The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.212 Lake Ave.0092.2014.ASLU0092.2014.ASLU 212 LAKE AVE SPECIAL REVIEW 2735 12 4 89 004 1 2735 12 4 89 005 7l J; c 6.**6 Ok - 1 1 7 35 - 11 -4 -19 - 00 9 Rumal lo 2 7 3 /2 - 4 - 99 -003- 0012 20{4'All-M file Edit Record Nav*gate Egrm RepoÂ® Folmat Tab Help , 1 1 4 , ,/ 4 pi %6_â‚¬363'~il 4,> ~ N'jumpl ~0~i@ 0~ - 1 ~0*m Relds Rogting Staks iFee Summal *ons Roliting Hi#ory -~ -E- Permit type |aslu . |Aspen Land Use I Permt #Ilt t-it Addreg ) 212 LAKE,AVE *51*]3 sm E"-~~ 4 81611 ~ Permit liformÂ®on C Ma5ter permit Rotling queue aslu07 Aplied j'270 2014 :â€¢ i C 61 F 1 86~ Â·Â· 1 Statis pending Approved ' 0 ~ Deription APPLICATON FOR SPECIAL RE\/IEW bed , closed/Rnal i Submited |SARAH DATES 970 544 185] | Cled FIIÂ© D. Fll .res |1226/2015 11 1 Owner I ? Mname ASPEN RWER RENDEZVOL. FirM name 186 VAIL LN NORTH SALEM NY 10560 Phone i )- Addres Appiait E Owner is applicant? C Contactor is applicant? Latname FINK, LARRY Fri n,ne 393 6 102 RD CARBONDALE CO 8162] phone ~C } - Cust ; I19642 | Addrpm - Lender Last name Rv#, name Phone {)- Addres AspenG]Id5(gerver~angelas~1 oil 0.: 02- 4 2/4 5 7 + Am"-06 A-ep 8 76 55 S>\9 2 69.00 4&9,490-00 Splin Pev-Ics 9-1 y. 00 /4$ 100 1-~ ~ â€¢dr,o.,0 q.>11 J DEVELOPMENT ORDER 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 application submittal is accepted and deemed complete by the Chief Building Official, 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. Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number: Aspen River Rendezvous, LLC, 186 Vail Lane, North Salem, NY. 10560 Legal Description and Street Address of Subiect Property: 212 Lake Avenue, Units A and B, 212 Lake Avenue Condominiums, City and Townsite of Aspen, PID #2735-124-89-004 and -005 commonly known as 212 Lake Avenue Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan: Special Review approval to replace a nonconforming structure (the existing duplex) after demolition of the building Planning and Zoning Resolution No. 2, Series 2015. Effective Date of Development Order: January 22,2015. (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) Expiration Date of Development Order: January 23, 2018 (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 22nd day of January 2015 by the City of Aspen Community Development Director. Chris Bendon Community Development Director City of Aspen Â»1 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.070 AND CHAPTER 26.306 ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 2-il Lca,ce- Av-L Aspen, CO STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, .AMn-Q-WL Scew-â‚¬-1 (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) or Section 26.306.010 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: JPublication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper o f general circulation in the City of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days after final approval of a site specific development plan. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Publication ofnotice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper o f general circulation in the City o f Aspen no later than fifteen (15) days after an Interpretation has been rendered. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 2-2-day of 4~ , 2041 by *vnâ‚¬6 Scc,--3 PUBLIC NOTICE Of DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site-specific development plan, and the issuance of a vested property right pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title My commission expires: 31-~ 1 El l I lp 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertain- ing to the property legally described as Units A and , ~ B, 212 Lake Avenue Condominiums, City and Townsite of Aspen, PID #2735-124-89-004 and -005 and commonly known as 212 Lake Avenue. 460_41 Ctee-1 0,-11-e/%71,-- The approval grants Special Review to replace a nonconforming structure (the existing duplex) after Notary Public demolition of the building. For further information contact Jennifer Phetan at the City of Aspen Com- ~Injam.ing, Â·Â·~....2~610â€¢.M..=-ze-**%*-= munity Development Dept., 130 S. Galena St,, As- pen, Colorado. (970) 429-2759. KAREN REED PATTERSON City 9f Aspen Published in The Aspen Times on January 22, STATE OF COLORADO ~ 2015.(10882341) ATTACHMENTS: NOTARY PUBLIC - COPY OF THE PUBLICATION lEETTi-Mion Expires February 15,2016 1 NOTARY ID #19964002767 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2 (Series of 2015) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING SPECIAL REVIEW TO REPLACE A NONCONFOMING STRUCTURE FOR 212 LAKE AVENUE, UNITS A AND B OF THE 212 LAKE AVENUE CONDOMINIUMS, ASPEN, COLORADO Parcel Nos. 273512489004 and 273512489005 WHEREAS, the applicant, Aspen River Rendezvous LLC, represented by Benjamin Genshaft, as well as Harriman Construction and David Kelly of Oates, Knezevich, Gardenswartz, Kelly & Morrow, PC, submitted an application requesting Special Review - Replacement of a nonconforming structure for the property located at 212 Lake Avenue, legally described as Units A and B of the 212 Lake Avenue Condominiums, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, 212 Lake Avenue is a designated landmark; and WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable review standards; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Director recommended denial of Special Review - Replacement of a nonconforming structure; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on January 6 continued to January 13,2015; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare by a vote of 4 to 0 (4-0). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Decision The Planning and Zoning Commission approves the request of Special Review - Replacement of a nonconforming structure for the building commonly known as 212 Lake Avenue as the request does not meet all standards required under Section 26.430.040 B, Replacement of nonconforming structures. The Commission specifically finds that, pursuant to Sections Section 26.430.040 (A) and (B): 1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or 4 - ... - - --- -1 RECEPTION#: 616909, 01/23/2015 at 01:07:59 PM, Page 1 of 3 1 OF 3, R $21.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION ~ Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district; and 2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood or. blocking of a designated view plane; and 3. There exist special characteristics unique to the property which differentiate the property from other properties located in the same zone district; and 4, No dimensional variations are increased, and the replacement structure represents the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the properly; and 5. Literal enforcement of the dimensional provisions of the zone district would cause unnecessary hardship upon the owner by prohibiting reasonable use of the property. The Commission specifically approves the following request of Special Review - Replacement of a nonconforming structure: A. The applicant may remove and/or replace the exterior roof and wall surface area and /or subsurface components affected by toxic mold to adequately address the mold in the structure and life, health and safety issues associated with the existing structure upon review and approval of the Historic Preservation Officer. B. The applicant may remodel 212 Lake Avenue as represented to and approved by the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission as Resolution 10, Series 2014. Section 2: All material representations c and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction. such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Page 2 of 3 ) APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 6th day of January, 2015. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: 144 1-~ 6/920,05:30*9 Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Stan Gibbs, Vice Chair 1 /Poloot 1 Attest: CÂ»ke l Cindy Klob, Records Manager Page 3 of 3 Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 13,2014 Mr. Stan Gibbs, Vice-Chair, called the Special Planning & Zoning Commission CP&Z) meetingto order at 4:30 PM with members Keith Goode, Jason Elliot, and Ryan Walterscheid. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan and Chris Bendon. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan thanked the commissioners for making time forthe special meeting tonight. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES: There were no comments. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. Public Hearing - 212 Lake Avenue, Replacement of nonconforming structure, - Continued from January 6, 2015 Mr. Gibbs opened the continued public hearing for 212 Lake Avenue. Ms. Quinn stated the affidavit of public notice had not been previously reviewed. She has reviewed and determined notice was properly provided for the January 6th meeting. Ms. Phelan stated the notice was included as Exhibit C. Ms. Phelan, Deputy Planning Director, reviewed the application for 212 Lake Avenue request for special review approval. Ms. Phelan stated 212 Lake Avenue is considered a nonconforming structure. The house does not meet the underlying zone district requirements. Demolition has been triggered and under the land use code it requires the building to now conform to the dimensional requirements of the zone district. The special review has specific criteria P&Z must determine the application meets. Ms. Phelan then provided background on the project. This property is an 11,000 sf lot and is about 59 ft wide at its narrowest spot and overlooks the Aspen Center for Environment Studies (ACES). It is in the Hallam Lake Bluff review and is designated as a historic landmark. The property is located in the medium Density Residential (R-6) zone district. 1 Special Meetine Plannine & Zoning Commission Januarv 13,2014 The property is nonconforming with regards to parking (short 2 spaces), side and combined setbacks, floor area (about 1,500 sf over), site coverage (small percent) and the Hallam Lake Bluff setback and height requirements (part of the building). The property is an existing duplex and the current owner was granted approval from the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) to remodel the house in April, 2014. The granted approvals allowed the applicant to maintain the construction in the setback, provided a parking variance and approved some roof and form changes to simplify the building to be more sensitive to both Hallam Lake and the historic resource (miner's cottage). The building permit included demo calculations to verify demo is not triggered. A demolition shows what parts of the wall structure will be removed and the assemblies that hold the building together. The City's code requires if more than 40% or more of an existing structure is removed, then that triggers a demo and requires compliance with the code. The changes to the building came in at 39% and a permit was issued in October, 2014 for the remodel. Priorto issuance of the building permit in October, the contractor received a permit called an interior finish and fixture removal permit which allows for removing drywall and fixtures to perform an initial investigation prior to demolition and reconstruction. During the investigation, mold was discovered and the contractor hired a consultant in July, 2014 to assess the status of mold in the building. The consultant issued a report making recommendations on actions to be taken to remediate the mold. In November, during demo and reconstruction, the City requested an inspection to verify the demolition plan happened as submitted as part of the building permit. During this inspection of the demolition, it became apparent the demolition calculation had been exceeded. The contractor explained mold had been discovered and additional demolition had occurred. The demolition was estimated at 55%. With regards to special review, all review criteria are supposed to be met. The review criteria focus on whetherthe development is compatible; land uses and the purpose of the zone district and whether there is any impact on the surrounding land uses; where special characteristics unique to the property which differentiate from other properties; whether the structure represents the minimal variance allowing for reasonable use of the property; and whether enforcement of the dimensional requirements of the zoned district will create hardship by prohibiting reasonable use. Based on these criteria, Staff does not find all standards have been met and recommends denial of the request. Specifically Staff does not find there are special characteristics of the property with the large size of the lot and lot width. The code will allow up to a 4,100 sf building in floor area. Mr. Chris Bendon, Community Development Director, stated there are two pathways forward for the applicant. One is to argue the definition of demolition to determine if mold is a qualifying aspect of demolition. The interpretation of mold and the appeal would go to City Council. The second pathway is to say there has been demolition and the special review request to be able to replace nonconformities subsequent to demolition. The code allows you to do this after demolition but requires the question to be asked before proceeding with demolition. There is nothing wrong with exceeding demolition and coming in with the request. He stated the applicant is going with the second pathway, but could pursue both. 2 Special MeetinE Planning & Zoning Commission January 13, 2014 Mr. Gibbs asked if there were any questions for Staff. Mr. Goode asked if there has ever been demolition by mold before this instance. Mr. Bendon stated mold has come up before and the applicant has informed the City of the mold. The code limits the demolition at 40% for whatever purpose. Many times the 40% isn't a factor for a project because they do not have nonconforming issues. Mold can be found in almost every structure and there are many ways to deal with the mold. He does not recall mold coming up in this exact circumstance. Ms. Quinn stated there is a definition from the land use code of demolition as defined on p 2 of the agenda packet. Mr. Walterscheid asked to confirm if the project went before HPC in the previous year. Ms. Phelan stated in went in front of HPC in April 2014 for review of the proposed remodel. Mr. Walterscheid asked if the proposed construction changed from what HPC approved even though demolition has occurred. Ms. Phelan stated the final product will be the same product approved by HPC. The issue is the demolition exceeded what was allowable 40% which triggers a special review. Mr. Gibbs asked given the current location of the historic resource, is the allowable floor area to be developed as stated on p 5 of the packet what HPC approved or the numbers based on land use code. Ms. Phelan stated the amount specified in the packet is what is allowable based on size of the lot and the land use code. Ms. Phelan stated the build exceeds the allowable amount. Mr. Bendon stated Staff feels it is reasonable to stay within the amount. Ms. Phelan stated the fagade of the historic resource is 30 ft from the property line. A typical setback is 10 ft. Mr. Bendon stated the approximate size of the resource itself. Ms. Phelan stated this is a deeper lot than typically found in the west end. Mr. Gibbs asked why this would not just go back to HPC. Ms. Phelan stated the land use code does not give HPC the authority to review this particular special review, Mr. Walterscheid asked what happens to the resource if for some reason P&Z votes to deny the nonconformities. Ms. Phelan stated the P&Z decision could be appealed to City Council. The applicant could go down the path of asking for an interpretation of demolition. She also added if this was denied by P&Z and no further action was taken, then the applicant would be expected to come up with a plan based on the underlying zoning which would be reviewed by HPC. Mr. Gibbs then asked if P&Z should not considerthe first approval because of the special review. Mr. Bendon stated the special review under consideration assumes demolition has occurred and the request is to replace the nonconformities subsequent to the demolition. Mr. Gibbs then turned the floor over to the applicant with Mr. David Kelly representing Harriman Construction and the owner. Also in attendance is Mr, Mitch Haasto provide background of the HPC approvals, Mr. Ben Genshaft serving as the owner's counsel, and Bill Harriman and Kimberly of Harriman Construction. Mr. Haas provided a background of the project. He wanted to assure P&Z the applicant did not intentionally do an end run around the code to ask for forgiveness. This applicant hired Mr. Haas and 3 Special MeetinE Planniniz & Zoning Commission Januarv 13, 2014 Mr. Genshaft to complete due diligence for the purchase of the property. During this effort, it was discovered the building was nonconforming with regard to floor area, setbacks and site coverage. He does not consider the Hallam Lake Bluff items nonconforming because they are not zoning requirements. In the course of due diligence, there was an old City Council document specifying allowable floor area for the property no matter the use. An exhaustive study of the code was completed of the land use code as it pertains to the property. The applicant then purchased the property. Then an HPC application was prepared for a Hallam Lake Bluff review and renovation and restoration of the building. The architects prepared an exhaustive set of plans including full demolition drawings, calculations, residential design standards, Hallam Lake Bluff standards, nonconformities. Mr. Haas continued stating before applying for the HPC approval process, they reviewed several designs with Amy Simon, HPC Senior Planner, and revisions were made. At this time the demolition plans came out at about 30% limit of the demolition calculations. They were asked to take on far more restoration of the historic resource than what would ever be required or necessary. They were afraid to do this because it would bump up the demolition and they were concerned with exceeding the 40% threshold. Mr. Haas stated they were asked to remove non-historic additions to the building and in effect losing sf. The resulting plans decreased the FAR nonconformity. In the process, they were asked to consider taking the entire roof line of the historic resource that had been previously changed and lower it to the original roof line. The applicant agreed to do this and other non-required activities even though it bumped up the demolition calculation. Mr. Haas stated during the pre-application process Ms. Simon stated there is very little historic fabric remaining on the property and not to expect any favors from the HPC. The applicant liked the idea of restoring the property to its original form and was willing to do it. The applicant pointed out the non-native vegetation on the property and had Mr. Haas confirm with the City Forresterto inquire how to remove the vegetation when it is not allowed under the Hallam Lake review. Mr. Haas also met with ACES representatives including Chris Lane and Jim Kravitz who made suggestions. They asked the applicant to modify the construction schedule to minimize the impact to ACES programs during their high season. Mr. Haas feels the applicant has been upfront and gone above and beyond what is required to do the right thing. Mr. Kelly stated the nonconformities existed prior to