HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ex.5th St & Hopkins Ave.Johnson/Reeder.A087-98
October 14,1999
.
Mr. Stanford Johnson
P.O. Box 416
Aspen, CO 81611
ASPEN. PITKIN
COMMl'~ln DEVELOP\IE:\T DEPARTMENT
Dear Mr. Joluison:
This letter is in response to your corresponderice dated October 8, 1999 concerning the
City of Aspen's requirement to demonstrate that "the township boundary line does not
automatically subdivide property and does not necessarily create two legal lots of
record. "
Each lot ofrecord has a separate Chain of Title. To date, th, City of Aspen has only been
provided with one Chain of Title for the subject property. The burden of proof to
demonstrate that a property has been subdivided or has more than one development right
is on the applicant.
In our October 6, 1999 meeting, you suggested that Assistant City Attorney David
Hoefer's letter dated February 10, 1997 to City Planner Mitch Haas provided such proof.
However, this letter does not address development rights or subdivision; instead, it
discusses the application of the City's merger policy to the Lost Diamond Project. The
letter does not indicate that this property has more than one development right.
Given the City's position on this issue, the burden of proof is on you, the applicant, to
demonstrate that the subject property has been subdivided into two lots of record and has
two development rights. After receiving this proof, the City will promptly proceed with
an application to adjust the lot lines on the Reeder/Johnson lots. The first step will be to
conduct a pre-application conference With you and City of Aspen and Pitkin County.
Community Development staff.
Sincerely,
~\ (;\v \J ~
Nick Lelack
Planner, City of Aspen
cc: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Community Development Assistant Director
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney
Tom McCabe, City Council Member
130 SoUTH GALENA STREET' ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 . PH,?NE 970.920.5090 . FAX 970.920.5439
Printed on Recyded Pape!
October 1,1999
Stanford Johnson
8987 E. Tanque Verde Road #304
Tucson, AZ 85749
.
Dear Mr. Johnson:
ASpEN . PITKIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
This letter is in response your questions regarding the application process for a lot line
adjustment for two adjoining parcel~ separated by the Township line.
The City of Aspen's CommUnity Development Department staff and City Attorney
jointly discussed the issue on Wednesday, September 30, 1999. Staff and the City.
Attorney determined that prior to submitting an application for a lot line adjustment
between your and Mr. Lyle Reeder's parcels, the following documents must be submitted
to and reviewed by the City Attorney's Office:
1. An official Chain of Title from a: title company for the subject property - the Johnson"
parcel. .
2. Confirmation from a title company that the Johnson and" Reeder parcels are two lots
of record. .
3. Copies of the documents cited in the "Chain of Title for the Extension of Fifth Street
South of Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, Colorado." In the previous application, you
submitted a list of documents and this list is attached to the letter:
4. A signed improvement survey by a registered land surveyor, which is required by the
City of Aspen Land Use Code (the improvement survey previously submitted was not
signed).
The purpose of submitting the above documentation is to demonstrate that there are two
Jots of record that were legally created. Based on the information submitted to date, it is
unclear whether your land consists of one or two lots of record. A lot line adjustment
requires more than one lot. The Township boundary line does not automatically
subdivide property and does not necessarily create two legal lots of record.
If the City Attorney finds that two lots of record exist, then Community Development
Department staff, city and county, will provide you with the steps and application
materials required to apply for a lot line adjustment in the City of Aspen and Pitkin
County. .
Sincerely;
N\Vlv~
Nick Lelack, Planner
Enclosure
CC: Tom McCabe, City Council Member
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET. ASPE:-.i, COLORADO 81611~1975 . PHONE 970.920.5090 . FAX 970.920.5439
Printed on Recyded Paper
ZONING MESS, WEST HOPKINS A VENUE, ASPEN, COLORADO
The subject area is the narrow insular sector bounded on the north by the West Main Street 0-
Office Zone and on the south by the natural termination of the city urban area, the base of Shadow
Mountain. This narrow sector is composed of two approximately y, block wide strips of land on
both sides of West Hopkins A venue between South 3"' Street and South 7'" Street (see attached
map). The hodge-podge of zoning designations imposed upon this sector appears to be arbitrary in
that the zoning designations are not in any way, related to, or justified by the purpose and
objectives of Planning and Zoning:
The obiectives of Planning and Zoning are to promote orderly layout of
building lots, zoning individual areas to provide barmonious like-kind land
use and development, guide growtb to be compatible with the vaHey,
cultivate the economic base, encourage private development of employee
bousing, design efficient transportation routing, and coordinate development
of the City and County for the health, safety, and general welfare of those
individnals who live, work, and visit the Aspen area.
The City/County Planning Department appears to have been oblivious to the core purpose of
planning and zoning, the "orderly layout of building lots and zoning individual areas to
provide harmonious like-kind land use and development", when selecting the zoning
designations for the subject area. Or perhaps the blindfold toss-the-dart or pin-the-tail-on-the-
donkey method was used
The crazy quilt mixtUre of zoning designations in the area lack any correlation to the existing
mixture of apartment-buildings, tourist lodge, R -6 residential houses, and high density government
built employee housing. For example: there exists 3 individual high density apartment buildings
constructed on five 3,000 sq. ft. lots in a single family R-15 zone, a nine unit apartment building on
three 3,000 sq. ft. lots in a single fiunily R-15 zone, a tourist lodge on nine 3,000 sq. ft. single
family R -6 lots, a large apartment building with an office and two rental houses on a R -6 half-
block, Five R-6 residences in a R-15 zone, three R-6 residential houses each on two 3,000 sq. ft.
lots where the R-15 zoning was abated by the City Council then changed to R-6, and a high density
(unattractive) government built employee housing complex on four R-15 lots that were
conveniently redesignated AHI PUD.
Proper planning would have recognized this insular section within walking distance of downtown,
lying between the Main Street office and business strip and Shadow Mountain, as being ideal for
multiple family housing and would have accordingly specified multifamily zoning for this section.
Instead, most of the area was allowed to evolve into apartment and lodge use without regard to the
conflicting zoning designations that prohibited multiple family use. Clearly, a legal precedence has
been established allowing multiple family uses in the R-15 Zones in this section. Multiple family
uses now dominate the area. R-6 Residential is the existing secondary land use in the area.
The "orderly layout of building lots and zoning individual areas to provide bannoniou like-
kind land use and development" are the primary objectives of planning and zoning. The R-15
zoning overlay on the Johnson and Lost Diamond parcels is noncohesive and noncontiguous with
the established neighborhood, frivolous, capricious, and cannot withstand rational, nor legal
scrutiny. The fact that the existing zoning desil!lllltions l!fosslv conflicts with preponderance of
multifamilv development (approximatelv 80"10) in this section. dictates that the Johnson and Lost
Diamond parcels should properlv be allowed multiple familv housing use. or in the least the
alternative, R-6 Residential.
I
:>:
rrl
r;n
,...., t")
:r: ~
~ -<
;;:: C
~ Z '!I.'l
0..". r;n
'1:..
;N __ '"
[Jj r;n <il
.., :c: "'Q
~ ? ~
"< V 2:
-;;; 0 N
~ ~ c
:3 s: :z
[Jj 0 -
m __ ~
[Jj '- ,...,
~ Z \oJ
....l
;.; :::
z ~
>- '"C
~
tTJ
>-
. '1
" ..
,- ",
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
\
~
"...,,,,...,
,~~.,.."
\t..~~.~
,ll-t'l
g,,;tj:,
o.
..
2:
."
c::
'"
;,
-
'"
I
I
I
~
'"
o
I
I
~
I
l
'~.-_.,.
~
I
/
/
/
.
q ( 1-- 7.-
THE CITY OF Asm;
MEMO FROM JOYCE ALLGAIER OHLSON
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOrME~T
tt OlA)U J.f>~ C[ 7/C) ~ '& 211-
St~x~;J JO~~$~ .
N tvL L~l(,lL~L.
. -
- ,
AvtV\.u)(.~~h ~Lcut- - w~ d \t?
~~ -JJhv\l~
l~
31~
rbM
LI VV\ ~ 0- I
Ga~ ra
Llk C1~
~\(~
0ZS -[~:S 0
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
September 23, 1999
FROM:
Jim Lindt
Nick LeLack
Phillip Ring
Patrick Merchant
John Rushing
Peggy car1son~/~
,
New Employee Safety Orientation Meeting
TO:
RE:
Hopefully your
to attend this
at City Hall.
10:30. Call me
supervisor has advised you that you are scheduled
meeting on September 30 in the Sister Cities Room
The meeting will be from 9:00 until approximately
at 5056 if you have any questions.
See you then.
Ipc
~fi. ~o )T"nw5
AACP Action Plan Items
Work Program 2000 - 2005
1. Action Item Number One
The first action that will be undertaken, and one which will impact many other action items, is the
development of a future land use map. This land use map will formalize the Community Growth
Boundaries, identify what land uses and densities are anticipated in the Aspen metro area, and identify
parks and open space parcels that are important to preserve and which should be maintained and/or
acquired. This future land use map will provide a vision and guide for future land use decisions in the
Aspen metro area and depict what the community can expect to look like in 2020.
Complies with "Action Item Number one" as a top priority
Lead Department: Community Development; Team Departments: Housing and Parks
Status: Underway, expected draft map in October
2. Aspen Community Growth Boundary & Intergovernmental Agreements
Develop an Aspen Community Growth Boundary and intergovemmental agreements between the City of
Aspen and Pitkin County regarding annexation and development outside of that boundary in the
unincorporated County.
Complies with "Action Item #1", Growth Section Action Items #22-31, and Housing Item #
Lead Department: Community Development
Status: This is part of developing the Future Land Use Map and plan
3. Study needed modifications to GMQS:
. Study amendments to the Gro\'ith Management Quota System (GMQS) or develop a replacement
system to allow more flexibility in meeting our affordable housing goals. (H5)
. Identify the remaining development potential for free market residential, affordable housing, lodges,
commercial space, etc. Consider modifying the GMQ system to have a separate allocation for
affordable mitigation units versus unassociated affordable units. Update the maximum ceiling
numbers in the Pitkin County Land Use Code (GMQS) annually for each type of development.
Identify the implications of exceeding these caps if we have a goal of limiting the population to 1998
levels. (G4)
. Explore ways to address the need to capture what is currently explicitly exempted or missed from the
Growth Management Quota System (GMQS). Prior to making changes, evaluate the possible
unintended consequences of changes to the GMQ system. (GI6)
. Consider revisions to the Growth Management Quota System: reduce or eliminate multi-year
allotments, study the creation of a new system or method that paces development (building permit
quota or lottery system), eliminate exemptions, etc. (G21, 22, H6)
. Consider changes to land use codes that would encourage the development of upper floors in the
do\'mtown core to be developed for housing, including giving a higher priority to on-site housing in
the commercial core in the GMQ system or its replacement. (G35)
. Study the impacts of reducing or eliminating multi-year allocations in the GMQS. (G47)
Complies with Housing Section Action Item #5,6, Growth Items #4,16,21,22,35,47,
Lead Department: Community Development
Status: Remaining development potential based on existing GMQS has been identified. Several modifications
are being considered to the GMQ system. Discussions are underway with a consultant to draft a white paper on
the subject.
Page 1
Revised Draft
AACP Action Plan
4. FAR Study
Explore a significant decrease in the FAR allowed both in the city and county. Study appropriateness of
current FAR allowances and how FAR is measured for both affordable and free market development.
Complies with Housing Section Action Items # 17, Growth 19
Lead Department: Community Development
Status:
5. Annexation Plan
Update the Annexation Plan between Aspen and Pitkin County, taking into consideration the proposed
Aspen Community Growth Boundary. Update annexation plans between Pitkin County and Snowmass
Village, as well as other jurisdictions, to reflect our desire to guide new development near existing
population centers and within three mile boundaries.
Complies with Growth Section Action Items #50, 54,
Lead Department: Community Development
Status: Updating the Aspen/Pitkin Annexation Plan will be a follow-up activity to the Future Land Use Map and
is in the work program for 2000
6. Infill and Redevelopment
· Consider amendments to City development regulations to allow and encourage greater densities
,^,ithin the original Aspen town site. Allow easier subdivision of properties in the historic town site
and allow for infill development, especially affordable housing. For example, infill development
should be promoted above businesses in the downtown core.
· Study what areas in downtown could have increased housing density in the form of mixed use
buildings.
Complies with Action Items: Historic Preservation 1, Housing # 10, 11, 12
Lead Department: Community Development & Housing Authority
Status:
U nranked Action Items
· Underlined headinl!s indicate that they apply to multiple Action Items listed beneath them. The
groups are also indented to make it easier to follow which items are included.
· Non-underlined headings indicate only one action item (or consolidated action items)
COM DEV STAFF: Please choose 5 for Thursday's Staff Meeting
Infill and Redevelopment: Site Specific Studv
Study adding a full or practical floor at the Red Brick Arts Center for affordable office space, art studios,
a community gallery, and/or housing units dedicated to the non-profits.
Complies with Action Items: Arts, Culture and Education #18
Lead Department: Community Development
Status:
Evaluate opportunities for publicly held properties to be developed or redeveloped to include or be
replaced by affordable housing. Explore moving the Aspen Fire House to Main Street and developing
neighborhood commercial shops with affordable housing above. Utilize the current site to develop a
model of mixed-use neighborhood commercial, offices and housing.
Complies with Housing Section Action Items # 9 & 15
Lead Department: Community Development & Housing Authority
Status:
Page 2
Revised Draft
AACP Action Plan
Better Data Collection:
· Evaluate existing conditions and determine actual population levels today for the Aspen metro area
based on updated lodge room and household numbers. Every five years, conduct an updated current
population analysis, both of permanent residents and part-time residents and visitors. Bring the 1993
AACP Existing Conditions report up to date. (Gl, 39, 46, H2)
. Create a tracking system that would allow the Community Development Department to more easily
report all approved development that is not yet built. (G41)
. Submit a report to City Council at the end of each year. The Construction Report may work for this
purpose. This report shows all of the year's building permits based on type and valUation. (G42)
. Develop a procedure for analyzing of build out potential annually. The Construction Report may serve
as a base. (G43)
Complies with Growth Section Action Item #1, 39, 41, 42, 43, 46, Housing Item #2,
Lead Department: Community Development
Status: The AACP Existing Conditions Report fulfills this obligation. Annual maintenance of this report is now
part of the long planner duties. This is consistent with the planned maintenance of the Existin" Conditions
Report
Better Data Collection:
The Housing Authority should regularly tabulate and publish a list of affordable housing projects in the
planning stages.
Complies with Growth Section Action Item #44, Goal F
Lead Department: Housing Authority
Status:
Transferred Development Rights Study
. Continue to work on moving Transferred Development Rights from the rural areas to the Metro area.
Study the feasibility and impacts of Purchase of Development Rights.
. Study the implication, of naming the Commercial Core as a Transfer Development Right (TDR)
receiving site.
Complies with Growth Section Action Item #51, Economic Sustainability # 13,
Lead Department: Community Development
Status: Staff work has been initiated to identify issues related to a City of Aspen TDR program. The County has
begun a study of PDR's,
Develop Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA's):
((i\. Work on developing IGA's between the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, the Town of Snowmass Village
'<!5) and the Town of Basalt regarding containment of development within Community Growth
Boundary's, annexations agreements, or by some other mechanism. (48)
. Considerthe impacts of development proposals regionally. Utilize intergovernmental agreements
regarding location of development on a regional basis. Consider including Snowmass Village in our
population figures and as part of our affordable housing solution. Snowmass Village utilizes much of
the same basic infrastructure such as roads, schools, sheriff, landfill, etc. (49)
. Valley-wide coordination of comprehensive plans is encouraged. Create an intergovernmental
agreement regarding a process for dispute resolution. Encourage the development of separate growth
boundaries for each valley community to protect the natural beauty of the valley we share, and to
encourage development to occur in a more economically efficient manner. (52)
Complies with Growth Section Action Items #48, 49, 52, Goal G
Lead Department: Community Development
Status: This will be a follow-up activity to the Future Land Use Map and The Aspen/Pitkin Annexation Plan
Update.
Page 3
Revised Draft
AACP Action Plan
Housing Master Plan
· The City and County should define criteria for appropriate affordable housing sites. The criteria
should represent both the physical characteristics of the land and its ability to contribute to the social
fabric of town. A map should then be developed showing areas that might meet those criteria. (H 7,
18).
. Following development of the above "criteria" for site selection, modify development regulations to
encourage development of affordable housing where many of the "good housing site criteria" are
represented. (H 8).
. The Housing Master Plan should be consistent with the criteria outlined in the Interim Citizen
Housing Plan and the goals and policies of the Housing element of the AACP. (G 5)
Complies with Housing Section Action Items # 7, 8, 18, Growth #5
Lead Department: Community Development and Housing Authority
Status: Related to Future Land Use Map. Also falls into the work program de",elopment of the Housing
Authority. Criteria already exists in the form of the "Interim Strategic Housing Guidelines."
Housing Development Guidelines
Develop a simplified set of Housing Development Guidelines. A straightforward set of requirements
adopted (not more often than once a year) that would delineate the acceptable places, density, types of
units, price restrictions, etc. The document could explain the purpose of the housing program and even
encourage specific types of development desired by the community and any public monies available in
partnerships. This would not supersede the requirements for subdivision, PUD, etc., but would give some
indication as to the category mix, types of units, etc., that are acceptable to elected officials. Developers
complying with the guide may be able to proceed through the approval process more simply. The intent
would be to focus the philosophical debate of what is acceptable to one time per year and not in response
to each development application. (G 45)
Maintain a clear set of affordable housing development guidelines that delineate the specific objectives of
our housing policy. These guidelines should not be re-evaluated with each individual development
proposal, but should be amended on a regular basis as our housing circumstances and needs change.
Because people may rely on these guidelines in purchasing land, these guidelines should not change so
often as to cause significant uncertainties. (H 27)
Complies with Growth Section Action Item #45, Housing Section Action Items # 27
Lead Department: Housing Authority
Status:
Encoural!:inl!: Affordable Housinl!: ProvisionlDeveloDment
Study the feasibility and usefulness of developing a tiered development approval process that
correlates the number of steps to the number of units requested (a greater number of steps for
larger projects). Develop a separate process for conversion to Affordable Housing from free-
market residential or lodge units as well as for upgrades of existing Affordable Housing units.
Complies with Growth Section Action Item #6
Lead Departments: Community Development and Housing Authority
Status:
Study methods and usefulness of discouraging "cash-in-lieu payments" as Affordable Housing
mitigation for development. It is preferred that the developer build new units, ADU's or buy down
existing units, and that they do so concurrently or prior to the construction of the new
development. Whenever cash-in-lieu is approved as a method of mitigation, the payment should
be commensurate with the cost to purchase land and build an actual dwelling unit or buy down an
existing unit.
