Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.an.Lots1,2,3 Knowllwood.A03603RLOLK J KNOt LWOOD S11I3 ANNEXATION CASE A036-03 N CASE NUMBER PARCEL ID # CASE NAME PROJECT ADDRESS PLANNER CASE TYPE OWNER/APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION ADMIN ACTION BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED BY A036-03 2737-184-01-005 LOTS 1-3, KNOLLWOOD SUB ANNEXATION LOTS 1,2 ,3 BLOCK 4 KNOLLWOOD SUB JOYCE ALLGEAER ANNEXATION/ZONING REVIEW ALI REZA RASTEGAR J BART JOHNSON The required exit door must have an exterior landing not more than 7 3/ inches (196 mm) lower than the top of the threshold. The required exit door may swing over the exterior landing when the exterior landing is not more than 1.5 inches (38 mm) below the threshold. Doors other than the required exit door must have an exterior landing when the door is served by a stairway having more than three risers. Landings may be no more than 7 3/ inches (196 mm) lower than the top of the threshold. Exterior storm or screen doors may swing over any exterior stairs or landings. Reason: This is a revision of the entire section for simplicity and clarity and to place the rules in proper order All charging language forthe location and size of landings should lead the section on landings. Rules specific to interior landings, the landings at the required exit door, and doors other than the required exit door follow in order. It is difficult to track the provisions for screen and storm doors and this is specifically addressed. Following is background information regarding the matter of stairs with two risers serving landings and the rationale. 5. Where a stairway, of two or fewer risers, is located on the exterior side of a door, other than the required exit door, a landing is not required for the exterior side of the door. Proponent's Reason: The charging language required landings on both sides of all exterior doors. Prior to the change approved as RB260-99, landings were only required at the exit door. Thus the change greatly increased the landing requirements. However, the exception for sliding doors may be too liberal in that it could allow a stairway of 10 or 12 steps to approach a sliding door. The intent of the sliding door exception was to allow a step, or two, down to an exterior deck or patio. A similar problem exists between a house and a garage or carport. Since the garage or carport is often considered another occupancy, the door between them is considered an exterior door. One step is not going to be sufficient in these instances. Two steps, especially in the garage scenario is typical. ITEM 1 (IRC) Committee Action: Approval as Submitted Committee Reason: Approved based on proponent's published reason. Assembly Action: No Motion The last line of the proponent's reason suggests that two steps are typical and provide the basis for the exception for a landing. However, two steps means three risers. But what went into the code was two risers. What we are proposing is that the original intent of the proponent be used in the code. Where this issue most frequently occurs is within garages and at exterior patio doors. In garages, there is limited space for landings. At exterior patio doors, conventional construction practices will rarely result in a stair with only two risers. The height from grade to the threshold requires three risers and two steps, just as the proponent stated. But the current rule would require that this stair with two steps and three risers be provided with a landing. Cost Impact: None Committee Action: Disapproved Committee Reason: Insufficient technical justification was provided to change the number of risers allowed outside of an exterior door from two risers to three risers. Assembly Action: None Individual Consideration Agenda This item is on the agenda for individual consideration because a public comment was submitted. 2005 ICC FINAL ACTION AGENDA Public Comment: Scott Dornfeld, City of Delano, MN, representing the Association of MN Building Officials, requests Approval as Modified by this public comment. Modify proposal as follows: R311.4 Doors. R311.4.1 Exit door required. At least one exit door conforming to this section shall be provided for each dwelling unit. The required exit door shall provide for direct access from the habitable portions of the dwelling to the exterior without requiring travel through a garage. Any basement or story not having an exit door meeting the requirements of this section shall be connected by stairs or ramps with a story having an exit door. R311.4.2 Door type and size. The