The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.ex.Doremus 600 610 & 612 W Francis St.A089-00 r", CASE NUMBER PARCEL ID # CASE NAME PROJECT ADDRESS PLANNER CASE TYPE OWNER/APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION ADMIN ACTION BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED BY A089-00 2735-124-09008 Doremus/Silverman Lot Split 600,610, and 612 W. Francis Fred Jarman Lot Split Jack Silverman Mitch Haas 10/23/00 Ord. #49-2000 Approved 1/3/01 J. Lindt .-'" ~. r". , ~. ~ DEVELOPMENT ORDER of the City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter "Order", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights", of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order allows development of a site specific development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein. The effective date of this Order shall also be the initiation date of a three-year vested property right. The vested property right shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After Expiration of vested property rights, this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding any growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date of this Order. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site specific development plan as described below. Jack Silverman. 612 W. Francis. Aspen, CO 81611 Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number Lots P & Q, Block 21. City and ToWnsite Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property Lot Split Approval Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan Ordinance #49-2000, 10/23/00 Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) November 4, 2000 Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) November 5. 2003 Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.) Issued this 4th day of November, 2000, by the City of Aspen Community D lopment Director. . I.,_..''!' .~. ~ PUBLIC NOTICE Of DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to the Land Use Code of the . City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: Lots P & Q, Block 21, City and Townsite of Aspen, by ordinance of the City Council numbered 49, series of 2000. For further information contact Julie Arm Woods, at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Dept. 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, Colorado (970) 920-5090. s/City of Aspen Account Publish in The Aspen Times on November 4, 2000 r". TO: THRU: FROM: RE: DATE: October 23, 2000 View from W. Francis St. showing the front of the single-family residence on Lot P and existing gravel parking in the right-of-way. ,~ MEMORANDUM APPLICANT: Jack Silverman and The Doremus Family Limited Partnership, LLLP REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas LOCATION: Lots P, Q, R, and S, Block 21, City and Townsite of Aspen ZONING: R-6 (Medium Density Residential) View from Fifth 51. showing the front of the single- family residence on Lots R and S. LOT SIZE: Lot P is 3,000 sq. ft. and Lots Q, R, and S are 9,000 sq. ft. CURRENT LAND USE: Lot P contains a single-family residence. Lots Q, R, and S contain two single-family residences. SUMMARY: The applicants wish to absolve certain lot lines and reestablish new lines via a Subdivision Exemption Lot Split creating two 6,000 sq. ft. Lots. ~ .1'""'\ REVIEW PROCEDURE: The division of land into two (2) or more lots, tracts or parcels is by definition a subdivision. As a result, the proposed division of the co-applicants' property into two (2) separate single-family lots is subject to the City's review and approval. Lot splits are exempt from the full subdivision review pursuant to Section 26.480.030(A)(2) of the Regulations (See below). [26.480.030 Subdivision Exemption Lot Split - The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977 pursuant to Section 26. 480. 030(A)(2). The existing original lot does not need to be developed in order to be eligible for this exemption. Once split, the development or redevelopment, as applicable, of the resulting lots shall be subject to the provisions of Section 26.470.070(B). This exemption is deducted from the respective annual development allotment established pursuant to Section 26.470.040 or from the Aspen Metro Area development ceilings established pursuant to Section 26.470.030. Review is by City Counci1.j STAFF COMMENTS: The applicants, Jack Silverman. and the Doremus Family Limited Partnership, LLLP, represented by Mitch Haas, request a subdivision exemption lot split for Lots P, Q, R, and S, Block 21, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. Jack Silverman, owner of Lot P (3000 sq. ft.), wishes to purchase adjacent Lot Q (3,000 sq. ft.) from the neighboring property. The neighbor, Doremus Family Limited Partnership, LLLP, owns adjacent Lots Q, R, and S totaling 9,000 sq. ft. In order to do this, Staff considered several options. A Lot Line Adjustment approach was discussed but determined to be inappropriate as this application is not 1) a "correction" to an engineering or surveying plat, 2) an insubstantial boundary change, and 3) is not primarily used for the conveyance of large parcels of land. The resulting and most appropriate method to achieve this end was a subdivision lot split. This lot split effectively eliminates the existing boundaries between Lot P and Lots Q- S while simultaneously splitting the undivided land into two equal size parcels of 6,000 square feet each. The result will be the co-applicants each owning a 6,000 square foot lot: Lots P and Q for Mr. Silverman, and Lots R and S for the Doremus Family Limited Partnership, LLLP. The R-6 zone district requires a maximum of one dwelling unit or duplex per 6,000 square foot lot. Lot P contains an existing dwelling unit, as does Lot Q. Combining these properties would result in two dwelling units on a 6,000 square foot lot. Because the existing home on Lot Q would render the resulting Lot P and Q non-conforming with regard to allowable density on a 6,000 square foot R-6 lot, the co-applicants have agreed to demolish the existing house on Lot Q within 180 days of approval by City Council. Additionally, the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Officer, Amy Guthrie, ~. ;.-.. visited the site and determined that the residence on Lot Q is of no historical significance; she is not opposed to its demolition. (Photos of this residence are attached in Exhibit C.) At first reading of Ordinance #49 on October 10th, Council questioned the potential historical value / background of the existing residence located at the rear of Lot Q. which is proposed to be demolished. Further, Council directed Staff to further investigate the significance, if any, of this structure. It was determined that the house has the following history according to building files and Sandbom Maps: ~ Kenny Moore was the first owner; ~ The 1893 Sandbom Map shows this lot contains a different house on the front of the lot and has a different footprint indicating that the house was not simply moved to the rear of the lot. Additionally, the lot contained three little outbuildings at the rear of the lot; ~ In 1968, the one bedroom house was remodeled; ~ In 1969, the house was repaired with maintenance consisting ofreplacing the wood floor with a concrete slab and reinforcing walls and roof to make the building safe; ~ In 1972, an accessory building was remodeled into a single-family dwelling; ~ On 9/17/1986, the house was not on the inventory and recently considered again and found to be a "non-contributing" structure; and ~ In 1998, the house was re-roofed. Staff maintains that this house, proposed for demolition as part of this application for a subdivision exemption lot split, is a non-contributing structure as a result of its major modifications over the years as indicated above. Since there are currently two lots and the lot split will not result in any additional lots there are no implications existing with regard to the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) provisions. Further, the applicant and owner of the existing Lots Q-S (Doremus Family Limited Partnership, LLLP) understands that one existing development right will be lost since the ability to construct two residences on the .existing 9,000 square foot lot will be lost once it becomes a 6,000 square foot lot. It should be noted, that. the co-applicants initially requested to formally apply for vested right status in order to preserve the land use approvals. There are no specific submission requirements, or review criteria other than a public hearing, required to confer such status. Upon a successful land use decision, vested rights status shall be established automatically with the issuance of a development order pursuant to Section 26.304.070 of the Aspen Land Use Code. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Silverman / Doremus Subdivision Exemption Lot Split with the following conditions: ~. ~. 1. That the co-applicants agree to demolish the existing house on Lot Q within 180 days of approval by City Council after recordation of the plat; 2. That the applicants remove the "No Parking" sign located on West Francis Street side of the subject properties; 3. At present, there are parking and fencing encroachments into the public rights-of- way on West Francis Street, 5th Street, and the Alley for Block 21. The applicant must either 1) remove the encroachments or 2) obtain a Temporary Revocable Encroachment License from the City Engineering Department allowing these encroachments to exist prior to the recording of the final phit; 4. That all demolition of the existing building needs to occur from the alley side of the lot. In addition, the applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during demolition; 5. If, in the future, the applicants wish to remove trees located along the property line, approval from the City Parks Department based upon the tree removal permit process is required; 6. That the neighboring owners both must end the use of the parking area on West Francis Street. This is to alleviate the potential damage to the existing street trees. The applicants shall replace the gravel area with natural landscaping as required by the Parks Department; 7. That the applicant shall submit and record a subdivision plat which meets the terms of chapter 26.480, and conforms to the requirements of the Land Use Code, in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals; 8. That the applicant shall record the subdivision exemption agreement in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the agreement within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause; and 9. That the applicant agrees that this subdivision exemption lot split resulting in two 6,000 square foot lots contains a maximum potential build out not to exceed two (2) principal dwelling units. This lot split effectively eliminates a development right for Lots Q, R, and S. 10. Any future development on the newly created lots shall be required to mitigate for their impact pursuant to Chapter 26.470 Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) as required; ~. .r'\ RECOMMENDED MOTION: "r move to approve Ordinance No. 49, Series 2000 of the City of Aspen City Council approving an application by Jack Silverman and the Doremus Family Limited Partnership, LLLP for a Subdivision Exempt Lot Split for Lots P, Q, R, and S, Block 21, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado." ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A -- REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS EXHIBIT B -- SITE LOCATION MAP EXHIBIT C -- SITE PHOTOS EXHIBIT D -- ORDINANCE # 49, SERIES 2000 ~ ~ EXHIBIT A SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION LOT SPLIT SECTION 26.480.030(A)(2) Under the provisions of the Municipal Code, the division of land into two (2) or more lots, tracts or parcels is by definition a subdivision. As a result, the proposed division of the co-applicants' property into two (2) separate single-family lots is subject to the City's review and approval. Lot splits are exempt from the full subdivision review pursuant to Section 26.480.030(A)(2) of the Regulations. The specific review criteria for a "lot split" exemption and Stafr s responses with regard to the proposal's compliance are included below. a. The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969. Staff Finding Staff finds that the two properties consist of Lots P, Q, R, and S of Block 21 in the original Aspen Townsite. These properties are not located within a previously approved subdivision, and the lots predate the City's adoption of subdivision regulations. Staff fmds that this criterion is met. b. No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for a./fordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(c) [this citation is incorrect and should actually refer to Section 26.470.070(B)J. Staff Finding This proposal is intended to vacate and reestablish adjoining boundary lines between two existing lots. The two resulting lots will contain 6,000 square feet each and conform with the dimensional requirements of the underlying R-6 zone district. The minimum lot size in the R-6 zone district is 6,000 square feet. Staff finds that because the applicant will demolish the existing one-story single-family dwelling on Lot Q, the Lot P and Q merger will not result in a non-conforming lot with respect to allowable density on a 6,000 square foot R-6 lot. Additionally, the demolition of the Lot Q residence will also eliminate a structure that is non-conforming regarding its current encroachments into the side and rear setbacks, encroachment into Lot R, and encroachment into the alley right-of-way. Currently, there are two lots and the lot split will not result in any additional lots; as a result, the proposal does not involve any GMQS implications. In the future, should the house on Lots P and Q or the house on Lots R and S be demolished for replacement, the construction of such a replacement will be subject to the terms and provisions of Section ~ ~. 