Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ex.5th St & Hopkins Ave.Johnson/Reeder.A087-98PN: 2735-124-00661 Case A087-98 5th and Hopkins, Johnson Reeder Lot Line Adjustment E XI 1 . ) '.1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEl 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-5090 City of Aspen Land Use: 1041 Deposit 1042 Flat Fee 1043 HPC 1046 Zoning and Sign Referral Fees: 1163 City Engineer 1205 Environmental Health 1190 Housing Building Fees: 1071 Board of Appeals 1072 Building Permit 1073 Electrical Permit 1074 Energy Code Review 1075 Mechanical Permit 1076 Plan Check 1077 Plumbing Permit 1078 Reinspection Other Fees: 1006 Copy 1302 GIS Maps 1481 Housing Cash in Lieu 1383 Open Space Cash in Lieu 1383 Park Dedication 1468 Parking Cash in Lieu Performance Deposit 1268 Public Right-of-way 1164 School District Land Ded. TOTAL NAME: \ V)"ff � ADDRESS/PROJECT: PHONE: 2 �6 CHECK# 3 3 CASE/PERMIT#: U # (? COPIES: DATE: t l A 1 6 INITIAL: '. - (� c"1 cA ?3 S - / -),q - cx) 64(o / CASE STATUS SHEET Case No. .40?3 7 — 9 v Representative's Name: Representative's Phone: Fax: DATE ACTION OR ACTIVITY + 1 calk 0 n Sor — wi cs s a ftZ CI LEGAL DESCRIPTION SETBLOCKU19NT JOHNSON PARCEL Q\ PARCEL A A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12. TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH. RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6th P.M. BEING SITUATED IN THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN. PITKIN COUNTY. COLORADO DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT CORNER NO. I OF'SAID M.W. LODE WHENCE CORNER NO. 8 OF SAID TOWNSITE OF ASPEN BEARS S60'58'30'E 3.368.56 FEET: THENCE N76'38'E 63.70 FEET ALONG LINE 1-5 OF SAID M.W. LODE. THENCE NO2'26'E 325.12 FEET TO LINE 7-8 ASPEN TOWNSITE. THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE NO2°26'E 16.39 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF WEST HOPKINS AVENUE: THENCE S75.09'11'E 152.37 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY AND ITS EXTENSION TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT A. BLOCK 32 OF SAID CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN: THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT A. 69.79 FEET TO LINE 7-8 ASPEN TOWNSITE: THENCE N55'1706"W 158.27 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL B: THE SOUTHERLY 20 FEET OF LOTS A. B. C. BLOCK 32. CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN. LOST DIAMOND PARCEL 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.(oko MARTHA WASHINGTON) LODE MINING CLAIM U.S.M.S. NO. 5793 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT CORNER N0. I OF SAID M.W. LODE MINING CLAIM WHENCE O/ ' CORNER NO. 8 OF ASPEN TOWNSITE BEARS S60°58'30'E 3268.56 FEET: v� THENCE N76°38'E 63.70 FEET ALONG LINE 1-5 OF SAID M.W. LODE MINING CLAIM TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE NO2'26'E 321.47 FEET TO LINE 7-8 OF THE TOWNSITE OF ASPEN: THENCE S55°I6'E ALONG SAID LINE 7-8 TO THE TOWNSITE OF ASPEN 223.15 FEET: THENCE S02°26'W 155.90 FEET: THENCE S76°38'W 196.05 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL D A PARCEL OF LAND BEING PART OF LOT 17. SITUATED IN SECTION 12. TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH. RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6th P.M.. LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE ASPEN CITY SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY, AND NORTHWESTERLY OF LINE 2-3 OF MIN SURVEY NO. 5793, WHICH IS FURTHER DESCRIBED AS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF SAID ASPEN BOUNDARY AND LINE 2-3. ALSO BEING THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 17: THENCE S 76'38'00'W 14.85 FEET ALONG SAID LINE 2-3 TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 17: THENCE N 55'17'06'E 21.64 FEET ALONG SAID ASPEN BOUNDARY TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 17. THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 13 JOHNSON TO LOST DIAMOND A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12. TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH. RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6th P.M. BEING SITUATED IN THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN. PITKIN COUNTY. COLORADO DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT A. BLOCK 32 OF SAID CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN: THENCE S14°50'49'W 69.79' ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT A TO LINE 7-8 ASPEN TOWNSITE: THENCE N55'17'06'W 45.05 FEET ALONG SAID LINE 7-8 ASPEN TOWNSITE: THENCE N14'50'49'E 54.48 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF WEST HOPKINS AVENUE: THENCE S75'09'11'E 42.73 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF WEST HOPKINS AVENUE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 4.433 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS LOST DIAMOND TO JOHNSON ANNEXA TI ON PARCEL 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.