The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.ca.Merger Provision.0052.2004• Code Interpretation erger rovisio• Case 0052.2004.ASLU LAI 0 9 City of Aspen Community Development Dept. CASE NUMBER PARCEL ID# CASE NAME PROJECT ADDRESS PLANNER CASE DESCRIPTION 0052.2004.ASLU Code Interpretation, Merger Provision James Lindt Code Interpretation, Merger Provision REPRESENTATIVE Robert C Podoll DATE OF FINAL ACTION 08/31 /2004 CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION ADMIN ACTION Approved BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED 09/20/04 BY D DRISCOLL File Edit Record Navigate Form Reports Tab Help i � MUD �W 'ACUC a .Condkions Sub Permits Valuation Public Co ra"It Main I Raying Status Arch/Erg Parcels Custom Fields j Feel I Fee Summary fictions I RoutirgHlistory PernA Type Perm it 10052.2004.ASLU Address l------ � Apt/SuiteF_ City State —7] 2p F_. Permit Information rla, ter, Permit F RaRigQueue aslu Applied 06123l2004 _. Project I J Status ADpioved F - Description CODE INTERPRETATION, MERGER PROVISION Issued Final I �� Submitted IROBERT C PODOU. (303_M-4000 Clods Rumirg Days i 0 Expires IWIWO05 f Visible on the web? Pemit ID: 1 331396 U vaner Last Name 1JONES Fist Name jOLMA Phone (� Owner Is Applicant? Applicant _ _ .... Last Name JONES j Fid Name OUVIA < >. oil n • CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT INTERPRETATION SUBJECT: Applicability of City and County APPROVED merger provisions to two (2) metes and bounds parcels adjacent to the AUG 3 1. 2004 Aspen Grove Subdivision. EFFECTIVE DATEUAWUNJTv(tYr_,.,;aulI August 31, 2004 CR OEASPEN APPLICANT: Olivia Jones WRITTEN BY: James Lindt, Planner -'L- APPROVED BY: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director COPIES TO: John Worcester SUMMARY: Olivia Jones, represented by Podoll & Podoll P.C, has requested a code interpretation, requesting a determination as to whether two (2) metes and bounds parcels (please see vicinity map attached as Exhibit "A" for specific location) adjacent to the Aspen Grove Subdivision each have development rights under the City's land use code. The subject parcels were annexed into the City of Aspen in 1987 and have been under a common ownership since 1967. The question thus becomes whether the lots were merged under the applicable County land use code provisions before being annexed into the City. The City Planning Staff solicited the County Attorney's opinion as to whether the subject parcels were merged in the County prior to their annexation into the City. The County Attorney did not respond to the request for determination because he indicated that it was out of his jurisdiction to make such a determination since the lots are now located within the City of Aspen. PURPOSE: The purpose of this code interpretation is to determine whether two (2) metes and bounds parcels adjacent to the Aspen Grove Subdivision are entitled to separate development rights or were merged pursuant to County land use regulations before being annexed into the City of Aspen. INTERPRETATION: Given that the Applicant is requesting a determination as to whether the subject parcels merged under both the City and County merger provisions, Staff believes that it is logical to separate the analysis out into the affects of the City's merger provision on the subject parcels and the affect of the County's merger provisions on the subject parcels. Applicability of City's Merger Provision: In reviewing whether the City's merger provision merged the parcels, Staff believes that the City's merger provision did not merge the subject parcels. The City's merger provision reads as follows: Section 26.480.020(E)-If two (2) or more lots within the original Aspen townsite or additions thereto have continuous frontage and are in single ownership (including husband and wife) on October 27, 1975, the lots shall be considered an undivided lot for the purposes of this title, and conveyance of any portion shall constitute subdivision. An Aspen townsite lot or addition thereto includes all lands depicted on the Aspen incorporation plat of record, dated 1880, plus any lot or parcel annexed to the city since that time which constitutes a nonconforming lot of record, plus any lot or parcel which has not received subdivision approval by the City of Aspen or Pitkin County, but excludes any subdivided lot in the City of Aspen which conforms to the requirements of this title. Staff Analysis: Staff believes that the City's merger provision did not apply to the subject parcels in that none of the properties subject to this interpretation were located within the City of Aspen on October 27, 1975, and thus could not have merged under the City's merger provision. Applicability of County's Merger Provision: In reviewing whether the subject parcels were merged under the County's merger provisions prior to their annexation into the City of Aspen, the City Planning Staff is of the opinion that the two (2) metes and bounds parcels did merge under the County's provisions. The City Planning Staff would like to make it clear that we do not feel extremely comfortable interpreting regulations that are included in the Pitkin County Land Use Code and as was previously stated, Staff solicited the Pitkin County Attorney's interpretation but were told that the properties are within the City of Aspen and that the County is not going to make a determination on properties that are not currently within the County's jurisdictional boundaries. Therefore, the City of Aspen has no choice but to make a determination as to whether the County's merger provisions have merged the subject properties. However, it should be noted that the City Planning Staff did consult with the County Planning Staff on this matter prior to making a determination on this interpretation request. Staff Analysis: The County has two merger provisions. The first of the County's merger provisions reads as follows: Section 6-50-020(A)- "Common ownership" of contiguous substandard size lots (defined in the Pitkin County Land Use. Code as "any lot or parcel, no matter what the size, which is held in separate ownership") or parcels shall cumulate with the exception that lots in subdivisions approved and signed by the Board of County Commissioners shall not cumulate regardless of their size. The aggregate area of the lots shall be considered as one (1) lot or parcel regardless of diverse times of acquisition by the common owner and whether or not the property was acquired before adoption of this regulation. The second merger provision in the Pitkin County Land Use Code reads as follows: Section 6-50-020(B)- If a public roadway which was in place prior to June 2, 1975 provides access to contiguous substandard size lots and separates such lots, the lots shall not cumulate. Staff believes that the two (2) metes and bounds parcels subject to this interpretation merged because they are substandard lots by the County's definition, which were not included in a subdivision approved by the Board of County Commissioners. The City Planning Staff feels that this interpretation is consistent with Pitkin County's practice of merging other properties that have similar circumstances to that of these properties. The above -referenced circumstances being that the parcels were in the same ownership prior to the enactment of the County's merger provision and that the parcels are contiguous and not separated by a public roadway. Therefore, given Staff s findings, Staff believes that the two (2) metes and bounds parcels did merge under the merger provisions established in the Pitkin County Land Use Code prior to their annexation into the City of Aspen and should contain only a single development right. The Applicant's letter of request for interpretation argues that the County's merger provisions are "ex post facto" laws and should not be applied. This argument primarily attacks the legality of the County's merger regulations rather than the method in which they apply to this particular situation. Provided that the legislation in question is not legislation enacted by the City of Aspen, the City believes it appropriate to apply the County's merger provisions as the County would and has applied them rather than provide a determination as to whether the County's provisions are legally appropriate. APPEAL OF DECISION: As with any interpretation of the land use code by the Community Development Director, an applicant has the ability to appeal this decision to the Aspen City Council. This can be done in conjunction with a land use request before City Council or as a separate agenda item. 26.316.030(A) APPEAL PROCEDURES: Any person with a right to appeal an adverse decision or determination shall initiate an appeal by filing a notice of appeal on a form prescribed by the Community Development Director. The notice of appeal shall be filed with the Community Development Director and with the City office or department rendering the decision or determination within fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision or determination being appealed. Failure to file such notice of appeal within the prescribed time shall constitute a waiver of any rights under this Title to appeal any decision or determination. Attachments: Exhibit "A"- Vicinity Map Exhibit "B"- Letter of Request for Interpretation fim 4-0 X W UMAN VPJ��oR C L OL tl C � Vup�NE.pEi U d N (n,f ff' Q —aa AVMH180N a 3 w o `r w co z 3 � J W 1 W a cn QQ- Q� O G� N1•391W. OP Z UF. cl to 2) Q F- yU1 7> Q Y ao•3aoWaab 5 0 MIDLAND'AVE •FRED'UN O L•ACET LN w K PARK AV E 4 � 3�V•301IS83Ala N S.RIVERSIDE'AVE w 'Pu O Q O Ui ti ti J� �Q J ^� W CD LL Q O O N I O O O O N u • RICHARD B. PODOLL ROBERT C. PODOLL SUSAN R. HARRIS ROBERTA. KITSMILLER RICHARD C. HOPKINS KERRI L. KLEIN AMY L. ELLIS James Lindt Planning Dept. City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 • PODOLL & PODOLL, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW TERRACE TOWER II 5619 DTC PARKWAY, SUITE 1100 GREENWOOD VILLAGE, COLORADO 80111-3064 TELEPHONE: (303) 861-4000 TELECOPIER: (303) 861-4004 RE: Olivia Jones' Properties Dear James: August 23, 2004 C-_X� I'L 1 � �8 " RECEIVED AUG 2 6 2004 A6VtN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Please be advised that this office represents Olivia Jones, who was until recently, the owner of two unplatted lots in U.S. Mining Survey #6120, adjacent to the Aspen Grove Subdivision. The first parcel contains 3.39 acres and was acquired by Olivia Jones on August 21, 195 8 by deed from the Benedict Land and Cattle Company. The second parcel contains 1.4 acres and was acquired by Olivia Jones on June 8, 1967, also from the Benedict Land and Cattle Company. In May,1979, the Pitkin County Land Use Code was amended by the County Commissioners in Resolution 79-54. As part of the amendments, the definition of subdivision was amended to include the event that "two or more contiguous parcels of land previously, separately conveyed (or described) shall come under single ownership...." We believe that Ms. Jones' separate ownership of the two un-platted parcels above -described existed prior to, and was unaffected by the passage of Resolution 79-54. Referring to principles with which we are sure you are familiar, no ordinance or regulation may operate retrospectively. A law is "retrospective" if it creates a new obligation, imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability in respect to transactions or considerations already passed. Clearly, prior to 1979, Ms. Jones owned two parcels of properties which she had acquired years earlier, and which could be encumbered, developed or sold separately. Resolution 79-54 could not impose upon Ms. Jones the obligation to subdivide that which was already divided prior to its enactment. Ms. Jones remained the owner of these un-platted parcels when they were annexed into the • :7 PODOLL & PODOLL, P.C. City of Aspen in 1987. The City has informed us that the annexation did not affect the "merger" status of the parcels. We have asked that Pitkin County advise us of the status of the parcels prior to annexation. The County Attorney however has declined to help with this issue. However, you apparently recognize that the subject properties, being separately owned prior to the merger regulations, would continue as separate if they had established separate residential uses. This is the principle enunciated in numerous zoning cases which dealt with permitted uses under a zoning code. Although I am not ready to concede that these principles apply to "merger" regulations as opposed to permitted uses in a zoning district (even noting that one division of the Court of Appeals has analyzed the Pitkin County merger regulations in these terms in Wilkinson v. Board of County Comm'rs, 872 P.2d 1269, 1275 (Colo. Ct. App., 1993)), it doesn't seem to matter in the present situation. I believe we agree that one of the two adjacent parcels did have a residential use established prior to 1979. Therefore, that parcel (even under the Wilkinson analysis) was not affected by the subsequent merger regulations, and did not merge with the adjacent parcel. Since there were only two parcels capable of merging, and one was not merged, the other, having nothing to merge with, was un-merged as well. We therefore request that on behalf of the City of Aspen, you confirm that the two parcels were not merged as of 1987 before annexation into the City of Aspen. Concerning the constitutional impediment precluding the retrospective application of legislation to property rights, we enclose an abbreviated white paper for you review. However, I repeat that we need not determine whether merger provisions are analogous to permissible zoning uses, because two parcels cannot merge if one of those parcels is not subject to the merger regulations. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Yours very truly, PODOLL & PODOLL, P.C. RCP/nf cc: Ms. Olivia Jones Chris Seldin, Esq. John Worcester, Esq. 0 CITATION OF AUTHORITIES PERTAINING TO RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES The Colorado Constitution provides in Article 2 at Section 11: "No expostfacto law, nor law impairing the obligation of contracts, or retrospective in its operation, or making any irrevocable grant of special privileges, franchises or immunities, shall be passed by the general assembly." This fundamental protection "prevents unfairness that would result from changing the consequences of an act after that act has occurred. Van Sickle v. Boyes, 797 P. 2d (1267 (Colo. 1990)." Z.J. Gifts D-2, LLC v. City of Aurora, 2004 Colo. App. Lexis 869. As interpreted by the courts of Colorado, a statute is retrospective if it "takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability, in respect to transactions or considerations already passed." Continental Title Company v. District Court, 645 P.2d 1310 (Colo. 1982). The Colorado Supreme Court wrote in Gates Rubber Co. V. South Suburban Metro. Dist., 183 Colo. 222 (Colo. 1973): "...vested rights may not be impaired by the retroactive operation of a statute. [Citations omitted]." It is clear that this prohibition applies to county regulation as well as state statute. "What the legislature cannot do at the state level in this connection, the city council cannot do in municipal affairs." Saur v. County Commis of Larimer County, 525 P. 2d 1175, 1176 (Colo. App. 1974), quoting Denver v. Denver Buick, 141 Colo. 121, 347 P.2d 919 (Colo. 1959). Factually, it is assumed that Olivia Jones acquired two adjacent unplatted lots in 1958 and 1967, respectively. Prior to 1979, Olivia Jones had the rights to sell, encumber or develop each lot separately. "The purpose of the constitutional ban on retrospective legislation, like the ban on ex post facto laws, is to prevent the unfairness that results from changing the legal consequences of an act after the act has occurred. Peoples natural Gas Div. v. Public Util Comm, 197 Colo. 152, 590 P.2d 960 (1979)." Trailer Haven MHP v. City of Aurora, 81 P.3d 1132 (Colo.App. 2003). The amendment to the Pitkin County Land Use Code would require the additional burdens of subdivision before Ms. Jones could be restored to the same set of rights she enjoyed before the amendment. Resolution 79-54 could not be applied retroactively to impose upon Ms. Jones additional duties or obligations for the enjoyment of the same rights she possessed upon the acquisition of the parcels. • VANN ASSOCIATES, LLC Planning Consultants September 2, 2004 I VIVO Mr. James Lindt, Planner Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Lots 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15, Block 1, Aspen Grove Subdivision; Lots 1, 14 and 15, Block 3, Aspen Grove Subdivision; and Two Adjacent Meets and Bounds Parcels. Dear James: As the attached commitment for title insurance indicates, Cohen Capital Corporation isis under contract to purchase Lots 10, 11 13, 14 and 15, Block 1 and Lots 1, 14 and 15, Block 3, of the Aspen Grove Subdivision. Two adjacent meets and bounds parcels, which are referred to as Parcels 1 and 2, are also to be acquired. The eight subdivision lots and the two meets and bounds parcels (collectively the "McSkimming Road Properties") are depicted on the Boundary Survey Map which accompanies this letter. Background __The plat of Block 1 of the Aspen Grove Subdivision wasapprovedby the Board of County Commissioners on June 3, 1958 and is recorded In Ditch Book 2A at page 246 in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. The plat of Block 3 was approved on July 1, 1963 and is recorded in Ditch Book 2A at page 291. Blocks 1 and 3 of the Aspen Grove Subdivision and Parcels 1 and 2 were annexed to the City along with the neighboring Eastwood and Knollwood Subdivisions on July 13, 1987 (see Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1987, attached hereto). The annexed area and the McSkimming Road Properties were zoned R-15B, Moderate -Density Residential, pursuant to Ordinance No. 28 which was also adopted on July 13, 1987. The properties are undeveloped with the exception of an existing single-family residence which is located on Parcel 2. While Parcels 1 and 2 are separately described metes and bounds parcels, it is my understanding that the City has determined that they were merged at the time they 230 East Hopkins Ave. • Aspen, Colorado 81611 • 970/925-6958 • Fax 970/920-9310 • Mr. James Lindt September 2, 2004 Page 2 were annexed. This determination was apparently made by the City at the request of the seller and based on a review of applicable County regulations. As a result, it is also my understanding that the City considers the two parcels to presently constitute a single parcel for development purposes, there separate legal descriptions notwithstand- ing. Development Rights Based on the above, I believe that nine single-family residences may be constructed on the McSkimming Road Properties exempt from the City's growth management quota system ("GMQS") regulations. More specifically, each of the eight subdivision lots is entitled to one single-family GMQS exemption pursuant to Section 26.470.070.B. