HomeMy WebLinkAboutlanduse case.AP.1449 Crystal Lake Rd.A102-002737-181-32-012
A102-00
-� Fleck Insubstantial PUD Amendment
Lots 12 and 12A Callahan Subdivision
`J�Gt 1 J z P c� 51V 61
IL 64 l
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 920-5090
City of Aspen
Land Use:
1041
Deposit
1042
Flat Fee
1043
HPC
1046
Zoning and Sign
Referral Fees:
1163 City Engineer
1205 Environmental Health
1190 Housing
Building Fees:
1071
Board of Appeals
1072
Building Permit
1073
Electrical Permit
1074
Energy Code Review
1075
Mechanical Permit
1076
Plan Check
1077
Plumbing Permit
1078
Reinspection
1079
Aspen Fire
Other Fees:
1006
Copy
1302
GIS Maps
1303
GIS Fee
1481
Housing Cash in Lieu
1383
Open Space Cash in Lieu
1383
Park Dedication
1468
Parking Cash in Lieu
Performance Deposit
1268
Public Right-of-way
1164
School District Land Ded.
TOTAL
NAME:—"
ADDRESS/PROJECT:
PHONE:
CHECK# G%
CASE/ PERM IT#:�
DATE: ?
o /,: / ,:/-1 9
# OF
INITIAL:
PIES:
CASE NUMBER
A102-00
PARCEL ID #
2737-181-32012
CASE NAME
Fleck Insubstantial PUD Amendment
PROJECT ADDRESS
Lots 12 and 12A, Callahan Subdivision
PLANNER
Nick Lelack
CASE TYPE
Insubstantial PUD Amendment
OWNER/APPLICANT
Barbara Fleck
REPRESENTATIVE
Alice Davis
DATE OF FINAL ACTION
9/1/00
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
PZ ACTION
ADMIN ACTION
Approved- Admin.
BOA ACTION
DATE CLOSED
10/20/00
BY
J. Lindt
PARCEL ID:12737-181-32012 J , DA E RCVD 8/16I00 J #COPIES: �CA A102-00
2.
CASE NAME: Fleck Insubstantial PUD Amendment °PLNR:
PROJ ADDR: Lots 12 and 12A, Callahan Subdivisi CASE TYP: IInsubstantial PUD Amendment S
OWN/APP:j Barbara Fleck ADR 1407 Crystal Lake Roa C/S/Z: Aspen/CO/81611 PHN:
REP: Alice Davis ADR: 215 S Monarch St.. st CIS/Z: Aspen/CO/81611 PHN 1925-6587
FEES DUE: 480 D FEES RCVD: 480 _STAT:
REFERRALS
REF:BY DUE, !
MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICE
DATE OF FINAL ACTIC
CITY COUNCIL:
/ BOA:
LOSED: tL� i�' BY: (t1 DRAC:
PLAT SUBMITD: PLAT (BK PG): ADMIN
NOTICE OF APPROVAL
TO: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
FROM: Nick Lelack, Planner
RE: Callahan Subdivision and Planned Unit Development
Agreement Insubstantial Amendment for Lots 12 and 12A.
DATE: ' September 1, 2000
SUMMARY:
On behalf of Barbara Fleck (Applicant), Alice Davis of Davis Horn Inc. has
applied for an Insubstantial Amendment to the Callahan Subdivision and
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Agreement (Agreement). The
Agreement between the City of Aspen and Benedict Land & Cattle
Company, Frederick Benedict and Fabienne Benedict, and Robert S.
Goldsamt, was signed by all parties on May 13, 1976.
The purpose of the amendment is to clarify the intent and purpose of item
1G of the Agreement, which states:
"Lots 12 and 12A are collectively designated as a single family
lot. Lot 12A is the guesthouse for Lot 12."
The Aspen Land Use Code has changed dramatically over the past 25
years. Several important provisions in the current Code did not exist
when this Subdivision and PUD was approved, including floor area for the
R-15 Zone District and Residential Design Standards. This amendment is
intended to clarify how the current Land Use Code is applied to this
parcel, Lots 12 and 12A.
The Applicant proposes the following amendment to 1G:
"Lots 12 and 12A of the Callahan Subdivision/PUD are collectively
designated as a single family lot with the following restrictions and
clarifications:
1. Lot 12A is the guesthouse for Lot 12.
2. Lots 12 and 12A must always be sold together as one lot and can
never be sold separately.
0
3. The home on Lot 12 can contain no more than 6,731 square feet of
floor area. The guesthouse can contain no more than 2,550 square
feet of floor area. This allowed floor area for each use was
determined using the current (2000) City of Aspen definition for
how floor area is calculated. Any future changes to how floor area
is calculated shall not impact the maximum allowed floor area for
these two uses, the single family home and the guesthouse.
4. Both homes will be built within their respective building envelopes
designated on Page 3 of the Callahan Subdivision Development
Plan.
5. Lots 12 and 12A will be considered as one lot for the purposes of
applying the Secondary Mass Design Review Standard. The
guesthouse can serve as the secondary mass element for the main
residence.
6. There is no guesthouse definition in the City of Aspen Land Use
Regulations. The only existing limitation on the guesthouse is that
it cannot be sold separately from the main residence.
7. An Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) can be located within the
guesthouse."
Staff believes the proposed amendment meets the review criteria for an
insubstantial amendment, but proposes the following changes. Staff
proposes deleting 6. and replacing the provision with the following
language:
1. All provisions of the City of Aspen's Land Use Code shall be applied to
Lots 12 and 12A as one parcel, unless otherwise stated in this
amendment.
Community Development staff recommends approval of the
Insubstantial Amendment to the Callahan Subdivision/PUD, with the
following changes described above.
APPLICANT: Barbara Fleck
REPRESENTATIVE: Alice Davis, Davis Horn, Inc.
LOCATION: Callahan Subdivision/PUD Lots 12 and 12A
ZONING: R-15
• 0
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DECISION
The Community Development Director finds the Insubstantial Planned Unit
Development Amendments to the Callahan Subdivision/PUD and to be
consistent with the review criteria, and hereby approves the following
amendments to the Callahan Subdivision and Development Agreement 1G:
"Lots 12 and 12A of the Callahan Subdivision/PUD are collectively
designated as a single family lot with the following restrictions and
clarifications:
1) Lot 12A is the guesthouse for Lot 12.
2) Lots 12 and 12A must always be sold together as one lot and can never
be sold separately.
3) The home on Lot 12 can contain no more than 6,731 square feet of floor
area. The guesthouse can contain no more than 2,550 square feet of
floor area. This allowed floor area for each use was determined using
the current (2000) City of Aspen definition for how floor area is
calculated. Any future changes to how floor area is calculated shall
not impact the maximum allowed floor area these two uses, the single
family home and the guesthouse.
4) Both homes will be built within their respective building envelopes
designated on Page 3 of the Callahan Subdivision Development Plan.
5) An Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) can be located within the
guesthouse."
o
z
6) All provisions of the City of Aspen's Land Use Code shall be applied to
�y
�M :2
Lots 12 and 12A as one parcel, unless otherwise stated in this
amendment.
a' =
c ..
� Y
7) Lots 12 and 12A will be considered as one lot for the purposes of
applying the Secondary Mass Design Review Standard. The
om
�Z
guesthouse can serve as the secondary mass element for the main
am
residence.
0 l9
m
The conditions of approval shall be:
�m m
1. This amendment shall be recorded within 180 days of this approval. No
permits will be issued for Lot 12 until the recordation is completed.
�M
2. All prior City of Aspen approvals for the Callahan Subdivision and
Planned Unit Development shall remain in full force and effect.
=a c
a�
•
•
Attachments:
Exhibit A - Application Packet
APPROVED BY:
;1'ienWoods
l-n
mmunity Development Director
DATE:p
C/ry0fgSp�N �U�hr�ioR
WE HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS
APPROVAL:
Alice Davis, Davis Horn, Inc., representing Barbara Fleck
9/ �%,),0oo
Date
111111111111111111 mill 111111111111111111111111111 In
447163 09/20/2000 08:33A NOTICE DAVIS SILY
4 of 6 R 0.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
26.445.100 Amendment of PUD development order.
A. PUD Insubstantial Amendments.
An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for
a final development plan may be authorized by the Community
Development Director. The following shall not be considered an
insubstantial amendment:
1. A change in the use or character of the development.
Staff Finding
This amendment does not change the use or character of the allowed
development on Lots 12 and 12A; rather, it clarifies the development
potential for the parcel. The approved use and character of the development
is low density residential with a house on Lot 12 and a guesthouse for Lot 12
on Lot 12A.
2. An increase by greater than three (3) percent in the
overall coverage of structures on the land.
Staff Finding
Building envelopes have previously been established for Lots 12 and 12A.
This amendment does not in any way change the approved building
envelopes or overall coverage of structures on the land.
3. Any amendment that substantially increases
trip
generation rates of the proposed development, or
the
demand,for public facilities.
am—" z
Staff Finding
.Mq 0
The proposed amendment will not increase trip generation rates.
21.
az
c F.
.�W
4. A reduction by greater than three (3) percent of
the
approved open space.
vzm
a m
Staff Finding
� T
Open space would not be reduced by the amendment.
m
we
=m m
5. A reduction by greater than one (1) percent of the
off-
ffi�N astreet
parking and loading space.
� m
Ol
Ir1 /0
(O
�r O
�n
5
Staff Finding
Off-street parking spaces would not be impacted by this amendment.
6. A reduction in required pavement widths or rights -of -way
for streets and easements.
Staff Finding
No reduction in required pavement widths or rights -of -way for streets would
be impacted by the proposals.
7. An increase of greater than two (2) percent in the
approved gross leasable floor area of commercial
buildings.
Staff Finding
This amendment concerns a residential use. Therefore, this standard is not
applicable.
8. An increase by greater than one (1) percent in the
approved residential density of the development.
.11
Staff Finding
Residential densities are not proposed to be changed. Allowing an Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU) in the guesthouse does not change the allowed density,
but ADUs are not considered units of density.
9. Any change which is inconsistent with a condition or
representation of the project's original approval or which
requires granting a variation from the project's approved
use or dimensional requirements.
Staff Finding
Staff believes the changes are consistent with the approved Callahan
Subdivision/Planned Unit Development.
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IN
J147163 09/20/2000 08: 33A NOTICE DAVIS
6 of 6 R 0.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY Co
6
Davis Horn -
PLANNING & REAL ESTATE CONSULTING
August 14, 2000
Julie Ann Woods
Nick Lelack
City of Aspen Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO. 81611
Dear Julie Ann and Nick:
Davis Horn Incorporated represents Barbara Fleck, owner of Lots 12
and 12A of the Callahan Subdivision/PUD. On her behalf, this
letter requests approval for an insubstantial amendment to the
Callahan Subdivision/PUD pursuant to Section 26.445.100 of the
Aspen Land Use Regulations entitled Amendment of PUD development
order. This Code section gives nine review standards that define
what shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment to a PUD.
As our requested amendment does not fall within any of these
standards, we request the Community Development Director's
authorization for the approval of the proposed insubstantial
amendment.
Both of you along with Chris Bendon of the Community Development
Department have suggested that this insubstantial amendment process
would be the most effective, clean way to resolve the unclear
issues pertaining to the development of Lots 12 and 12A. These
issues were unforeseen during the original approval process in 1976
and confusion has grown over time with the adoption of new
regulations that were not in place at the time of the original
approvals. Due to the unique configuration and uses on Lots 12 and
12A, the Community Development staff and the applicant have agreed
that everyone would be best served by seeking to define and clarify
the development parameters for 12 and 12A so all parties understand
and agree on how the properties will be used now and in the future.
This letter will summarize our amendment request, give development
parameters which would apply to Lots 12 and 12A and address Section
26.445.100 of the Land Use Regulations, the Code section which
allows the Community Development Director to authorize the approval
of an insubstantial amendment to a PUD.
It may be helpful to refer to my July 19, 2000 letter to Chris
Bendon and Nick Lelack which provides a history of the issues
surrounding the subject property. Please include this letter in
the file as background to this application.
ALICE DAVIS, AICP S GLENN HORN, AICP
215 SOUTH MONARCH ST. • SUITE 104 • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • 970/925-6587 • FAX: 970/925-5180
0 9
PROPOSED INSUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT
The Callahan Subdivision/PUD was approved on February 23, 1976.
The lots in question were platted and legally described as Lot 12
and Lot 12A as part of these original approvals. (See Attachment
1, Page 3 of the Callahan plat.) However, item 1G of the Callahan
Subdivision and Development Agreement states:
"Lots 12 and 12A are collectively designated as a single
family lot. Lot 12A is the guesthouse for Lot 12."
In order to clarify item 1G so that all parties understand the
intent and purpose of this item as well as understand the uses and
restrictions for Lots 12 and 12A, the following amendment to 1G of
the Callahan Subdivision and Development Agreement is proposed:
"Lots 12 and 12A of the Callahan Subdivision/PUD are collectively
designated as one single family lot with the following restrictions
and clarifications:
1. Lot 12A is the guesthouse for Lot 12.
2. Lot 12 and 12A must always be sold together as one lot and can
never be sold separately.
3. The home on Lot 12 can contain no more than 6,731 square feet
of floor area. The guesthouse can contain no more than 2550
square feet of floor area. This allowed floor area for each
use was determined using the current (2000) City of Aspen
definition for how floor area is calculated. Any future
changes to how floor area is calculated shall not impact the
maximum allowed floor area for these two uses, the single
family home and the guesthouse.
4. Both homes will be built within their respective building
envelopes designated on Page 3 of the Callahan Subdivision
Development Plan.
5. Lots 12 and 12A will be considered as one lot for the purposes
of applying the Secondary Mass Design Review Standard. The
guesthouse can serve as the secondary mass element for the
main residence.
6. There is no guesthouse definition in the City of Aspen Land
Use Regulations. The only existing limitation on the guest-
house is that it cannot be sold separately from the main
residence.
7. An Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) can be located within the
guesthouse. "
E
0 •
In #3 of the proposed amendment above, the floor area of 6,731
square feet for the main residence reflects the floor area
currently allowed for a home in the R-15 zone district for a lot
the size of Lot 12 as shown on the plat, 63,702 total square feet
with an effective lot size of 56,589 square feet after reductions
for slope. The floor area of 2575 square feet for the guest house
reflects the size of the existing house now on Lot 12A which was
built in 1977. This existing home on Lot 12A contains 3275 square
feet of living area and approximately 2550 square feet of floor
area, substantially smaller than the size allowed in the applicable
R-15 zone district for a lot the size of Lot 12A.
The building envelopes for Lots 12 and 12A referred to in #4 above,
were approved as part of the original Callahan Subdivision/PUD and
Stream Margin approvals granted in February, 1976. These building
envelopes were also re -approved through the Stream Margin Amendment
Process in 1999.
Item #7 above allows an ADU to be located within the guesthouse.
There is an existing 1500 square foot dwelling unit on the garden
level of the guesthouse on Lot 12A. As part of a separate
application, the applicant is proposing to convert this existing
unit into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) in order to obtain a
Growth Management Exemption for the home to be built on Lot 12. If
approved, we understand that this 1500 square foot existing ADU in
the guesthouse can, at any time, be reduced to a smaller size as
long as the unit is, at the least, of the minimum size required by
the City of Aspen Land Use Regulations. (See Attachment 4, a floor
plan for the existing unit.)