26.470.070(B). Said provisions require either construction of an ADU, payment of an affordable housing impact fee, or placement of a resident occupancy deed restriction on the replacement home. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c. The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.470.040(C)(1)(a) [this citation is incorrect and should actually refer to Section 26.470.070(/)J. Staff Finding These lots in question (Lots P, Q, R, and S of Block 21, City and Townsite of Aspen) have not been the subject of any prior subdivision exemption applications or approvals, and they have never received a prior "lot split" GMQS exemption. Prior to the existing two story sin.gle-family residence on Lot P, a single-story panabode, owned by Jack Silverman, was moved from Lot P to Eagle County in April of 1996. Prior to this, Mrs. Eugene Wright Armstrong, then owner of Lot P, received a building permit in. 1961 to construct the pan abode (Type V Frame) on Lot P. A further check of Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. records indicate that the property was in separate ownership prior to June, 1956 and vested in Mrs. Eugene Wright Armstrong. Records indicate the property and house were then sold to John P.Stanford. In 1984, adjacent property owners included: Lot 0: Bridgit Starri 624 West Francis, Aspen, Co LotQ: Ms. Vivian Jones P. O. Box 317, Aspen, Co It is Staffs understanding that Lot P (encompassing 3,000 sq. ft.) existed as one lot as far back as 1961 when Mrs. Eugene Wright Armstrong built a pan abode on the property and was not the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter. Staff finds this criterion to be met. d. A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this Chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Staff Finding The co-applicants have agreed that the resulting subdivision plat will be reviewed by the Planning and Engineering Departments for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land use approval. The plat will include a prohibition against further subdivision and a requirement that additional development comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code. Staff finds this criterion to be met. . ~ 1'""'\ e. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. Staff Finding Staff finds that the co-applicants understand this requirement and shall comply with this criterion language indicating that the subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder and failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. Staff finds this criterion to be met. j. In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. Staff Finding This application represents a case where three existing single-family dwellings occupy the site and none of the dwellings have yet to be demolished. As indicated above, the existing home on Lot Q would render the resulting Lots P and Q non-conforming with regard to allowable density on a 6,000 sq. ft. R-6 lot. The co-applicants have agreed to demolish the existing house on Lot Q within 180 days of approval by City Council. As compared with the existing conditions, the demolition will result in less site coverage and more open space on the properties. The existing structure on Lots R and S and the house on Lot P will both remain in their current locations at this time. Staff finds this criterion to be met. g. Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home. Staff Finding Staff finds that the maximum buildout for the proposed lot split shall be two (2) single- family homes; neither of the resulting lot areas will be large enough to accommodate a duplex while still meeting the minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirement in the R-6 zone district. Specifically, the two lots created will each be 6,000 square feet while the R- 6 zone district maintains a minimum lot area of 9,000 square feet for a duplex. The end result for allowable aggregate density on Lots P~S will decrease by one dwelling unit (from 3 units to 2 units). The co-applicants are aware that they are losing a development right by proceeding with this lot split. Staff finds this criterion to be met. ,~ N W+E A B .- , EXHIBIT B SITE VICINITY MAP .~ Proposed configuration for Lots P, Q, R, and S of Block 21. Arrow "A" points to Lots P and Q to be owned by Jack Silverman and, while arrow "B" points to Lots R, and S to be owned by The Doremus Family Limited Partnership, LLLP 1""\ North view of Lot Q showing walkway from West Francis Street to the house to be demolished. Rear view of house from the alley on Lot Q to be demolished. ~ EXHIBIT C SITE PHOTOS Front view of house on Lot Q to be demolished. Rear view of Jack Silverman's house on Lot P from . the alley showing a two-car garage. TO: THRU: FROM: RE: DATE: '>" ,"-'. "vt..,. MEMORANDUM Mayor and City Council Steve Barwick, City Manager cr Julie Arm Woods, Community Development Director ; Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director . Fred Jarman, Planner ~. Silverman / Doremus Lot Split - First Reading October 10, 2000 View from W. Francis St. showing the front of the single-family residence on Lot P and existing gravel parking in the right-of-way. View from Fifth St. showing the front of the single- family residence on Lots R and S. ApPLICANT: Jack Silverman and The Doremus Family Limited Partnership, LLLP LOT SIZE: Lot P is 3,000 sq. ft. and Lots Q, R, and S are 9,000 sq. ft. REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas CURRENT LAND USE: Lot P contains a single-family residence. Lots Q, R, and S contain two single-family residences. LOCATION: Lots P, Q, R, and S, Block 21, City and Townsite of Aspen SUMMARY: The applicants wish to absolve certain lot lines and reestablish new lines via a Subdivision Exemption Lot Split creating two 6,000 sq. ft. Lots. ZONING: R-6 (Medium Density Residential) //l.j.v','~'7 ~ 4i1hd<.V1 /I~ I' 6/4-'" (.rQ r-., '-', REVIEW PROCEDURE: The division of land into two (2) or more lots, tracts or parcels is by definition a subdivision. As a result, the proposed division of the co-applicants' property into two (2) separate single-family lots is subject to the City's review and approval. Lot splits are exempt from the full subdivision review pursuant to Section 26.480.030(A)(2) of the Regulations (See below). [26.480.030 Subdivision Exemption Lot Split - The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of One detached single-family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977 pursuant to Section 26.480.030(A)(2). The existing original lot does not need to be developed in order to be eligible for this exemption. Once split, the development or redevelopment, as applicable, of the resulting lots shall be subject to the provisions of Section 26. 470. 070(B). This exemption is deducted from the respective annual development allotment established pursuant to Section 26.470.040 or from the Aspen Metro Area development ceilings established pursuant to Section 26.470.030. Review is by City Council.] STAFF COMMENTS: The applicants, Jack Silverman and the Doremus Family Limited Partnership, LLLP, represented by Mitch Haas, request 1) a subdivision exemption lot split, and 2) vested property rights status for Lots P, Q, R, and S, Block 21, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. Jack Silverman, owner of Lot P (3000 sq. ft.), wishes to purchase adjacent Lot Q (3,000 sq. ft.) from the neighboring property. The neighbor, Doremus Family Limited Partnership, LLLP, owns adjacent Lots Q, R, and S totaling 9,000 sq. ft. In order to do this, Staff considered several options. A Lot Line Adjustment approach was discussed but determined to be inappropriate as this application is not a "correction" to an engineering or surveying plat, an insubstantial boundary change, and is not primarily used for the conveyance of large parcels of land. The resulting and most appropriate method to achieve this end was a subdivision lot split. This lot split effectively eliminates the existing boundaries between Lot P and Lots Q- S while simultaneously splitting the undivided land into two equal size parcels of 6,000 square feet each. The result will be the co-applicants each owning a 6,000 square foot lot: Lots P and Q for Mr. Silverman, and Lots R and S for the Doremus Family Limited Partnership, LLLP. The R-6 zone district requires a maximum of one dwelling unit or duplex per 6,000 square foot lot. Lot P contains an existing dwelling unit, as does Lot Q. Combining these properties would result in two dwelling units on a 6,000 square foot lot. Because the existing home on Lot Q would render the resulting Lot P and Q non-conforming with regard to allowable density on a 6,000 square foot R-6 lot, the co-applicants have agreed to demolish the existing house on Lot Q within 180 days of approval by City ~ ~. Council, or within an appropriate, specified period after recordation of the plat -__ whichever is deemed more appropriate. Additionally, the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Officer, Amy Guthrie, visited the site and determined that the residence on Lot Q is of no historical significance; she is not opposed to its demolition. Since there are currently two lots and the lot split will not result in any additional lots there are no implications existing with regard to the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) provisions. Further, the applicant and owner of the existing Lots Q-S (Doremus Family Limited Partnership, LLLP) understands that one existing development right will be lost since the ability to construct two residences on the existing 9,000 square foot lot will be lost once it becomes a 6,000 square foot lot. It should be noted, that the co-applicants initially requested to formally apply for vested right status in order to preserve the land use approvals. There are no specific submission requirements, or review criteria other than a public hearing, required to confer such status. Upon a successful land use decision, vested rights status shall be established automatically with the issuance of a development order pursuant to Section 26.304.070. of the Aspen Land Use Code. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Silverman I Doremus Subdivision Exemption Lot Split with the following conditions: 1. That the co-applicants agree to demolish the existing house on Lot Q within 180 days of approval by City Council after recordation of the plat; 2. That the applicants remove the "No Parking" sign located on West Francis Street side of the subject properties; 3. At present, there are parking and fencing encroachments into the public rights-of- way on West Francis Street, 5th Street, and the Alley for Block 21. A must be obtained for these encroachments. The applicant must either 1) remove the encroachments or 2) obtain a Temporary Revocable Encroachment License from the City Engineering Department allowing these encroachments to exist prior to the application of a building permit; 4. That all demolition of the existing building needs to occur from the alley side of the lot. In addition, the applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during demolition. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction; 5. If, in the future, the applicants wish to remove trees located along the property line, approval from the City Parks Department based upon the tree removal permit process is required; ~ ~ 6. That the neighboring owners both must end the use of the parking area on West Francis Street. This is to alleviate the potential damage to the existing trees. The applicants shall replace the gravel area with natural landscaping as required by the Parks Department; 7. That the applicant shall submit and record a subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this Chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.470; 8. That the applicant shall record the subdivision exemption agreement and plat in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause; and 9. That the applicant agrees that this subdivision exemption lot split resulting in two 6,000 square foot lots contains a maximum potential buildout not exceed three (3) units in total, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home pursuant to Section 26.480.030(A)(2)(g). This lot split effectively eliminates a development right for Lots Q, R, and S. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "1 move to approve Ordinance No. f9 . Series 2000 of the City of Aspen City Council approving an application by Jack Silverman and the Doremus Family Limited Partnership, LLLP for a Subdivision Exempt Lot Split for Lots P, Q, R, and S, Block 21, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado with the conditions set forth in the draft resolution." ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A -- REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS EXHIBIT B -- SITE LOCATION MAP EXHIBIT C -- SITE PHOTOS EXHIBIT D -- ORDINANCE # fJ-, SERIES 2000 ~ ~ EXHIBIT A SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION LOT SPLIT SECTION 26.480.030(A)(2) Under the provisions of the Municipal Code, the division ofland into two (2) or more lots, tracts or parcels is by definition a subdivision. As a result, the proposed division of the co-applicants' property into two (2) separate single-family lots is subject to the City's review and approval. Lot splits are exempt from the full subdivision review pursuant to Section 26.480.030(A)(2) of the Regulations. The specific review criteria for a "lot split" exemption and Staff's responses with regard to the proposal's compliance are included below. a. The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24,1969. Staff Finding Staff finds that the two properties consist of Lots P, Q, R, and S of Block 21 in the original Aspen Townsite. These properties are not located within a previously approved subdivision, and the lots predate the City's adoption of subdivision regulations. Staff finds that this criterion is met. b. No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(c) [this citation is incorrect and should actually refer to Section 26.470.070(B)J. Staff Finding This proposal is intended to vacate and relocate adjoining boundary lines between two existing lots. The two resulting lots will contain 6,000 square feet each and conform with the dimensional requirements of the underlying R-6 zone district. The minimum lot size in the R-6 zone district is 6,000 square feet. Staff finds that because the applicant will demolish the existing one-story single-family dwelling on Lot Q, the Lot P and Q merger will not result in a non-conforming lot with respect to allowable density on a 6,000 square foot R-6 lot. Additionally, the demolition of the Lot Q residence will also eliminate a structure that is non-conforming regarding its current encroachments into the side and rear setbacks, encroachment into Lot R, and encroachment into the alley right-of-way. Currently, there are two lots and the lot split will not result in any additional lots; as a result, the proposal does not involve any GMQS implications. In the future, should the house on Lots P and Q or the house on Lots R and S be demolished for replacement, the construction of such a replacement will be subject to the terms and provisions of Section r-. ~ 26.470.070(B). Said provisions require either construction of an ADU, payment of an affordable housing impact fee, or placement of a resident occupancy deed restriction on the replacement home. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c. The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.470.040(C)(1)(a) [this citation is incorrect and should actually refer to Section 26.470.070(/)J. Staff Finding These lots in question (Lots P, Q, R, and S of Block 21, City and Townsite of Aspen) have not been the subject of any prior subdivision exemption applications or approvals, and they have never received a prior "lot split" GMQS exemption. Prior to the existing two story single-family residence on Lot P, a single-story panabode, owned by Jack Silverrp.an, was moved from Lot P to Eagle County in April of 1996. Prior to this, Mrs. Eugene Wright Armstrong, then owner of Lot P, received a building permit in 1961 to construct the pan abode (Type V Frame) on Lot P. A further check of Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. records indicate that the property was in separate ownership prior to June, 1956 and vested in Mrs. Eugene Wright Armstrong. Records indicate the property and house were then sold to John P. Stanford. In 1984, adjacent property owners included: Lot 0: Bridgit Starri 624 West Francis, Aspen, Co LotQ: Ms. Vivian Jones P. O. Box 317, Aspen, Co It is Staffs understanding that Lot P (encompassing 3,000 sq. ft.) existed as one lot as far back as 1961 when Mrs. Eugene Wright Armstrong built a pan abode on the property and was not the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter. Staff finds this criterion to be met. d. A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision 1/UIy be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this Chapter and growth management allocation pur$uant to Chapter 26.470. Staff Finding The co-applicants have agreed that the resulting subdivision plat will be reviewed by the Planning and Engineering Departments for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land use approval. The plat will include a prohibition against further subdivision and a requirement that additional development comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code. Staff finds this criterion to be met. ("", 1"'"'\ e. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. Staff Finding Staff finds that the co-applicants understand this requirement and shall comply with this criterion language indicating that the subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder and failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. Staff finds this criterion to be met. f. In the case where an existing single-famity dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. Staff Finding This application represents a case where three existing single-family dwellings occupy the site and none of the dwellings have yet to be demolished. As indicated above, the existing home on Lot Q would render the resulting Lots P and Q non-conforming with regard to allowable density on a 6,000 sq. ft. R-6 lot. The co-applicants have agreed to demolish the existing house on Lot Q within 180 days of approval by City Council. As compared with the existing conditions, the demolition will result in less site coverage and more open space on the properties. The existing structure on Lots R and S and the house on Lot P will both remain in their current locations at this time. Staff fillds this criterion to be met. g. Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-famity home. Staff Finding Staff finds that the maximum buildout for the proposed lot split shall be two (2) single- family homes; neither of the resulting lot areas will be large enough to accommodate a duplex while still meeting the minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirement in the R-6 zone district. Specifically, the two lots created will each be 6,000 square feet while the R- 6 zone district maintains a minimum lot area of 9,000 square feet for a duplex. The end result for allowable aggregate density on Lots P-S will decrease by one dwelling unit (from 3 units to 2 units). The co-applicants are aware that they are losing a development right by proceeding with this lot split. Staff finds this criterion to be met. r-. B .~ EXHIBIT B SITE VICINITY MAP ~ Proposed configuration for Lots P, Q, R, and S of Block 21. Arrow "A" points to Lots P and Q to be owned by Jack Silverman and, while arrow "B" points to Lots R, and S to be owned by The Doremus Family Limited Partnership, LLLP ~. North view of Lot Q showing walkway from West Francis Street to the house to be demolished. Rear view of house from the alley on Lot Q to be demolished. 1'""'\ EXHIBIT C SITE PHOTOS Front view of house on Lot Q to be demolished. Rear view of Jack Silverman's house on Lot P from the alley showing a two-car garage. ~ ,~. MEMORANDUM To: Fred Jarman, Planner From: Ben Ludlow, Project Engineer ~ Reference DRC Case load Coordinator . Date: August 21, 2000 Re: Doremus I Silverman Lot Split Subdivision Exemption The Development Review Committee has reviewed the Doremus I Silveman Lot Split Subdivision Exemption application at their August 9, 2000 meeting and has compiled the following comments: General 1. Sufficiency of Submittal: DRC comments are based on the fact that we believe that the submitted site plan is conceptually accurate, that it shows all site features, and that it is feasible. The wording must be carried forward exactly as written unless prior consent is received from the Engineering Department. 2. R.O.W. Impacts: Currently there is parking encroachments into the public right- of-way, the encrOachment must either be removed or it is subject to current encroachment license requirements. , Site Review 3. Fire Protection District -Information - As of the request of the Fire Protection District revisions need to be made as follows: a. NONE 4. Transportation and Parking - Requirement - The following requirement was given by the Parking Department: a. The area currently used as head in Parking along West Francis St. is in the Public Right of Way. This area can no longer be used as Parking under this review as a condition of approval from the Parking Department. 5. Building Department - Information - The following information has been provided by the Building Department: a. NONE 1"""\ ,.-, Page 2 of 4 August 15,2000 Doremus / Silverman Lot Split Subdivision Exemption 6. Parking - Requirement - The following requirement has been provided by the Parking Department: a. No parking will be allowed adjacent to both properties along West Francis St. as it is currently configured with head in parking on the Public Right of Way. b. All no parking signs must be removed. 7. Engineering Department- Requirement- The following requirements have been provided by the Engineering Department: a. A Temporary Revocable Encroachment License must be obtained for the fence that encroaches into the Public Right Of Way on West Francis Street, 5th Street, and the Alley for Block 21. This license will make the fence legal for its position in the Public Right of Way and can be revoked at any time by the City Engineering Department. 8. Streets Department - Requirement- As of the request of the Streets Department revisions need to be made as follows: a. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during demolition. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. 9. Housing Office - Information - The following information has been provided by the Housing Office: a. NONE 10. Community Development -Information - The following information has been provided by the Community Development Office: a. The area currently used as head in Parking needs to be removed and the land needs to be returned to its natural vegetation. 11. Emergency Management Disaster Coordinator - Requirement - The following requirement has been provided by the Pitkin County Disaster Coordinator: a. NONE 12. Parks - Requirement- The following comments have been produced by the Parks Department: a. All demolition of the existing building needs to occur from the alley side of the lot. b. The lot split creates a joint ownership of two trees that will now be located on the properly line. If these trees are ever proposed to be removed by either property owner, a tree removal permit will require approval from both owners prior to submission of a tree removal permit. r-... .~ Page 3 of 4 August 15,2000 Doremus I Silverman Lot Split Subdivision Exemption c. As a condition of approval from the Parks Department for the lot split, the neighboring owners both must end the use of the Parking area on West Francis Street. This is to alleviate the potential damage to the existing trees and it will be necessary to replace the gravel area with natural landscaping. 14. Utilities: A utility plan was not submitted with the application. For the utility departments to properly comment, a utility plan must be submitted Water: City Water Department - Requirement - As a request of the City of Aspen Water Department, revisions need to be made as follows: a. The existing house on Lot R will need to abandon the existing tap at the main with a witness of the Water Department before demolition. Wastewater: Aspen Consolidated Waste District - Information - As a request of the Consolidated Waste District, revisions need to be made as follows: a. NONE Construction: Work in the Public Right of Way Requirement - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights-of-way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows: Approvals 1. Engineering: The applicant receives approval from the City Engineering Department (920-5080) for design of improvements, including grading, drainage, transportationlstreets, landscaping, and encroachments within public right of way. 2. Parks: The applicant receives approval from the Parks Department (920- 5120) for vegetation species and for public trail disturbance. 