the HPC approval. The applicant lessened the nonconformities by reducing the building height including 13% demolition on Lake Ave side and 7% on the Hallam St side for a total 20% of the demolition. He stated half of the demolition (20%) was due to the applicant agreed to complete per the request of HPC that were agreed to be beneficial. This change also reduced useable sf. Mr. Kelly stated Harriman Construction discovered pervasive mold during demolition. It was everywhere in the structure including the roof, walls, plaster. Mr. Kelly provided pictures of the mold. Mr. Kelly noted the pictures do not show the worst of it, they only show what is left after the other mold been removed. Ms. Quinn requested a hard copy of the pictures to be included as Exhibit D. Mr. Kelly stated the applicant wants the special review to include not only continue building with what has been approved, but also be allowed to remove the remaining mold. 4 Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission Januarv 13,2014 Mr. Kelly stated Harriman Construction engaged a mold expert who discovered several species growing including toxic molds. Harriman Construction then followed the recommendations and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines. The independent testing agency recommended physically removing mold from the structure including as the primary remediation. Attempts to kill or encapsulate mold generally are not adequate. OSHA stated the purpose of mold remediation is to correct moisture problems to remove moldy and contaminated materials to prevent human exposure and further damage to building materials and furnishings. Porous materials that are wet and have mold growing on them may need to be discarded to eliminate areas for potential mold growth. As a general rule, simply killing the mold is not enough. Even dead mold may cause a reaction to humans. Mr. Kelly stated Harriman did remove the worst of the contamination, but there is still a lot remaining. The mold was generally located on dimensional lumber and not on the brick or historic fagade of the residence. The City building department saw the mold when they were out on their Interior Finish and Fixture Removal (IFFR) inspection. There isn't any provision in the code that provides forthe remediation process regarding the acceptable standards because there really isn't any federal or state standards regarding acceptable levels of mold. Harriman Construction viewed this as a health safety and welfare issue and not a zoning issue. Mr. Kelly stated the Community Development Department has taken a position that any removal of the moldy material constitutes demolition. Mr. Kelly feels there are numerous reasons why this does not fall under the definition of demolition in the code. They are not raising, disassembling, tearing down or destroying the building. He fells it is a non-willful destruction because it was destroyed by an act of nature and should be allowed to restored. He thinks it should also be declared an unsafe structure which would also allow for restoration under the code. Or it could be considered normal maintenance under the code. If they can obtain special review now, then they can cover the building and make sure it isn't destroyed. If Harriman Construction knew this was a zoning issue and swapped out the lumber, they would still be at this special review because Staff considers the replacement of the moldy materials to be demolition. The unfortunate thing is if the building is considered demolished, the City may lose the historic resource. Mr. Kelly noted the first review criteria asks if it is compatible with surrounding uses and HPC found the project to be compatible. He also noted the development does not adverse impacts on surrounding uses. The only special characteristics unique to the property he noted was the mold issue. Mr. Kelly stated they are not asking for any dimensional variations other than what was historic and what was already approved. In regards to the standard regarding the enforcement of the dimensional provisions of the zoned district causing unnecessary hardship, Mr. Kelly stated perhaps there would be no hardship if the mold had been known when the project was going in for development approvals. The project would suffer hardship of having to go back to scratch at this point adding considerable time to the project and losing 1,500 sf which is equivalent to a two to three million dollar loss of value in the property. He feels the overriding concern is the public health safety and welfare. Future projects encountering mold would be left to live with it or lose the historic resource as part of the property. If the City does grant the special review, then the construction can continue, the mold can be removed and the City gets to keep the historic building in the same footprint, just lowered to accommodate the neighbors. 5 Special Meetine Planning & Zoning Commission Januarv 13, 2014 Mr. Ben Genshaft represents the property owner and wanted to point out this special review is a one off case and will not be setting a precedent. They are hoping P&Z will recognize the unique situation and allow them to complete the fully permitted project. Mr. Kelly then provided P&Z with a draft resolution granting the special review. Ms. Quinn noted it would be identified as Exhibit E. Mr. Gibbs asked the commission for questions of the applicant. There were none and he closed that portion of the hearing. Mr. Gibbs then opened for public comment. There were none and he closed that portion of the hearing. Mr. Gibbs then asked for rebuttal or clarification from Staff and the applicant. Mr. Bendon wanted to clarify Staffs understanding was the mold studies were completed prior to initiating the demolition. The importance of issuing building permits is for clarity and eliminating surprises. His problem is that there was no discussion with Staff when mold was discovered. It was by chance City Staff discovered the extent of situation. He suggested just because the Building Department saw the mold does not provide direction to initiate the demolition and remediation. Mr. Genshaft responded there was never any intention to hide or deceive anyone. They have a very reputable builder and he did not consider what he was doing any kind of violation. He thought he was acting in accordance with the code in regards to health, safety and welfare. Mr. Kelly stated unless zoning wanted to take a different position on mold in that its removal doesn't constitute demolition, then they will cross the 40%threshold. Mr. Haas stated if they had known then what they know now, he would have advised the applicant to not restore the historic roofline, not restore the historic window openings, and do not remove the solarium because they all contributed to the percentage of demolition. Mr. Gibbs closed the rebuttal part of the hearing. Mr. Gibbs opened for discussion from the commission. Mr. Goode thought the applicant did not have the intent to hide the mold problem but they knew the mold survey would say there would be mold. Mr. Walterscheid asked Staff to clarify what contributes to demolition. Mr. Benson said there is a section stating the obligation of the applicant to fully understand the structure they are dealing with no matter the intent. A wall could fall down and it would then be included in the calculation of the demolition. Mr. Walterscheid asked if nature took a course such as fire, how Staff would evaluate the demblition. Mr. Benson stated there is a section discussing willful and non-willful demolition. Non-willful demolition includes floods, fires and similar circumstances truly out of the ordinary and not from human interaction causing the demolition. Ms. Quinn mentioned the applicable code sections is on p 14. 6 Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission Januarv 13, 2014 Mr. Elliott asked forthe timing of the permits and the discovery of the mold to be clarified. Ms. Phelan stated in April, HPC approved the project for the remodel. In July there was a report by a consultant in regards to the mold in the building which occurred because the contractor had pulled a permit which allows for initial investigation behind the walls of the building. The actual permit for the remodel was issued in October. The contractor discovered the mold during the initial investigation. Mr. Elliott asked if the building would be the same as the renovations approved by the HPC. Ms. Phelan stated if the special review is approved tonight, it would be for what had been previously approved by HPC. Mr. Gibbs asked how it would be handled if they had been doing just an interior renovation instead of a major renovation and discovered the mold which resulted in as much demolition as the current situation. Ms. Phelan stated if this occurred and the applicant decided to remediate the mold requiring the removal of exterior sheeting, roof which would push them overthe 40% allowance. A special review would be necessary to request to maintain the nonconformities were associated with the existing building. Mr. Gibbs then asked what criteria would be applied for that scenario that would be different from tonight. Ms. Phelan stated it would be the same criteria. Mr. Benson stated in other situations there may be additional analysis performed to identify the types of remediation and determine if it actually requires demolition. There could be additional conversations to look at if there were other portions of the building that had been originally intended to be demolished that could be left in place to stay under the 40%. Mr. Benson stated the code provides for replacement of nonconformities through a special review which is what is happening tonight. The applicant can request a special review based on mold or a number of desires or needs to replace nonconformities. Mr. Walterscheid feels the intent speaks a lot and if the applicant desires to complete what was approved by HPC, he does not have an issue with their special review. He also understands Staff in that there should have been a conversation earlier in the process. Because there are no changes being requested, he supports providing the exemption. Mr. Elliot feels we wouldn't be here if staff had not driven by and noticed the demolition. The applicant should have come to the City and had a discussion regarding the discovery of the mold to ask for permission instead of forgiveness. He also understands the applicant wants to go the absolute safest route to mitigate the mold. He feels they should have come in to discuss the situation but because they are not changing anything from what HPC approved, he would reluctantly allow the exemption. Mr. Gibbs asked Ms. Quinn to confirm there would be no action if the board voted 2-2. Ms. Quinn confirmed there would be no action for a 2-2 vote but if it appeared the board would vote 2-2, then the applicant could ask to continue the hearing. The applicant does not have the option to appeal on the 2-2 vote. Mr. Gibbs feels this is an unfortunate situation and does not appreciate applicants asking for forgiveness and feels process should be followed. His sense is if this issue had been brought to them earlier when the mold was discovered, they would be in the same situation. He feels the applicant intends to build the project as approved and based on that he will likely vote yes. The fairness aspect plays an important 1 Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 13,2014 part and the reality is P&Z probably would have approved this in July with no discussion had it been brought to the boards attention earlier by the applicant. But he also feels the code regarding demolition is perhaps too rigid in these situations and council should be aware. Both Mr. Benson and Ms. Phelan stated the applicant's draft resolution could be reviewed and modified if P&Z wanted to use it. Mr. Benson and Ms. Phelan provided recommendations regarding additions, modifications and deletion of the sections. Mr. Goode motioned to approve special resolution #2, 2015 with the amendments as represented to maintain the nonconformities associated with 212 Lake Avenue, seconded by Mr. Walterscheid. Roll call to vote; Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. Walterscheid, yes; Mr. Elliot, yes; Mr. Gibbs, yes for a total of four (4) yes and zero (0) no, Other Business - Election of Chair and Vice-Chair for 2015 Mr. Goode nominated Mr. Walterscheid for Chair; seconded by Mr. Elliott. Mr. Gibbs nominated Mr. Goode for Chair; which was seconded. Mr. Elliot suggested Mr. Walterscheid and Mr. Goode decide who should be chair. Mr. Walterscheid agreed to serve as chair and Mr. Goode agreed to serve as Vice- Chair at which the P&Z members agreed all in favor. Mr. Gibbs closed the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk's Office, Records Manager 8 RESOLUTION NO. (Series of 2015) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMMISSION APPROVING SPECIAL REVIEW TO REPLACE A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE FOR 212 LAKE AVENUE, UNITS A AND B OF THE 212 LAKE AVENUE CONDOMINIUMS, ASPEN, COLORADO Parcel Nos. 273512489004 and 273512489005 WHEREAS, the applicant, Aspen River Rendezvous, LLC, represented by Benjamin Genshaft, as well as Harriman Construction Inc. and its counsel, David Kelly of Oates, Knezevich, Gardenswartz, Kelly & Morrow, P.C., submitted an application requesting Special Review - Replacement of a nonconforming structure for the property located at 212 Lake Avenue, legally described as Units A and B of the 212 Lake Avenue Condominiums, Aspen and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, 212 Lake Avenue is a designated landmark; and WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable review standards; and WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Department recommended denial of Special Review - Replacement of a nonconforming structure; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as indentified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on January 6,2015; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety and welfare by a vote of to L----M NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF ASPEN COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Decision The Planning and Zoning Commission approves the request of Special Review - Replacement of a nonconforming structure for the building commonly known as 212 Lake Avenue as the request meets all of the standards required under Section 26.430.040 B, Replacement of a nonconforming structure. The Commission specifically finds that, pursuant to Sections 26.430.040(A) and (B): *9+ auX rvetkk-' 1 - tn UlaAS 1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner that is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding uses of land and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district; and 2. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated view plane; and 3. There exist special characteristics unique to the property which differentiates the property from other properties located in the same zone district; and 4. No dimensional variations are increased, and the replacement structure represents the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use o f the property; and 5. Literal enforcement of the dimensional provisions of the zone district would cause unnecessary hardship upon the owner prohibiting reasonable use o f the property. The Commission specially approves the following request of Special Review - Replacement of a nonconforming structure: A. The applicant may remove and/or replace the exterior roof and wall surface area and/or subsurface components affected by toxic mold to adequately address the mold in the structure and life, health and safety issues associated with the existing structure. B. The applicant may maintain the following dimensional non-conformities: e The west side yard-setback requires and 8.8 foot variance to accommodate maintenance ofthe existing 6.2 foot setback where a15 foot setback is otherwise required; e The east side-yard setback requires a 2.1 foot variance to accommodate maintenance ofthe existing 12.9 foot setback where a15 foot setback is otherwise required; e The required combined side-yard setback for this property is 38 feet but the two existing side yard setback total to just 19.1 feet, resulting in the need for an 18.9 foot variance; and ' The allowable site coverage is 33% but the existing site coverage is 34.47%. After the proposed remodel, the site coverage will be approximately 33.81% - less than 1% over what is allowed in the zone district. e The floor area is non-conforming but will be reduced with the proposed remodel as well as the encroachment into the HLBR top of slope setback and progressive height limit. The floor area shall be permitted to be 5,605.25 square feet where the allowable floor area is 4,183 square feet. C. The applicant may remodel 212 Lake Avenue as represented to and approved by the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission as Resolution 10, Series of 2014. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion o f this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 6& day of January, 2015. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney LJ Erspamer, Chair Attest: Cindy Klob, Records Manager . %0 J , 4 . 1 i ' /5 '*f* 0 1. Ill t 5/9 4 r .09 {1% 7 .,#4 l IM I - 4 + r f . .'.f A - 4 . I. -i.. 4 . Â¢4*f, 1 , 11 . / , ..S 4 A. . 15/6 1 ' .4/ Â·~4 +1 A * t , r Â»42. Z j , i r:cpv-<- m DRY Ils f 'f -ir AE . 44 li i f â‚¬9 6 1-i t , . 7// f i\ 1, 6 4 a 11 1 . ti ' 1. 4,1 . , f - 6.L 0 R * I -il - f , 14 - . .1 n Â£ ... f - li 1 .. L Ah ./.- I â‚¬41 4 , M .Ah ' . *< A .. . , 4 1 - au~I;.4/k-. A -* f I 44.- . $,144 .9./.4 i J 2@14/11*'4. - #fx - 1/lap -111 .i - ,- * '-Ill. . 9, \\ I - 11 ./- . ... ,- . 19////k e , - .6.-&21 t. 4-40.' 9' -- **4'. Â£. - :t . - 'iv..........Mil...6--1 -VI. . . 'i~:-f , * 2....... =Â«49'11 ,k . *.3/ ..1 -- ..A . . I I I ... - ./.-.- Nal, -11 . 1*4/y*St ... ' â€¢ 1 2@14/12/1@ 2.- . :41, i 162 9 - Â»fl- 0 1 4 #. .. 1 0, 6 . ......2.- .-3 . 9ls- 4 1.- 4% ... - - - .4 * - * ...i , 4 4. /16 "_ :. ~- , 111 - *< .P . 2, h I I I t. P I 8,/ . 1 f. 1 f . :0 4 +2 19 2 .3 - . 4- 4 . 6. 7 â€¢. D : b.Â· ' - g . /1 . ' 5 9Â· " Â·0 4 f. - 10 #.1. 7 6 r la 4 t 4,' I #A *GY ~"; ?Ff, 4 -bb,~ ; 'Â¢ *84 :lili I. * r 1. 1 1 44 .4 . I V y 5%6 ..,4 D: . f < . -'44 . '- M $ -r . 4 I Â·' 4 'e ~ Â·3, 1. # ././.-&/' y.Â« 9 A . 652=2'me.LF 'f. r . 9 + 1 1 - .h' 2 1 41 1/'"1 2/Fi. 6-r .f 3392: 1,99+ - 1,2. ?* w f.1 I * 4. 11 -tÂ· AN - 0 411 9 % Imy * I )1 4,3 + t-1 . Ii. 0 J ...42 , t1m/ 1 . .,1 ~ .-1~ >1,~; '4 L. 11 0 4 42,. 29&. 7 .Sk - 'le 4. 0 11 14 â‚¬ 4 9 4.-** . 11. *f * C * 9 .9- ..4 ' . 1 . I , :.1 6 JrÂ¢ 11.,ifi t. I â€¢.~3 44 0 . 1 ./r . I -- ... 4. Ix' - EXHIBIT AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 212 Lake Avenue , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: January 6 , 2015_ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, Harriman Construction, Inc. (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: X_ Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the vublication is attached hereto. PLACED IN PAPER BY CITY OF APSEN _X Posting of notice.