At such time that the guesthouse and/or ADU is remodeled, rebuilt,
substantially renovated or reconfigured, a new ADU restriction for
the smaller ADU will override the original ADU restriction for the
existing 1500 square foot unit. The new restriction will reflect
the smaller unit size. This will allow the owners to continue to
rent this larger, more desirable 1500 square foot unit as it
currently exists without being penalized for not reducing the size
at this time. We would also like to request that the approval of
this larger ADU be contingent upon the owners obtaining a C.O.
(Certificate of Occupancy) for the home on Lot 12. This
contingency. unlike the typical building permit contingency, will
not hold up the building permit process for the new residence. The
unit is currently rented and housing two permanent employees who
would be displaced if the unit were to be remodeled and reduced in
size at this time. An application requesting approval for the ADU
will be submitted within a few weeks after the submission of this
insubstantial PUD amendment application.
3
0
REVIEW CRITERIA FOR INSUBSTANTIAL PUD AMENDMENTS
Section 26.445.100 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations gives the
following nine criteria for determining if a proposed PUD amendment
is insubstantial.
"The following shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment:
A.1. A change in use or character of the development.
A.2. An increase by greater than three (3) percent in the overall
coverage of structures on the land.
A.3. Any amendment that substantially increases trip generation
rates of the proposed development, or the demand for public
facilities.
A.4. A reduction by greater than three (3) percent of the approved
open space.
A.S. A reduction by greater than one (1) percent of the off-street
parking and loading space.
A.6. A reduction in required pavement widths or rights -of -way for
streets and easements.
A.7. An increase of greater than two (2) percent in the approved
gross leasable floor area of a commercial building.
A.8. An increase by greater than one (1) percent in the approved
residential density of the development.
A.9. Any change which is inconsistent with a condition or
representation of the project's original approval or which
requires granting a further variation from the projects
approved or dimensional requirements.
The proposed PUD amendment does not fall under the above categories
defining what is not an insubstantial amendment. The proposed
amendment seeks to clarify confusion that has resulted from the
original PUD approval in 1976 and does not change any aspect of the
approval. The proposed insubstantial amendment does not change the
use or character of the development (A.1), it does not increase the
overall coverage of the structures on the land (A.2), it does not
increase the trip generation rates of the development or the demand
for public facilities (A.3), it does not reduce the percentage of
open space (A.4), nor the off street parking (A.5), nor the
pavement widths or rights of way for streets and easements (A.6).
A-7 regarding an increase in gross leasable floor area does not
apply as there is no commercial space involved. A.8 states that an
insubstantial amendment cannot increase the approved residential
density of the development and this proposal does not as the
4
guesthouse was originally approved in 1976 and the ADU does not
count toward the density on the parcel. The insubstantial
amendment proposed merely clarifies a condition that already exists
and is in no way inconsistent with the original approvals.
Therefore A.9 regarding a change inconsistent with the original PUD
does not apply.
As the proposed amendment does not fall under any of the nine
review criteria above, it should be considered an insubstantial
amendment. We therefore request the Community Development
Director's authorization for this insubstantial amendment.
The following attachments have been provided for your information:
Attachment 1: Callahan Subdivision/PUD Final Development Plan,
portion of Page 3 (recorded at Book 5, Page 9);
Attachment 2: Site Improvement Survey for Lot 12;
Attachment 3: Pages 1 through 3 of the 13 page Callahan
Subdivision/PUD Agreement (See Item 1G, page 3);
Attachment 4: Floor plan for the existing dwelling unit in the
guesthouse to be converted to an ADU;
Attachment 5: Survey (unsigned) showing Lots 12 and 12A with
approved building envelopes;
Attachment 6: Pre application conference summary sheet;
Attachment 7: Authorization to represent letter from the owner;
Attachment 8: Fee agreement;
Attachment 9: Proof of ownership; and
Attachment 10: Vicinity Map.
In summary, this letter has requested approval for an insubstantial
amendment to the Callahan Subdivision and Planned Unit Development,
an amendment that seeks to clarify a condition from the original
Subdivision/PUD approvals. We hope that we have addressed all your
concerns. Please call if we have failed to address any of your
concerns or if any other information is needed. Thank you for your
assistance with this application.
Sincerely,
DAVIII Snn HORN
GINCORPORATED
ALICE DAVIS AICP
L-�
MW
0
1-1 0
uNR �
(5 . p ..a...".j
I I ojhgn Sv�di v i si Dev2I°P►►�n-t- -PIiln
C �` -F;Le � ��- i oq
P a9� 3 0 E- L+ ((3ook 5. 0o9� 4> C 1
�'{ Msa+��cK 1cc•
fin► , WWs AW euwOW&O ►wn vRWn►r
A=L*,Aaf OF f i rwT
� ucrlal �;
�• O to
_ _D 0 /
to
itMAY. 1H• 2000 5:13PK ROBERT TROWN & ASSOC-------NO
953,P. 12
hcrh
to 925
06AN ftjammAM
5
V,ri rM♦ ....�8� P. 11
h'.a
ATTMMMT?
-...
AWn! Owwyo Me.
Root ON" am lhi
'
Mew P!!"o 81642
� s�D orb wee
titOVsA t. love
Jag Mae 98-93 Anamet
��$��bU1J�LY8 S
C
V
' ZAT12
ham► iC �
$ fl�fi t
8L0lIo malt THAN Zoe
$4,050
e4.15
t•4lTI sflTW:flli 201 AND 300
.41674
7,97
8LG4fl ®J�7lT Ti11►1Q 80��
r
TOTAL LOT "WIL
63, 70=
iGO. 00
LOT
Stops@ L5o8 THAN 20%
==,211
7i.3t
St*nS RVOMM toe MM 201
1,S77
r.l4
Low oats
3,176
, 50
'DOTAL LOT Aw"
19,369
iD0.00
,,a roe Laos THAN 20%.
�L tow ormIq lot Arco 301
6.900
1,100
74.43
56.33
2.�43
100.00
a
.RRcorded ,At 2:35 PM -.19, 1976 Reception no II- N90
Julie Haile "Cox
i
BOOK 312 PAGE 110
SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ATTA"ENT,, _
CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION
ZVI
THIS AGREEMENT, made this /3 day of
T v;
1976, by and between THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO (hereinafter
sometimes called "City"), and BENEDICT LAND & CATTLE COMPANY,
FREDRIC BENEDICT and FABIENNE BENEDICT (hereinafter sometimes
collectively called "the owner"), and ROBERT S. GOLDSAMT or
the assignee of Goldsamt (hereinafter sometimes called "the
subdivider").
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the subdivider with the consent and approval of
the owner has submitted to the City for approval, execution,
and recordation, the final plat and development plan of a tract
of land situated in the east one-half of Section 18, T. 10S,
Range 84 west of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Aspen, Colorado,
designated as Callahan Subdivision ("the plat"); and
WHEREAS, said Plat encompasses land located within an area
in the City zoned RR and R-15; and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered such Plat, the pro-
posed development and the improvement of the land therein, and
the burdens to be imposed upon other adjoining or neighboring
properties by reason of the proposed development and improve-
ment of land included in the Plat; and
WHEREAS, the City is willing to approve, execute, and
accept for recordation that Plat upon agreement of the owner
and the subdivider to the matters hereinafter described, and
subject to all the requirements, terms, and conditions of the
City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations now in effect and other
laws, rules and regulations as are applicable; and
WHEREAS, the City has imposed conditions and requirements
in connection with its approval, execution and acceptance for
r-I
0 BOOK312 VAGE IIJ
recordation of the Plat, and that such matters are necessary
to protect, promote, and enhance the public welfare; and
WHEREAS, under the authority of Section 20-16(c) of the
Municipal Code of the City, the City is entitled to assurance
that the matters hereinafter agreed to will be faithfully
performed by the subdivider.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the
mutual covenants herein contained, and the approval, execution
and acceptance of the Plat for recordation by the City, it is
agreed as follows:
1. All references to lot numbers hereinafter set forth
are as described on Sheet No. 1 of the Final Plat and Develop-
ment Plan of the Callahan Subdivision ("Plat").
A. Fee simple title to Lots No. 13 and 13-A will
be conveyed in undivided interests to the condominium
owners, subject to existing easements and road and
utility easements contemplated by the Plat and
additional utility easements as may be required. Lots
No. 13 and 13-A will be used for condominium units.
B. Lot No. 13-B shall be conveyed in fee simple
to a corporation to be organized by the purchaser of
such property from the owner or by such purchaser's
assignee. Such corporation is hereinafter referred to as
"Holding Corporation". The Holding Corporation shall grant
to all condominium and homesite owners a non-exclusive
easement for the recreational use of Lot 13-B so long as
such lot is not hereafter authorized for improvement or
commercial use by P.U.D. amendment or other appropriate
governmental approval and shall grant such easements
as are necessary for the roads and utilities reflected
on the Plat.
C. Lot No. 14 will be owned in fee simple title
by the Holding Corporation or another corporation con-
trolled by or under common control with the Holding
qq
8o0K 3.12 i'AGd 1r.
Corporation or its or their assignees. The Benedict
residence situated on this lot will be converted to
a clubhouse. The owners of condominium and homesites will
be granted an irrevocable non-exclusive license for passage
by foot only, throughout those portions of Lot 14 on which
there are no improvements currently or hereafter existing.
D. Lots No. 14-A and 15 will be conveyed in fee
simple title to the Holding Corporation or a corporation
controlled by or under common control with the Holding
Corporation or its or their assignees. Lot 14-A will
contain parking facilities for use of the clubhouse and
recreational facilities contained in the Plat, and Lot
15 will contain recreational facilities.
E. Lots No. 1 through 10 shall be conveyed in
fee simple title to the purchasers of these ten home -
sites. Lot No. 10 is designated as a duplex for occupancy
by two families; the other lots are for single-family
homes.
lot.
F. Lot No. 11 is designated as a single-family
G. Lots 12 and 12-A are collectively designated as a
single-family lot. Lot 12-A is the guesthouse for
Lot 12.
H. Lot No. 16 is designated as an existing office
building for such uses as have heretofore been approved
by the City of Aspen.
I. All roads as reflected on the Plat and the
rights of way on which such roads are to be constructed
shall be owned by the Holding Corporation or a corporation
controlled by or under common control with the Molding
-3-
ATTACHMENT
DEGK ABOVE
LOT 12 A LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
0.212 AC
a�
n-
T `
r I r
_ I 1
1
\ � I
+naU ^.w.: AVP ♦i . OKAVIi:Ar I
WARNING' • MI,:. ,,.. -
__-----=— A"m Surveys, kc.
11 \�\
A TAGHWNT E k'
\\ \`•\`\ to T° OnI I
t It
` II II\11\ \ \1
I 1kli ,
11 , 11, 1`1ll1 I
\"\ L� I I
�-
I
I
S'"U' ER RAN01 i suVISION 6
vc•rrn I \ CALLANAN $UBOiv151 /' �l j
GCjKW 'l LA�JCNCNT R7 [ L 2 `t fi \
/ ; , i/•��cmes� cor/f�uuvw czv �\
I. WIff^ir RC^x1C NCJSED[CIJ-rf UTGN JI.EY7194t7 E�G[>,;11hC:+ARE .KIR?TCtY'•`l'?N�I
I wcc A«.: */E:Y4 IpT712 ANO I'C.VI.WAI.f
nMr f+,[RrOF R[t[xoCD
I / / 1NIAr 19 197G IN r\A7' 9 A7' r'1 7, ANO THE M+LNDCIJ AI F+t IF'x PIvEP? SK ^r-.
\\ ,� j I f / ftNT}IfJCtGY RIC["'DEP AtXa-y�T 17 117j SJ IlAT L'A:U�G AT �� ti� •�
1 1 I I / P rC 1(i, (pLAJ17' Or rI7RIN J'r lr tJr (�pF�t� 1 VIE TWO L •All.
1 1 1 I I 'J+.C7RY rRANE HQ.J9E WAS rCIIJFIP TO bC lLl"l+'TLD CMUCFI7'
'1( I - WITHIN THE p( -"'0 RY IJNCh Or ..'LAID 1p1 12 A. TIC
q f I \ �A71pIJ AtJO O1NEtJ°.�1Oh19 0r ^LL CVILUI•X.'I, I.CJi L
` �; I i \\ :I v1p1 MGf15 CAC!>✓Eh1T9 1CGHT�Or WAY IN EviDE1�CE t'I T>',N t.�Ltifl TITLE mty CU+.1nni�N:CN �C:. �.+E..• R..
11 1 1 OR KNOWN TO I�1C AND �NT7 Ar CX. fJIJ THC Tl ,LgE WA%� PEEPNCV'L^hi :Ir T:9'^+ -i �.. E.•.
rl.ry 7. p7.10 1Or, ftd . 8.24, 10 Aa-rt"vvXt-Z P� 147 TRW
bl� 7.�C UNp &. O.JC) l rMfIAM47- iM.PrtO✓Cl+>�M ;{ac\i"I _ urI M� L'
•o.l n
OfC Ema 114 -
••v.^. ,a cITY 01' A,.SrFN, bTw-+ CQJNh; :.�1Dlcea^
rI0 S15 2090 f6N
AACHMENT 16
PLANNFR:
PROJECT:
REPRESENTATIVES:
OWNER:
LOCATION:
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY'
Nick Lelack, 920-5095
DATE: 8/8/00
Callahan Subdivision/Planned Uivt Development Insubstantial Amendment
Alice Davis
Barbara Fleck
Callahan Subdivision Lots 12 & 12A
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Insubstantial PUD Amendment
DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this amendment is to clarify that Lots 12 and 12A are one lot
for the purpose of a single family residence and guesthouse. The
amendment shall establish dimensions for the lot, including, but not limited
to, allocated floor area for the single family house on Lot 12 and guesthouse
on Lot 12A, height. and access,
Land Use Code Section(s) to Address in Application:
Section 26.445.100(A): PUD Insubstantial Amendments
Review by: Community Development Director
Public Hearing: No
Referral Agencies: None
Planning Deposit: $480
Total Deposit: $480
To apply, submit one (1) copy of the following information: (Also see Section 26.304.030, Application and
Fees)
1. Contained within a letter signed by the applicant, the applicant's name, address and telephone number,
and the name, address, and telephone number of any representative authorized to act on behalf of the
applicant,
2. The street address, legal description, and parcel identification number of the property proposed for
development.
3. A disclosure of ownership of the parcel Proposed for development, consisting of a current certificate
from a Title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the
names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, casements, contracts and
agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the Owner's right to apply for the Development
Application.
4. An 8 1 /2" x 11 " vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen.
S. A 24" by 36" Site Improvement Survey depicting:
a) Existing natural and man-made site features.
b) Existing topography and categorization of site slopes falling within the
thresholds described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040.
c) All legal easements and restrictions.
d) Building envelopes for Lots 12 and 12A.
6. A detailed description and site plan of the proposed amendment and development
including a statement of the objectives to be achieved by the PUD amendment and a
description of the proposed land uses, densities, natural features, vehicular access to Lots
12 and 12A, open space areas, off-street parking, and site drainage. Site plan at 1" = 10,.
Show topography of the subject site with 2' contours.
7. A description of the dimensional requirements requested to be established through the
review.