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations (the "Regulations"). Lots 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15, Block 1 and Lots 1, 14 and 15, Block 3 of the Aspen Grove Subdivision were legally subdivided prior to November 14, 1977 and comply with the requirements of Section 26.480.020.E. Similarly, merged Parcels 1 and 2 were legally described prior to November 14, 1977 and contain an existing single-family residence which may be demolished and reconstructed exempt from GMQS as also provided for in Section is 26.470.070.B. of the Regulations. Affordable Housing Mitigation The applicable GMQS exemptions are subject to affordable housing mitigation pursuant to Section 26.4.70.070. E.1. As accessory dwelling units are prohibited in the R-15B zone district, the mitigation options are limited to 1) the payment of an affordable housing impact fee, 2) the provision of an off -site deed restricted affordable housing unit, or 3) the restriction of the new single-family dwelling unit to resident occupancy. Assuming that the payment of the affordable_ housing impact fee is the purchaser's preferred option, it is my understanding that payment will be due at building permit and will be calculated based on the Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority's guidelines in effect at building permit application. 8040 Greenline Review Section 3 of Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1987 exempts the annexed area from the City's regulations pertaining to 8040 Greenline review. As a result, 8040 Greenline review will not be required to construct new residences on the McSkimming Road Properties or to remodel, renovate, expand or reconstruct the existing residence located on Parcel 2. n LJ • Mr. James Lindt ' September 2, 2004 Page 3 Residential Design Standards Section 26.410.010.B. of the Regulations expressly exempts residential development within the R-15B zone district from the City's Residential Design Standards. As a result, no review of the residences to be constructed on the McSkimming Road Properties or of any remodeling, renovation, expansion or reconstruction of the existing residence located on Parcel 2 will be required prior to building permit issuance. Allowable Floor Area Pursuant to Section 26.575.020.C., the calculation of allowable floor area in the R- 15B zone district does not require an adjustment for steep slopes. More specifically, no reduction in allowable floor area is required for slopes greater than twenty percent. The allowable floor area on each of the McSkimming Road Properties therefore will be based on each lot or parcel's lot area as defined in Section 26.575.020.C. and the external floor area ratio contained in Section 26.710.070.D.10. of the Regulations. While each lot or parcel's allowable floor area will be calculated based on the Regula- • tions in effect at building permit, the allowable floor areas based on the current Regulations are as follows. Note: The portion of the Skimming Lane easement encumbering Lots 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15, Block 1 and the McSkimming Road easement encumbering Lot 14, Block 3 has been deducted from each lot's area prior to calculating its allowable floor area. The floor areas exclude the five hundred square foot exemption for garages which is contained in Section 26.575.020.A.3. of the Regulations. Block 1, Aspen Grove Subdivision Lot 10 17,156 Sq. Ft. - 1,922 Sq. Ft. = 15,234 Sq. Ft. 15,234 Sq. Ft. - 15,000 Sq. Ft. = 234 Sq. Ft. 234 Sq. Ft. - 100 Sq. Ft. x 4 Sq. Ft. = 9.4 Sq. Ft. 3,180 Sq. Ft. + 9 Sq. Ft. = 3,189 Sq. Ft. Lot 11 17,712 Sq. Ft. - 2,561 Sq. Ft. = 15,151 Sq. Ft. 15,151 Sq. Ft. - 15,000 Sq. Ft. = 151 Sq. Ft. i 151 Sq. Ft. - 100 Sq. Ft. X 4 Sq. Ft. = 6.0 Sq. Ft. 3,180 Sq. Ft. + 6 Sq. Ft. = 3,186 Sq. Ft. • Mr. James Lindt ' September 2, 2004 Page 4 Lot 13 35,393 Sq. Ft. - 2,438 Sq. Ft. = 32,955 Sq. Ft. 32,955 Sq. Ft. - 15,000 Sq. Ft. = 17,955 Sq. Ft. 17,955 Sq. Ft. _ 100 Sq. Ft. x 4 Sq. Ft. = 718.2 Sq. Ft. 3,180 Sq. Ft. + 718 Sq. Ft. = 3,898 Sq. Ft. Lot 14 23,256 Sq. Ft. - 1,395 Sq. Ft. = 21,861 Sq. Ft. 21,861 Sq. Ft. - 15,000 Sq. Ft. = 6,861 Sq. Ft. 6.861 Sq. Ft. _ 100 Sq. Ft. x 4 Sq. Ft. = 274.4 Sq. Ft. 3,180 Sq. Ft. + 274 Sq. Ft. = 3,454 Sq. Ft. Lot 15 18,856 Sq. Ft. - 1,344 Sq. Ft. = 17,512 Sq. Ft. 17, 512 Sq. Ft. - 15,000 Sq. Ft. = 2,512 Sq. Ft. • 2,512 Sq. Ft. - 100 Sq. Ft. x 4 Sq. Ft. = 100.5 Sq. Ft. 3,180 Sq. Ft. + 100 Sq. Ft. = 3,280 Sq. Ft. Block 3, Aspen Grove Subdivision Lot 1 23,702 Sq. Ft. - 15,000 Sq. Ft. = 8,702 Sq, Ft. 8,702 Sq. Ft. - 100 Sq. Ft. x 4 Sq. Ft. = 348.1 Sq. Ft. 3,180 Sq. Ft. + 348 Sq. Ft. = 3,528 Sq. Ft. Lot 14 56,647 Sq. Ft. - 3,816 Sq. Ft. = 52,831 Sq. Ft. 52,831 Sq. Ft. - 50,000 Sq. Ft. = 2,831 Sq. Ft. 2,831 Sq. Ft. _ 100 Sq. Ft. x 1 Sq. Ft. = 28.3 Sq. Ft. 4,580 Sq. Ft. + 28 Sq. Ft. = 4,608 Sq. Ft. Lot 15 93,102 Sq. Ft. - 50,000 Sq. Ft. = 43,102 Sq. Ft. 43,102 Sq. Ft. - 100 Sq. Ft. x 1 Sq. Ft. = 431.0 Sq. Ft. • 4,580 Sq. Ft. + 431 Sq. Ft. = 5,011 Sq. Ft. • Mr. James Lindt September 2, 2004 Page 5 • Parcels 1 and 2 209,002 Sq. Ft. - 50,000 Sq. Ft. = 159,002 Sq. Ft. 159,002 Sq. Ft. _ 100 Sq. Ft. x 1 Sq. Ft. = 1,590 Sq. Ft. 4,580 Sq. Ft. + 1,590 Sq. Ft. = 6,170 Sq. Ft. As we discussed, I would appreciate it if you would review the conclusions contained in this letter and verify my interpretation of the relevant regulatory provisions in the space provided below. Should you have any questions, or if I have misinterpreted the Regulations in any way, please do not hesitate to call. Yours truly, , LLC Attachments cc: Warren Cohen Millard J. Zimet, Esq. AGREED AND ACCEPTED: i James Lmdt-"Date:/ 1� 'V\ &4 IAO c:\oldc\bus\city.ltr\ltr46504.j12 a V \ Ctv �O_� ss I It L q s �J CA �wa • • VANN ASSOCIATES, LLC Planning Consultants July 19, 2004 HAND DELIVERED Mr. James Lindt, Planner Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Lots 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15, Block 1, Aspen Grove Subdivision; Lots 1, 14 and 15, Block 3, Aspen Grove Subdivision; and Two Adjacent Meets and Bounds Parcels. Dear James: As the attached commitment for title insurance indicates, Cohen Capital Corporation is under contract to purchase Lots 10, 11 13, 14 and 15, Block 1 and Lots 1, 14 and 15, Block 3, of the Aspen Grove Subdivision. Two adjacent meets and bounds parcels, which are referred to as Parcels 1 and 2, are also to be acquired. The eight subdivision lots and the two meets and bounds parcels (collectively the "McSkimming Road Properties") are depicted on the Boundary Survey Map which accompanies this letter. Background The plat of Block 1 of the Aspen Grove Subdivision was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on June 3, 1958 and is recorded In Ditch Book 2A at page 246 in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. The plat of Block 3 was approved on July 1, 1963 and is recorded in Ditch Book 2A at page 291. Blocks 1 and 3 of the Aspen Grove Subdivision and Parcels 1 and 2 were annexed to the City along with the neighboring Eastwood and Knollwood Subdivisions on July 13, 1987 (see Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1987, attached hereto). The annexed area and the McSkimming Road Properties were zoned R-15B, Moderate -Density Residential, pursuant to Ordinance No. 28 which was also adopted on July 13, 1987. The properties are undeveloped with the exception of an existing single-family residence which is located on Parcel 2. While Parcels 1 and 2 are separately described metes and bounds parcels, they are believed to have merged prior to annexation as they were held in common ownership 230 East Hopkins Ave. • Aspen, Colorado 81611 • 970/925-6958 • Fax 970/920-9310 Mr. James Lindt July 19, 2004 Page 2 by the seller in 1979, the year in which Pitkin County adopted its merger regulations. As it has been the City's policy not to create additional development rights in connection with annexation, the two parcels are believed to presently constitute a single parcel for development purposes. It should be noted that Ordinances Nos. 26 and 28, which annexed and zoned the McSkimming Road Properties, contain no refer- ence as to the individual properties annexed or to their development potential. Development Rights Based on the above, I believe that nine single-family residences may be constructed on the McSkimming Road Properties exempt from the City's growth management quota system ("GMQS") regulations. More specifically, each of the eight subdivision lots is entitled to one single-family GMQS exemption pursuant to Section 26.470.070.B. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations (the "Regulations"). Lots 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15, Block 1 and Lots 1, 14 and 15, Block 3 of the Aspen Grove Subdivision were legally subdivided prior to November 14, 1977 and comply with the requirements of Section 26.480.020.E. Similarly, merged Parcels 1 and 2 were legally described prior to November 14, 1977 and contain an existing single-family residence which may be demolished and reconstructed exempt from GMQS as also provided for in Section 26.470.070.B. of the Regulations. Affordable Housing Mitigation The applicable GMQS exemptions are subject to affordable housing mitigation pursuant to Section 26.470.070.E.1. As accessory dwelling units are prohibited in the R-15B zone district, the mitigation options are limited to 1) the payment of an affordable housing impact fee, 2) the provision of an off -site deed restricted affordable housing unit, or 3) the restriction of the new single-family dwelling unit to resident occupancy. Assuming that the payment of the affordable housing impact fee is the purchaser's preferred option, it is my understanding that payment will be due at building permit and will be calculated based on the Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority's guidelines in effect at building permit application. 