- By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the _6_ day of January , 2015_,to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. X_ Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice. return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, PDs that create more than one lot, and new Planned Developments are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However. the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. \4 tr~Â·~ ~21.1 1 LAU1100!1-L~ Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this l 9 day of [b L 6 J fk L.DEr , 20 1 9, by K , A 1-Dil l v 01 ( 01 i:9:4 r-q WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL ~ JOLENE M ARMSTRONG NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO My commission expires: 7,/,1 5 ~AÂ°) 7 Notary !D 20054029083 1 My Commission Expires 07/25/2017 , ~ h , 114 A..LA Notary Public U ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: â€¢ COPY OF THE PUBLICATION â€¢ PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) â€¢ LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL â€¢ APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. Â§24-65.5-103.3 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 212 LAKE AVENUE - SPECIAL REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 6, 2015, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, in the Sister Cities room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application subnitted by Aspen River Rendezvous, LLC, 186 Vail Lane, North Salem, NY, 10560, owners of the property located at 212 Lake Avenue, Units A and B, 212 Lake Avenue Condominiums, City and Townsite of Aspen, PID #2735-124-89-004 and -005. The applicant requests Special Review approval to replace a nonconforming structure (the existing duplex) after demolition of the building. For further information, contact Jennifer Phelan at the City o f Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429-2759, jennifer.phelan@cityofaspen.com. s/U Erspamer Chair, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission 210 WEST FRANCIS LLC 212 WEST FRANCIS LLC 229 WEST SMUGGLER LLC 255 13TH AVE SOUTH #202 255 13TH AVE SOUTH #202 3509 CRESCENT AVE NAPLES, FL 34102 NAPLES, FL 34102 DALLAS, TX 75205 301 LAKE AVENUE LLC 426 NORTH SECOND LLC ASPEN CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL 2385 NW EXECUTIVE CENTER DR #440 3509 CRESCENT AVE STUDIES BOCA RATON. FL 33431 DALLAS. TX 75205 100 PUPPY SMITH ST ATTN KATIE SCHWOERER ASPEN, CO 81611 BARNHART PAUL F JR BRUNDIGE CHELSEA C CITY OF ASPEN 2121 SAGE RD #333 1755 SNOWMASS CREEK RD 130 S GALENA ST HOUSTON, TX 77056 SNOWMASS, CO 81654 ASPEN, CO 81611 CMML PROPERTIES LLC CONOVER CATHRINE M COTSEN 1985 TRUST 120 E 56TH ST #320 1010 WISCONSIN AVE NW STE#550 12100 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 905 NEW YORK, NY 10022 WASHINGTON, DC 20007 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 FRANCIS AND SECOND ST LLC GREENBERG ASPEN LP 50% GREENBERG RONALD K TRUSTEE 50% 4545 POST OAK PLACE DR #144 #3 BRENTMOOR 230 S BEMISTON AVE #101 HOUSTON, TX 77026 ST LOUIS, MO 63105 ST LOUIS, MO 631051907 HANSON LUCY C LAKE 206 LLC LEWIS JONATHAN D REV TRUST 1775 FIR ST PO BOX 3337 414 N FIRST ST PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 ASPEN, CO 81611 PHILLIPPE THOMAS E JR & SUSAN MARIE RANDALL ELLEN MIDDLETON TRUST 50% SCHERMER LLOYD G & BETTY A 225 W SMUGGLER ST 600 JEFFERSON STE #350 210 LAKE AVE ASPEN, CO 81611-1356 HOUSTON, TX 77002 ASPEN, CO 81611-1347 SCHIFF DAVID T TENEDOS LLC 1177 AVE OF THE AMERICAS 42ND FL 79 LOCUST RD NEW YORK, NY 10036 WINNETKA, IL 60093 , r '4; .9 ' as:11 â‚¬ lk:2 ,1* , ti 1, : ~Â·4 r.,C ;li,JIMA,1 ... 4 VA% Ard./.Ir 1... , i *Ar L I ./ .., 4; t: I U â‚¬Â· bal*&/"*kin*23"ill'P ,~ 7 m":"riT#~m~j), *f . . 4,1 4. P. 9rk--1/ -- 3,/. 4 . 1...C .:4.4,4/'MtsÂ©>iliAAMF -V. a.1.--/99*902â‚¬ 2 -v&- 4 -F .F- Mi,M :i#, 'af - ..O --,NV.*.. 11 ~f r %-2 P . L. . a.r WA-1-/27 1 9 0 -9..p f;, ..1. 4 9/#.3~Â£47*hij * {et///MC/~/8 - , f.2,~*f- J.. 5 , i . I - A - - 3/W~fill.Vi~./7.Z'-I ; -3*~49187 **4 ' 21' â€¢ I 44'Â·Â· . . , b 9/EMA-rb LS# 14 0 Pt-Â·- 1 \ 42>444.13 FW; ler L- Â·Â·- -,2~31 . ',11,3:19*ilia ..1 '94 6.1: taft '. 51714,1)4, NA , 4 re, /0 tÂ«jrk; â€¢ 6 e 1 r ?-1/61 7411 11 - 5 ~ ;ii Â£ 2 * ~ - - 62=7 , ' fy >,1*~~ imilililizii 9 e - \\, ./I.,1.4;2 'll'll'lill , -41 . A' 7 1.6,7 1 I. 141 L 4 r -i- ~- - Â·/E ' A I -4 -4 * 2-1. t :r 11- 1 'T - 8 9 -- !!. 4 ; 0 =4* 1 mi.1./flâ„¢Â»"11. 1 0 1.REI~i//8/ill/= 0 m- # ./2?5Bi~ INIGE.vLFEi,:,1.1- ~~ ..... I 111 I, I . . 1 I SCEIVEr) PÂ« 1 9 2014 CITY OF ASPEN )1444!INITY DEVE[ netfe : AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 7_ 1 2- L.sul<, f - 1-, L.9.. , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Jo-a L. 42 14-5~Off,1 , 20153 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) -Â»C,â‚¬53 ~ Q c-c>,-e.--1 (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) o f the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: \~ Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the day of , 20 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage (4'3851: 2 prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the Â·ji * property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of e . ff:Â· 1 property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they den, r :.appedred-ilo more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A A-".-- -'- . 4 coPy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. NeighboiÂ·hood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy Of me neighborhood outreach suminary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAs or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part o f a general revision o f this Title, or whenever the text o f this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 1% day of *a:- , 20/4, by Â»in 1/<A Ex, 8/~â‚¬-~001 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 212 LAKE AVENUE - SPECIAL REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing I WITNESS MY- HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL will be held on Tuesday, January 6, 2015, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, in the Sister Cities room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Aspen River, Rendezvous, LLC, 186 Vail Lane, North Salem, My commission expires: ca l 8-l I (r NY, 10560, owners of the property located at 212 Lake Avenue, Units A and B, 212 Lake Avenue Condominiums, City and Townsite of Aspen, PID #2735- 124-89-004 and -005. The applicant re- guests Special Review approval to replace a non- 1410 +4 6,4 AtitrS*~ conforming structure (the existing duplex) after demolition of the building. For further information, Notary Public contact Jennifer Phelan at the City of Aspen Com- L munity Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429-2759, KAREN REED PATTERSON jennifer.phelan@cityofaspen.com. NOTARY PUBLIC s/U Ersgamer Chair, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission STATE OF COLORADO Published in the Aspen Times on December 18, NOTARY ID #19964002767 2014(10799018) ETACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE :My commission Expires Fabruary 15, 2016 r â€¢ COPY OF THE PUBLICATION â€¢ PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) â€¢ LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL â€¢ APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. Â§24-65.5-103.3 VI.A. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: 212 Lake Avenue - Special Review Resolution No. , Series 2015 - Public Hearing MEETING DATE: January 6, 2014 ~~*di Vt<) ~C-A ovl -*u_ tz>Â»- 4--D \~(:~(lfi~~~) (OP APPLICANT /OWNER: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Aspen River Rendezvous, LLC Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the request to replace the REPRESENTATIVE: nonconforming structure. Bill Harriman, Haniman Construction and David Kelly, SUMMARY: Oates, Knezevich, Gardenswartz, The Applicant requests of Planning and Zoning Kelly & Morrow, PC Commission approval of Special Review to allow the replacement of a nonconforming structure. LOCATION: 212 Lake Avenue 1.All --i; - CURRENT ZONING & USE v,w,iliimm il~ Located iii the Medium Density Residential (R-6) zone district and subject to the Hallam Lake Bluff " ~ review. Property is a designated historic landmark. PROPOSED LAND USE: 5 0/ The Applicant is requesting Special ~ , Review approval to replace a 212 Lake Ave. nonconforming structure. The 3 , building remodel has triggered i * demolition and Applicant proposes to replace the nonconforming '1 building. .. Vicinity map of the site Page 1 of 5 P1 VI.A. LAND USE REOUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant has requested the following land use approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission: â€¢ Special Review - Replacement of nonconforming structures, for the replacement of a structure after demolition which does not conform with the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.430, Special Review. (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authoritv). PROJECT SUMMARY: 212 Lake Avenue is a designated historic landmark and subject to the Hallam Lake Bluff review. It is also nonconforming in a number of areas including parking (short 2 on-site spaces), side and combined setbacks, floor area, site coverage and the Hallam Lake Bluff setback and height requirements. With regard to Floor Area, a 1980s Council ordinance/plat permitted a Floor Area of.4:1 for either a single family residence or a duplex on the property. The maximum allowable Floor Area is 4,183 sq. ft but the existing conditions are in excess of the number by approximately 1,500 sq. ft. The Applicant, Aspen River Rendezvous, LLC, was granted approvals to remodel the existing duplex from the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and subsequently issued a building permit. The HPC allowed the applicant to maintain the construction in the setbacks for the approved design as well as granted a parking variance of one space per unit. The Applicant was to reconstruct the roof in certain areas to simplify the building form and to become more compliant with the Hallam Lake Bluff requirements at the rear of the building (Figure 1 - next page). As a nonconforming structure, as long as demolition is not triggered, the nonconformities may be maintained. When demolition of a nonconforming structure occurs, a replacement structure may be constructed only if the new structure is in conformance with the requirement of the Land Use Code (unless Special Review is granted). The Land Use Code specifies, under the Definitions section, that demolition is "to raze, disassemble, tear down or destroy forty percent or more of an existing structure (prior to commencing development) as measured by the surface of all exterior wall and roof area above finished grade and associated assembly components necessary for the structural integrity for such wall and roof area" (emphasis added). The Land Use Code further notes that "it shall be the responsibility of the applicant to accurately understand the structural capabilities of the building prior to undertaking a remodel. Failure to properly understand the structural capacity of elements intended to remain niay result in an involuntary collapse of those portions and a requirement to recalculate the extent of demolition. Landowner's intent or unforeseen circumstances shall not affect the calculation of actual physical demolition. Additional requirements or restrictions of this Title may result upon demolition" (emphasis added). Page 2 of 5 P2 VI.A. Figure 1: Existing and Approved Site Plan 211141404-2:7= -- t--.. ' râ„¢- *_ --_ _ ,/-1/4~~ . 4*270*-- 1 14\ F --~.-,q_.1. - _-~4_ 042-li-23;21 ~~#.r--9.1-(- .1444Â¢ Â©- 01 1 ~ 1%1 j 11 1 --1 t-7 667-40Â· ,Â· i 1 t -=?* - 7 A 4 1 -01; ' 1 3-~~ ~ 1/--l~3><1 6 3----~~~ . 66.2 + - 1 L-4 VII , 1 1 -- -. Â·-- - E. 11 1 k \, Â£-7--1 Â¢24% T ..C--3.4*4--,1 =-=1=t4==:4 -'ll/ , 1 , 1 r.) r*13-ET,Â¢0 E-rt PLAN ~... I 1-4-= -will--Mi'*9 -- - --1:944<4 \3439-EE ,- Â· Â· * â€ž-Â·-r--~ -1 Â·Â· .-ti-4#Â·-~W{;Up,-77- .449- -,0-=-~,Â«*.,~a- bt-~ fi,i 1 602 4 -214'~-~-34 t., -4 BEr.' L .Â£ #j / \,2 1= =. t f--1 I ,1 2) ,0 0 Iii 1/ : 0 '. 4/ 1 \ 1 i c [TJ~~Â·15-42=1.l.EE -1 |, "E,31 1~-- I r 1-.Â·.il '0 | "*.UI,71% , f / br-7, 1 1 i.-1 1 - - - - - 1/1 m- Eriu: ..4 -FyiN -1 C--3,1 -/ / i - il- - - --, 4141\ ~ Ix- --*-* =&~Qi&-im- ri- I .- _ +9 \/ 1 .\252:20 , ., 1 0 -11 - 4 / -'7< ,(2<~ 1 ---L-- ,/__9 Orange ovals indicate areas of roof form I / changes / 1 , 10 In order to receive a building permit, the Applicant submitted a number of sheets within the plan set that included both a demolition diagram showing what assemblies were to be removed as part of the building permit and an accompanying calculation to verify that the removal would not exceed the forty percent threshold. Based upon the representations within the diagram and calculation, as well as compliance with other requirements, a building permit was issued. Prior to issuance of the building permit for the approved project, an Interior Finish and Fixture Removal (IFFR) permit was issued allowing for initial investigation of the integrity of the building. Mold was uncovered and the contractor hired a consultant to assess it in July 2014, Page 3 of 5 P3 VI.A. prior to building permit issuance in October 2014. Applicant did not point out or raise the issue of mold to the city prior to the initiation of demolition. During demolition and reconstruction the Zoning Officer requested an on-site inspection and verification of the demolition calculations. At that point Harriman Construction noted that they had encountered mold within the building and a greater amount of demolition had occurred than what was identified in the building permit. Updated calculations were provided to the city and the current demolition calculation, submitted by the contractor, is that fifty-five percent of the building's exterior wall, roof and assemblies have been removed, thus triggering demolition and the requirement to cure any nonconformities. Photos of the site are provided below. Figure 2: Demolition Photos 2- 2 .-,4-\1 1â€ž1 ,/AinAXP-E#*1.FM"f JKWBA/29Dlrv7L~fA~-Ti / Ni5--1169~ , %-3" 'JÂ¥101."15131.Â·647572~47. i 1.t . -2-3.> 4, I ~.4.>jk 1 . . .119:99/4/. - 1 . . 1,3 1 All//1/lill'll:Im. :-..m - -/.0-- F %:It?~ /&-m .".F:Il 1 - . ,â‚¬?a ..." , J'll-'VIC"Er,- . ~ 4, .mi-1 1,1/=IN V -p ~- 11~ Land Use Reviews: The following land use review, Special Review - Replacement of nonconforming structures, is being requested by the Applicant to maintain the nonconformities that existed prior to the project exceeding the demolition allowance. Staff Comment: The existing house is considered a nonconforming structure as it exceeds the allowable Floor Area permitted for the lot, does not meet required setbacks, parking requirements and the Hallam Lake Bluff requirements. Nonconforming structures are permitted to be maintained but the intent of the nonconformities regulations "is to regulate and limit the Page 4 of 5 P4 VI.A. continued existence of those uses, buildings and structures that do not conform to the provisions of this Title as amended. " Additionally, nonconÂ®rming structures that are purposefully demolished or destroyed shall only be replaced with a conforming building unless granted Special Review to maintain the nonconformity. The Special Review criteria (Exhibit A) focus on whether there exist special characteristics unique to the property and whether enforcement of the dimensional provisions would not allow reasonable use Of the property and unnecessary hardship. Staff does not believe that there are special characteristics associated with the property that would differentiate it from other properties within the neighborhood and the subject zone district. There are many designated landmarks within the city as well as properties that are subject to the Hallam Lake Bluff review and some properties that are subject to both. The property may be developed with up to 4,183 sq. ft. of Floor Area on a 11,102 sq. ft. lot. At its narrowest the lot is 59 ft. wide, similar to many lots within the West End. Although the lot is subject to review as a designated landmark and under the Hallam Lake Bluff review, reasonable use of the property can be maintained. "Reasonable use does not require maximum use. A property need not be developed to the absolute maximum potential to be considered a reasonable use. Staff believes a home, compliant with today's current land use regulations, achieves reasonable use of the properly. Although the city has no adopted regulations or policies with regard to mold remediation, demolition is a reviewed and regulated part of a building permit. If a change to the demolition plan is necessary due to unforeseen circumstances then an Applicant should confer with city representatives prior to taking action. Other options may have been available to not trigger demolition. At the end ofthe day, the allowances and limitations ofthe approved building permit was not followed. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the application for Special Review to maintain certain nonconformities of the building. As noted in the Land Use Code "Landowner's intent or unforeseen circumstances shall not affect the calculation of actual physical demolition." The project is not compliant with the building permit that was issued for the project and has exceeded the demolition allowance of up to forty percent ofan existing structure. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to deny the request for Special Review to maintain certain nonconformities associated with 212 Lake Avenue." ATTACHMENTS: ExHIB[-1 A - Special Review Criteria EXHIBIT B - Application Page 5 of 5 P5 VI.A. RESOLUTION NO. (Series of 2015) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DENYING SPECIAL REVIEW TO REPLACE A NONCONFOMING STRUCTURE FOR 212 LAKE AVENUE, UNITS A AND B OF THE 212 LAKE AVENUE CONDOMINIUMS, ASPEN, COLORADO Parcel Nos. 273512489004 and 273512489005 WHEREAS, the applicant, Aspen River Rendezvous LLC, represented by Benjamin Genshaft, as well as Harriman Construction and David Kelly of Oates, Knezevich, Gardenswartz, Kelly & Morrow, PC, submitted an application requesting Special Review - Replacement of a nonconforming structure for the property located at 212 Lake Avenue, legally described as Units A and B of the 212 Lake Avenue Condominiums, City and Townsite ofAspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, 212 Lake Avenue is a designated landmark; and WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable review standards; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Director recommended denial of Special Review - Replacement of a nonconforming structure; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director. and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on January 6,2015; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare by a vote of --- to --- 0_). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Decision The Planning and Zoning Commission denies the request of Special Review - Replacement of a nonconforming structure for the building commonly known as 212 Lake Avenue as the request does not meet all standards required under Section 26.430.040 B, Replacement of nonconforming structures. The Commission specifically finds that 1) there are not existing special characteristics unique to the property that differentiate the property from other properties located with the same zone district (Section 26.430.040 B.2) and that 2) literal enforcement of the dimensional provisions of the zone district does not prohibit reasonable use of the property (Section 26.430.040 B.4). Page 1 of 2 P6 VI.A. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: [f any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion sliall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. t11 APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 6 day of January, 2015. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney LJ Erspamer, Chair Attest: Cindy Klob, Records Manager Page 2 of 2 P7 VI.A. Exhibit A 26.430.040. Review standards for special review. No development subject to special review shall be permitted unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all standards and requirements set forth below. A. Dimensional requirements. Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed development are subject to special review, the development application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met. 1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount ofopen space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. Staff Finding: The use of the property, as a duplex, is consistent with the character Of other u.ses within the neighborhood and the purpose of the zone district. The purpose of the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district, which is generally limited to the Aspen Townsite, is to "contain relatively dense settlements of predominantly detached and duplex residences within walking distance of the center of the city. To regulate and standardize development within the zone district, permitted uses as well as dimensional standards have been adopted: however, Stqff does not believe the existing mass and configuration are consistent with the purpose of the underlying zone district. Sta#finds this criterion is not met. 2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts. including but not limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated view plane. Staff Finding: As a nonconforming structure, the building is allowed to maintain its nonconformities such as development within the Hallam Lake Bluff When demolition occurs, a property is expected to come into conformance w#h adopted regulations. Permitting a continuance of a nonconformity within the Hallam Lake Bluff area will not assist in thing>; such as limiting the noise and visual impacts to the nature preserve. Staff finds this criterion is not met. B. Replacement of nonconforming structures. Whenever a structure or portion thereof, which does not conform to the dimensional requirements of the zone district in which the property is located is proposed to be replaced after demolition, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed development shall comply with the conditions of Subsection 26.430.040.A above; Staff Finding: As noted in the review criteria previously listed, Staff does not find this criterion mel P8 VI.A. Exhibit A 2. There exist special characteristics unique to the property which differentiate the property from other properties located in the same zone district; Staff Finding: There are no special characteristics associated with the property that would differentiate it from other properties within the neighborhood and the subject zone district. There are many designated landmarks within the city as well as properties that are subject to the Hallam Lake Bluff review and some properties that are subject to both. Although the city has no adopted regulations or policies with regard to mold remediation, demolition is a reviewed and regulated part of a building permit. If a change to the demolition plan is necessary due to unforeseen circumstances an applicant should confer with city representatives prior to taking action. Other options may have been available to not trigger deniolition. Staffdoes notfind this criterion met. 3. No dimensional variations are increased, and the replacement structure represents the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the property; and Sta# Finding: If approved, the proposed replacement structure will maintain the existing non-conformities associated with the property as reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission; however, these variations are greater than what is needed for reasonable use of the property as the property could be developed to meet the land use code. "Reasonable lise" does not require maximum ilse. A property need not be developed to the absolute maximum potential to be considered a reasonable use. Staff does not find this criterion met. 4. Literal enforcement of the dimensional provisions of the zone district would cause unnecessary hardship upon the owner by prohibiting reasonable use of the property. Staff Finding: The property may be developed with up to 4,183 sq. ft. of Floor Area on a 11,102 sq. ft. lot. At its narrowest the lot is 59 ft. wide, similar to many lots within the West End. Although the lot is subject to review as a designated landmark and under the Hallam Lake Bluff review, reasonable use of the property can be maintained. Staff does not jind this criterion met. P9 4 ' VI.A. LAWOFFICES OF OATIDS, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ, KELLY & MORROW, P. C. PROFESSIONALCORPO. RATION THIRD FLOOR ASF=N PLAZA BUILDING 533E HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN COLORADO 816Â· 1 WWW OKGKLAW COM LEONARD M OATES TELEPHONE (970) 920 1 1 -0 RKHARD A KNEZEVICH FACSI MIL E (9 70) 920 1 E 1 TED D GAROENSWARTZ DIRECT (970) 544 1983 DAVID B KELLY MARIA MORROW OF COUNSEL smo@okgtaw corn STEPHENR CONNOR ANNE MARIEE McPHEE SARAH M OATES STEPHANIE HOLDER December 26,2014 VIA HAND-DIÂ· LIVERY Jennifer Phalen, Planning Deputy Director City o f Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Special Review- 212 Lake Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 ("Property" or "212 Lake ") Dear Jennifer, Enclosed please find the land use application ("Application") for Special Review for 212 Lake pursuant to Section 26.430.040(B), Replacement of Non-con forming Structures. As you are aware, the Properly is currently under construction, is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Site and Structures, and has received Minor Development approval by the Historic Preservation Commission ("HPC") for a major remodcl of the historic home and the existing, non-historic addition. The property is located in the Medium Density Residential R-6 zone district ("R-6" or "Zone District") and is also located in the Hallam Like Bluff Environmentally Sensitive Area and is subject to the Hallam Lake Bluff Review C'HLBRD. The owner of the Property, Aspen River Rendezvous, LLC ("Owner") is specifically seeking Special Review approval to mainlain the existing non-conformities with respect to the structure, remodel the structure as approved by the HPC and be permitted to properly remediate mold that was discovered through the course of construction on the structure. The Property has the following preexisting, legally created, non-conformities: parking (short 2 on-site spaces as varied by the HPC), the side and combined setbacks do not conform to the R-6 setback requirements, the Property exceeds the allowable floor area for the R-6 zone district by approximately 1400 square feet, the structure exceeds the R-6 Zone District site coverage requirement by 1.5% and the structure does not comply with the I ILBR setback and height requirements. HPC approved the redesign and remodel of the Property with the non-conforming dimensional aspects of the structure. HPC did not grant any setback or floor area bonuses because these were technically not necessary as discussed below. HPC did grant a parking variance, as the structure on the Property is a duplex and four (4) spaces normally would be required. I IPC granted a variance for one (1) space per unit. The HPC also reviewed the HLBR and approved the proposed changes, with conditions, as lhe Owner of the Properly P10 VI.A. OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ & KELLY P.C. 212 Lake Avenue - Special Review Application December 26,2014 Page 2 lessencd the HLBR setback and height non-conformities and reduced some of the excessive floor area by removing a portion of the structure that extends into the setback. The Owner is also proposing to remove all non-native vegetation from the HLBR area. A proposed second deck was approved by I IPC because it was not in the fifteen (15) foot setback from the Hallam Lake Bluff. Pursuant to Section 26.312.030, Non-Conforming Structures, a non-conforming structure may be continued in accordance with the Land Use Code. A non-conforming structure can be remodeled and normal maintenance of a non-conforming structure may be performed "without affecting the autliorization to -continue as a non-conforming structure." The Owner commenced the remodel of the Property, in which the non-conformities could remain, by maintaining at least 61% of the exterior surface roof and wall area as calculated in Section 26.575.020(E) of the Land Use Code. A significant portion (13% percent) of the proposed demolition was agreed to by the Owner to accommodate the desire o f City staff and HPC to modify some of the morc undesirable aspects of the 1980s remodel. Notably, the roof line as seen from Lake Avenue and the roof line as seen from Hallam Lake were both removed and lowered as requested by HPC. The City of Aspen Building Department ("Building Department") issued a remodel permit for the Property. Several m: )nths ago. during partial demolition on the structure, the general contractor for the project. Harriman Construction, Inc. ('I-ICI"). discovered mold throughout both the historic house and non-historic addition. HCI conducted airborne air sampling and engaged a mold expert to determine the best course of action with respect to the pervasive mold. HCI carried out the expert's recommendations and removed the mold where it was seen in dimensional lumber and on plywood. The Building Department ;pas aware of the mold issue at 212 Lake and, as the City of Aspen ("City") has no regulations with r.:spect to mold and mold remediation, no approval of the remediation was required by the City To conform with the mold expert's recommendation, as well as OSHA guidelines on mold, HCI has been required to replace material that was not part of the original demolition plan. The moldy materials will be replaced with new dimensional lumber (2xl Os) and plywood sheeting in exactly the same locations. Pursuant to the mold experts' recommendation, additional moldy material must be removed and replaced to adequately address the life, health and safety issues associated with the mold in the existing structure The City has taken the position that the repair and replacement of mold-infested material constitutes "demolition" as defined in the Land Use Code and thus demolition has exceeded the 39% threshold of roof and wall surface area that could be removed. The Owner and I-ICI disagree with the proposition that moldy material cannot be replaced without exceeding the demolition limit in the Code. All told, in order to adequately address the mold issue in the structure, 55% of the exterior roof and wall surface area and/or subsurface components must be repaired. Because the Community Development Department has interpreted the repair of the mold as exceeding the demolition threshold in the Land Use Code, review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission ("Commission") for Special Review - Replacement of Non-Con forming Structures is required for 212 Lake. The criteria for Special Review, specific to the replacement of a non- conforming structure, is addressed in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. As the Commission will see, 212 Lake meets all of the criteria in Section 26.430.040(B) - Special Pll VI.A. OATES, KNEZEVIC!1, GARDENSWARTZ & KELLY P.C. 212 Lake Avenue - Special Review Application December 26,2014 Page 3 Review to maintain the existing non-conformities on the Property and allow HCI to repair and/or remove the remaining moldy material as a matter of the life, health and safety for the occupants of the structure. Please let me know ifyou have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ, KELLY & MORROW, P.C. By ~IESI~ '~'~il> Sarah Mcerrt6 Enclosures: Exhibit "A" - Criteria for Special Review and Non-Conformities with Applicant Responses Exhibit "B" - Site Improvement Survey Exhibit "C" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "D" - Land Use Application and Fee Agreement Exhibit "E" - Pre-Application Conference Summary Exhibit'~F'- - HOA Compliance Form Exhibit "G" - Proof of Ownership P12 VI.A. Ar EXHIBIT 171 1 AAÂ» Criteria and Responses to Land Use Code Criteria - Applicant's responses are in, a ics 26.312.030. Non-Conforming Structures A. Authority to continue. A nonconforming structure devoted to a use permitted in the zone district in which it is located may be continued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. 212 Lake Avenue isa non-conforming structure. The existing and proposed use as a duplex unit in the R-6 zone district is a permitted ilse. The Owner is seeking to maintain the existing non-conformities pursuant to Special Review. B. Normal maintenance. Normal maintenance to non-conforming structures may be performed without affecting the authorization to continue as a non-conforming structure. The Properly is currently undergoing a significant remodel in order to preserve and restore the historic structure and portions of the non-historic addition. C. Extensions. A non-conforming structure shall not be extended by an enlargement or expansion that increases the non-conformity. A non-conforming structure may be extended or altered in a manner that does not change or that decreases the non-conformity. The proposed remodel of the structure does not extend or enlarge any non- conformity. Additionally, non-conforming height and setbacks in the HLBR and floor area that exceeds allowable,floor area in the R-6 zone district will be reduced as a result of this remodel. The remaining criteria in the Section do not apply to this project as Community Development Staff has determined Special Review is more appropriate than additional review from HPC. D. Relocation. A non-conforming structure shall not be moved unless it thereafter conforms to the standards and requirements of the zone district in which it is located. There is no proposal to relocate the structure. E. Unsafe structure. Any portion ofa non-conforming structure which becomes physically unsafe or unlawful due to lack of repairs and maintenance and which is declared unsafe and unlawful by an authorized city official, but which an owners wishes to restore, repair or rebuild shall only be restored, repaired or rebuilt in conformity with the provisions of this Title. Although physically unsafe due to the mold in the structure, 212 Lake Avenue has not been declared unsafe and unlawful by an authorized city oficial because the Code is silent on the effect of mold and whether moldis an unsafe condition. The P13 4,1 VI.A. Owner believes the structure should be declared unsafe because ofthe potentially toxic ejJects of living .,ith mold. F. Ability to restore. 1. Non-Durposeful destruction. Any non-conforming structure which is demolished or destroyed by an act of nature through any manner not purposefully accomplished by the owner, may be restored as of right if a building permit for reconstruction is issued within twenty-four (24) months ofthe date ofdemolition or destruction. 2. Purposeful destruction. Any non-conforming structure which is purposefully demolished or destroyed may be replaced with a different structure only if the replacement structure is in conformance with the current provisions o f this Title or unless replacement of the non-conformity is approved pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 26.430, Special Review. Any structure which is non-conforming in regards to permitted density of the underlying zone district may maintain that specific non- conformity only i f a building permit for the replacement structure is issued within twelve (12) months of the date o f demolition or destruction. The Applicant did not purposefully destroy the niold infested wood, it is being repaired with identical materials. The Community Development Department has nevertheless declared that the repair of this material falls under Paragraph 2, Purposeful Destruction, and Special Review is required to maintain the non- conformities of the structure. The Special Review criteria are addressed below. 26.430.040.Review Standards for Special Review No development subject to special review shall be permitted unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all standards and requirements set forth below. 26.430.040(A). Dimensional Requirements Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed development are subject to special review, the development application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met: 1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks o f the proposed development are designed in a manner that is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding uses o f land and is consistent with the purposes o f the underlying zone district. The mass, height, density, configuration, aniount of open space, landscaping (other than removal of non-native landscaping as approved as part of the HPC review) and setbacks will essentially remain unchangedflom existing conditions, The current addition to the historic structure was built in the 1980s and has been a part of the neighborhoodfor decades. The owner is proposing to reduce the 2 P14 VI.A. total volume of the structure located in the HLBR top ofslope setback by 26%. The reduction in the footprint wit! also result in a decrease infloor area - which is also non-conforming. 2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability ofparking in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated view plane. The proposed development win not have an adverse impact on the surrounding uses and will mitigate those impacts. The use, a duplex, is not a non-conformity as there is su#icient lot size for a duplex use on the Property. The HPC has- already granted a variance forparking -reducing the number of required spaces from four (4) to two (2) spaces. The HPC made specific findings that due to a shared driveway and limitations with placing formal parking on the driveway that there was apractical difficulty that justified the parking variance. The development ivill not create shading, excess tra#ic or block a designated Viell, plane. 26.430.040(81. Replacement of Nonconformine Structures Whenever a structure or portion thereof, which does not conform to the dimensional requirements ofthe zone district in which the properly is located is proposed to be replaced after demolition, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed development shall comply with the conditions of Subsection 26.430.040(A) above; As discussed above the criteriafor dimensional requirements above have been met. 2. There exist special characteristics unique to the property which differentiates the property from other properties located in the same zone district; The property contains a historically designated properly and is located within the HLBR. Although a historic structure overlooking Hallam Lake in and of itself is not unique, the property contains a large addition within the HLBR and although the owner 's desire was simply remodel the property, due to a mold issue the remodel of the property has created special circumstances for the properly. Although mold is not unheard of in Aspen - there are very few cases which f he City of Aspen has had to deal with and there are no City ofAspen regulations (land ilse, building, environmental health or othenvise) addressing mold and what an owner, contractor or third party must do to mitigate the mold in order fo comply with City ofAspen requirements. 