8. A written response to each of the Insubstantial PUD Amendment review criteria.
* The foregoing summary is advisory only and is not binding on the City. The opinions
contained herein are based on current zoning and regulations, which are subject to change in
the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary
does not, in any way, create a legal or vested right.
0
0
AiTANKHT
Barbara Fleck
1407 Crystal Lake Road -
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 925-8515
August 10, 2000
Julie Ann Woods
Nick Lelack
City of Aspen Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO. 81611
RE: Authorization to Represent
Dear Julie Ann and Nick:
As the owner of Lots 12 and 12A of the Callahan Subdivision and
Planned Unit Development, I authorize Davis Horn Incorporated to
submit a land use application for this property on my behalf and to
represent me in the land use review process. At this time, an
application for an insubstantial PUD amendment and for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit are to be requested. Alice Davis of Davis Horn Inc.
will be the project manager and can be reached at (970) 925-6587.
The address of Davis Horn Inc. is 215 South Monarch Street Suite
104, Aspen Colorado. Please call if you have any questions
regarding this authorization.
Sincerely,
BA BARA FLECK
owner, Lot 12 and 12A Callahan Subdivision/PUD
,.... . .. .. .. .. .i .. ..J _., till IV, I . Ju
AiTAaMENTc_
ASPEN/PITKIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPAWfMENT
Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and B0 r- �YC f F f 1� .
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
I. APPLICANT liar submitted to CITY an application for
1115Ub5tCt►��`IG(( r�b`I'11�'11��V1�f�f fG C( P(-'D
(hereinafter, THE PROJECT).
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 49 (Series of 1998)
establishes a fee stnicnire for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent
to a detennination 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 that APPLICANT make payment of an
initial deposit and to thereafter pennit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis.
APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. 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 stiff to complete
processing, or present sufticienr 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 consideration, unless current billings
are paid in full prior to decision.
5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect
full fees prior to a deterntittation of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the
amount of S which is for _ hours of Community Development staff 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, and in no case will building permits be issued until all
costs associated with case processing have been paid.
CITY OF ASPEN
By:
Julie Ann Woods
Community Development Director
g:\supportlforntslagrpavas.doc
12/27/99
APPLICANT
Date:
Mailing Address: �> I�
Q re U.
Mine? (J (Tw�') I Blk/Lot ! I Condor ' _i I Mobile? l �sles7 ❑
Account 60) Account (-) Parcel(-) Name i _) Situ
R008465 N Owner Na_m_e_/Add_res_sLegal Description
Year
District FLECK BARBARA SUB:CALLAHAN LOT:12 6 LOT:12A
1407 CRYSTAL LAKE RD BK:0312 PG:0112 BK:0737 PG:0062
000 0
5656 ASPEN CO 81611
Apr Dist St
A
Parcel Num1-
bar IMN Space ISeq
273718132012
462
aatton;Gity 1 7
usiness Name
street Rams
CRYSTAL LAKE
cation Zip Acct Type
E.61.2._..;!! 1000
.:::..............
Owner Location IMaD No
Name
® Tex Items ❑ protest (T)
;J CAMA (A)
❑ Situs
❑ Pre/Suc
❑ Mobile Auth
❑ personal IP)
❑ Mobile
❑ Remarks
❑ Value
❑ Oil and Gas
❑ Iract
❑ Tex Sale
❑ Condo
❑ Spec Asm
State Asd
❑ Block
❑ Mines
❑ Control
Statement
0 Sales
Sibling
❑ History
Receipting
❑ Misc (M)
J' Flags
Create Bill
Current Year
Prior Version
Go To Imaging
Prior Year
Ne(x)t Version
Abatement
Next Year
Clerk's Doc's
Property Card
Update
Clear
Exit
ATTACHMENT,�,�
ATTACHMENT 10
•
ASPEN, COLORADO
vbn�ty
t awrr Aw
A &Orr Ao[r ALt
l UrraiaOOM Awr
a uwv . mow mrrar
r a1or wr
a AV"srsnwr.
A\Ocrr Amor0wn
a a aerrr mrra►
r -W*Wrat
Al trd ~ aaowa:
L A40AA AYr
EXNIQIi A
Davis HOMin
PLANNING & REAL ESTATE CONSULTING
July 19, 2000
Chris Bendon and Nick Lelack
Aspen Pitkin County Community Development
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO. 81611
RE: The Fleck Property; Callahan Subdivision/PUD Lot 12 and Lot 12A
Dear Chris and Nick:
As suggested in a meeting with Chris Bendon on Thursday July 6, 2000, we are writing this letter
on behalf of Barbara Fleck, the owner, to request an interpretation from the Community
Development Department pertaining to Lots 12 and 12A of the Callahan Subdivision/PUD.
Specifically, we are requesting written confirmation that Lot 12 and Lot 12A of Callahan
Subdivision/PUD are two separate lots for the purposes of calculating floor area and for applying
all other pertinent Code regulations.
This letter will present a historical perspective of land use issues pertaining to the Callahan
Subdivisions/PUD. An understanding of this background is a critical consideration in determining
the applicability of floor area requirements to Callahan Subdivision Lots 12 and 12A. Any
interpretation pertaining to these lots must be made within the context of this historical
perspective.
After reviewing the historical record, interviewing persons involved in the original approvals and
reviewing various staff interpretations, we believe that these two lots should be considered as one
for floor area calculation purposes. This interpretation is the only fair and just interpretation
given the history of the properties. The facts as set forth in this letter present an adequate
rationale and justification for the interpretation that Lots 12 and 12A continue to be considered
as two separate lots.
As part of this research we have reviewed City Council minutes, Planning and Zoning
Commission minutes, approval documents and staff memoranda related to the original Callahan
Subdivision/PUD approvals in 1975 and 1976. We have also had discussions with people actually
involved in the Callahan approvals in 1975-1976. These include:
Bill Kane, former Aspen Pitkin County Planning Director and the Callahan
Subdivision/PUD project planner for the City during the approval process;
Andy Hecht, attorney for the developer of the Callahan Subdivision/PUD who
processed the land use application on behalf of the developer and the Benedicts,
ALICE DAVIS, AICP S GLENN HORN, AICP
215 SOUTH MONARCH ST. • SUITE 104 • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • 970/925-6587 • FAX: 970/925-5180
0 •
the actual owners of the land which became the Callahan Sudivision/PUD;
• Nick McGrath, a past and present attorney for the Benedicts who has worked
extensively on various aspects of the property;
• Pat Maddalone, the Benedict family's business manager and representative who
supervised the planning and approval process for the Callahan Subdivision/PUD in
1975-1976 on behalf of the Benedicts;
• Krystal Glenn, an employee of the Benedicts for 14 years for whom the guesthouse
was intended when it was built;
• Jessica Benedict Gordon, daughter of Fritz and Fabi Benedict who owned Lots 12
and 12A for about seven years prior to the sale to the current owner, Barbara
Fleck;
• Alan Richman, a land use planning consultant for the Benedicts who has
researched the development potential of Lots 12 and 12A; and
• Brooke Peterson, attorney for Barbara Fleck, the current property owner, who has
researched various aspects of the property including the development potential of
the two lots.
The following information supports the conclusion that Lots 12 and 12A should be considered as
two separate lots for determining floor area and other Code regulations.
(1) Lot 12 and 12A were legally described as two separate lots and were approved with two
separate building envelopes. The two separate building envelopes reflect separate setbacks, with
setbacks being a zone district dimensional requirement of the City Land Use Code similar to a
floor area ratio. Both of the lots as platted are similar in size to the other lots in the Callahan
Subdivision/PUD.
(2) In all the approval documents, staff memos, City Council and P&Z minutes, the Callahan
Subdivision/PUD is described and summarized as containing 12 single family lots and one duplex
lot. The 12 lots are listed in all the these documents several times as Lots #1 through #9, Lot
# 11, Lot # 12 and Lot # 12A. Lot # 10 is the duplex lot. Lot 12 and Lot 12A are listed as separate
lots. If Lot 12 and 12A were counted as one lot, there would only be I 1 single family lots and all
documents and records show 12 single family lots. Bill Kane, Pat Maddalone, Jessica Benedict
Gordon and Andy Hecht all remember that 12 single family lots were approved and that Lots 12
and 12A were always legally described and considered two separate lots as the plat shows. Please
refer to Attachment 1, a Site Data Tabulation chart which is an exhibit to the approval documents
for the Callahan Subdivision/PUD.
-2-
(3) Pat Maddalone, Jessica Benedict Gordon and Bill Kane also remember that the guesthouse
and requirement that the lots be sold together was the idea of the Benedicts and Pat Maddalone as
a compromise in establishing the density for the Subdivision. Originally around 34 lots were
proposed for the Callahan Subdivision, but the approval process cut back the total number of lots
to 12, with one lot being established as a guesthouse because the Benedicts had a use in mind for
the guesthouse and did not mind a restriction that required Lots 12 and 12A to be sold together..
George and Krystal Glenn, long time employees of the Benedicts, were to live in the guesthouse
and it was planned and approved with them in mind. They eventually retired from work with the
Benedicts due to health reasons, before they could move in. Still, the Benedicts knew there would
always be a similar couple to live in the guesthouse and for this reason they agreed to and even
encouraged the guesthouse restriction. Krystal Glenn now lives in Parachute and was interviewed
for this research. Bill Kane, Pat Maddalone and Jessica Benedict Gordon all concur that the
guesthouse was approved to make the 12 unit density more acceptable to the City and because the
Benedicts liked the idea of having a guesthouse. The Benedicts were generous people who
encouraged the guesthouse restriction at the expense of a free market unit as they knew they
could always use this house not only for guests and family members, but for their employees,
other community employees, music students, extended family, etc. Over the years, the house has
actually been used for such purposes.
(4). The approved, recorded Callahan Subdivision/PUD plat shows that Lots 12 and 12A are two
separate, legal lots and have been since they were created in 1976. The Subdivision and PUD
Agreement between the developer and the City of Aspen also refers to both Lots 12 and 12A.
With both the plat and agreement identifying two lots, everyone (including various owners,
planners, attorneys, architects and surveyors) has always understood that the floor area for each
lot would be calculated separately, especially given that there was no floor area regulation in
existence at the time the Subdivision was created.
(5) Item I of the Callahan Subdivision/PUD agreement reads as follows:
"Lots 12 and 12A are collectively designated as a single-family lot. Lot 12A is the
guesthouse for Lot 12"
According to those involved, the original intent of item I in the Subdivision/PUD agreement
was to address what uses could be developed on the properties. Item I was to prevent two
free market single family homes from being built, one on each lot. It identified permitted uses as
one single family house (Lot 12) and one guesthouse (Lot 12A) to always be sold together.
Minutes and staff memos indicate that Item IG in the Callahan Subdivision/PUD agreement was
first drafted as follows: "Lots 12 and 12A are designated as single family lots with a
guesthouse." No discussion of why this draft language was changed was found in the minutes.
As first drafted, the language was misleading because it indicated that two free market houses,
each with a guesthouse, would be allowed. The language appears to have been changed to make
-3 -
• 0
the restriction more clear as to what uses were allowed, one free market lot (Lot 12) and one lot
with a guesthouse (Lot 12A). This strengthens the argument that the original intent of the
restriction was to deal with what uses were to be developed on the parcels, not the application of
Code requirements such as a floor area ratio.
(6) There were no floor area requirements in the applicable R-15 zone district or any residential
zone districts in the City of Aspen when the final approvals were given for the Callahan
Subdivision/PUD on February 23, 1976. If floor area ratios did not exist, then the original intent
of any condition of approval could not have applied to floor area. This means that Item I G of the
Subdivision PUD Agreement quoted in #5 above would not apply to a floor area requirement
since such a requirement did not exist. Floor area was not an issue in the entire approval process
for the 12 single family lots in the Callahan Subdivision according to Bill Kane, Jessica Benedict
Gordon, Andy Hecht, Pat Maddalone and the Council and P&Z minutes. According to these
sources, size and floor area were discussed as part of the approval process for the condominiums
in the Aspen Club which were a part of the Callahan PUD, but not for the single family lots.
Therefore, we believe nothing in the 1976 approval documents pertaining to the subject lots 12
and 12A or any other Callahan single family lot, was intended to apply to floor area regulations.
Please refer to Attachment 2, a copy of the area and bulk requirements in effect at the time of the
Callahan approvals in 1976 for the applicable R-15 zone district. This table shows there was no
floor area requirement in the R-15 zone at that time. Kathryn Koch, City Clerk verified this and
found that the first residential floor area regulations came into effect under Ordinance 11 of 1982.
(In 1976 the RMF zone district had a 1:1 floor area ratio for office and boarding house uses only.)
(7) Several interpretations have been made over the past one and a half years by the Community
Development Department indicating to the owners of Lot 12 and 12A and the owner's
representatives, that Lots 12 and 12A can be considered as two separate lots. These
interpretations have been relied upon by all concerned. On several occasions we were told that
Lots 12 and 12A could be considered as two separate lots, as long as we were consistent and did
not consider them as one lot for one regulation and two lots for another. These interpretations
were not in writing, but were verbal answers to various questions asked of the Community
Development Department over time in discussions regarding the following issues:
• The Stream Margin Amendment process for Lot 12;
• The potential redevelopment of Lot 12A at some point in the future;
• The ADU for Lot 12 being located on the contiguous Lot 12A;
• The ADU required for a growth management exemption for Lot 12 and the
possibility that it could be located in the home on Lot 12A,-
0 The guesthouse restriction for Lot 12A;
-4-
• How a lot line adjustment between Lots 12 and 12A could not affect (increase or
decrease) the floor area allowed on the two lots; and
• A variance from the secondary mass Design Review Standard.
Although all of these discussions determined that the lots could be considered as two separate
lots, the issue of floor area was specifically mentioned in a few of these instances. These include
the Stream Margin Amendment Review when an attempt was made to establish the allowable
floor area, during the discussion on a lot line adjustment's affect on floor area and when it was
asked whether we could consider the lots one large lot for secondary mass purposes and still
consider them as two lots for floor area calculations.
Several times the Community Development Department reiterated that we could not mix
interpretations, but we should stick to one interpretation. As long as we were consistent, we
could use whichever interpretation was most beneficial. At no time over the past one and a half
years or even since the lots were approved in 1976 was it ever indicated by the Community
Development Department that the lots could not be considered as two separate lots. Given this
Community Development Department position, the present owner has considered the lots as two
separate lots for its planning purposes. The possibility of considering the lots as one larger lot
was first brought up by the Community Development Department in mid June, 2000 after years of
planning and expense based upon the two lot interpretations.
(8) John Case as attorney for Jessica Benedict Gordon, the previous owner of Lots 12 and 12A,
wrote a letter to the City asking for clarification of the meaning of "certain limitations of record
regarding these lots" including Item I G in the Callahan Subdivision/PUD agreement. Item IG
deals with the guesthouse requirement and the requirement that the two lots to be sold as one.
(See #5 on page 3 which quotes Item 1G from the agreement.) In the Community Development
Department's letter responding to the request for clarification of Item 1 G, there was no mention
of Item 1 G applying to floor area requirements or any other dimensional requirement. Please
refer to Attachment 3, this clarification letter from Stan Clausen to John Case. Also attached is
John Case's letter requesting clarification of the limitations of record.