required exit door shall be a side —hinged door not less than 3 feet (914 mm) in width and 6 feet 8 inches (2032 mm) in height. Other doors may be of any size. threshold.R311.4.3 (Supp) Landingg at exterier doors The lamdong shall be permtted to hate a slope met ie exeeed 8-25 unit vertical in 12 unit-9 imehes (38 rnrn) lower than the top of the thfeshold. All ethef extere a nehes (196 rnrm) lower than the top of the threshold. The reqti red exit door may sw mg avef the extefiaf landimg when the extef or land mg s not more than 1.5 mmehes (38 rnfm) below the threshold. Doors otheF than the Feqtj fed exit doof rmdst have an exterior lamdimg of the landimgs. Commenter's Reason: Originally, this code change contained two parts. However, a code change submitted by the Colorado Chapter (RB74- 04/05) was approved and addressed our issues for part of the original proposal. The major objection from the IRC Committee to the original proposal was a change in the number of risers before a landing was required. That change is no longer a part of this proposal. What remains is an editorial revision of the first portion of the original submittal. RB74-04/05 R311.4.3 Proposed Change as Submitted: Proponent: Tom Rubottom, City of Lakewood, CO, representing Colorado Chapter of the ICC Revise as follows: R311.4.3 (Supp) Landings at doors. There shall be a floor or landing on each side of each exterior door. The landing at the exterior door shall not be more than 1.5 inches (38 mm) lower than the top of the threshold. The landing shall be permitted to have a slope not to exceed 0.25 unit vertical in 12 units horizontal (2-percent). 277 Bud Eylar, 03:19 PM 9/10/03, RE: Knollwood annexation Page 1 of 2 Reply -To: <bude@ci.aspen.co.us> From: "Bud Eylar" <bude@ci.aspen.co.us> To: "'Lance Clarke"' <lancec@ci.aspen.co.us> Cc: <joycea@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: RE: Knollwood annexation Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 15:19:41 -0600 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal Lance and Joyce, In answer to Joyce's question about permits applied for, the applicant applied for a State Highway Access permit. I checked and found out that this was a pre-existing subdivision and that we had no way to deny the access. I ask Patrick Duffield of City Parks to take a look at the impact of the access on the trail. It is not good but it is in the best possible location. Joyce is correct about the difficulty of developing some of these lots. The flat portions appear to be in the Flood plain and then a steep slope up to the road. The Salvation ditch is benched into the slope. CDOT has not issued the permit as yet. They feel there is a problem with the sight distance. They notified the Contractor on July 17th of their concern. Joyce, if you want to check on the status, the application has a reference number of 03074 and is in the name of RBG Construction. One of the real problems for either the County or the City will occur when the other lots come in for development. CDOT is of the opinion that they can't make the property owners consolidate access, so there will be 4 access points about a hundred feet apart along there. However, the topography may force some property owners to consolidate. The drives out of these places will be massive and steep unless vehicles access the houses at upper levels. -----Original Message ----- From: Lance Clarke [mailto:lancec@ci.aspen.co.us] Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 9:01 AM To: bude@ci.aspen.co.us Subject: Fwd: Knollwood annexation Any issue with City taking part of 82? >X-Sender: joycea@comdev >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 >Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2003 16:26:24 -0600 >To: lancec@ci.aspen.co.us >From: Joyce Allgaier <joycea@ci.aspen.co.us> >Subject: Knollwood annexation >Cc: cindyh@ci.aspen.co.us >Hi Lance, >Just wanted you to know that the city has received an annexation petition >for lots 1, 2, & 3 Block 4 of the Knollwood Subdivision. These lots are on Printed for Joyce Allgaier <joycea@ci.aspen.co.us> 9/17/03 Bud Eylar, 03:19 PM 9/ 10/03, RE: Knollwood annexation Page 2 of 2 >the south side of 82. The annexation also includes annexing in of a piece >of Highway 82. I have an annexation map if you'd like to see it. >Could one of your planners provide a brief determination of what could be >done with the property if it stayed in the county? Have the owners >applied for any county permits in the recent past? The land has >incredible constraints because of the river, wetlands and a ditch that >runs