8040 Greenline Review Section 3 of Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1987 exempts the annexed area from the City's regulations pertaining to 8040 Greenline review. As a result, 8040 Greenline review will not be required to construct new residences on the McSkimming Road Properties or to remodel, renovate, expand or reconstruct the existing residence located on Parcel 2. Mr. James Lindt July 19, 2004 Page 3 Residential Design Standards Section 26.410.010.B. of the Regulations expressly exempts residential development within the R-15B zone district from the City's Residential Design Standards. As a result, no review of the residences to be constructed on the McSkimming Road Properties or of any remodeling, renovation, expansion or reconstruction of the existing residence located on Parcel 2 will be required prior to building permit issuance. Allowable Floor Area Pursuant to Section 26.575.020.C., the calculation of allowable floor area in the R- 15B zone district does not require an adjustment for steep slopes. More specifically, no reduction in allowable floor area is required for slopes greater than twenty percent. The allowable floor area on each of the McSkimming Road Properties therefore will be based on each lot or parcel's lot area as defined in Section 26.575.020.C. and the external floor area ratio contained in Section 26.710.070.D.10. of the Regulations. While each lot or parcel's allowable floor area will be calculated based on the Regula- tions in effect at building permit, the allowable floor areas based on the current Regulations are as follows. Note: The portion of the Skimming Lane easement encumbering Lots 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15, Block 1 and the McSkimming Road easement encumbering Lot 14, Block 3 has been deducted from each lot's area prior to calculating its allowable floor area. The floor areas exclude the five hundred square foot exemption for garages which is contained in Section 26.575.020.A.3. of the Regulations. Block 1, Aspen Grove Subdivision Lot 10 Lot 11 17,156 Sq. Ft. - 1,922 Sq. Ft. = 15,234 Sq. Ft. 15,234 Sq. Ft. - 15,000 Sq. Ft. = 234 Sq. Ft. 234 Sq. Ft. - 100 Sq. Ft. x 4 Sq. Ft. = 9.4 Sq. Ft. 3,180 Sq. Ft. + 9 Sq. Ft. = 3,189 Sq. Ft. 17,712 Sq. Ft. - 2,561 Sq. Ft. = 15,151 Sq. Ft. 15,151 Sq. Ft. - 15,000 Sq. Ft. = 151 Sq. Ft. 151 Sq. Ft. - 100 Sq. Ft. X 4 Sq. Ft. = 6.0 Sq. Ft. 3,180 Sq. Ft. + 6 Sq. Ft. = 3,186 Sq. Ft. Mr. James Lindt July 19, 2004 Page 4 Lot 13 Lot 14 Lot 15 35,393 Sq. Ft. - 2,438 Sq. Ft. = 32,955 Sq. Ft. 32,955 Sq. Ft. - 15,000 Sq. Ft. = 17,955 Sq. Ft. 17,955 Sq. Ft. _ 100 Sq. Ft. x 4 Sq. Ft. = 718.2 Sq. Ft. 3,180 Sq. Ft. + 718 Sq. Ft. = 3,898 Sq. Ft. 23,256 Sq. Ft. - 1,395 Sq. Ft. = 21,861 Sq. Ft. 21,861 Sq. Ft. - 15,000 Sq. Ft. = 6,861 Sq. Ft. 6,861 Sq. Ft. - 100 Sq. Ft. x 4 Sq. Ft. = 274.4 Sq. Ft. 3,180 Sq. Ft. + 274 Sq. Ft. = 3,454 Sq. Ft. 18,856 Sq. Ft. - 1,344 Sq. Ft. = 17,512 Sq. Ft. 17, 512 Sq. Ft. - 15,000 Sq. Ft. = 2,512 Sq. Ft. 2,512 Sq. Ft. - 100 Sq. Ft. x 4 Sq. Ft. = 100.5 Sq. Ft. 3,180 Sq. Ft. + 100 Sq. Ft. = 3,280 Sq. Ft. Block 3, Aspen Grove Subdivision Lot 1 Lot 14 Lot 15 23,702 Sq. Ft. - 15,000 Sq. Ft. = 8,702 Sq. Ft. 8,702 Sq. Ft. - 100 Sq. Ft. x 4 Sq. Ft. = 348.1 Sq. Ft. 3,180 Sq. Ft. + 348 Sq. Ft. = 3,528 Sq. Ft. 56,647 Sq. Ft. - 3,816 Sq. Ft. = 52,831 Sq. Ft. 52,831 Sq. Ft. - 50,000 Sq. Ft. = 2,831 Sq. Ft. 2,831 Sq. Ft. - 100 Sq. Ft. x 1 Sq. Ft. = 28.3 Sq. Ft. 4,580 Sq. Ft. + 28 Sq. Ft. = 4,608 Sq. Ft. 93,102 Sq. Ft. - 50,000 Sq. Ft. = 43,102 Sq. Ft. 43,102 Sq. Ft. - 100 Sq. Ft. x 1 Sq. Ft. = 431.0 Sq. Ft. 4,580 Sq. Ft. + 431 Sq. Ft. = 5,011 Sq. Ft. Mr. James Lindt July 19, 2004 Page 5 Parcels 1 and 2 209,002 Sq. Ft. - 50,000 Sq. Ft. = 159,002 Sq. Ft. 159,002 Sq. Ft. - 100 Sq. Ft. x 1 Sq. Ft. = 1,590 Sq. Ft. 4,580 Sq. Ft. + 1,590 Sq. Ft. = 6,170 Sq. Ft. As we discussed, I would appreciate it if you would review the conclusions contained in this letter and verify my interpretation of the relevant regulatory provisions in the space provided below. Should you have any questions, or if I have misinterpreted the Regulations in any way, please do not hesitate to call. Yours truly, VANNASSOCIAIE�S, LLC ann, AICP Iry : cwv Attachments cc: Warren Cohen Millard J. Zimet, Esq. AGREED AND ACCEPTED: By: James Lindt Date: eoox 047 P; GE191 ORDINANCE No. # (Series c•f 1987) AN ORDINANCE OF TIfE CITY OF ASPEP' ZONING LPPROXIMATELY 79 ACRES OF LAND KNOWN AS THE ASPEN GROVE SUBDIVISION, EASTWOOD SUBDIVI- SION, KNOLLWOOD SUBDIVISION EXCLUSIVE OF FNOLVe7O1JD, BLOCK 4 MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO, ALSO KNOWN AS THE ASPEN GROVE/EASTWOOD/KNOLLWOOD ANNEXATION AREA: GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF THE SALVATION DITCH AND NORTH OF STATE. HIGHWAY 82, THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITY.IN COUNTY, COLORADO TO R-15B WHEREAS, the property owners of Aspen Grove, Eastwood and Knollwood Subdivisions exclusive of Knollwood, Block 4 (herein- after referred to as the Aspen Grove, Eastwood/Knollwood Annexa- tion Area specif:.cally described in Exhibiit "A" attached hereto c and inco perated herein and have petitioned the City of Aspen to be annexed; and WHEREAS, the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office notified property owners within the Aspen Grove/Eastwood/Knollwood area of a public meeting on May 19, 1987, to discuss zoning for the area; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on June 2, 1987 to consider the creation of the R-15B Moderate Density Residential zone district recommended by staff and the application of the zone district to the Aspen Grove/Eastwood/Knollwood annexation area; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and has determined the proposed zoning to be compatible with surrounding zone districts and land use :.n the vicinity of the site. NOW, THERF,FORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY cSOUNCIL OF THE -+ N CITY OF PS?EN, :CTOIADO: 2 Ln %o n r A m 2. O < 77- O N = a �J � .01 1-1 eos 547 r,, EA Z Section 1 'That it does hereby zone to R-15E Moderate, Density Residen- tial that area commonly know as the Aspen Grove/Eastwood/Knoll- wood Annexation Area which area is specifically described in Exhibit A, attached hereto. Section 2 That the Zoning District Map be amended to reflect the zoning described in, Secticn 1 and the City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to amend the map to reflect the zoning change. Section 3 inasmuch as the area zoned by this ordinance consists of a newly annexed area with existing structures, the remodeling, renovation, reconstruction additions to existing structures and new construction in the area described in Exhibit "A" shall be deemed to have satisfied all requirements of Section 24-6.2 of the Municipal Code pertaining to 8040 Greenline review. Section 4 That the City Clerk is directed upon adoption of this ordinance to record a copy in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 5 If any section, sub -section, ocntence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance in, for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by and court of competent jurisdiction, such r 2 y eoog 547 rai_1_9:3 portion shall be daemed a. separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section G A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the day of )�. _, 1987, at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chanbers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing notice of the came shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Asper, on the 22nd day of June, 1987. 1 CF { .P William L. Stirling, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn #och, City Clerk f 14 LY, adopted, passed and approved this V, day of 1987. William L. Stirling, Mayor I!at,�Lrym Si Koch, City Clerk w ull Y UP UUU1V1 Y UP rilmiN, J1A1IJ up SHEET_1 OF 3 _-Find. B.L.M. Bross Cap Connor No, 6. Highland placer M.S. 0120AM � I Set Reber w/Cap, °p PS5.08' /I,—LS. /28643 [ c p I cn/?EJ'T .>i'RVICT' %..IXV5,' W W N I h Fnd. Reber w/Cap LS. 0151 � Tie for Parcel 2 6 55' � N 81-04'00" W. 255.08' (Field) N 8>04,00" 0, N 81-04'00" W. 257-60' (Deed) %6�25 0 ge I Set Reber w/Cop• 27' n•9) 1180. L.S. 128643 oz• DSO. ?0' Fnc Car PARCEL > I 1 Fnd. B.L.M. Bross Ca /sz3s' l 61,260 Sq. Ft b P V h Corner No. 5, Highland Plover U.S. ,j6120 Fnd Reber 44 N' PARCEL -9 c'J 147, 742 Sq. Ft --k g L � 93, 102 Sq Ft t z; 64 OT q.-Ft t bar w/cap. L.S. 128643 56. Witness Car. O Easement --\ 5 92 h C a a Set Reber w/Cap• Fnd Reber w Co O V QQ' -0;t/ L.S. #28643 / p , Approx. Existing House L.S. 120151 O to E*ts n+ �� a • \ a i' o 0 LOT ! 1 nSet Reber O to �J cA [ S. 118643 /COP. —�` Q 5 /✓ <17,712Sq. Ft t soon ?o` pp y 22 ss _Fnd. Red 4" r 4' Post ¢ji,T! .i. 4' / r 7.5' unw y Easement (T p.) � � •`90" Dears S 14•38'!8" E. J. 17' D- t '� __ tSU.aO - J C7•�-, f5. 0' (Each sme W 0 „ enl ~.� Q Lot L,ne) — 'W 6'� t, i o .•, y� ai L N Z l i ly nit ti t2: E ut/ E 5 E Cf� f iYa 1P • ' (, Gai o .. 2 13' 0 U h ' \ 15.52' v� o /t 14.JG'� '? f �, �g \ LE4 7s - L. 120151 _ _ 35, 393 Sq. Ft f P v 5g•QQ , yy - "' r s 6.12 E, '� r C99 � Fnd Red 4 x 4" Post 75' p9 - ° �� Bears S 77-42'40• W, 1.06 �a� C3 ' " LE$ �, q" tiY i-sA9T�7 / ` 5 Fnd. Reber w/cop. r-s�A2orsti, �3, " - a` 3g A P Bears S 4678'16" E, 4. 6' Dy �9 -� � 61' 39 \ / t?�, , i 20. 0' U1dYy Eosrment otr 5 181' O ao . 1 \� 5•'\ Fnd. Red 4' x 4" Rost �9. / 5 �\ LOT t \ \ Dears S 0573311" W 0.9: d �j �� t Set Reber w/C-p. LOT 15 \ r. L. ;rza643 23,256 Sq. Ft E ORDINANCE No. (Series of 1987) BOOK FacE1�1 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEP? ZONING APPROXIMATELY 79 ACRES OF LAND KNOWN AS THE ASPEN GROVE SUBDIVISION, EASTWOOD SUBDIVI- SION, KNOLLWOOD SUBDIVISION EXCLUSIVE OF KNOLLWO'D, BLOCK 4 MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO, ALSO KNOWN AS THE ASPEN GROVE/EASTWOOD/KNOLLWOOD ANNEXATION AREA: GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF THE S?1LVATION DITCH AND NORTH OF STATE. HIGHWAY 82, THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO TO R-15B WHEREAS, the property owners of Aspen Grove, Eastwood and Knollwood Subdivisions exclusive of Knollwood, Block 4 (herein- after referred to as the Aspen Grove, Eastwood/Knollwood Annexa- tion Area specif'.cally described in Exhibiit "A" attached hereto •,c and incorporated herein and have petitioned the City of Aspen to be annexed; and WHEREAS, the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office notified property owners within the Aspen Grove/Eastwood/Knollwood area of a public meeting on May 19, 1987, to discuss zoning for the area; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on June 2, 1987 to consider the creation of the R-15B Moderate Density Residential zone district recommended by staff and the application of the zone district to the Aspen Grove/Eastwood/Knollwood annexation area; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and has determined the proposed zoning to be compatible with surrounding zone districts and land use in the vicinity of the site. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY .SOUNCIL OF THE =i N CITY OF l.SPEN, COLORADO: M = N %o n r 41. IN <_ y O VI Q s a rn Cr' � a 1�1r eooK 547 muAV Section 1 That it does hereby zone to R-15E Moderate, Density Residen- tial that area commonly know as the Aspen Grove/Eastwood/Knoll- wood Annexation Area which area is specifically described in Exhibit A, attached hereto. Section 2 That the Zoning District Map be amended to reflect the zoning described in Secticn 1 and the City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to amend the map to reflect the zoning change. Section 3 Inasmuch as the area zoned by this ordinance consists of a newly annexed area with existing structures, the remodeling, renovation, reconstruction additions to existing structures and new construction in the area described in Exhibit "A" shall be deemed to have satisfied all requirements of Section 24-6.2 of the Municipal Code pertaining to 8040 Greenline review. Section 4 That the City Clerk is directed upon adoption of this ordinance to record a copy in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 5 If any section, sub -section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by and court of competent jurisdiction, such A. K eoo� 547 rac_1_9:3 portion shall be daemed a :separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section b A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of' .E--, 1987, at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 22nd day of June, 1987. ..✓ `/ `/ Gay � � William L. Stirling, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn:och, City Clerk JP.fi�1A�LY, adopted, passed and approved this --day of 1987. William L. Stifling, Mayor ]!a5}rryn, S". Koch, City Clerk ?H . EMJ; 3 r en 547 PAGE195 EXHIBIT "A" r EXTERNAL FLOOR AREA RATIO LOT SIZE STANDARD ALLOWABLE SQ. FT. (Single -Family Structurev) 0-3,000 80 s. f. for each .70x(0-2,400) add. 100 s.f. in lot area 3,001-9,000 28 s.f. for each .70x(2,400-4,080) add. 100 s.f. in lot area 9,001-15,000 7 s.f. for each .70x(4,080-4,500) add. 100 s.f. in lot area 15,001-50,000 6 s.f. for each .70x(4,500-6,500) add. 100 s.f. in lot area illy !' 50,000+ 2 s.f. for each .70x(6,500+) add. 100 s.f. in lot area { 8 i 1 !ti s r f kiw A t t achment 1 j:i ,jjl:: I I!i 11 !r 547 PAjE1-94 1!; A IT A.. 0 (D 0 I-- X U) LLJ < LLJ < i 511, doom- J, 1 ftftft,16 130 S. Galena St. Aspen CO 81611 (970)920-5090 (970) 920-5439, fax To: John Ely From: James Lindt Fax: 920-5198 Pages: Phone: Date: 7/20/04 Re: Aspen Grove Subdivision Lots CC: ❑ Urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle • Comments: Hi John, John Worcester has directed me to write the attached letter of request to you related to the applicability of the County's merger provisions to several parcels in the Aspen Grove Subdivision. Please review the attached documents. Thanks, James Lindt Planner City of Aspen July 20, 2004 John Ely 4 Pitkin County Attorney ASPEN/PITKIN 530 E. MainStreet Aspen, CO O 1611 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RE: Request for Interpretation Related to Merger Provision Dear John: I am writing this letter of request for interpretation at the direction of the City Attorney in regards to the applicability of the County's merger provisions as they relate to several parcels that were annexed into the City in 1987. The City of Aspen Planning Staff was approached by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, LLC regarding eight (8) lots in the Aspen Grove Subdivision and two (2) adjacent metes and bounds parcels located just north of the Aspen Grove Subdivision (please see attached annexation map for location of parcels). Mr. Vann has made an argument to City Staff (see attached -letter) that Lots 10, 11, 13, 14, and 15, Block 1 of the Aspen Grove Subdivision; and Lots 1, 14, and 15, Block 3 of the Aspen Grove Subdivision should be considered separate parcels and should not have merged under Pitkin County's merger provisions even though they were in the same ownership as of the merger dates specified in the County Land Use Code because they were parcels located in a subdivision approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Vann has further argued that the two (2) subject metes and bounds parcels should have merged because they were in the same ownership in 1979 and were not located in a subdivision approved by the Board of County Commissioners. In Mr. Vann's argument that was detailed above, he indicates that Block 1 of the Aspen Grove Subdivision was approved and platted in 1958. However, in discussing Mr. Vann's argument with members of the County Planning Staff, it was expressed by members of the County Staff that Pitkin County did not begin doing official subdivision reviews until the 1960's. Therefore, the City of Aspen Planning Staff and Attorney's Office would like your written interpretation as to whether the County's merger provisions should have applied to Lots 10, 11, 13, 14, and 15, Block 1, Aspen Grove Subdivision; and Lots 1, 14, and 15, Block 3, Aspen Grove Subdivision prior to their annexation into the City of Aspen in 1987. Please feel free to contact me at 920-5095 or John Worcester at 920-5055 with comments or questions relating to this matter. Regards, . ames Lindt, Planner City of Aspen Cc: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director John Worcester, City of Aspen Attorney 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 • PHONE 970.920.5090 • FAx 970.920.5439 Printed on Recycled Paper • • Section 6-50 SUBSTANDARD SIZE LOTS (PC 6-5) Subsections: 6-50-010 Development Permitted on Substandard Size Lots or Parcels 6-50-020 Cumulation of Substandard Size Lots 6-50-030 Separation of Platted Substandard Size Lots 6-50-010 Development Permitted on Substandard Size Lots or Parcels A single family dwelling unit is a permitted use on any legally created lot or parcel made substandard as to size by the imposition of the initial adoption of the Pitkin County Zoning Resolution of 1955, or the adoption of any relevant amendment thereto subject to compliance with the standards in this section. A. The development of any principal land use other than a single family dwelling unit on a substandard size lot is prohibited. B. Land uses and structures that are accessory to the single family dwelling are permitted. (Prior code § 6-501) 6-50-020 Cumulation of Substandard Size Lots A. "Common ownership" of contiguous substandard size lots or parcels shall cumulate with the exception that lots in subdivisions approved and signed by the Board of County Commissioners shall not cumulate regardless of their size. The aggregate area of the lots shall be considered as one (1) lot or parcel regardless of diverse times of acquisition by the common owner and whether or not the property was acquired before adoption of this regulation. B. If a public roadway which was in place prior to June 2, 1975 provides access to contiguous substandard size lots and separates such lots, the lots shall not cumulate. (Prior code § 6-502) 6-50-030 Separation of Platted Substandard Size Lots The Planning Commission may permit the separation of legally platted substandard size lots which have not been approved by the Board of County Commissioners and which have cumulated pursuant to Section 6-50- 020, subject to compliance with all of the standards in this section. In the case of multiple, cumulated substandard size lots, the County may limit the number of lots which may be separated and require lot lines to be reconfigured. Refer to Section 4-50 for procedures and Section 5-60 for submission contents. A. The lots must be located in a legally platted subdivision. B. The subdivision plat must have been legally recorded with the County Clerk in compliance with all subdivision laws in effect at the time of recording. C. The Commission shall approve, deny, or limit the separation of cumulated substandard size lots based upon consideration of the criteria in this section. 0 1. Which could be created by any court in this State pursuant to the law of eminent domain, or by operation of law, or by order of any court in this State if the Board of County Commissioners of the County in which the property is situated is given timely notice of any such pending action by the court and given opportunity to join as a party in interest in such proceedings for the purpose of raising the issue of evasion of the County's subdivision regulations prior to the entry of the court order and if the Board does not file an appropriate pleading within twenty (20) days after receipt of such notice by the court; 2. Which is created by a lien, mortgage, deed of trust, or any other security instrument; 3. Which is created by a security or unit of interest in any investment trust regulated under the laws of this State or any other interest in any investment entity; 4. Which creates cemetery lots; 5. Which creates an interest or interest in oil, gas, minerals, or water which is severed from the surface ownership or real property; or 6. Which is created by the acquisition of an interest in land in the name of the husband and wife or other persons in joint tenancy, or as tenants in common, and any such interest shall be deemed for the purpose of this definition as only one interest. 