According to Jessica Benedict Gordon, one of the purposes of having John Case ask for this
clarification letter from the Community Development Department, was to determine if the lots
could be considered two for floor area purposes. There was no mention in Stan Clausen's
clarification letter that the lots could not be considered as two separate lots, but Stan's letter
definitely implies that they could be considered as two lots when he states "it appears that Lot 12
and 12A were platted as individual lots".
(9) The Community Development Department has considered Lots 12 and 12A as two separate
lots. This gives reliance not only to the owners and their representatives, but to the public that
the lots are separate, legal lots which would have floor area ratios applied separately.
-5-
For example, only Lot 12 was included in the Stream Margin Review Amendment in 1999. The
approval document is titled "Lot 12, Callahan Subdivision, Stream Margin Review Amendment".
Lot 12A was not included. Therefore Code provisions pertaining to Stream Margin were applied
to Lot 12, separate from Lot 12A. It would be consistent to apply all provisions of the Code to
each of the two lots.
Also, the Community Development Department considered the lots separately in 1976 during the
original Stream Margin Review for Lot 12 and the other Callahan lots with river frontage, while
Lot 12A and the other lots without river frontage were not part of the Stream Margin Review.
The two approved building envelopes also have given the owners reliance that the City considers
these lots as two for purposes of development. The building envelopes were approved in 1976
and again in 1999 for Lot 12.
The letter from Stan Clausen, formerly of the Community Development Department, clarifying
the guesthouse restriction for John Case, attorney for the property owners, indicates that "it
appears that Lots 12 and 12A were platted as individual lots". Individual platted lots implies
individual floor area calculations.
(10) In the Stream Margin Amendment approval document, the summary states "The
"guesthouse" does not affect the primary use or density of the property as a single family
residence." If the guesthouse does not affect the primary use (the main residence on Lot 12) then
the floor area should be calculated on each of the two separate lots so that the guesthouse does
not affect the primary use. Considering them as one lot would dramatically affect the primary
single family use of the property.
(11) The Stream Margin Amendment approval includes the following Condition 91:
"1. The areas within Lots 12 and 12A described as "limit of proposed building site" on
sheet 3 of the Final Plat and Development Plan for the Callahan Subdivision shall be the
building envelopes for the respective parcels. The lots may be developed in conformance
with the Moderate Density Residential (R-15) Zone District provisions, as amended. "...
This clearly suggests that the two can be developed as separate, respective parcels according to
the provisions of the R-15 zone district (such as the floor area requirement).
During this 1999 Stream Margin Amendment process when we were trying to clear up all the
issues pertaining to the subject properties, the owner/applicant was not asked to clear up any
ambiguities regarding the status of the lots. When we attempted to add in a condition to the
Stream Margin Amendment approval regarding the floor area, it was removed as it was
inappropriate to give a specific number for the allowable floor area in a condition of approval. It
is our understanding that this Condition #1 to the Stream Margin Amendment approval (" The
lots may be developed in conformance with the Moderate Density Residential (R-15) Zone
02
0
District provisions, as amended.") was added to the approval in order to state that the lots were
two respective lots for applying the provisions of the R-15 zone district, including the floor area
ratio, instead of stating a specific allowable floor area.
(12) The owners of Lot 12 and 12A (past and current) have all relied upon the lots being
considered two separate lots. The original owners Fritz and Fabi Benedict, Jesse Benedict
Gordon their daughter who owned the property after the Benedicts and their many consultants
(including several land use planners, attorneys, realtors and the property surveyors), and the
current owners and their consultants, have been operating over the years under the belief that the
two legal lots are considered two for the purposes of calculating floor area. In the many years of
owning or working on various aspects of the property, no one has come across an interpretation
by the City or anyone else that these two platted lots have to be considered as one and should not
be considered as two lots for the purposes of calculating floor area. The property was part of a
very thorough City Subdivision/PUD and Stream Margin review in 1975-76 when all applicable
existing City regulations were applied to Lots 12 and 12A and to the rest of the lots in the
Callahan Subdivision/PUD. No approval document from this extensive review mentions that
these two platted lots cannot be considered as two for purposes of applying area and bulk
requirements (setbacks, height, minimum lot size, lot width, etc., now referred to as dimensional
requirements and now including a floor area ratio adopted in 1982.) In 1998 and again in 1999
when this property was extensively investigated by two different owners and two separate groups
of consultants, no one was ever told by City staff that Lots 12 and 12A had to be considered as
one lot for floor area purposes, but all were told that they could be considered as two lots for
floor area calculation purposes and for the application of other Code regulations. The suggestion
that the lots might be considered as one for floor area calculation purposes was first heard by the
owners' architects, (Jeffrey Hancock of Trown and Associates) from City Planner Nick Lelack in
mid June, 2000 after years of reliance on the interpretation that they could be considered as two
lots for floor area calculations purposes.
In summary, history, original intent, various staff interpretations, reliance and fairness are all
reasons to confirm the position that these two legal lots be considered as two for purposes of
calculating floor area and other Code requirements.
There is no adverse impact, disadvantage or precedent to making this interpretation which would
be contrary to the public good. The two lots are similar in size to the other lots in the
neighborhood. The proposed improvements on Lot 12 would not be visible from nearby Highway
82 and in fact, the improvements would barely be visible by anyone except people in one adjacent
home. The home on Lot 12 would be within the height and floor area limitation of the R-15 zone
district for a lot the size of Lot 12 and would be within the boundaries of the small building
envelope approved for Lot 12 in 1976 and again in 1999. The existing guesthouse on Lot 12A
complies with the provisions of the R-15 zone district and any future changes to the guesthouse
would as well.
-7-
0 0
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Please let me know if you would like us to
attend a staff meeting on this issue or if you need any further information. We look forward to
your response.
Sincerely,
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED
ALICE DAVIS AICP
cc: Barbara Fleck
Brooke Peterson
Jeffrey Hancock
z
O
H
E
Oct I
W m
v o+
►.
U N
N
W W W W
of tr tr tr t7'
a1
01 in u! m
ml U O O O O
-+ N H
m b m
4-1 ❑6 m m r•1 m O
O ' %0 r m N
(� t4 N
.-1 N r vi m
U •r1
0
W W
%O
O
w M
.4
O O.
s
N
ti 1
ai
4;
W 1~
W
w
tr 1n '-4
tr
a
u1 aJ O
m
m
7 p.
11
O
O
O
•-I1-4
.4
ri —4
o
0
•1
d'
to U w
M
O
U U
U"l
m
a)
.-�
m.Oi0
r
m
IZ 4
M
LO
a
+;
+�
w
W
W
tT
tr
tr
ul
m
m
A N
�D
o
0
0
O
.•1 O
r-4 r-4
U =
+w
N
ph
m
N
J 1
4•1
W
W
tr
tT
to
to
1 y
rn
Ln
o
0
R Lo
m
.-1
v
m
O O
rl r-1
O
E .0
+► mm
N
Q
K'
I
N
m
.1
�
J.1
y
W
4.7I
tT
O
:3
N
to
w
a
O
.i
{�
rF
O
1J
y;
.-4
o
O
o
a
.-4
C
�
1-1
Ln
N
\
\
\
s. 4.
4.
%D
.•1
rl
.d
z•
L1 z
z
O
1v
a, O
V
m
to •O
-4
ro
M 4-J
G
N
$4 :3
>•.
:3
al
a1 O
O
•-4
>
>
0
La
Q�
11
U
U
J;
i;
.•1
�C
W
W
W
Py
W
U
a
E
'O [P
R7 U
• tT
41
N
E
m
x
O
w
ur:
14
tr c
d• r
ro
-4
.4
a)
O
m
CT -4
d, to
m • 1
Vl 0
CL
a
to
1-4
u
O
•+
V
S
a,
a
a
n.
v
a,
..,
N
to
s
—4
a
aJ
to
x .q
X G
x• 4
x U)
O
(a
m
•o
.0
(a
0:3
Oa)
0:3
Oro
a)
N
N n
to aJ •--4
N A
w .Q
1�
a,
a
a O
a
a
o
U
o
0
o
>
n w
aW o
C1.W
n.w
a
a
z
z
z
4 0
.t O CL
40
4 0
0 1 0
<
o
E
o
•
va
.r
d
Q f`I
O
m
pOj
u
ry
o
U
>. ? u
o
ID
m
u
us
.gg ~
�
m <
_
1 1
d C LI
O
1
° e
■
•
I
w.w
w •
O
o
fV
O w
E .Q w O
m
N
^
o Y a
ry
ry
ioa
4Ij
,�,a
w U
O O
=
C n
1 1
M
'O Y
N.Q
• m Y m
t �'J
W] W V
W � a
e
O
8
0 00��.o
Q~ �^•
.Ei
s
o000
E O
%�.,,
Y] O u] I
g
6 O'O
.o P.O .Y
y
,on -r-n mx v)
■,�.+<a.•1
..1
yy
O •1 Y
A
<
w
0 w
Y I
N
O
W. 0 Q Y ' >.O
tT.-1 U QI C W n
Q
m H
ly
C•+ U G� 0 1
y
1 1�
•.1 Y q .� .-1 ul
V
C
1, y M
O
Q
O N
O
H
..1 'O C .•I w U C
•
m YI In
cc
cc
7
0c0
00
H
11 CL MO -C -0
0
N
C C
cc
O O
cc
,4 Urp \O •..i
x C s n 7
< O -1 0 1 N P
n y
C
o
Q
^
7
Q
-+
.4
cc JJcc
„ O
> >
a
o0
0o m
^•�
w
'1y
•
0
a n
h- C o Y d
•
m ���
u
o
y �. c
yy>Nm
O •
0. � 'O
t O. 7e w m •-1
Q
O
y 0 .� O 61 441
O N
m
1
CIO
r�
y-3
O'O.Lm
<
O o
O0
o O 11 u
oo•p x EC - 0
•
-Cia 7 1
on
1 1 S
O a u
w 0 Cw 0 -4
•
A
W'000 A'Q
0
•.4
ufGSm
1
u
U
-,
Y
rl
p
�
O
O
a
-+ O
y
O
6 o
1 m 1
Q
•
♦
u
Q Y
yAj
u
c
^1 �s
m
7
C >!
Y
T7 Y -� --1
y 1i
Y a
�
•�
Y ] ■
> Y Y
O Y
C
C.0 O. o o
m > vl u Q!
In
1 1
c IYHH
F
z
°�"
7 Nu)UOQ
7
u
0
c
s]
c
S
ttp
o m o 0
o N
.•1
. . o
.
1�
!1
ry
0 0 •
V
r U G Y O•
Y
y U v Yti
y
a,c
13
Y
9
E
Y
Y
Y
P
P
Y
y
P
Y
Y
P
tl
Y
Y
Y
o
IV
°a
8
°o
°a
1 1
�
O ti
.-1
,y
7 7
•
a a
7
y
S
Y
•_
w
r
u
e
O
C�
C
•
ui
C
a a■ u r
Y� C
■ <
7
P
Y
Y
�•
Q
Y
+
Y
O ■t
M
� ti
• N
Y ■ �
Y
Y
V
a u�■� : 1 N
O
O.a
z
C
O -1 tl■ H
°
c
P
Y■ T
ni U a r t'1 Y U
P
V
Y
V0.
Y
.•1 M O O 7 4 G
< V � • 1 G <
Y
Y
y
o
A
•
Y
O 7
r
C 7
1
H
C 7
•
Y
M
Y
H
1 V
■ 1 a m O �+
C
V
C 7 C O
•rim 1
y
°
Y
Y
Y
aa•a
N
a
r
Y
r
Y
tl
Y
1 1 u
7 � ° � a•
d
u
C
y
y
d O Y.
tl
p
Y
T N T O �
�
!
0
Y
■N r •1^I
0 N— •
O
Y
Y
Y
.y
u l■ 1 u ■ o
o 0
0 o°
1
O:
C Y aA y
C P
C Y
Y
.� a Y
Y
�
� O
U a
y
tl•
•
•
V
N V
Y
Y
V
Y U
O •+ Y
<
<
Y
V<
y
Y
N
• Y
c "
O. O•
O u
O
O
f+
Y
• a Y
O M Y
h
�
N
7 —u
�0
e
Y ti
V d
a
.i w
ti'1
YPM
y�
W
y
s�
SO.m
w■GN
1°+�
July 29. 1998
Mr. John H. Case, Attornev
PO Box 4203
Aspen. CO 81612
Re: Lot 12 and 12A, Callahan Subdivision
Dear Mr. Case:
ATTACHMENT 3
AsPEN • PinQN
CO)IMLNmDE%'ELCP%WT DEPARi.mvr
In response to your June 12. 1998. letter in which you request a determination on the
nature of Lots 12 and 12A of the Callahan Subdivision and for the term '`guesthouse" as
used in the Subdivision Agreement. I offer the following comments:
It appears that Lots 12 and 1''A were platted as individual lots. However. the Subdivision
agreement specifically refers to these lots as "collectively designated as a single family
lot." Lots 12 and 12A are one lot for the purpose of one single family residence.
Lot 12A is described in the Subdivision agreement as "the guesthouse for Lot 12." You
correctly noted that the City Land Use Code does not currently, nor did it at the time of
this subdivision. contain a definition of a "guesthouse." I would suggest, however. that
based on the language contained within the subdivision agreement and the common
understanding of the term "guesthouse." two current definitions loosely apply —
Accessory Use or Structure and Accessory Dwelling -Unit.
The Accessory Use or Structure definitions limits to the Guesthouse to being on the same
parcel and subordinate in character to the primary use - the principal residence. The
Accessory Dwelling Unit definition allows the guesthouse to function as a dwelling unit
and does not affect the primary use or- density of the parcel for a single-family residence.
To maintain this guesthouse as accessory to the principal residence, the structure cannot
become available for separate sale and shall remain as part of the combined Lot 12 and
12A. This also prevents condominiumization of the property into separate interests.
The eventual developer of Lot' 12 should be aware of the need for a Growth Management
Allotment for a new home. This normally includes a full review by City Council and
competing for yearly development rights. However, the parcel was subdivided prior to
the 1977 initial year of growth management, and may qualify for an exemption from this
process provided if the developer either provides an Accessory Dwelling Unit. deed
130 SuVTH GALENA STREET AsnN, COLORADO 81611.1973 PHONE 970.920.=090 FAx 970,920.5439
•
0
restricts the principal residence to affordable housing guidelines, or provides a payment -
in -lieu based on the newly constructed square footage.
The existing guesthouse may be `converted' to an Accessory Dwelling Unit for this
purpose with Conditional Use approval. A staff member of the City Planning
Department may elaborate on this process at your request.
Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.
Very truly yours,
Stan Clauson, ASLA, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Aspen
cc: John Worcester, City Attorney
• John H_ Case •
Homey 3( La- ATTACHMENT 3 �
Post Office Box 4203 Asnen, Colorado 81612
Telephone (970) 925-8394 Fax 920-3395
e-mail johncase ® infosphere.com _��� 1<`
June 12, 1998
Mr. John Worcester, City Attorney
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street v`
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: LOTS 12 AND 12A, CALLAHAI`i SUBDMSION, CITY OF ASPEN
Dear John,
I represent Ms. Jessie Benedict Gordon. daughter of Fritz and Fabi Benedict. Ms. Benedict
Gordon is the record owner of Lots 12 and 12A of the Callahan Subdivision, which she
received as gift conveyances from her parents. Ms. Benedict Gordon lives in a house an Lot
12A that, according to the records of the Pitkin County Assessor, was built in 1977. Lot 12
is vacant. Both lots are conforming -sized lots of record in the R-15 zone district.