Complies with Growth Section Action Item #7
Lead Departments: Community Development and Housing Authority
Status:
Page 4
Revised Draft
AACP Action Plan
Study the use of the free-market incentive to build Affordable Housing. Determine if the 70/30 and
60/40 components to Planned Unit Developments are adding more free-market job generation than
they make up for in affordable housing provision. Research other incentives to encourage the
development of Affordable Housing. Consider transferring some of the Affordable Housing subsidy
monies to the private sector developers. Private developers should be able to access some amount
subsidy per employee housed provided to the Housing Authority for 100% affordable projects.
Complies with Growth Section Action Item #8, 35
Lead Departments: Community Development; Team Department: Housing Authority
Status:
Study ways to provide Affordable Housing without new construction such as grants and other
assistance programs for buy-downs and deed restrictions of existing units.
Complies with Growth Section Action Item #9
Lead Departments: Community Development & Housing Authority
Status:
Consider only allowing lodges to be redeveloped as Affordable Housing rather than as expensive free-
market units to reflect our need for housing for permanent residents.
Complies with Growth Section Action Item #12
Lead Department: Community Deve!opment
Status: Lodge Preservation Code revisions being developed by Planner Chris Bendon
Explore developing a sliding scale to apply to all substantial re-develooment or reconstruction (where
all, or virtually all of a commercial or residential building is torn down and rebuilt) for mitigation of
affordable housing.
Complies with Growth Section Action Item #17
Lead Department: Community Development
Status:
Explore having larger redevelopment projects pay for either on-site, deed-restricted Accessory Units
or a buy-down elsewhere within the Aspen Community Growth Boundary.
Complies with Growth Section Action Item #18
Lead Department: Community Development
Status:
Study criteria for upzoning for higher density affordable housing.
Complies with Growth Section Action Item #37
Lead Department: Community Development
Status: To some extent this is being addressed through the Infill Housing study that is going on, but that
work could be expanded to address broader Metro Area opportunities
Investigate incentives for and consider adding to the existing criteria for lot splits the ability to
subdivide for Affordable Housing.
Complies with Growth Section Action Item #38
Lead Department: Community Development
Status:
Study opportunities to amend development regulations to facilitate the development of affordable
housing units.
Complies with Housing Section Action Item #3,
Lead Department: Community Development and Housing Authority
Status:
Page 5
Revised Draft
AACP Action Plan
Consider modifications to the Accessory Dwelling Unit program to encourage units to be developed
which will be occupied and which offer comfortable living conditions.
Complies with Housing Section Action Items # 13
Lead Department: Community Development
Status: Code Amendments in Progress; planner Chris Bendon
Explore "transfer" or "purchase" of development rights for affordable housing.
Complies with Housing Section Action Items # 14
Lead Department: Community Development
Status:
In planning for any "Essential Community Facility,' it should be determined if there is sufficient
affordable housing associated with the project to ensure the facility is viable over the long run.
Complies with Housing Section Action Items # 16
Lead Department:
Status:
Study opportunities to provide incentives in our development regulations and housing policies in order
to encourage the development of affordable housing by community groups such as citizens,
businesses, and non-profits.
Complies with Housing Section Action Items # 20,21
Lead Department: Community Development and Housing Authority
Status:
The Housing Authority should pursue public/private partnerships with private sector developers,
businesses, and non-profits to aid in the development of affordable housing which can address the
specific party and the overall community. New partnership ideas as well as "tried and true" concepts
that have benefited the program in a positive way should guide future decisions.
Complies with Housing Section Action Items # 22
Lead Department: Housing Authority
Status:
Study options for encouraging the development of affordable housing through financial assistance
programs. Public funds should be made available to groups who propose affordable housing projects
meeting the guidelines and who demonstrate the need for financial assistance.
Complies with Housing Section Action Items # 23 (related to G _ )
Lead Department: Housing Authority
Status:
Consider modifications to development review procedures to give priority to projects that promote a
"mix" of housing types to serve people of different needs and income levels, and encourage a healthy
social balance.
Complies with Housing Section Action Items # 24
Lead Department: Community Development
Status:
Conduct a post -occupancy review of affordable housing. This process could seek the opinions of the
community in general including those of the new homeowners and their neighbors.
Complies with Housing Section Action Items # 25
Lead Department: Housing Authority
Status: Housing Authority is currently engaged in a survey of residents, but in addition this action item calls
for review of new projects within a year of completion
Page 6
Revised Draft
AACP Action Plan
Simplify and shorten review procedures for projects clearly meeting the objectives of our housing
policy and the overall community goals. These guidelines should not be reevaluated on a per project
basis, but should rather be amended on a regular basis as our housing circumstances change.
Complies with Housing Section Action Items # 28, & Growth Section #
Lead Department: Community Development
Status:
Study Workforce Manal!:ement
Study ways to manage the size and composition of the workforce. Utilize and build upon the work
initiated by the Aspen Institute group on affordable housing and job growth.
Complies with Growth Section Action Item #13, Housing Item #1
Lead Department: Community Development
Status:
Study ways to better capture the effects of employee generation through employee mitigation.
Complies with Growth Section Action Item #15
Lead Department: Community Development
Status:
Study Mitil!:ation of the ImDacts of Growth and Chanl!:e
Study the impacts of revising the "change in use" provision of the City and County Codes. Consider
requiring mitigation of any change in use that produces a net increase in impacts, and that the level of
mitigation required be equal to 100% of the increase in impacts generated by the change in use.
Complies with Growth Section Action Item #14
Lead Department: Community Development
Status:
Conduct a study of the real costs of residential development to the community. Figures being
generated should ultimately tie the actual employee generation to (a) the expense of construction by
square footage, and/or (b) the size of the home. This study would include both free-market and
affordable housing in the tabulations.
Complies with Growth Section Action Item #40
Lead Department: Community Development
Status: To some extent this issue is addressed by the report by Gabe Preston, Pitkin County Planner
Study the effects oflow-paying jobs on the health of the community.
Complies with Growth Section Action Item #32 and Economic Sustainability Section generally
Lead Department:
Status:
Affordable Housing and Parks Partnerships
Ensure that parks and open space are available or are provided near development of affordable housing,
especially in areas of increased densities. (G33)
When upzoning for Affordable Housing, consider the pros and cons of deed restricting those portions of
the property that are to be preserved as open space. (G36)
Complies with Growth Section Action Item #33, 36
Lead Department: Community Development, Parks Department, and Housing Authority
Status:
Promote lonl!:-term Economic Sustainabilitv
Develop indicators of community sustainability in order to measure important areas in which the valley
community may be progressing or declining over time. They should include indicators of community,
environmental and economic well-being. Track business ownership to determine extent of local
Page 7
Revised Draft
AACP Action Plan
ownership. Track the number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) employees in each business, and any
other indicators deemed useful in determining community economic health.
Complies with Action Items: Economic Sustainability # 1, 2, 3
Lead Department: Community Development and Finance Department
Status:
Explore ways to create a learning community for both the public and private sectors. One that takes an
action, reflects on the action, and bases its next related action on that reflection. One that makes local
decisions understanding the real causes of problems and with long-term consequences in mind.
Complies with Action Items: Economic Sustainability # 4
Lead Department:
Status:
Explore ways to get part-time residents more engaged in the community.
Complies with Action Items: Economic Sustainability # 5
Lead Department:
Status:
Establish a sustainable economic development task force to identify effective ways to increase wealth
generation within the existing economic structure. Its membership should include the entire valley.
Complies with Action Items: Economic Sustainability # 6
Lead Department:
Status:
Study and consider ways to support a diversity of small, locally owned businesses in the commercial
core as opposed to national chain stores and tourist-only oriented retail.
Complies with Growth Section Action Item #34
Lead Department:
Status:
Revise the Neighborhood Commercial and Service/ Commercial/ Industrial zone district permitted and
conditional uses lists to ensure only locally serving uses are permitted within those zone districts.
Eliminate the option for single family housing in those zone districts.
Complies with Action Items: Economic Sustainability # 8
Lead Department: Community Development
Status:
Zone additional areas for Neighborhood Commercial and Service/ Commercial/ Industrial development
within the city. Promote mi '" reo
Compli I Action Items: Economic Sustainability # 9
Lead Department: Community Development
Status:
GtudY the impacts of rezoning undeveloped commercially zoned land to neighborhood commercial or
SCI zoning with an affordable housing overlay requiring affordable housing be built on site.
Complies with Growth Section Action Item #10
Lead Department: Community Development
Status:
Study locations for a neighborhood office zone district. This concept can incorporate vertical zoning
and alley uses. Develop a Neighborhood Office Zone District. Rezone areas to neighborhood office.
Eliminate the option of single family housing in this zone district.
Complies with Action Items: Economic Sustainability # 10
Lead Department: Community Development
Status:
Page 8
Revised Draft
AACP Action Plan
Conduct a survey of lodge owners to determine what factors most influence their decisions to stay in
business or sell. Develop incentive programs and other methods to help maintain this important
community resource based on the results of this study. Consider allowing alternatives that maintain the
exterior appearance of the historic resource, while allowing a different use of the structure such as
housing.
Complies with Action Items: Economic Sustainability # 11
Lead Department: Community Development
Status: Lodge Preservation Code amendment has been completed
Following ~'le completion of the Downtown Enhanced Pedestrian Plan (DEPP) Pilot Project, work with
area business owners to complete the implementation of the project.
Complies with Action Items: Economic Sustainabiiity # 12
Lead Department: Community Development
Status:
Study ways to better enforce collection of the sales tax and the impacts of the Gallager Amendment.
Complies with Action Items: Economic Sustainability # 15
Lead Department: Finance Department
Status:
Investigate efforts undertaken by other communities for managing the impacts of chain stores.
Complies with Action Items: Economic Sustainabiiity # 16
Lead Department: Community Development and/or Finance Department
Status:
Review city and county codes to identify and resolve problems regarding the loss of commercial and
office space to other uses. To simplify the code, reduce the overall number of zone districts and
eliminate redundancies.
Complies with Action Items: Economic Sustainability # 17
Lead Department: Community Development
Status:
Historic Preservation and Desil!n Qualitv
Review and amend the land use code to address the following issues related to Historic Preservation:
. Study and amend land use/zoning regulations so that hindrances to creating traditional building
forms and context are removed. (for example 25% open space req.) (HP 2)
. Re-examine the land use code so that Main Street and the downtown core can be redeveloped to
provide possible locations for, and encourage the creation of, small businesses and mixed uses.
(HP 3)
Complies with Action Items: Historic Preservation #2 & 3
Lead Department: Community Development; Historic Preservation
Status:
Create Master Plans for key historic properties.
Complies with Action Item: Historic Preservation #4
Lead Department: Community Development & Housing Authority
Status: Civic Center Master Plan under discussion
Work to improve the Historic Preservation Commission review process.
Complies with Action Items: Historic Preservation # 6-10
Lead Department: Community Development; Historic Preservation
Page 9
Revised Draft
AACP Action Plan
Status:
Improve and strengthen residential design standards, including adding landscape review and studying
design standards for properties adjacent to historic properties.
Complies with Action Items: Historic Preservation # 11-15
Lead Department: Community Development; Historic Preservation
Status: New design standards have been adopted. Landscape review is being discussed.
Develop stronger methods of enforcement with HPC direction such as larger fines, withholding
Certificates of Occupancy (CO's), licensing contractors for historic work, etc.
Complies with Action Items: 16-19
Lead Department: Community Development & Attorney's Office
Status:
Protect historic sites, update the inventory, create a preservation watch list to monitor demolitions of
non-inventoried properties, etc.
Complies with Action Items: Historic Preservation #20-22
Lead Department: Community Development; Historic Preservation
Status:
Improve communication, education, and advocacy for historic preservation and create better tools to
accomplish this goal such as brochures, speakers bureau for local groups, historic marker program,
history of local historic preservation efforts, etc.
Complies with Action Items: Historic Preservation #23-28
Lead Department: Community Development; Historic Preservation
Status:
Review existing Historic Preservation program to see how well it is working. Maintain and add
innovative ways to make preservation work in Aspen, such as the historic landmark lot split, property
ta"X relief, study impacts of FAR bonus
Complies with Action Items: Historic Preservation #29-40
Lead Department: Community Development; Historic Preservation
Status:
Improve Communication and Education: Develop a public education and outreach program building
upon the recommendations in the AACP 1998 Update.
Complies with Action Items: Design Quality # 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, & 17
Lead Department: Community Development: Historic Preservation
Status:
Reconvene the Public Projects Review Group.
Complies with Action Items: Design Quality # 7 & 14
Lead Department: Community Development: Historic Preservation
Status:
Study the pros and cons of awarding public projects through design competitions to promote a higher
standard of design and creativity.
Complies with Action Items: Design Quality # 9
Lead Department: Community Development or the Housing Authority
Status:
Investigate ways to encourage the restoration or improvement of existing buildings. Special attention
should be given to buildings with multiple ownership (condo's).
Complies with Action Items: Design Quality # 15
Page 10
Revised Draft
AACP Action Plan
Lead Department: Community Development
Status:
When possible, sponsor design competitions or other creative methods for getting the best affordable
housing product possible.
Complies with Housing Section Action Items # 26
Lead Department: Housing Authority
Status:
Parks and ODen SDace
Greenfrastructure Plan: Develop a Comprehensive Map and Inventory of all existing public
property, trail easements, and fishing easements including land trust properties and conservation
easement holdings. Ifpossible, the map or maps should include areas of Aspen, Pitkin County,
Snowmass Village and (to extent possible) down valley areas. The map, preferably done on a GIS
system, should be updated every 2-3 years.
Complies with Action Items: Parks, Open Space and the Environment # 3 & 14
Lead Department: Parks Department & Community Development
Status: Part of Future Land Use Map
Study opportunities to preserve parcels or portions of parcels identified in the "Greenfrastructure
Plan" to be undertaken by the Parks Department for future parks and open space. Acquire
properties along river corridors, including the Roaring Fork River, and Maroon and Castle Creeks.
Where needed, acquire properties to establish and enhance "greenfrastructure" and pedestrian
access, including acquiring easements along river corridors.
Complies with Action Items: Parks, Open Space and the Environment #8 & 14
Lead Department: Parks Department
Status:
Improve public access to and information about parks and recreation facilities through brochures
and signage programs.
Complies with Action Items: Parks, Open Space and the Environment #1, 2, 4
Lead Department: Parks Department
Status:
Study the impacts of commercial operations using public spaces and, if warranted, consider a fee
system to cover costs of repair and maintenance. Such fees could be used to support educational
programs, habitat restoration, enforcement, volunteer efforts and administration costs.
Complies with Action Items: Parks, Open Space and the Environment #6
Lead Department: Parks Department
Status:
Organize "Volunteer Days" for parks and open space preservation and maintenance projects.
Complies with Action Items: Parks, Open Space and the Environment #5
Lead Department: Parks Department
Status:
Complete the Master Plans for Wagner Park and Iselin Park. Look at ways to continue active use
of the parks in development of the plan.
Complies with Action Items: Parks, Open Space and the Environment #7
Lead Department: Parks Department
Status: Iselin Master Plan completed
Complete community trail systems such as: the BenedictIRoaring Fork River Trail from Herron
Park to the Aspen Club, and the Shadow Mountain Trail.
Page 11 Revised Draft AACP Action Plan
Complies with Action Items: Parks, Open Space and the Environment #9 & 10
Lead Dep.artment: Parks Department
Status:
Study opportunities to increase revenues to support recreational operations including increased
user fees and other sources.
Complies with Action Items: Parks, Open Space and the Environment #12
Lead Department: Parks Department
Status:
Explore the creation of a City of Aspen Parks, Open Space, Trails & Natural Resources Advisory
Board.
Complies with Action Items: Parks, Open Space and the Environment #13
Lead Department: Parks Department
Status:
Study the impacts ofrevising the Sixth Penny Ordinance that provides funding for City Parks,
Trails and Open Space, to make it consistent with Pitkin County Open Space language. That
language requires replacement of any converted park, open space or trail interest with a
comparable parcel of land.
Complies with Action Items: Parks, Open Space and the Environment # 16
Lead Department: Parks Department & Attorneys Office
Status:
Study and evaluate the idea of revising the city's Sixth Penny Ordinance to require that
replacement property be established prior to an election for trading of open space. Study the
benefits and costs of identifYing the replacement parcel in the ballot language. The intention of
identifYing the parcel would be to help the electorate in evaluating the benefit of the conversion or
replacement interest.
Complies with Action Items: Parks, Open Space and the Environment #20
Lead Department: Parks Department & Attorneys Office
Status:
Environmental Health
Promote the concept of "Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle" as a way to protect our environment and
extend the life of the Pitkin County Landfill.
Complies with Action Items: Parks, Open Space and the Environment #21
Lead Department: Environmental Health
Status:
Study the impact of the use of de-icing applications on vegetation and water quality. Explore
alternatives to using chemicals or establish a policy of a dilution ratio to minimize the impacts of
de-icing and dust abatement agents such as Magnesium Chloride or other chemicals.
Complies with Action Items: Parks, Open Space and the Environment #18
Lead Department: Environmental Health
Status:
Revisit the Ecological Bill of Rights. Develop a specific action plan for each "Right" to reflect the
Bill of Rights.
Complies with Action Items: Parks, Open Space and the Environment #19
Lead Department: Environmental Heaith
Status:
O~\'-
\\ ll'/\ 1 Parkin!!. Transportation Mana!!ement and Pedestrian Experience
Page 12 Revised Draft AACP Action Plan
Maintain and improve the convenience, comfort, affordability, safety, security, and hospitality of
transit service in the Roaring Fork Region. Implement existing plans and improve services.
Complies with Transportation Section Action Item #2-17
Lead Department: Transportation Department & RFTA
Status:
Maintain and improve the safety and appeal of bicycling and walking for a wide variety of trips in the
Aspen area.
Complies with Transportation Section Action Item #18-26
Lead Department: Transportation Department; Team: Parks & Engineering
Status:
Maintain and improve the safety and appeal of carpooling or vanpooling for a wide variety of trip
types.
Complies with Transportation Section Action Item #27-29
Lead Department: Transportation Department & RFTA
Status:
Reduce the adverse impacts of automobiles on the Aspen area including traffic congestion, pollution,
and parking.
Complies with Transportation Section Action Item #30-34
Lead Department: Transportation Department & RFTA
Status:
Manage the supply of parking to limit adverse impacts of automobile use and to conserve land in the
Aspen area.
Complies with Transportation Section Action Items #35-41, (also relates to lowering parking requirements
for developments located near transit)
Lead Department: Transportation Department; Team: Community Development & Engineering
Status:
Provide a wide range of flexible transportation management tools and techniques to reduce single-
occupant automobile use.
Complies with Transportation Section Action Items #42-46
Lead Department: Transportation Department
Status:
Reduce the adverse impacts of freight and construction vehicles on Aspen. "
Complies with Transportation Section Action Items #47-50
Lead Department: Transportation Department
Status:
Improve traveler's experience by providing local travel information at bus stops, on the Internet,
through brochures, etc. Reduce travel by visitors in automobiles through support of innovative traveler
services.
Complies with Transportation Section Action Items #51-54
Lead Department: Transportation Department
Status:
Ensure that the urban form of the Aspen metro area supports the goals of the AACP Transportation
Element.