3. Streets: The applicant receives approval from the Streets department (920-5130) for mailboxes, finished pavement, surface materials on streets, and alleyways. 4. Permits: Obtain R.O.W. permits for any work or development, involving street cuts and landscaping from the Engineering Department - t ' ~ Page 4 of 4 August 15,2000 Doremus I Silverman Lot Split Subdivision Exemption DRC Attendees Staff: Nick Adeh Ben Ludlow Denis Murray Fred Jarman Rich Ryan Becca Schickling Tom Bracewell Cindy Mohal Applicant's Representative: Mitch Haas ... ... - DOREMUSjSIL YERMAN APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION !"" ,.. .... Submitted by: ... - Mr. Jack Silverman 612 West Francis Street Aspen, CO 81611 ,.. And .... """ The Doremus Family Limited Partnership, LLLP 85 Glen Garry Drive Aspen, CO 81611 ... ... ... Prepared by: - HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC Planning Consultants 201 North Mill Street, Suite 108 Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925-7819 fax: (970) 925-7395 mhaas@gateway.net - ... ... - ,... - ... PROJECT CONSULTANTS -- PLANNER - - Mitch Haas, AICP Haas Land Planning, LLC 201 North Mill Street, Suite 108 Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925-7819 ... - SURVEYOR ,... David W. McBride, R.L.S. #16129 Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. 210 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925-3816 ... I'"' - LEGAL - Arthur C. Daily, Esq. Holland & Hart, LLP 600 East Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925-3476 - - - - - ... - , ... ..... DOREMUSjSIL VERMAN LOT SPLIT TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE - I. INTRODUCTION............. ........... ...... .... ........ ......... ......... ...... ..... ...1 - II. SUBJECT SITE & NEIGHBORHOOD (Existing Conditions).....................2 ... m. THE PROPOSAL............. ............. ........ .......... ......... ................. .....4 N. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS.............. ....................................... .... .....6 ... A. Section 26.480.030(A)(2), Subdivision Exemption For A Lot Split....6 - B. Section 26.480.050, Subdivision Review Standards.... .......... ....... ...9 C. Section 26.308, Vested Property Rights......................................12 ... EXHIBITS f'-o Exhibit #1: Pre-Application Conference Summary ,... Exhibit #2: Land Use Application Form ... Exhibit #3: Attachment 2, Dimensional Requirements Form Exhibit #4: Proof of Ownership For Each Property ... Exhibit #5: Letter of authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC, to represent the co-applicants! owners ,-- Exhibit #6: List of Property Owners Within a 300 Foot Radius - Exhibit #7: Executed Fee Agreement - ... - fiiIliiill - ... I. INTRODUCTION ... ... This application requests approval of a subdivision exemption for a lot split. The subject properties are legally described as Lots P, Q R, and S, Block 21, City and Townsite of Aspen. Mr. Jack Silverman owns Lot P and the single- family residence located thereon. Lot P is commonly known as 612 West Francis Street. The Doremus Family Limited Partnership, LLLP, owns Lots Q R, and S, which include two detached single-family residences; one on Lots Rand S, and the other on Lot Q. Lot Q is commonly known as 610 West Francis Street and Lots Rand S, together, are addressed as 600 West Francis Street. Mr. Silverman intends to purchase Lot Q from the Doremus Family Limited Partnership, LLLP, and the two parties have entered into a contract to do so; however, the contract . is contingent upon, among other things, approval of a lot split application and recordation of a plat pursuant thereto. ,... ,'" ~ - Lots P-S, Block 21, City and Townsite of Aspen are in the Medium- Density Residential (R-6) zone district, and are located on the north side of West Francis Street between North Fifth Street and North Sixth Street. Each townsite parcel (Le., P, Q, R, and S) has an area of 3,000 square feet. The Doremus Family Limited Partnership therefore owns a 9,000 square foot lot (with two homes on it), and Mr. Silverman owns the adjacent 3,000 square foot lot. They are applying together, as co-applicants, to dissolve the existing boundary between their parcels and simultaneously split the undivided land into two equal size parcels of 6,000 square feet each. The result will be the co-applicants each owning a 6,000 square foot lot; Lots P and Q for Mr. Silverman, and Lots Rand S for the Doremus Family Limited Partnership, LLLP. ... - ,... ... ... A pre-application conference was held with Fred Jarman and Chris Bendon of the Aspen Community Development Department on May 19, 2000 (see Pre-Application Conference Summary, Exhibit 1). In this conference, the potential of accomplishing the co-applicants' goal through the lot line adjustment provisions and procedures was discussed, but Mr. Bendon and Mr. Jarman concurred in feeling that such an approach would be inappropriate. They explained that the lot line adjustment provisions are meant to correct engineering/surveying errors, or to complete insubstantial boundary changes, but are not intended for facilitating the conveyance of substantial parcels of land. It is recognized that Lot Split applications are typically used to create two lots where only one previously existed; however, the lot split provisions represent the most appropriate standards and procedures available to accomplish the goals of these co-applicants. - - - .... ... Doremus/Silverman Lot Split Application Page I ... - - ;riiIill This application is submitted by Haas Land Planning, LLC, on behalf of the Doremus Family Limited Partnership, LLLP, and Jack Silverman (hereinafter "co-applicants"), pursuant to Sections 26.480.030(A)(2), 26.480.040(B), 26.480.050, 26.710.040, and 26.308 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. ,.. ... Since there are currently two lots and the lot split will not result in any additional lots, it is believed that no GMQS implications exist and, thus, an exemption pursuant to Section 26.470.070(1) is not necessary. Further, one existing development right will be effectively eliminated since the ability to . . construct two residences on the existing 9,000 square foot lot will be lost once it becomes a 6,000 square foot lot. It is also requested that vested property rights status be granted along with the land use approval. Section 26.480.040(B), Procedures for Review, explains that subdivision exemptions are a one-step review requiring a duly noticed public hearing before the City Council. 1"" - - The co-applicants are the owners of the subject properties (see proof of ownership, Exhibit 4). Permission for Haas Land Planning, LLC, to represent the co-applicants is attached as Exhibit 5. A list of property owners located within' three-hundred feet of the property and an executed application fee agreement are attached as Exhibits 6 and 7, respectively. - ..... This application is divided into four sections. Section I provides a brief introduction to the application, while Section II describes the existing conditions of the subject site and neighborhood. Section III outlines the co-applicants' proposal, and Section IV addresses the proposal's compliance with the applicable review criteria of the Land Use Regulations. For the reviewer's convenience, all pertinent supporting documents relating to the project (i.e., proof of ownership, etc.) are provided in the various exhibits at the rear of the . application. ,... - - .... While the co-applicants have attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Regulations, and to provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of the application, questions may arise which require additional information and/ or clarification. The co~applicants' representative will provide such additional information as may be required in the course of the review. - II. SUBJECT SITE & NEIGHBORHOOD (EXISTING CONDITIONS) - - The subject properties are legally described as Lots P, Q R, and S, Block 21, City and Townsite of Aspen. They are in the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district, and are located on the north side of West Francis Street between North Fifth and Sixth Streets. - , Doremus/Silverman Lot Split Application Page 2 - - ,... - ,.... SITE ,.., ... A - ... B - ,... c I SIIvIIrKlqDr 2R.d 3SpdaaSt 4 eau.woadt.. , AjaA..e .""'... 7Mlple:t.Il IMIclludParkPl 9M~lA 10 s-gIer~o. 11Atllnlcn=Ct It RlvcnideAoe 13 OakAve 14 MidlIDlSA. 1'~Ct - o - . '1/2 f- . '12 ! KILOMETER E E . ,... - V1C\NITY MAP ... ,... ~ - - ... "'" - One of the co-applicants (Mr. Silverman) currently owns Lot P and the single-family residence located thereon. The other co-applicant (The Doremus Family Limited Partnership, LLLP) owns Lots Q, R, and S, which include two . detached single-family residences: one on Lots Rand S, and the other on Lot Q. Each townsite parcel (i.e., P, Q, R, and S) has an area of 3,000 square feet. The Doremus Family Limited Partnership therefore owns a 9,000 square foot lot, and Mr. Silverman owns the adjacent 3,000 square foot lot. All existing conditions and improvements are accurately depicted on the accompanying Existing Conditions Survey, and described below. - - - - Lot P (612 West Francis Street) is improved with a 2 to 2Y2 story, bluish- gray, stucco house. The house is rectangular in shape (19.75' wide x 74.75' long), has vaulted spaces, and the first floor (on the West Francis frontage) is sunken below natural grade, at" garden leveL" Along the alley, the house is two stories tall with a two car garage at ground level. There is also head-in parking for approximately three vehicles on the gravel area directly in front of the house, off West Francis Street. No actual yard areas exist on the sides or rear of the house, but there is a garden level patio at the front. A walkway is located between the east side of the house and the bench-height stone and masonry wall separating Lots P and Q. A concrete patio at the northeast corner of the property encroaches onto Lot Q. - ,... - ... Lot Q (610 West Francis Street) is improved with a small, one story house located along the alley frontage. In fact, the house encroaches 1.4 feet (2.4 feet with the roof overhang) into the alley right-of-way and 1.6 feet (2.7 feet with the roof overhang) into Lot R. It resides less than 2 feet from adjoining Lot P. The house contains a nonconforming wood burning fireplace and its substructure is infested with skunks. From the alley, it is apparent that the structure includes a shed-roofed addition as well as two doors and a window that do not appear to be original to the structure. There is no garage, but there is head-in parking for two cars in the gravel area located in the West Francis Street right-of-way. The wood deck attached to the front of the house extends approximately 2 feet into Lot R. A bench-height stone and masonry wall straddles the property line between Lots P and Q. A walkway which extends into the West Francis Street right-of-way leads to the wood deck and, in turn, front door of the house. ,... - - - - The pan abode house on Lots Rand S (600 West Francis Street) is oriented in a northeast-southwest direction, facing the corner of West Francis and North Fifth Streets. The house has a footprint of roughly 2,085 square feet in a predominantly rectilinear form, plus an approximately 60 square foot shed attached to its West Francis Street frontage. While the house does not have a garage, an approximately 9 foot wide concrete driveway enters the property ,.,.. .... Doremus/Silverman Lot Split Application Page 3 - - ,... - . diagonally from North Fifth Street, as does a similarly oriented walkway to the front porch. What amounts to the side and rear yards of the house, based on its orientation, are fenced in and there is a wood deck extending from the central portion of the rear of the house. The fencing does not follow the lot lines as it encroaches some 7 feet into the West Francis Street right-of-way, 6 feet into the North Fifth Street right-of-way, 1 foot into the alley right-of-way, and falls 1 to 5 feet shy of the boundary between Lots Q and R. - - - The subject properties are located in the West End neighborhood, which contains a highly eclectic mix of architectural styles, house sizes, and building orientations. The subject block alone contains a multitude of architectural styles ranging from pan abodes to typical 1970's suburban houses, and from mountain chalets to modernistic designs. The block contains very new homes (some still under construction), homes of average age, and fairly old homes. The structures on the block range in height from 1 story to 2Yz stories. Almost all of the houses on both sides of the block take vehic1l1ar access from West Francis Street (not the alley), with head-in parking along the north side of the street and parallel parking along