7. Which creates parcels of land, each of which comprises thirty-five (35) or more acres of land and none of which is intended for use by multiple owners. 8. Which creates legally separate real estate interests through creation of condominiums pursuant to C.R.S. Section 33-33.3-101, et seq. or Section 38-33-101, et seq., cooperatives pursuant to C.R.S. 33-33.3-101, et seq. or Section 33-33.5-101, et seq. and timeshares pursuant to C.R.S. Section 38-33-111, as those provisions may be amended or replaced from time to time. The creation of these interests shall not result in the subdivision of land, the creation of legally separate lots, nor shall it be considered an event of subdivision. SUBSTANDARD SIZE LOT means any lot or parcel, no matter what the size, which is held in separate ownership and which does no meet the minimum requirements for lot width or area as set forth in this Code, when a building permit is sought. SUBURBAN means a predominantly low -density residential area and/or small-scale commercial area located immediately outside of and physically and socio-economically associated with an urban area, municipality or a city. SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT means an improvement to a public road planned and scheduled on the Pitkin County 20-Year Road Improvement Plan. TEMPORARY COMMERCIAL USES are commercial uses of property for seventy-two (72) hours or less unless a longer duration is approved by the Board of County Commissioners at its discretion. 38 Suzanne Wolff, 09:51 A*0/2004 , Fwd: County Merger Provist Page 1 of 1 X-Sender: suzannew@sam X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:51:59 -0600 To: jamesl@co.pitkin.co.us From: Suzanne Wolff <suzannew@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Fwd: County Merger Provisions Sub -Section 6-50-020, Cumulation of Substandard Size Lots Article 8, Definition of "subdivision or subdivided land" - subsection C X-Sender: lancec@sam X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:38:28 -0600 To: Suzannew@ci.aspen.co.us From: Lance Clarke <lancec@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Fwd: County Merger Provisions Could you please give James the citations X-Sender: jamesl@sam X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:08:45 -0600 To: lancec@ci.aspen.co.us From: James Lindt <jamesl@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: County Merger Provisions Version 4.2.0.58 Hi Lance, Could you please identify the county land use code sections that include the two merger provisions you have. John Ely chose not make a determination as to whether some lots that were annexed into the City were merged prior to their annexation. So, now it is up to Chris and I. Thanks, James James Lindt Aspen Community Development 920-5102 Printed for James Lindt <jamesl(a�ci.aspen. co.us> 8/20/2004 PODOLL & PODOLL, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW TERRACE TOWER 11 5619 DTC PARKWAY. SUITF 1 100 GREENWOOD VILLAGE. COLORADO 80111-3064 TELEPHONE: 1303) 861.4000 TFLECOPIER: (303) 861-4(104 RICHARD B POD0I.1 ROBERI C. PODOLL SUSAN R HARRIS ROBERT A. KITSMILL.hR RICHARD( HOPKINS KERRI I. KLEIN AMV 1.. ELLI.S James Lindt Planning Dept. City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Olivia Jones' Properties Dear James: August 23, 2004 Please be advised that this office represents Olivia Jones, who was until recently, the owner of two unplatted lots in U.S. Mining Survey #6120, adjacent to the Aspen Grove Subdivision. The first parcel contains 3.39 acres and was acquired by Olivia Jones on August 21, 1958 by deed from the Benedict Land and Cattle Company. The second parcel contains 1.4 acres and was acquired by Olivia Jones on June 8, 1967, also from the Benedict Land and Cattle Company. In May, 1979. the Pitkin County Land Use Code was amended by the County Commissioners in Resolution 79-54. As part of the amendments, the definition of subdivision was amended to include the event that "two or more contiguous parcels of land previously, separately conveyed (or described) shall came under single ownership...." We believe that Ms. Jones' separate ownership of the two un-platted parcels above -described existed prior to, and was unaffected by the passage of Resolution 79-54. Referring to principles with which we are sure you are familiar, no ordinance or regulation may operate retrospectively. A law is "retrospective" if it creates a new obligation, imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability in respect to transactions or considerations already passed. Clearly, prior to 1979, Ms. Jones owned two parcels of properties which she had acquired years earlier, and which could b;, encumbered, developed or sold separately. Resolution 79-54 could not impose upon Ms. Jones the obligation to subdivide that which was already divided prior to its enactment. Ms. Jones remained the owner of these un-platted parcels when they were annexed into the PODOLL & PODOLL, P.C. City of Aspen in 1987. The City has informed us that the annexation did not affect the "merger" status of the parcels. We have asked that Pitkin County advise us of the status of the parcels prior to annexation. The County Attorney however has declined to help with this issue. However, you apparently recognize that the subject properties, being separately owned prior to the merger regulations, would continue as separate if they had established separate residential uses. This is the principle enunciated in numerous zoning cases which dealt with permitted uses under a zoning code. Although I am not ready to concede that these principles apply to "merger" regulations as opposed to permitted uses in a zoning district (even noting that one division of the Court of Appeals has analyzed the Pitkin County merger regulations in these terms in Wilkinson v. Board of County Comm'rs, 872 P.2d 1269, 1275 (Colo. Ct. App., 1993)), it doesn't seem to matter in the present situation. 1 believe we agree that one of the two adjacent parcels did have a residential use established prior to 1979. Therefore, that parcel (even under the Wilkinson analysis) was not affected by the subsequent merger regulations, and did not merge with the adjacent parcel. Since there were only two parcels capable of merging, and one was not merged, the other, having nothing to merge with, was un-merged as well. We therefore request that on behalf of the City of Aspen, you confirm that the two parcels were not merged as of 1987 before annexation into the City of Aspen. Concerning the constitutional impediment precluding the retrospective application of legislation to property rights, Nve enclose an abbreviated white paper for you review. However, I repeat that we need not determine whether merger provisions are analogous to permissible zoning uses, because two parcels cannot merge if one of those parcels is not subject to the merger regulations. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Yours very truly, PODOLL & PODOLL, P.C. Robert Podollll RCP of cc: Ms. Olivia Jones Chris Seldin, Esq. John Worcester, Esq. CITATION OF AUTHORITIES PERTAINING TO RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES The Colorado Constitution provides in Article 2 at Section l 1: "No expostfacto law, nor law impairing the obligation of contracts, or retrospective in its operation, or making any irrevocable grant of special privileges, franchises or immunities, shall be passed by the general assembly." This fundamental protection "prevents unfairness that would result from changing the consequences of an act after that act has occurred. van Sickle v, Boyes, 797 P. 2d (1267 (Colo. 1990)." Z.J. Gifts D-2, LLC v. City of Aurora, 2004 Colo. App. Lexis 869. As interpreted by the courts of Colorado, a statute is retrospective if it "takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability, in respect to transactions or considerations already passed." Continental Title Companv v. District Court, 645 P.2d 1310 (Colo. 1982). The Colorado Supreme Court wrote in Gates Rubber Co. V. South Suburban Metro. Dist., 183 Colo. 222 (Colo. 1973): "...vested rights may not be impaired by the retroactive operation of a statute. [Citations omitted]." It is clear that this prohibition applies to county regulation as well as state statute. "What the legislature cannot do at the state level in this connection, the city council cannot do in municipal affairs." Saur v. County Commis of Larimer County, 525 P. 2d 1175, 1176 (Colo. App. 1974), quoting Denver v. Denver Buick, 141 Colo. 121, 347 P.2d 919 (Colo. 1959). Factually, it is assumed that Olivia Jones acquired two adjacent unplatted lots in 1958 and 1967, respectively. Prior to 1979, Olivia Jones had the rights to sell, encumber or develop each lot separately. "The purpose of the constitutional ban on retrospective legislation, like the ban on ex post ,facto laws, is to prevent the unfairness that results from changing the legal consequences of an act after the act has occurred. Peoples natural Gas Div, v. Public Util Comm, 197 Colo. 152, 590 P.2d 960 (1979)." Trailer Haven MHP v. City of Aurora, 81 P.3d 1132 (Colo.App. 2003). The amendment to the Pitkin County Land Use Code would require the additional burdens of subdivision before Ms. Jones could be restored to the same set of rights she enjoyed before the amendment. Resolution 79-54 could not be applied retroactively to impose upon Ms. Jones additional duties or obligations for the enjoyment of the same rights she possessed upon the acquisition of the parcels. • f r �L !w � ,Rrlr. r ,_.-^� � `1` ,11 �4�,`► � --- �91 \ %yam ..... •� �� L'-� � I � • {,} it / " �` ' �� _- la, ,`.. '.J,,', ,�JI •lY ) _.t- F. I � yt�r a,ws irA"zn-- 4 / ''� � } j •, Ibl � N�ol � �l • � 1 �i. -JrM :A • �\� r! ... . may,. _ _ � � � � � trr�r��..