAL \" f"" ^ MESSAGE DISPLAY TO 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? -------========x========------- / ,'0 ,rIPoff{ -IItIJii' fZ;: --ot [ RE: DATE: r--, .~ ASPEN/PITKIN 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 BPC Leslie Lamont, Planning Office Kastelic SubdivisionlPUD Parcel ID No. 2737-181-00-019 June 24, 1993 25 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., 1st floor City Council Chambers. Thank you. be> C c9;n1 h1 [' I~ ''7.$ /J r ~/S 77/7lE/ ~ 0.vk 5hR..fAYn~~ ~W wiU fiAJ~d jJ;-~ ~ . ..,,\ r--\ .~ ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920-5090 FAX# (303) 920-5197 June 24, 1993 Glenn Horn Davis Horn, Inc. f15 s. Monarch, #104 Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Kastelic Subdivision/PUD Case A31-93 Dear Glenn, The Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that this application is complete. We have scheduled this application for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at a Public Hearing to be held on Tuesday, August 17, 1993 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. Should this date be inconvenient for you please contact me within 3 working days of the date of this letter. After that the agenda date will be considered final and changes to the schedUle or tabling of the application will only be allowed for unavoidable technical problems. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to the application is available at the Planning Office. ' We have also scheduled this application for first reading by the City Council on September 13, 1993. Please note that it is your responsibility to mail notice to property owners within 300' and to post the subject property with a sign at least ten (10) daysprior to the public hearing. Please submit a photograph of the posted sign as proof of posting and an affidavit as proof or mailing prior to the public hearing. All applications are now being scheduled for the Development Review Committee (DRC). The DRC is a committee of referral agencies which meet with Planning and the applicant early in the process to discuss the application. This case is scheduled for July 22, 1993 at 3:00 p.m., city Hall, City Council Chambers. If you have any questions, please call Leslie Lamont, the planner assigned to your case at 920-5101. Sincerely, '{' --, ',' '[V~ ~lff Administrative Assistant r-. ~ ~~~\ --11~' r;::--.. ,';;co n.. ''C,,^',.\ \ h,." ~,~ L.' ,..' ., ~\ \ >~; ...~' '\. L. \)1 ..~,.,J\/ ~--...- DavisHom~c;. 1\ PlANNING. APPRAISING. REAL ESTATE CONSUIJING \1 ," :\ \\.~ \.---_. -,-- .. r \. June 17, 1993 Leslie Lamont Aspen-pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Kastelic Conceptual SUbdivision/PUD Dear Leslie: Thanks for your June, l5 letter. On behalf of the Kastellic estate, we request approval for a residential GMQS exemption from the Planning Director in accordance with section 24-8-104 A.1.e. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED AUCE DAVIS, SRA \ GLENN HORN, AICP 215 SOUJH MONARCH. SUITE 104. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611. 303J9~7 . FAX: 3031925-5180 1""'-, ,.-, May '26, 1!iJ93 II ASPEN 0 PITKIN PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Glenn Hor,n Davis Horn, Inc. 215 S. Monarch street #104 Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 'Kastelic Conceptu<il SUbdivis:l.on/PUD and stream Margin Review Case #A31-93 " Dear Glenn, The Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that this application is incomplete, therefore, we are unable to schedule it at this time: The' following are needed in order to. complete the application. 1. A variance from the Board f justment is necessary for the~ setback from the 'existing , h that will ultimately be tot"!)'1 . ./. down with redevelopment (i Os not clear whether sideyard or~~ rear yard is needed). T s riance must be obtained prior \e to subdivision review. Howeve when a Board of Adjustment ~ date is scheduled I WO 1 then s edule subdivision review. "-2. . ,~ .,. 2. The applicant must request a,GMQS Exemption from the Planning Director for "All development ,not limited" Section 8- 104A.1.e.' An exemption will be granted based upon .the, applicants stipulation that any future development that adds addit~onal free market residential units (beyond the '2 existing free-market units) must receive a Growth Management Quota System allo~ation. "- If-....' ij! t/ . The Stream Margin Review request can not be processed at this time. It will be reviewed when a site specific development plan is available. !ifrelY, . ~mont 130 SOUTI;! GALENA STREET. ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 . PHONE 303.920.5090 . FAX 303.920.5197 Printfdonre<ydcdpapor HOLY CROSs-ELECTRIC ASSa-'LIATION, INC. 3799 HIGHWAY 82 P,O, DRAWER 2150 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 (303) 945-5491 (FAX) 945-4081 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. 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, ijOLY C ASSOCIATION, INC. .~ JAF:rjm Area 90 ~ t"""\ ~ ll,."WEST' COMMUNICATIONS @ Hay 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. ~"<7L Garr:ibson Manager- Engineer U.S. West Communications \C\. l (""". ~. Davis Horn~c;. PlANNING' APPRAISING. REAL ESTATE CONSUIJlNG May 7, 1993 Ms. Leslie Lamont Aspen Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena street Aspen, CO. 81611 RE: Kastelic Subdivision Application Dear Leslie: We represent the Kastelic Estate (Hereinafter "applicant) who is seeking subdivision approval for a 74,726 square foot parcel in east Aspen improved with two existing homes. The request is to allow the owners, the heirs to the Kastelic Estate, to create two separate parcels, each with an existing residence. The site is zoned R-15 PUD. The following land use approvals are requested as part of this application: 1. Full Subdivision Review pursuant to section 7-1004 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations; 2. Mandatory PUD Review for floodplain and slope pursuant to section 7-903 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations; 3. Stream Margin Review pursuant to section 7-504. BACKGROUND Prior to his death, the subject property was owned by Anthony Kastelic. Mr. Kastelic died in 1989. Bette Johnson and Margie casey are the two devisees to the property. In 1990, we held a pre-application conference with Leslie Lamont for this property. For the past three years, the two heirs and their attorneys have worked very hard to come to an agreement as to how the property and estate can be equitably split. Negotiations have been difficult. Anthony Kastelic's will specifically referred to two Pitkin County tax schedules which, when reviewed, created ambiguous lot descriptions. Along with what is legally permissible, the general inference made from the will is of importance in the attempts to settle the estate. The tax schedule descriptions have been considered in the planning of the proposed subdivision. This proposed subdivision application represents years of negotiations and a solution which is acceptable to both parties. , AUCE DAVIS, SRA \ GLENN HORN, NCP 21S SOUTH MONARCH. sum; 104. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 . 303I92~7 . FAX: 3031925-5180 . 1"""\ ,-" LAND USE APPROVALS SUBDIVISION APPROVAL section 3-101 of the Aspen Municipal Code defines subdivision to include: "land to be divided into two or more lots, tracts, parcels, sites, separate interests (including leasehold interests), interests in common, or other division for the purpose, whether immediate or future, of transfer of ownership, or for building or other development, or for street use by reference to such subdivision of a recorded plat". The subject property's subdivision creates two lots and therefore we are requesting subdivision approval and have addressed the subdivision standards in section 7-1004 of the Land Use Regulations. Responses to the review standards appear in this section. 1. General Requirements - section 7-1004 C.(l) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Aspen Area community Plan. Existing land uses in the site vicinity will not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. The subject site is currently improved with two existing homes. Al though there are no current plans to expand or replace these homes, they will inevitably be improved, expanded or redeveloped in the future. In the foreseeable future, the land uses on site will continue as they have in the recent past. As demonstrated in this section of the application, the subdivision complies with the city subdivision standards. 2. Suitability of Land for Subdivision - Section 7-1004.C.2 The land proposed for subdivision is located on the Roaring Fork River, but the building envelopes designated will put the existing or any future structures out of the flood hazard area. The engineer's report in Attachment 3 addresses the flood hazard, drainage, rock and soil creep and other hazards on the site related to the flood plain and the topography. (See also the floodplain analysis in Attachment 5.) The two proposed lots with the existing structures are the two parcels most suitable for development given the hazards on the site. As the existing homes are currently served by public utilities, public facilities are readily available to serve the subdivision and the applicant will upgrade the facilities as required. 3 I~ ,.-- . 3. rmprovements (section 7-1004 C.[3J) a. Reauired improvements. The followinq improvements shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. (1) Permanent survey monuments, ranqe points, and lot pins. Permanent survey monuments will be located when the site is surveyed for the final plat. (2) Paved streets, not exceedinq the requirements for pavinq and improvements of a collector street. There are no streets in the development. (3) curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. There are no curb, gutter and sidewalks in the vicinity. (4) Paved alleys. There are no alleys near the subject property. (5) Traffic-control siqns, siqnals or devices. Such devices are not necessary. (6) street liqhts. There will be no street lights. (7) street name siqns. There are no new streets. (8) street trees or landscapinq. The existing homesites are already landscaped with willows, lilac bushes and native vegetation. The landscapinq will be disturbed as little as possible. (9) Water lines and fire hydrants. (10) Sanitary sewer lines. The subject property is already served with public water and sewer lines which have adequate excess capacity. Please refer to the attached engineerinq report in Attachment 3. "will serve" letters from the Aspen Water Department and the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District have been requested and will be submitted as soon as possible. 4 , fI"'." ,,-,, No new water hydrants are needed as both existing homes are within 150 feet of the existing hydrant. If the future redevelopment of Lot 1 places a structure beyond this 150 feet, a new hydrant will need to then be installed. (11) storm drainaqe improvements and storm sewers. The historic storm drainage pattern on the site will be maintained. See the attached enqineering report. (12) Bridqes or culverts. Not applicable. (13) Electrical lines. All electrical lines will be placed underground at the time of any redevelopment of the lots in the future. A "will serve" letter from Holy Cross has been requested and will be submitted when received. (14) Telephone lines. All telephone lines will be placed underground at the time of any redevelopment of the lots in the future. A "will serve" letter has been requested and will be submitted when received. (15) Natural qas lines. Natural gas lines will be placed underground at the time of any future redevelopment of the lots. See the attached enqineering report in Attachment 3. A "will serve" letter from Rocky Mountain Natural Gas has been requested and will be submitted when received. (16) Cable television lines. Cable television lines will be placed underground at the time of any redevelopment of the lots in the future. See the attached enqineering report. A "will serve" letter has been requested and will be submitted when received. b. Aooroved olans. Construction shall not cOlDlllence on any of the improvements required by Sec. 7-1004(C)(3)(a) until a plan, profile, and specifications have been received and approved by the city Enqineer and, when appropriate, the relevant utility company. 5 ""' ......." See the General utility' Plan for the proposed subdivision in Attachment 4. If required, prior to future redevelopment of the lots, we will submit any detailed plans, profiles and specifications. c. Oversized utilities. In the event oversized utilities are required as a part of the improvements, arrangements for reimbursement shall be made whereby the subdivider shall be allowed to recover the cost of the utilities that have been provided beyond the needs of the subdivision. utilities will not have to be oversized. 4. Design Standards (Section 7-1004 C.[4]) The development shall comply with all applicable design standards given in this section of the Regulations. Since only two lots are being created in the proposed subdivision, some of the standards are not applicable. The applicant commits to comply with the applicable standards related to street and other related improvements, easements, survey and monuments, utilities, storm drainage and flood hazard areas. The applicant commits to maintain historic runoff patterns, to provide reasonable utility easements as may be required and to minimize flood damage to public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electricity and potable water systems. 