3. No dimensional variations are increased, and the replacement structure represents the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the property; and 3 P15 VI.A. The Applicant is not requesting an increase in dimensional variations. The height and setback non-conformities in the HLBR will actually be decreased as well as the overall jloor areafor the properly. The proposal to maintain the existing non- conformity represents the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the property. The reasonable use Of the property it that it be permitted to remain in its current configuration, as approved by HPC, and allow the owners to repair the rotted, mold invested material thal the mold remediation expert recommended be removed. For the record, diefollowing dimensional variances are requested as part of this Special Review: â€¢ The west side yard-setback requires and 8.8 foot variance to accommodate maintenance of the existing 6.2 foot setback where a15 foot setback is othenvise required: â€¢ The east side-yard setback requires a 2.1 foot variance to accommodate maintenance of the existing 1 2.9 foot setback where a 15 foot setback is otherwise required; â€¢ The required combined side-yard setbackfor this property is 38 feet but the two existing side yard setback total to just 19.1 feet, resulting in the need for an 18.9 foot variance; and e The allowable site coverage is 33% but the existing site coverage is 34.47%, After the proposed reniodel, the site coverage will be approximately 33.81% -less than 1% over what is allowed in the zone district. â€¢ Thefloor areais non-conforming but will be reduced with the proposed remodel as well as the encroachment into the HLBR top of slope setback and progressive height limit. The existing (e.g. pre-construction) floor area was calculated as 5,712 square feet by the project architects, the proposed floor area pursuant to the building permit for the Properly is 5,606 square feet and the allowable floor area is 4,183 squarefeet. HPC did not grant anyfloor area bonus for the Property because of its legal, non-conforming status. As proposed, the project exceeds the allowable floor area by 1,423 square feet. 4. Literal enforcement of the dimensional provisions of the zone district would cause unnecessary hardship upon the owner prohibiting reasonable use of the property. Literal enforcement of the dimensional provisions of the zone district would cause unnecessary hardship upon the owner prohibiting reasonable use of the property. Over one-halfofthe house is located in the HLBR. A ten (10) foot fronf yard setback is required in the R-6 zone district but the historic structure must remain in its current location -Â· which is setback thirty (30) feet from Lake Avenue - twenty (20) feet more than the requiredfront yard setback. Additionally, the property shares a driveway with the neighbor to the southeast pursuant to a 4 P16 VI.A. shared driveway agreement. Literal enforcement of the dimensional provisions of the zone district would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the owner and would prohibit reasonable use of the property due to the small, awkward size of the developable area, the likely inabilityfor any development to be located in front of the historic resource and the inability to do much in the way of redevelopment without variances jiom the dimensional requirements. Forcing the owner to deniolish the existing non-conforming improvements would create an additional hardship on the owner. 5 P17 U < IMPROVEMENT & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PLAT ~ 2 12 LAKE AVENUE CONDOMINIUMS, UNITS A AND B '\ ' 27 RECORDED OCTOBER 27, 1981 IN PLAT BOOK 12 ATPAGE 33 N ACCORDING TOTHEAMENDEDCONDOMINIUM MAFTHEREOF It.... / . ~ ttk~ 1 '. #4 ~~ "t RECORDEDJANUARY 7,1993 IN PLAT BOOK]OAT PAGE21 ACCORDING TO THE CONDOMINIUM MAP THEREOF i 11'/01.6.P ACCORDING TO THE BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT PLAT /430'f,/ftypej *4 ---- r\ RECORDED JANUARY 6, 1995 IN PLATBOOK 35 AT PAGE 92 CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PnKIN, STATE OF COLORADO r E \ \ /71,60 1-fÂ·Â¥t* 1.==1 -- :A.-y. 4./ 71Â¢%''Nie '' C S .h.. 9 GRAPHIC SCALE . I. I Â· ,/ IFi/ 1 ,>VE.: 2 - Al#W u. 1 ' . *x'4\ tal f /J. .: 1 . â€¢ 1, -a k., r. 1 ./.- CUâ‚¬ 1.31 - 2 77' .d / '- 443: V. .... . 2 K : 1.1 2/' 2 7.? :â‚¬0 4 /2 4. / '/ == /7 (â€¢6_ . ./. . 14 \ Â»X ...Â· *4/ tfe T.maL-T -, r -TE-E , 1:a Â£Â£3 \\\ <3\2 4- E -5- I -al- 1 . . -r :4-.--1 'Fj ..'.--- 7 -7 . 0 10 1 M m ,=05,0 37 C#39 r 1 & 460 * - i E 5 1 3 1 -- - 7 -5 3 T e ,EfiSE 4 /1 . â€¢ I - to . - -4- 1. ...6 1 I 141/,2/ . ar,-0.-Imm.An L E-OVEMngSURVEÂ·rnAT 1,3 LAU AVE,ar! CONDOWD,nrM, -'ll=, 1 =..- 1 .0 -'-I.... UNm A AMD 1 Ill . I .- 1 --1 -1 1â€¢=- I mil -- : 1 m HIBrr 8Ld ~, RANDAUELLENe -~~--ik-- ~-7 0 30 60 4 MIDDLETON- /' / \ TRUS3355>/~I) / -=--1 W+E â„¢1 m,p/d-n~nage h a gr,phkal r~re,ent,Uon of Ole follures depkled mci Il nol a legal ' ~ 280 LAK repres-tion. The accuracy may chinge 1 depending on Mle en*gement or reduction. GREENSERGI Copyright 2014 AsperUP<tkin GIS 1304001 4 IOOTOGAMC QI:-~Dec 1112111~4.0 -1 / Â¢91 240.LAKE AVE / 4 /2 X \ ASPEN.CENTER.FOR ENVIRONMENTAL 1 i. \1 /// / /.' m mil '5 0- LAKE come, LGA'e AVEila F Fiallam 301 LAKE ' V lfÂ« SCHIP; .1 / 7 8 AVENUE LLC .. : /1 w.tgT.v / 41 '. I tÂ«.1 / / 214 LAKE ~, N~ ~ %,~ AVE ~/ / .p' S it # 2/ , / 2 -'34 ' i X / 9, ' 1 212 LAKE 4 ~44,~* 4/...~,,' ,, AVE i' Â·. ' P. NO ST ' ' I . yar 9 110\ . f 1 iâ€¢ 1 k -"CONOVER / CATHRINE f 2 A , 4 7 * K:x 4*4&,#''' i SCHERMER / 4 / J ,'LLOYD G& 4 -4 /Â«00,~ <Â«\\ , th\Talog...\N\X : 1 f / 4 â€¢ ,/. 210 LAKE 4 LENS AVE / / g JONATHAN 434Â« ~0Â»41 jREVTRUST 4Â«Â»RN \ d.ut 3, \ / 1 ~ 208 LAKE ~ / AVE \Â«ft SECOND AND SUUGGLER r.- W SMUGGLER 0 CONDO ASSOCk- RHIWIPE._ 229 WEST-, THOMAS E JR &--*. St(UGGLER LLC SUSAN MARIE ---CIAUL ' 229 W'SMUGGÂ¢ERST I , --3-3 PRO5!BESUL- AL. -VI.A. EXHIBIT E- ATTACHMENT 2-LAND USE APPLICATION , i ...â€ž!1~14. PROJECT: Name: 212 Lake Avenue Special Review Location: 212 Lake Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 273512489004/273512489005/273512489800 (common area) APPLICANT: Name: Aspen River Rendezvous LLC Address: 186 Vail Lane, North Salem, NY 10560 Phone #: REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Harriman Construction, Inc. Address: 280 E. Cody Lane, Basalt, CO 81621 Phone #: (970) 927-1161 TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): GMQS Exemption O Conceptual PUD U Temporary Use GMQS Allotment Â¤ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) U Text/Map Amendment Special Review Â¤ Subdivision O Conceptual SPA ESA - 8040 Grecnline, Stream Â¤ Subdivision Exemption (includes Â¤ Final SPA (& SPA Margin, Hallain Lake BIuff, condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane D Commercial Design Review U Lot Split El Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion O Residential Design Variancc O Lot Line Adjustment O Other: El Conditional Use EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) Existing historic house with approvals from HPC which is currently under undergoing a major remodel. PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) The application is seeking to maintain existing non-conformities pursuant to Section 26.430.040(B) - Special Review - Replacement of nonconforming HA,6 you attached the following? FEES DUE: S 4490 structures CL.Pre-Application Conference Summary U Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement Atil Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form [90'Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards 19 3-D Model for large project All plans that nre larger than 8.5"Xll" must be folded. A disk with an electric copy ofall written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3-D model. Your pre-application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model. P20 m~ 0 Il VI.A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement to Pay Application Fees An agreement between the City of Aspen ('City-) and owt~71% Aspen River Rendezvous LLC Phone No.: Go *In,Fimon Consuumion. Ine. E~il: 070} 927Â·1161 kmccle:lityÂ¢Dhommancons:ruclk,n carr Address of 212 Lake Avenue Billing c/o Harriman Construction Property: 280 E. Cody Lane (subject of Aspen, CO 81611 Address- (send bills here) Basall, CO 81621 application) I understand that the Ctty has adopted, via Ordinance No., Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications and the payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining applicaUon completeness. I understand that as the properly owner that I am responsible for paying 011 feos for this development application For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. l understand that these flat fees are non-refundable. S 975 Parks 0 flat fee for . $ flal fee for Select Dept S-0-- nat ree for Select Dept 0 Flat Fee 4 (RDS, Mir $ Bal fee for For deposit cases only: The CRY and I understand that because olthe size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may acctue. I understand and agree that it i5 impracticable for City staff to completo processing, review, and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project oonsideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by tho City lo the above listed billing address and not returned to tho City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to rcmit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such se,vices. I have read, understood. and agree lo the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for non-payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specilied hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render an apptication complete or compliant with approval criteria. Il actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billin[,5 lo the City lo rcimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $3,250 deposit for hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time 10 above the deposil amounl will be billed at S325 per hour. s265 deposit for 1 hours 01 Engineering Department slaff time. Addilional time above the deposit amount will be billed at S265 per hour. City of Aspen: Proporty Owner: n -filt '1~9.6~4 Chris Bendon \/J . Community Development Director Ndmt: A Â«13 Ad? A|CE t-,Nk Title: City Uso: 4490 Fees Duo: S Rocoived: S January, 2013 City of Aspen 1 130 S. Galcila St. 1 (970) 920-5090 P21 VI.A. Jennifer Phalen, Planning Deputy Director City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Special Review - 212 Lake Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Ms. Phalen, Aspen River Rendezvous, LLC is the owner of 212 Lake Avenue, Units A and B, Aspen. Colorado. I hereby authorized Ben Genshaft of Genshaff Cramer LLP, Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning and Harriman Construction, Inc., with its counsel, David Kelly and Sarah Oates of Oates, Knezevicli, Gardenswartz, Kelly & Morrow, P.C. to act as the authorized representative for Aspen River Rendezvous, LLC in the above-referenced matter. ASPEN RIVER RENDESVOUS, LLC 1 / uy:2,1 1-2,--6Â«/ i'C Didpi/ 3 /21 a Â¢1/,4 P22 d t VI.A. ExHIarr ~,~ CITY OF ASPEN 1 429- PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY Hlt.. 1 PLANNER: Jennifer Phelan DATE: 12/17/2014 PROJECT: 212 Lake Ave. REPRESENTATIVE: David Kelly, dbk@okglaw.com REQUEST: Replacement of nonconforming structures DESCRIPTION: The applicant is interested in receiving approval to maintain portions of a structure that are nonconforming with regard to dimensional requirements of the zone district in which the property is located. According to a representative of the applicant (Mitch Haas) this includes parking (short 2 on-site spaces), side and combined setbacks, floor area, site coverage (over by 1.5%) and Hallam Lake setback and height. A building permit has been issued for a remodel of the property; however, the amount of demolition that has occurred exceeds the percentage permitted by the building permit and the Land Use Code to maintain a nonconformity. When demolition is triggered, only a replacement structure that conforms with all aspects of the Land Use Code may be replaced unless Special Review is granted for replacement of the existing nonconformities by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The application submittal should address all non-conformities that are being requested to be maintained. Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience: Land Use App: - http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/Citv/Comdev/Apps%20andÂ°/020Fees/2013%20land%20u se%20appÂ°/020form.pdf Land Use Code: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-a nd-Zoning/Title-26- Land-Use-Code/ Relevant Land Use Code Section(s): 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.312.030 Non-conforming structures 26.430.040(B) Special Review - Replacement of nonconforming structures Review by: Staff for completeness Review agencies for compliance P&Z for Special Review Public Hearing: Yes, P&Z Neighborhood Outreach: Not required Planning Fees: $3,250 for 10 hours of staff time. Any unbilled portion of this deposit will be refunded at the conclusion of the case. Additional staff hours, if needed, will be billed at $325 per hour. Referrals: Engineering $265 (1 hour deposit, then billed hourly) P23 VI.A. EXHIBIT .L*22 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1 Homeowner Association Compliance Policy All land use applications within the City of Aspen are required to include a Homeowner Association Compliance Form (this form) certifying the scope of work included in the land use application complies with all applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be signed bv the properly owner or Attorney renresentinc the Droperty owner. Name: Property owner (97 Email: Phone No.. Address of Property: (subject of application) I certify as follows: (pick one) U This properly Is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant. ~This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application do not require approval by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. 0 This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application have been approved by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. I understand this policy and I understand the City of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage the applicability, meaning or effect of private covenants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. 1 understand thal this docurne~t-~,a public docume~t., ':~, hy / -3 j Owner signature - p- date. /1-/14,//9 Owner printed name: 0 Â»u f 2,9<.6 â‚¬ I .412- or, Attorney signature: date: Attorney printed name: P24 VI.A. Parks $975 (flat fee) Total Deposit: $4,490.00 To apply, submit the following information: ha Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement. ~SL Pre-application Conference Summary(this document). ~El Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, 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. hEL Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. Na A site improvement survey (no older than a vear from submittal) including topography and vegetation showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor by licensed in the State of Colorado. \El HOA Compliance form (Attached) t~ 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 and relevant land use approvals associated with the property. 11 Written responses to all review criteria. ~El An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. ha 1 Complete Copy. If the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted: 0 2 Copies of the complete application packet and, if applicable, associated drawings. 1 full sized drawings. 0 A digital copy of the application provided in pdf file format. 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 may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. 2 P25 %-M -' - - VI.A. r-Â·~~ 144 G- Old Republic National Title Insurance Company ALTA COMMITMENT Our Order No. Q02005486-3 Schedule A Cust. Ref.: Properly Address: 212 LAKE AVE#A&B ASPEN, CO 81611 1. Efrective Date: August 26, 2013 at 5:00 P.M. 2. Policy lo be Issued, anti Proposed Ii,sured: "ALTA" Owner's Policy 06-17-06 Proposed Insurcd: ASPEN RIVER RENDEZVOUS, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 3. The estate or interest In the laild described or referred to in this Cominlintent and covered herein Is: A Fee Simple 4. Title to the cs(ate or interest covered herein is at the effective date hereorvested itt: PETER B. LEWIS 5. The L:mit referred to in this Commitnient is described as follows: SEE ATTACHED PAGE(S) FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION Copyright 2000Â·2013 American Land Title Afsortation. All right, reserved. AMERICAN IANDTIll I The use or this Form 15 restricted to ALTA Mc on;ccs and ALTA men,bers In good slanding as of Ille date of Use. I.OCIATIO' All other tiles are pro!,Ibled. Reprinted under license from Ille American Land Title Association. P26 VI.A. Our Order No: QG2005486-3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION CONDOMINIUM UNITS AAND B, 212 LAKE AVENUE CONDOMINIUMS, ACCORDING TO THE CONDOMINIUM MAP TiÂ·IEREOF RECORDED OCTOBER 27, 1981 IN PLAT BOOK 12 AT PAGE 33 AND ACCORDING TO THE CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION RECORDED OCTOBER 27, 198I IN BOOK ~ 416 AT PAGE 510. COUNTY OF PITKIIi STATE OF COLORADO. 827 1. -*#.J$ VI.A. ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B-1 (Require,ite:ils) Our Order No. Q62005,186-3 The follo,ving are tile requircments (0 be complied with: Payment to or for the accounl or Ilic granlors or morlgagors or lhe full consideration for Ihe estate or interest to be Insured. Proper instrument(s) crealing lim estale or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record, to-wit: 1. (ITEM INTENTIONALLY DELETED) 2. EVIDENCE SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY THAT THE TERMS. CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF THE TOWN OF ASPEN TRANSFER TAX HAVE BEEN SATISFIED. 3. A FULL COPY OF THE FULLY EXECUTED OPERATING AGREEMENT AND ANY AND ALL AMENDMENTS THERETO FOR ASPEN RIVER RENDEZVOUS, LLC, A COLORADO LIM]TED LIABILITY COMPANY MUST BE FURNISHED TO LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY. SAID AGREEMENT MUST DISCLOSE WHO MAY CONVEY, ACQUIRE, ENCUMBER, LEASE OR OTHERWISE DEAL WITH INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY FOR SAID ENTITY. NOTE: ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS MAY BE NECESSARY UPON REVIEW OF TH]S DOCUMENTATION. 4. DULY EXECUTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY SETTING FORTH THE NAME OF ASPEN RIVER RENDEZVOUS, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AS A LLC. THE STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY MUST STATE UNDER WHICH LAWS THE ENTITY WAS CREATED, THE MAILING ADDRESS OF THE ENTITY, AND TIIE NAME AND POSITION OF TI IE PERSON(S) AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE INSTRUMENTS CONVEYING, ENCUMBERING, OR OTHERWISE AFFECTING TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY ON BEHALF OF THE ENTITY AND OTHERWISE COMPLYING WITH THE PROVE[ONS OF SECTION 38-30-172, CRS. NOTE: THE STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY MUST BE RECORDED WITH Tile CLERK AND RECORDER. 