We seek your determination regarding certain limitations of record regarding these lots.
Following is the relevant background information for your consideration of this matter.
i
Background
i
Attached are copies of the Final Plat and the Development Plan for the Callahan
Subdivision (recorded in Book 5, Pages 7 and 9, respectively, of the Pitkin County Records).
The Final Plat designates Lots 12 and 12 A as separate lots. Lou 12 and I2A are also
individually listed in the dedication language contained on the Final Plat. The Final Plat
does not contain any language that would appear to limit the development of eitheri lot.
The Development Plan depicts the designated building envelopes for both lots (labeled
';'limits of proposed budding site"). The building envelope on Lot 12A corresponds precisely
to where the house was built on Lot 12A just one year after the Plat and Agreement were
recorded, while the building envelope on Lot 12 corresponds to that portion of the lot that
appears to be most appropriate for development at this time.
I have also attached a copy of the Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Agreement
for the Callahan Subdivision (dated May, 1976 and recorded at Book 312, Page 100 et. seq.
of the Pitkin County Records). This Agreement establishes certain additional limitations on
the use of lots within. the Subdivision/PUD. Paragraph 1.G. of the Agreement, which
provides the sole limitations in the entire document that refer to the subject lots, reads as
rollows:
�1
•
Mr. John Worcester
June 12, 1998
Page Two
"G. Lots 12 and 12-A are collectively designated as a single-family lot. Lot 12-
A is the guesthouse for Lot 12."
My reading of this language is that it expressly provides that Lots 12 and 12A may contain
a single-family residence and a guesthouse. Unfortunately, neither the Agreement nor the
Aspen Municipal Code, as it was in effect in 1976 and as written today, provide a definition
for the term "guesthouse".
Ms. Benedict Gordon seeks your determination of the meaning of the term "guesthouse" as
it applies to these lots. It is our position that the RnTlinii a� that should apply is that
Lots 12 and 12A would need to remain in common ownership, so that the guesthouse on Lot
12A could remain tied to the principal residence on Lot 12.
We would appreciate your prompt written response to this matter, as it. has important
iamifications on the estate of Ms. Gordon's parents. I will call you after you have had a
chance to review this material, to see if there is anything else you need to make this
determination and to see if we need to meet to review this matter. Please feel free to
contact me directly if there is anything else I can provide to you.
Very trul Wo ,
John . Case, Attorney at Law
Vic: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director
TOTAL P,04
MAY. 18.2000 5:11PM ROBERT TROWN & ASSOC • N0. 953 P.
® ROBERT TROWN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
FAX COVER LETTER
DATE:
5/18/00
ATTN:
Nick Lelack
COMPANY:
Community Development
FAX NO:
920-5439
PROJECT:
Fleck Residence
FROM:
kffrev_R_ . H_ ancox
PAGES:
-12
COMhMNTS :
SIGNED:
J
Nick:
Please review the report that was complied by Davis Horn for
Lots 12 and 12A. The FAR allowed for both lots is different
from what you stated on the phone. Please give me a call so that
we can discuss this.
Thank You!
Project Architect
25 LOWER WOODBRIDGE ROAD -SUITE 104-B -P.O. BOX 6820 - SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO - 81615
TEL. (970) 923.6131 FAX (970) 923.2599
MAY, 18. 2000 5:12PM ROBERT TROWN & ASSOC NO, 953 P. 2
Ju.. -- ... �.rA y m Horn 9z5 5180
P.ol
Da W�
PLANNING & REAL ESTATE CONSULTING
May 25, 1999
Barbara F)JRck
1407 Crystal Lake Koad
Aspen, CO. 81611
FIE: Due Diligence Investigation of Callahan Lets 12 and 12A
Dear 13ar>)ara:
As request'e8, Davis Horn Inc. has researched tie land use issl:es
which may be associated with the development of Lots 12 and 12A
of the Callahan 5uhcJivision. We have compl.ete,d the following
tasks in our investigation:
t, A Site visit of the property and surrounding areas (the
adjacent Aencdict parcel, Lot 11, the open space
parcel, etc.);
2.
Telephone conversations and a meeting with Robert
Trown, your architect and Brooke Peterson, the attorney
completing due diligenpe work foA yqu;
3.
A review of the A-spen Pitkin Communkrty Development
Department f i l eb related to the property, specifically
the previous Stream Margin Raviow. and Subdivision
Review in 197E;
4.
A review of various doti.mtents rel,aLud to the subject:
property (sabdivisit-on covenants, „suk-division
agreements, easempnt document, etw.);
5.
A review oz, the applicable; sections ref the Aspen Land
115c Regulations;
6.
Phone conversations and meetings with Alan Richman who
had reviewed issues related to Lhc property in pr.eviaus
year6 fox- the seller;
�.
Phorie conversations with Nick Mc:Cirath, the attorney for
Lice :sellers; and ;
S .
Numerous phone calls and two meetings with Viris Hendon
of the Aspen Pitkiii Community %:4e1'opmc;nt DcparLnent.
C This LptLar
somnarizps our findings under ,Llie following headings:
Rxist.,i7g
Cdnditions, PctenLial Land lJr;e Reviews, Other Isbueg,
Summary
y
and Kecommelldation3.
f
ALICE DAVIS. AICP � GLENN HORN. AICP
216 506TTH MONARCH V , SUITE 10s • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • 970/926-64587 • FAX: 970/025-4100
j,MAY.18.2000 5:12PM ROBERT TROWN & ASSOC
horn
1V.953
925 5180 P.
Barbara F1ecR
May 25, 1999.
Page 2
EXISTING CONDITIONS '
The subject site i6 located in the Callahan Subdivision, a
subdivision approved by the City of Aspen in 1976. The
Subdivision Plat is recorded with the Clerk and Recorders office
at gook 5, Pages 7 through 10. Page 3 of the recorded
subdivision plat is the development plan. The development plan
shows two approved. building envelopes, one.each For Lot 12 and
12A. The' house which was built on Lot 12A'closely follows the
approved building envelope. The approved building envelope on
Lot 12 was determined through the subdivision process as well as
through a Stream Margin Review. Stream Maf,gin,approval was
granted January 20, 1976. (See Attachment 1, Planning and Zoning
Commission minutes from 1/20/76.) A Stream Margin Review was
required due to the lot's location adjacent to the Roaring Fork
River and its f1cod plain and this review process determines a
building envelope appropriate for development after considering
the floodplain issues, environmental and safety concerns.
According to .information from Alpine Surveys, callahbn Lot 12
contains 63,102 square feet and Lot 12A contains 19,369 square
feet with an additional 9,245 square feet of open space for Lot
12A. (see Attachment 2, Alpine'Survey's slope analysis.) Based
upon Alpine Survey's slope analysis of the, land area, for the
purposes of calculating floor area, the effoc�ive lot sire of Lot
12 is 56',589 square feet and Lot 12A is 14616 square feet.
Consider]nq the :lour area allowed in the applicably: R-15 zone
district, the floor area allowed for Lot 12 is 6,731 square feet
and for Lot 12A is 4,473 square feet. +
According to the Subdivision covenants for the Callahan
Subdivision, Lots 12 and 12A mugt be sold as one; the two lots
cannot be sold separately. The coveria &-.120 say the home on
LOt, 12�ct
s to be the guesthauSe or Lqt 12. ' Ris ins '--
rest i0 in the su ivision covenants and isA3tt-tlie result or
a Cit FT Aspan a u a to r. r .ant, imi ation or C ion
;yc; —on The prUperty by the City. Accvr nq o tree City's
TV7�lations, Lots ILZAe- IlKe 1,0t 172t is a #roe market lot and tho
existing home on Lot 1ZA can be redeveloped or expanded ag long
as the improvements are in confcrmancc� wi.0h applicable City Land
Use RegulAtIonw. it can be expanded or ribuilt tip to the allowed
floor area' in the R-15 zone district !4,471-3 square feet tar a lot
the ;size of .Lot 12A)
J„MAY,18.2000 5:12PM ROBERT TROWN & ASSOC
NO. 953 p. 4
go 925 5180 P.03
:i
V
Barbara Fleck
May 25, 1999
F Page 3
Please refer to Attachment 3, a survey for the property which
shows various access easements, the building envelopes and
improvements on Lot 12A and the adjacent Benedict residence.
Attachmerlt.4. is a page from the Stillwater Ranch final plat which
shows the surrounding area. Lot 12 has been added in for
information purposes. Attachment 5 is pagO three of the Callahan
Subdivision Plat and Attachment 6 shows the•10q year floodplain.
LAND USE REVIEWS
Our review of the subject property and the'City of Aspen hand Use
kegulations indicate that the subject Lot 12 should qualify for a
Comsrainity Development Director Exemption from Residential Growth
Management pursuant to Section 26.100,050.A.2.c. This request
can be granted at the building permit stage or simultaneously
with any.:other land use approval.
A requirement of the Growth Management Exemption under
29.100.05Q.A.2.c. specified above, is that, -the owner must meet
one of the following three options:
1. provide an accessory dwelling unit;
2. Pay the applicable affordable housing impact fee; or
3. Record a resident occupancy deed restriction for the
single family dwelling unit being constructed.
Housing impact fees were recently increased and an approximate
fee for Lot 12 would be $287,200, Option 3, recording a resident
occupancy dead restriction on the home, would eliminate the: free
market status of the lot. Option 1, the provision of an
accessory dwelling unit (ADTJ) is the least impactive option. As
we verified with Chris Bandon of the Community Development
Depar.tmQnt; the required ADU could be located within the home on
Lot 12A. The ADU must be at least 300 square feet and no larger
than 700, square feet .in size. The garden:leve.l of the existing
home on Lot 12A is 1509 square feet according to the Pitkin
County Asswssor's Office, Between 300 and 700 square feet of
this area could be converted into a separate dwelling and then be
restricted for the ADU. with planning and Zoni:ig Commission
approval, in area larger than the maximum 700 square feet, oven
the entire floor of 1509 5,quare; feet, could be utI1ize;d (arid
restricted) as the ADU.
11
,,MAY. 18. 2000 5:'2PM ROBERT TROWN & ASSOC N0, 953 P. 5— _ __
harn 226 6180 P.O4
Barbara Flack
May 25, 1999
Page 4
The ADU must be approved through the Conditional Use Review
process, a one step review and public hearing before the Planning
and Zoning Commission. The request for Conditional Use approval
must demonstrate compliance with several standards in the Land
Use Regulations, These standards address such issues as
consistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan and compatibility
with the'uzes and the character in the surrounding area.
Impacts would be minimal for an. ADU in the'.existing structure as
the Space. and its impacts.already exists,
The ADU must have its own entrance, separate from the primary
residence. When the ADU is rented, it must be rented to a full
time local Pitkin County resident. At this time, rental of the
unit is optional, though the City of Aspen has often considered a
Code change which would impose a mandatory rental requirement.
The optional rental could change at some time in the future.
However, `if' an ADU is approved and developed under the current
re gulatio'hs.,'new regulations would not affect the ADU.
Resi Review is required for ''he'development of
times in the As n ng t e -1'5B zone ).
This. several design standards which must.'be considered in
the deesi'"p of a home and compliance is determined through a
Developripnt Order Application submitted to the Community
Development Department. If there is another land use approval
being requested (such as a Conditional [Ise Review for the ADU
discussed above) then the Residential Design Review could proceed
simultaneously with that review,
The design Standards in the Residential Design Review were
created wi,tli to -town City towLISite lots in mind. The design
standards are not as applicable when applied to larger, treed,
irregulsx ena__,�Vural lots such as the subject Lot 12. .any of
the design,Standards can be wei arso pproval body
(the: Design Review Appeal COMmittee or the. Planning and Zoning
commission) determines that the standard does;not apply or if the
development would be enhpn.ced if' the atandird'is not followed.
Therefore'. you may want to request a waiver or variance from
several. 'or many of the riesign 'standards. Robert Trown will have
a bettor idea of what needs to be varied after coni;idering the
standards along with preliminary design plans_
As preliminary plays must he Completed prior Lo the: Residential
~- t)e51gzi Review, you may warit to proceed with a Conditional llsc
Review for the AUU now and address De.^,ign Review IaLor, when
JUMAY. IS. 2000 5:12PM , ROBERT TROWN & ASSOC '---'—NO. 953 P. 6
- wA yM horn
926 518o p.05
Barbara Fleck
` Kay 25, 1999
Page 5
preliminaty plans are completed. If the two review processes
proceed simultaneously, the Planning and Zoning Commission is the
decision 'making body for both reviews. If7.�hey proceed
separately,, the Planning and Zoning Commission'is the decision
making body�for the ADU and the Design Ravfew'Appeal Committee is
the decision making body far the Residential Design Review
waivers.
At any time in the future if the home on Lot 12A is to be
redeveloped or expanded, Residential Design Review Standards must
be met or, waived for the development orn that lot as well,
The Callahan Subdivision is a signed and recorded subdivision of
record. Stream Margin approval was granted and a building
envelope identified for Lots 12 and 12A in.January, 1976, We
believe no Further Stream Margin Review should be required for
_ Lots 12 due to ita location in this record-d Subdivision, a
subdivision which is fully vested due to thu million of dollars
of improvements made since the approval. H2LwjvP_r1 the City
Attorney; John Worc r and ChtisHe don t'�ie 'C'ity pl'$n er
war on E? case, have tak a position that the
development of Lots l should be subject to the new requirements
of Stream Margin Review which were not in effect at the time of
the original approval. Td that several
of the requirements are not applica'Ke-due to the —nature of the
Subject sit*. Specificaily, the progressive height limit and top
Of slope Attack of 15 fpet are not appropriate as there is no
real top of, slope to base these limitations upon. As these
restri'Ctioris would render the lot unusable, Chi -is and John agreed
they ware rift applicable.
Chris SeAdon, John Worcester, Brooke Peter,'
�on,.and I have agreed
upon conditions to -be placed upon a new, 1.999"Stroam Margin
Review approval. Although we do not belie,4e *,new review should
be necessary, the conditions are riot onerCUs and Ltierefore, the
staff level approval is acceptable. It is oertainl,y preferable
to a full. Stream Margin Review whieli is c:aitly, time (;onniaming
and risky. Chris Bendo% and John Worcester have agreed La give
us a letter granting a 1999 Stream Margin amended approval for
Lot 12 subject Co a few conditions including limitations on
lightir.g*and vegetation removal. We are awaiting this letter and
will forward it on as soon as we receive it. It was ctiris,s
ori-gir�al intension to Yiave us the letter by Che first part of
his wee)k, though he is very busy and has not been LAblP to
Compteto'it yet;. We have requested to have the lettcr by
"a
JuMAY, 16. 2000 5:13PM ROBERT TROWN & ASSOC N0, 953�-•P. 7
R -- ---...'A V"M horn 6180
Barbara Fleck
May 25, 1999
Page 6
Thursday at -the latest due to the expiration of the due diligence
Period on Friday, May 27, 1999. We are staying on top of this
issue and hope' to have the letter soon.
i
OTHER 'ISSUES
According to a restriction to the benefit Of Lot 11, Callahan
Subdivision which is next door to the subject property, there is a
height limit of (z'57)feet on the home to be built on Lot 1.2 . At -the
time this restric'60n was lacad on Lot 12, the heiglit limit in
the R-15 zone district was 28 reef However, the height limit in
the zone is now ;5 feet, n different from that placed on the
property ;by the private restriction Thei fore this restriction has
no real u.aloe or meaning anymore.