5. Affordable Housing As verified by Leslie Lamont in the pre-application conference, (See Attachment 8) the affordable housing requirements in this section of the Regulations do not apply to the subject subdivision as no housing is being replaced and no new housing constructed. When the structures are replaced in the future, the lot owners will at that time comply with all affordable housing requirements. PUD APPROVALS (Section 7-903) The purpose of the planned unit development (PUD) designation is to encourage flexibility and innovation in the development of land. The subject site has a mandatory PUD review as a result of the R-15 PUD zoning on the site. The mandatory PUD designation is placed on sites which may need flexibility in development planning due to flood plain and/or topographical constraints. The presence of the Roaring Fork River on the western boundary of the subject property is the primary reason for the designation of the subject site with a PUD zoning, though the topography is a secondary reason. The applicant agrees to comply with all the applicable PUD standards and requirements given in this section of the Land Use Regulations. 6 "...., "...., 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)(~) 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 (Slope) square Feet of Land Area Max. Density Allowed Resulting Lot Area (SF) ==================---============= 0-20 % 24,000 100% 24,000 21-30 % 14,000 50% 7,000 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% 0 Total Land Area: 74,726 33,062 ----------- --- ----------------------- ---------------- --------------------------------------- * 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 created. 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 ~eneath the high water line of a ~ody 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 ~ .~ When calculating density, lot area shall have the same exclusions and inclusions as for calculating floor area ratio, but shall also exclude any lands sul:lject to slope density reduction pursuant to section 7-903.(2) (b) (emphasis added). Based upon the preceding definition, the portion of the subject site within the Roaring Fork River and the portion under the road are deducted from lot area and the area within the irrigation ditch is included since the ditch is to be piped and converted to a sub- surface easement. The resulting lot area, under this definition, is 33,062. Therefore, the minimum lot area requirement of 15,000 square feet per single family dwelling unit in the R-15 PUD zone district is met after the density reduction formula is applied to this two lot subdivision. Dimensional Requirements - Section 7-903 B.(4) The dimensional requirements of the R-15 district must be met in a PUD, although variations may be permitted. All but one of the dimensional requirements of the zone district will be met in the proposed two lot subdivision. The applicant is requesting a temporary variance from the rear yard setback for the existing dwelling situated on Lot 1, the northernmost lot in the subdivision. The 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. A covered porch on the existing home on Lot 1 is to be demolished and the existing structure/residence will then be five feet from the rear boundary of the lot. Therefore, a five foot variance is requested to reduce the rear yard setback from ten to five feet. As the structure has been in existence, no safety impacts have resulted from the non-conforming setback. Also, the non-conformity is actually being reduced by eliminating two houses on one lot and with the removal of the home I s porch which now crosses the proposed lot line, allowing no setback. The lot owners are asking for a temporary variance of five feet for this rear yard setback to accommodate the existing residence on the proposed lot. At the time of the redevelopment of Lot 1, a rear setback of twenty feet will be maintained. This setback is greater than required by Code for the primary dwelling, and has been agreed to by the property owners. Another dimensional requirement is the floor area ratio for the two lots. The applicant is proposing that the floor area be allocated based on lot size as opposed to being split equally. Lot 1 contains 30,616 square feet and Lot 2 contains 44,110 square feet. Applying the floor area formula for the zone district and reducing the lot size as required for land under water and under the road easement, the allowable floor areas for the lots are as follows: 8 -. ,-.." Lot 1: 5087 square feet Lot 2: 5938 square feet Note that the allowable floor area is based upon the effective lot size after land under the road and the road easement is subtracted, not on the original lot size. STREAK MARGIN REVIEW APPROVALS The applicants have no immediate plans for expansion or redevelopment of the two existing homes on the property, but they are requesting stream margin 'review approval in the event of future expansion or redevelopment which may ultimately take place. stream margin reviews are considered pursuant to Section 7-504 of the Aspen Land use Regulations. This section states that no development can take place within 100 feet from the high water mark of the Roaring Fork River unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the determination that the proposed development complies with all the standards set forth in this section. These standards are addressed below. Standard 7-504 C.1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer regist.red to practice in the State of Colorado which shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off-site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the development. Response Attachment 5 is a floodplain study on the Roaring Fork River prepared by Jefferey Simonson, P.E. of Schmueser Gordon Meyer. The floodplain analysis indicates that the proposed building envelopes and the required subdivision improvements will not result in any significant impact to the special flood hazard area. The Flood Insurance Study for The City of Aspen is accurate to .1 feet. Based upon this accuracy, it can be interpreted that there is no increase in the base flood elevation due to the proposed improvements. Standard 7-504 C.2. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: parks/Recreation/Open space/Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use. 9 - ~ Response The applicant is offering the City an in-water fisherman easement provided that the easement shall limit fisherman to within the high water mark of the Roaring Fork River. standard 7-504 C.3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practica~le. Response This land use application is generally consistent with the recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan. standard 7-504 C.4. No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made that produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream ~ank. At the time of future construction, natural vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible. When any natural vegetation is disturbed, the disturbed area shall be revegetated to insure that there is no erosion. standard 7-504 C.5. To the greatest extent practica~le, reduces pollution and interference with river, stream or other tri~utary. the proposed development the natural changes of the Response The applicant will, to the greatest extent practicable, not interfere with the natural changes of the river. As the building envelopes are not in the flood hazard area, interference should be negligible. standard 7-504 C.6. written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Based upon the degree of accuracy of the Flood Insurance study for the City of Aspen, there will be no alteration to the water course. Therefore, the applicant has not notified the Colorado Water Conservation Board. 10 I~' ,......" standard 7-504 C.7. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished. As indicated in Attachment 5, there should be no change to the water course as a result of the proposed structures. Should any changes occur, the applicants will guarantee that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished. standard 7-504 C.8. copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the one hundred (100) year floodplain. Prior to construction within the high water mark of the river or disruption of significant riparian vegetation, an applicant is required to obtain a 404 Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. Such construction is not proposed. LANDOWNERS CONSENT Attachment 6 is a letter from the applicant authorizing Davis Horn Incorporated to prepare this land use application and represent them in the land use review process. Attachment 7 is a city of Aspen land use application form agreement. ATTACHMENT INDEX The following is a list of attachments: Attachment 1: Kastelic SUbdivision/PUD Plat Attachment 2: Existing Conditions Map, Kastelic Estate Attachment 3: Banner Engineering Report on the Kastelic Property from Bob Daniel Attachment 4: General Utility Plan Attachment 5: Floodplain Study on the Roaring Fork River prepared by Jefferey Simonson, P.E. of Schmueser Gordon Meyer. Attachment 6: Letter from the applicant authorizing Davis Horn Incorporated to process the land use application; 11 - I"""> Attachment 7: Aspen Land Use Application Form and Fee Agreement. Attachment 8: Pre Application Conference Summary Sheet Attachment 9: Proof of ownership. Attachment 10: Letters requesting "will serve" letters from utility companies (water, sewer, electric, gas, telephone and cable). SUMMARY After years of difficult negotiations, the heirs to the Kastelic Estate and their attorneys have agreed on a proposed subdivision of the subject property into two parcels. We therefore are requesting subdivision approval for these two proposed lots in order to carry out the intent of the Kastelic will and the two parties which are heir to the property. The two parcels to be created will each contain an existing residence. The applicant is also requesting that the rear setback of Lot 1, the northernmost lot, be varied temporarily from ten to five feet in order to better accommodate the existing residence. At the time of future redevelopment of Lot 1, a twenty foot rear yard setback will be maintained. Approval for a stream margin review is also requested as the Roaring Fork River covers the western side of the property. The owners do not intend to construct a new residence or expand or redevelop the existing residences at this time, but they are requesting approval for a stream margin review now, for planning purposes for the future. This application has described the subject site, explained the proposed subdivision and demonstrated compliance with pertinent sections of the Aspen Land Use Regulations which were identified by the staff in the pre-application conference. Please notify us if we have mistakenly neglected to address any of your concerns. Thank you for assisting us in the preparation of this application. As soon as you have the time, we can arrange a site visit, if necessary. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, DAVIS HORN, INC. GLENN HORN, AICP ALICE DAVIS 12 - ,.-.. Please see attached 24 X 36 blueprints for Attachments 1, 2, and 4. .-, .-, BANNER ENGINEERING REPORT KASTELLlC SUBDMSION & P.U.D. ASPEN, COLORADO ATTACHIIENT 3 General The proposed subdivision sits adjacent to the Roaring Fork River at the terminus of Riverside Avenue. A separate study by Schmeuser, Gordon, Meyer has been prepared to address issues relative to stream margin review and floodplain. There are existing improvements on the property which consists of two single family residences and associated accessory structures. Due to the need for estate planning by the heirs of the property owner, this parcel will be subdivided into two lots. There will be specific building sites determined through this SubdivisionlP.U.D. process should the existing structures be demolished by a subsequent owner. Given the fact that there are two existing residences on this lot, many of the engineering issues relative to service are mute. This report addresses the existing conditions and any impacts created or improvements necessary to serve the proposed subdivision. Access As mentioned, the subject parcel is located at the end of Riverside Avenue, which is a dedicated City right-of-way. This provides access to the existing residences along a gravel drive approximately fifteen feet wide. Through the proposed subdivision there will be a dedicated thirty foot access and utility easement to the southern property line. This will provide access as well as a corridor over the existing utility installations. With the redevelopment of Lot 1 and Lot 2 the existing gravel drive may need surface treatment or improvement. Due to the fact that this drive will remain private, no improvements such as pavement or curb and gutter will be installed. Fire Protection The subject site is located within the City limits and the jurisdiction of the Aspen Fire Protection District. There exists City water with sufficient flow of 919 gallons per minute with 65 pounds per square inch pressure and 20 pounds per square inch of residual pressure providing adequate fire protection from the existing hydrant. Currently the existing improvements are within 150 feet of the hydrant. Should the future redevelopment of Lot 1 locate a structure beyond this distance, a new hydrant should be installed on the northern