5. WARRANTY DEED FROM PETER B. LEWIS TO ASPEN RIVER RENDEZVOUS, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CONVEYING SUBJECT PROPERTY. NOTE: ITEMS 1-3 OF THE STANDARD EXCEPT[DNS ARE HEREBY DELETED. NOTE: UPON APPROVAL OF THE COMPANY AND THE RECEIPT OF A NOTARIZED FINAL LIEN AFFIDAVIT, ITEM NO. 4 OF THE STANDARD EXCEPTIONS ON THE LOAN POLICY WILL BE DELETED. P28 -- VI.A. ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B-1 (Requirements) Our Order No. QG2005486-3 Co,ilinued: UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE COMPANY AND THE RECEIPT OF A NOTARIZED FINAL LIEN AFFIDAVIT, ITEM NO. 4 OFTHE STANDARD EXCEPTIONS ON THE OWNER'S POLICY WILL BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: 11'EM NO. 4 OF THE STANDARD EXCEPTIONS ]S DELETED AS TO ANY MENS OR FUTURE UENS RESULTING FROM WORK OR MATERIAL FURNISHED AT THE REQUEST OF PETER B. LEWIS. OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY FOR ANY LIENS ARISING FROM WORK OR MATERIAL FURNISHED AT THE REQUEST OF ASPEN RIVER RENDEZVOUS, LLC, A COLORADO L]MiTED LIABILITY COMPANY. NOTE: ITEM 5 OF THE STANDARD EXCEPTIONS WILL BE DELETED IF LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY CONDUCTS THE CLOSING OF THE CONTEMPLATED TRANSACTION(S) AND RECORDS TIIE DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. NOTE: UPON PROOF OF PAYMENT OF ALL TAXES, ITEM 6 WILL BE AMENDED TO READ: TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS FOR THE YEAR 2013 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS. NOTE: ITEM 7A AND 7B OF THE GENERAL EXCEPTIONS ARE HEREBY DELETED. P29 VI.A. ........:-=->:...... --- ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B-2 (Exceptions) Our Order No. Q6200548(; 3 Tlie policy or policies lo be Issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the sallsfaction of the Company: 1. Any facts, rights, In(erests, or clainis (hereof. not shown by the Public Records but Illat could be ascertained by an Inspeclion of the Land or (hal may be asserted by persons in possession of lite Land, 2. Easemenls, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, nol shown by the Public Records. 3. Any encroacbment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circunislance afTec[Ing Ilic Title that wot,1,11}e disclosed by an accurate and contplelc land survey of Ihe Land anti not shown by the Public Records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or niatertal heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the Public Records. 5. Defecls, Ilens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, il any, created, Arst appearing in (lic public records or attaching stibsequent lo the effective date hereof but prior to llie date the proposed Insured acquires of record for value the estale or intere51 or mortgage thereon covered by Ihis Commilmenl. 6. 00 Taxes or assessments lital are not shown as existing lions by the records of any taxing authorily thal tevies taxes or assessments on real property orby the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency tliat may result in laxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records. 7. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceplions in palenls or In Ads aulhorizing Ike issuance thercof; (c) water righls, clatnts or litle lo water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the Public Records. 8. RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OFA VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE THEREFROM SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECTTHE PREMISES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED JUNE 08, 1888, ]N BOOK 55 AT PAGE 2. 9. EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND ALL OTHER MATTERS AS DISCLOSED ON THE SHAW WPW SUBDIVIS[ON EXEMPTION LOT 18 PLAT RECORDED JUNE 3, 1981 IN PLAT BOOK 11 AT PAGE 60 AND FIRST AMENDMENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 1, 1981 IN PLAT BOOK 11 AT PAGE 97. 10. TERMS. CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE# 17, SERIES OF 1980 RECORDED AUGUST 25.1980 1N BOOK 393 AT PAGE 606. 1 I I. CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION FOR 212 LAKE AVENUE CONDOMINIUMS, WHICH DO NOT ' CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER CLAUSE, BUT 0M1TTING ANY COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY, BASED UPON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, FAMILIAL STATUS, MARITAL STATUS, DISABILITY, HANDICAP, i=w ~ :-0:A e- - VI.A. ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule 8-2 (Exceptioits) Our Order No. QG2005486-3 The policy or policles to be Issued will conialn exceptions to (]le following unless the slime are disposed of (o tile satisfaction onita Company: NATIONAL ORIGIN, ANCESTRY. OR SOURCE OF INCOME, AS SET FORTi I ]N APPLICABLE STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT SAID COVENANT OR RESTRICTION IS PERMrITED BY APPLICABLE LAW, AS CONTA]NED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED OCTOBER 27, 1981, IN BOOK 416 AT PAGE 510. 12. EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND ALL OTHER MATrERS AS DISCLOSED ON THE CONDOMINIUM MAP OF 212 LAKE AVENUE CONDOMINIUMS RECORDED OCTOBER 27, 1981 IN PLAT BOOK 12 AT PAGE 33, AMENDED PLAT -UNIT B RECORDED JANUARY 7, 1993 IN PLAT BOOK 30 AT PAGE 21 AND BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT PLAT RECORDED ' JANUARY 6, 1995 IN PLAT BOOK 35 AT PAGE 92. 13. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF DRIVEWAY EASEMENT AGREEMENT RECORDED JANUARY 12, 1995 AT RECEPTION NO. 378020. 14. ANY FACTS. RIGHTS. INTERESTS OR CLAIMS WHICH MAY EXIST OR ARISE BY REASON OF THE FOLLOWING FACTS SHOWN ON IMPROVEMENT SURVEY DATED AUGUST 30. 2013. PREPARED BY PEAK SURVEYING. INCâ€ž IOn# 13058: FENCET.INES NOT LOCATED ON SUMECT PROPERTY BOUNDARY I.INES. WOOD FENCE EXTENDS INTO LOT 17. SHAW WPW SUBDIVISION. STONE STEPS EXTEND INTO HALLAM LAKE PRESERVE. VI.A. LAWOFFICES OF OATES, KNEZEVIC.H, GARDENSWARTZ, KELLY & MORROW, P.C. PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THIRD FLOOR, ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING 533 E HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN COLORADO, 81611 VAAAzi' OKGKLAWÂ·.COM LEONARD M CATES TELEPHONE (970) 920-1700 RICHAR[) A KNEEZEVICH FACSIMILE (970) 920-1121 TED D GARDENSWARTZ DIRECT (970)544-1853 DAVIDB KELLY MARIA MORROW OF COUNSEL smo@okgraw corn STEPHEN R CONNOR ANNEMARIEMcPHEE SARAH M OATES STEPHANIE M HOLDER December 30,2014 ATTORNEY'S TITLE CERTIFICATE By this letter, the undersigned, Sarah M. Oates, an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Colorado, Attorney Registration No. 41647, hereby certifies the following: 1. The current record owner ofthe real property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto is Aspen River Rendezvous, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; 2. Aspen River Rendezvous, LLC obtained title to the subject properties via a Special Warranty Deed in 2013 from the Peter B. Lewis ("Lewis"); 3. Aspen River Rendezvous, LLC has paid all real property taxes since 2013 when the subject property was conveyed to it by Lewis; 4. The subject property is located in the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. Siacâ‚¬FEE-- Sarah M. Oates P32 VI.A. EXHIBIT "A" Condominium Units A and B, 212 Lake Avenue Condominiums, according to the Condominium Map thereof recorded October 27, 1981 in Plat Book 12 at Page 33 and according to the Condominium Declaration recorded October 27, 1981 in Book 416 at Page 510. County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. also known by street and number as: 212 Lake Avenue #A & B, Aspen, CO 81611 P33 LON OFFICES OF OATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSW.ARTZ, KELLY & MOR-ROW, P.C. PROF ESSIONAL CORPORATION r'HIRD FLOOR, ASPEN PLAZA BilILDING 533 E. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 W.94 OKGKLAW. COM LEONARD M OATES TELEPHONE (970) 920-1700 RICHARD A KNEZEVICH FACSIMILE (970) 92()-1121 TED D GARDENSWARTZ DIRECT (970) 544-1853 DAVID B KELLY MARIA MORROW OF COUNSEL smo;@okglaw com STEPHEN R CONNOR ANNEMARIE MCPHEE SARAH M. DATES STEPHANIE M HOLDER December 30,2014 ATTORNEY'S TITLE CERTIFICATE By this letter, the undersigned. Sarah M. Oates. an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Colorado. Attorney Registration No 41647. hereby certifies the following: 1. The current record owner ofthe real pinperty described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto is Aspen River Rendezvous, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; 2. Aspen River Rendezvous.LLC obtained title to the subject properties via a Special Warranty Deed in 2013 from the Peter B. I.ewis ("Lewis"); 3. Aspen River Rendezvous, LLC has paid all real property taxes since 2013 when the subject property was conveyed to it by Lewis; 4. The subject property is located in the City of.Aspen, Pitkin County. Colorado. Sindrely, Sarah M. Oates EXHIBIT "A" Condominium Units A and 13, 212 Lake Avenue Condominiums, according to the Condominium Map thereof recorded October 27, 1981 in Plat Book 12 at Page 33 and according to the Condominium Declaration recorded October 27,1981 in Book 416 at Page 510. County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. also known by street and number as: 212 Lake Avenue #A & B, Aspen, CO 81611 LAV'u OFFICES OF OATICS, KNEZEVIC.H. 64RDENSWARTZ. KET,LY & MORROW, P.C. "NO! rSSIONAL. CORPORAI ION r 1 1 91.} F! OOR, ASPiN PLAZA 8 Ull DING 533 E HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN. COLORADO. 81Â¢11 VV. 1,'\A.' OKGKLAW COM LEONARD &1 CATES TELEPHONE (970) 920-1700 RICHARD A KNEZEVICH FACSIMILE (970) 920-1121 TED D GARDENSWARTZ DIRECT (970) 544-1853 DAVID B KELLY MARLA MORROW OF (01 iNSEL smo@okglaw.com STEPHEN R CONNOR ANNE MARIE Met)HEE SARAH M OAi ES STEPHANIE HOLDER December 26.2014 VIA HAND-DENVERY Jet-,1,ic,r :41:iIci., I'la,#ning Deputy Director City â€žr An.Â·ei, Coini,izinity Development Department 130 South Galena Street .Aspen, CO 81611 Pc: S;:ecial Review-212 I.ake Avenue, Afpen, CO 81611 ("Property"or "212 Lake") Dear.1.11:lili:. Feclosed please find the land use application (-Application") for Specie.1 Review Ar 212 Lake pM:-st:unt [Â© Section 26.430.040(B), Replacement of Non-conforming Structures. As you are r.:vare. the Property is currently under construction, is licted on the Aspen Inventory of Historic L:te or.3 Structures, and 1 iuu JLUE,/ LU Minor Development approval by the Historic Preservation Commission Cl-IPC'-) for a nialor remodal of the historic home and the existing, nan-historic addition The plope,ty is located in tlâ€ž' 41. d,,im [1&11.Jty Residential R-6 zone district ("R-6" or "Zone Disific!3 and is diso li,rated in the T-I"il?11-1 1 ,<':pl ;Ue;T Environmentall> Sensitive Area and is su.Ji:Â·ct to the Halla:p Lake Bluff Review (' Hi.BRE. The nuner of the Property. Aspen Kiver Rendezvous. LLC ("Ownet-3 6 specifical:y :'?CK:ng Epecia: Revic'x approval to mail:witi the exibli I,2 1-1, 117-cunformities with respect to the s'.ructure, 1 1-% 1-211 i-,..L. -1 c sliucture a,> appreved by the FIPC ani; 11<Â· permitted to properly remediate :noid th.t.1 was di,vow.ia! :hn-,11:11 the couric of cons:ruction on tile structure. . The Froperly has the lellow-ins preexisting, terally created, non-conformities: parking (sh:,it 2 on-site spaces as varied by the HPC), the side and combined setbacks do not conform to the R-6 setback requirements. the Property exceeds the allowable iloor area for the R-6 zone district by approximately 1400 square feet. the structure exceeds the R-6 Zone District site coverage requirement by 1.5% and the structure does not comply uith the : 11 BR setback and iteight requirements. I IPC approped the redesign :ind rum.)del of the Properly with the 11011Â·conforminc din'.,211<jonal aspects of the structure. HPC did not 'y:al,! 2,11.0, seth,tek or floor aira liontises because thesc '.vcre technically not necessary as discussed below. 1-1PC did grant s ;:211.ing Â·liaâ€ž:e, 2,5 l.ile .livc,1,â€¢c oi, the Plor':rty Ts a duplex and four (4) spaces normally would lic requimd. 11!'(-, cranted a varince for n:,e (19 grace per unit. The [1PC also reviewed the HI RK aDd Unni-oved ttic proy,c,Ked chan,us. v.'ith con,ihi, -HÂ·. 92 the Owner ofthe Property â€¢ 1 O.ATES, KNEZEVICH, G. ARDENSWARTZ & K.EL..LY P.C. 212 Lake Avenue - Special Review Application December 26.2014 Page 2 lessened the 11LBR setback and height non-conformities and reduced some of the excessive floor area by removing a portion of the structure that ertends into the setback. The Owner is also proposing to remove all non-native vegetation from the I IL,BR area. A proposed second deck was approved by I-IPC because it was not in the fifteen (15) foot setback tiom the Hallam Lake Bluff. Pursuant to Section 26.312.030, Non-Conforming Structures, a non-conforming structure may be continued in accordance with the Land Use Code. A non-conforming structure can be remodeled and normal maintenance of a non-conforming structure may be performed "without affecting the authorization to continue as a non-conforming structure. The Owner commenced the remodel of the Property, in which the non-conformities could remain, by maintaining at least 61% of the exterior surface roof and wall area as calculated in Section 26.575.020(E) of the Land Use Code. A significant portion (13% percent) of the proposed demolition was agreed to by the Owner to accommodate the desire of City staff and LIPC to modify some of the more undesirable aspects of the 1980s remodel. Notably, the roof line as seen from Lake Avenue and the roof line as seen from Hallam Lake were both removed and lowered as requested by HPC. The City of Aspen Building Department ("Building Deprii-tment") issued a remodel perinit for the Property. Sev:ral i,Â·,nths ago. during pa: tial demolition on the structure, the general contraclor tor the L- project. 11:irriman Construction, Inc. ("H(:I"), discovered mold throughout both the historic house and non-historic addition. nCI conducted airborne air sampling and engaged a mold expert to determine the best course of act}on with respect to the pervasive mold. HCI carried out the expert's recommendations and remo,ed the mold where it *as seen in dimensional lumber and on plvwood. The Building Departinent was aware of the mold issue at 212 1.ake and, as the City of Aspen ("City") has no regulatior.s with r..:spect to mold and inold remediation. no approval of the remediation was required by tile City 1'0 conforni with the mold expert's recommendation. as well as OSHA guidelines on mold. IICI has been required to replace material that was not part of the original demolition plan. The moldy materials w: It lic replaced with new dimensional Juniber (2xi Os) and plywood sheeting in exactly the same locations. Pursuant to the mold experts' recommendation, additional moldy material must be removed and replaced to adequately address the life, health and safety issues associated with the mold in the existing stitriltre The City has taken tile position that the repair and replacement of mold-infested material constitutes "demolition" as defined in the Land LIse Code and thus demolition has exceeded the 39% threshold of roof and wall surface area that could be removed. The Owner and I-ICI disagree with the proposition that moldy material cannot be replaced without exceeding the demolition limit in the Code. All tojd, in order to adequately address the nicki issue in the structure, 55% of the exterior roof and wall surface area and/or subsurface components -must be repaired. Because the Community Development Department has interpreted the repair of the mold as exceeding the demolition threshold in the Land Use Code, review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission ("Commission") for Special Review - Replacement of Non-Conforming Structures is required for 212 Lake. The criteria for Special Review, specific to the replacement of a non- conforming structure. is addressed in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by re ference. As the Commission will see. 212 Lake meets all of the criteria in Section 26.430.040(B) - Special 04 rES, KNEZEVICH. GARÂ£,cNSWARTZ & kn..LY P.C. 212 Lake Avenue - Special Review Application December 26. 2014 Page 3 Review to maintain the existing non-conformities on the Property and allow IICI to repair and/or remove the remaining moldy materiai as a matt.er of the life, health and safety for tlie occupants of the structure. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, OATES. KNEZEVICII. GARDENSWARTZ, KELLY & MORROW, P.C. By ~ Sarah M..f6 Enclosures: Exhibit ".4 - - Criteria for Speciai Review and Non-Conformities with Applicant Responses Exhibit 'B'- - Site Improvement Survey Exhibit -C'5 - Vicinity Map Exhibit "D" -- 1.and Use Application and Fee Agreement Exhibit "E" -- Pre-Application Conference Summalâ„¢ Exhibit 6F" -- HOA Compliance Form Exhibit '~G' --- Proof of Ownership r--EXAmir 11 A Criteria and Responses to Land Use Code Criteria - Applicant's responses are~i~~- 26.312.030. Non-Conforming Structures A. Authority to continue. A nonconforming structure devoted to a use permitted in the zone district in which it is located may be continued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. 212 Lake Avenue is a non-conforming structure. The existing and proposed use as a duplex unit in the R-6 zone district is a permitted use. The Owner is seeking to maintain the existing non-conformities pursuant to Special Review. B. Normal maintenance. Normal maintenance to non-conforming structures may be performed without affecting the authorization to continue as a non-conforming structure. The Property is currently undergoing a significant remodel in order to preserve and restore the historic structure and portions of the non-historic addition. C. Extensions. A non-conforming structure shall not be extended by an enlargement or expansion that increases the non-conformity. A non-conforming structure may be extended or altered in a manner that does not change or that decreases the non-conformity. The proposed remodel of the structure does not extend or enlarge any non- conformity. Additionally, non-conforming height and setbacks in the HLBR and floor area that exceeds allowable floor area in the R-6 zone district will be reduced as a result of this remodel. The remaining criteria in the Section do not apply to this project as Community Development Staff has determined Special Review is more appropriate than additional review from HPC. D. Relocation. A non-conforming structure shall not be moved unless it thereafter conforms to the standards and requirements of the zone district in which it is located. There is no proposal to relocate the structure. E. Unsafe structure. Any portion of a non-conforming structure which becomes physically unsafe or unlawful due to lack ofrepairs and maintenance and which is declared unsafe and unlawful by an authorized city official, but which an owners wishes to restore, repair or rebuild shall only be restored, repaired or rebuilt in conformity with the provisions of this Title. Although physically unsafe due to the mold in the structure, 212 Lake Avenue has not been declared unsafe and unlawful by an authorized city official because the Code is silent on the effect of mold and whether mold is an unsafe condition. The 1 Owner believes the structure should be declared unsafe because ofthe potentially toxic e.ffects of living with mold F. Ability to restore. 