Complies with Transportation Section Action Items #55-60
Lead Department: Community Development and Transportation Department
Status:
Page 13
Revised Draft
AACP Action Plan
Improve the ability of elected officials, staff and citizens to understand transportation problems and
the effectiveness of solutions by collecting better data on local travel patterns.
Complies with Transportation Section Action Items #61-63
Lead Department: Transportation Department
Status:
Continue to study the idea of connecting local ski mountains with other mountains or base areas via
gondolas, funiculars, aerial tramways or other non-automobile means.
Complies with Transportation Section Action Item #64
Lead Department: Transportation Department and Community Development
Status:
Work with RFT A to improve transportation service to school campuses and for arts or non-profit
events.
Complies with Action Items: Arts, Culture and Education # 19
Lead Department: Transportation Department and RFTA
Status:
Study opportunities to improve customer service and the overall quality of air service consistent with
the Airport Plan recently adopted by Pitkin County. Promote competition as a method of improving
air service. Work with the airport management staff to determine problems and opportunities for
solutions.
Complies with Action Items: Economic Sustainability # 7, Transportation #1
Lead Department: City Managers Office and/or Transportation Department
Status:
In conjunction with ongoing transportation planning projects on Main Street, improve the pedestrian
experience and streetscape.
Complies with Action Items: Economic Sustainability # 14
Lead Department: Community Development
Status:
Explore eliminating or significantly reducing parking requirements for Affordable Housing
developments within the City. Provide satellite parking areas (such as a secure structure at the airport
or landfill) for long-term car storage.
Complies with Growth Section Action Item #11
Lead Department: Community Development; Team Dept.: Transportation
Status:
HousiUl! for Visitinl! Artists
The AspenlSnowmass Council for the Arts will endeavor to work with the Housing Authority to
coordinate vacancies through a central resource/office that tracks current and projected housing
development and vacancies.
Complies with Action Items: Arts, Culture and Education #16
Lead Department: Housing Authority I The Aspen/Snowmass Council for the Arts
Status:
Increase short and long-term affordable housing opportunities for arts groups, visiting artists, and
educational workers.
Complies with Action Items: Arts, Culture and Education #14
Lead Department: Housing Authority I The Aspen/Snowmass Council for the Arts
Status:
Page 14
Revised Draft
AACP Action Plan
Look for ways, such as tax credits or other incentives, to encourage property owners to allow
utilization of vacant housing (such as un-rented ADU's) for temporary and event-related housing
needs for non-profit groups.
Complies with Action Items: Arts, Culture and Education #15
Lead Department: Community Development or Assessors Office or Housing Authority or Finance
Office with The Aspen/Snowmass Council for the Arts
Status:
Develop A "Peak Capacity Standard"
Study the development of a "peak capacity standard" which takes into consideration a peak physical and
social infrastructure capacity. Identify the remaining capacity of the existing infrastructure (schools, fire
department, police, utilities, roads, etc) and relate these numbers to the ultimate available buildout and
population potential.
Complies with Growth Section Action Items #2 & 3
Lead Department: Community Development
Status:
Study Feasibility of a County Real Estate Transfer Tax
Explore the legality and potential implications of a County Real Estate Transfer Tax. The tax would be
intended to dedicate 1 % of sales to a pool of money to be split between open space purchases and
development/preservation of affordable housing opportunities in the County, similar to what is done in the
City of Aspen. This would require a state constitutional amendment.
Complies with Growth Section Action Item #51, Goal G
Lead Department: Community Development & Attorneys Office
Status: This would require a state constitutional amendment
C :/mydocs/aacp/actionplan.doc
Page 15
Revised Draft
AACP Action Plan
EXHIBIT "E"
Subject Lot, south
end of 5th Street
at Hopkins Avenue.
(An example of how a triangular
house would look when built
within the allowed triangular
building envelope.)
Classic Victorian
Home, south end
of 6th Street at
Hopkins A venue
(next door neighbor
west of subject lot.)
SUPPLEMENT TO
JOHNSON - LOST DIAMOND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
FILED SEPTEMBER 24,1998
~':D "
u:...~ L
i:;il'
mSTORY
This Lot Line Adjustment Application Package, filed on September 24, 1998, contained th~
all the 5 Conditions set forth in the Directive for Subdivision Exemptions by Planning
Director for Lot Line Adjustment. As a precaution, a draft application and combination
Lot Line Adjustment and Annexation Plat was first provided to frod out if the Planning
Department wanted further information. The additional information requested by Planning
Department was provided with the final application package.
On January 9, 1999 the Planning Director, apparently relying only on staff
recommendations denied the application. Among the reasons for the staff recommending
denial cited in its report were that the applicant had not provide a survey plat and legal
descriptions and title commitment. The survey plat contalliing all the legal descriptions
was, in filct, provided, and Mr. Bendon at; the Planing Office was informed that
arrangement had been made with Vince Higgins, Pitkin County Title, to provide any title
information requested by the Planning Office. The other missing information was not
specified in the beginning by the Planning Department when the Applicants asked to be
informed of all material required for the application. The other reasons were frivolous.
Exhibit"A" is a copy of the Staft's denial report for the Lot Line Adjustment Application
along with my responses.
The denial statement did not provide any instructions as to what to do next. Therefore, on
February 22, 1999 the Applicants hand delivered to the Planner a detailed letter that
responded to the reasons for the denial and supplied the additional information cited in the
denial. No reply has been received. Apparently, the Planning Department, as evidenced
by its uncaring thwarting around, prefers that a triangular house, similar to house in photo
Exhibit "E", be constructed on the existing lot along with all of the negative ramifications
in contrast to the below listed positive advantages
REASONS FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT:
1. To overcome the hardship of the Johnson lot being narrow trapezoid shaped with a long
taillike appendage. The building envelope for this awkward shaped Lot restricts the design
of the allowed 3,860 sq. ft. house to be shaped like a triangular wedge. With a set back
variance, it would be a three-story wedge next to the street. Such a wedged shaped 28' high
house situated aI the head of 5th Street, would look like a wedge of Wisconsin cheese and
will be clearly visible across town, including, Main Street. The solution: reconfigure the
same square footage into a normal rectangular lot by lot line adjustment.
2. To overcome the Reeder's (Lost Diamond's) tract hardship, of having no street frontage
on Hopkins Avenue, no utility easement and only a tiny corner 12' wide ingress and egress
easement. After the proposed Lot Line Adjustment, 'Reeder will have;. a centered 42' wide
landscapable Hopkins Street entrance way appropriate for the large tract with underground
utility access.
No Increase or Decrease of Building Rights or Densities.
This proposed lot line adjustment can be accomplished by exchanges of equal square
footages of land on flat terrain in the same R-15 Zone, with the adjoining parcel o\'lned by
Lost Diamond, Inc., in Pitkin County. (Before and After Exhibits "B" and "C"). Johnsort,
the owner of the existing City lot, requested that the land in the County, that will b~
acquired to form a rectangular lot, be annexed by the City so that the entire lot \'liB be in
the same jurisdiction. The land in the City received by Lost Diamond by the terms the
adjustment will be deed restricted to prevent it becoming a separate building site. Lost
Diamond prefers to remain in the County, however, it would agree, for the purpose of
facilitating this Lot Line Adjustment, to annexation under certain reasonable conditions
specified in Exhibit "D".
The denial statement did not provide any instructions as to what to do next. Therefore, on
February 22, 1999 the applicants hand delivered to the Planner a detailed letter that
responded to the reasons for the denial and supplied the additional information cited in the
denial. No reply has been received.
Advantages Gained bv Lot Line Adjustment.
The larger Lost Diamond tract, lacking street frontage would be dignified by not having a
long narrow triangular structure between it and Hopkins A venue. The lot line adjustment
would provide a suitable 42' wide landscapeable entranceway for a driveway, utility access
to Hopkins Avenue and view corridor up 5th street. Presently, Lost Diamond has a narrow
12' wide driveway easement without utility use on the western edge of the triangular lot.
Reshaping the existing triangular Johnson lot into a normal rectangular lot would allow a
for a normal home to be built thereon that would conform to neighboring homes. The
alternative would be a structure similar to the house triangular house in the photo (Exhibit
"E") squeezed into the long narrow triangular building envelope that is presently allowed
for the lot (Exhibit F).
There are numerous community benefits to the be gained from this proposed lot line
adjustment:
!. The construction of a long narrow triangular house on this existing lot would be a
cl~ looking blemish on the neighborhood and likely have an adverse effect on
neighborhood property values. The neighbors I have talk to are pleased with the proposed
lot line adjustment.
2. The City of Aspen would benefit from the efforrnation of the orderly lot layout (one of
the objectives of planning).
2
3. The excellence of the quality of Aspen's general appearance will be enhanced. This lot
is situated where sth Street ends at West Hopkins Avenue. Similarly, next door, at the
south end of 6th Street is a much-admired classic Victorian home. Both of these sites are
very visible for six blocks to the north up 5th and 6th Streets and from Main Street (please
see photos Exhibit "E"). '
SummarY.
The purpose of the regulation, 'Subdivision Exemption by Planning Director for Lot Line
Adjustment " was for the planner to check lot line adjustment applications to determine that
the existing development rights and permitted densities would not be affected and no new
lots would be created-that's it.
Mr. Bendon said I would be charged $180 per hour. The.indication that the Planning
Director would be the person handling this application, presumes the Planning Director,
would have the experience and knowledge to justifY $180 per hour and accordingly would
be able to accurately handle a simple application like this in two hours, including visiting
the site. The Staff involvement conflicts with this reasoning. It appears that the Planning
Department is zealously impelled to give the people of A~n a "wedgie".
Stanford Johnson
July 12, 1999
Enclosures:
Original Application
Vicinity Map
Reeder Letter, 3/4/99 ReI. Annexation of Lost Diamond tract
Title Commitment
Copies of legal descriptions from Lot Line Adjustment! Annexation Survey Plat
3
\
\v t:~,=--._
\. ~--)
ExmTBIT "A"
YIEMORANDu:\1
TO:
Julie Ann Woods. Community Development Director
FROM:
Christopher Bendon. Planner '
RE:
Reeder/Johnson Lot Line Adjustment
DATE:
November 9. 1998
SUMMARY:
Stanford Johnson and Lyle Reeder have applied for an insuostantial property
boundary adjustment between their two ajoining parcels which are seperated by the
Township line. The Johnson parcel is located within the City of Aspen and consists
of the stub of 5th Street as it was originally platted, unplatted lands southwest of 5th
Street and Hopkins A venue. and rear portions of Lots A. B, and C of Block 32.
Reeder's parcel is a single metes and bounds parcel located entirely within Pitkin
County .
According to the City's GIS information. it appears that the rear portions of the Lots
within Block 32 may be part of a larger City-owned parcel. The applicant has not
provided a title or a legal definition for the Johnson parcel. Furthermore. the
applicant has not provided a site improvement survey, a plat. or other survey
information which could clarify this point.
The Reeder parcel is entirely in Pitkin County. Because its not within the City's
jurisdiction. the Community Development Director does not have the authority to
approve an Insubstantial Lot Line Adjustment. All portions of all lots being
considered for boundary amendments need to be entirely within City limits for this
type plat amendment to be considered.
,
A request for annexating a portion of the Reeder parcel has been submitted to the
City Attorney. This petition. however. has not been accepted because it does not
include a legal description of the property or an annexation boundary map showing
the extent of land proposed for annexation. Again. all portion of all lots proposed for
boundary amendments would need to be entirely within the City. This would require
annexation of the entire Reeder parcel or subdivision of the Reeder parcel in Pitkin
County prior to annexation.
, \
Lastly, the criteria for an insubstantial boundary amendment requires the applicant
demostrate a specific hardship. In this case, although the zoning provisions may
result in an odd-shaped building area, there still appears to be a reasonable use of the
property .
Staff has reviewed this proposal and recommends ,the Director deny the request.
1
APPLICANT:
,
Stanford Johnson and Lyle Reeder, owners.
Loc..\. nON:
5th Street and Hopkins A venue.
REVIEW PROCEDCRE:
LOT Line AdjusTment. The Community Development Director may approve: approve
with conditions. or deny a request for a lot line adjustment meeting those criteria
found in section 26.88.030.
STAFF CO~IMENTS:
Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit "A:' The
application has been included as Exhibit "B:'
RECOM~IE"DA nON:
Staff recommends the Community Development Director deny this lot line
Adjustment.
DENIAL:
I hereby deny this request for a lot line Adjusment between the Johnson .and Reeder
properties.
d cJ date ~ ~I/.v
?ie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
"
A TT ACH~IENTS:
Exhibit A Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B -- Application
, ,
2
Lot Line Adjustments Exemption by Planning Director
Exhibit A
The planning Director shall exempt an adjustment of a lot line between contiguous lots if all the
Following conditions are met.
I. It is demonstrated that the request is to correct an engineering or survey error in a recorded plat or is to
permit an insubstantial boundary change between adjacent parcels. "
Staff Findings
There does not appear to be an engineering or survey error between these parcels.
ResDonse: This lot-line.adjustment 'is to permit an insubstantial boundary change between
adjacent parcels' as set forth in the above condition.
2. All landowners whose lot lines are being adjusted shall provide written consent to the application.
Staff Findings
Written consent has been provided. Land Titles showing ownership have not been provided.
ReSDonse: "Land Titles' were not required by the above condition. If 'Land Titles" were
needed why was I not told this. I said to Mr. Bendon that I had talked to Vince Higgins at Pitkin
County Title and he would provide any title information, if needed.
3. It is demonstrated that the request is to address specific hardship
Staff Findings
There does not appear to be a hardship which drastically reduces the owner's right to use the
property.
ResDonse: The condition specifies' that the request is to address specific hardship' not a
degree of "hardship which drastically reduces the owner's right to use the property'. The hardship
is clearly self.evident by an examination of plats, Attachment "1" and attachment "6" of my
application. Attachment "6' shows that the required set backs force the house to be shaped like a
long narrow Albatross beak, with no garage and the off street parking would have to be in the set
back area in front of the house.
This non.conforming grandfarthered'8,213 sq. ft. lot has, not only a long and narrow
trapezoid shaped, but has a 2Q' wide x 60' long tail which calculates into the floor are ratio, but
because, it is isolated from the building envelope, does not contribute open space around the
house or set backs. The tail is a long narrow protrusion between the neighboring properties and
serves no useful purpose for the existing Johnson lot other than a place for storage of unused
odds and ends, which would be a nuisance to the abutting neighbors' properties.
The existing building envelope forces the design of the allowed 3,860 sq. ft. house to be
shaped like a four.story narrow triangular "wedge'. With a set back variance it would be a 28'
three.story wedge shaped house situated too close to Hopkins Avenue. This property has the
specifiC hardship of the inability to design and construct a normal shaped house on a normal
rettangularly shaped lot as exist in the R.6 zone across the street.
It would appear that the Staff may have overlooked, or has not had hands-on experience in
designing and actual construction that would provide an understanding of the multiple hardships
involved in a house with a triangular floor plan. Besides, the inevitable ugly exterior appearance,
diffi6ult floor plan, and disorganized interior traffic flow, the construction problems and
construction waste of dimensioned lumber are endless. For example, Each rafter and floor joist
has a different length and consequently different load factors.
A triangular shaped house, like an albatross beak, would also be a hardship for the
neighborhood. The neighbors I talked to were delighted with the proposed lot line adjustment.
They want lot configurations and structures. that conform to the neighborhood; not a weird
wedged shaped house jammed into a triangular building envelope that would damage their
property values. The NIMBYs will not be pleased with this denial.
I am curious why a "specific hardship" is a requirement? I have known of valid lot line
which adjustments were done for positive reason of improvement. For example, two lots situated
one above the other on a hillside where the lower house would interfere with the view of the other.
The solution, turn the pair of lots 90' where both could enjoy views of the valley below.
4. The corrected plat will meet the standards of this division, and conform to the requirements of this
chapter, including the dimensional requirements of the zone district in which the lots are located except in
cases of an existing nonconforming lot, in which the adjustment shall not increase the nonconformity of
the lot.
Staff Findings
A plat has not been provided.
ResDonse: Mr. Bendon was provided with a draft copy of the Plat to determine if any
additional information was needed. No comment was received. Accordingly Five copies of the
combination survey and annexation plat, containing the respective properties legal descriptions
and the legal description for the exchange of equal areas of land for the proposed lot line
adjustment, were provided with the application, and three copies to the City Attorneys office. The
existing Johnson parcel is a grandfathered non.conforming 8,312 sq. ft. lot. Here an existing
nonconforming lot is being converted into a lot compatible to the others in the neighborhood. The
Johnson Lot before and after adjustment contains 8,312 sq. ft. The Lost Diamond parcel contains
before and after adjustment 46,590 sq. ft. - adequate to comply with the 15,000 sq. ft. minimum
lot size for the R.15 Zone '
5. It is demonstrated that the lot line adjustment will not affect the development rights or permitted density
of the affected lots by providing the opportunity to create a new lot for resale or development.
Staff Findings
Without legal titles and a proposed plat, it is nearly impossible to determine the relative
development rights associated with each parcel before and after the amendment. The Reeder parcel is in
Pitkin County and not within the City's authority to approve a plat.
ResDonse: The purpose and scope of the lot line adjustment exemption from subdivision
regulations is simply to make certain the properties involved are not subdivided - no additional
. lot;; are created and that development rights, and square footages remain unchanged. In this
case, development rights and densities remain the same because equal land area is exchanged
for equal land area on flat vacant land in the same R.15 zone. The topography lines on the Plat
provided and the legal descriptions thereon make that clear. The possibility of an additional lot
2
being created by the land lost Diamond will receive by the lot line adjustment in the City is
prevented by deed restriction-limiting the use for driveway, utilities, access to Hopkins Avenue
and for landscaping (see letter to City attorney suggesting wording for the deed restriction).
When I asked about the lot line adjustment process, Mr. Bendon explained that, the 4,433
sq. ft. area of the reconfigured Johnson lot, in the County that will be annexed into the City
simultaneously with the Council's approval of the combined Annexation/lot Line Adjustment Plat
at which point the City will have jurisdiction over the entire Johnson lot. If there is a problem why
was it not raised up front?
It is not, now or ever has been, necessary for then City to have jurisdiction in the County to
preview the area being annexed. The Communitv Develooment's silmature aoorovimz the
Annexation olat is based simolv uoon the fact that the conditions for subdivision exemotion have
been checked-develooment rillhts. densities and souare footalles are unchanlled and no
additional lots are created. Community Development does not need jurisdiction in the County for
that.
Mr. Reeder does not need any authorization from the County to execute a deed for lost
Diamond and there can be no future consequences, as long as, development rights and densities
are unchanged and no additional lots have been created. Please also notice on the Plat that lost
Diamond owns 46, 590 sq. ft. .. three times as much land as is required by the R.15 Zone.. and
that the deed restrictions imposed upon the 4,433 sq. Ft. of land it will receive in the City does
not affect the amount of square feet necessary to comply with the R.15 Zone.