`0�. ... a' r' i '• � �._ � -i %�j ��-'�• U �. � �r.1Y �� v, a:7 • ! �� _ i. i. x:.i+; �' � f �:v:� - yr' �7s`., f L � r .�:� Ti'♦ ..��. Pagel of 2 • • X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.1 Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 15:55:18 -0600 From: "Podoll" <Rob@podoll.net> To: <JohnW@ci. aspen. Co. us> Subject: Fwd: unplatted lots X-MX-Spam: final=0.0100000000; rb1=0.5000000000(0); stat=0.0100000000; spamtraq- heur=0.5000000000(2004081802) X-MX-MAIL-FROM: <rob@podoll.net> X-MX-SOURCE-IP: [69.15.128.254] X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean Hi John, This e-mail was sent in response to some questions John Ely had about the location of the lots. Rob Podoll 303 861-4000 Rob@podoll.netDate: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 11:48:04 -0600 From: "Podoll" <Rob@podoll.net> Subject: unplatted lots Mime -Version: 1.0 Content -Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_9BBBF441.00610C04" Hi John, Thanks for taking my call yesterday. I have scanned pictures of: a. the site as it relates to Aspen's geography, b. Block 3 Aspen Grove Subdivision which is adjacent to the unplatted lots, c. a survey of the unplatted lots (the adjacent lots are platted in Blocks 1 and 3 Aspen Grove Subdivision) d. Aspen Ordinance 26, 1987 which zoned Aspen Grove to be R-15B, Moderate Density Residential, when it was annexed. I hope this begins to answer some of the questions you had about where these lots were and what we were dealing with. I don't know yet what the County zoning was prior to annexation, but I am working on that, and hope to supplement this with more information. Thank you for looking at this request. Rob Podoll 303 861-4000 Rob@podoll.net file://C:\DOCUME-1\JOHNW—I .ASP\LOCALS-1\Temp\eudl 1 l.htm 8/18/2004 A". hall. c Aspen' how JOM 7. 7-elj linnel N17f rx n a;A . p N.. Ake. ate,. cl N 4 . 4�1 ty. ''c jjv4o! A Is - NO " v r�� •�' •t G ro•...r �''��J,•� 11 t:1„ \ n � �;� \\ �\ \' .; '�'1`•' C t l .�, `�`i `� ,i '�(r ��.I' � t v. A /�?:;' x1i VICINITY MAP 3CRIPTION SCALE: V = 2000 PLAT Of- bell)s? e7 pal-/ ol 1,6.f 1 tl S.;,, A 6,�.?,7 b/4.:ok 5 l*- Z a,;,l Lb, a hawd a,:,,/ V-,/ A, 1ha 3 /.v 4; ol' Co A,, -a,:, L, 42 As,;a 1A9 'aA 0.11MI o,.d of 414 row/A%11��, j "Iaa /0 hod Mj te?.Z. 01 Attachment MAN eooK 547 0 0 ::t5ii i!:I!7 X ri W Z Z LU w Q- LO m 0 p BOOR 547 PacE195 EXHIBIT "A" h.y EXTERNAL FLOOR AREA RATIO LOT SIZE STANDARD ALLOWABLE SQ. FT. (single -Family Structures) 0-3,000 80 s. E. for each .70x(0-2,400) add. 100 s.f. in lot area 3,001•-9,000 28 s.f. for each .70x(2,400-4,080) add. 100 s.f. in lot area 9,001-15,000 7 s.f. for each .70x(4,080-4,500) add. 100 s.f. in lot area 15,001-50,000 6 s.f. for each .70x(4,500-6,500) add. 100 s.f. in lot area 50,000+ 2 s.f. for each .70x(6,500+) add. 100 s.f. in lot area 1 ti PODOLL & PODOLL, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW TERRACE TOWER 11 5619 DTC PARKWAY, SUITE 1100 GREENWOOD VILLAGE, COLORADO 80111 ;ames Lindt Planning Dept. City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 • • PODOLL & PODOLL, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW TERRACE TOWER 11 5619 DTC PARKWAY. SUITE I I(H) GREENWOOD VILLAGE. COLORADO 801 11-3064 TELEPHONE: 1303) 861-4000 TELECOPIER: (303) 861-4004 RICHARD H POr".1 ROBER7- C PODOLL SCSAN R HARRIS ROBERTA KITSMILL.ER RICHARD C HOPKINS KERRI I. KLEIN AMY I. ELLIS James Lindt Planning Dept. City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Olivia Jones' Properties Dear James: August 23, 2004 Please be advised that this office represents Olivia Jones, who was until recently, the owner of two unplatted lots in U.S. Mining Survey #6120, adjacent to the Aspen Grove Subdivision. The first parcel contains 3.39 acres and was acquired by Olivia Jones on August 21, 1958 by deed from the Benedict Land and Cattle Company. The second parcel contains 1.4 acres and was acquired by Olivia Jones on June 8, 1967, also from the Benedict Land and Cattle Company. In May, 1979. the Pitkin County Land Use Code was amended bythe County Commissioners in Resolution 79-54. As part of the amendments, the definition of subdivision was amended to include the event that "two or more contiguous parcels of land previously, separately conveyed (or described) shall come under single ownership...." We believe that Ms. Jones' separate ownership of the two un-platted parcels above -described existed prior to, and was unaffected by the passage of Resolution 79-5 3. Referring to principles with which we are sure you are familiar, no ordinance or regulation may operate retrospectively. A law is "retrospective" if it creates a new obligation, imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability in respect to transactions or considerations already passed. Clearly, prior to 1979, Ms. Jones owned two parcels of properties which she had acquired years earlier, and which could b: encumbered, developed or sold separately. Resolution 79-54 could not impose upon Ms. Jones the obligation to subdivide that which was already divided prior to its enactment. Ms. Jones remained the owner of these un-platted parcels when they were annexed into the 0 • PODOLL & PODOLL, P.C. City of Aspen in 1987. The City has informed us that the annexation did not affect the "merger" status of the parcels. We have asked that Pitkin County advise us of the status of the parcels prior to annexation. The County Attorney however has declined to help with this issue. However, you apparently recognize that the subject properties, being separately owned prior to the merger regulations, would continue as separate if they had established separate residential uses. This is the principle enunciated in numerous zoning cases which dealt with permitted uses under a zoning code. Although I am not ready to concede that these principles apply to "merger" regulations as opposed to permitted uses in a zoning district (even noting that one division of the Court of Appeals has analyzed the Pitkin County merger regulations in these terms in Wilkinson v. Board of County Comm'rs, 872 P.2d 1269, 1275 (Colo. Ct. App., 1993)), it doesn't seem to matter in the present situation. I believe we agree that one of the two adjacent parcels did have a residential use established prior to 1979. Therefore, that parcel (even under the Wilkinson analysis) was not affected by the subsequent merger regulations, and did not merge with the adjacent parcel. Since there were only two parcels capable of merging, and one was not merged, the other, having nothing to merge with, was un-merged as well. We therefore request that on behalf of the City of Aspen, you confine that the two parcels were not merged as of 1987 before annexation into the City of Aspen. Concerning the constitutional impediment precluding the retrospective application of legislation to property rights, the enclose an abbreviated white paper for you review. However, I repeat that we need not determine whether merger provisions are analogous to permissible zoning uses, because two parcels cannot merge if one of those parcels is not subject to the merger regulations. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Yours very truly, PODOLL & PODOLL, P.C. By: Robert Podoll RCP of cc: Ms. Olivia Jones Chris Seldin, Esq. John Worcester, Esq. CITATION OF AUTHORITIES PERTAINING TO RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES The Colorado Constitution provides in Article 2 at Section 11: "No expostfacto law, norlaw impairing the obligation of contracts, or retrospective in its operation, or making any irrevocable grant of special privileges, franchises or immunities, shall be passed by the general assembly." This fundamental protection "prevents unfairness that would result from changing the consequences of an act after that act has occurred. van Sickle v. Boyes, 797 P. 2d (1267 (Colo. 1990)." Z.J. Gifts D-?, LLC v. City of Aurora, 2004 Colo. App. Lexis 869. As interpreted by the courts of Colorado, a statute is retrospective if it "takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability, in respect to transactions or considerations already passed." Continental Title Companv v. District Court, 645 P.2d 1310 (Colo. 1982). The Colorado Supreme Court wrote in Gates Rubber Co. V. South Suburban Metro. Dist., 183 Colo. 222 (Colo. 1973): "...vested rights may not be impaired by the retroactive operation of a statute. [Citations omitted]." It is clear that this prohibition applies to county regulation as well as state statute. "What the legislature cannot do at the state level in this connection, the city council cannot do in municipal affairs." Saur v. County Comm is of Larimer County, 525 P. 2d 1175, 1176 (Colo. App. 1974), quoting Denver v. Denver Buick, 141 Colo. 121, 347 P.2d 919 (Colo. 1959). Factually, it is assumed that Olivia Jones acquired two adjacent unplatted lots in 1958 and 1967, respectively. Prior to 1979, Olivia Jones had the rights to sell, encumber or develop each lot separately. "The purpose of the constitutional ban on retrospective legislation, like the ban on ex post facto laws, is to prevent the unfairness that results from changing the legal consequences of an act after the act has occurred. Peoples natural Gas Div. v. Public Util Comm, 197 Colo. 152, 590 P.2d 960 (1979)." Trailer Haven MHP v. Ciry ofAurora, 81 P.3d 1132 (Colo.App. 2003). The amendment to the Pitkin County Land Use Code would require the additional burdens of subdivision before Ms. Jones could be restored to the same set of rights she enjoyed before the amendment. Resolution 79-54 could not be applied retroactively to impose upon Ms. Jones additional duties or obligations for the enjoyment of the same rights she possessed upon the acquisition of the parcels. • 0 • • Fnd. B.L.M. Brass Cap Corner No. 6, Highland Placer M.S. #6120AM z55 08 1 Set Rebar w/Cap, L.S. #28643-�` 18.00' Witness car. PARCEL 1 61,260 Sq. Ft. f z> Set Rebar w/Cap, L.S. #28643 \ \ 18.00' Witness Car. 20.0' Ditch & Utility Easement g2 ,.r 1 Q 5 BOUNDARY SURVEY MAP OF: SHE COHEN CAPITAL CORPORATION PROPERTY LOTS 10, 11, 13, 14 AND 15, BLOCK 1 AND LOTS 1, 14 AND 15, BLOCK 3 ASPEN GROVE SUBDIVISION AND PARCELS 1 & 2, SITUATED IN THE HIGHLAND PLACER, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6th P.M. CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. SHEET 1 OF 3 Set Rebar w/Cap, L.S. #28643 Tie for Parcel 2 N 81'04'00" W, 255.08' (Field) N 81'04'00" W, 257.60' (Deed) Set Rebar w/Cap, US D.: J -- FORE'ST SERVICE L,f .