This R-15 height limit of 25 feet in combination with the
relatively small building envelope limit the design possibilities
-' of a home on Lot 12, As Robert Trown has identified, issues
regarding insurance for homes with lowar basement levels built so
close to the floodplain may he a Further concern. T know you and
Robert Trown are aware that these limitations need to be fully
analyzed .and understood during this due diligence period.
You asked about the benefits of buying Lot 11 adjacent to the
subject Lot 12. Althoi,igh yogi could add to the rloor area allowed
for a home on Lot 11 to that allowed for Lot 12, Lho constraints
Of Lot, 1.219 building envelope size, basement insurance concerns
and the zone district's 2S foot height liT>it .all limit the floor
area which can be physically bui.it on the Site. Robert Trown
could Clive you information on what the maximum site home is that
"Ould be built within the building envelope to determine the
feasibility of building a house larger than the 6,731 square Feet
already allowed. The Advantage of buying .lot 11 to remove the
height restriction is ro longer valid sine the zone district
height limit is the same, 25 feet.
Expansion of the existing approved building envelope on Lot 12
would be veZY difficult. A now, full Stream Margin Review would
be required. In Our urtimat•ion, due to tree floodplaic-1, riparian
and wetland concerns on and near the site, a regUASt to expand or
tnOve the. enveloPP would be unsucCrssrul. If by some Chance an
pxpar►sidn were Lo be approved, numerous cond5 t:ions would bP
placed Qr% Lice approval which would signi.f ,cant.ly impact them
development of flit pr( pert:y.
,
`MAY. 18. 2000 5:13PM ROBERT TROWN & ASSOC" N0. 953 P. 8
-- i+_a=A y V M horn
�^925 SZeo P.07
Barbara Flack
May 25, 1999
• Page 7
SUMMARY AND RECMOCNDATIUNS
There are -four land use approvals needed fo;'the development of
Lot 12 with a single family home.
1. A Stream Margin Review approval. We beliQvc we will have
a new 1999 Stream Margin amended approval in place soon,
hopefully by the end of this week. Althot,igh the conditions of
this approval should not be too onerous, we have not yet seen the
actual letter of approval and conditions on the approval. We
hope to, have this letter before Friday when hhc, due diligence
period expires.
2. A Growth Management Examption from the Community
Development Department Director. This will=.take place at the
building permit stage, unless another application (such as N3
below) is requested, then the two requests c:an'proceed
• simultaneously.
3. -A conditional Use Review for the Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU) is required for the Growth Management Exemption in 42 above.
The Conditional Use review is a public hearing and specific
Public notice requirements must be met. The. ADU can be within
tho existing home on Lot 12A or within the new home on Lot 12A.
If the ent.ix a garden level of the existing horns; on Lot 12A is
used for;the ADU, a request to Expand the ADU beyond the 700
square foot maxim= size allowed for an Am would by needed.
Both the.,ADU and the size expansion request should be successful.
The Condttion,41 Use Review process takes apprgximaCely three to
four months from the date of submission of''an ,'.applicat.ion.
Davis Horn 'Inc. would be happy to help you ,wi.th this approval if
you decide 'to proceed with the purrha,se of,'the property and the
ADU 'apprbval. The Conditional Use Review could by completed now
or at a later date when preliminary design plans are competed.
Then the Conditional Use Review could proceed along with
Residential Design Review.
h. Recidential Design Review. preliminary design drawings
of Sufficient cietail to show compliance with the Design Standards
in Section 26.58 of the City Land Use Regulations arc required
fear this; review. All property witrlin the City milat Comply
(exrept•the R-158 Zone di;trict'which doe3'not apply to this
property.) must go through z Residential Design Review.
JLMAY, 16. 2000 5:13PM ROBERT TROWN & ASSOC � N0, 953
-----•.,rA y horn
fl � it 925 5180
P.
Barbara Fleck
May 25., 1999
Page 8
A waiver or variance from a specific design'standard can be
requested. We Feel many of the design standards are not
applicable to this lot and several design waivers may be needed
or desirable. Each individual standard must be met or waived.
Although it is our opinion that you would be successful in either
meeting or waiving each of the standards, Robert Trown should
more thoroughly identify the impact, if any, of each of the
standards on the design of a home. He should also deterraine how
• negative an impact any given standard would be if a waiver was
needed &�,could not be obtained.
Disc:ussioaiis' with Chris 8endon indicate that he agr.pes that these
standards are not as applicable for lots outside the original
Aspen Townsite. Still, the proces3 of requesting a waiver has to
be completed, if a variance from any design standard is desired,
Davie Horn would be happy to work with Rob*rt,,Trown if you decide
to pursue to property and these variances.','
Comments in'tl,is letter are based upon our understanding of the
City of Aspen Land Use Regulations and discussions with the Aspen
Pitkin County Community Development Department staff. The City
Council, Planning and Zoning Commission and Design Review Appeal
Board are responsible for interpreting the Code. Sometimes their
interpretations differ trorn ours. The entire land use process
can be very unpredictable.
Please c`a11� if you would like to discuss arty lssue3 pertaining to
the Calla,hari property. When I receive the.�etZer from Chris
Bendon qrn the Stream Margin Review amended'. approval, I may have
• to write -,a ,,short follow up to this letter addressing anything
unfor seen.
TL ank you for askinq Davis Horn to assist ynu; Please let us
know it there is anything further we can do.
Sincerely,
7AVIS lIORN INCORPORATED
AL:CE DAV:S AICP
.00, 1?. 2000 5:13PM ROBERT 7ROWN & A3SOC NO. 953 0�
—_A horn I�::lic: nUerll1y -- - n �mr...�....... 925 5180 P.09
.*cord shop a�oposed reeord'arid music accessory '&hop '�S.sT "if- 0 "�
Mall. Triers wawa vote by the planning commission to •�
include record shops as a permitted conditional use in
r the N/C zone. Uae f elt the request should be approved
because it represents what the applicant spoke about
At the last meeting and meets the criteria of the
ATlMMM 1conditional use provision. It, will. also be a conditional
use: if there is an application to put a record shop
in the Trusman property building.,:.
Collins was against putting the record shop in the
Durant Mall. Collins felt•by.putting businesses for
local residents thaw -the Wmmercial core will deterioatc
and tourist typ� Shona will be the only kind in the mall.
.,�k, .u� *L, C� ram, -A C - 0
Herb Klien, representing the applicant, 18ummarizad as te)
why a record shop should be a use in the Durant Mall.
The busiziess is oriented towards the local resident;
it fits in the N/C zoning district; it provides for one-
stcp type shopping for local residents; a record shop
.would gulf ill frequent buying needsl wide variety of
•muscial services will be offered. Klien presented a floor
plan of the music shop which, indicated a variety of
services that will be offored,
Jenkins closed the public hearing.
Public Hearing Jenkins opened the. public hc;--�''zing on the bread and pastry
Bread and pastry shop. Jenkins read into the,Frecord a letter From Don
Shon Lemos expressing his support for the broad and pastry
Shop.
Hunt asked if Kalin intended to prepare and sell sandwicho
and hot or cold drinks on the promises for consumption.
Kalin replied they Would not be. Kalin explained there
will be no baking or any food preparation on the premises.
All the goods sold will be shippod in from outside of
a�. the City every morning. The'purpose of the bakery will
be to provide just a retail ,outlet for the items to be
brought in. The total retail sea is 450-500 square .Feet.
Jenkins asked for a better f,loo,rplan.
Jenkins closed tho public hearing.
Callahan Subdivision Jenkins opened the public hearing.
Kane explained the separate actions which the Planning
and Zoning Commission had to take. They are the Final
Planned Unit Development plan; a Conditional use
determination forthe recreational facility; a stream
Margin review; and a revision of the preliminary plat..
Kane mentioned Cldrk had looked at the flood plain maps,
and the buildings.3.o aitua�cd above the 100 year flood
plain and do not affect the,,%%'ring Fork River. The
Planning Department fa rccoOmQ4,.d_ng Stream Margin KPview.
atMAV. 18. 2000 5_1.3PMROBERT TROWN & ASSOC, �
mm. _ .... horn ... .. _...
�r
ATTACHMENT �
Pa9� Z
P
)ti.
tion
pen view
Lvdivision
tion `
---)-NO. 953 P. 11
0
O 925 also
P-1' o
Hunt moved For approval of the Stream Margin Review;'
seconded by cobie. All i.n favor, motion carried.
Kane went on to the second item which is a Conditional
Use foi* the operation of a Clubhouse for the recreational -e
site. The Planning Department recommends the area be
re -zoned RR. Kane mentioned the Planning Department
would like the Floor plan to show that "_hc cluh house
will be a facility only for imtiidiate member, and resi-
dents in the area and it will not be a large commercial
restaurant.
Fa x,
Kane proceeded with the Final Development plan. Ithe
agenda packet there Was n 3 .list of 14 recommarded Concerns
from the planning Department which would have to be
resolved before making a motion. The Commission, Kutik
and' Hecht went through the 14 points, All of the points
had been resolved with the understanding that the sub-
dividers will make it their xesponsibtlity to keep the
lake at the minimum low level,x. City Attorney Stuller
mentioned that the. agreement will. go into the final
subdivision agreement; the water -iights and everything wil:
be discussed in that document.'. Rlso, Kane felt the
Proposed layout for the reereaition. of the clubhouse shouldi'
be part cf the Planned Unit Development. Hecht and
Kutik presented to the Commission drawing; for the
recreation which will be in that area.
Hunt moved for approval of Conditional Use of the recrea-
tional facilities as shown on the plan which was presentol
Seconded by Collins, All in favor, motion carried. 1
Hunt moved to recommend approval of the Planned Unit
Development on the condition the comments of the City �
Engineer aro complied with and the comments A thru Q
given by the Planning Office olat-,Callalzdn ' S in conform-
ity with; s�+conded by Dobie. All, in Fava-t motion carried'
Kunt moved to rocommend re -approval of the 1�s�nc"View 1
Preliminary and final plats; �eeoacied by Collins. R11
in favor, motion carried.
Abbott moved tv adjourn; Seconded by Collin,, Meeting
adjourned at s:o0 p.m.
E zza th 1. Klym, ty ity C ork
0 0
" Identify Results NQ
1: Parcels • Callahan Is
REcorded AL 2:*M 19, 1976 Reception no
1 - S9 U Julie Hane REcoz
fit r c
BOOK = ix[110 j
SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION
THIS AGREEMENT, made this /3ZVI day of>>�, -, / ,
1976, by and between THE CITYOF ASPEN, COLORADO (hereinafter
sometimes called "City"), and BENEDICT LAND & CATTLE COMPANY,
FREDRIC BENEDICT and FABIENNE BENEDICT (hereinafter sometimes
collectively called "the owner"), and ROBERT S. GOLDSAMT or
the assignee of Goldsamt (hereinafter sometimes called "the
subdivider").
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the subdivider with the consent and approval of
the owner has submitted to the City for approval, execution,
and recordation, the final plat and development plan of a tract
of land situated in the east one-half of Section 18, T. 10S,
Range 84 west of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Aspen, Colorado,
designated as Callahan Subdivision ("the plat"); and
WHEREAS, said Plat encompasses land located within an area
in the City zoned RR and R-15; and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered such Plat, the pro-
posed development and the improvement of the land therein, and
the burdens to be imposed upon other adjoining or neighboring
properties by reason of the proposed development and improve-
ment of land included in the Plat; and
WHEREAS, the City is willing to approve, execute, and
accept for recordation that Plat upon agreement of the owner
and the subdivider to the matters hereinafter described, and
subject to all the requirements, terms, and conditions of the
City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations now in effect and other
laws, rules and regulations as are applicable; and
WHEREAS, the City has imposed conditions and requirements
in connection with its approval, execution and acceptance for
0
BOOK K2 iui III
recordation of the Plat, and that such matters are necessary
to protect, promote, and enhance the public welfare; and
WHEREAS, under the authority of Section 20-16(c) of the
Municipal Code of the City, the City is entitled to assurance
that the matters hereinafter agreed to will be faithfully
performed by the subdivider.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the
mutual covenants herein contained, and the approval, execution
and acceptance of the Plat for recordation by the City, it is
agreed as follows:
1. All references to lot numbers hereinafter set forth
are as described on Sheet No. 1 of the Final Plat and Develop-
ment Plan of the Callahan Subdivision ("Plat").
A. Fee simple title to Lots No. 13 and 13-A will
be conveyed in undivided interests to the condominium
owners, subject to existing easements and road and
utility easements contemplated by the Plat and
additional utility easements as may be required. Lots
No. 13 and 13-A will be used for condominium units.
B. Lot No. 13-B shall be conveyed in fee simple
to a corporation to be organized by the purchaser of
such property from the owner or by such purchaser's
assignee. Such corporation is hereinafter referred to as
"Holding Corporation". The Holding Corporation shall grant
to all condominium and homesite owners a non-exclusive
easement for the recreational use of Lot 13-B so long as
such lot is not hereafter authorized for improvement or
commercial use by P.U.D. amendment or other appropriate
governmental approval and shall grant such easements
as are necessary for the roads and utilities reflected
on the Plat.
C. Lot No. 14 will be owned in fee simple title
by the Holding Corporation or another corporation con-
trolled by or under common control with the Holding
-2-
0
BOOK 39.2 ► n 1.12
Corporation or its or their assignees. The Benedict
residence situated on this lot will be converted to
a clubhouse. The owners of condominium and homesites will
be granted an irrevocable non-exclusive license for passage
by foot only, throughout those portions of Lot 14 on which
there are no improvements currently or hereafter existing.
D. Lots No. 14-A and 15 will be conveyed in fee
simple title to the Holding Corporation or a corporation
controlled by or under common control with the Holding
Corporation or its or their assignees. Lot 14-A will
contain parking facilities for use of the clubhouse and
recreational facilities contained in the Plat, and Lot
15 will contain recreational facilities.
E. Lots No. 1 through 10 shall be conveyed in
fee simple title to the purchasers of these ten home -
sites. Lot No. 10 is designated as a duplex for occupancy
by two families; the other lots are for single-family
homes.
lot.
F. Lot No. 11 is designated as a single-family
G. Lots 12 and 12-A are collectively designated as a
single-family lot. Lot 12-A is the guesthouse for
Lot 12.
H. Lot No. 16 is designated as an existing office
building for such uses as have heretofore been approved
by the City of Aspen.
I. All roads as reflected on the Plat and the
rights of way on which such roads are to be constructed
shall be owned by the Holding Corporation or a corporation
controlled by or under common control with the Holding
-3-
0
BOOK 312 hACd..13
Corporation or its or their assignees, and such corpor-
ation shall grant an irrevocable non-exclusive license
to the owners of the condominiums and homesites for
their use. The owner shall retain a non-exclusive
cost-free easement on Crystal Lake Road for access,
ingress, and egress to and from Lots 11, 12 and 12-A.
Ownership of those lots is being retained by the owner.
J. Easements for utility improvements and rights
of way shall be granted to the Public Utilities as
shown on the Plat.
K. Maintenance of the property and structures in-
cluded within the Plat shall be the responsibility of
the owners of the fee simple title to such property
and improvements; provided, however, when hereunder
any easement is granted with respect to any such land
or improvement, the cost of maintenance shall be borne
by all grantees of such easements.