portion of the existing 6" CIP waterline. ,....., i~ BANNER ENGINEERING REPORT KASTELLlC SUBDMSION & P.U.D. ASPEN, COLORADO Domestic Water Service The existing structures are served with domestic water service from the Aspen Water Department. This service is through the existing 6" CIP ""aterline that is part of a looped system from the Riverside Subdivision to the 14" waterline in State Highway 82. Based upon review of information provided by the Aspen Water Department there is sufficient capacity to serve these lots should they be redeveloped. When the lots are redeveloped there will need to be new service taps made and service line extensions to the proposed building sites. Sanitary Sewer Service The proposed subdivision is within the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District and ' is currently being served by the District. There is an 8" sanitary sewer line that provides service for the existing residences. This line has sufficient capacity to serve the anticipated redevelopment of Lots 1 and 2, Private Utilities The property is within the service area of U.S. West Communications, Holy Cross Electric Association, Rocky Mountain Natural Gas and TCI Cablevision, Facilities from each of those carriers serve the existing residences. I have, contacted each of these utilities and confirmed their ability to serve the project. Enclosed for your reference are copies of correspondence to verify their capacity for service. Telephone, electric and cable are provided via existing overhead service lines. Due to the fact that distribution of these utilities in this area is via an overhead system, a major undergrounding of the system is unlikely. When Lots 1 and 2 are redeveloped the services should be dropped off of existing poles and undergrounded. If these distribution systems are undergrounded in the area, easements should be granted through the property. Natural gas service is currently provided to the property, This service is sufficient for the existing residences but could require upsizing when Lots 1 and 2 are redeveloped. When plans are developed for new structures they should be reviewed by Rocky Mountain Natural Gas to determine load characteristics and if there is a need for a new line. Draina2e / Grading When considering the development of a parcel it is customary to review any potential drainage and grading impacts relative to the historic or existing patterns. In this specific instance the historic or existing condition is a site, that is developed with two "..." ,-., BANNER ENGINEERING REPORT KASTELLIC SUBDMSION & P.U.D. ASPEN, COLORADO residences and accessory units. Regar~less of the historic viewpoint taken by the City Engineering Department it will be necessary to mitigate any impacts created by the redevelopment of Lots 1 and 2. Due to the fact that there are no current plans for redevelopment proposed, it is logical to provide a drainage report in conjunction with the specific building plans, This report should specify and provide information showing that the proposed redevelopment does not affect the historic drainage patterns on the property. Any road improvements should have no significant impact on the drainage due to the petvious nature of the gravel road surface. Summarv In conclusion, the proposed KasteIIic Subdivision and P.D.D. presents no major requirements for improvement to the existing infrastructure, The redeveloped Lots 1 and 2 can be adequately served from the current facilities without major extensions. There will be a need to coordinate tying into the utility systems once plans are available for any proposed structures. SCHMti ;~ GORDON MEYER INC. J01 Grand Avenue. Suite 2.E Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (303) 945-1004 (303) 925-6727 Fax (303) 945-5948 CONSUL rING ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS ,~ January 18, 1991 Mr. Glenn Horn Planning Consultant 300 East Hyman Avenue, Suite B Aspen, CO 81611 AnACHUENT 5 RE: Kastellic Property. Floodplain Study Riverside Avenue. ASDen. Colorado Dear Glenn: Per your request, we have evaluated the Roaring Fork Floodplain as it relates to the flood way and floodplain location on the Kastellic property. On the attached blueprint of the site plan, I have red-lined the location of both the floodplain line and floodway line. In addition. you will find approximate water surface elevation contours shown on this blueprint. You will note that on the north and south property lines. I have identified the estimated elevation of the floodplain at both of these respective locations. We utilized the Flood Insurance Study for Pitkin County, Colorado, and incorporated areas to develop this information. This information has been interpolated from the aforementioned Floodplain Study, You will also find attached to this drawing a photocopy of the work maps from the Flood Insurance Study of the Roaring Fork River for thiS area, Referencing the red lined blueprint attached, you will note the floodplain limits are delineated with a solid red line; the f100dway boundary is delineated with a dashed red line. Only in two areas (the southwest corner of the property) does the delineation of the floodway boundary and floodplain boundary differ. For the most part. the flood way boundary and the floodplain boundary are coincident with each other, The wavy red lines with an elevation associated with them, reflect the water surface elevation contours (depths). I trust this information serves its intended purpose. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER. INC. JSS:lec/91013 Enclosure ~ ~, LAW OI'I"ICI:. OF OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH ~"O'IIIIONAL CO",.O"","ION THING ,.LOOR. A".'" ..u.u. 8Ul(.OINO CU E"'CT HO"kIWI AVENUIlt ASPEN, COLORADO 818" LCONA"D hi. OATe. ROBeRT W, MUGHES RICKARD A. KNEZEVICM TeO O. QA"DIINSWAAn May 7,1993 AIIIEA COOl: aoa TII.CItHONIE .20.1100 TEl.c=o..rl." 1'20'''21 0" eOUN8El,.: JOHN THO...... kl1.L" Leslie Lamont Aspen\Pitkln Planning Office 130 South Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 ATTACHIIENT L0 RE: Authorization for Representation Dear Leslie: As the counsel for the personal representative of the Estate of Anthony Kastelic, I authorize Davis Horn Incorporated (215 S. Monarch #104, Aspen, CO (303) 925-2167) to submit the attached application and to represent the owners in the land use review process. Very Truly Yours, Olltes, HuChes & ~ezevich, P.C. LMO/pg 2/2'd HJI/o,,3Z31'J>i "8 S3H:'tIlH('=31~~l 8?:+--1 ,. T T I...." I~, 1) 2) AT:I2ICHmn' 1 r-, IAND ISE APPLICATICIl RH>. Project Name <.CI 'J1f:t!/ ( SC"bdll)1 S i en Project I.oalt.ic.n Cj,pQ!1 J; n"/ of 2i (,(!rSOf Ai-If' A 5f'Yn ((; CSefJ. =~ ~;r. 1<<1 A-f{(>t'h~q -{hI IAiol ()~fY'nPt-/M) (im:icat:e .;1..... ct' , lot; & bl'Jdc J'II---, legal. 