Finally, Mr. Bendon's memo states.... Because its [Reeder parcel] not within the City's
jurisdiction, the Community Development Director does not have the Authority to approve an
Insubstantial Line Adjustment...". Yet, the Community Development Office has authority to
approve lot Line Adjustments in both Pitkin County (Sec. 4-40.0202D) and in the City
(Sec.26.88.030 B).
The other issues Mr. Bendon raises are:
1. That the area referred to as the stub end of 5th Street may have been vacated, therefore the area may be
restricted from use in the FAR calculations.
Resoonse: I explained the title background to Mr. Bendon and the City Engineer,
individually, on September 24, 1998. Also, I provided the chain of title on the area, that clearly
shows that the title was not derived by street vacation but was initially conveyed from the "Aspen
Townsite Patent under provisions of the Act of Congress entitled, an Act For The Relief Of The
Inhabitants, by County Judge DW. Strickland' on July 7, 1888 (A copy of the DEED BY JUDGE
STRICKLAND, dated July 7, 1888, conveying the "stub' of South End of Fifth Street from the
. \
Aspen Townsite Patent to a Private Individual) is enclosed as Exhibit. '). My title arose from
this conveyance through the chain of title to the Tax Sale Certificate acquired from Coriolanus
Corporation by which a Treasurer's Deed was issued to me (a Treasurer's Deed creates a clean
title).
3
Obviously, the Citv had not vacated the stub end of 5th Street. because the chain of title
did not show the street being solit in half with each half reverting to the abutting orooerties as
occurs when a street is vacated. Nevertheless, the staff apparently wasted the $180 an hour
charged me on all sorts of speculations and record research for street vacations to 1937. Had
they been thorough they would have found the initial conveyance preceded Aspen's vacation
ordinance and Colorado's vacation statute; this I had explained to Mr. Bendon in the beginning.
2. According to the City's GIS information, it appears that the rear portions of the Lots within Block 32 may
be part of a larger City-owned parcel. The applicant has not provided a title or a legal description for the
Johnson parcel. Furthermore, the applicant has not provided a site improvement survey a plat or other
survey information, which could clarifY this point.
Resoonse: Here appears to be an attempt to muddy the waters with specu lation.
Enclosed (Exhibit "A") is copy of the Deed by which the City acquired its title to for the above "City.
owned parcel", certain rear portions of Lots in Block 32. The City, no doubt also, has this deed in
its files. The description does 1lQ! include the rear 20 Lots A, B, and C of Block 32, which the
surveyor described in the legal descriptions from the public records as part of the Johnson Parcel
on the Plat. Mr. Bendon was given 5 copies of the Annexation/Lot Line Adjustment Plat.
3. The other items as cited as reasons for the denial are irrelevant: applicant has not provided an
improvement survey (for unimproved vacant land???), designs for mail box, landscaping,
improvements, etc., for vacant land and vegetation species. Do the above examples indicate that
the staff has lost sight of the creative objective of planning? It appears that the Planning
Department has lost sight of the positive purpose of planning, to be creative and foster a
harmoniously functioning community and valley, and become a negative, obstructive, paper
shuffling bureaucracy.
.
4
; ..
1: .0
;i ~l
!~ 11
ir i:
:1. ,-
::! ;i
:;i zj
:;; ~j
~!! 1.
;, I ~:!
BoO j:y
, '-1' "\
; :. Ii
: ,1: ~,"
. ..... ..
; h; :1!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l:.l
::::
o
'.
'-'
-}
"'Ci
c'
O!
~.
CI
~\
'-,
0:
~,
tIl:
0'
,
::l
I
I
!I
.
~
c,;:
~ii
'\' ;
I
I
I
I
I
.i
~ !
C>
. !:
"
H
~ V
"
~ir
~ I~;j
/1;);:. _
"\:.- --
i:~:
-~..
t::
1"11
!:::
....
,-....
:......
l
I
,
C
o
tIl
C
~
"0
....,
<t
1920
. .
...........
. !
. .
. .
. .
. -
: i
i .
, ,
: .
: =:
. .
. . .
-j--~ 00
~ ':
...
~
I j
I "
I~
I
I
EXHIBIT "8"
\:
~
/
o
~
- -
~
~
~
... 1 ~
~ .. I
.....:. :: i ;=
~ ; 1 :: ;I
. 0.... .. ..
: ~! I'~ i ;
; I. 'I; ;
')0. .. r ..
: ~.. .. ., t,
> ,
c_
"
~
! I
'"
"
~
.I ::
i i
:;
L
~
'"
'"
o
L
o
-
:i
!
"
'"'
L
~
~
'.. -.
'..........
.
---
,
...
..
. >
~ -
:: .
. -=
, "
o .
::; ~
; >
,
41 -J
~E
I (
I I J
I I I
"
" I I
"." I . (
,/ I
~ ,
,
!
; i
i;
5: .
.! . iI'
" ,
;: ~:a
:! :!
:t, ~
..~ ..
::: ~:
'-3 .,
:;, "
:.;). .-
:'! it
H= I:
"j ;'.
!j.. j;;
!-j "1
_:~.:!,! t:;
~;!
I
I
I
I
I
I '~I
I~I
tl
('
'.' I
I:
o
'"
I:
..c
o
......
I
/
,j
=r
Co
e!=
~
~Ji
~!;'
.~"
~.,
----
,
)
/
~
~
~;
't=
.
EXHIBIT "e"
~
~
<<
...
...
:z:.:. .:
~:' I = -:
2. ; : .. :
1oJ... ..~ :
I ~ - :
>-- . "'
u_..: ..
~: 'i
" .
~
u
'"
~
w
>
<<
:>
~
1 ~
. .. }
: ;
/
o
-
J:
~
..
<<
'"
o
~
o
-
'"
...
...
~
~
u
H
1;~:
~m
,_.
!---
"0-
1:,
o
S
t'l
5
. ~
...
~ .
. -=
~ u
" .
... .
~
. .
~
-
'"
o
....J
"
!'j -,
,: i~
;; !:
I
I
I
.
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXHITBIT "D"
.
HAND DELIVER
P. O. Box 4959
Aspen, Colorado 81612
970-925-5360
March 4, 1999
Ms. Julie Ann Woods;
Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Director
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Reeder/Johnson Lot Line Adjustment
Dear Ms. Woods:
~~(P'1f
I received the attached letter from Mr. Johnson which he has requested that I deliver to you.
I have reviewed the letter and support Mr. Johnson's position.
It is my understanding that you are head of the combined Aspen/Pitkin County Community
Development Office and that you apparently have authority to approve Lot Line Adjusnnents for
both Aspen (Sec. 26.88.0308.) and Pitkin County (Sec. 4-40-020 D.). Yet, Mr. Bendon in his
Memo to you, dated November 9, 1998, stated in the third paragraph:
".... Because its [Reeder parcel] not within the City's jurisdiction, the Community
Development Director does not have the authority to approve an Insubstantial Lot
Line Adjusnnent...".
Lost Diamond, Inc. has considered annexing all of Parcel "C", instead of just that portion
involved in the exchange with Mr. Johnson. However, the burden of Aspen's Real Estate
Transfer Taxes is the biggest reason for not annexing.
If the City agrees to include the following conditions in any Annexation Agre~ment then
Lost Diamond would be willing to consider annexing all of its lands:
1. Real Estate Transfer Taxes (REm - The present owners, Lost Diamond
and Silviculture and/or any immediate purchaser(s) shall be exernpted from paying
any City imposed Real Estate Transfer Taxes. The RETI shall become effective
whenever the initial purchaser(s) resell the annexed properties.
2. Zoning - The annexed properties shall be given a zoning classification
that does not reduce the maximum floor area that is allowed under present County
regulations. .
Incidently, I am enclosing a copy of a Title Insurance Conunitment, effective date 01/19/99
that covers all parcels; namely, "A" through "E".
Should you have any questions, please contact me at your convenience.
'"
Lyle D. Reeder, President of
Lost Diamond, Inc.
'Footnote: I am also President of Silviculture, Ltd., that owns two small parcels "M.S. 7329" and
"Government Lot IS" (parcel "E"), which are shown on the Annexation Plat. Silviculture is agreeable to
panicipation in annexing its lands in the event Lost Diamond decides to annex. The access is through the alley.
~
~
---
cs
:::",
"'"
,
I ~
I ........
I ~
I 0...
C)
I ~
I
I '---.
I v,
r .
I "-l
...
~
I
I
I
I
l
, .
{
J
I
i
i
!
j
I
I
I
J
3;
!{
w'
0:
O'
wI
I
I
f
i
i
!
{
I
/
!I
:,
f
!
I
f
'!
j
j
- ,
z ,
~:
~o
<~
w
,
~,
~ ,
w'
u
U~
<Q
- W
,"1~
-~
"-
"-.
,
oc
~ \
~ \ \
~ 0 \"
oc J
- /
I j ,~~:.
;', ,'8
''::- c .
.- ^-
I
EXHITBIT "F"
u
o
~
J
.P /
/
...-
I
I
N
...
'""
~
"'
N
Q
0.::
U
o
-'
en
-
o
~
I
I
<
o
~
ez.""
.., et,oS' ."'s .
~
1---"
I ,z,z"j
: B ;'
1 ~ /
w '
I. ~ /
I~ l:c: ,
i~ y
,
...
-
~
~ 0
- ~
-
"'
o
~
,
oc 8
~ ~
- -
~ .
N '< :
~ 1
1 /
, /
--1l
V
"
, ,z
.w
'"
o
;,.,
-
"
,
IS
o
~
m
"
w
-~ -
"
~
-------- ---
,
/\
-' I
EXHIBIT ",:;.,."
..-
./
l. )'
.~
.
.'
"
.'
.'
~ .
~" -~,-~
~:Q' ~/ ~
'.. 'Of
-',
.
F~7
CO;\E\IIT\IEI\T FOR TITLE I~SlJRAI\CE
SCHEDULE A
l.
==::ecti~~.2
I:'ate:
C'/'O/~'
- _J JJ
at
08: 30 ;'_.M.
Cas: No. :CT-9607C5
2.
::::licy c:-
?olicies to be iS5~ed:
:a.) ;'.L7.~.
O~~e~'s ~olicy-=c~~
, C.C?
_..J.....
.:'.::10''':::;'cS T3D
?:-cposec I~sured:
??O?O?;.-'_~_
?:::-e::;:.umS
?a:2: ST."--1\iD_~_?D
(~) A~TA Loa~ Policy-?o:::-~ l?92
.::_:r:c~..:::cS
:;:::-e~:,ur;LS
?.ac::
::-cposed I::surec:
Tax Ce~tifica~e: S~C.C:
~ Title to the F~~ SIX?~== estate or inte=es~ i::;. the la~d desc=i~e= C~
:-e:~rred to in this Co~mi:men: is at the e:feccive da~e hereof
'''2sted i:1:
S7_~~=ORD ~. JOENSO~, AS ~O ?~~C~LS A ~~~D 3
LOST DI~~OND, INC., A COLO~~~O CO??O~~T!ON, AS TO F."--~C~LS C ;'~D D
SILVICU~7G~~, LTD., A CC:O~;DO CO??O~;TION, AS TO ?~RC~L ~
I
I
I ~. 7~e la~d ~efe~red to i~ t~:s Cc~~itment is situated in the Cou::ty
I c: ?ITKI~, State of CO~O~~~O a~d is described as follows:
See Attached ~xhibic "A"
?!T~IN COu~TY TITL~, !NC.
60l ~. ::O?~INS
AS?~N, CO. 81611
970-925-l766
970-925-6527 F~~
A~7~~?IZ~D AG~NT
Schedule .:;-?G.l
. ., ~ . .
7his Com~~~~e~~ ~s ~~~a~~c
u~less t~e I~su~:~~
~=ovisio~s aDd S=~=d~:es
A and 3 a=e attac~==.
_....-- --
=...\.-:.:..=. J...:. ..
;:.:_=.C:E:~ .~.:
.:.. ::-ac-: c: ::"2.:-.::' sitt.:.3.ced ~:-.e SO,.t~...::.;::c::- Qt.:=.....-.::....... C= c::~C... ; 0..... "": 2
7=~~S~~? :: Sc~:t, ~a~q~ __ K~S: e~ ~~;-~:i ~~;~-b~~~;-a~;a;:-o~ :~~
c:.::: a:-.:: 7":','::-.5:..te c: .~.5~;'=:--., T:-.e :--1. :.;. (c.~:a i'-!a:-:~ Has:-.i:-.q:o:1) Lec:::
>::..:--.i:;,q Cla.:..::-. u.S.r-!.S. ~:o. 57?; a:;,c. 'The tv!a:-y =. Nc. :2 ~~c.e !'-'!:..:-.:..=-.~
C::"aim G.S.~:.S. ~o. 19540, ~=s==ibed as follo~5:
=~_~~_~__ a: Cc:-~e= No. ' __ :~= said M.W. Lcde w~ence Co:-~e~ ~c.
_---c--_~~..7e-:.::.-.-=.-. -_-_- c._f' .i:._---_..----.. ~;::.--=----- ..... .. ,.. ,..
_ _ _ .. _ _ ~ oco5513011 .... 3,2~S.5o ~==~;
c:
I
.
I
~~=~ca N 7;=3E' E E3.7e ~==_ al=~g line 1-5 c: said M.W. Lede, to -~~
T~~~ ?O~~~ 0: =~GI~~:NG;
:~=~ce ~ 02~261 ~ 3~2.40 :eet :0 t~e Scutt li~= 0: E~~~i~s S:~ee~
~~=~ce t~e ~oi~t o~ i~:e~s=c:~c~ 0: the said So~th l~~e of ~c=ki~s
S;::-eet !,.;:..t:-. li:-~e 1-5 of "C~.e !'-!a:-y ..... Lece M:..r:.i:-.g Claim U.S.r-!.S. Ko.
:i~2 (:.:::pc:.:2:-.t.e::.) :::ea~s!'i 13~c.=r:!..111 H 62.75 :-=:e~;
:~=~c~ 5 "i3'09'll" ::: l:::.C: :=~: a2.o,.s saic So~:h lin~
.s::-eet ar:'::, :"Cs e:<t-2::1sic:-. ::: t:.....: !,jo~tr..,.;-=ste~ly Cc::-r~e::- 0:
32 of said cicy a~d Tew~s::e 0: As~e~;
:~e~ce Sou:~erlv alone th-=: w25"Ce~lv line of said Lot AI 66.77 fee~ "co
~:~: 3-4 0: said M.W.-Loce; .
:~e~ce S 530161 ~ 65.69 ____ a~o~q said li~e 3-4 to Co:-ne~ 4 0: sa:.c
:'1.:';. Lcde;
:~~~ce 5 02'26' W 133.9 ----
:~=::ce S 76~361 W :!..95.03 feet
T~:...:::: POINT 0: 3:SGIl';NI~jG.
0: Eo~~i:-.s
Let .~., 3lcc:,
:0 Co:::-ner 5
along li:12
0: said M.W. Lode;
5-1 0: saic M.W. Loc~
to
...~~
1.....-
~.:_~C:::L 3:
,"'=: S0l7I"::=:?I. Y 20
~::::::'i:" 0: :'0,5
,
.-.,
3,
C,
S:'OC?C 32,
CITY ;ED TOw~SITS 0:
.;S?::N.
~X::::P7 ctose tracts 0: ~a::c lyi~~ within the above Parcels A & 3
cc~ve~ed ~v Sca~fo=d ~. ~C~~50~ to Les= D:.a2o~d, Inc., by Deed
:-eco:-ded Nove~ber 17, :!..936 ~~ 300k 522 a: Page 836'and May 25, 1935
i~ 300~ 564 at Page 863.
?~_='C:::I. c:
A c:-act 0: la~d situa~e~ the Se~~heast Qua:-:er of Section l2,
7~wnst~; :0 Southl Ra~S2 5S West of th~ 5th ?~!., Pitkin Cou~:v,
_o~ora::::J, :~: H. W. (a;.;a 1'!a:::-:ha Wasii:1sto,.) Lece Ninins Claim U..S.~!. S.
~8. 5793 d2sc~ibed as follo~s:
3eginning a= Cor~e= No. 2 c~ said M.W. Lcde ~!i~ing Claim
~o. a 0: 7cw~site 0= A5;e~, Colo:-ado bea=s 5 6005313011 ~
:~=~c~ ~ 760381 ~ 63.70 fee: along li~e 1-5 of said M.W.
:la:..~ to the TRUE POIN7 0: 3~G~~~ING;
:~=~ce N 02025' ~ 321.47 fee: :0 Li~e '-0 c: =~e Tow~site o~ Asoen;
::-.::-~ce S 5:;0161 East al.:;:-.9' s=.id lir~e 7-8 to :r-.e To',.;:;,s:.te 0: .~.5pe:!
223.15 feet;
W:lence CO:::1e::
3268.56 fee:;
Lcde !'-lini:-.g
:::::1ce S 020261
:~~~ce S 75038'
H 155.9:
Wl96.0::
feet to the TRU~ ?OINT 0: 3EGI~mING.
~Q~- ,
---'-,
~X;-':I3IT ... (Co:-..ti:-.l...:-:=-J
:.:_:;.C::::~ D:
~ ~a~cel c: la~d be:~q p=~: of Lot 17, sit~a:~i ~~ Ses:ic~ 12,
~:w~s~i~ 10 Sout~, Ra~ge 5~ Wes: 0: ct~ 6th ?M., lyi~c So~tt~=ly c:
~~e As~e~ City So~:te~ly =o~~ca:-y, a~c No=tr.^este~ly of Li~e 2-3 c:
r,~'i 51..1=.\.:e1" );00 57S3, \....:--.:.c:-. is f~=t.he~ cesc:-i::e:: as:
=:gl.n:;'l~..g at, th~ i:-o::-=:-sec:io:;, c: said o~.s?e:: =:t.:.r.c.a:-y a:;.d Li:-.= 2-3/
a~os bel~g t~e ~o=t~ea5~ Cc=~e= of said Lot :7;
~.; 14:.2= fee:
.. . . ....
a.lc::g sal.G LJ.:..::e
2-]
tc
........,:).
~........
S::'..:::-.ea.se
I
I
t~e~ce S 75033'001'.
C:~~e= of ~ot 17;
t~e~ce N 5302012411 ~;
t~e~ce N 02026'0011 -
t~e~ce S 55017'0611
~:~t~east CQ~~er 0:
~ -~
_. I.
_-::::::...
alo~g said La: 17.~cut~e~ly bc~::ia~y;
to a po.:..~t c:: sale Aspe~ bCU::C3:-Y;
a~ong saic ~:~en =ou::ca:-y tC t::e
the poine 0: begi~~i::q.
I
I
I
~3.C: .;..::::::...
....., ,..
_ L._.c-: .l..'::':::...
said ~o: 17,
:.::3..CE!.J
I..0:
18 .~_,iJ 1>-,. s.
6 T:: P. ~.! .
7329,
S:::C::O)i
, ?
--,
~O\DS:::=?
10
SOtJ7::,
?_~...;.'JG::: 8 5 ~";:::S"T 0:
,......-
CJu~TY 0" ?IT~IN, STAT~ 0: COLO?~~O.