+ID. ' 386' SS-, � L.S. #20151 w/Cap t'gasis of Bearing% PARCEL 2 147,742 Sq. Ft. t L.S. #28643 -.._ -"-r ;;')fir' C �gtn�S LOT > 1 Set Rebar w/Cap, L.S. #28643 1 / l 17 712 Sq. Ft. t 18.00' Witness Car. C9 � � 7.5' 'Jtilit✓ Easement (Typ.) aaA /2 15 0' y6 k (Each side of Lot Line)LOT --� 0 17,156 Sq.OFt. 1- \ LOT 13 w `` Fnd. Rebar w/cap, L.S. #20151 35,393 Sq. Ft. -L- R / Bears S 4646'12" E, 9' cR, /� ✓� O Set Rebor w/Cap, L.S. #28643 ` M / tz 1&00' Witness Car. o O� I �0 S Fnd. Red 4" x 4" Post P. ( u 7.5' / Aa. / Bears S 7742'40" W, 1.06' ' f / /Fnd. Rebar w/Cap, LS�#20t51��' Bears S 4628'16" E VApprox..Existing House Set Rebar w/Cap, L.S. #28643 Fnd. Red 4" x 4" Post Bears S 14'38'18" E, 3.17' ('j /C6 1";4.00' xl05gLE4- 2 Ca C3B LE6 - o C3 LE7 _ o w cP f G 20.0' Utility Easement -a Fnd. Rebar w/Cap, L.S. #20151 \ ? O N Bears S 46'31'45' E, 4.11' Ao / \ \ 5\ Fnd. Red 4" x 4" Post Jo Z� LOT 14 \ Bears S 05'33'11" W, 0.92' y Fnd. Rebor w/Cap, L.S. #20151 Q / \ 23,256 Sq. Ft. f a Bears S 44'55'41" E, 3.5 ' LOT 15 / C_1� G (�` _S_ \ r ' 1c \ 30.0' / % l . i 11 c f7.5' \ \ � \ Set Rebar w/Cap, Fnd. Red 4" x 4" Post L.S. #28643 C-29 Bears S 01'11'43" W, 1.06' C> i i ,o c�� + O �h �� 0 to � W 11 2 , 0 6) O O O -�o t 4� OO � 0 LOT CURVE TABLE CURVE LENGTH RADIUS TANGENT CHORD BEARING DELTA C1 68./0' 207.18' 34.36' 67.79' S 8653'01" W 18'49'59" C2 88.91' 68.30' 52.01' 82.76' N 59°00'30" E 7435'00" C2A 44.45' 68.30' 23.05' 43.67' N 77°39'15" E 37'17'30" C2B 44.45' 68.30' 23.05' 43.67' N 40'21'45" E 37°17'30" C3 316.23' 12500' 395.85' 238.40' N 85'48'30" W 144'57'00" C3A I1179, 125.00' 59.94' 108.10' S 4720'M" W 51'14'27" C3B 78.85' 12500' 40.79' 77.55' N 8858'13" W 36'08'39" C3C 31.43' 12500 1580' 31.35' N 63°41'39" W 14'24'29" 125.00' 49.44' 91.94' N 34*54'42" W 43'09'25" 78.54' 25.00' INFINITE' 50.00' N 76'40'00" E 180°00'00" 193.09' 67.60' 470.82' 133.83' S 6829'46" W 163'39'31" 56.81' 67.60' 30.20' 55.15' S 65'04'01" W 48'09'02" 72.19' 67.60' 39.97' 68.81' N 60°15'58" W 61°10'59" P94.15' 112.08' 203.00' 57.51' 1/0,66' S 45'34'00" E 31°38'00" 20.00' 122.90' 10.02' 19.98' N 56°43'17" W 9'19'26" 33.70' 355.20' 16.86' 33.69' N 52°25'30" W 5°26'09" 111.77' 211.00' 57.23' 110.47' N 3327'57" E 30°.21'00" 34.50' 211.00' 17.29' 34.46' N 43°57'24" E 9"22'043.33' 211.00' 21.74' 43.26' N 42°45'27" E 11°46'00" C9C 68.44' 211.00' 34.5.e' 68.14' N 27°34'57" E 18'35'00" C9D 77.27' 211.00' 39.07' 76.84' N 28°46'54" E 20'58'54" CEI 24.75' 370.20' 12.38' 24.74' N 57°41'05" W 3°49'49" CE2 91.19' 235.00' 46 18 L_L 90.62' N 70'43'00" W 22'14'00" CE3 52.85' 340.20' 26.48' 52.80' N 55'08'58" W 854'03" CE4 79.55' 205.00' 40.28' 79.05' 1 N 70°43'00" W 22°>4'00" CE5 8.15' 340.20' 4.08' 8.15' N 51'23'08" W 1°22'22" Fnd. B.L.M. Brass Cap Corner No. 5, Highland Placer M.S. #6120 LOT 15 93,102 Sq. Ft. f 1 Fnd. Rebar w/Cap L.S. #20151 3 22.55' Set Rebar w/Cap, L.S. #28643 Fnd. Stone Corner Corner No. 5, Highland Placer M.S. #6120AM 126.06' ... Fnd. Rebar w/Cap L.S. #20151 1 g ° LOT 14 56,647 Sq. Ft. t .Q N _ 3.4 � 15 aco O N 73% 0 tit, EOsi nt _ C\ 1 2 C o i23' i 135' \ cF 13.62' n. EASEMENT CURVE TABLE CURVE LENGTH RADIUS TANGENT CHORD BEARING DELTA CE1 24.75' 370.20' 1238' 24.74' N 57°41'05" W 3'49'49" CE2 90.59, 235.00' 45.86' 90.03' N 703835" W 22'05'10" CE3 52.85' 340.20' 26.48' 5280' N 55'08'58" W 854'03" CE4 80.50' 205.00' 40.78' 79,99' N 70°50'59" W 22°29'58" CE5 8.15' 340.20' 4.08' 8.15' N 51°23'08" W 1'22'22" EASEMENT LINE TABLE LINE LENGTH BEARING LEI 20.00' S 6>°39'44" W LE2 20.00' N 73'20'16" W LE3 25.06' S 01°56'20" W LE4 30.00' N 76°40'00" E LE5 30.00' N 13°20'00" W LE6 77.96' N 76°40'00" E LE7 8381' N 76°40'00" E LE8 0. 0, N 13'20'00" W FA Lot 13 C rork-e ll Bk. 511-I'age 203 0 1 yV• 0� �0• R.R. Tie Retaining wall Set Rebar w/Cap, cp S. #28643 s i 49.97< �= 61`3g39 161• I /,o1 10 Set Rebar w/Cap, Re(, 1132S7 L.S. #28643 Lot 9 '-�- YWth.m. I rzm.. I,LLP t 7) THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF ASPEN CROVE SUSDIVSION, BLOCK 1, SHOWS THE BOUNDARY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF THE SALVATION DITCH THIS SURVEYOR CAN MAKE NO CLAIM THAT THE SALVATION DITCH FOLLOWS THE SAME COURSE AS WHEN THE SUBDIVISION WAS PLATTED, OR IF THE DITCH FOLLOWS THE DECREED ALIGNMENT OR IF THE PLAT BOUNDARY FOLLOWS THE DITCH CENTERLINE. 8) LOTS SHOWN IN ASPEN GROVE SUB., BLOCK 1 ARE SUBJECT TO A 7.5' UTILITY EASEMENT ON EACH SIDE OF ALL LOT LINES, EXCEPT ON ROAD FRONTACES, AS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT OF BLOCK 1. GRAPHIC SCALE Flo a ea 120 240 SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC CIVIL CONSULTANTS ( IN FEET) 50? MAIN STREET, SUITE A3 1 inch = 60 ft. CZ30NDALE, COLORADO 81623 fo7nl ronx-ngi1 LAND USE SUMMARY BLOCK LOT TOTAL AREA EASEMENT AREA NET AREA 1 10 17.156 Sq. Ft 1, 922 Sq. Ft. 15,234 Sq. Ft. 1 11 17 712 Sq. Ft. 2, 561 Sq. Ft. 15,151 Sq. Ft. 1 13 35,393 S . Ft. 2,438 S' . Ft. 32,955 Sq. Ft. 1 14 23,256 Sq. Ft. 1, 395 Sq. Ft. 21,861 Sq. Ft. 1 15 >8, q. t. g. 17,512 Sq. 3 14 23,256 Sq. Ft. 3,816 Sq. Ft. 19,440 Sq. Ft. Parcel 1 61,260 Sq. Ft. 0.000 Sq. Ft. 61,260 Sq. Ft. Parcel 2 >47, 742 Sq. Ft. 1 0. 000 Sq. Ft. 147, 742 Sq. Ft. ,, � ' r 1y\ a ;. , I 1 ! '� h fin• ,I I SMITE ' I �p I I E '�` • 1 0 h� f - G.,e vl• I' \ C 'r IQ k VICINITY MAP PROPERTY DESCRIPTION SCALE: 1" = 2000' PARCEL 1 A TRACT OF LAND BEING A PART OF THE HIGHLAND PLACER LOCATED IN THE NE 114 NE 114 OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANCE 84 WEST OF THE 61A P. M. M MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS.• BEGINNING AT CORNER No. 6 OF THE HIGHLAND PLACER, U.S. MINERAL SURVEY #612OAM,• THENCE S 00'15'00" W, 167.79 FEET; THENCE S 41°03'00" E, 197.57 FEET; THENCE S 55'26'00" E, 87.00 FEET' THENCE N 08'56'00" E, 330.54 FEET; THENCE N 81°04'00" W, 255.08 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 2 A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE HIGHLAND PLACER, US MINERAL SURVEY No. 6120AM AND BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS.- BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID HIGHLAND PLACER, WHENCE CORNER No. 6 OF SAID HIGHLAND PLACER BEARS N 81°04'00" W, 255.08 FEET (25760' Deed); THENCE S 81'04'00" E, 386.55 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID HIGHLAND PLACER, THENCE S 08'56'00" W, 299.63 FEET' (299.67' Deed) THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 67.60 FEET A DISTANCE OF 56.81 FEET (THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS S 65T4'01" N; 55.15 FEET), (S 66°58'30" W, 55.15 Deed); THENCE S 56°00'12" W, Z05.79 FEET, (S 56 00 '12" W, 226.60 Deed) THENCE N 07'37'00" W, 84.47 FEET, (82.00 ' Deed);THENCE N 55 26'00" W 167.90 FEET THENCE N 08°56'00" E, 330.54 FEET, (N O8°56'00" E, 332.93' Deed)TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 3 LOTS 10, 11, 13, 14 AND 15 BLOCK 1 ASPEN GROVE SUBDIVISION, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Ditch Book 2A at Page 246. PARCEL 4 LOTS 1, 14 AND 15 BLOCK 3 ASPEN CROVE SUBDIVISION, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Ditch Book 2A at Page 291. NOTES 1) DATE OF SURVEY. MAY 5-MAY 25, 2004 2) DATE OF PREPARATION. MAY-2004. 3) BASIS OF BEARING- A BEARING OF S 81°04'00" E ALONC THE LINE 6-5 OF THE HIGHLAND PLACER MS #6120AM ALSO BEINC THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE ASPEN CROVE SUBDIVSION, BLOCK 3, BEING A FOUND B. L. M. BRASS CAP AT CORNER No. 6 AND A FOUND STONE AT CORNER No. 5, AS SHOWN. 4) BASIS OF SURVEY.THE PLAT OF THE ASPEN CROVE SUBDIVISION, BLOCK 1, (RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK -DITCH BOOK 2A, PACE 246), ASPEN CROVE SUBDIVISION, BLOCK 2 (RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK -DITCH BOOK 2A, PACE 250), ASPEN CROVE SUBDIVISION, BLOCK 3, (RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2A, PACE -991), ALL OF THE PITKIN COUNTY RECORDS. A U. SD A. - FOREST SERVICE BOUNDARY MAP RECORDED IN THE PITKIN COUNTY RECORDS IN BOOK 437 AT PACE 422 AND THE FOUND MONUMENTS AS SHOWN. 5) THIS SURVEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TITLE SEARCH BY SOPRIS ENGINEERING, LLC (SE) TO DETERMINE OWNERSHIP OR EASEMENTS OF RECORD. FOR ALL INFORMATION REGARDING EASEMENTS, RIGHT- OF- WAY AND/OR TITLE OF RECORD SE RELIED UPON THE ABOVE SAID PLATS DESCRIBED IN NOTE 4 AND A TITLE COMMITMENT PREPARED BY PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, (CASE No. PCT18858L2), EFFECTIVE DATE APRIL 16, 2004. 6) DUE TO AMBIGUITIES, ERRORS, LACK OF CLOSURE AND VARIOUS MONUMENT LOCATIONS FOR THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PLATS, THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARY AND THE ROAD CENTERLINE HAVE BEEN HELD FOR CONTROL. IN MANY PLACES THE SIDE LOT LINES ARE SHOWN AT POINTS OF CURVATURE OR TANGENCY AND THESE HAVE ALSO BEEN HELD. ALL EFFORTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO MAINTAIN LOT FRONT, REAR AND SIDE DISTANCES, AS SHOWN ON THE PLATS REFERRED TO ABOVE IN NOTE No. 4, UNLESS ERRORS OR AMBICUITIEE PRECLUDE THIS. THE POSITION OF THE EASEMENTS SHOWN IN BLOCK 3, HA VE BEEN SCALED, WHERE NECESSARY. I, MARK S. $�� e REBY STATE THAT THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED BY SOPRI �V it C FOR THE COHEN CAPITAL CORPORATION AND THAT IT SI`�U�NdJ R CT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. 43