1iesctipt.ialliDa'e _..".-..iate) ATTACHUENT -1- 3) 5) do Za1inq R- - 1<) pon 6) 4) I.oI: size 74 7J.l~ s-f- F. ,,--{(liF r:f 3rr1hcn~ !!qiQ.lt"( _ , q:2V-1X ec;ia.fe.- 55" E -Ikp:,ns jJ'jr:e.n :..'()'J/f./( , L fir " fJ;,u/5 ~ d.cd.ive's Name, M'h. & lb:ne # rY'{U{;; Horfl uv ('~/$hn -I-{Orf' ~ S ') mono. {fir-. off IOC! ;{c;cRn (0 <;;/(011 ')('J:S 9;)S-05'67 I Pr ~H"'"1t's Name, M'h. & lb:ne # {Iv: LPcrotY'/ ).,( Caf0j I fOUnt eJ -It), -f-hp 7) 'l\'Pe of ~ (pl--. check all that awJ.y): Q:nli.tiaJa1 1I;e _ a:noeptual SPA Fina1 SPA _ a..~ Histar:ic Dev. Fina1 Histar:ic Dev. Minar:' Histar:ic Dev. _ ~i"'l Beview 8040 GI:eenline _ a..~ PW L Sl..._MaJ:gin Fina1 PW _ H:luntain view Plane 1 &lbtivis:icn Bistar:ic n....n 1 j:t:ia1 _ Bistar:ic Designaticn _ a...Lai1'i,wni "-"'tian _ 'l'eId:/IIip Aouo........d. _ QIJS ~ll."..-L _ I.oI: split/Lol: Line _ QIJS -......,.-i"'l Adjustment 8) Desctipt:iat of Eld.stiDJ Uses (J'II~ and type of ex:istin.J st:ruc:bm!s; ~ sq. ft.; J'II--- of b.ch........,.; ~ p:evicu;; ~ gmnt:ed 1:0 the I:L"l""LLl'). _ Vested Rights 1 P)(I 'if; n~ hcmt(5) Lf <;tTYAll No (>r{J ( JIODS cl.p 1 ..p loprt'?1n+ (<; ufl::mldlf<{> GpP((7f;qls , 9) Desctipt:iat of 1le\II'>1. ~_.- d. ~ )(Jb1iu,c(f -IN 7tJ,-n//fsl rwrel fnw +Ux, (of')C{('cd-i~ -/0;0 (O(1-{nrmlfYj Irrr<, poth (()f1+cvnlnJ nn (JX {<ofin9 !e'iiden(fJ. Nn rPdeC'f'I!7pfr(J(f/ d (J X/c.,+I~ hrfi\P c, /~/()f)AV(~;/ -fr +of'tDc;r.p(.^dJp. -f(}t (;ire..~ re pIOcerTV2n-fx.[On510n ' Have yw. 'the fol.lcw:itx}? --L- - "ollse to AM-... t.,_d. 2, MiniDun !':l,hni-=:i"'l O::nt:ents ---L- -"'I' flSo: to Att-... t.,-d. 3, ~f'ic !':lJhni....icn O::nt:ents ---'- - "'I'-ISle to Att-...t...-.L 4, Review st:arm:rds fer YaJr Jll:pli.ca:ticn 10) 1"""'\ !~ ATTAC~ENT .-l- ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and The E.'\"1cr1e of An-II){J{)~) ka stet /(::_-' (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for !<.asfeli L- SuW I uIsion l ')ufJd Il}j siGn: POD 4- :::,--rreol?\ (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). ma..rS In 0QUIWJ5) " 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 44 (Series of 1991) establishes a fee structure for Planning Office applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to allow APPLICANT to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete' processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project approval, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 05-12-1993 10:50AM FROM DAVIS HORN INC. r"\ TO ~ 17550938 '",03 . . 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $JoA3, 00 which is for /7 hours of Planning Office time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT ~ By: - ~. Di e Moore City Planning Director By~~.</-a-;7 Date: ~/,L~/ 9.9 ~======~=====~====;===~=~===~=======~ For Planning Office Use Case Number Case Name Deposit or Flat Fee Amount: Referral Fees: Engineer: =~=~=====_=~s=======~==~-;~-~~==~~=== Housing: Environmental Health: 2 .,- , r-.. i"",, f1/9 CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PROJECT ::/< 0. skJ lie ~ ~ Li ! PuD APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Q\~ ~fY\ REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: _g~ 5 - (058 -::;- OWNER'S NAME: k Ot~ t sA--;;J.p.) AlTACHMENT ~ 1. SUMMARY Type of Application: ~u~&; . u.-,Lo '-.("l""y--.! fJ ().i) I SI(j'e.u....~ .1 , Describe action/type of developmen bein~ requested: ,2. . (j ~?[~~~~t:~~~~ ~;~,~[:I...~:' Oc.A::.A.> i":S l 3. Areas is which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of reports requested: Policy Area/ Referral Aqent .prutl<. S ~, ..C' r-e-- 0 r4.~Sj) c-~) comme~ts ~ +6'(..1..0 O~ 4. Review is: (P&Z Only) (CC OnlY)~&Z then S (NO) of the application to~ 5. Public Hearing: 6. Number of copies to be submitted: I,~ SUbmit'd, ,.,?:1+ )~ t~ 'j 7. What fee was applicant requested to 8. Anticipated date of submission: COMMENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS:-1:! p L ~ 9. frm.pre_app ~ Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Cot""'lny COMMITMENT FOR TITLE SCHEDULE A ,-" INSUkANCE A TT ACHr.'.ENT -1 1. Effective date: 10/01/90 @ 8:00 A,M. 2. Policy or policies to be issued: Case No. PCT-5062 C2 (a)ALTA Owner's Policy-Form B-1970 (Rev. 10-17-70 & 10-17-84) or 10/21/87 PROPOSED INSURED: PROFORMA Amount $ PROFORMA Premium $ 250.00 (b)ALTA Loan Policy, (REV. 10-21-87) PROPOSED INSURED: Amount $ Premium $ (c)Alta Loan Construction Policy, 1975 (Rev. 10-17-84) PROPOSED INSURED: Amount $ Premium $ Tax Cert. $ 3. Title to the FEE SIMPLE estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested in: ESTATES OF ANTHONY A. KASTELIC AND NORMA M. KASTELIC 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: PLEASE REFER TO EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF Countersigned at: PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 601 E. HOPKINS ASPEN, CO. 81611 303-925-1766 Fax 303-925-6527 Schedule A-PG.1 This Commitment is invalid unless the Insuring Provisions and Schedules A and B are attached. ~ Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co~ny .~ EXHI3IT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION A Tract of Land situated in the NEl/4 Section 18, TI0S, R84W of the 6th P.M. more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at a point whence Corner No. 6 of the Riverside Placer MS 3905 AM bears N 43013'02" W 200.89 feet; thence Southwesterly 80.46 feet along the arc of a curve to the right whose radius is 920.25 feet, chord bears S 73040' W 80.44 feet; thence S 76010' W 62.94 feet thence 5 0014' W 5.15 feet; thence S 76010' W 158.73 feet; thence S 19046' E 3.47 feet; thence S 75009'11" E 41.62 feet; thence S 37051' E 88.32 feet; thence S 29014' E 66.50 feet: thence S 02000' W 36.00 feet; thence S 17030' E 34.00 feet: thence S 33009'50" E 28.06 feet; thence S 87042' E 159.18 feet: thence N 00002' W 3.73 feet; thence S 87042' E 76.60 feet: thence N 13044' W 193.99 feet: thence N 00014' E 98.97 feet; thence N 82050' 24" W 50.37 feet; thence N 00014' E 26.40 feet to the point of beginning, subject to that common boundary line agreement described in Book 286 at Page 281. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. ,f"'"'o., ~ , , BANNER . CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS January 28, 1993 Larry Ballenger City of Aspen Water Department 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO. 81611 ATTACHIIENT I () BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. 