I
sc~~~c~~ B S~CTION-
:=.~QUIR~M:::~TS
~~; :o~loW:~~ a~e
.,._:-.., (",) ==-!",-=:-.c:
c: :::"'.-= :-..:.1:'
t~2 ~=~~:~~~=~:s ~c be co~;~::c witt:
to C~ fc~ ~~~ accc~~~ 0: ~r.= q~a~to~S
:..:-_:-=~es::
0:- r:1c:-:.qaq.::-s
be .:..::s',;:-ec..
I
.,.-:-v (bl ~~c9-=~ i~5=~~~-=~=(5' c~-=",=i~g c:~-= -=5=",:e o~ i~te~es= =0 b-=
i~5~~-=d "~5= b-= -=x-=c~tei a~i i~l! filed ~o~ ~ec~~d to-~~t:
, . . ~ .
cO~5lce:-a::c~ :c:- ::~e estate 0:-
, _-=eo. =~o", STi'.)j?O?-:J:-:. -:-::-:):S:":;, .~.S TO ?'-_?C:::".3 '- .'-.);;) ;; ;.S:; ~O.3T
::.'-.:.,0:;::;, :,;C. ,'-, CO~O?~'-.!:C C??O?.~.TIo:>r, ;..5 TO ?i'.?C:::LS C ,::.);:J ;) ,,-.);:J
S::"VIC~:"TL~:::' :..T;)., ~ CO~C?.~:O CO~?O?.~TIO~. ~.3 TO ?A~C:::L :::
?A~7I~S 70 ~~ :~:~~~!~~D
~~~o.e~ce s=-:is~ac:c~! :o.=~-= Co~~a~y tta: t~-= ~-=~l
.::.x as es:.;.~lis:;'2d. =:y 0::-::':':-.:=':-.=2 No. 20 (S-e:::-~e= or
:':c. __ (Se~i-=s of :'9S~) :-.=-5 c-=e:-. paid o~ e;",:7_::=-=d.
1979) a~d O~di~",~ce
;------
~~...c.'_..:
7......;:-:::,:::......
---..-----
C-=~cifica=e o~ non~o~eig~ s==-=~s execu=-=d by =~-= :~a~5=e~o~(s).
:~s::-~~e~: :s ~o~ :-e~~:..:-e= :~ =e ~eco~c2d)
( ,:-,~5
~~:.ce~ce sacis:acto:-y to
~=tice to Cou~ty Assess==
as
Co~pa~y t~at tte
:-eqtl::-ec. by ::. =.
Dec~ara:io~ of Sale,
1235 has be-=~ cC~9li-=d
".':l.::'. "
(Tr,'.5
l.r'.S t ~'.:.::-.2:~~:
is :-.:: ~e.~-..:i.re:5.
. . .
to ;:,e. :-e::r::-c:e.:c.,
b,.- ~\'C:~
......... \.,....--
~~
::2::.ive:-.ec
~ ,.."
:0 a~c reca~~ec =~" t~e
property is si.c~a:ed)
Assessors o::ice
~n
che
Cour"~,y
J.. :-~
, ., .
"".;:-~:.cn t:1S
5. :c~~lecic~ of ?o~m D~ 1019 =eg=-~ding t~e.wit~olding o~ Colc~ado Tax
en the sa~e by ce~"Ca~r. E:e=5?:-.s. ,co~9o~a=lcns a:-.d ::l~r:-,S selling F.eal
~=o::e~"CY ~~ tne State 0= Co_o~aco. (This lns::~ument is-not ~e~ul~ec
=0 De ~eco~deci)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
l~:
SC~2~uLE B S2CTION 2
EXCEPTIONS
~olicy O~ oc~icies
to
~e :8s~ed will cc~:a:~
a:-e c.i.spcsed of to ......_
eX=2pc:O~S to t~e
. - . -
satlS:~CC~C~ 0: t~=
~ol:=w:~g u~:ess =~e ~a...=
COi:".;;:.:-.:':
...:S:::5
c:::." c:'a:.:::s
0:
"" "
;a:::.":::s ::: ;~S5eS5:~~ ~=~
5::,::....7. :::r
C:".:
;::~~..:.:.=
:::."-=:CC:::."::'5.
,
:::3.53:7.3::::5,
.. -
O~ c~a:.~,s c: ~3S-=~~:::.s,
;:ot: 5::C....-:: ::1' :::: :n..:.::l:..:: :::."ec.:::::."::.,s.
J:'S=:::."3~a~=:.es, cc=::1:'':::5 i:: =c~::::'3o:::.": li::~5, s::c:::.":s:: ::: a:::."~~, ~::c:::."ca=~~=:::s
a::y :ac:s ~~ic~ a C:::::.":::.":C: s~:::."~:y a::~ :'::5;3C::"C:: c: :::e p:::."e~ises ~culd d:.scl:s3
a~::. ~:::.c:: a:::."e ~=t: s::=~~ =y :::3 ;~=:ic :::-ecc:::-cs.
.:'_--:..:"
.:.:3::',
. . . .
c:::- ~:'S::t :: a ..:.:e::,
::::: s-=:::."~tices,
130:::':::::." ,
-;:: ....::.-~ ='
...-------
. -
::3::-e:=:::::::3
c=
I
I
::e:::33o::e::: :-..:.:::."::-.:"5:-_==, :'::-.;:":53': :::; 130..... a::= ::.::= s:-.c....7'. =:: '::::= ;:-...:.::::.:..c :::."eco:::."c.s.
:'e:2C::'5, .!..:.e::.s, e::':::":'::-":::-.?:::3S, a':-.-3::-53 cla.:'i7:s c= c::-_-=:= ::-.a::e:::-5, :.: a:-_:-',
I
=:--=a.:e::.,
:::::5': a~;ea=:.::q ::: :::e ;:~~l:..c :-eccrC5 C= a::sc:::.::g s~=se~~e::c
e.~
e::ec:ive ::'30:: ~e:::."e::: =-...:.: ;:-:::= :~ ~::e d3~: c~: ;:~=;~sec :::5~~3d ac~~i:::."~s
:: =:~o~= :o~ valee :~~ es:~:~ C~ ~~~e:e5: c: ~c~:=~=e :~===C~ co~e:~= .
::-:i5 Cor.:i:".':' :::1e:"_=.
:o.:-::s due a::= ;:a:.-.a::Jle; a::.:: a:::,- :3.:':., 5p.::cial assess:::::::, c::3.:;= c: lie:: i.:::;c.s=.:.
.....a':e~
c=
se......e= S3~.,,-::e
c:-
:::- a:".y oc.~e:-
5;ec:.3.:'
. . . .
:3.:-:~::S' c:.s:=:..c:.
I. .__"'04'" of c...._s p~op=-ietc~ c~ a vei:: 0:- loce 'C';:) ex:~ac~ a::d :-e:::ove .r.:'5
c~e ~heref~om, s~o~ld tte sa~: be fo~~d 'C~ ~e::e:=-ace or intersect cr.e
c~emises terebv cra~tei a~d r~cht of way fc~ c:.:c~es or ca~als
~ . ..J -,.
constructed by the a~:to:-:cy of the United 5:a:es as rese~ved i~
~~ited States ?ate~t reco~ced Sepcember 1S, :923 i~ 300k 135 a'C
?aaes 405 a::d 453
S :::aser::ent !O~ i::gress ar~c
N . 1 7 1986 ' - 30ck
10.,le;:'..r)er ,
522
-~
co.,""
as set !O~t;'_
Page 835.
Deed
reco:-ded
e:;ress
N.JTE:: In t:"_e
e.,rent
tta: a ~~rchaser acquires
all of tr.e p:-operty
t~e a=ove exception will
described :":1
t::is
. .
cc~~:.t~e~t u::ce:- o~e na~e
te delete8..
I
~his commit~e~t is i~valid ~~less
:~e Ins~ri~g Provis~c::s ~~d Sc~edules
~ a~a B a~e attached.
Sc~eiule 3-Sectio~ 2
Co~~:=me~~ No. ?CT-9507C3
I
I
;'I~
_:'..D!::?IC~A!J I~:O?~!.ATION
.'S:: Dr SCLOSU?=:S
T~e O~~~~'s ?olicy to C~ iss~e~, if a~y s~all cc~tai~ :~~ fcllo~i~q
ite~s :~ adc:ci~~ to -~- c~~s set !o~tn a=ove:
(:U Tr:.e D-=:ec:. 0: T:-L:s:, . - ::..<, t :-e~~.li.rec. u:-~c.e::: Sc:--.ec.ulo2 = -Sectic:: :.,
(2) Wa:e:- :-ig~:s, c~~:~s C~ ti:le to wa:~~~ (NC7c: T~~S ~XC~?7Z0N
/i .:..~~ .::..?~~_;;?~ Or; 'T;-.:~ C':';X~? r 5 .::'2-j~ p.!O?~TG.:;':::::: ~O~ZC~=:- 'TO 3:=: :S3L7=::J
;-.::::?:::u:jJ::::=J
~~=s~~~: tc .:..~s~:-a~ce ~~~~:a:i:~ 89-2;
XC::::: :::~c:-. t.itle e~l:i:y s::~:l =-_,:)tify i:: ,..,t:-.:.;::.:-.9' e~,te:::-y ;;=::.s~ec::...re
i~s~~~d :.~ an C~~~=15 ti:le i~su=a::ce policy fo:- a s:::;12 !a~:~v
:"es:c:e::ce (i~~cl'...:.=.i::= =.. c:::-.c.c~ir".ir:-, c= ::'C".'i:-.:-~ouse 11~::') (i) of
_......__ title e:::.:.:::,.'.5 qe:-.==.al =e~~..:..!.=e::-~e::ts :a:::- cr_e dele:ic:-~ c: a:-.
ex=e;:ion 0= excl~3i=~ t= co~e~age ~ela:i~g to ~:::iled ~ec~a::ics
c:- ;::a.teria1r..e:-:s __ _u_, e:-:::ept ......r_e:-. saic cove~ase c:- ::-.st.::"a:1ce __
exte~cec to cte ~~5~~~i ~~de:- the te=~s 0: ct~ pclic~.. ~
sa~is:actc~y a:~i~av.:.: a~~ a;=eeme~:. i~~e~~~fyi~g :~e Cc~~a~v
a~ai~5c ~~fil~~ ~~=~a~icsl a~d/o= ~ac~~ial~e~'s Lie::s ex~c~:e=
=y t~e pe~so~s .:.~iica:ed i~ t~e atcac~ed copy of sai~ a~:idavi:
~~5t ~e f~~~is~~i ~c :te Co~pa~y. U~C~ :-o2ceipt 0: c~ese ~ce~s
a~d a~y ctte~s =e~~:=~~~~:s to be s~eciEiec by t~e Cc~pa~y t.:~c~
=e~ues:, P=e-~=i~:=d ::e~ Nt.:~~e:::- 4 ~ay be deleted fycm the
~......:1e.= I s ~o~i.c',' .,'':~e:-~ :ss~ed. ?lease co~ta.::: t::e ~o:7'.;a::y :0=
:t.:~t~e~ ~~=C~-~:lC~. NO:hitts:a~c~~q .t~e ~o=eg~:~gt ,~ot.~~~g
c~~ca:~ec i~ ~~s ?a=~g=a?h s~all ~e cee~=c to :~~ose a~y
I
I
=equi=eme:1t
u:ater-la.l:7er:E
:;o,~ :
IE
.........=.
1",.._-
c i :-ct:.:n::
filir.; Jf
...;ill be C~:-
::...:.:-s:..:.a:-.:
to 5-7=
(= \
T:-_c
D':"2"::-
(:::)
.0..
-~= :
me.'
7:::"22.S',
(e)
c :-.:e::-~
s"..:c::-.
C :::rr.~l =
.~,sses:=
:-:o:~;
.~_ t. ~.:( Ce:;:'
:::-.e CCli.p~
t.::-.102s5 i,,,.-;:-
CCi:".;:Ja.:-.y ;:
:~ a~y :it~e i~su:::-e~ to p~ovid: mec~a~~C5 0=
:'::1 co~:==aS'e.
,-
_....J.
c::::-::....:.::.s
closi:-.g t.:~c.e~
:r..e cT.....::e~s C~
10'""1-....
_'-' c..~
~,.;::==e
fo:::- tr..: reco~ci~g 0=
, "
=espo:'.S1..o..!..e
~l coc~~e~ts from said transaccio~t t~_= Compa~y
..., to :.a./e p:.-ovided IIG3.p Cove~age II
...::-
- ill c,
.. (e?s 10-ll-122);
?:-ope:.-cy may be 1ccaceG
a Special Taxi::;
in
,_ ~e5.l
'"'
--~.=. c: ~~x~- Du.=. ,;s~;-~ ~~-~ ~~-.(~-."_q -J'~~_l~~icrio~
~;;:::.~- . -'- ~_. -:;, - -- --..::; --....... '-'- -: - ------
:al~e~ ~o~m the Cou~ty t:::e~s~:::-e~ or the County
:s At.:~~o=ized Agent;
~n :-ega==i~g Special D~s~:-icts a~d the bounda~io2s 0:
.=icts cay be obtained f=c~ t~e Boayc of'County
:ne=s, t~= COl1nty Cleyk and Recorder, or the Cou~ty
" .
:~en :::s::-~ct.~cn to
...:.-.~
1",...-
frOM tte County T=easu~e~ by
. .. . . .
c~a=go2~ to t~o2 prcpose~ :~s~re=
cc~::-ary a=e received by tte
t~~= 7itle Policy a::cicipated cy
:ica:e Ni~l be o:-cered
a=:= t~e casts the~eof
c:".:s Cor;::--":.. :.r::e:lt:.
:0:::- co t~e :sst.:a~ce of
:i:s C8~~~t~e~: ~s inva~id ~~less
:~e :::s~=:nq ?==~isio::s a::~ Sc~e~u1es
~ a~i 3 a=e ~:.t~=r..ed.
S=~edule B-Section 2
C=~~it~enc No. ?CT-9507C3
. ..:. '-.'
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
JOHNSON PARCEL
CITY MONUMENT
SE BLOCK 19
G--
PARCEL A
A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12.
rOWNsHIPJOSQVTH.RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6th P'.t.l. BEING SITUATED
IN . TflE:C I JY AND T-oWNS I TE OF ASPEN. PI TK I N COUNTY. COLORADO DESCR I BEQ ..
AS FOLL()WS: . .
',. .'
BEGJ NNiNG../IT CORNER NO. I OF SA I D 101. W. LODE WHENCE CORNER NO. 6 OF SA / D
TQWRSHE', OF ASP'EN BEARS S60.S8'30'E 3.368.56 FEET:
THeNcEN7.6~38'E 63;70 FEET ALONG LINE 1-5 OF SAID lA.W. LODE.
THaNCE NQ2026'E 325.12 FEET TO LINE 7-8 ASPEN TOWNSITE. THE TRUE POINT
OF BEGI N1HNG:
THENCE NO~.26'E 16.39 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF WEST
HQPJS,INS ".'A.VEH.UE:
THENQ;!I' >. S!~.. 'II-E. 152.37 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY AND ITS
EXTJ;NIH ,.'TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF lOT. A. BLOCK 32 OF SA IDe I TY
AND . 'lE OF ASPEN:
THE. . ,$ InERt Y . ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SA 1.0 LOT A. 69.79 FEET TO LINE
7"'a '''8~ . .TOWNS I TE: '
THEN~(N550I7'06'W 158.27 FEET TO THE~ POINT OF BEGINNING.
PAA<iEL 8:
THE SOUTHERLY 20 FEET OF LOTS A. B. C. BLOCK 32. CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN.
LOST DIAMOND PARCEL
I
PARCEL C
A TRACT'OF LAND $ITVATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12.
TotP.I$lilP 10 SOUTH. RA~ 85 WEST OF THE 6th P.t.l.. PITKIN COUNTY. "'\
COLORADO. THE ".W.Caka MARTHA WASHINGTON) LODE IoIINIt.lG CLAIM U.S.M.S.
NO .5793 OESCR IBEO AS FOLLOWS:. C \
.,
BEGIMlING AT CORNER NO. I OF SAID t.l.W. LODE t.lINING CLAI"" WHENCE (__,,/ /
CORNER NO. 8 OF ASPEN TOWNSITE BEARS S60.S8'30'E 3268.56 FEET: . /
JHENCE;N76038'E 63,70 FEET ALONG LINE 1-5 OF SAID t.l.W. LODE ""INING L'//'j/I '.
CLAl~TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING:
THENCE. H02.26'E 321,47 FEET TO liNE 7-6 OF THE TOWNSITE OF ASPEN: /'
~ SSS.I15'E ALONG SAID LINE 7-8 TO THE TOWNSITE OF ASPEN 223 15 "EE7
THENCE '$02026" 155.90 FEET:
THENOE 576038" 196.05 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING,
PAR.c;EI... D.
. .
A PARCEL OF LAND BEING PART OF.lOT 17. SITUATED IN SECTION /2.
TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH. RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6th P.M.. LYING SOUTHERlr Or
THE ~SP~ ~ITY SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY. AND NORTHWESTERLY OF LINE 2-3' OF
W.S~VEYNO. 5103, WHICH IS FURTHER DESCRIBED AS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF SAID ASPEN BOUNDARY AND LINE 2-3
ALSO BEl NO THE .NORTHEAST C>>RNER OF SAI D LOT 17:
THENCE S '760J8'OO.W 14.65 FEET ALONG SAID LINE 2-3 TO THE SOUTHEAST
COf{NER OF LOT 17: . ',.'. .
THENCE N S5"17'06"E 21.64 FEET ALONG SAID ASPEN BOUNDARY TO THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 17, THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
I
I
i
I i
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
~ JOHNSON TO LOST DIAMOND
LO
,
A..jRAClOF LI<ND,SITUATED IN THE SOUTHEAST OUARTER OF SECTION 12.
. TOWWSHtl'. I O~OUJ1h RAI{GE Jl5 WEST OF THE 6, h P.M. BE I NG S fTUA TED
.ltl~nlE'CfTY :AJ.l1l'lOWNSITE OF ASPEN. PITK~N COUNTY. COLORAOO DESCRIBED
AS"OtL~S: . , '.
~~~,~~~~STERLY CORNER OF LOT A. BLOCK 32 OF SAID CITY
.~.JS. .r.I.~SO''..'il9''''~;?9' ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT A TO
L lW 7..a'ASl'E1l:!(l'fm$ITE: .
TFlEHCE' NS5~,I7"Q6.'.If:~5'.05 FEET ALONG SAiD LINE 7-8 ASPEN TOWNSITE:
l1iEtICE,Nl.o{~SO'<4g-'E 54.<48 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF WEST
HOP,KI}lS'AVEHUJ::< '.
THENCE S75.0Q":IVe. 42.73 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF
WEST HOPKINS'AVENUE TO THE POINT OF B~GINNING.
CONTAINING 4.433 SQUARE FEET I.lORE OR LESS.
MARY
S.UBDIVI.
,
. '.'
LOST DIAMOND TO JOHNSON
ANNEXA TI ON PARCEL
-,.