through it. >Thanks for your help. If we could get some input from you by 9/17 that >would be most helpful. >Joyce >Joyce A. Allgaier, AICP >Deputy Director >City of Aspen Community Development Dept. >130 S. Galena Street >Aspen, CO 81611 >970.920.5062 >www. asp enpitkin. com Printed for Joyce Allgaier <joycea@ci.aspen.co.us> 9/17/03 Lance Clarke, 11:57 AM 9/9/03, Re: Knollwood annexation Page 1 of 1 X-Sender: lancec@comdev X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 11:57:20 -0600 To: Joyce Allgaier <joycea@ci.aspen.co.us> From: Lance Clarke <lancec@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Re: Knollwood annexation Zoned R-15 in County. FAR is .16. For figuring FAR we exclude any lot area that is under water up to high water line, and any area within public or private access right of way. I doubt there is an issue with 82. I'm asking Bud Eylar . At 04:26 PM 9/8/03 , you wrote: Hi Lance, Just wanted you to know that the city has received an annexation petition for lots 1, 2, & 3 Block 4 of the Knollwood Subdivision. These lots are on the south side of 82. The annexation also includes annexing in of a piece of Highway 82. I have an annexation map if you'd like to see it. Could one of your planners provide a brief determination of what could be done with the property if it stayed in the county? Have the owners applied for any county permits in the recent past? The land has incredible constraints because of the river, wetlands and a ditch that runs through it. Thanks for your help. If we could get some input from you by 9/17 that would be most helpful. Joyce Joyce A. Allgaier, AICP Deputy Director City of Aspen Community Development Dept. 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 970.920.5062 www.aspenpitkin.com Printed for Joyce Allgaier <joycea@ci.aspen.co.us> 9/11/03 Bud Eylar, 03:19 PM 9/ 10/03, RE: Knollwood annexation Page 1 of 2 Reply -To: <bude@ci.aspen.co.us> From: "Bud Eylar" <bude@ci.aspen.co.us> To: "'Lance Clarke"' <lancec@ci.aspen.co.us> Cc: <joycea@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: RE: Knollwood annexation Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 15:19:41 -0600 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal Lance and Joyce, In answer to Joyce's question about permits applied for, the applicant applied for a State Highway Access permit. I checked and found out that this was a pre-existing subdivision and that we had no way to deny the access. I ask Patrick Duffield of City Parks to take a look at the impact ofthe access on the trail. It is not good but it is in the best possible location. Joyce is correct about the difficulty of developing some of these lots. The flat portions appear to be in the Flood plain and then a steep slope up to the road. The Salvation ditch is benched into the slope. CDOT has not issued the permit as yet. They feel there is a problem with the sight distance. They notified the Contractor on July 17th of their concern. Joyce, if you want to check on the status, the application has a reference number of 03074 and is in the name of RBG Construction. One of the real problems for either the County or the City will occur when the other lots come in for development. CDOT is of the opinion that they can't make the property owners consolidate access, so there will be 4 access points about a hundred feet apart along there. However, the topography may force some property owners to consolidate. The drives out of these places will be massive and steep unless vehicles access the houses at upper levels. -----Original Message ----- From: Lance Clarke [mailto:lancec@ci.aspen.co.us] Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 9:01 AM To: bude@ci.aspen.co.us Subject: Fwd: Knollwood annexation Any issue with City taking part of 82? >X-Sender: joycea@comdev >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 >Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2003 16:26:24 -0600 >To: lancec@ci.aspen.co.us >From: Joyce Allgaier <joycea@ci:aspen.co.us> >Subject: Knollwood annexation >Cc: cindyh@ci.aspen.co.us >Hi Lance, >Just wanted you to know that the city has received an annexation petition >for lots 1, 2, & 3 Block 4 of the Knollwood Subdivision. These lots are on Printed for Joyce Allgaier <joycea@ci.aspen.co.us> 9/10/03 Bud Eylax, 03:19 PM 9/10/03, RE: Knollwood annexation Page 2 of 2 >the south side of 82. The annexation also includes annexing in of a piece >of Highway 82. I have an annexation map if you'd like to see it. >Could one of your planners provide a brief determination of what could be >done with the property if