1. Non-purposeful destruction. Any non-conforming structure which is demolished or destroyed by an act of nature through any manner not purposefully accomplished by the owner, may be restored as of right if a building permit for reconstruction is issued within twenty-four (24) months o f the date o f demolition or destruction. 2. Purposeful destruction. Any non-conforming structure which is purposefully demolished or destroyed may be replaced with a different structure only if the replacement structure is in conformance with the current provisions of this Title or unless replacement of the non-conformity is approved pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 26.430, Special Review. Any structure which is non-conforming in regards to permitted density o f the underlying zone district may maintain that specific non- conformity only if a building permit for the replacement structure is issued within twelve (12) months of the date of demolition or destruction. The Applicant did not purposefully destroy the mold infested wood, it is being repaired with identical materials. The Community Development Department has nevertheless declared that the repair of this material falls under Paragraph 2, Purposeful Destruction, and Special Review is required to maintain the non- conformities of the structure. The Special Review criteria are addressed below. 26.430.040.Review Standards for Special Review No development subject to special review shall be permitted unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all standards and requirements set forth below. 26.430.040(A). Dimensional Requirements Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed development are subject to special review, the development application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met: 1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner that is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding uses of land and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping (other than removal of non-native landscaping as approved as part of the HPC review) and selbacks will essentially remain unchanged.tpom existing conditions. The current addition to the historic structure was built in the 1980s and has been a part of the neighborhood for decades. The owner is proposing to reduce the 2 total volume of the structure located in the HLBR top of slope setback by 26%. The reduction in the footprint will also result in a decrease in floor area - which is also non-conforming. 2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated view plane. The proposed development will not have an adverse impact on the surrounding uses and will mitigate those impacts. The use, a duplex, is not a non-conformity as there iN sufficient lot size for a duplex use on the Property. The HPC has already granted avariance for parking - reducing the number ofrequired spaces .from.four (4) to two (2) spaces. The HPC made specific findings that due to a shared driveway and limitations with placingformal parking on the driveway that there was apractical difficully that justified the parking variance. The development will not create shading, excess traffic or block a designated view plane. 26.430.040(81. Replacement of Nonconforming Structures Whenever a structure or portion thereof, which does not conform to the dimensional requirements o f the zone district in which the property is located is proposed to be replaced after demolition, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed development shall comply with the conditions of Subsection 26.430.040(A) above; As discussed above the criteria.for dimensional requirements above have been met. 2. There exist special characteristics unique to the property which differentiates the property from other properties located in the same zone district; The property contains a historically designated property and is located within the HLBR. Although a historic structure overlooking Hallam Lake in and of itself is not unique, the properly contains a large addition within the HLBR and although the owner's desire was simply remodel the property, due to a mold issue the remodel of the properly has created special circumstances for the property. Although mold is not unheard of in Aspen - there are very few cases which the City o,f Aspen has had to deal with and there are no City of Aspen regulations (land use, building, environmental health or otherwise) addressing mold and what an owner, contractor or third party must do to mitigate the mold in order to comply with City of Aspen requirements. 3. No dimensional variations are increased, and the replacement structure represents the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use o f the property; and 3 The Applicant is not requesting an increase in dimensional variations. The height and setback non-conformities in the HLBR will actually be decreased as well as the overall,floor area for the properly. The proposal to maintain the existing non- conformity represents the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the property. The reasonable use of the properly it that it be permitted to remain in its current configuration, as approved by HPC, and allow the owners to repair the rotted, mold invested material that the mold remediation expert recommended be removed. For the record, the.following dimensional variances are requested as part of this Special Review: ' The west side yard-setback requires and 8.8 foot variance to accommodate maintenance of the existing 6.2 foot setbackwhere a 15 foot setback is otherwise required; o The east side-yard setback requires a 2.1 foot variance to accommodate maintenance ofthe existing 12.9 foot setback where a 15 foot setback is otherwise required: â€¢ The required combined side-yard setback for this property is 38 feet but the two existing side yard setback total tojust 19.1 feet, resulting in the needfor an 18.9 foot variance; and â€¢ The allowable site coverage is 33% but the existing site coverage is 34.47%. After the proposed remodel, the site coverage -will be approximately 33.81% - less than 1% over what is allowed in the zone district. 0 The.floor area is non-conforming but will be reduced -with the proposed remodel as well as the encroachment into the HLBR top of slope setback and progressive height limit. The existing (e.g. pre-construction) floor area 11'aS calculated as 5,712 square feet by the project architects, the proposed.floor area pursuant to the building permit for the Property is 5,606 squarefeetandtheallowablefloorareais 4,183 squarefeet. HPC did not grant any floor area bonus for the Property because of its legal. non-conforming status. As proposed, the project exceeds the allowable floor area by 1,423 square feet. 4. Literal enforcement of the dimensional provisions of the zone district would cause unnecessary hardship upon the owner prohibiting reasonable use of the property. Literal enforcement Of the dimensional provisions of the zone district would cause unnecessary hardship upon the owner prohibiting reasonable use of the property. Over one-halfofthe house is locatedin the HLBR. A ten (10) foot front yard setback is required in the R-6 zone district but the historic structure must remain in its current location - -which is setback thirty (30).feet from Lake Avenue - twenty (20)feet more than the required front yard setback. Additionally, the property shares a driveway with the neighbor to the southeast pursuant to a 4 shared driveway agreement. Literal enforcement of the dimensional provisions of the zone district would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the owner and would prohibit reasonable use of the property due to the small, awkward size of the developable area, the likely inability for any development to be located in front of the historic resource and the inability to do much in the way of redevelopment without variances from the dimensional requirements. Forcing the owner to demolish the existing non-conforming improvements would create an additional hardship on the owner. 5 tabbler IMPROVEMENT & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PLAT 212 LAKE AVENUE CONDOMINIUMS UNITS A AND B \~ ACCORDING TO THE CONDOMINIUM MAP THEREOF ~U~RACA~ â€ž91.,0Â¥., RECORDED OCTOBER 27, 1981 IN PLAT BOOK 12 AT PAGE 33 1 ACCORDING TO THE AMENDED CONDOMINIUM MAP THEREOF lO~-10UlgkUÂ¥..$1 ACCORDING TO THE BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT PLAT ~ RECORDED JANUARY 7, 1993 IN PLAT BOOK 30 AT PAGE 21 34\ ~IcrrÂ¥c,--- ./La.....8.1//E~ / RECORDED JANUARY 6, 1995 IN PLAT BOOK 35 AT PAGE 92 w.fy '12 .L E 0 ' . C:,=:~Â·Â·, 0>~/ 4 Â« 1 1 CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO \ \ 11.Ll'.LAUM \ MATUU.t-Rai 1 21. f ..7,â€ž'Ir â€ž s 42*M' i /1 GRAPHIC SCALE .:./-21,1,~.:41% \.. \\ r 0 (01 ./r) 0 Â·r u,,ra . .... 'Al,) . Pb r i ..012Â«k,~8 .\ i, ,oun~A,T-1/ Co~NI~ .... A .I.IUI CA,Li ......'OUNDâ„¢MACL ...IM,mUD~..........'EARINC.C,N~'4,41.'-I. â€žcln~A,ruLI C:~-102- lin 1- .12A1, CA, U .Â»1,1 FOIJND/ n-Am A,a}nm V .X "A -*646'. 4 4.24 ff .fy %43*/ 4 t i 1 9/4 2%=S= \ 11 --VEY'~Amiâ‚¬Â»1â„¢E,1,1Mm AVI-C-,1Â»=-MA,~CO-O~I~ I. 2 .0 , *=0 /. 0,2 :A~=-5--=.-45 -A k. U,TI, A ... 4. 41 / 50 7 ' B, I I / J f /4///4 /â€ž 0. . I . , Â»32 Â·914 I '1*f' , I â„¢~00,1!xmDED â‚¬,cra~R . 1-1...3-* ./T '*I ./.Xtni*Â¤3 TO T- .-7 Â»0=1. AT,AGE. ACCO=NOTOTE' CO.Â«Â»~mn, 1*1-ARAn.[X~Im , I I -*13/. i L .5 I I atz=PÂ¢====y '' ./ ./ TREE CHART T~- 1 TV~ 1 1*UNk DIL D- DIA- 1 ~EVAnON 0 7 ,cm As,- Ivn,ecEZVOU~ 1,Â£. A CDU~AD[} L.~~ED UA=1!TÂ¥ CO-ANÂ¥ A~ LAND 1 1 el.N=. 1 r Tm,~,ARAN--I.% Â«i.: 3 i DBC~VOU~ 1 1. . 1 ,..1, I ' .' ' Can=rk 'p / 1 - . 1 -1 N \ \2\ -m ,TY, ) . Â·f-M - '/ 'j::S#r..=&=b. -r ./ :== 1 1. . 1 m. \ ; Decâ€¢,VOUS I i. . 1 7-1. am S,10 Ca -ang,=0 ..,ART O. S....... EXCMM . Nrlâ„¢1 1 PUkn~ ... EAvkUAMINEDTN,TfrUCCID,1â„¢E.Tn0Am=.~LAIDIrTLBOUA,-a,EE I ' r==muoi. 1 1. . 1 1.0 TomL.nâ„¢ATI-.T-In,Ic,~c,-TrAn,IK-,1-EÂ»,TO-=D,- i .... 1 1. . 0 1 C~Â£-Â»A I C . IS I DICE]UOUS. I I . ! 7.I Le/,0 1, 1 CO",Em 1 I. . 1 = .F#,491) Il CINI-El r I. , '.03- % 1 I Â©3?2~ - 4 :< 1&,."/ -3-, C 4- 11 1 CO..1. ' C . 1 71.1 0â€ž 4 7 1=. : DI*~**]Ua I . . 1 7,71, 2â€žÂ° - ./ D 1 I~CE>u~Lm I . 1 7,7/.7 #MI \ \7 . 1 Det.U00 1 . 3 1 7-11 r-{ZOA~B~ . 1 D~7~)UDIâ„¢ 1 ]I . 1 -I 2,lt=,)UOU,1 . 17â€ž10, â€¢ I CC~~El I '- 17 1 11.7 I 43#4 4 31 1 CON.m I I . Renin NO . P..I NO. ASPEN RIVER RENDEZVOUS, LLC CrTI' OF ASPEN. COLORADO ]3058 '7 PEAK \ ./ IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT / Surveying, Inc. .1- 212 LAKE AVENUE CONDOMINIUMS m-TULE | FOHo*1746.Ni~.co:1650 UNITS A AND B loF! EETEE=Â£27~EEEFF- -VS 1 RADnm 11.~1 '-1-1 :=. 1 1 ... -c~. 05R.TOPO nWO P-0(970'G25Â·1954 Fu(970)623-2~54 .-.. Cl - .1/ .,1 59*7 EXHIBIT N - < RANDALL ELLEN,/~ / 0 30 60 - ~ W-â€¢*â€¢-E Â£ MIDDLETON - - * ~ TR UST 5096 -.z--~- ~-'~1 ** | ' Feet S , This map/drawing/image is a graphical representation / , of the features depicted and is not a legal TENEDOS < 0 ~ ~\ ...,~0 LAKE 1~ * LLC | ,Â« representation. The accuracy may change f. 1 depending on the enlargement or reduction. AVE / 1 \J f GREENBERE Copyright 2014 Aspen/Pitkin GIS ,3 ,/%29*f Â·: / RONALD K \~ 12/24t2014 10 07 05 AM C:\GIS\temp\Dec14\212LakeAve mid ~ ~/ #%96< TRUSTE~ 50% 4~ *. 2 240 LAKE g + -'-Â· AVE 2/9 i / 1 6 //9 1 ....~ -') i-* It ASPEN.CENTER FOR NVNNN 444 // // ENVIRONMENTAL/7 STUDIE // 1 v / Â« 230 1 / lilli , 1i r AVE./ 1985 , 11 LAKE COTSEN 1 Hallam/ liki' / TRUST' â€¢'*' ' ->Â·,/;7'4~ / / 3 1 - . I %/,/ ..rÂ« : 3/// , /VA 0 , 1Â«/ 3% / 4~41 / 301 L~KE , 7- I , ~'' DAVID T 64 / / //7 AVENUE LLC / f , ~ ' 214 LAKE ~ ,<' ,Â¢/V 4/ ---~ , AVE 2,Â·' / 2 /2/ \ 1 ..1\.4 /,/ 437 - I '' I ' /557 r.\-1//Â»>3 i. 'r\./, 212 LAKE / 4 1 1-n Â»u/' ''/ T AVE 0.2 : i :' I \ 'ND ST , ililli,1 1 1 '1 0% ,/ <// 4, , 2 /90 1 4 449 -' , -CONOVER ~ \ 40 '' 2 / 1 / N \ CATHRINE Mi' ' V 1!0*' ' SCHERMER ~/ Al ' ,/ U.OWD G & i J 2 ' / BETTY A J -. e. 1 1 / ...,410461 ./ ./.C'. ~210AWEKE -~; ~f/ l LEWIS ~ JONATHAN D A44\\,CUOFÂ« Â£ REV TRUST - Â£00006<\31PEN<~ 4/ 1 5 / 206 LLC / tabbler \ f {t \ ~ 206 LAKE \ 1 AVE 11 r-4 j #SECOND AND -"â€ž*,0,_ -h--- / SMUGGLER Â· -- W SMUGGLER ST ~ CONDO ASSOC#=,c. PHILLIPPE. 229 WEST-7 THOMAS E JR &-----.__ ./. 2 SMpGGLER LLC SOSAN MARIE --CMML ' 1 229 WiSMUGGÂ¢ER ST / 2 "--_ PROPERTIES LLC 0 1 1 ./ Ha\\am'take EXHIBIT ATTACHMENT 2 -LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: Name: 212 Lake Avenue Special Review Location: 212 Lake Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 273512489004/273512489005/273512489800 (common area) APPLICANT: Name: Aspen River Rendezvous LLC Address: 186 Vail Lane, North Salem, NY 10560 Phone #: REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Harriman Construction, Inc. Address: 280 E. Cody Lane, Basalt, CO 81621 Phone #: (970) 927-1161 TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): GMQS Exemption U Conceptual PUD D Temporary Use GMQS Allotment ~ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) U Text/Map Amendment Special Review D Subdivision U Conceptual SPA ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream ~ Subdivision Exemption (includes U Final SPA (& SPA Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane U Commercial Design Review El Lot Split U Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion 8 Residential Design Variance C Lot Line Adjustment U Other: U Conditional Use EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildiiigs, uses, previous approvals, etc.) Existing historic house with approvals from HPC which is currently under undergoing a major remodel. PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, ete.) The application is seeking to maintain existing non-conformities pursuant to Section 26.430.040(B) - Special Review - Replacement of nonconforming Cf~re-Application Conference Summary you attached the following? FEES DUE: s 4490 structures [3 Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement nfil~,Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form [3 Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards 19 3-D Model for large project All plans that are larger than 8.5" X 11" must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of ali written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3-D model. Your pre-application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model. m IE El El Jennifer Phalen, Planning Deputy Director City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Special Review - 212 Lake Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Ms. Phalen, Aspen River Rendezvous, LLC is the owner of 212 Lake Avenue, Units Aand B, Aspen, Colorado. I hereby authorized Ben Genshaft of Genshaft Cramer LLP, Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning and Harriman Construction, Inc., with its counsel, David Kelly and Sarah Oates of Dates, Knezevich, Gardenswartz, Kelly & Morrow, P.C. to act as the authorized representative for Aspen River Rendezvous, LLC in the above-referenced matter. ASPEN RIVER RENDESVOUS, I.LC 0,7/ ./. By: 9 /1 6* .,c#-I.Â·-t-- 7(- Â«./1// D'atÂ·/ 1 /2 / aA //9 EXHIBIT CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Jennifer Phelan DATE: 12/17/2014 PROJECT: 212 Lake Ave. REPRESENTATIVE: David Kelly, dbk@okglaw.com REQUEST: Replacement of nonconforming structures DESCRIPTION: The applicant is interested in receiving approval to maintain portions of a structure that are nonconforming with regard to dimensional requirements of the zone district in which the property is located. According to a representative of the applicant (Mitch Haas) this includes parking (short 2 on-site spaces), side and combined setbacks, floor area, site coverage (over by 1.5%) and Hallam Lake setback and height. A building permit has been issued for a remodel of the property; however, the amount of demolition that has occurred exceeds the percentage permitted by the building permit and the Land Use Code to maintain a nonconformity. When demolition is triggered, only a replacement structure that conforms with all aspects of the Land Use Code may be replaced unless Special Review is granted for replacement of the existing nonconformities by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The application submittal should address all non-conformities that are being requested to be maintained. Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience: Land Use App: * http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/Apps%20and%20Fees/2013%20landÂ°/620u se%20app%20form.pdf Land Use Code: http:Uwww .aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Development/Plan ning-and-Zoning/Title-26- Land-Use-Code/ Relevant Land Use Code Section(s): 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.312.030 Non.conforming structures 26.430.040(B) Special Review - Replacement of nonconforming structures Review by: Staff for completeness Review agencies for compliance P&Z for Special Review Public Hearing: Yes, P&Z Neighborhood Outreach: Not required Planning Fees: $3,250 for 10 hours of staff time. Any unbilled portion of this deposit will be refunded at the conclusion of the case. Additional staff hours, if needed, will be billed at $325 per hour. Referrals: Engineering $265 (1 hour deposit, then billed hourly) Parks $975 (flat fee) Total Deposit: $4,490.00 To apply, submit the following information: NEk Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement. *L Pre-application Conference Summary(this document). ri Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, 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. ~ti Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. F A site improvement survey (no older than a vear from submittal) including topography and vegetation showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor by licensed in the State of Colorado. ~51 HOA Compliance form (Attached) TR 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 and relevant land use approvals associated with the property. ~51 Written responses to all review criteria. ~Ek An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. NG 1 Complete Copy. If the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted: El 2 Copies of the complete application packet and, if applicable, associated drawings. 1 full sized drawings. 0 A digital copy of the application provided in pdf file format. 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 may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. 