the south side. Both sides of West Francis Street contain a mature . mix of large coniferous and deciduous trees. The houses on the corner lots tend to orient toward the cross streets (4th and 5th Streets). - - - - The alley running behind the subject lots is not paved. The ultra-modern, Peter Gluck designed house resides directly across the alley from the house on Lot P. There is a rustic, old mining shack across the alley from the small Lot Q house. The house located on the south side of West Francis Street, across from and in contrast to the pan abode on Lots Rand S, is of new construction with two stories and highly manicured landscaping. The house across the street from Lot Q is of fairly modern design, and is 2Yz stories tall with vaulted ceilings and a main entrance located upstairs from the garden level (above street level); its front yard is dominated by a semi-circular driveway. The brick house across the street from Lot P has, for lack of a better description, a typical one-story, 1970's suburban design. Next door, to the west of Lot P, there are two semi-attached (via carport) twin chalet houses of two stories each. - - - jlIiiIol - III. THE PROPOSAL: - The proposal involves a subdivision exemption for a lot split. It is also requested that vested property rights status be granted along with the lot split approval. The purpose of the lot split is to eliminate the existing boundary between Lot P and Lots Q-S while simultaneously splitting the undivided land into two equal size parcels of 6,000 square feet each. The result will be the co- - - Doremus/Silverman Lot Split Application Page 4 - - - - applicants each owning a 6,000 square foot lot: Lots P and Q for Mr. Silverman, and Lots Rand S for the Doremus Family Limited Partnership, LLLP. - Mr. Silverman intends to purchase Lot Q from the Doremus Family Limited Partnership, LLLP, and the two parties have entered into a contract to do so; however, the contract is contingent upon, among other things, approval of a lot split application and recordation of a plat pursuant thereto. It is Mr. Silverman's goal to increase the size of his yard/garden area while gaining a modest amount of additional floor area for flexibility with regard to potential future use. For instance, Mr. Silverman is seriously considering the development of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) but has neither the lot area or floor area to do so on his existing Lot P; with the addition of Lot Q, he will be able to build a detached ADU along the alley. His increased floor area potential will be counterbalanced by an equal amount of lost FAR (840 square feet) from existing Lots Q-S. ,... ,.. - - .... The R-6 zone district allows a maximum of one dwelling unit on a 6,000 square foot lot. Lot P has a dwelling unit, as does Lot Q. Combining these properties would result in two dwelling units on a 6,000 square foot lot. Because the existing home on Lot Q would render the resulting Lot P and Q non- conforming with regard to allowable density on a 6,000 square foot R-6 lot, the co-applicants herein agree to demolish the existing house on Lot Q within 180 days of approval by City Council, or within an appropriate, specified period after recordation of the plat --- whichever is deemed more appropriate. This way the resulting 6,000 square foot lot (P and Q) would have just one dwelling unit as opposed to two and would, therefore, comply with the zoning regulations. ... - ... - Demolition of the Lot Q residence will also eliminate the many ways in which that structure is and/ or would be non-conforming ~i.e., side and rear yard setbacks, encroachment into Lot R, and encroachment into the alley right-of- way). The demolition is further desirable as it will eliminate a nonconforming wood-burning fireplace and address a persistent skunk infestation problem. Aspen Historic Preservation Planner, Amy Guthrie, has visited the site and determined that the residence on Lot Q is of no historical significance; she is not opposed to its demolition. As compared with the existing conditions, the demolition will result in less site coverage and more open space on the properties. - - I'"" - Since there are currently two lots and the lot split will not result in any additional lots, it is believed that no implications exist with regard to the GMQS provisions. In fact, one existing development right will be effectively eliminated since the ability to construct two residences on the existing 9,000 square foot lot - Doremus/Silverman Lot Split Application Page 5 ,... ... - - will be lost once it becomes a 6,000 square foot lot. That is, even though existing Lot Q-S allows for the development of a duplex or two detached residences, neither resulting lot will be large enough to support a duplex or two detached homes while meeting the R-6 dimensional requirements (i.e., minimum lot size per dwelling unit). Notwithstanding the current lack of GMQS implications, should the house on Lots P and Q or on Lots Rand S ever be demolished for replacement, they will be subject to the terms and provisions of Section 26.470.070(B). Said provisions require either construction of an ADU, payment of an affordable housing impact fee, or placement of a resident occupancy deed . restriction on the replacement home. ... - ... IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS: ... Section 26.480.030(A)(2), Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split ... Under the provisions of the Municipal Code, the division of land into two (2) or more lots, tracts or parcels is by definition a subdivision. As a result, the proposed division of the co-applicants' property into two (2) separate single- family lots is subject to the City's review and approval. Lot splits are exempt from the full subdivision review pursuant to Section 26.480.030(A)(2) of the Regulations. The specific review criteria for a "lot split" exemption and the co- applicants' responses with regard to the proposal's compliance therewith are summarized below. Each criterion is provided in indented and italicized text with a response immediately following. - ... - ... a. The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969. ... As the legal description indicates, the property consists of Lots P, Q, R, and S of Block 21 in the original Aspen Townsite. The property is not located within a previously approved subdivision, and the lots predate the City's adoption of subdivision regulations. ... ... b. No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(c) [this citation is incorrect and should actuaJly refer to Section 26.470.070(B)]. - ... As explained in the Section III of this application, the proposal calls for relocating the adjoining boundary between two existing lots. The two resulting lots will contain 6,000 square feet each and conform with the dimensional - Doremus/Silverman Lot Split Application Page 6 ... .... .... .... requirements of the underlying R-6 zone district. The minimum lot size in the R- 6 zone district is 6,000 square feet. .... Because the existing home on Lot Q would render the resulting Lot P and Q non-conforming with regard to allowable density on a 6,000 square foot R-6 'lot, the co-applicants hereby agree to demolish the existing house on Lot Q within 180 days of approval by City Council, or within an appropriate, specified period after recordation of the plat -- whichever is deemed more appropriate. Demolition of the Lot Q residence will also eliminate the many ways in which that structure is and/or would be non-conforming (i.e" encroachments into the side and rear setbacks, encroachment into Lot R, and encroachment into the alley right-of-way). In addition, the demolition will eliminate a nonconforming wood-burning fireplace and address a persistent skunk infestation problem. Aspen Historic Preservation Plarmer, Amy Guthrie, has visited the site and determined that the residence on Lot Q is of no historical significance; she is not opposed to its demolition. All future use of the subject properties will conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district. .... .... .... .... .... Again, as mentioned in Section III of this application, since there are currently two lots and the lot split will not result in any additional lots, it is believed that the proposal does not involve any GMQS implications. Should the house on Lots P and Q or the house on Lots Rand S ever be demolished for replacement, the construction of such a replacement will be subject to the terms . and provisions of Section 26.470.070(B). Said provisions require either construction of an ADU, payment of an affordable housing impact fee, or placement of a resident occupancy deed restriction on the replacement home. .... .... .... c. The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.470.040(C)(1)(a) [this citation is incorrect and should actually refer to Section 26.470.070(1)]. - .... .... Lots P, Q R, and S of Block 21, City and Townsite of Aspen have not been the subject of any prior subdivision exemption applications or approvals, nor have they ever received a "lot splif' GMQS exemption. .... d. A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this Chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26. 470. .... .... A subdivision plat will be reviewed by the Planning and Engineering Departments for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land use .... Doremus/Silverman Lot Split Application Page 7 .... - - - approval. The plat will include a prohibition against further subdivision and a requirement that additional development comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code. ... e. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. ... ... The language of this criterion is understood and the co-applicants will comply. It is the understanding of the co-applicants that the plat and the notes contained thereon will serve as the "subdivision exemption agreement," with no need for a separate document. - - f In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. ... This application represents a case where three existing single-family dwellings occupy the site and none of the dwellings have yet to be demolished. As explained above in response to criterion "b.", because the existing home on Lot Q would render the resulting Lot P and Q non-conforming with regard to allowable density on a 6,000 square foot R-6 lot, the co-applicants hereby agree to demolish the existing house on Lot Q within 180 days of approval by City Council, or within an appropriate, specified period after recordation of the plat - -- whichever is deemed more appropriate. ... - ... Demolition of the Lot Q residence will also eliminate the many ways in which that structure is and! or would be non-conforming (i.e., encroachments into the side and rear setbacks, encroachment into Lot R, and encroachment into the alley right-of-way). In addition, the demolitfon will eliminate a nonconforming wood-burning fireplace and address a persistent skunk infestation problem. Aspen Historic Preservation Planner, Amy Guthrie, has visited the site and determined that the residence on Lot Q is of no historical significance; she is not opposed to its demolition. As compared with the existing conditions, the demolition will result in less site coverage and more open space on the properties. The existing structure on Lots Rand S and the house on Lot P will both remain in their current locations. - ... - ... g. Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single- family home. - II"-!I Doremus/Silverman Lot Split Application Page 8 - .... .... .... The maximum potential build out for the proposed lot split will be two (2) single-family homes as neither of the resulting lot areas will be large enough to accommodate a duplex while still meeting the minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirement in the R-6 zone district. That is, the two lots created will each be 6,000 square feet while theR-6 zone district m.aintains a minimum lot area of 9,000 square feet for a duplex. The allowable aggregate density on Lots P-S will be decreased by one dwelling unit (from 3 units to 2 units). .... .... Section 26.480.05~ Subdivision Review Standards .... Section 26.480.040, Procedures for Review, states in sub-section B. that lot split subdivision exemptions must be reviewed against the standards of Section 26.480.050. Section 26.480.050 provides that a development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements: .... ~ A. General Requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. .... The Aspen Area Community Plan does not contain any policies, goals, or recommendations with regard to the subject site. Further, the proposal made herein is of such minor consequence that there is certainly nothing in the AACP that would frame the proposal in a negative light. Thus, the proposed lot split is not at all inconsistent with the AACP. .... .... b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. ..... ..... The proposed lot split will result in two 6,000 square foot lots in the R-6 zone district. The minimum lot area in the R-6 zone is_ 6,000 square feet and, indeed, the majority of lots in the West End neighborhood have exactly the same dimensions as would the lots resulting from the proposed lot split (60' X 100'). .... As the properties currently exist, there is potential for one duplex structure with 4,080 square feet of FAR floor area on the 9,000 square foot lot (Lots Q-S), and one detached single family residence with 2,400 square feet of FAR floor area on the 3,000 square foot lot. This represents an aggregate allowable FAR of 6,480 square feet. After the proposed lots split, only two homes of 3,240 square feet each will be possible. . In total, the aggregate allowable FAR will not change, but since a 4,080 square foot structure will no longer be possible, the potential mass of both structures will be more compatible with that typically found throughout the neighborhood. .... ..... .... .... Doremus/Silverman Lot Split Application Page 9 ..... .... .... ... In effect, the potential for one average size structure and one large structure will be changed to result in the potential for two standard size homes relative to the surrounding neighborhood. 