it stayed in the county? Have the owners >applied for any county permits in the recent past? The land has >incredible constraints because of the river, wetlands and a ditch that >runs through it. >Thanks for your help. If we could get some input from you by 9/17 that >would be most helpful. >Joyce >Joyce A. Allgaier, AICP >Deputy Director >City of Aspen Community Development Dept. >130 S. Galena Street >Aspen, CO 81611 >970.920.5062 >www.aspenpitkin.com Printed for Joyce Allgaier <joycea@ci.aspen.co.us> 9/10/03 MEMORANDUM TO: JJ hn Worcester, City Attorney VJulie Ann Woods, Community Development Nick Adeh, City Engineer FROM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk DATE: July 8, 2003 RE: Petition for Annexation Attached is a petition for annexation as well as a plat for Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 4, Knollwood Subdivision. Please review and let me know when this should be scheduled before Council. Attachments G' to Gam Survey PETITION FOR ANNEXATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: The undersigned petitioners, Ali Reza Rastegar and R.G.B. Construction Company ("Petitioners"), in accordance with the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965 as set forth in Article 12, Title 31, Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended and as in effect on the submission date set forth below ("Annexation Act"), hereby petition the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado (the "City"), to annex to the City the unincorporated land located in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Annexation Property"). In support of this Petition for Annexation (this "Petition"), Petitioners allege that: 1. It is desirable and necessary that the Annexation Property be annexed to the City. 2. Not less than one -sixth (1/6) of the perimeter of the Annexation Property is contiguous with the City within the meaning of Section 31-12-104(1)(a) of the Annexation Act. 3. A community of interest exists between the Annexation Property and the City. 4. The Annexation Property is urban or will be urbanized in the near future. 5. The Annexation Property is integrated with or is capable of being integrated with the City. 6. Petitioners are the landowners of more than fifty percent (50%) of the Annexation Property, exclusive of streets and alleys. Petitioners comprise more than fifty percent (50%) of the landowners of the Annexation Property, exclusive of streets and alleys. Proof of Petitioners' ownership of the Property is attached hereto as Exhibit C in the form a title insurance commitment recently issued by Land Title Guarantee Company. 7. The Annexation Property is not presently a part of any other municipality; nor have any proceedings been commenced for incorporation or annexation of an area that is part or all of the Annexation Property as part of any other municipality; nor has any election for annexation of the Annexation Property or substantially the same territory to the City been held within the 12 months immediately preceding the filing of this Petition. 8. The proposed annexation of the Annexation Property will not result in detachment of any area from any school district or attachment of the same to another school district. 9. The proposed annexation will not result in the extension of the municipal boundary of the City more than three miles in any direction from any point of the current municipal boundary in any one year. 580992.2 JBJOHN 06/16/03 2:50 PM 10. The legal description of the land owned by Petitioners is set forth underneath the name of each such Petitioner on Exhibit B attached hereto. The land owned by Petitioners constitutes one hundred percent (100%) of the Annexation Property pursuant to Section 31-12-107(1)(g) of the Annexation Act. 11. The affidavits of the circulators of this Petition certifying that each signature on this Petition is the signature of the person whose name it purports to be and certifying the accuracy of the date of such signature are attached hereto as Exhibit D and are incorporated herein by this reference. 