2777 Crossroads Boulevard Grand Junction. Colorado 81506 (3031243-2242 FAX (303)243.3810 605 East Main. Suite 6 Aspen. Colorado 81611 (303)925-5857 RE: KASTELLIC SUBDMSION ASPEN, COLORADO Dear Larry: Enclosed for your review are two copies of the proposed water plan and a survey on the subject project. This project is concurrently being submitted to the City of Aspen for Subdivision & P.D.D. approval. Hans Brucker in our office had contacted you regarding the availability of service for the property once it is redeveloped. As you know, there are currently two services on the property for existing structures. Any future redevelopment will require the relocation or configuration of new service. Additionally, it may be necessary to install a new fire hydrant to provide appropriate "hose lay" distances to the northern lot. This will be determined as the plans for redevelopment become available. Please feel free to contact me with any questions and/or comments. Sincerely, tf~ Robert E. Daniel, J r.,PE Aspen Projects Director BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. Enclosure cc: Alice Davis - Davis-Horn, Inc. RED:red WP-OOC\8283\confmnul.wtr ,-" ,-' BANNER . CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS January 28, 1993 BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. 2777 Crossroads Boulevard Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 (303)243-2242 FAX (303}243.3810 605 East Main. Suite 6 Aspen, Colorado 816'1 (303\925.5857 Tom Bracewell Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District 565 N. Mill Street Aspen, CO. 81611 RE: KASTELLIC SUBDMSION & P.U.D. ASPEN, COLORADO Dear Tom: Enclosed for your review are two copies of the sanitary sewer plan and a survey on the subject project. This project is concurrently being submitted to the City of Aspen for Subdivision & P.u'D. approval. Hans Brucker in our office contacted you regarding the availability of service for the property once it is redeveloped. As you know, there are currently two services on the property for the existing residences. Any future redevelopment of the property will be in the building envelopes denoted on the subdivision plat, Based upon the plat and the configuration of the envelopes, there will not be a need for improvements beyond new service connections. Please feel free to contact me with any questions and/or comments. Sincerely, ~r. Robert E. Daniel, Jr.,PE Aspen Projects Director BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. Enclosure cc: Alice Davis - Davis-Horn, Inc. RED:red WP-DOC\8283\confltDluLwtr .~ BANNER ~, ~ CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS January 28, 1993 BANNER ASSOCIATES. INC. 2777 Crossroads Boulevard Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 (303)243.2242 FAX (303}243.3810 605 East Main, Suite 6 Aspen, ColoradO 81611 (303)925.5857 Ray Patch Rocky Mountain Natural Gas 113 Atlantic Avenue AABC Aspen, CO. 81611 RE: KASTELLIC SUBDMSION ASPEN, COLORADO Dear Ray: Enclosed for your review are two copies of the proposed private utility plan and a survey on the subject project. This project is concurrently being submitted to the City of Aspen for Subdivision & P.D.D. approval. Hans Brucker in our office contacted Jack Jowell regarding the availability of service for the property once it is redeveloped. As you know, there are currently two services on the property for existing structures. Any future redevelopment will have to be reviewed to determine any need for an increase in the service line. Please feel free to contact me with any questions and/or comments. Sincerely, (f(ffLz Robert E. Daniel, Jr.,PE Aspen Projects Director BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. Enclosure cc: Alice Davis - Davis-Horn, Inc. RED:red WP-OOQ8283\COnfumuLwtr - ,> ' ,-- BANNER ~ CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS January 28, 1993 BANNER ASSOCIATES. INC; 2777 Crossroads Boulevard Grand Junction, Colorado 81566 (303\243.2242 FAX (303l243.381Q 605 East Main. Suite 6 Aspen. ColoradoS1611 (303)925-5857 Tom Coleman General Manager TCI Cablevision 201 AABC Aspen, CO. 81611 RE: KASTELLIC SUBDMSION ASPEN, COLORADO Dear Tom: Enclosed for your review are two copies of the proposed private utility plan and a survey on the subject project. This project is concurrently being submitted to the City of Aspen for Subdivision & P.U.D, approval. Hans Brucker in our office contacted you regarding the availability of service for the property once it is redeveloped. As you know, there are currently two services on the property for existing structures. Any future redevelopment will require the relocation or configuration of new service. Please feel free to contact me with any questions and/or comments, Sincerely, R~ Robert E. Daniel, Jr.,PE Aspen Projects Director BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. Enclosure cc: Alice Davis - Davis-Horn, Inc. RED:cjb WP-D008283\confU'mUI.wtr r'\ 1""'"\ BANNER . CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS January 28, 1993 Jeff Franke Holy Cross Electric Association P.O. Drawer 2150 Glenwood Springs, CO. 81602 BANNER ASSOCIATES. INC. 2777 Crossroads Boulevard Grand Junction. Colorado 81506 (303)243-2242 FAX (303\243.3810 605 East Main. Suite 6 Aspen, Colorado a1611 (303)925.5857 RE: KASTELLIC SUBDMSION ASPEN, COLORADO Dear Jeff: Enclosed for your review are two copies of the proposed private utility plan and a survey on the subject project. This project is concurrently being submitted to the City of Aspen for Subdivision & P.U.D. approval Hans Brucker in our office contacted you regarding the availability of service for the property once it is redeveloped. As you know, there are currently two services on the property for existing structures. Any future development will require the relocation or configuration of new service. Please feel free to contact me with any questions and/or comments, Sincerely, ~r12J;? Robert E. Daniel, Jr.,PE Aspen Projects Director BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. Enclosure cc: Alice Davis - Davis-Horn, Inc. RED:red WP-000,8283\confll1DuLwtr ,I"', ,--. BANNER .. CONSULTING ENGINEERS &. ARCHITECTS January 28, 1993 Gary Gibson V,S. West Communications P.O. Box 220 Glenwood Springs, CO. 81602 BANNER ASSOCIATES. INC. 2777 Crossroads Boulevard Grand Junction. Colorado 81506 (303)243-2242 FAX (303)243.3810 605 East Main, Suile6 Aspen, Colorado 816'1 (303) 925.5857 RE: KASTELLIC SUBDMSION ASPEN, COLORADO Dear Gary: Enclosed for your review are two copies of the proposed private utility plan and a survey on the subject project. This project is concurrently being submitted to the City of Aspen for Subdivision & P.U.D. approval. Hans Brucker in our office contacted you regarding the availability of service for the property once it is redeveloped. As you know, there are currently two services on the property for existing structures. Any future redevelopment will require the relocation or configuration of new service. Please feel free to contact me with any questions and/or comments. Sincerely, ({iJUZ Robert E. Daniel, Jr.,PE Aspen Projects Director BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. Enclosure cc: Alice Davis - Davis-Horn, Inc. RED:red WP.DOCI8283\oonfinDaLwtt 1""'\ ~ , MESSAGE DISPLAY TO diane moore From: Leslie Lamont Postmark: Mar 24,93 6:31 PM Subject: Forwarded: Kastelic "subdivision" ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-------- Comments: From Leslie Lamont: as i will not be here: i am concerned about subdivision w/out a process for several reasons: no sub. is allowed unless a GMP allocation or GMQS Exempt. is granted (there are already 2 houses but the lots after sub. may be big enough for 2 duplexs a lot split doesn't even give the right for 2 duplexes), trail easements Message: From Jed Caswall: A mtg has been set for April 6th at 10:00 am here it city Hall to review and discuss the pending judicial "subdivision" of the Kastelic parcel per the probate proceedings. Doug Allen and Paul Taddune are apparently also involved in this thing and will be in attendance. We need to prepare a position on this prior to the mtg. -------========x========------- .--- ~\~~ \ L::~ .-, ~ copy OnglCil"" Filed - DISTRICT COURT, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO APR E:,91993i, civil Action No. 89 PR 20 Cl"'k..$;, 6:; ;,-~ ........-<:: "' f//~ CITY OF ASPEN'S MOTION TO INTERVENE AND OBJECTION TO PR6P' D PARTITION OF REAL PROPERTY AND FINAL SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE - IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ANTHONY KASTELIC, DECEASED COMES NOW the City of Aspen, a Colorado municipal corpora- tion and political subdivision, by and through its undersigned counsel, and respectfully moves to intervene in the above-noted matter and submit its objections to the proposed partition of that parcel of real property situate within the city of Aspen and subject to the pending Petition of Personal Representative for Partition of Real Property as filed in this action on or about March 15, 1993. In support thereof, the City of Aspen provides as follows: 1. On or about March 15,1993, a petition to partition real property was filed in the above-captioned action seeking to have this Court partition that real property held by the above-noted estate, comprising approximately 75,000 square feet and situated within the City of Aspen, in order to afford a distribution of said asset to the heirs of the deceased, Anthony Kastelic. 2. Pursuant to C.R.S. section 15-12-911, when two or more heirs or devisees are entitled to the distribution of undivided interests in any real property of an estate, a personal repre- sentative or heir may petition a court for partition. After notice, the court may divide the subject property in the manner as provided by law in civil actions for partition. 3. C.R.S. Section 38-28-102 provides that all persons having any interest, direct, beneficial, contingent, or other- wise, in a property subject to partition shall be made parties to any partition action involving such property. 4. C.R.S. Section 38-28-106 provides that lands involved in a partition may be divided into. lots or parcels, streets, and alleys, and that a map or plat reflecting such partition shall be filed in compliance with applicable law and ordinances. 5. Municipal lease, or parcel of Pursuant to Section 24-7-1004(A) (1) (a) of the Aspen Code, it shall be unlawful for any person to develop, sell any parcel of land or any separate interest in a land, in the city of Aspen unless such parcel(s) has f " ,-, ,-, been subdivided and a plat recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Cl~rk and Recorder pursuant to the standards as provided for in the municipal land use code. 6. Pursuant to section 24-3-101 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the term "subdivision" as used in the municipal land use regulations shall not include the division of land created by a court if the city has been given timely notice of the pending action in which such division is proposed and provided an oppor- tunity to be heard thereon. 7. On March 22 and 23, 1993, notice of the above-captioned action and the proposed partition of the property described above was served upon the city. 8. Based on information and' belief presently known to the City, the division of the subject land as prayed for in the pending partition petition would result in an evasion of other- wise applicable subdivision requirements and give rise to new development rights pertinent to the two newly-created parcels outside the normal subdivision process. 9. The City of Aspen is not opposed to the partition of the subject parcel so long as all applicable municipal subdivi- sion regulations are adhered to as part of the partition process. WHEREFORE, the city of Aspen prays that this Court direct that it be added as a party in interest to the above-captioned action pursuant to C.R.S. section 38-28-102 and Rules 18(a) and/or 24 of the Colorado ,Rules of civil Procedure, that the city be heard concerning the propriety of the pending petition for partition and the application of existing municipal subdivision regulations and ordinances thereto, and that it be granted such relief as the Court may deem necessary and just. Dated: fJ.~\........ '\ , 1993. Respectfully submitted, ASPEN CITY ATTORNEY ~V).~ By Edward M. Caswall, Reg. No. 10435 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920-5055 2 I /. r-.. .. CERTIFICATE OF MAILING .~ I hereby certify that I have mailed a true and accurate copy of the foregoing Motion to Intervene and objection to Proposed Partition and Final Settlement of Estate by placing same, proper- ly addressed with sUfficient~ostage attached thereto in the united States Mail, this ~I day of April, 1993, addressed as follows: Leonard M. Oates, Esq. oates, Hughes & Knezevich 533 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Douglas p. Allen, Esq. 600 East Hopkins Avenue, suite 302 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Paul J. Taddune, Esq. 600 East Hopkins Avenue, suite 301 Aspen, Colorado 81611 - "'/1 ~d~"1 ,~ jc46.1 3 02/09/1993 11:07 FROM Bann~r R~~ociat~s Inc. ,,......, TO 9255180 P.01 ,......, Aspen C9onsolidated Sanitation cDisttrict 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (303) 925.3601 FAX #(303) 925-2537 Sy Kelly. Chairman John J. Snyder - Treas. Louis Popish, Secy, Albert Bishop Frank Loushin Bruce Matherly, Mgr. February 5, 1993 Bob Daniel Banner & Asse. 605 I, Main st. Suite 6 Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Kastellic Subdivision and PUP Dear Bob. ~t 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 Distriet'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. SUif~d,ritenCierit ' " ...." - '" G \t~Y'- f'<\ ~ .. .... .. EPAA.WARDS OF EXCELLENCE , .'" ",1976:'1986 - 1990'" ,-, ',. ;:'... '~::.ft;';M^~~.A.'r" ':A ~n-.. '''lI.T IlmT,nM." t .(\