. . .
. , .
I '. I
A TRACT OFL~.SlfUATED iN THE SOUTHEAST OUARTER OF SECTION 12.
TQliNsa IP 10, S.OUJ:tl. RMlGE 85 WEST OF THE 6, h P .11.. PI TK I N COUNTY.
COLORADO. THE "~..(ako MARTHA WASH I NGTON I LODE MINiMa CLAIM U.S.~.S
.NO. :5793 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
-~ ~ ",
BEGINNiNG 'AT cORNER No. I OF SAID 1.1.'11. LODE MINING CLAI... WHENCE
COllNER NO.6.0F..~Pl,N 'J-O'IIllSITE BEARS S60.58'30'E 3268.56 FEET:
~,N76.38"E~"7a FEET ALONG LINE 1-5 OF SAID ....'11. LODE MINING
ClAIM: .' ' , , '
iREHCE'/:102.26'€.a-21.47 FEET TO LINE 7-8 OF THE TOWNSITE OF ASPEN THE
='POJNT '*'.1!l:5.1/lNlNG:
. .'S55.17).*~'I:f:S.22 FEET ALONG SAID LINE 7-8 ASPEN TOWNSITE:
T .'S'l"~SO'~W '24.'52'FEET:
THEHCEN77. 58' 49"W '1 J. 95 FEET:
THENCE N02.26"E ~. 14 FEET TO THE TRUE PO I NT OF BEG I loiN I NG .
I:
.
I
o
o
MEMORANDUM
RE:
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Christopher Bendon, Planner ~
Rceder/Johnson Lot Linc Adjustment
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
November 9, 1998
SUMMARY:
Stanford Johnson and Lyle Reeder have applied for an insubstantial property
boundary adjustment between their two ajoining parcels which are seperated by the
Township line. The Johnson parcel is located within the City of Aspen and consists
of the stub of 5th Street as it was originally platted, unplatted lands southwest of 5th
Street and Hopkins A venue, and rear portions of Lots A, B, and C of Block 32.
Reeder's parcel is a single metes and bounds parcel located entirely within Pitkin
County.
According to the City's GIS information, it appears that the rear portions of the Lots
within Block 32 may be part of a larger City-owned parcel. The applicant has not
provided a title or a legal definition for the Johnson parcel. Furthermore, the
applicant has not provided a site improvement survey, a plat, or other survey
information which could clarify this point.
The Reeder parcel is entirely in Pitkin County. Because its not within the City's
jurisdiction, the Community Development Director does not have the authority to
approve an Insubstantial Lot Line Adjustment. All portions of all lots being
considered for boundary amendments nced to be entirely within City limits for this
type plat amendment to be considered.
A request for annexating a portion of the Reeder parcel has been submitted to the
City Attorney. This petition, however, has not been accepted because it does not
include a legal description of the property or an annexation boundary map showing
the extent of land proposed for annexation. Again, all portion of all lots proposed for
boundary amendments would need to be entirely within the City. This would require
annexation of the entire Reeder parcel or subdivision of the Reeder parcel in Pitkin
County prior to annexation.
Lastly, the criteria for an insubstantial boundary amendment requires the applicant
demostrate a specific hardship. In this case, although the zoning provisions may
result in an odd-shaped building area, there still appears to be a reasonable use of the
property.
Staff has reviewed this proposal and recommends the Director deny the request.
o
o
ApPLICANT:
Stanford Johnson and Lyle Reeder, owners.
LOCATION:
5th Street and Hopkins A venue.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Lot Line Adjustment. The Community Development Director may approve, approve
with conditions, or deny a request for a lot line adjustment meeting those criteria
found in section 26.88.030.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit "A." The
application has been included as Exhibit "8."
RECOMMENDA TlON:
Staff recommends the Community Development Director deny this Lot Line
Adjustment.
DENIAL:
I hereby deny this request for a Lot Line Adjusment between the Johnson and Reeder
properties.
date fj. Yn /.f;1
ie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B -- Application
I
I
I
.
.
I
I
2
o
o
Exhibit A
The Planning Director shall exempt an adjustment of a lot line between contiguous lots if
all the following conditions are met.
1. It is demonstrated that the request is to correct an engineering or survey error in a
recorded plat or is to permit an insubstantial boundary change between adjacent parcels
Staff Finding:
There does not appear to be an engineering or survey error between these parcels
2. All landowners whose lot lines are being adjusted shall provide written consent to the
application.
Staff Finding:
Written consent has been provided. Land Titles showing ownership have not been
provided.
3. It is demonstrated that the request is to address specific hardship.
Staff Finding:
There does not appear to be a hardship which drastically reduces the owner's right
to use the property
4. The corrected plat will meet the standards of this division, and conform to the
requirements of this chapter, including the dimensional requirements of the zone district
in which the lots are located, except in cases of an existing nonconfoffi1ing lot, in which
the adjustment shall not increase the nonconformity of the lot.
Staff Finding:
A plat hs not been provided.
o
o
5. It is demonstrated that the lot line adjustment will not affect the development rights or
permitted density of the affected lots by providing the opportunity to create a new lot
for resale or development.
Staff Finding:
Without legal titles and a proposed plat, it is near impossible to determine the
relative development rights associated with each parcel before and after the amendment.
The Reeder parcel is in Pitkin County and not within the City's authority to approve a
plat.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
o
o
MEMORANDUM
From:
Chris Bendon, Planner
Nick Adeh, City Engin~
Chuck Roth, Project Engineer a 1:-
To:
Thru:
Date:
October 30, 1998
Re:
Reeder/Johnson Lot Line Adjustment
The Development Review Committee has reviewed the above referenced application at their October 21,
1998 meeting, and we have the following comments:
I. Improvement Survey - The application is incomplete because there is no improvement survey.
Additionally, the property must be fully monumented. It is important that the precise statement "All
easements of record are indicated on Title Policy No. , dated [within past 12 months]
and are shown hereon" be on the improvement survey in order to confirm developable areas.
2. Former Public Ril!ht-of-wav - The City Engineering "Vacations and Closures Map" indicates that
the former 5th Street public right-of-way was conveyed away in 1972 by quick claim deed. This is highly
unusual. Most if not all other indicated right-of-way property title transfers were created by vacation, by
ordinance or resolution. The records indicate this back to 1937. The significance of the mechanism of
transfer of ownership of the right-of-way relates to development abilities. Vacated rights-of-way are not
counted towards FAR. Was the right-of-way legally transferred by quick claim? The City or State statute
requires the conveyance of title to be by vacation. Was an election held to approve the deed conveying
title?
3. Annexation - If the lot line adjustment is approved, it should be with the condition that the portion of
the new lot that is now outside the City be annexed.
4. Final Plat - The contents of the final plat are stated in City Code S26.88.040.D.2.a.
5. Work in the Public Ril!ht-of-wav - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public rights-of-way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows:
The applicant must receive approval from city engineering (920-5080) for design of
improvements, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way, parks department (920-5120) for
vegetation species and for public trail disturbance, and streets department (920-5130) for mailboxes ,
o
o
street and alley cuts, and shall obtain pennits for any work or development, including landscaping, within
public rights-of-way from the city community development department. .
DRC Attendees
Staff: Chris Bendon, Sarah Oates, John Krueger, Chuck Roth
I
I
I
98M 186
~
STANFORD JOHNSON
HOH 416
ASPEN,COLORA0081612
co
September 24, 1998
Mr. Christopher Bendon
City of Aspen
Community Development
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Mr. Brendon:
The enclosed lot line adjustment request has dual purpose to: (1) overcome a
hardship of a narrow trapezoid shaped lot upon which an odd shaped triangular
shaped house would have to be built, and (2) to adjust the boundaries into a
normal rectangular shaped lot which would be in harmony and compatible with
the existing lots in the neighborhood for the general benefit of the community.
This request is made under the Subdivision Exemption by Planning Director for Lot
Line Exemption. The enclosed packet contains the information requested, as well
as, the chain of title showing my ownership of the area of land, which on some
maps appears to be an extension of South 5th Street, about which you were
concerned. In Addition Vince Higgins, at Pitkin County Title, said he would write
you a letter verifying my ownership of this tract of land. There are no deeds of
trust, mortgages, judgments, liens, contracts or agreements affecting the lands
involved in this Lot Line Adjustment. The existing 12 feet wide easement shown on
Attachment "1" will be extinguished simultaneously with approval of this Lot Line
Adjustment as per agreement (see Letter Agreement attached).
My address, and for the adjoining property owner, involve in this Lot Line
Adjustment, is listed below. Thank you for your assistance.
Very truly yours,
Stanford Johnson
Lyle Reeder, president
Lost Diamond, Inc.
Box 4859
Aspen, CO 81612
(970) 925 5360
8987 E. Tanque Verde Road #304
Tucson, AZ 85749
(520) 749 4081
I
C 0
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT EXEMPTION REQUEST
Property: This lot line adjustment involves Parcels A - B, on the Plat Attachment" I ", located
within the Aspen Townsite on the south side of Hopkins A venue at 5th Street. These parcels
together contain 8,213 square feet and are a residential home site in the City of Aspen (see
Letter from the Aspen City Attorney Attachment "2". The other property involved in this lot
line adjustment, Parcel C, is in Pitkin County and Owned by Lost Diamond, Inc. The zoning
is R-15 in both the City of Aspen and Pitkin County.
Problem: The City of Aspen Townsite Line 7-8, the rear boundary of the subject parcels A-
B runs at an obtuse angle to Hopkins A venue, the front boundary of the property, resulting in
a trapezoid shaped lot. Required setbacks creates a triangular shaped building envelope in
which only a triangular shaped house can be built as shown on Attachment "6".
Solution: This problem can be simply resolved by moving the total square footage contained
in Parcels A - B into a more rectangular shaped area as shown in green on the Plat,
Attachment "3". This would create a normal shaped site. Parcel C, colored blue, would
benefit by acquiring street frontage for a combination comfortable driveway and utility access
and room for landscaping along Hopkins. Included in the lot line adjustment proposal is the
Annexation of the rear portion of the reshaped site of parcels A - B into the City of Aspen..
SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION BY PLANNING DIRECTOR: This lot line adjustment meets
the 5 conditions for exemption as set forth in City Regulations, Attachment "4". The 5
conditions providing for lot line exemption by Planning Director are shown in
bold in the following explanation:
I. This is an insubstantial boundary change between adjacent parcels designed;
to improve both parcels A - Band C involved.
2. Written consent is provide by both landowners involved in Attachment "5".
3. Specific hardship exists due to the odd shaped of the elongated site in which
required setbacks would squeeze the building into an triangular shaped dewelling (see
Attachment "6"). Such a awkward shaped building reasonably would be objectionable to the
neighbors and detrimental to the appearance of the neighborhood. A set back variance would
not solve the problem only move the building closer to the Hopkins Avenue. If the site, llY.
simple lot line adiustment were reshaped into a rectan2"le, a normal shaDed house site would
be accomplished and the future aDDearance of the neiehborhood improved.
4. The corrected plat will meet the required standards with the exception that
this is an existing nonconforming lot, in which the adjustment shall not
increase the nonconformity of the lot. The lot line adjustment will improve the shape
in order to conform to the rectangular lots existing in the neighborhood.
I
I
5. The combination Lot Line Adjustment and Annexation Plat (Attachment "7") sets forth
that the lot line adjustment will not affect the development rights or permitted
density of the affected lots nor provide the opportunity to create to create a
new lot for resale or development.
!i. ~ :
ii
. .
. .
o ".
I '1 ''-
~-
~ ..
I .~
-< "'Dr
I .lJUWH
~ II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I i
.
,.
'"
.,
...
z
~
c::
it Z ~
~ , : .. ~ ..
-..1 !
~ t,. I i Z' .
:..... (') :
I' ':li_
~: ":I:
~.. .. l"<l
"i. ...,
h ~
~
~
I
I
/
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
~
'"
(\
ill
r-
./ I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
'" E ~
~ - 0
- , ~
0 - ...
~
~ -
! g
~ ~
::! .
. ':
. ';
--
k
~
""i
~
------
.
~
~
...
,
----
..........'1
......,
~
o
~
o
C\
'"
.
~
z
n
'"
------
--
"
..
o
-
...
'"
. "
:. n
". ---\-
_ f: (--
- "
. .
i; ':p
o .
: ;
. .
~ -
1.....-....
.
Ol6L
..
...
i ;
." ~.
.
:
I
..
:::i
;;:t
Hi;
::i
..;..;.
,,;i
(
,
i
---~~
'i 'b
'.::,:,
Ii"':;'
b '~
'r
.-
.,
it-
:~
!~
'.
~
~
<0
I;
/
i!~ ~:;
,;; =i; ..
It I l:t 1
rt .. t .
i:~ i~!
I:.: ":.
:1 ii~
II E~S:
.: 'I'
i: ..:
t:. t::
it :::
" ;1'
~i if
'Ii i~
. .,
.: ~i
... r
I
i
<.:).
~. .
. . .
; ~
, I
~
('..JA. ~r'" =
.,rn ~.,
w << .
> .... -
a:: w.: ~
::z:. = !:
:;: -"'.
1,,).. t _
: ~! !"! !
i >- / . ~ !
, ..... . 'J .
.. >!
<<-
:>
.,
I
o
~i
u
!
i
. ~
f~
if
': r
:I:
..
..
<<
C>
o
..
o
~
z
....
..
.,
..
j
..
:; H
!: u
:; :!
,- -
:!; r.
... ~a
:ii n
;!, ~,
.11 II
!i~ !f
'-I :~
Ii. i.1
i ~:i :~l
,1: ~.1
! ::: ':';"
::; :1.
j'"
.......
....... I...........
;~~
'III
!:::
.....
t;
~
1
!
,.
VE
!:::
--
~
...
~
..
i ...
f ~
--
:::
tJ
I:S
ct/
~ ~
, .
: \::
... '"
o .
~ ~
;:. :a
,
------
i
!
.
"
--
,
/
"
i
!.. ..,
-! ...
,- ,.
.....,.
~...
!i
C>
~
~
C>
~!
,,~
-----
..
1920
.
.1:
-.
:~
..
r
.
....-.....
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
.c.{j
'" "
~ ';
.$;;J;: _
~---
...
...
!
...
!
,
.
: ~
. .
- -
. ;
; y
'-
!
.
.
- ,
o
o
8987 EAST T ANQUE VERDE ROAD #304
TUCSON, ARIZONA 85749
(520) 749 4081
RECFn/ED
NOV 1 i 1998
A::'''''~f\J ,-I'f\IN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
November 2, 1998
Mr. Christopher Brendon
Planner
Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Johnson - Lost Diamond Lot Line Adjustment and Annexation Petition.
Dear Chris:
The enclosed is a copy of my letter to the City Attorney, John Worchester, suggesting a
solution on the City/County boundary line problem we discussed by telephone.
It is important to keep this Lot Line Adjustment process moving along. If there are any
other items which need to be discussed and resolved, I would appreciate hearing from
you by telephone or fax at (520) 749-4081. My Aspen address should not be used for
mail due to the 5 to 10 day mail travel times between Aspen and Tucson.
Tharik you for your assistance.
Yours truly,
~~
Stanford Johnson
o
o
8987 EAST TANQUE VERDE ROAD #304
TUCSON, ARIZONA 85749
(520) 749 4081
November 2, 1998
John P. Worchester, Esq.
Aspen City Attorney
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 8161 I
Re: Johnson - Lost Diamond Lot Line Adjustment and Annexation Petition.
Chris Bendon explained to me your observation that an unintended separate parcel may
result from the referenced Lot Line Adjustment because of the existence of the
underlying City/County boundary line. The City/County line of course would be
removed from crossing the new Johnson lot with the annexation of the rear portion. The
City/County line would still remain between the relinquished easterly portion of the
Johnson land that will be conveyed to Lost Diamond, Inc. and the existing Lost Diamond
land situated in the County. The City portion of the relinquished land conveyed to Lost
Diamond, would be in a different jurisdiction, and could be considered a separate parcel
and therefore a separate building site. .
The intent and purpose of Lost Diamond to participate in this Lot Line Adjustment is not
to gain a separate building site, but to obtain a suitable, attractive and workable entrance
to the tract of land owned by Lost Diamond in the County. This land would be used for
and provide a safe driveway access to the 5th and Hopkins intersection, utility access and
landscaping to ellhance the appearance of the property. The City of Aspen does not want
the possibility of an additional building site being created by the Lot Line Adjustment.
Therefore, the practical way to prevent this concern appears to be by deed restriction.
.
I
The following draft is'suggestcd as a safe guard to protect the City of Aspen from your
concern ofa separate building site resulting from the Lot Line Adjustment. This could be
added to the special warranty deed conveying the relinquished land from Johnson to Lost
Diamond:
The Grantor, Stanford Johnson, and the City of Aspen, being the authority
approving the Johnson - Lost Diamond Lol Line Adjustment dated
, restricts the above conveyed tract of land by prohibiling the
use as a dwelling site.
If in Ihe future any portion of the Grantees land described below as Parcel
C adjoining this deed restricted tract of land is annexed to the City of Aspen
this restriction shall terminate and the subject Iract of land shall merge with
that annexed portion of Parcel C.
. ~ ..
o
o
John P. Worchester, Esq.
Aspen City Attorney
November 2, 1998
Page 2
PARCEL C:
A tract of land situated in the Southeast Quarter of section 12,
Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., P~kin
County, Colorado, the M.W. (aka Martha Washington) Lode
Mining Claim U.S. M.S. No. 5793 described as follows:
Beginning at Comer No.2 of said M.W, Lode Mining Claim
whence Comer NO.8 of Townsite of Aspen, Colorado bears
S 60058'30. E 3268.56 feet; thence N 76"38' E 63.70 feet along
line 1-5 of said M.W. Lode Mining Claim to the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING:
thence N 02026' E 321.47 feet to Line 7 - 8 of the Townsite of
Aspen;
thence S 55016' East along said line 7 - 8 to the Townsite of
Aspen 223.15 feet;
thence S 02026' W 155.90 feet;
thence S 76038' W 196.05 feet to the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
Grantor
Approved:
Accepted:
City of Aspen
Lost Diamond, Inc
Slanford H. Johnson
By,
By,
Lyle D. Reeder, Pres.
Lyle D. Reeder, President of Lost Diamond, Inc., has approved the above concept by
telephone. A signed copy will follow.
It is important to keep this Lot Line Adjustment process moving along. I would
appreciate hearing from you on this by telephone or tax at (520) 749-4081. My Aspen
address should not be used for mail due to the 5 to IO day mail travel time between
Aspen and Tucson. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
~~~~~
Stanfo a H. ohnson
This concept is approved by
Lost Diamond, Inc:
By,
Lyle D. Reeder, President
cc: Chris Brcndon
I
I
I
-.
o
OA""'A~NMlNr 2"
February 10, 1997
.
THE CITY OF ASPEN
I
I
Mitch Haas
Planner
Community Development
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Lyle Reeder, 1.25 Acre Parcel Known as "Lost Diamond Project"
Dear Mitch,
I have reviewed the Land Use Application Map for Lost Diamond Project,
which consists of five parcels.