840 square feet of FAR will shift from one parcel to the other, resulting in two equal home size potentials on adjacent, equal size lots. The other result will be less site coverage and more open space than currently exists. .. ,... c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the fUture development of surrounding areas. "'" The surrounding areas will not be adversely affeci:ed in any way by the proposed lot split. Traffic generation will be decreased with the removal of the existing dwelling unit from Lot Q. ... d The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. ~ .... The lot split will be in compliance with all applicable standards imposed by the Land Use Code. Existing Lot Q nonconformities and encroachments will be eliminai:ed. Any other nonconformities or encroachments will be eliminated if or when redevelopment occurs. ... ... B. Suitability of Land for Subdivision. a. Land Suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmfUl to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. !""I ... The proposed lot split involves already developed single-family parcels in the West End neighborhood. The neighborhood is one of Aspens oldest, most well established areas. There are no natural hazards affecting the properties. ,... b. Spatial Pattern Efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. ,... - The proposed lot split will not create any inefficiencies, duplications, or premature extensions of public facilities. There will be no resulting costs to the public whatsoever. .... C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: I'- Doremus/Silverman Lot Split Application Page 10 ,... .!- !'" 1. :*f. 2. - A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals of the community. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. !'" All required improvements already exist on the subject sites, and no changes will be necessitated by the proposed lot split. - - D. Affordable Housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide qffordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. JII"" - Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program, is not applicable as no resident or other multi-family housing is being demolished. With regard to Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System, the proposed lot split effectively removes one development right. No additional density over that which already exists will be possible. The existing potential build out on Lots P- S of three (3) units of density will be reduced to a total potential build out of just two units. As such, there are no GMQS implications, and no allotments or exemptions are necessary. .~ . - - As is the case with all existing residential properties, should either the house on Lots P and Q or the house on Lots Rand S ever be demolished for replacement, they will be subject to the terms and provisions of Section 26.470.070(B). Said provisions require either construction of an ADU, payment of an affordable housing impact fee, or placement of a resident occupancy deed restriction on the replacement hom.e. Mr. Silverman is seriously considering the development of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) but has neither the lot area or floor area to do so on his existing Lot P; with the addition of Lot Q he will be able to build a detached ADU along the alley. ,.... ,.. ~ E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26. 630. .... .... This section of the subdivision regulations requires the dedication of land or the payment of an in-lieu fee for each new residential unit in a subdivision. There will be no new residential units in this lot split. Each of the two resulting "'" Doremus/Silverman Lot Split Application Page 11 !'" - - ..." lots already contains a detached single-family residence. As such, no school . land dedication or cash-in-lieu will be required. Section 26.308" Vested Property Rights /1*; ... In order to preserve the land use approvals which may be obtained as a result of this application, the co-applicants hereby request vested property rights status pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 26.308 of the Aspen Land Use Code. It is our understanding that final approval of the proposed development must be granted by ordinance of the City Council to establish such status. It is also our understanding that no specific submission requirements, or review criteria other than a public hearing, are required to confer such status. ~ .... ...... "'" M) ,.... ... ~ - ~ .... Q .... Doremus/Silverman Lot Split Application Page 12 "'" ... .. - EXHIBITS - """" Pre-Application Conference Summary Exhibit #1: ~. Exhibit #2: Land Use Application Form .- Exhibit #3: Attachment 2, Dimensional Requirements Form ... .- Exhibit #4: Proof of Ownership for Each Property ~ Exhibit #5: Letter of authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC, to represent the co-applicants/owners I.... - Exhibit #6: List of Property Owners Within a 300 Foot Radius "",. Exhibit #7: Executed Fee Agreement ... ,~, !""'- .,'" "'"' ... - - - ,... - ..... - .... EXHIBIT # 1 - - ""'"":' ... .- - :- ~ .,- ... - - .,... CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY I'"" DATE: 5 119 I 00 ..... - - - - PLANNER: PROJECT: REPRESENTATIVE: OWNER: TYPE OF APPLICATION: DESCRIPTION: Fred Jarman I Chris Bendon Doremus I Silverman Lot Split Mitch Haas Jeanne Doremus 1 Step - Exempt Subdivision ("Lot Split") approval by City Council The applicant and property owner oflots Q, R, and S (totaling 9,000 sq. ft. in area) wishes to sell lot Q to an adjacent property owner of Lot P (totaling in 3,000 sq. ft. in area) in order to create two parcels of 6,000 sq. ft. each in total area. In doing this they wish to dissolve the current parcel boundary line creating one whole parcel to include Lots P, Q, R, and S then split the parcel into two equal parcels of 6,000 sq. ft. each. A Lot Line Adjustment approach was discussed but determined to be inappropriate as this application is not a "correction" to an engineering or surveying plat, an insubstantial boundary change, and is not primarily used for the conveyance oflarge parcels ofland. land Use Code Section(s) 26.480.030(A)(2) Subdivision Exemption "lot Split" 26.470.070(1) lot Split - ,... ..... - """" Staff for completeness, Referral agencies for recommendations, Planning Director for a recommendation to City Council. Yes, City Council Engineering, Parks, (also reviewed by Zoning and Historic Preservation Officers in Community Development) Planning Deposit ($1,155) Engineering, Minor ($170) Parks $1,325 (additional hours are billed at a rate of $1957hour) Review by: Public Hearing: Referral Agencies: Planning Fees: Referral Agency Fees: Total Deposit: To apply, submit the following information: .- 1. - 2. ~ 3. - - - ,... Proof of ownership. Signed fee agreement. Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states.the name, address and telephone number of the representative(s) authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, 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, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. Total deposit for review ofthe application 4. 5. - ... 6. .. 7. 8. ..... 9. ... !"'" .,... !"" - ~. ,.... - .... - ,""" - ... - ~ 11 Copies of the complete application packet and maps. CC = 7; Referral Agencies = 1/ea; Planning Staff = 2 An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. Draft Plat including topography and vegetation showing the current status, including all easements and vacated rights of way, of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado. Contact Engineering Department if more specifics are needed. 920.5080. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include existing conditions as well as proposed. Please refer to the review standards in the application. Process: Planner reviews case for completeness and sends to Engineering and Parks for referral comments. Case planner contacts applicant and sets up a site visit. Staff reviews application to determine if it meets standards of review: Section 26.480.050 for a Subdivision exemption as a Lot Split. Case planner makes a recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or denial to the Community Development Director. The process requires I) a public hearing before City Council, 2) notice for an application for a lot split shall require publication, mailing and posting (See 26.304.060(E)(3)(a), (b) and (c).), 3) standards of review: Section 26.480.050 and 4) City Council action: Ordinance approving, approving with conditions, or disapproving application for subdivision exemption. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on cUrrent zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that mayor may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. - .... ..... ,- - - - ..... EXHIBIT # 2 .... ... ..... .... - - ..... - ... ... - - LAND USE ApPLICATION PROJECT: ... Name: Location: @..blO,~r~~ (I.m-~p.~, &oCl(ZI.~rT"..Tf:lblNSrTgoF'l\;sAw) (Indicate street address, lot & block n1lll1ber, Ie al descri tion where a ro riate) ~ ApPLICANT: - ... Name: Address: Phone #: ... REPRESENTATIVE: Name: ,... Address: Phone #: - - TYPE OF ApPLICATION: (please check all that apply): o Conditional Use 0 Conceptual PUD o Special Review 0 Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) D Design Review Appeal 0 Conceptual SPA D GMQSAllotment 0 Final SPA(& SPA Amendment) o GMQS Exemption 0 Subdivision o ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream 0 Subdivision Exemption (includes Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condorniniumization) ,.......,/ Mountain View Plane lY1 Lot Split 0 Temporary Use o Lot Line Adjustment 0 Text/Map Amendment ~ .... - o Conceptual Historic Devt. o Final Historic Development o Minor Historic Devt. o Historic Demolition o Historic Designation o Small Lodge Conversion! EXPafiSion o Other: - - """ .... .... ~e you attached the following? L.0 'pre-Application Conference Summary ~ ".Attachment # I, Signed Fee Agreement Gr,Response to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form rYrResponse to Attachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents GrResponse to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents ~ Response to Attachment #5, Review Standards for Your Application .... ..... FEES DUE: $J, ~'2S: ~ ,... r- .... - - ,... ,... .... EXHIBIT # 3 - - .... - !"* - ,..... -. - - - Project: Applicant: JAa:.SIl.ll~ ttii6~~IL't l.t/lt.'TEiO~"Ei'lII&It1p.I..L.L.P Location: kr~ 1'- ~ ~~ :::ll) c.."N -t'lO....I4A"l'"g" '*' .~- I Zone District: 'R-c. fg@IIIM''Oe.\s.r'r<( ~GOE;;tok1iA\..o Lot Size: '4()boflf of- ~ a:o ~ Lot Area: 10 ~ll~ ~ Lo1' S~ AfL J\M>"'I~eur (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) ... ... ..... ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM !-' .... ,..,. ... Commercial net leasable: Number of residential units: Number of bedrooms: Existing: Existing: Existing: r-lA .~ Proposed: Proposed: Proposed: rJA 2. - Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): ,... DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Principal bldg. height: Access. bldg. height: On-Site parking: % Site coverage: % Open Space: Front Setback: Rear Setback: .... ... ,... i~. , % lft1fRo~~ ~p.oJ~ Combined FIR: Side Setback: Side Setback: Combined Sides: - -- Existing: Allowable: (,. '120 Proposed: ~ '180{wl1Irr) Existing: Allowable: 25' Proposed: NO c~ Existing: 1'1 h Allowable: ,J A Proposed: I'IA .. ~ . Existing: S~v~equired: b~c.es Proposed:~ Existing: Required: ",fA. Proposed: t>6C'(~eD Existing: Required: ,iA Proposed: 1,J~id/C.&f) Existing: Required: Proposed: Existing: Required: Proposed: Existing: Required: Proposed: Existing: Required: Proposed: Existing: Required: Proposed: Existing: Required: Proposed: Existing non-conformities or encroachments:E.XPLAIAa> ltl dle'orta\:U: a;;"T$ ~'lrRlil>>l . AA'O ~ ~.