L. The City shall provide up to a maximum of 0.65 cfs.
of water as needed from the Nellie Bird Ditch as hereinafter
set forth in Paragraph 8(e)(1) for the maintenance of a
water level not lower than the lowest water level in
Crystal Lake as shown on Page 3 of the Plat. The Holding
Corporation or a corporation controlled by or under common
control with the Holding Corporation or its or their assignees,
shall make provision for supplying such water to Crystal Lake
in order to insure its use for recreational activity.
2. Subject to the conditions contained in this paragraph,
the subdivider shall provide for the estimated costs for construc-
tion of all common improvements which include construction of
roads, utilities, drainage improvements, landscaping, moving
and paving if required by subdivider (the recreational
trail), as described in the agreement between Pitkin County
and Benedicts and irrigation ditch crossings through
the subdivision as shown on the Plat and supplemental
engineering plans. Also included shall be street lighting
-4-
•
800K X2 PAu 114
sufficient to illuminate subdivision roads and traffic signs to
comply with City regulations. The installation of those improve-
ments shall commence in the spring of the year in which construction
on Lots 13, 13A or 15 is to commence hereunder, or any homesites
are sold, whichever event occurs sooner, and shall be constructed
with due diligence thereafter until completed. In order to
secure the performance of the construction and installation of
the improvements herein agreed to by the subdivider and the
City, and to guarantee one hundred (100%) percent of the current
estimated cost of the improvements agreed by the City Engineer to
be $ 271,000.00 the subdivider shall guarantee through a
conventional lender, or by sight draft or letter of commitment
from a financially responsible lender (irrevocable until the
construction is completed) that funds of the estimated costs of
construction are held by it for the account of the subdivider for
the construction and installation of improvements hereinabove
described. In the event, however, that any portion of the improve-
ments have not been installed according to the conditions contained
herein, then, and in that event, the City may have such remaining
work and improvements completed by such means and in such manner,
by contract with or without public letting, or otherwise, as it may
deem advisable, and the lender agrees to reimburse the City out
of the funds held by it for the account of the subdivider for
the City's costs incurred in completing said work and improve-
ments; provided, however, in no event shall the lender be
obligated to pay the City more than the aggregate estimated
sum for these improvements, less those amounts previously paid
and approved by the City,by reason of default of the subdivider
in the performance of the terms, conditions, and covenants con-
tained in this paragraph 2. However, the City waives no right
to claim full compliance with the improvements required in ex-
cess of the estimated costs. From time to time as work to be
performed and improvements to be constructed herein progress,
the subdivider may request that the office of City Engineer
inspect such % ork and improvements as are completed and may
submit to City the costs of such completed work and improvements.
-5-
•
BOOM2 PAGE IM
When the City Engineer is satisfied that such work and improve-
ments as are required by the subdivider to be completed in fact,
have been completed in accordance with the terms hereof, the
City Engineer will submit to the lender its statement that it
has no objection to the release by the Guarantor of so much
of the above -specified funds as is necessary to pay the costs
of work performed and improvements installed pursuant to the
terms of this Agreement, except that ten (10%) percent of the
estimated cost shall be withheld by the lender until all pro-
posed improvements are completed and approved by the City
Engineer. Subdivider shall prepare and be responsible for the
preparation of engineering plans, specifications, and construction
drawings for all improvements included in Paragraph 2 above. These
plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City Engineer
and shall be approved prior to the commencement of any construction
by the Subdivider. Subdivider shall also be responsible for pro-
viding all necessary engineering and/or surveying services in con-
junction with the construction of said improvements. The City
Engineering Department shall be notified prior to the commencement
of construction so that the work may be inspected during construction.
3. Site Data Tabulation (see Exhibit "A" attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference.)
4. The subdivider agrees to line the Riverside Ditch
for the full length of Lots 8 and 9 with a rubberized material to
prevent seepage onto Lots 8 and 9. If the subdivider finds that
use of the rubberized material is not feasible, a feasible alternative
lining shall be used, provided the subdivider shall use best efforts
to find an alternative to concrete lining.
5. The subdivider agrees, for himself and his successors
and assigns, that he will not authorize any vehicular traffic to
enter the area of the condominium units or recreational facilities
ME
0 -
BOOK 312 iuE 116
of the Callahan Subdivision from Ute Avenue unless such vehicles
are for the purpose of construction, providing services to or deal-
ing with emergencies of the Callahan Subdivision. Furthermore,
neither the subdivider nor his successor or assigns shall pro-
vide for any parking spaces along the border of Ute Avenue
within any portion of the Callahan Subdivision. The prohibition
contained in this paragraph shall not apply to the parking lot
which presently exists on Lot 16 nor to any expansion thereof.
6. The subdivider agrees to relocate at subdivider's
expense a portion of the recreational trail which will be moved
to a location approximately as shown on the plat. Such relocation
shall be done as follows: By June 15 of the year in which
construction is to commence on Lots 13, 13A or 15, subdivider
shall cause such trail to be roughed in place. The easement
to that trail shall be granted to the City and shall be restricted
to the following uses: pedestrian, equestrian, bicycling, and
cross-country skiing. No motor vehicle of any kind shall ever
be allowed to use the trail, excepting only such vehicles as are
absolutely necessary at the initial construction and subsequent
maintenance and repair of the trail.
7. The subdivider agrees not to pave any of the roads in
the subdivision until at least six months after all utilities are
in place.
8. It is acknowledged by the owner that certain land areas
included within or adjacent to the subdivided land have
previously been used for agricultural uses or as meadow lands and
have been irrigated by waters owned by the owner and carried in the
Nellie Bird Ditch. The City of Aspen has established a policy of
acquisition of those water rights beneficially used by annexed and
subdivided lands at the time of annexation and subdivision approval,
when the proposed development will be serviced by the City owned
water utility:
a. So as to avoid the establishment of competitive
water utilities.
b. To insure that all water used for domestic
purposes meets minimum sanitary and health standards.
-7-
0 0
BOOM2 PAGE J.17
c. To prevent the abandonment of water rights by
discontinuation of their beneficial use.
d. To provide for the acquisition of more senior
rights to guarantee water service to Aspen area users
in time of low supply.
e. To reduce the costs of condemnation for acqui-
sition of water rights in the future. Therefore, it is
agreed as a condition of subdivision approval.
1. That upon recording of the final plat of the
Callahan Subdivision the owner will convey to the City
of Aspen, without further consideration, 0.65 cfs. of
the Nellie Bird Ditch, Priority 3136 (Source: Roaring
Fork River; adjudicated August 25, 1936), which cor-
responds to the ratio of the subdivided lands to all
lands irrigated by this water right. In the event
use of part of such water granted to the City shall
become necessary to retain the lowest level of Crystal
Lake (as described in Paragraph 1L of this Agreement)
the City of Aspen agrees to make available so much of
the water right necessary to maintain the lowest water
level; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be
construed to require the City to supply ditches; rights
of way, pumps, or other -facilities necessary to transfer
water to Crystal Lake.
2. That owner hereby grants to the City of
Aspen a right of first refusal on the balance of the
water right described in subparagraph (1) in the event
such water right is offered for sale independently of
a sale of the lands irrigated by said right. To the
extent permitted by law this right of first refusal
shall be deemed a covenant running with said irrigated
lands, and bind the owner, his heirs, assigns and
BOOK312 tur 1.18
successors in interest.
3. That the owner does further agree to negotiate
in good faith with the City of Aspen for the grant to
the City (or its nominee) for a nominal fee of a
revocable license to make beneficial use (as allowed
by law) of part or all of the water right described
in subparagraph (1) retained by owner, without jeop-
ardizing owner's interest in said decreed water
right.
8.1 It is further acknowledged that owner owns a high priority
right on Hunter Creek, namely, the Red Mountain Ditch, Priority No.
90 (Source: Hunter Creek, adjudicated May 11, 1899; headgate trans-
ferred to Huston Ditch by decree recorded in Book 252, Page 575,
records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Reocrder) hereinafter called
Hunter Creek water right, the acquisition of which is also of in-
terest to the City of Aspen. Owner agrees, as a further condition
of this subdivision approval and with reference to said right:
a. That Owner hereby grants to the City of Aspen a right
of first refusal on the Hunter Creek water right in the event
such right is offered for sale independently of a sale
of the lands irrigated by said water right; and to the
extent allowed by law, this right of first refusal shall
be deemed a covenant on the lands so irrigated, and bind
the owner, his heirs, assigns, and successors in interest.
b. To negotiate with the City of Aspen in good faith
for the acquisition of this right to facilitate the con-
struction of a package filter plant on Hunter Creek. Ne-
gotiations will be deemed to be proceeding in good faith
when the City seeks such right only for construction of
said package plant and owner attempts to achieve only
(i) domestic water service for potential homesites on
his lands above Hunter Creek and below the Red Mountain Road
WE
• 0
BOOKK2 PACES 19
(on the Red Mountain side), (ii) provision for the future
irrigation of owner's meadow lands below the Huston
Ditch and above Hunter Creek, and (iii) a total consider-
ation on the sale of the water right which is equivalent
to its fair market value, with proper credit and allowance
being given for the fair market value of any exchanges,
concessions, promises, undertakings or other consideration
received pursuant to (i) and (ii).
9. In satisfaction of the dedication fee required to be
paid to the City under Section 20-18 of the City of Aspen Muni-
cipal Code for the purposes set forth therein, the subdivider
agrees that upon recording of the final plat of the Callahan
Subdivision, that he shall make a cash payment to the City in
the amount of $90,000.00.
10. Notwithstanding anything contained herein or referred
to the contrary, the owner and the subdivider, in developing the
property contained within the Plat and the improvements as herein
described, shall fully comply with the applicable rules, regulations,
standards and laws of the City and other governmental agencies and
bodies having jurisdiction.
11. The City agrees that since the townhouse -condominiums
as designed do not exceed two and one-half stories in height, and
the total height of each unit is constant, that a vertical envelope
be created around each unit module allowing a maximum of two and
one-half feet above elevation shown on the PUD building plans to
accommodate possible grade elevation variations. The intent of
this Agreement is to provide the best possible relationship between
buildings, between buildings and tops of carports, as well as the
best utilization of existing terrain within the development zone.
Prior to application for the building permit, the permit applicant will submit
a ground survey, showing final building layout and floor elevations, -
noting any variations in the contour.
-10-
0
0
BOOK U2 PAGE 120
12. Subdivider agrees to pay the City in addition to its
dedication fee the sum of $250.00 which represents the agreed
upon costs for the City to tap into the sewer line in Ute
Children's Park. The $250.00 shall be due and payable upon the
granting of the easement across Ute Children's Park and Ute
Cemetery for sewer lines by the City.
13. Subdivider agrees to provide at his expense shuttle
bus services consisting of van -type vehicles for the recreation
facilities and the clubhouse of the.Callahan Subdivision upon
the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. The expenses of
the acquisition, maintenance and operation of such vehicles shall
be borne by the subdivider, and such service may be supplied by
the purchase of appropriate vehicles, the leasing thereof, or
any other available means which shall be adequate.
The subdivider agrees to provide such vehicles in a
number sufficient to serve the need therefor based upon year around
operation between the Callahan Subdivision clubhouse and recreation
facilities and downtown Aspen, provided, however, that such vehicles
shall not number less than one. The term of this service shall
be until the earlier of the following occurs:
1.
Such
van service shall no
longer be needed;
or
2.
Until
the transportation
services provided
by
this Agreement are fulfilled by other public or private
means.
3. Until the expiration of five years from the
date hereof.
14. Upon execution of this Agreement by the parties hereto
and provided all other conditions as herein contained have been
met by the owner and the subdivider, the City agrees to execute
the Plat of the Callahan Subdivision and accept the same for
recordation in the Recording Office of Pitkin County, Colorado,
upon payment of the recordation fees and costs to the City by
-11-
subdivider.
15. Failure of the subdivider to pay dedication fee
or to provide the requisite guaranty for roads and utilities
and other improvements prescribed hereunder, shall carry only
the sanction of prohibition of recording the subdivision plat
and final development plan herein. If the foregoing sanction
is imposed by the City upon the subdivider, it shall release
the owner of all obligations under Paragraphs 8 and 8.2 hereof.
16. The subdivider agrees to furnish City with an as -built
survey description for sewer, water and trail easements.
17. The subdivider agrees to allow the City to install a
water line in Ute Avenue at the time subdivider constructs his
eight -inch line greater in size than that eight -inch line, provided,
however, that the City shall pay for the extra cost above the cost
of installing an eight -inch line.
18. The stages for the development of the subdivision
improvements shall be according to Exhibit B attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference.
19. At such time as and to the extent Goldsamt has assigned
any of his rights hereunder or under any agreement with owner and
such assignee has assumed any obligation hereunder, Goldsamt shall
have no further obligation for such assumed obligation.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their
h�nc1sF a�O..:seals the day and year first above written.
•\`
J TrJ� T•i -- CITY OF N, orado
�'a• = Munic'pa or rfon
By ,
City1'rl K' ayor
"u��,,,�� `•
ATTEST:
�fY',: Secreta
-k 1l [ r
c,
L`l .• .��.! r� S
BENEDICT LAND & CATTLE COMPANY, Owner
a n_ _a_ _.t
?��� - Pres�id2nt
abienne genedict, 0 ner
Robert Goldsamt, Subdivider
BOOK 312 iud&
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
The for oing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of. t�' , 1976, by Stacy Standley, Mayor of
the City of Aspen, A Colorado municipal corporation.
Witness my hand and %J 'al seal
r'T I' l l My commission expires:
�r,'Commission expires .January 24, 1978
''--,................
STATE OF COLORADO )
7Al
1
(/V1611X41
Notary
Public
ss. / f 1
County of Pitkin ) �( / ��l�(a�B��� ems'
The foregoing instrument was nowledged before me this
day of om%/�:�� ' , 1976, by/
Aea� of BenedTict tancV & Cattle Company, a Colorado corporation.
Witness my hand and official seal
My commission expire
try Commission expires January 24, 1978
STATE OF COLORADO )
s:
) ss. 2V
County of Pitkin )
Notary
Public
1 /djd J�04e
Tte oregoing instrument wa acknowledged before me this
day of , 1976, by Fredric A. Benedict and
Fabienne Benediqt.
Witness my.hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
1M , Commission expires January 24, 1978
i'
-13-
Notary
Public
• 0
BOOK312 i AGL 123
STATE OF COLORADO
ss.
County of Pitkin )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
this ��_day of Apr-!-V, j97 6 , by And-rew--V-. Hec=h•t-; Attorney-
ilt-Facet--der- Robert S. Goldsamt.
Witness my hand and official seal.
., �Q' �n
My Commission expires. '.
My Commission expires Nov. 14, 1,8i,!5= '•
1
• Nota y Publ-'
-14-
FOUND./5 REBAR MARKED /
-"LS 9184" 26.65 'WITNESS CORNEP,
G
R0pR1N FORK RJVE.
FOUND 05 REBAR MARKED - "- S00°14'00"W 140.00'
"LS 9184" 8.52' WTNESS CORTR
10F'
-_
' PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT - -
. 1 REC. NO. 425356
20 10 0 20 40 ` /00 YEAR FLOODPLAIA( —
4 (ZONE AE)
SCALE:-1"=20' -- _
t,>aqLqu cal _
EM ELECTRIC METER
ET ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER �.