It appears that Parcels A and B are located within the City of Aspen. and
that the two parcels contain approximately 8.213 square feet. Parcels C, D, and E
are located in the County, and those three parcels consist of approximately
46,590 square feet.
Apparently all five parcels were in common ownership on October 27,1975.
Therefore, Section 26.88.040 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations is dispositive
of the issue. Subsection 5 reads as tollows:
.
I
I
Aspen Townsite lots. 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'
~f any portion shall constitute subdivision. As Aspen Townsite lot p'r 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 subdiyided lot in the City of Aspen which conforms to. the
requirements of this title.
.-".
I
I
I
o
The language which reads "plus any lot or parcel which has not received subdivision
approval by the City of Aspen or Pitkin County," should be read as "plus any
lot or parcel in the City of Aspen which has not received subdivision approval by the
City of Aspen or Pitkin County."
,
o
The City of Aspen can only merge lots that are within the City limits. Therefore,
Parcels A and B 'are merged, and those two lots are subject to the Aspen Land Use
RegulationS.. However, Parcels C, D, and E are at present in the County, and they are
subject to Pitkin CountY's rules and regulations. Should lots C, D, and E be annexed,
they wo.uld be subject to the merger provision.
Therefore, absent"an annexation Parcels C, D, and E are not merged with Parcels A and
B, and parcels C, D, and E are not presently subject to the Aspen Land Use Regulations.
I
Concerning annexation, if the developer wants City Water, the land in question would
either have to be annexed into the City, or the developer would have to enter into a
non-revocable agreement (which would run with the land) in which the developer would
waive ius/her right to protest the annexation of the property by the City at some
unspecified future date.
I
I
Q4
. David Hoefer
Assistant City Attorney
cc. Julie.<\nn Woods
I
I
.
l
o
ATTACHMENT 4
o
Subdivision Exemption by Planning Director
Lot Line Adjustment
The Planning Director shall exempt an adjustment of a lot line between contiguous lots if all the
following conditions are met.
1. It is demonstrated that the request is to correct an engineering or survey error in a recorded plat
or is to permit an insubstantial boundary change between adjacent parcels; and
2. All landowners whose lot lines are being adjusted shall provide written consent to the
application; and
3. It is demonstrated that the request is to address specific hardship; and
4. The corrected plat will meet the standards of this division, and conform to the requirements of
this chapter, including the dimensional requirements of the zone district in which the lots are
located, except in cases of an existing nonconforming lot, in which the adjustment shall not
increase the nonconformity of the lot; and
5. It is demonstrated that the lot line adjustment will not affect the development rights or
permitted density of the affected lots by providing the opportunity to create a new lot for resale
or developm7nt.
I
I
I
I
I
I
.. There is no Attachment 5 associated with this application.
I
att4.lla
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
o
ATTACHMENT "5"
CONSENT TO LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
AND ANNEXATION TO CITY OF ASPEN
September 22, 1998
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
,
Lost Diamond, Inc., ("Lost Diamond") owns Parcel "C" located Southerly of the comer of
Fifth Street & Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, Colorado. Parcel "C" is located entirely in Pitkin County
adjacent to the Townsite Line. .
Stanford H. Johnson ("Johnson") owns Parcels "A" & "B" which are adjacent to Parcel "C" and
are located entirely with the City of Aspen.
. All properties are identified and shown on the Topographic Survey Plat, Land Use
Application Map, entitled "Lost Diamond Project". prepared by Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. (Job
No. 25024).
Lost Diamond and Johnson hereby agree to undertake a Lot-Line Adjustment between their
respective properties by exchanging equal amounts of land and each retaining the present building
rights. In addition, Lost Diamond consents to the annexation of that portion of Parcel "C" to be
exchanged with Johnson.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I lldr se
I
I . .
Date~
/
~
STA RD. OHNSON Date
q/~31-98
/
I
.
~
~
~
~
~
........
~.
c
::t::
t-..,
.~
~
J
~l
Sl
1-~Z'5CI
, .. .
-l I "'1:1 /'
'. I ~
"S i ~ /
~8r~ ~,'
~: r Y rf
H :5 I I ,0, .&..;:
~ I / !
. / ~
r of
, I
,. ~
~ /.~. Iu
. .
, ..
f/ ;..0.
y . ,
: ;,
t/
/10 r
I
l
l.
r I
I-
J
I
1
..
ij I I-
..
~E ...I.
,~
,..,: I-
,
'/
I
1
i ..
i I l-
i ..
...I
elZ'''.
".e",o5' ."IS -
.-
"
..
g
,5Z
w
.
g
1
I
i
L
f ~
'.1 !
.....
...~"
. ".
...,
..,
Ij'
. u><
....
. -w
!~
In
..
..
!S
..
...I
..
o
w
g-:-
~
u
,
A 1TH~HM6Ur '~
-0- - - \
I-
..
...I
N
",
.------
o
o
CHAIN OF TITLE
EXTENSION OF FIFTH STREET SOUTH OF HOPKINS A VENUE,
ASPEN, COLORADO
BK/PG DATE DEED GRANTOR/GRANTEEandDESC~ON
59/461 7-14-1888 TSD From Aspen Townsite Patient under the provision of the Act
Of Congress entititled, An Act For The Relief Of The
Inhabitants, by County Judge D. W. Strickland to D. M. Van
Holvenberg. "a trnct ofland or parcel of land within the limits of
said Townsite and being all of that trnct of land lying between
the un-numbered Block south of BI;ock 25 and Block 32
containing about 6,000 Square feet more or less according to the
plat on file in the office of said Judge."
61/547 2-11-188 QCD D. M. Van Holvenberg to J. B. Wheeler, D. M. Van
Holvenberg, Partners J. B. Wheeler Co. Above description.
55/119 3-26-1892 WD J. B. Wheeler and D. M. Van Holvenberg to Robert Holmes.
Above description.
115/38 9-3-1892 QCD Robert Holmes to J. B. Wheeler and H. T. Tissington. Above
description.
115/382 5-1-1894 QCD Jerome B. Wheeler and H. T. Tissington Copartners in J. B.
Wheeler Co. to The Aspen Minning and Smelting Co. Above
description.
257/692 9-10-1971 QCD Coriolanus Corporntion to Stanford H. Johnson. "A tract of
land bounded by the easter~ side-line of the fractional
unnumbered block south 0 Block 25, City of Aspen; the
westerly side-line of Block 32, City of Aspen; the southerly
side-line of West Hopkins Street and line 7-8 of the Aspen
Townsite. "
260/878 1/17/1972 TD
268m8 11/13/1972 QCD
Pitkin County Treasurer to Stanford H. Johnson. "That part of
5th Street in the City and Townsite of Aspen, lying Southerly
of the Southerly line of Hopkins Avenue. Westerly of the
Westerly line of Lot A, Block 32, in said City and Townsite
and Easterly of the Easterly line of the Most Easterly Lot in tthe
un-numbered Block South of Block 25 in said City and
Townsite, County of Pitkin, State of Colorndo."
City of Aspen to Stanford H. Johnson. "That part of 5th Street
in the City and Townsite of Aspen, lying Southerly of the
Southerly line Hopkins Avenue Westerly of the Westerly line
of Lot A, Block 32, in said City and Townsite and Easterly of
the Easterly line of the Most Easterly Lot in tthe un-numbered
Block South of Block 25 in said City and Townsite, County of
Pitkin, State of Colorndo. "
417/423 11110/81
QUIT TITLE DECREE
~
.
o
o
BOl( 116
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
Seplember 28, 1998
Mr. Lyle Reeder, president
Lost Diamond, Inc.
P.O. Box 5948
Aspen, Colorado 81612
LETTER AGREEMENT
Subjecl: LoI Line Adjustment Exemption Between Johnson And
Lost Diamond, Inc. Properties.
Reference: Easement Recorded In Book 522 At Page 836, Pitkin
County Recorder's Office, Aspen, Colorado.
Dear Mr, Reeder:
The referenced easement is a 12 feet wide driveway easement on the westerly end of the
Johnson property to provide Ihe Lost Diamond property wilh access to West Hopkins
A venue (see attached plat). This easement does nol provide for utilities.
The Subject Lot Line Adjuslment PIal will provide Lost Diamond, Inc. wilh fee simple
ownership of a 42.73 feet wide tract of land from West Hopkins Avenue to the Lost
Diamond property which can be used for driveway, utililies and landscaping and will
render Ihe referenced easement unnecessary.
Therefore, it is agreed that for the consideration conlained herein, Lost Diamond will
extinguish the referenced easement by quit claiming its interest in and to the referenced
easement 10 Sian ford H. Johnson or assigns simultaneously wilh the Comunily Planning
Department Direclor's approval of the subject Lot Line Adjustment Exemption and the
annexation by the Cily of Aspen of the southerly part of the lot line adjusted tract of land.
Yours truly,
~-e~
. Johnson
Accepted:
Lost Dia nd, Inc I
b /:>~p-<- Y; ~ 0 /r ~
yle D. Reeder, president
i
I
.
j
J: .,
~i ~i
!; 'U
iz ~!
;" r
=.:~ ;~
;;3. :i
-- ;1
"3' "
:.; it
~i~ ~t
"~I ,,!
H. j;;
s", "I
i :;:J ii
1 J: ~.'
! ~~; ~i!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
~
~
$,
~ ~
,j
'!
C>
-!;
:<
"
"
r
!€
.\'off
~;;;
~ i,
.~;: - -
"""---
t;
~
"
~
, f
. -
~ .;.c.....
J : i - ....'f.J)\
: 2
---- -.
I'"
~:.....
"!'':'~
t::
flU
!:::
....
!:::
7920
~
~
~
,
;:
l
~
"
,
.'
l
"
..........,
o.
~
t: /
': 0
f ~
if ii
': ;
~
l:
~
..
~
'"
o
~
o
-
z
"'
..
"
""
~
w
>
~
::>
"
t......
...........
---
.'
,
..
~
,
. ~
'"
~ ,
~
, ;:;
~ "
" ~
'" .
~ >
,
~
,: -,
;w _.
'=-Y.
" ....,..
~ , ~ == ...
" , ~
~
I /
\ /
\ I
I /
, I
I I
, I
I ,.
I ~ .
I - -
I I ,~ ~
/ ~ I I! e
, , u
I I / ~
I / . .
I ; l
/ / / /
I / / I
I / I
/ / I
I /
I /
-------
i:j
t:J
<:s
~
I
-
---
-.
,
v
--------
..
.
.
- -
~ :.
: ;:;
..
,
~
~
- ,
.
THE CiTY OF ASPEN
MEMO FROM CHRISTOPHER HENDON
PLANNER
~ ~ /1M'MINi
I. ~~\[ili
IV1 Gv(\~
1. Ptnfflt ~~V~ rt'1 '1J
'h, armx.
u.J\ .
(Avwm~\hr f ~ ~ ~ tk fvW1
p-~~ ~ ~ ~ ~I!f~
130 SOUTH GALENA STRm
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975
PHONE 970.920.5072 . FAX 970.920.5439
e-mail: chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us
-
,
\
II
THE CITY OF ASPEN
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTOR:>JEY
October 26, 1998
Lyle D. Reeder, President
Lost Diamond, Inc.
P.O. Box 4859
Aspen, Co 81612
Re: Annexation Petition
Dear Mr. Reeder:
This is to acknowledge receipt of your Petition for Annexation and proposed annexation
map. I have forwarded both to Chris Bendon of the City's Community Development
Department as there are a number of issues he needs to discuss with you before we can
proceed with an annexation proceeding. Rather than state them here,.I would suggest that
you call him at your convenience if he has not already done so.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely, .
<-' /ttflI7CLZ&.
John P. Worcester
City Attorney
cc: Chris Bendon, Community Development Dept.
JPW.1 ~126/98-G:\john\word\letters\reeder.doc
130 SOl;TH GALE~A STREET . ASPE"', COLORADO 81611-1975 . PHONE 970.920.5055 . FAX 970.920.5119
Print,-JonR<\:\'(i<'<iPJper
LOST DIAMOND, INC.
P.O. BOX 4859
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
(970) 925-5360
,,02122.?3<.,r
g,"'Y A -i'.s-
,,"l '1' ~
.... ~
;; OCT 1998 ~
~ City At r->
-t forney's Q
';, Office &
~ J
""" /'
"'0, ,...1.,,"
Be, ",-,.'i,'/,
L.~,....~
October 19, 1998
John P. Worchester, Esq.
Aspen City Attorney
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Mr. Worchester:
I have enclosed four copies of the Annexation Petition for
the Johnson Annexation. I have asked that four copies of the
Annexation Map be delivered to you from Aspen Survey Engineers,
Inc. I apologize for providing these documents in a piecemeal
manner. These items would have been assembled into a package for
you had the planning department informed us of this requirement at
the time we applied for the Lot Line Adjustment.
If you need further items please call me at
telephone number. Thank you for your assistance in
this annexation.
the above
processing
Diamond, Inc.
D. Reeder, President
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION
COMES NOW LANDOWNER LOST DIAMOND, INC. this 24th day of
September, 1996, and petition the City of Aspen, Colorado for an
annexation of that certain parcel of land described as shown on the
JOHNSON ANNEXATION MAP filed herewith. Landowner states as follows:
1. It is desirable and necessary that the rear portion of
the Johnson Lot be annexed to the City of Aspen in order to be in
the same jurisdiction as the existing front portion of the Lot when
the proposed Lot Line Adjustment is approved SEE JOHNSON
ANNEXATION MAP TO THE CITY OF ASPEN.
2. The requirements of Section 31-12-104 Colorado Revised
Statutes exist or have been met in that:
a. A community of interests exists between the
territory proposed to be annexed and the City of Aspen, Colorado;
and
b. The territory proposed to be annexed is
will be urbanized in the near future and is capable
integrated with the City of Aspen, Colorado;
urban or
of being
3. The requirements of Section 31-12-105 Colorado Revised
Statutes exist or have been met in that no land held in identical
ownership, whether consisting of one tract or parcel of real estate
or two or more contiguous tracts or parcels of real estate:
a. Is divided into separate parts or parcels without
the written consent of the landowner, thereof, unless such tracts
or parcels are separated by a dedicated street, road or other
public way;
b. Is included within the territory proposed to be
annexed without written consent of the landowner that; (1)
comprises twenty acres or, (2) has an assessed value for the land,
together with the buildings and improvements situated thereon, in
excess of $200,000 for ad valorem tax purposes for the year
preceding the annexation; or
c. Is more than three miles from any point on the
municipal boundary, as such was established more than one year
before this annexation will take place.
4. The area proposed to be annexed comprises fewer than
ten acres of land, so an annexation impact report is not required.
5. The signer of the petition is
hundred percent of the territory included
annexed, exclusive of streets and alleys.
the landowner of
in the area to
one
be
6. Petitioner requests that the City of Aspen approve the
31-12-107(1) (g) Colorado Revised Statutes when one hundred percent
of the owners of the area have petitioned for such annexation.
7. The full legal description of the proposed area of
Annexation is:
A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SOUTHEAST OUARTER OF SECTION 12,
TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6th P.M., PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO. The M.W. (aka MARTHA WASHINGTON) LODE MINING CLAIM U.S.M.S.
NO. 5793 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT CORNOR NO. 1 OF SAID M.W. LODE MINING CLAIM WHENCE CORNER
NO.8 OF ASPEN TOWNSITE BEARS 860058'30"E 3268.56 FEET;
THENCE N76038'E 63.70 FEET ALONG LINE 1-5 OF SAID M.W. LODE MINING
CLAIM; THENCE N02026'E 321.47 FEET TO LINE 7-8 OF THE TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE 855017'06" 113.22 FEET ALONG SAID LINE 7-8 ASPEN TOWNSITE:
THENCE S140S0'49'W 24.52 FEET;
THENCE N77058'49"W 91.95 FEET;
THENCE N020260E 69.14 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
8. The mailing address of the owner of the proposed area
of annexation is:
Lost Diamond, Inc.
P.O. Box 4859
Aspen, Colorado 81612
9. Accompanying this petition are four prints of the
annexation map containing the following information:
a. A written legal description of the boundaries of
the area proposed to be annexed; and
b. A depiction of: (1) the boundary of the area
proposed to be annexed, (2) the municipal boundaries of the City of
Aspen and (3) the dimensions of the contiguous portions of these
two boundaries.
10. The territory to be annexed is not presently a part of
any incorporated city, city and county, or town.
Diamond, lnc
D. Reeder, President
~~N0J;5
STATE OF G8b8~.~O )
COUNTY of ~fT'k'tlt /
(date)
ss.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this~th day of October, 1998
by Lyle D. Reeder.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Y~lJn
/
My commission expires
. OFFICIAL SEAL.
Lou Ben Mollet
Nolary Public, State 01 illinois
My CommisSion !:xpires 9/23/2000
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION
COMES NOW LANDOWNER LOST DIAMOND, INC. this 24th day of
September, 1996, and petition the City of Aspen, Colorado for an
annexation of that certain parcel of land described as shown on the
JOHNSON ANNEXATION MAP filed herewith. Landowner states as follows:
1. It is desirable and necessary that the rear portion of
the Johnson Lot be annexed to the City of Aspen in order to be in
the same jurisdiction as the existing front portion of the Lot when
the proposed Lot Line Adjustment is approved SEE JOHNSON
ANNEXATION MAP TO THE CITY OF ASPEN.
2. The requirements of Section 31-12-104 Colorado Revised
Statutes exist or have been met in that:
a. A conununity of interests exists between the
territory proposed to be annexed and the City of Aspen, Colorado:
and
b. The territory proposed to be annexed is urban or
will be urbanized in the near future and is capable of being
integrated with the City of Aspen, Colorado;
3. The requirements of Section 31-12-105 Colorado Revised
Statutes exist or have been met in that no land held in identical
ownership, whether consisting of one tract or parcel of real estate
or two or more contiguous tracts or parcels of real estate:
a. Is divided into separate parts or parcels without
the written consent of the landowner, thereof, unless such tracts
or parcels are separated by a dedicated street, road or other
public way;
b. Is included within the territory proposed to be
annexed without written consent of the landowner that; (1)
comprises twenty acres or, (2) has an assessed value for the land,
together with the buildings and improvements situated thereon, in
excess of $200,000 for ad valorem tax purposes for the year
preceding the annexation; or
c. Is more than three miles from any point on the
municipal boundary, as such was established more than one year
before this annexation will take place.
4. The area proposed to be annexed comprises fewer than
ten acres of land, so an annexation impact report is not required.
5. The signer of the petition is
hundred percent of the territory included
annexed, exclusive of streets and alleys.
the landowner of one
in the area to be
6. Petitioner requests that the City of Aspen approve the
31-12-107(1) (g) Colorado Revised Statutes when one hundred percent
of the owners of the area have petitioned for such annexation.
7. The full legal description of the proposed area of
Annexation is:
A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SOUTHEAST OUARTER OF SECTION 12,
TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6th P.M., PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO. The M.W. (aka MARTHA WASHINGTON) LODE MINING CLAIM U.S.M.S.