~ ~ IMf:bIOItHtl!l.n'" ~I/e(.. ,... .... Variations requested: /'1o}ie. - - .... .... - ,.. .... - "'" - EXHIBIT # 4 - ""' \~ !"" .... \ .... ~.... ,... .... .... - JUN-0e-00 10,54 FROM,HOLLANOHART 10,9709259415 PAGE 2/5 - - COMMrrMENT FOR 'IIIT...E !NSt.lRANCE SO'fF.DVI.E .&. I j Ca8eNo. PC+tl8SSPR I ! ,... 1_ Elftilcflve Dale: May 9. 2000 at 8:30 AM ,., 2. Policy or PolIcies 10 be Bsued: (ar) AL TA ~ PoIJey-Fonn 1992 -- Prop : , , 1 Insured: AmllunI$ O.~ Premium$ 0.00 Rate: I .... (b)ALTA Loan Polic:y-Form 1992 PlUj: ~$ed Insured: AmounI$ O.~ Premium$ Q. Rate: RE-ISS E .... I"" Tax ~ $10.co 3. Tille 10 1tIe FeE SIMPlE eslate or iIlIerest in lhe IancI de9clib..d or ,<'1f",.ad to in ~ Co...,A....4 is at 1tIe elIixlive daIa herecf VESted in: i ,- JACK E. SILVERMAN ,.., 4. The IancI ,et'llln.d 10 in lbill CommiI7nent is ""'-J9!BcI.;n!!le Ct:lt!!.'!lr 4f stiteof cot.ORAOO and Is ~ :lied as foIIcMs: . - LOTP, BLOCl<21, CITY AND TOWNSIlE OF ASPEN "... .... - Pm:IN COUNIY'MI.:i;.1NC. Sll. E. HCft:INS ASI1fN,. CO. "61.1 ~ ~l'AX , SChe6tdeA4'G.l nis Comnoibl.,1I1 is imr.IIid urt-1IIe Insuring ~and Schedules A 8nd B ate aIlac:tted. - , ~.,_..~ ,... .... ,... - _ Jul 18 00 01:51p , ,... Andre.. Doremus 970-544-9632 p.3 .'396216 08/;:;:eV'::i6 @2:38P PO 1 OF 1 REC DOC uce SILVlA DAVIS.....u_n.PI_TKI}~.g()UNT'U;;!_!;BKLI;R~(:;QRPE8 ...R...0.0 0..00 - - :'. tf~ ~.'.' d-.9 .lfj . (1) S . 'lIileP. - ~ll':O C ...Q .~ ie-o@ ~ fj.,g. (I' .-.l {) t: .~ Ui ~t0 !f ct "3~ . tfa:(~ ... --.Ii :~W~ U,,"\b <~-- WOen - ,... - GJCNERAI~ WAJUlAN1:'Y l)EED THIS DEED, made this LIL- day of "qgust. 1996. between VEJ & A.JD PAllTNEJl$HIP, LLC, of the CClWIly of PilkiD lIIld State of CoJorado ("Gnmtor"). lIIld DOREMUS FAMILY L1MITED PAR1'N.ERSBIP, LLLP.. whose legal address ;, 85 GIea Gany Drive, of the COUDly of Pitkin lIIld State oCCoIorado ("GranteeJ. WITNESSETH: That the Grantor fur lIIld in COIlIIidcration of the sum ofTEN AND NO/loo DOLLARS (SI0.oo) lIIld other good_ vaIuaIlIe consicIeratioD, the receipt lIIld SI~ oCwbich is hereby admowle4pd. hereby seII8 _ conveys to the Grantee, its SO<< t_ lIIld assigns toreva-. the foUowiDg.... property in the CouIlty of Pitkin lIIld State ofColondo: Block 11, Lot Q, City lIIld Townsite of Aspen. Also known as lilOWcstFrancis, Aspen, Colorado 81611. TOGETBER with aU its apputtenanc:es and warrants titJe to the same SUBJECT TO AND EXCJ!:rnl'fG fer general taxes for 1996 payable in 1991 and thereafter. Building and Zoning ReguIatioDs aDd those items ofrecord recorded in the recordsof'Pitkin County. m~W8B~the~_~this~Mthe~_~ above. .., VB.., fdjipZ1.. IDP, lLC .,.~-~ - STATE OF COL<JW)() ) )ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) 1"" ~~~~~W~Hm_~~lIIld~to~ me this I w day of Au... 1996. by Andrew 1. Doremus, M4nager ofVE1 &; AID .Partnership. ,... Ll.C. ~ ,... - Witness my IulIId and official seal. '" " M! ClODIIIIission ap=~;".t; 2f., .~ J f' ",. .#..~~i:;'~.~'~?~'i" \ . ;",..,}.,. 0. - , :.... ~:fW(': ..... ?-;~ j:\w,il.odlol.'l : ,~'... ~l-;" '. '(, '. . ,I. '~.,;;L' ,," ' -c.."") ; ~ . . .-~~:.'::f~ti:.,.~"~ " I __1.-/ -j 11:VJJ.~)"7')\.A.AA.A '~ ~Pub' Jul 18 00 0l,51p - ,... Andrew Dor..mus 970-544-9632 p.2 - 396215 08/20/96 02;37P PG t OF 1 SILVlepAVIS .._...I='lTl{lNG9\l~1Y.GLE;BK ~ R!:C080ER HEC DDC LIce: (,.00 0.0€1 ....... c6 > f; its ~ <1l . ~~ ~~ ,I ,S) 5~ I""'!~- , ... it' ,...;:b ~~ ':~: t2 ";'Q, '~r .' .:;:; . ~ ,~ ,~~ -. ,,.... - - ,... ,... THIS DEED, made thi8 ! (p day of August. 1996, between VEJ &: AJD PARTNERSHIP. LLC. oftheCoullty of Pitkin and Stalo of Colorado (-Grantor"). and DOREMUS FAMn.,y LIMIT.ED l'ARTNERS.I:UP. LI..I. p.. whose JepI address is 8S OJ. Gany Drive, of the County ofPitlcia aad Stale of Colorado ("Granteo"). Wl.T.N:ESSETB: That tho Gnntor for lIDd in ~ of the JUIII ofT.EN AND N0I100 DOLLARs (SIO.OO) lIDd odIer good lIDd valuable c:cmsidendion, the receipt and lIIIfticialey ofwhicb is hereby admowIecIpd. helitb,. sells 8Ild COJIYeyII to tho Gnuuee,. its 1II!(;Ml, DU and _ps fotever, tho tbIIowina real. P'ot-tt in the County ofPitlcia and Stale of Colorado: BIoek 21. Lots R" S. City and Townsite of Aspen. Also known as600WestFranc:is. Aspen, Co./orado 81611. TOGJ!iJ IU!;J( with all its /IppUr'tellanceand WIlTIlItS tide to the same SUBJEcr TO AND EXCEPTING fOr general' tuea tOr 1996 payablo in lWl and thereafter, Building and ZoIIiDg ResuJations aad thoso items ofrecord rocorded in the recorda of Pitkin County. IN WITNESS WIIEIlEOF. the Orantu, has "MCUted this Deed OJ! the date let forth above. By: <L STAlE OF COLORADo ) )ss. COUNTY OF PrJ"KJN ) ~~G~~W~D~_~~8Ild~to~ me this -1!L. day of August. 1996, by ~ " Doremus, Manaser otVPJ &: AID PaJtJJetship. LLC. . ..,...".~.."~.. "--- ..--..and.........:-..-' . "",.'~l': .... " .......... my .-... u........._. .l O'.i'.'._C , .. .. '. . c ,... ,:.,.;/f..".,... Q COIIII1lISSiOn expttes. K .L~- ]~ ~~;'~~:~(?'~t':; . ''''\i:~'\iej''~' , ....., t.,,'",'::r!f.;l.' : 'I'DI ~,..", '. ) ~"~". :_,~.e _ ,~<>:, ,,~_" '0:.. .-:~'~~'t~ " - '-' . ....-/'" . '----1'1 .cuJJ.W" /' ./U.1A.-t, , / No ~ - , ,... - - .... - .... .... EXHIBIT # 5 - ,- .... .... - .... .- ,... .- - .... - .... - - - City of Aspen Community Development Dept. 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 - RE: The Doremus/Silverman Lot Split Application - To whom it may concern: - We hereby authorize Haas Land Planning, LLC, to act as our designated and authorized representative with respect to the land use application being submitted to your office for our properties located at 600, 610, and 612 West Francis Street. Mitch Haas is authorized to submit an application for a Lot Split Subdivision Exemption affecting our properties. He is also authorized to represent us in meetings with City of Aspen staff and the City Council. - ,- .... Should you have any need to contact us during the course of your review, please do so through our representative, Haas Land Planning, LLC, whose address and telephone number are included in the application. - Lit /3: ~ ~~JYVYL ~ I ' B~k Silverman, Owner (612 W. Francis Sf.) 612 West Francis Street Aspen, CO 81611 .... - - Do rL h'U)J) - ,... By: Je oremus, President (600 & 610 W. Francis St.) . Doremus Management, Ltd., General Partner Doremus Family Limited Partnership, LLLP 85 Glen Garry Drive Aspen, CO 81611 ,"" - - ,.... - - ..., .... .... .... EXHIBIT # 6 .... ,"" - - - - ,... ,... - - - ,.... 609 CORPORATION '"" COLORADO CORPORATION , 0 BOX 1819 :, :SPEN, CO 81612 - BAKER LILlIAN A .A34 W HAllAM ST : SPEN, CO 81611 ~ . LAICH ROBERT I oLAICH JANET S 319 N FOURTH ST ;SPEN, CO 81611 --, ORBIN MARCIA A o BOX 9312 ~SPEN, CO 81612 "'" ,.;lIKEOU LUCY SHARP ; POLO CLUB CIR : ~ENVER, CO 80209 ,- =L YNN MICHAI;L LAWRENCE &0% ....1 W FRANCIS ST SPEN, CO 81611 ,.... IIGERMAN PASS EQUITY VENTURE _LC .;JO LEONARD WEINGLASS- .:> BQX 11.509 SPEN, CO 81612 ,.... UGHES GAIL 'r'l2 W FRANCIS >.SPEN, CO 81611 ,.... '""':RAEL CHARLES B :> BOX 11689 : \SPEN, CO 81612 ,.. (EY R BRILL & ELIZABETH R 1""l6 W HALLAM ST SPEN, CO 81611 ,.... ARMSTRONG elIZABETH 621 W FRANCIS UNIT B ASPEN, CO 81611 BASS RAIFIELI 606 E HYMAN ASPEN, CO 81611 BLANK ROBERT S & NANCY L C/O WHITCOMB PARTNERS 110W51ST STROOM4310 NEW YORK, NY 10020 CROWN TAPPER PATRICIA 5 POLO CLUB DR DENVER, CO 80209 DOREMUS FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHIP LLLP 85 GLEN GARRY OR ASPEN, CO 81611 GELL MANN MURRAY 70% GRAY-HARRY & SHIRLEY TRUST 30% 1399 HYDE PARK RD SANTA FE. NM 87501 HALL CHARLI;S L. PO BOX 1819 ASPEN, CO 81612 IBBOTSON ANNE B 505 N 5TH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 KAFRISSEN ARTHUR & CAROLE F C/O CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER 1301 FILBERT ST (:.7420 PHILADELP:.:~'., P." 19107 KOEHLER DAVID R TRUST 618 W SMUGGLER ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN GK LLC PO BOX 640 ASPEN, CO 81612 BERLINER ARTHUR S C/O WALDEN 750 BATTERY ST#700 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94705 BROOKS LAURENE B SHERIDAN SUSAN B 421 DETROIT ST DENVER, CO 80206 DALY THOMAS J & JUDITH J 520 W HAllAM ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ERWIN GREGORY D 101 WFRANCIS ASPEN. CO 81611 GOLD RICHARD 300 ST PIERRE RD LOS ANGELES. CA 90024 HEWETT CHRISTOPHER YO BOX 2577 RANCHO SANTA FE, CA 92067 IGLEHART JAMES P 610WHAllAMST ASPEN. CO 81611 KENDALL RICHARD BECKER & LISA SEE 530 TIGERTAIL RD LOS ANGELES. CA 90049 KOVAL BARBARA TRUST 555 E DURANT AVE ASPEN. CO 81611-1856 - LEWIS TOBY D r""a930 S WOODLAND RD HAKER HEIGHTS, OH 44122 LOWREY JAMES E JR TRUSTEE 1390 ENCLAVE PKWY HOUSTON, TX 77077-2025 - MAROLT MAXWELL S .2.0 BOX 1013 SPEN, CO 81812 MARTIN JAMES R 1998 QUAL PERS RES TRUST C/O TRUST COMPANY OF KNOXVILLE TRUSTEE 620 MARKET ST #300 KNOXVILLE, TN 37902 MN1INC 57 BURNBANK STREET NEPEAN ONTARIO K2GOH2 CANADA, - JCLEAN CHARLES M PO BOX 11887 .ASPEN, CO 81812-9478 - , LENK HENRY P & AGNES M .75 DONNER WAY 1403 SALT lAKE CITY, UT 84108 POPE WILLIAM H 540 W SMUGGLER ASPEN, CO 81611 .f""""'l .aEED CAROL '17 N FOURTH ST , .SPEN, CO 81611 RITCHIE ROBERT 701 W FRANCIS ST ASPEN, CO 81611 .- SILVERMAN JACK E ,""12 W FRANCIS ST SPEN, CO 81611 SMITH CHRISTOPHER H & LESLIE M PO BOX 130 SNOWMASS, CO 81654 - ,.ARE NINA COULTER 34 CLERMONT LN -r LOUIS, MO 63124 WEST END III PARTNERSHIP LLC 420 W FRANCIS ST ASPEN, CO 81611 - /HIPPLE RALPH U & LYNNE C ',55 GIBSON AVE II.SPEN, CO 81611 - WILSON MARY ELIZABETH 630 WEST HALlAM STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 - - - - MAC CARTHY LYNDA M 626 W FRANCIS ST ASPEN, CO 81611 MCCAUSLAND LINDA PO BOX 1584 ASPEN, CO 81612 OXLEY DEBBY M 50% 1300 WILLIAMS TOWER I TULSA. OK 74103 RATNER DENNIS F 717 W FRANCIS ST ASPEN, CO 81611 SHAFROTH JOHN F 3901 E BELLEVIEW AVE LITTLETON, CO 80121 STAPLETON FAMILY LLLP 1350 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR ASPEN, CO 81611 WEST SMUGGLER LOT SPLIT LLC C/O LEONARD WEINGLASS -PO BOX 11509 ASPEN, CO 81612 ~ ... ... ... ... ~ ... ... EXHIBIT # 7 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ~. ... ASPENIPITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ... A!!reement for Pavment of Citv of Aspen Development Application Fees ... CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and .ro2.1w-iS~ + ill6 ~~II.Y lllill11lD r*"\6tsltl~ 1l.U> (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: ... (hereinafter, THE PROJEC1). ... 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 45 (Series of 1999) establishes a fee structnre for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. ... 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit 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 staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project 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 determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of$_~~ which is for $IY (b) 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 ,... mtJ APPLICANT i:i~ By,' /'/ ~ ... ~ CJoi.c..\'i I YV'tnWll.. Da . ... By:. ,... Mailing Address: ... (.:; / ,2.., tv -:.:J1 C:i'11. c0 0~ &/01( ... g: suppo orms grpayas. DC 12/27/99 ... W f- <( U U- f- "" W <.)c. </) z '" 0 w z .... 3= 0 E=< "" 0 ~ " " ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 u :>< ,: ~ ... z " 0 u Z z '" 0 ... ~ .... z '" C?l ~ ~ " .... ~ 0 >- '" !: .... ~ z Q '" 0 ... t:t:l " z ::> " >- ... C?l U N Z '" u -< 0 ~ ~ ~ '" ~ '" Z ~ " ~ >- ,; ,..;) 0: .... ~ ... '" C?l ~ z - 0 " C?l '" ... '" ::> " ... ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 Q - - " z - ;~!EO ~ . .. '" ~ ! ~~: ~I '" ~ wi~ '" ~ l:'i! .... ~ 15O::i - '" . . ' ~r' ~~~.~ ~ z" . , ,. U 8. -- ~ ~!~ ~: i .. ~i ~ i " :i!~i · Z "i . "'" . ~I~soi I ] -n.,~ .! <(~ ~ Cii . "".-"S _H:;:: . I- 0:., ~5"! . . ~ "l!l -~- <( <:ie 0..' >- . " .~O.! . . .. . :IU~:; , ~ > ~. . w. . "" . ~ !i U' >. . . ~~~~e1= ~ . 0 ...1, O~: 0 ~ 0 . U~ "'" I ~ "'l!l";:; ~ ~ ~ <(, "" . " " g. 0 W > .. 0.. =@. g <(' '" r'.. C ~ ~ > ~~ ~ f- ~~d'. . 0-. ~~~I i ! ; ~i=-'" i ", ! ~' . o~~o 0:: !~ z .,~., ; t igi ~: ~ <( ~~W (/) i::i~ '" . '.1 '. i U 0.., ...1 E 15. ~ ."j .,ffi >Of; I! 0..0 0.. ,~ if"; I~ . :ffili!~~ '" .. u- <(~ uqg ~ w~1 "" ~;~~~! ~.. N .. ~~ tj" Cl!!5 e .1 .- ~;~ ~ (/). ~ .., .. . . . f- zliiiz"l '" ""e u- . ~ ."" .!.~, ~ . . ....-... '-j:!. dol '" ~. ;;. o;;:~... 0 ~!-. :...~ ."j~~~ I "" ~ ".;~ W .!" ~... I Ct::: ~l!l o "iE 1 Ul!il!i'" ~: ~ :"' u- " 'N~ U ~t15-i!'-- tj ~~ U~_l!l ~~:o!~ ~ ~!..,- . . .. . .. ~. .~~~!~~ &:~ r !!~ . . ....u.. . >. " ~-ig f- . - 0 </) Z!I .- o~J1- , -.e~ -!I! ....- ;~I il~ ~ ~~ t ;;r---' ._c __l- . ~il '" ~~=. n., , f-r' .o~!!e . _~_~lii ~ <Ii ::; l!l.. Gt - -~:. " W _:; i~! !~ w .~~! _.:- ~ !:~~ '" " . .. Zoo' ~;::j"" ~ .. ~ 1 s!~ !' u 0 ~io-", Zj~ 0 ~ <( ",,~ ~ w >fo', I ~i I;iil n ;~; .~.= i u~ <(0 :r: 1 "!iN ~! >- ~J~g~~ 1 w.O 0 "~E 1 . "I. ~ V> ... ~e;: '" w hi~ ~ ~;..!C ~.- -. . , p-r S.gl'!i~ w ';~~~"~I =. . z a.a3~ :l3!- ... , .~ ~~ ...1 > . >- s~ · ~@il ".:;,.~ ~ . ~ ~'" . - ' !is , ' I .~" ;a~ ..~! .1 8 ~ w'I'o ! ~~ . .. f- '" f- .. .; " ~. ~ ~. j~~ ~. > '".~ ~ e:; ;.~~ ;t:;~",,,,.... ~...