2 1 EXHIBIT 11 F COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT i.,0.0 Homeowner Association Compliance Policy All land use applications within the City of Aspen are required to include a Homeowner Association Compliance Form (this form) certifying the scope of work included in the land use application complies with all applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be signed bv the property owner or Attorney representing the property owner. Name: Property Owner ("13: Email: Phone No. Address of Property: (subject of application) I certify as follows: (pick one) [3 This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant. p(This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application do not require approval by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. [3 This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application have been approved by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. I understand this policy and I understand the City of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage the applicability, meaning or effect of private covenants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. I understand that this document is;,a public document., g /f u / + 4,\ , 1 Owner signature: : I : 45 &*--- Lj \ Owner printed name: -4 /0 u r 2,346 9 \,41 or, Attorney signature: date: Attorney printed name: lf)* 20 ( 4- . Ast-01 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARr['MENT Agreement to Pay Application Fees An agreement between the City of Aspen CCity-) and Property Aspen River Rendezvous LLC Phone No.: clo Harriman conslruction. Inc. Owner (0'13: Email: {970) 927Â·1161 kmcclearly@harrimanconstruct,on corn Address of 212 Lake Avenue AddressÂ· Billing c/o Harriman Construction 4- cor rd>7 Property: (subject of Aspen, CO 81611 280 E. Cody Lane (send bills here) application) Basalt, CO 81621 I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No. , Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications and the payment of these fees is a Condition precedent to determining application completeness. 1 understand that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. l understand that these flat fees are non-refundable. 975 Parks ~ 0 Select Dept S flat fee for . $ flat fee for 0 Flat Fee 4 (RDS, Mir $0 _ flat fee for Select Dept $ flat fee for For deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed projecl, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. 1 understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review, and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by tho City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to rcmit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for non-payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time, i understand that payment of a deposit does not render an application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City ror the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $ 3,250 deposit for 10 1 hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325 per hour. s265 deposit for 1 - hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $265 per hour. City of Aspen, Property Owner: . 7 0 1 21Â£54.- / -LY ~ /1 i 9-6 / / 9 Chris Bendon Community Development Director Ndind: ,6.</A E AKLE F,hk City Use: 4490 Fees Duo: S Received: S4490 . 00 Title : January, 2013 City of Aspen I 130 S. Galcna St. 1 (970) 920-5090 3 Old Republic National Title Insurance Company i ALTA COMMITMENT Out' Order No. Q62005480-3 Schedule A Ctist. Ref.: Properly Address: 212 LAKE AVE #A&B ASPEN, CO 81611 1. Effective Date: August 26, 2013 at 5:00 P.M. 2, Policy to be Issued, and Proposed Insured: "ALTA" Owner's Policy 06-17-06 Proposed Insured: ASPEN RIVER RENDEZVOUS, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 3. Tlie estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: A Fee Simple 4. Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at the effective date hereof vested in: PETER B. LEWIS 5. Tlie LaIid referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: SEE ATTACIIED PAGE(S) FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION CopyÂ·rig! it 2006-2013 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. AMERICAN IAND TIT IE The use of this Form ix restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. AMOCIATION All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the Anterican Land Title Association. -11:ap Our Order No: Q62005486-3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION CONDOMINIUM UNITS A AND B, 212 LAKE AVENUE CONDOMINIUMS, ACCORDING TO THE CONDOMINIUM MAP TIIEREOF RECORDED OCTOBER 27, 1981 IN PLAT BOOK 12 AT PAGE 33 AND ACCORDING TO TIIE CONDOMINITJM DECLARATION RECORDED OCTOBER 27, 1981 IN BOOK ~ 416 AT PAGE 510. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. 2 ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B-1 (Requirenten Is) Our Order No. Q62005186-3 The fol[owing are tile requirements to be complied with: Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of Ilie full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record, to-wit: 1. (ITEM INTENTIONALLY DELETED) 2. EVIDENCE SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY THAT THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF THE TOWN OF ASPEN TRANSFER TAX HAVE BEEN SATISFIED. 3. A FULL COPY OF THE FULLY EXECUTED OPERATING AGREEMENT AND ANY AND ALL AMENDMENTS THERETO FOR ASPEN RIVER RENDEZVOUS, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY MUST BE FURNISHED TO LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY. SAID AGREEMENT MUST DISCLOSE WHO MAY CONVEY, ACQUIRE, ENCUMBER, LEASE OR OTHERWISE DEAL WITH INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY FOR SAID ENTITY. NOTE: ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS MAY BE NECESSARY UPON REVIEW OF THIS DOCUMENTATION. 4. DULY EXECUTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY SE'ITING FORTH THE NAME OF ASPIYN RIVER RENDEZVOUS, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AS A LLC. THE STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY MUST STATE UNDER WHICH LAWS THE ENTITY WAS CREATED, THE MAILING ADDRESS OF TIIE ENTITY, AND THE NAME AND POSITION OF Tim PERSONG) AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE INSTRUMENTS CONVEYING, ENCUMBERING, OR OTHERWISE AFFECTING TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY ON BEHALF OF THE ENTITY AND OTHERWISE COMPLYING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 38-30-172, CRS. NOTE: THE STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY MUST BE RECORDED WITH THE CLERK AND RECORDER. 5. WARRANTY DEED FROM PETER B. LEWIS TO ASPEN RIVER RENDEZVOUS, LLC, A COLORADO I.IMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CONVEYING SUBJECT PROPERTY. NOTE: ITEMS 1-3 OF THE STANDARD EXCEPTIONS ARE HEREBY DELETED. NOTE: UPON APPROVAL OF THE COMPANY AND THE RECEIPT OF A NOTARIZED FINAL LIEN AFFIDAVIT, ITEM NO. 4 OF THE STANDARD EXCEPTIONS ON THE LOAN POLICY WILL BE DELETED. ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B-1 (Requirements) Our Order No. Q02005486-3 Continued: UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE COMPANY AND THE RECEIPT OF A NOTARIZED FINAL LIEN AFFIDAVIT, ITEM NO. 4 OF THE STANDARD EXCEPTIONS ON THE OWNER'S POLICY WILL BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: ITEM NO. 4 OF THE STANDARD EXCEPTIONS IS DE.I.RTED AS TO ANY LIENS OR FUTURE LIENS RESULTING FROM WORK OR MATERIAL FURNISHED AT THE REQUEST OF PETER B. LEWIS. OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY FOR ANY LIENS ARISING FROM WORK OR MATERIAL FURNISHED AT THE REQUEST OF ASPEN RIVER RENDEZVOUS, LLC, A COLORAIX) LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY. NOTE: ITEM 5 OF THE STANDARD EXCEPTIONS WILL BE DELETED IF LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY CONDUCTS THE CLOSING OF THE CONTEMPLATED TRANSACTION(S) AND RECORDS THE DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. NOTE: UPON PROOF OF PAYMENT OF ALL TAXES, ITEM 6 WILL BE AMENDED TO READ: TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS FOR THE YEAR 2013 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS. 1 NOTE: ITEM 7A AND 7B OF TIIE GENERAL EXCEPTIONS ARE HEREBY DELETED. ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B-2 (Exceptions) Our Order No. Q62005486-3 Tlie policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Any facts, rights, interests, or clainis thereof, not sllown by the Public Records but thal could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land. 2. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records. 3. Any encroacliment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not sliown by the Public Records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the Public Records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse clainis or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior (o the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. (a) Taxes or assessments thal are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing atilliorily that levies taxes 1 or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency thal may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records. 7, (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuatice thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the niatters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the Public Records, 8. RIGI]T OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE THEREFROM SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED JUNE 08, 1888, IN BOOK 55 AT ~ PAGE 2. 9. EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND ALL OTHER MATTERS AS DISCLOSED ON THE SHAW WPW SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION I,OT 18 PI..AT RECORDED JUNE 3, 1981 IN PLAT BOOK 11 AT PAGE 60 AND FIRST AMENDMENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 1, 1981 IN PLAT BOOK 11 AT PAGE 97, 10. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE# 17, SERIES OF 1980 RECORDED AUGUST 25, 1980 ]N BOOK 393 AT PAGE 606. 11. CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION FOR 212 LAKE AVENUE CONDOMINIUMS, WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER CLAUSE, BUT OMITTING ANY COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY, BASED UPON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, FAMILIAL STATUS, MARITAL STATUS, DISABILITY, HANDICAP, ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B-2 (Exceptioils) Our Order No. Q62005486-3 Tlie policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to {lie satisfaction of the Company: NATIONAL ORIGIN, ANCESTRY, OR SOURCE OF INCOME, AS SET FORTI I IN APPI.ICABLE STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS, EXCEPT TO TIIE EXTENT THAT SAID COVENANT OR RESTRICTION IS PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, AS CONTAINED lN INSTRUMENT RECORDED OCTOBER 27, 1981, IN BOOK 416 AT PAGE 510. 12. EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND ALL OTHER MATTERS AS DISCLOSED ON THE. CONDOMINIUM MAP OF 212 LAKE AVENUE CONDOMIN1UMS RECORDED OCTOBER 27, 1981 IN PLAT BOOK 12 AT PAGE 33, AMENDED PLAT - UNIT B RECORDED JANUARY 7, 1993 IN PLAT BOOK 30 AT PAGE 21 AND BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT PLAT RECORDED JANUARY 6, 1995 IN PLAT BOOK 35 AT PAGE 92. 13. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF DRIVEWAY EASEMENT AGREEMENT RECORDED JANUARY 12, 1995 AT RECEPTION NO. 378020. 14. ANY FACTS. RIGHTS, INTERESTS OR CLAIMS WHICH MAY EXIST OR ARISE BY REASON OF THE FOI,LOWING FACTS SHOWN ON IMPROVEMENT SURVEY DATED AUGUST 30, 2013, PREPARED BY PEAK SURVEYING, INC., FOB# 13058: FENCELINES NOT LOCATED ON SUBJECT PROPERTY BOUNDARY LINES. WOOD FENCE EXTENDS INTO LOT 17, SHAW WPW SUBDIVISION. STONE STEPS EXTEND INTO HALLAM LAKE PRESERVE. . . . . . . 0 0 IMPROVEMENT & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PLAT ~1 < WOOD 212 LAKE AVENUE CONDOMINIUMS, UNITS A AND B FENCE ACCORDING TO THE CONDOMINIUM MAP THEREOF #5 REBAR & CAP LS. #20151 C[YP.) RECORDED OCTOBER 27, 1981 IN PLAT BOOK 12 AT PAGE 33 f , 99 ACCORDING TO THE AMENDED CONDOMINIUM MAP THEREOF rke \\\\ N 0 339 .Mwwmwa*L. 7 *4, UNITB , ~ ,~~~ YARD LCE l1Â« RECORDED JANUARY 7, 1993 IN PLAT BOOK 30 AT PAGE 21 \~9>lity Calt// LOWER BOUNDARY AREA OF ACCORDING TO THE BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT PLAT HALLAM BLUFF ESA REVIEW 300 *;7 3 ~60 . fk\ 4.\ PER CITY OF ASPEN GIS DEPT. 19Â§%* 1 &7& 18 RECORDED JANUARY 6, 1995 IN PLAT BOOK 35 AT PAGE 92 43 8 4 9 7,4- / , 19 BR]CK - ~\ %335 1%\\ 4~4 ~ CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO 41 0 OF PATIO ' ~ 270-~ -,=,8- . E-90 E / \ \. .1 1040 *A i 41 1 91% 4,15 HALLAM LAKE 0 4/7 NATURE PRESERVE ///2/45 f - 77, -04 240 - '3~3>~ ~* -120 %0,1 A 22 - <04 41* t, 15? ~ ~ 210 /''"1'llyl ""t...\ 150 ' SHAW WPW SUB. ~ 64 1 / ~~ Q-04 180 LOT 17 / 4* 9, 4% 1 7 + 15 14 GA GRAPHIC SCALE 4 0 \ #5 REBAR 4 N 4 2 .%:,if ' JO \ 4 4 24 . N to\ * ( IN FEET ) . . 05 4 1 -' 1 inch = 10 ft ~~46 61 STONE UNIT B STEPS NOTES: UPPER BOUNDARY AREA OF 4 1) THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO RESERVATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, COVENANTS, BUILDING 4 42\4 20 HALLAM BLUFF ESA REVIEW // 9 PER CITY OF ASPEN GIS DEPT. ** 1 - - #5 REBAR & CAP SETBACKS AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD, OR IN PLACE AND EXCEPTIONS TO TITLE SHOWN IN - - \L.S. # ILLEGIBLE THE TITLE COMMITMENT PREPARED BY LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY, ORDER NO. U Q62005486 DATED EFFECTIVE AUGUST 26,2013. 6 TLE 60 1 4 4 RETAINING 4 46 2) THE DATE OF THIS SURVEY WAS AUGUST 27 & SEPTEMBER 10, 2013. 4 4w 1- 3) BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS A BEARING OF N28Â°49'47"E BETWEEN THE WALL 4 d ~,4 * 2, Â©f <1 /3 48($, 4.2Â© 6 4, 44* / NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LOT 18, A #5 REBAR & CAP L.S. #20151 FOUND IN PLACE AND THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LOT 18, A #5 REBAR & CAP L.S, #ILLEGIBLE FOUND IN PLACE. 4 7 .9, 4, /1 24415 * *+c 1 1 4) UNrrs OFMEASURE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREONIS U,S. SURVEY FEET. 212 LAKE AVENUE 22 2 6 0 5) THIS SURVEY IS BASED ON THE 212 LAKE AVENUE CONDOMINIUM MAP RECORDED OCTOBER 4 CONDOMINIUMS 27, 1981 IN PLAT BOOK 12 AT PAGE 33, THE AMENDED 212 LAKE AVENUE CONDOMINIUM MAP 4 11,102 S.F.* / 4 4, TWO STORY WOOD de- RECORDED JANUARY 7,1993 IN PLAT BOOK 30 AT PAGE 21, THE BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT 440 & BRICK HOUSE LE:v 04 6<-fa PLAT RECORDED JANUARY 6,1995 IN PLAT BOOK 35 AT PAGE 92 IN THE PITKIN COUNTY CLERK 0, 932 AND RECORDER'S OFFICE AND CORNERS FOUND IN PLACE. WYTH BASEMENT ~4 ~MON EL NT GARBAG ACCORDING TO THE BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT PLA] RECORDED JANUARY 6,1995 IN PLAT <CONCRETE 2 0 AKA LOT 18 04 6) THE DRIVEWAY EASEMENT AS SHOWN IS OFFSET 8' Ob EACH SIDE OF THE BOUNDARY LINE SHAW WPW SUB. Â»k BOUNDARY INE 8 BIN,/ BOOK 35 AT PAGE 92. THE LENGTH OF THE EASEMENT WAS NOT DESCRIBED AND HAS BEEN - SHAW WPW SUB, 4 4 4 LOT 19 DIGITIZED, THEREFORE, THE LOCATION IS APPROXIMATE. THE VEHICLE BACKING EASEMENT ff UNIT A BRICK- c AS SHOWN WAS ALSO DIGITIZED AND THE LENGTH AND WIDTH ARE APPROXIMATE. < 70 6 /90 4 9 WALL /lfo - -~ 41 . 7) PLAT BOOK 11 PAGE 60 DESCRIBES A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR ABOVE GROUND 6 â‚¬J P LGAS METER ~1' â‚¬ CONCRETE / /4 17 / 1~ +/ / UTILITIES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO POSSIBLE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. 7 0 4 / i &41 - 4, OCE '46# - 6-, DRIVEWAY 4 l al . 414 4 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 7 + . 43% Â©~ 1~ ~ 2/~f ~ t~~ gf,~~:1)~- , \94 / O*fy Â·re / / ~ - THEREOF RECORDED OCTOBER 27, 1981 IN PLAT BOOK 12 AT PAGE 33, ACCORDING TO THE 212 LAKE AVENUE CONDOMIN[UMS, UNITS A AND B ACCORDING TO THE CONDOMINIUM MAP 4 16 AMENDED CONDOMINIUM MAP THEREOF RECORDED JANUARY 7, 1993 IN PLAT BOOK 30 AT -5 7 14 PAGE 21, ACCORDING TO THE BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT PLAT RECORDED JANUARY 6, 1995 f\ IN PLAT BOOK 35 AT PAGE 92, ACCORDING TO THE CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION RECORDED Â·<1 ~931'3 4 t i / y 1 A N / \. COLORADO. OCTOBER 27, 1981 IN BOOK 416 AT PAGE 510, CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF 1 //7 i LIGHT-Â·'* ~ 1, / a %0 1 1 6 4 0 -6 / 4/ / 4 1 Lg- 0 9 , i' . ~~ ' - 1 4 , ~4 21 COVERED 1 1.- / a YARD LCE PORCH UNIT A 6 L, _L, , 4 +~~>-#5 REBAR & CAP j 9 1 /4 / 4 \4 L.S, NO. 15710 ~ FLAGSTONE ~L \1 2 , 4 ,/ ' " 394* r~j. ./'W 4 IMPROVEMENT SURVEY STATEMENT <3 WALK (TYP.) 0 0 / 34\/ .l /.41#,96 / d TREE CHART 2 2 / '54''i'/ / 4 TYPE TRUNK DIA. DRIP DIA. ELEVATION I HEREBY STATE THAT THIS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY WAS PREPARED BY PEAK SURVEYING, INC. FORASPERRIVERRENDEZVOUS,LLC.,ACOLORADOLIMJTEDLIABLUTY COMPANY ANDLAND ,-_ 1 CONIFER 6" 8' 7881.3' TrrLE GUARANTEE COMPANY. <1 1 2 \17 / / r . 3 DECIDUOUS 10" 20' 7880.8 I FURTHER STATE THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL ON THIS DATE, L ,+ /3 /' . 4\& '0454 9/' 4 2 DECIDUOUS 30" 30' 7880.8' 1 21 1 / IRON FENCE--1 ~ r le. 1/ 9 CONCRETE 4 DECIDUOUS 10" 20' 7880.4 AUGUST 27, & SEPTEMBER 10, 2013, EXCEPT UTILITY CONNECTIONS, ARE ENTIRELY WITHIN THE - BOUNDARIES OF THE PARCEL, EXCEPT AS SHOWN, THAT THERE ARE NO ENCROACHMENTS UPON '47 3 41 13'YP.) THE DESCRIBED PREMISES BY IMPROVEMENTS ON ANY ADJOINING PREMISES, EXCEPT AS / 9 / 41 3. / ' DRIVEWAY 5 DECIDUOUS 10" 20' 7880.4' / / -ya <1 6 DECTDUOUS 10" 20' 788.04' INDICATED, AND THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT EVIDENCE OR SIGN OF ANY EASEMENT 4 /1 1 /4 \1~ *,2"4 .Â· 8 DECIDUOUS 10" 20' 7880.1' CROSSING OR BURDENING ANY PART OF SAID PARCEL, EXCEPT AS NOTED. I FURTHER STATE I / 64 1 . 10 DECIDUOUS 10" 20' 788.02' / 9 9 DECIDUOUS 10" 20' 7880.2' THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THE TITLE COMMITMENT PREPARED BY LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY, ORDER NO. Q62005486 DATED EFFECTIVE AUGUST 26, 2013 AND FIND ALL EXCEPTIONS 1 7/92&/ 7,0 TO T[TLE THAT AFFECT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE SHOWN HEREON TO THE BEST OF MY 11 CONIFER 18" 20' 7880.4' KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. 1 11 CONWER 1/0, //7 24 DECIDUOUS 6,1 9 7878. 414 4 1.4411 1 12 18" 20' 7880.9 0/. af 13 DECIDUOUS 6,1 12' 7879.51 4 I TELE.n 4,16 A , / 14 DECIDUOUS 6" 12' 7879.8' ~CONCRETEÂ« PED-- 9 1 Â·4 -pur./. Â©" DECIDUOUS X2 7879.6' PAN ~ 1 j LCURB L 3 15 6,1 12' 4 9 . 64 MAIL T-WATER / '01, / /21 17 CONIFER 10" 20' 7880.2' BY: N U.Â·-,2 / 0. 4,-Â·. d M / v f./4 16 DECIDUOUS X2 6" 16' 7879,6 *9948/Â·4 %1 34 <BOX SHUTOFF * / Y . 18 CONIFER 10" 20' 7880.2' hisON k NÂ£IL, P.U .NO.3799 < 0 4 % 21 Â· 19 CONIFER 6" 12' 7880.2' 1 - ~ 379351 = 1. $ 1 Z OÂ· 20 CONIFER 6,1 12' 7880.21 /\7 7 Legend 21 CONIFER 6" 12' 7880.2' 7$$. 09/12/13 Â·'~ %44 / \ 714 4 A Color Range Beg. Range End Percent Area 22 CONIFER 18" 20' 7880.2' '042--liloti - 47 0.00 20.00 92.2 10,244.96 DECIDUOUS 41/ 23 10" 20' 7879.9' 430.92 CONCRETE 4 1 . 20.00 30.00 3.8 425.12 CURB 25 DECIDUOUS 20" 30' 7879.7' <7 LCOA GPS #9 N. 6TH & W. FRANCIS 4 27 DECIDUOUS 8" 24' 7880.2' 26 DECIDUOUS 24" 30' 7880.1' BEARS N89Â°33'03"W 1643.51' 1\ 4 44 COA GPS #8 28 DECIDUOUS 10" 20' 7880.2' N. GARMISCH & W. FRANCIS 29 DECIDUOUS 20" 20 7880.4' BEARS S34Â°27'21"13 656.81' 30 CONIFER 6" 12' 7880.7' 31 CONIFER 6,1 161 7879.41 ~ NO. Date Revision By Drawn By: JRN ASPEN RIVER RENDEZVOUS, LLC. Project NO. Checked By: CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO 13058 PEAK~<21 IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT JRN ~ Date: 212 LAKE AVENUE CONDOMINIUMS / Surveying, Inc. NonCE: ACCORDING TOCOLORADOLAW, YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACnON ~ CURVE TABLE P.O. Box 1746 - Rifle, CO 81650 SEPT 12, 2013 BASEDUPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS AFrERYOU FrRST CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT CHORD BEARING DELTA Phone (970) 625-1954 - Fax (970) 625-2954 Computer Fle: UNITS A AND B 1OF1 DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN / THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THANTEN YEARS FROMTHEDATE OFâ„¢E (1 401.81' 59.12' 29.61' 59.07' N44Â°14'38"W 08Â°25'48" CERTIFICAHON SHOWN HEREON. www.peaksurveyingine. com 058-TOPO.DWG . 0 0 . 0 .