NO. 5793 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT CORNOR NO.1 OF SAID M.W. LODE MINING CLAIM WHENCE CORNER
NO.8 OF ASPEN TOWNSITE BEARS S60058'30''E 3268.56 FEET;
THENCE N76038'E 63.70 FEET ALONG LINE 1-5 OF SAID M.W. LODE MINING
CLAIM; THENCE N02026'E 321.47 FEET TO LINE 7-8 OF THE TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE 555017' 06" 113.22 FEET ALONG SAID LINE 7-8 ASPEN TOWNSITE:
THENCE S14050'49'W 24.52 FEET;
THENCE N77058'49"w 91.95 FEET;
THENCE N020260E 69.14 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
8. The mailing address of the owner of the proposed area
of annexation is:
Lost Diamond, Inc.
P.O. Box 4859
Aspen, Colorado 81612
9. Accompanying this petition are four prints of the
annexation map containing the following information:
a. A written legal description of the boundaries of
the area proposed to be annexed; and
b. A depiction of: (1) the boundary of the area
proposed to be annexed, (2) the municipal boundaries of the City of
Aspen and (3) the dimensions of the contiguous portions of these
two boundaries.
10. The territory to be annexed is not presently a part of
any incorporated city, city and county, or town.
iamond, Ioc
D. Reeder, President
.:t:LL::t:N <JJ:)
STATE OF G8~8Q-DO )
COUNTY of ~f~flt /
(date)
ss.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this~th day of October, 1998
by Lyle D. Reeder.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires f ~(Ml()
/
. OFFICIAL SEAL.
Lou Ben Mollet
Notary Public, Stale 01 Illinois
My Commission bplres 9/23/2000
PETITION !'OR ANNEXATION
COMES NOW LANDOWNER LOST DIAMOND, INC. this 24th day of
September, 1996, and petition the City of Aspen, Colorado for an
annexation of that certain parcel of land described as shown on the
JOHNSON ANNEXATION MAP filed herewith. Landowner states as follows:
1. It is desirable and necessary that the rear portion of
the Johnson Lot be annexed to the City of Aspen in order to be in
the same jurisdiction as the existing front portion of the Lot when
the proposed Lot Line Adj ustment is approved SEE JOHNSON
ANNEXATION MAP TO THE CITY OF ASPEN.
2. The requirements of Section 31-12-104 Colorado Revised
Statutes exist or have been met in that:
a. A community of interests exists between the
territory proposed to be annexed and the City of Aspen, Colorado;
and
b. The territory proposed to be annexed is
will be urbanized in the near future and is capable
integrated with the City of Aspen, Colorado;
urban or
of being
3. The requirements of Section 31-12-105 Colorado Revised
Statutes exist or have been met in that no land held in identical
ownership, whether consisting of one tract or parcel of real estate
or two or more contiguous tracts or parcels of real estate:
a. Is divided into separate parts or parcels without
the written consent of the landowner, thereof, unless such tracts
or parcels are separated by a dedicated street, road or other
public way;
b. Is included within the territory proposed to be
annexed without written consent of the landowner that; (1)
comprises twenty acres or, (2) has an assessed value for the land,
together with the buildings and improvements situated thereon, in
excess of $200,000 for ad valorem tax purposes for the year
preceding the annexation; or
c. Is more than three miles from any point on the
municipal boundary, as such was established more than one year
before this annexation will take place.
4. The area proposed to be annexed comprises fewer than
ten acres of land, so an annexation impact report is not required.
5. The signer of the petition is
hundred percent of the territory included
annexed, exclusive of streets and alleys.
the landowner of one
in the area to be
6. Petitioner requests that the City of Aspen approve the
31-12-107(1) (g) Colorado Revised Statutes when one hundred percent
of the owners of the area have petitioned for such annexation.
*
7. The full legal description of the proposed area of
Annexation is:
A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12,
TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6th P.M., PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO. The M.W. (aka MARTHA WASHINGTON) LODE MINING CLAIM U.S.M.S.
NO. 5793 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT CORNOR NO. 1 OF SAID M.W. LODE MINING CLAIM WHENCE CORNER
NO.8 OF ASPEN TOWNSITE BEARS S60058'30"E 3268.56 FEET;
THENCE N76038'E 63.70 FEET ALONG LINE 1-5 OF SAID M.W. LODE MINING
CLAIM: THENCE N02026'E 321.47 FEET TO LINE 7-8 OF THE TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE 555017'06" 113.22 FEET ALONG SAID LINE 7-8 ASPEN TOWNSITE:
THENCE S14050'49'W 24.52 FEET;
THENCE N77058'49"W 91.95 FEET:
THENCE N020260E 69.14 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
8. The mailing address of the owner of the proposed area
of annexation is:
Lost Diamond, Inc.
P.O. Box 4859
Aspen, Colorado 81612
9. Accompanying this petition are four prints of the
annexation map containing the following information:
a. A written legal description of the boundaries of
the area proposed to be annexed; and
b. A depiction of: (1) the boundary of the area
proposed to be annexed, (2) the municipal boundaries of the City of
Aspen and (3) the dimensions of the contiguous portions of these
two boundaries.
10. The territory to be annexed is not presently a part of
any incorporated city, city and county, or town.
:~
L iamond, Inc
Lyle D. Reeder, President
-ZX-L:t:/'/0JZj
STATE OF 08h8~.~@ )
))elV'-H- )
COUNTY of PITdN )
(date)
ss.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this~th day of October, 1998
by Lyle D. Reeder.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires .9 ~/?,() (}
/
. OFFICIAL SEAL .
Lou EIen Molle!
Notary Public, Slale of n:inols
My Commission bplre. 9/23/2000
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION
COMES NOW LANDOWNER LOST DIAMOND, INC. this 24th day of
September, 1996, and petition the City of Aspen, Colorado for an
annexation of that certain parcel of land described as shown on the
JOHNSON ANNEXATION MAP filed herewith. Landowner states as follows:
1. It is desirable and necessary that the rear portion of
the Johnson Lot be annexed to the City of Aspen in order to be in
the same jurisdiction as the existing front portion of the Lot when
the proposed Lot Line Adjustment is approved SEE JOHNSON
ANNEXATION MAP TO THE CITY OF ASPEN.
2. The requirements of Section 31-12-104 Colorado Revised
Statutes exist or have been met in that:
a. A community of interests exists between the
territory proposed to be annexed and the City of Aspen, Colorado;
and
b. The territory proposed to be annexed is urban or
will be urbanized in the near future and is capable of being
integrated with the City of Aspen, Colorado;
3. The requirements of Section 31-12-105 Colorado Revised
Statutes exist or have been met in that no land held in identical
ownership, whether consisting of one tract or parcel of real estate
or two or more contiguous tracts or parcels of real estate:
a. Is divided into separate parts or parcels without
the written consent of the landowner, thereof, unless such tracts
or parcels are separated by a dedicated street, road or other
public way;
b. Is included within the territory proposed to be
annexed without written consent of the landowner that; (1)
comprises twenty acres or, (2) has an assessed value for the land,
together with the buildings and improvements situated thereon, in
excess of $200,000 for ad valorem tax purposes for the year
preceding the annexation; or
c. Is more than three miles from any point on the
municipal boundary, as such was established more than one year
before this annexation will take place.
4. The area proposed to be annexed comprises fewer than
ten acres of land, so an annexation impact report is not required.
5. The signer of the petition is
hundred percent of the territory included
annexed, exclusive of streets and alleys.
the landowner of one
in the area to be
6. Petitioner requests that the City of Aspen approve the
31-12-107(1) (g) Colorado Revised Statutes when one hundred percent
of the owners of the area have petitioned for such annexation.
7. The full legal description of the proposed area of
Annexation is:
A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12,
TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6th P.M., PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO. The M.W. (aka MARTHA WASHINGTON) LODE MINING CLAIM U.S.M.S.
NO. 5793 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT CORNOR NO.1 OF SAID M.W. LODE MINING CLAIM WHENCE CORNER
NO.8 OF ASPEN TOWNSITE BEARS 560058'30"E 3268.56 FEET;
THENCE N76038'E 63.70 FEET ALONG LINE 1-5 OF SAID M.W. LODE MINING
CLAIM; THENCE N02026'E 321.47 FEET TO LINE 7-8 OF THE TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE 855017'06" 113.22 FEET ALONG SAID LINE 7-8 ASPEN TOWNSITE:
THENCE S14050'49'W 24.52 FEET;
THENCE N77058'49"W 91.95 FEET;
THENCE N020260E 69.14 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
8. The mailing address of the owner of the proposed area
of annexation is:
Lost Diamond, Inc.
P.O. Box 4859
Aspen, Colorado 81612
9. Accompanying this petition are four prints of the
annexation map containing the following information:
a. A written legal description of the boundaries of
the area proposed to be annexed; and
b. A depiction of: (1) the boundary of the area
proposed to be annexed, (2) the municipal boundaries of the City of
Aspen and (3) the dimensions of the contiguous portions of these
two boundaries.
10. The territory to be annexed is not presently a part of
any incorporated city, city and county, or town.
r~
Diamond, rnc
D. Reeder, President
.:J:x..Lt:N<Y.:Z:S
STATE OF GeLBr-~9 )
lleb.}'-tI- )
COUNTY of rr'l'KfN )
(date)
ss.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this~th day of October, 1998
by Lyle D. Reeder.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires .9 ~/?,()O
/
. OFFICIAL SEAL.
Lou EIen Mollet
Notary Public, Stale of illinois
My Commlsslon bplres 9/2312000
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Plans were routed to those departments checked-off below:
~........... City Engineer
o ........... Zoning Officer
o ........... Housing Director
,........... Parks Department
0........... Aspen Fire Marshal
o ........... City Water
0........... Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
o ........... Building Department
o ........... Environmental Health
o ........... Electric Department
o ........... Holy Cross Electric
,........... City Attorney
o ........... Streets Department
o ........... Historic Preservation Officer
o ........... Pitkin County Planning
FROM:
Chris Bendon, Planner
Community Development Department
130 So. Galena St.; Aspen, CO 81611
Phone-920.5090 Fax-920.5439
RE:
Reeder / Johnson Lot Line Adjustment
DATE:
October 19,1998
REFERRAL SCHEDULE
DRC MEETING DATE:(note time: 1:30-3:00)
OTHER REFERRALS DUE TO PLANNER:
ENGINEERING REFERRAL DUE TO PLANNER:
October 21, 1998
October 28,1998
October 30,1998
Thank you,
Chris.
~/~~
~--~ 1_ w4
..\1.~.. r f1e- M
__~_~ ." ot- _, ~ "
'_' ':ik__~.., ~ ~~ ~p tJf C- ~~
'... . o~~r~
..w. ...~.~ rr- ~ of-""t[ ~ M1wU ~ L
~...MF~~~ ~ ~J,y-~~
November 2, 1998
8987 EAST T ANQUE VERDE ROAD #304
TUCSON, ARIZONA 85749
5 494081
...'l34-~6
/'.- -><9
09;:
o
c>. ?J:. ~
~~..,..~
:?:~ ~ ~
%.0: ~ '...;
~~ ~
"'!l.
\.'.l ,p "-
t;:~ 0J
?~. ",,,V
C~I?("''''''C\.
...<(.v.....
John P. Worchester, Esq.
Aspen City Attorney
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Johnson - Lost Diamond Lot Line Adjustment and Annexation Petition.
Chris Bendon explained to me your observation that an unintended separate parcel may
result from the referenced Lot Line Adjustment because of the existence of the
underlying City/County boundary line. The City/County line of course would be
removed from crossing the new Johnson lot with the annexation of the rear portion. The
City/County line would still remain between the relinquished easterly portion of the
Johnson land that will be conveyed to Lost Diamond, Inc. and the existing Lost Diamond
land situated in the County. The City portion of the relinquished land conveyed to Lost
Diamond, would be in a different jurisdiction, and could be considered a separate parcel
and therefore a separate building site.
The intent and purpose of Lost Diamond to participate in this Lot Line Adjustment is not
to gain a separate building site, but to obtain a suitable, attractive and workable entrance
to the tract of land owned by Lost Diamond in the County. This land would be used for
and provide a safe driveway access to the Sth and Hopkins intersection, utility access and
landscaping to enhance the appearance of the property. The City of A~n does not want
the possibility of an additional building site being created by the Lot Line Adjustment.
Therefore, the practical way to prevent this concern appears to be by deed restriction.
The following draft is suggested as a safe guard to protect the City of Mpen from your
concern of a separate building site resulting from the Lot Line Adjustment. This could be
added to the special warranty deed conveying the relinquished land from Johnson to Lost
Diamond:
The Grantor, Stanford Johnson, and the City of Aspen, being the authority
approving the Johnson - Lost Diamond Lot Line Adjustment dated
, restricts the above conveyed tract of land by prohibiting the
use as a dwelling site.
If in the future any portion of the Grantees land described below as Parcel
C adjoining this deed restricted tract of land is annexed to the City of Aspen
this restriction shall tenninate and the subject tract of land shall merge with
that annexed portion of Parcel C.
JohnP. Worchester, Esq.
Aspen City Attorney
November 2,1998
Page 2
PARCEL C:
A tract of land situated in the Southeast Quarter of section 12,
Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., Pitkin
County, Colorado, the M.W. (aka Martha Washington) Lode
Mining Claim U.S.M.S. No. 5793 described as follows:
Beginning at Comer NO.2 of said MW, Lode Mining Claim
whence Comer No.8 of Townsite of Aspen, Colorado bears
S 60058'30' E 3268.56 feet; thence N 76"38' E 63.70 feet along
line 1-5 of said MW. Lode Mining Claim to the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
thence N 02026' E 321.47 feel to Line 7 - 8 of the Townsite of
Aspen;
thence S 55016' East along said line 7 - 8 to the Townsite of
Aspen 223.15 feet;
thence S 02026' W 155.90 feet;
thence S 76038' W 196.05 feel to the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
Grantor
Approved:
Accepted:
City of Aspen
Lost Diamond, Ine
Stanford H. Johnson
By,
By,
Lyle D. Reeder, Pres.
Lyle D. Reeder, President of Lost Diamond, Inc., has approved the above concept by
telephone. A signed copy will follow.
It is important to keep this Lot Line Adjustment process moving along. I would
appreciate hearing from you on this by telephone or fux at (520) 749-4081. My Aspen
address should not be used for mail due to the 5 to 10 day mail travel time between
Aspen and Tucson. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
~~~
Stanfo H. ohnson
This concept is approved by
Lost Diamond, Ine:
By,
Lyle D. Reeder, President
cc: Chris Brendon
Lost Diamond, Inc.
- Signed Copy
8987 EASTTANQUE VERDE ROAD #304
TUCSON, ARIZONA 85749
(520) 749 4081
~'66189701i",
'V~<>.
i' A'tl I< '.\
C;fy -4; 19.90'
" "O/1i.
"liiCe t'Ys
(
r'
November 2, 1998
10hn P. Worohester, Esq.
Aspen City Attorney
130 South Ga.lcn8 Street
Aspen, CoIorado 81611
Re: Johnson. Lost Diamond Lot Line AdjustIDelll and Annexation Petition.
Chris Bendon explained to me your observation that an unintended separate pareel may
result from the referenced Lot Line Adjustment because of tho exlstenee of tho
undorlyini City/County boundary line. The City/County line of course would be
removed from crossing tho new.l01mson lot with the lIDIICxation of the rear portion. The
City/County line would still remain between the relinquisbcd easterly portion of the
Johnson land that will be conveyed to Lost Diamond, Inc. and the existing Lost Diamond
land situated in the County. The City portion of the relinquished land conveyed to Lost
Diamond, would be in a dl1'ferent jurisdictloD, and could be considered a separate pareel
and therefure a separate building site.
The intent and pmpose of LoS! Diamond to participate in this Lot Line Adjustment is not
to pin a separate buildin& site, but to obtain a suiJable, attractive and workable entrallce
to the tract of land owned by Lost Diamond in the County. This land would be used fur
and provide a safe driveway access to the Sib and Hopkins intersection, utility access and
landscaping to enhance the appearance of the property. The City of Aspen does not want
the possibility of an additlooal building site being created by the Lot Line Adjustment.
Therefore, the practical way to prevent this concern appears to be by deed restriction.
The following draft is suggested as a saftl guard to protect the City of Aspen from your
concern of a separate buildina site resu1tina from the Lot Line Adjustment. This could be
added to the special warranty deed conveying tho relinquished land from 10hnson to Lost
Diamond:
The Grantor, Stanford Johnson. and lhe City of Aspen, being the authority
approving the Johnson . LOlt Diamond Lot Wile AdjUstment dated
, reltr1ct8 the above conveyed tract of land by prohlb~g the
use 81 I <lwelUng aile.
lf in Ihe future any portion of the Grant.lland described below 81 Parcel
C adjoining this deed restricted tract of land is 8Mexed 10 the City of Aspen
thll reltrIcUon lhall tlnnlnatll and the aubjec! tract of land shell I118rg8 with
that Innlxld portion of Parcel C.
TOTRL. P.04
--'~~"'-'""'--"-"-"'---"--'~--"'-~~'"'--"
11-05-1998 08:51~M
ST~NFORD JOHNSON
1 502 7494081
P.03
.
Jolm P. Worchester, Esq.
Aspen City Attorney
~ovember 2, 1998
Page 2
PARCEL C:
A tract clland lIiIuated In the SouthNIl Q__ cl aettion 12,
TOWI18hlp 10 South, ~85Weatclthe6th P.M., Pitkin
County, Colorado. the MoW. (aka Martha Washington) Lode
MIning CIIin U.S. M.S. No. 5193 de8cribed as follows:
Beginning III Comer No. 2 clllllid M.W. Lode MIning Claim
v.tlence Comer No. 8 cl TCMI1Iite of AIpen, Cclor8do bears
S ElO"58'3O" E 3268.58 feel; thence N 7ll"38' E 63.70 feel along
line 1.5 cllllid MoW. Lode Mining Claim to the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING:
thence N 02"28' E 321.471811 to Wne 7 - 8 clthe TO\'o1lSlte r:I
Aspen;
thence S 55"16' East along said line 7 . 8 to the Townsite of
AIpen 223.15 feel;
thence S 02"28' W 155.90 feet;
thence S 18"38'W 198.05f_to the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
Grantor
Approved:
Acoepled:
Stanford H. Johnson
City of Aspen
By,
Lost Dlamoncl. Inc
By.
Lyle D. Reeder, Pres.
Lyle D. Reeder, President of Lost Diamond, Inc., bas approved the above concept by
telephone. A signed copy will rollow.
It is importaDt to keep this Lot Line Adjustment process moving along. I would
appreciate hearing from you on this by telephone or fi1x at (520) 749-4081. My Aspen
address should not be used for mail due to the 5 to 10 day mail travel time between
Aspen and Tucson. Thank you ror your 8S5istance.
Sincerely,
~~O
S H.lmson
This concept is approved by
~,~-;W~~
Lyle D. Reeder, . nt
cc: Chris Brenden
. .,