12. This Petition is accompanied by four prints of an annexation map containing, among other things, the following information: Property; (a) A written legal description of the boundaries of the Annexation (b) A map showing the boundary of the Annexation Property; and (c) Next to the boundary of the Annexation Property, a drawing of the contiguous boundary of the City abutting the Annexation Property within the meaning of Section 31-12-104(1)(a) of the Annexation Act. 13. The requirements of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105 of the Annexation Act exist or have been met. 14. Petitioners hereby reserve the right to withdraw this Petition, and each Petitioner hereby reserves the right to withdraw its or his signature of this Petition, at any point prior to the later to occur of. (i) the roll call on the final vote by the City Council of the City of Aspen to pass the ordinance approving the annexation of the Annexation Property; or (ii) any later date agreed upon in an annexation agreement entered into by the Petitioner and the City. THEREFORE, Petitioners request that the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, complete and approve the annexation of the Annexation Property pursuant to the provisions of the Annexation Act. Signature of Landowner/Petitioner: ALI REZA RASTEGAR By: Nam . ohns Title: Attorney -in- t Date of Signature: -Avr+-_, 2003 Mailing Address: 132 McSkimming Road Aspen, Colorado 81611 Resident of the Annexation Property? NO 580992.2 .MOHN 06/16103 2:50 I'M 2 Signature of Landowner/Petitioner: R.G.B. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY I: Title: Date of Signa, ture: le, 2003 Mailing Address: 777 Craig Road Suite 230 St. Louis, MO 63141 Resident of the Annexation Property? NO 59099?? mmr-W M0910111 is AAA EXHIB IT A TO PETITION FOR ANNEXATION Legal Description of Annexation Property Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 4, Knollwood Subdivision, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. 580992.2 JB10HN 06/ 16/03 2:50 PM A- I EXHIBIT B TO PETITION FOR ANNEXATION Legal Description of Property Owned by Each Petitioner Name of Landowner/Petitioner: Ali Reza Rastegar Property owned by the Petitioner: Lots 2 and 3, Block 4, Knollwood Subdivision, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. Name of Lan downer/Petitioner: Property owned by the Petitioner: R.G.B. Construction Company Lot 1, Block 4, Knollwood Subdivision, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. 5809922 IBJOHN 06/ 16/03 2:50 I'M B - 1 EXHIBIT C PROOF OF OWNERSHIP [see attached title commitment] 580992.2 JBJOHN 06/16/032`:50I'm C-1 Old Republic National Title Insurance Company ALTA COMMITMENT Our Order No. Q384134 Schedule A Cust. Ref.: Property Address: ASPEN, CO 81611 1. Effective Date: March 14, 2003 at 5:00 P.M. 2. Policy to be Issued, and Proposed Insured: "TBD" Commitment Proposed Insured: TBD 3. The 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: R.G.B. CONSTRUCTIN CO. 5. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: LOT 1, BLOCK 4, KNOLLWOOD SUBDIVISION COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B-1 (Requirements) Our Order No. Q384134 The following are the requirements to be complied with: Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the 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: THIS COMMITMENT IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY, AND NO POLICY WILL BE ISSUED PURSUANT HERETO. ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B-2 (Exceptions) Our Order No. Q384134 The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. Taxes and assessments not yet due or payable and special assessments not yet certified to the Treasurer's office. 7. Any unpaid taxes or assessments against said land. 8. Liens for unpaid water and sewer charges, if any. 9. THE EFFECT OF INCLUSIONS IN ANY GENERAL OR SPECIFIC WATER CONSERVANCY, FIRE PROTECTION, SOIL CONSERVATION OR OTHER DISTRICT OR INCLUSION IN ANY WATER SERVICE OR STREET IMPROVEMENT AREA. 10. RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED DECEMBER 14, 1911, IN BOOK 55 AT PAGE 196. 11. EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND OTHER MATTERS AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF BLOCK 4 KNOLLWOOD SUBDIVISION, RECORDED JANUARY 7, 1963 IN PLAT BOOK 2A AT PAGE 286. 12. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER CLAUSE, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED FEBRUARY 10, 1961, IN BOOK 193 AT PAGE 196. AN EASEMENT FOR UTILITIES AND MAINTENANCE, LOCATED WITHIN THE REAR 5 FEET OF SAID LAND, AS SET FORTH IN THE INSTRUMENT ABOVE MENTIONED. ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B-2 (Exceptions) Our Order No. Q384134 The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 13. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT RECORDED MARCH 29, 1979 IN BOOK 365 AT PAGE 670. 14. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF LETTER RECORDED MARCH 29, 1979 IN BOOK 365 AT PAGE 671. 15. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF GRANT OF EASEMENT RECORDED MAY 30, 1979 IN BOOK 369 AT PAGE 722 AND PRIVATE ROAD AND UTILITY EASEMENT AGREEMENT RECORDED MAY 30, 1979 IN BOOK 369 AT PAGE 715; GRANT OF EASEMENT RECORDED MAY 30, 1979 IN BOOK 369 AT PAGE 720, AND RATIFICATION AND EASEMENT GRANT RECORDED JUNE 1, 1979 IN BOOK 369 AT PAGE 874. 16. ANY QUESTION, DISPUTE OR ADVERSE CLAIMS AS TO ANY LOSS OR GAIN OF LAND AS A RESULT OF ANY CHANGE IN THE RIVER BED LOCATION BY NATURAL OR OTHER THAN NATURAL CAUSES, OR ALTERATION THROUGH ANY CAUSE, NATURAL OR UNNATURAL, OF THE CENTER THREAD, BANK, CHANNEL OR FLOW OF WATERS IN THE ROARING FORK RIVER LYING WITHIN SUBJECT LAND; AND ANY QUESTION AS TO THE LOCATION OF SUCH CENTER THREAD, BED, BANK OR CHANNEL AS A LEGAL DESCRIPTION MONUMENT OR MARKER FOR PURPOSES OF DESCRIBING OR LOCATING SUBJECT LANDS. Old Republic National Title Insurance Company ALTA COMMITMENT Our Order No. Q384531 Schedule A Cust. Ref.: Property Address: ASPEN, CO 81611 1. Effective Date: June 13, 2003 at 5:00 P.M. 2. Policy to be Issued, and Proposed Insured: "TBD" Commitment Proposed Insured: TBD 3. The 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: ALI REZA RASTEGAR 5. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: SEE ATTACHED PAGE(S) FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION Our Order No. Q384531 PARCEL A: LOT 2, BLOCK 4, KNOLLWOOD SUBDIVISION COUNTY OF PITKINSTATE OF COLORADO PARCEL B: LOT 3, BLOCK 4, KNOLLWOOD SUBDIVISION COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO TOGETHER WITH: A ROAD AND ACCESS EASEMENT 25 FEET IN WIDTH ACROSS LOT 4, BLOCK 4, KNOLLWOOD SUBDIVISION, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO (LOT 4) IN FAVOR OF LOTS 1, 2, AND 3, BLOCK 4, KNOLLWOOD SUBDIVISION, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO (LOTS 1, 2, AND 3). SAID EASEMENT SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN THAT PORTION OF LOT 4 LOCATED NORTHERLY OF A LINE BETWEEN TWO POINTS, THE FIRST POINT BEING 25 FEET IN A SOUTHERLY DIRECTION FROM THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LOT 4 ALONG THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF LOT 4, THE SECOND POINT BEING 45 FEET IN A SOUTHERLY DIRECTION FROM THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 4, ALL AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS SURVEY OF LOT 4 DATED MAY, 1979 AND MADE BY ALPINE SURVEYS, JAMES F. REESER, SURVEYOR. WITHIN SAID AFORE -DESCRIBED NORTHERLY PORTION OF LOT 4, THE EASEMENT SHALL RUN FROM THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF LOT 4, WHERE LOT 4 ABUTS STATE HIGHWAY 82 AND AN ENTRANCE -WAY INTO LOT 4 CURRENTLY EXISITS, ALONG AN EXISTING GRADED DRIVEWAY SUPPORTED BY CRIBBING AND THENCE TO THE COMMON BORDER BETWEEN LOTS 3 AND 4. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B-2 (Exceptions) Our Order No. Q384531 The 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. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. Taxes and assessments not yet due or payable and special assessments not.yet certified to the Treasurer's office. 7. Any unpaid taxes or assessments against said land. 8. Liens for unpaid water and sewer charges, if any. 9. DEED OF TRUST DATED JANUARY 15, 2003, FROM ALI REZA RASTEGAR TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF PITKIN COUNTY FOR THE USE OF STERLING BANK TO SECURE THE SUM OF $975,000.00 RECORDED JANUARY 17, 2003, UNDER RECEPTION NO. 477513 AS TO PARCEL B ONLY. 10. DEED OF TRUST DATED JANUARY 27, 2003, FROM ALI REZA RASTEGAR TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF PITKIN COUNTY FOR THE USE OF STERLING BANK TO SECURE THE SUM OF $1,100,000.00 RECORDED FEBRUARY 03, 2003, UNDER RECEPTION NO. 478181 AS TO PARCELS A AND B. 11. DEED OF TRUST DATED JANUARY 24, 2003, FROM ALI REZA RASTEGAR TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF PITKIN COUNTY FOR THE USE OF STERLING BANK TO SECURE THE SUM OF $1,100,000.00 RECORDED FEBRUARY 10, 2003, UNDER RECEPTION NO. 478469 AS TO PARCELS A AND B. 12. THE EFFECT OF INCLUSIONS IN ANY GENERAL OR SPECIFIC WATER CONSERVANCY, FIRE PROTECTION, SOIL CONSERVATION OR OTHER DISTRICT OR INCLUSION IN ANY WATER SERVICE OR STREET IMPROVEMENT AREA, 13. RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B-2 (Exceptions) Our Order No. Q384531 The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: UNITED STATES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED DECEMBER 14, 1911, IN BOOK 55 AT PAGE 196. 14. EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND OTHER MATTERS AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF BLOCK 4 KNOLLWOOD SUBDIVISION, RECORDED JANUARY 7, 1963 IN PLAT BOOK 2A AT PAGE 286. 15. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER CLAUSE, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED FEBRUARY 10, 1961, IN BOOK 193 AT PAGE 196. AN EASEMENT FOR UTILITIES AND MAINTENANCE, LOCATED WITHIN THE REAR 5 FEET OF SAID LAND, AS SET FORTH IN THE INSTRUMENT ABOVE MENTIONED. 16. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT RECORDED MARCH 29, 1979 IN BOOK 365 AT PAGE 670. 17. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF LETTER RECORDED MARCH 29, 1979 IN BOOK 365 AT PAGE 671. 18. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF GRANT OF EASEMENT RECORDED MAY 30, 1979 IN BOOK 369 AT PAGE 722 AND PRIVATE ROAD AND UTILITY EASEMENT AGREEMENT RECORDED MAY 30, 1979 IN BOOK 369 AT PAGE 715; GRANT OF EASEMENT RECORDED MAY 30, 1979 IN BOOK 369 AT PAGE 720, AND RATIFICATION AND EASEMENT GRANT RECORDED JUNE 1, 1979 IN BOOK 369 AT PAGE 874. EXHIBIT D TO PETITION FOR ANNEXATION Affidavit of Circulator The undersigned, being of lawful age, who being first duly sworn upon oath deposes and says: That he/she was a circulator of the foregoing Petition for Annexation of lands to the City of Aspen, Colorado, and that the sig ture of J. Bart Johnson as Attorney -in -Fact for Ali Reza Rastegar thereon was witnessed by t e ci culator the true and original signature of the person whose name it purports to be, an tha yheliiate such nature is correct. STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) foregoing AFFIDAVIT OF CIRCULATOR was subscribed and sworn to before me . of 1 wr 6 , 2003, by 4 Xi :'�;5 Wifid� 'ny hand and official seal. co Vision expires: � +e� Notar ubli -' 590992.2 MOHN 06/16/03 2:50 NM D- 1 Affidavit of Circulator The undersigned, being of lawful age, who being first duly sworn upon oath deposes and says: That he/she was a circulator of the foregoing Petition for Annexation of lands to the City of Aspen, Colorado, and that the signature of Fred M. Kemp as President of R.G.B. Construction Company thereon was witnessed by the circulator and is the true and original signature of the person whose name it purports t7and date of such signature is correct. Circulator STATE OF MISSOURI ) COUNTY OF } ss.) The foregoing AFFIDAVIT OF CIRCULATOR was subscribed and sworn to before me this a_"y day of ks)np- , 2003, by 13n r..�[ Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: li�-1L�- ac-'c)u Notary Public -- - ` otia�Y,?a6'.; MARINA PERNIK Notary'",= St. Louis County Seal .-� My Commission Expires ""Pf M� ` August 14, 2006 iR7R7R 1 TR.TOBN Mng f1; I -AO PM D-1 Julie Ann Woods, 09:49 AM 7/11/03, Fwd: Re: Knollw000d annexation Page 1 of 1 X-Sender: juliew@comdev X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:49:57 -0600 To: Joycea@ci.aspen.co.us From: Julie Ann Woods <juliew@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Fwd: Re: Knollw000d annexation X-Sender: johnw@commons X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:10:32 -0600 To: Julie Ann Woods <juliew@ci.aspen.co.us> From: John Worcester <johnw@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Re: Knollw000d annexation X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean No. CDOT used to require their consent, but no longer. 4t 08:31 AM 07/11 /2003 -0600, you wrote: John --I noticed on this annexation that it includes a flagpole along Highway 82. one of the criteria of annexation is that 50% Of the owners must sign the petition. Would it be necessary for CDOT to agree to such a petition? please advise. JA. Julie Ann Woods, A.I.C.P./MLA Community Development Director City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Please note NEW Website: www.aspenpitkin.com John P. Worcester johnw@ci.aspen. co. us (970) 920-5055 ************************************* Julie Ann Woods, A.I.C.P./MLA Community Development Director City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Please note NEW Website: www.aspenpitkin.com Printed for Joyce Allgaier <joycea@ci.aspen.co.us> 7/15/03 PARCEL ID: 2737-184-01-005 DATE RCVD: 07/16/03 # COPIES: CASE NO A036-03 CASE NAME::" LOTS 1-3, KNOLLWOOD SUB ANNEXATION PLNR: JOYCE ALLGEAER PROJ ADDRI LOTS 1,2 ,3 BLOCK 4 KNOLLWOO CASE TYP: ANNEXATION/ZONING REVIEW STEPS:f OWN/APP: ALI REZA RASTEG ADR 132 MCSKIMMING R C/S/Z: ASPEN/CO/81611 PHN: REP: J BART JOHNSON ..__ ADR: C/S/Z: PHN: FEES DUE: FEES RCVD: STAT: REFERRALS Also PIN 2737-184-01-004, 2737-184-01-003, 2737-184-01-002 REF: BY1 DUE:I MTG DATE REV BODY PH { NOTICEEDD I DATE OF FINAL ACTION: REMARKS. CITY COUNCIL: PZ: CLOSED:- BY: BOA: DRAC: A Lu F\,-, t /03 PLAT SUBMITD: PLAT (BK,PG):