~ ~ ~ ''''_f~ => :a~b~~ i~:~ - ~~ . -' ~.. ! ~,m~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ .. t; ~ ..,;ii~ f- ;;;:h t; ~~=.S' </) ",~;:;:2 Uj:;:; , <( i!'j!;~;;; U 8~ d J33~JS' '~Z'~.r !oI.I.o1.(l IIJdld IIJ ~ON "' "-.-21' .)1 ('.--. .;:!tlr '.' . . ~- C5? 1'2:;',-." r .,Cl, '. .'~. ':"-., . /!!'J/~" . ]f:) r ". "<'. " .- t;:::J, f''{'1..ff'.'" ", % '-" , ~-(j '-, ?f!ir~gjk. FPj/jF~ ~,~/I lj PC;).)[b~'~!JJ!tP II WI! 'bJfJ..1Qil 'Ii"~ / f.Ii7. .fill j ( . 5::t7 ~ o~ I .':V (f.r7 O...?r.7 ,,:'Jij /(51 ij,rJ f?i. /l'~/t ~!. ii;';. ':::.- c,Sl" '/tfLj ~! ' ( . ; q"I" " .:r.:: 7 ft:/Jf ~ J t:::/i Be:. . .;1 C ,:;;:'" <..:::- '...c ;::; I '/}et"> ~ j ,"'" '. -, ""'/1 ? "-, . / r:., " /'-.-................,.-.... L.:. :i z: l~~l'jAlt;J~c~ ~o"o;:;, I -'>~! Jill ~17 == ~~ ;::".J 'J....Cj m::'iJ' ~,._ ~,u ~- !J'J !,;o . ", I r;:,! - .- ,@ca fj '~J. r~)[:~. :J ~> I ~:::. /li~ ~{j{) l:it~ PJ · u C"~ !fi;;f.fl::;;,/ I ~ / !;; ." :'9 ~~I v__' !l!flr/;;lf; I . . . '" "- o ~ it . .... ~~ '" 0: ~1l g "- ~! 0 0 .~ ~ ~ !j '-J "" "- "- o ~ i . o f...., ~ ~ V:i V:i .... \..) ~. ~ ~ ~ ~! . . . o ; . i'! g g ~ E .~ ~ ~ x I!!!? ~ ;;1:1 z > > U f...., !:J ~ ~ ~ I i ~ II . . ~ !~~~~ ;~ ~ ~ ,!- iI .,0;' i !; .I ~ . E~iEi ~ · ~ i ! 2 1l . ti~~ ~~ Ill! . o . ~ rSiS:.... 'Pi! E " "' n . -~~;i w . w 0 ~n ~~ !liB c::::::Iz: -" f- III ~ ~. iii! <( 0 . Z !E! U ~ ~ .- il ~~ "' ~ oil ~ i~ . ~e lip! . ~ i . '" p ~ ~ .. ~. iii:: z Q;:: w ~; : .. ~ ." " '" n i e O! g " ~ ~ s Ie: w ~; ~ -" fr: >>; ~ .. ' " ..~1O I!' II !!! ! --,-- -~-----~ z o .... E=< ~ ::z; ~ ~ ~ z o .... C?l .... >- .... o ~ ::> C?l z -< ~ ~ ~ >- ,...;J .... C?l - C?l ::> ::z; ~ ~ o o - - <:::1:z ~ ~ . " / / / / I I I 11/ I ~i. '0 It':. . ~! I "ii I . I, 1/ 1/ L' Ii ..... Ii '" . . . ~. ;'8 .~ .iJ... 0 "". it; & ~~~ ~ I i ,_ i: .:: ''1.itr.~/.I/ - - - ~ ~ m ~ '" w 0 ..J - <to 'EI~~ . . ~ !; . ~ o i . . t~" o~9; ~~i:~ ;S~S ~.--..-- ------71 .~) i ~ : .r'to. ~ --. / 0- o -' ~ '", 10- 10 1-' I ~ . .~~.~,( 7~,ffJoNl" ~ I . ~ - '~'.,( ~ . V"> ~ I..LI i!: ~ t- i; ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ ;~~ S ~ i:! 13 ... >< 8 ..r ~S~~ -i '" 3: ........._ n~n~ ;: H 0 i ~ ~ ...- ~ i~ ; 8 I .. ~" a~~ ~: ~~i5 . !I! ~~. ~~ ~'@ ;~ ~i~ ~i ~~ 5j i .~ E ~g i ,~~ . .~ - .~ ~ .. ~ . . . . o ~~ ,- i! ", ". !~ h . J33~J S ';';:'P,(H.l.QI,ff /fJdld /fJ~ON f~"!tb~ . -- '..........~'.......,' ',' I ~ ' .......,'~ - .... H:J~IO l/o'I~'Wr-I.-..." '., "1 ........" .. I ~ " . " 8 -.:i_ t-~ .- .n . . - - ~ . \ \~~ &l .~\~; ., I I I ~ / / .;Htto:"", , ;gJo~' " "- . 0- , 0 ~ ~ ; 0 -' " ~ .' " , . 0 . , , I I I I J I / I I I I 1 I / I / I I .1 . ! i ti ~ . ~ i ~. ! I . 51 - - -, - - V"> Z o l- e, Z o v <!) Z l- V"> x w F-.. f:J r:; V) . V) ..... (,j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~! e~ e ~~g . . ...:l$. F-.. ~ ~ '" z ::.::: I.U g U ~ < o ~ ~ ~ < 0 ~ ~ ~ . 0 (3 ~ '" 06 ~ i ~ ~ z . i 5 o g u a.: 06 = ~ ~ ~ :: u c.. I . f h~!. .~ · 'o".~~ -. '^'.'~", ;5 .~ ~ '" >- ~ i !i: ~ "'! u.~ .~!:o.. o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ . . '"~"'~"; i ;;:!tlill!l8~ *~ . .... I. " ~ .....~S! "s" · ~ ~ ~'~ g'; ~ m ~. ~ . z:~ ~'.~U~'~HJ on ':F~"e.@~ ;::~'H~d ~~'L~ 118~~ ~~~'~;i.n~~ !; ~!~ ;~"I~!:~.~~, I- d, ..ni~d!~:. e5 ".~~ ""p v;; :"~'nS'~'i ~ ~h~qn~... . "sL" --. - u z - to ~ '" . ~ :!! ~ z._.: g ~ = ~ ~.: ;l ~ 2: ffi .,: ; j ~~~~;.; $I ~ .qj~':- .. > <:>:; 1:; i :5 c:: ;;; " ~.;. ~ ::> ~- to , Z . '" 0.. to "" N l.L o N f- W W I (J) iI. ~ mil'! hi! 1I ill' · Ii I !!! I! ; ~ - I B !1iH \,I,e pI;! s II ~ = .. i ~ a !!, i! i Ii!! I ~. ~fI! ~ o ;i / , ,/. ..- 1 l ..... ..- I -- I 1 . \ ~ \ I \ I I " o ~ ----, SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION AGREEMENT FOR THE DOREMUS/SILVERMAN LOT SPLIT THIS SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION AGREEMENT (hereinafter "Agreement") is made and entered into this ~ '{IV'> day of 010 Q ,m b t v, 2000 by and between a) JACK SILVERMAN and the DOREMUS FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, .LLLP, (hereinafter collectively "Owners") and, b) THE CITY OF ASPEN, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (hereinafter "City"), as of the dates provided below. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Owners own that certain real property (the "Property") located at 600,610, and 612 West Francis Street and more particularly described as Lots P, Q, R, and S, Block 21, City and Townsite of Aspen, State of Colorado; and WHEREAS, on October 23,2000, the City Council of the City of Aspen granted approval for subdivision exemption for a lot split on the Property pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code to dissolve the lot line between Lot P and Lots Q-S, and simultaneously replace it with a lot line between Lots P and Q and Lots R and S, resulting in two (2) 6,000 square foot residential lots; and WHEREAS, the approval of the lot split was conditioned upon Owners complying with certain requirements outlined in Ordinance No. 49, Series of2000, including entering into a Subdivision Exemption Agreement for the Property; and WHEREAS, Owners have submitted to the City for approval, execution and recordation a plat for the Property (the "Plat") and the City agrees to approve, execute and record the Plat (Owners pay all applicable recordation fees) on the agreement of the Owners to the matters described herein; and WHEREAS, the City has imposed conditions and requirements in connection with its approval, execution, and acceptance of the Plat, which matters are necessary to protect, promote and enhance the public health, safety and welfare, and the Owners are prepared to enter into a Subdivision Exemption Agreement incorporating such conditions and requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and the approval, execution, and acceptance of the Plat for recordation by the City, it is agreed as follows: 1. Accentance of Plat. Upon execution ofthis Agreement by all parties hereto, and upon approval of the final plat by the Engineering Department and the Community Development Director, the City agrees to approve and execute the final plat 111111I11111111111111111111111111I11111111111111111 ~JI 4!l0164 01/02/02000D100~~0~P 0 s~: ~~~~I~A~~~N~~L CO 1 of !l R 2!l. . . 1 ~ for subdivision exemption for the lot split submitted herewith, which conforms to the requirements of Chapter 26.480 of the Code. 2. Lot 0 Demolition. Owners agree to demolish the existing house on Lot Q within 180 days of recordation of the Plat. All demolition of the existing structure will occur from the alley side of the lot. Mud will not be tracked onto City streets during demolition. 3. Encroachments Into Public Ri2hts-Of-Wav. Since there are, at present, parking and fencing encroachments into the public rights-of-way on West Francis Street, Fifth Street, and the alley for Block 21, prior to the recording of the final plat, the Owners agree to either 1) remove the encroachments, or 2) obtain one or more Temporary Revocable Encroachment Licenses from the City Engineering Department to allow the encroachments to continue to exist. 4. Parkin2 in the West Francis Street Ri2ht-Of-Wav. Owners will remove the "No Parking" sign presently located on the West Francis Street side of the Property. Further, all use of the head-in parking area in the West Francis Street right-of- way shall cease in order to alleviate potential damage to the existing trees. Owners will replace the gravel parking area with natural landscaping, as required by the City of Aspen Parks Department. 5. Tree Removal. To the extent required and in accordance with the tree removal permit process, the Owners shall obtain approval from the City of Aspen Parks Department for the removal of any tree(s). 6. Subdivision. No further subdivision of the Property may occur without receipt of applicable and required approvals. Similarly, no additional dwelling units may be constructed on the Property without receipt of applicable and required approvals. 7. Develooment Potential. The subdivision exemption lot split results in two (2) lots of 6,000 square feet each. The maximum combined development potential shall not to exceed two (2) principal dwelling units (one on each lot), where each 6,000 square foot lot may be developed with up to 3,240 square feet of FAR floor area, as measured in accordance with the then applicable Aspen Land Use Code. The subdivision exemption lot split effectively eliminated a third development right that was, prior to the reconfiguring ofthe lots, associated with the Property, in general, and Lots Q-S, specifically. 8. Future Develooment. Any future development on or redevelopment of . the lots created through the subdivision exemption lot split as shown on the Plat, shall be required to mitigate for its impacts pursuant to Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System (GMQS), as may be required. I 111\11 11\11 11\111 111111 1111111\11 11\\~lIb!!~! I~\II.~'I 450164 01/02/2001 030~0~P0S~~ ~ITKIN COUNTY CO 2 of 5 R 25.00 D 0. . 2 9. Material Representations. All material representations made by the Owners on record, whether in public hearings or in documentation presented before City Council, shall be binding upon the Owners. 10. Enforcement. In the event the City determines that the Owners are not in substantial compliance with the terms of this Agreement of the Final Plat, the City may serve a notice of noncompliance .and request that the deficiencies be corrected within a period offorty-five (45) days. In the event the Owners believe that they are in compliance or that the noncompliance is insubstantial, the Owners may request a hearing before the City Council to determine whether the alleged noncompliance exists or where any amendment, variance, or extension oftime to comply should be granted. On request, the City shall conduct a hearing according to its standard procedures and take such action as it deems appropriate. The City shall be entitled to all remedies at equity and at law to enjoin, correct and/or receive damages for any noncompliance with this Agreement. 11. Notices. Notices to the parties shall be sent in writing by u.s. certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, Such notices shall be deemed received, if . not sooner received, three (3) days after the date ofthe mailing of the same. To the Owner: Jack Silverman 612 West Francis Street Aspen, CO 81611 To the Owner: The Doremus Family Limited Partnership, LLLP clo Jeanne Doremus 85 Glen Garry Drive Aspen, CO 81611 To the City: City Attorney City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 12. Bindinl!: Effect. The provisions ofthis Agreement shall run with and constitute a burden onthe land and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit ofthe Owners, their successors and assigns, and to the City and its successors and assigns. 13. Amendment. This Agreement may be altered or amended only by written instrument executed by all parties hereto, with the same formality as this Agreement was executed. 14. Severabilitv. If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions hereof 11111111111I111111111111111111111I111111111111111111111 4S0164 01/02/2001 03:01P SUB EXE" DAVIS SI~VI 3 of S R 2S.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Subdivision Exemption Agreement the day and year first written above. OWNERS: JACKS~7ff~ Si ' erman D MUS F AMIL Y LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, LLLP: By: Doremus Management, Ltd., General Partner APPROVED: /';'7 '//'4 ~ h . .<.~ /17/:, . I ~I . John or2'ester, City Attorney THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO a municipal corporation ATTEST: By: <1..A-ff Rach1 Richards, Mayor STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) v. ss m'y ~and an? officia~al~,.(c M'v J mISSIOn expIres >!5 / O/uv7" Notary Public [Additional Notary Blocks on Following Page] 4 111111I1111I1111I111111111111111111111111I1111111111111 4!0164 01/02/2001 03:01P SUB EXEM DAVIS SILVI 4 0' ! R 2!.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) 2"lt'h The foregoing was sworn and subscribed to before me this ~ day of \)Ul; ml0cv . 2000, by Jeanne Doremus, President of Doremus Management, Ltd., General Partner of the Doremus Family Limited Partnership, LLLP. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires go (2(" IOu I \,\l\'I'ltllh~Yi,' ",~' O\O~, .:10' "',..;4.~.....' -,' 0"'/ , :" ;' ':ins/! .... :'.; ct ~': STATE OF COLORADO ) ,; : . ~...,:>o i:' ) ss. ':,~ .. :'..{clttriO \\/. ' . COUNTY OF PITKIN ) '\i,:~r~.. ...... . ~~.f JV Il v'/;;';.l/ft n ~\. . The foregoing was sworn and subscribed to before me this r day of . ",;.",,"" I :1l41J 1)f.li2. 'I ' ~ by Rachel Richards and Kathryn Koch, as Mayor and City .,/, Clerk, respectively, offgk City of Aspen, a Municipal Corporation. Witness my hand and official seal. ~ / A My commission expires J:J ~O 1- 2.bD ( ~ N Pub!' .,~ c:My Documents\City Applications\Sub Exemption Agrmt 11111111111I1111I11111111111111111111111111111111111111 450164 01/02/2001 03:01P SUB EXEM DAVIS SILVI 5 of 5 R 25.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO 5