MH. MANHOLE
TP . . TELEPHONE PEDESTAL _ �p _ _$01 56'E 34 20"•, �.
x ..FENCE LINE
OF AS
PHALT
S ALT
DGE PH
-. �P r �' = `�~��•`a�.`� 2/{y Sys �\
BENCHMARK
NO. 5 REBAR WITH YELLOW
PLASTIC CAP ES 9184 AT THE
EASTMOST CORNER OF LOT 12A,
CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION
NAVD 88 ELEV. = 8030.08 4
\ NGVD 29 ELEV. = ±8024.77
\ CEO _j BUILDING ENVELOPE
} I
l
POO—
L �. fps .'�� O'~ • rf/ � ,./' / /• '`,-� -----'- (�j, -
. f
/ . t
Jam.
/
,f
t
r f
ffflll IP
r' -
,
MAR,
: e
__ - ,, i -_.. �•, - S000I4'00"W 231.75'
oW EASEMENT NO, 2 / -
L=50.24'
R-375 00
�=07°40'33°
CR=N85°Oa'33"E
5020'
Q MH�
kCEP. ND. 421520 �} /� I oq�: ! 4 /� } / / / `� �`'•.` ti .c, \ k + /
� 'I t� 1 � ." ri I I1 1 1 � r � , � `.`" . , . p5 rf t I• `tl jl� �
5 ROCK
i
Yj i.. r; ! � �. �y�PY� �ROC�: dff /• /� '-.._.. _.___ - .r / / - � _. .. �� 1 j
f,-
1 ET ✓ ' • �r r
iEcld FENCE
1.%
- SFT /5 REBAR W/ I
N00°14'00"E 457 24'
ALUM CAP MARKED "EB -
/
^SIT 05 REBAP W/ 1-1/2'
ALUM. CAP MARKED "0.6.
& CO. PLS 27936"
O
O
0
0
OD
Z /
t
PLS 27936'
, ;. l .i f �. ..- t _ 1 I -SET #g REBAR W/ 1-1/2"
, ✓ 1 _ f' y. _ ALUM- CAP MARKED °D.B.
0' DRIVEWAY EASEMENT 1. J I ` �` a & CO. PLS 27936"
PER PLAT. ',FOUND BRATS CA � 1 i I
�,, 1 •; /0 MARKED "COT N0. I•� - - A
`� �'• :.. _<1 0 � � -' ` - _. _. _ - 1 MS '3905 MARKED AS
-
1.05
9
•, r r , / .. MOOR I cOR /A I
1954
Aw
PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: SURVEYOR: SCOtT A. PULLING
r I. THE RESERVATIONS AND MINERAL EXCEPTIONS AS CONTAINED IN UNITED y 4840 PEARL EAST CIRCLE, SUITE 114
STATES PATENT RECORDED JUNE 17, 1949 IN BOOK 175 AT PAGE 246. BOULDER, COLORADO 80301-2475
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (303) 442-4338
2. THE EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS AS SHOWN ON THE PLATS OF CALLAHAN
SUBIVISION RECORDED MAY 19 1976 IN PLAT BOOK 5 AT PAGE 7 AND AS LOT 12 CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION ACCORDING TO THE MAP
AMENDED BY PLAT RECORDED AUGUST 17, 1977 IN PLAT BOOK 6 AT PAGE 16 AND
ANNEXATION PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 13 AT PAGE 91.
3. THE TERMS, CONDITIONS, OBLIGATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS AS SET FORTH IN
THE SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RECORDED
MAY 19, 1976 IN BOOK 312 AT PAGE 110, AND AS MODIFIED BY NOTICE RECORDED
APRIL 29, 1977 IN BOOK 328 AT PAGE 79.
4. THE PERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN
RECIPROCAL EASEMENT GRANT RECORDED MAY 19, 1976 IN BOOK 312 AT PACE
196.
5. THE TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN
DECLARATION OF HIEGHT RESTICTION RECORDED OCTOBER 15, 1982 IN BOOK 434
AT PAGE 68.
6. THE TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN
DRIVEWAY EASEMENT AGREEMENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 3, 1998 AS
RECEPTION NO. 421520.
7. THE TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN
RESOLUTION OF AMENDMENT TO THE PROTECTIVE COVENANTS FOR
STILLWATER RANCH RECORDED DECEMBER 10, 1998 AT RECEPTION NO. 425355.
8. THE TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN
RECIPROCAL PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT AGREEMENT RECORDED DECEMBER 10,
1998 AS RECEPTION NO. 425356.
THEREOF RECORDED MAY 19. 1976 IN PLAT BOOK 5 AT
PAGE 7, AND AMENDED PLAT THEREOF RECORDED
AUGUST 17, 1977 IN PLAT BOOK 6 AT PAGE 16.
NOTE
I. BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOT
12, CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION AS BEARING N67°31'04"E.
2. RECORDED EASEMENTS, RIGHTS -OF -WAY AND LEGAL
DESCRIPTION ARE SHOWN AS FOUND IN TITLE COMMITMENT
PREPARED BY PITKIN COUNT TITLE COMMITMENT NO. PCT 14118
3. FOUND 15 REBAR AT ALL BUILDING ENVELOPE CORNERS.
CERTIFIED TO: MARIE-FABIENNE BENEDICT GORDON
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE CO
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT WAS
MADE UNDER MY DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY, SUPERVISION, AND
CHECKING ON THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2000, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 38-51-102(9), ET SEQ.,
C.R.S., AS AMENDED; THAT THE REAL PROPERTY SURVEYED IS
LOCATED IN THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO,
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS SHOWN ON THE ACCOMPANYING
MAP; THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF: THIS
MAP OR PLAT OF THE SURVEY CORRECTLY AND ACCURATELY SHOWS
THE BOUNDARY LINES, PROPERTY LINES, AND THE LOCATIONS OF
THE IMPROVEMENTS, IF ANY; AND THAT THE LOCATIONS AND
DIMENSIONS OF .ALL BOUNDARIES, LOT LINES, PROPERTY LINES,
BUILDINGS, IMPROVEMENTS, EASEMENTS, STREETS, AND RIGHTS -OF -
WAY IN EVIDENCE OR KNOWN TO ME AND ENCROACHMENTS BY OR ON
THE PREMISES ARE ACCURATELY SHOWN. Wit,.
Ix
'SCOTT, A. PULLIRt—
COLORADO REGISTERED PRIO
LAND SURVEYOR NO. 27936
AntEKr 2-
IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT OF LOT 12,
CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION, LOCATED IN
THE EI/2 OF SECTION 18, TIOS, R84W
OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF PITKIN,
STATE OF COLORADO
FOR: AARON AND BARBARA FLECK
IN ACCORDANCE WITH CRS 13- 80-105;
LJ^TS°E. ACCORDING TO COLO@ADO LAW YOU MUST rUMMTNCE ANY I.E6AL ACTION BASED
UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THPEE YEARS AFTER 'Y,-II FIRST DISCOVCP MUCH
DEFECT. 44 NO EVENT, MAY ANY AITON BASED UFfNJ AtdY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY Pf
COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YCAPS FRtiM rHE LATE OF THE CV.RTIFICATION SHOWN Hr P!f
Drexel, Barrel] 11� CO. Engineers/Surveyors
484° PEARL EAST CIRCI,C: SUITE 114 DOULVER. COLORADO 80301 (3W� 442- <,Vg
8385 CORPORATE DRIVE CQWRADO SPRINGS. COLORADO 80R19 (7t9' 28O-0"-,
9111 54TH AVENUE. SUITE 210 GR=LT.Y, COLORADO 606M (Wfo) 364--0645
RSvlsion9 - Date Date I;r�wn By .N:t, No.
— -- -- 4/IB/00 IDS 5847
Py D,;wing tJo
---- -------. ......_- I" o ^O. SAP ,
t
>6 i
r
20 10 0 20 40
SCALE: 1"=20'
lFG N
- EM
,ELECTRIC METER
ET
ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
MH.
MANHOLE
TT'
- TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
'._—x --
. FENCE LINE
EDGE OF ASPHALT
BENCHMARK
NO. 5 REBAR WITH YELLOW
PLASTIC CAP LS 9134 AT THE
EASTMOST CORNER OF LOT 12A,
CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION
NAVD 88 ELEV. = 8030.08
NGVD 29 ELEV. = ±8024.77
i
y
f'
MA'n t. 'L ii -' - _ 4�"'.�. SIRS
MAk L-°
FOUND #5 REBAR MARKED /
"1-5 9184" 26.65 'WITNESS CORNER
RIVER
RIND FOR'( ✓
r01.1ND k5 REBAR MARKED ROA '� S00014'00"W 140.00'
"LS 9134".8.52' WITNESS CORNER --�
TOP 6047\RIVE I PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT-
REC. NO. 425356
/00 Y4AR FLOODPLA/N --�I
_ — (ZONE AE)
3 `
58 E 34 20'
4,4
r
,r
BUILDING ENVELOPE 1
r
NOI°56'W 75.50
r
, � F
y
'
SO Iry 21
'-•CASLMCriI NO. 2
j 1 �" t
IRECEP. NO. 421520 --4 �'/ f -
L=50.24'
H=NL °D4'33"E G: 1 �ROCK
j
5020'
f1
V7Y
}
1 ,r�
( / f—FENCE
/'5 REBAR W/
(r/ x
ALUM. r MARKED J.B. T i. _.- ..
& co. P 36 , '` J N000 141 00n E 457.24
20 DRIVEWAY EASEMFNT
PER PLAT � ". 1 � -•,... ("l f, �-�'y---.-..,T
'� /� ,` t FOUND BRASS CAP
MARKED "COP NO. I
1 MS 3905" MARKED AS>>
(
SH0Wli. PgTRA( - \
,
J /t
PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING.
r
r..
I. THE RESERVATIONS AND MINERAL EXCEPTIONS AS CONTAINED IN UNITED
STATES PATENT RECORDED JUNE 17, 1949 IN BOOK'175 AT PAGE 246.
2. THE EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS AS SHOWN ON THE PLATS OF CALLAHAN LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SUBIViSION RECORDED MAY 19, 1976 IN PLAT BOOK 5 AT PAGE 7, AND AS
AMENDED BY PLAT RECORDED AUGUST 17, 1977 IN PLAT BOOK 6 AT PAGE 16 AND
ANNEXATION PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 13 AT PAGE 91.
3. THE TERMS, CONDITIONS, OBLIGATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS AS SET FORTH IN
THE SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RECORDED
MAY 19, 1976 IN BOOK 312 AT PAGE 110, AND AS MODIFIED BY NOTICE RECORDED
APRIL 29, 1977 IN BOOK 328 .AT PAGE 79.
4. THE TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN
RECIPROCAL EASEMENT GRANT RECORDED MAY 19, 1976 IN BOOK 312 AT PAGE
196.
5. THE TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN
DECLARATION OF HIEGHT RESTICTION RECORDED OCTOBER 15, 1982 IN BOOK 434
AT PAGE 68.
6, THE TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN
DRIVEWAY EASEMENT AGREEMENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 3, 1998 AS
RECEPTION NO. 421520.
7. THE TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN
RESOLUTION OF AMENDMENT TO THE PROTECTIVE COVENANTS FOR
STILLWATER RANCH RECORDED DECEMBER 10, 1998 AT RECEPTION NO. 425355.
8. THE TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN
RECIPROCAL PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT AGREEMENT RECORDED pECEMBER 10,
1998 AS RECEPTION NO. 425356.
LOT 12, CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE MAP
THEREOF RECORDED MAY 19, 1976 IN PLAT BOOK 5 AT
PAGE 7, AND AMENDED PLAT THEREOF RECORDED
AUGUST 17, 1977 IN PLAT BOOK 6 AT PAGE 16.
NOTES
I. BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOT
12, CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION AS BEARING N67.31'04"E.
2. RECORDED EASEMENTS, RIGHTS —OF —WAY AND LEGAL
DESCRIPTION ARE SHOWN AS FOUND tN TITLE COMMITMENT
PREPARED BY PITKIN COUNT TITLE COMMITMENT NO. PCT 14118
3. FOUND #5 REBAR AT ALL BUILDING ENVELOPE CORNERS.
SET #5 REBAE W/ I
t ALUM_ CAP MARKED 7.H
& CO. PLS 2,7936"
f
r/
t
\- SET #5 REBAR W/ I•-r/2"
ALUM. CAP MARKED "D.B.
&. CO. PLS 27946^
t
I
0
SURVEYOR: SCOTT A. PULLING
4840 PEARL EAST CIRCLE, SUITE 114
BOULDER, COLORADO 80304-2475
(303) 442-4338
CERTIFIED TO: MARIE—FABIENNE BENEDICT GORDON
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE CO.
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT WAS
MADE UNDER MY DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY, SUPERVISION, AND
CHECKING ON THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2000. IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 38-51-102(9), ET SEQ.,
C.R.S., AS AMENDED; THAT THE REAL PROPERTY SURVEYED IS
LOCATED IN THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO,
MORE- PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS SHOWN ON THE ACCOMPANYING
MAP; THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF: THIS
MAP OR PLAT OF THE SURVEY CORRECTLY AND ACCURATELY SHOWS
THE BOUNDARY LINES, PROPERTY LINES, AND THE LOCATIONS OF
THE IMPROVEMENTS, IF ANY; AND THAT THE LOCATIONS AND
DIMENSIONS OF ALL BOUNDARIES, LOT LINES, PROPERTY LINES,
IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT OF LOT 12,
CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION, LOCATED IN
THE EI/2 OF SECTION 18, TIOS, R84W
OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF PITKIN,
STATE OF COLORADO
FOR: AARON AND BARBARA FLECK
BUILDINGS, IMPROVEMENTS, EASEMENTS, STREETS, AND RIGHTS —OF— IN ACCORDANCE WITH CPS 13-8D-loe.;
L4'PV: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MQ� COMMENCE ANY IC AL ACTION BA$Ef� WAY IN EVIDENCE OR KNOWN TO ME AND ENCROACHMENTS BY OR ON
UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURvE° W",THIN THPEE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST [A,>C:OV£P S-:,;
THE PREMISES ARE ACCURATELY SHOWN. DEFECT, IN NO EVENT. MAY ANY Aril, N FASED 11FON A),, DEFECT IN THIS `;LTRVEY BE
o�p00 Rf�/sl COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FR6M THE DATE OF THE CERTIFICATION SI;OWN H[Pc
Drexel, Parl'ell r}' Co. Engineers,ajrvr".y,rm
s
• cIt r 4840 PCARL EAST CIRCI.T.'SUITE 114 MULD81%. COU)RADO 80301 (902) 44? 4'#.8
O /T\ 8385 CORPORATE fl(tfYR COIpPANJ ^%ONO@, (pLOHALO 8f019 1711p; 780-0"
` H10 04TN AYEN,r, SUtTP. 210 ,REALTY. 1WWTADO 00884 (,x"0) 3w 064`.
COTT A. ULLI Revielons -Date 1Da!e +7 fr 8y 1 J;1, No.
COLORADO REGISTERED PR ESSIONAL °''F' ',)S 5847
J_
LAND SURVEYOR NO, 27936 i `-- m f "l k, d By Cr a
—_ - - SAP 74- 69