(oko MARTHA WASHINGTON) LODE MINING CLAIM U.S.M.S, NO, 5793 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT CORNER NO. I OF SAID M.iWLODE MINING CLAIM WHENCE CORNER NO. 8 OF ASPEN TOWNSITE BEARS 60*58'30"E 3268.56 FEET: THENCE N76'38'E 63.70 FEET ALONG LINE 1-5 OF SAID M.W. LODE MINING CLAIM: THENCE NO2'26'E 321.47 FEET TO LINE 7-8 OF THE TOWNSITE OF ASPEN THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE S55'17'06-E IV 22 FEET ALONG SAID LINE 7-8 ASPEN TOWNSITE: THENCE S14'S0'49'W 24.52 FEET: THENCE N77.58'49'W 91.95 FEET: THENCE NO2'26'E 69.14 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 4.433 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS LEGEND AND NOTES O FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT REBAR WITH CAP AS NOTED SET SPIKE OR P-K NAIL SURVEY CONTROL POINTS PITKIN COUNTY TITLE. INC. TITLE COMMITMENT NO. PCT-9607 DATED DEC. 27. 1994 AND PCT- DATED _ . 1997 WAS USED IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS SURVEY 1959 OFFICIAL MAP OF THE CITY OF ASPEN WAS USED FOR THE SURVEY LOCATION OF THOSE PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN. 1980 APPROVED BLM SURVEY AND RESURVEY OF TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH. RANGE 85 WEST AND THE AMENDED AND RESTATED MARY B SUBDIVISION PLAT WERE USED FOR THE SURVEY LOCATION OF THOSE PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED IN PITKIN COUNTY. BASIS OF BEARINGS IS N14°50'49'E 321.24' BETWEEN THE NW CORNER LOT I MARY B SUBD. (REBAR W/ CAP 16129) AND THE SW WITNESS CORNER OF LOT I MARY B SUBD. (REBAR W/ CAP 16129) LINE BEARING DISTANCE L I N 02°26'00'E 16.39' L 2 S 75°09'II'E 7.62' L 3 N 75°09'11'W 7.62' CERTIFICATION I. DAVID W. McBRIDE. A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF COLORADO. HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED FROM A FIELD SURVEY PREFORMED UNDER MY SUPERVISION IN 199_ AND IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. THIS CERTIFICATION IS VOID UNLESS WET STAMPED ON AN ORIGINAL BLUEPRINT. SIGNED THIS _ DAY OF 199_. DAVID W. MCBRIDE RLS 16129 ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS PLAT WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVERED SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT, MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS PLAT BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS CDR I M.W. LODE i 9 TRANSFORMER I 12' ACCESS EASEMENT BK 522-836 SEE AGREEMENT TO ENLARGE THIS ACCESS r � N N � YPC 9184 BENT I74 900 wl �� JOHNSON A NNEXA TI ON MAP TO THE CITY OF ASPEN and JOHNSON-LOST DIAMOND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT nr /�j O �;-.�^,itl'I ,� ; ,�,; s.�**`��" • ! ..� � `h,_ P��^, � °ems^ -�.� „3=.r 8` :. ... I it h 5L' ,lalr, 1^ �1T` I?1wr?, u $ tit �HOPM s �,uaum � ,I i 1T!1 ITT, r' ¢ (I Ste• � - �"'" � "` .) C \ ® EASEMENT RECORDED AS E 2 MEgI ) GO •� \RECEPTION N0. I G£ OF P REp OJ U ED B s �S°p9.11'E \ /0. 00 . h 80079 /59 PAGE 46 I ., JD SO LOT 2 E', o AREA P / MARY Bq I SUBDIVISION \` :':: \ B `. 7j`96 58.49-E / 4u / ------- - - -------- -AWE XAT 1,0N _------80UND�RY B. Ypc \ \ 3z6 - \� ma's C •4 RB 3 rn P 00 aP )SF L O S 7 � A MOND -PA RCE1, AREA - 46,590 SQ.FT. \ OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS LOT 2 � �� \\` \ \ •\ \\ �\ MARY B SUBD 0� \ \ \ n 9 + + + + + + + + + + EBAR WITH + + + + + + + + + + + +O i TEE FENCE POST CORNER 5 M.W. LODE `1NE � 6-5 36� 3�7 WATER PLAN1- 4NWKATIONS (S'5°0' /j e l30 270.OL / o /m D I / Aeon / l 3 � Bg Q 2Sas. GC s ° 4 4EY s �0 YPC \� 237 ti _ PRIDE OF ASPEN MINING CLAIM PLAT NOTES 'SITE ` ohs �T Q°. ii L Va A�1 S 1m 1^ . G�P CITY L MITS VICINITY MAP SCALE 1'-400' REPRODUCED FROM CITY G.I.S. MAP ANNEXATION APPROVAL PERIMETER OF ANNEXATION CONTIGUITY WITH PRESENT CITY LIMITS 278.83' 113.22 - 2.46 < 6 CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL THIS MAP OF THE JOHNSON ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN WAS APPROVED BY THE. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN. PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Of ORDINANCE NO. SERIES OF PASSED THIS DAY OF 199_ AND RECORDED IN THE REAL ESTATE RECORDS OF PITKIN COUNTY AS RECEPTION NO. SIGNED THIS _ _ DAY OF . 199 ATTEST: MAYOR CITY CLERK LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT APPROVAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL THIS PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED FOR RECORDING BY THE PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. SIGNED THIS _ DAY OF . 199_ . CLERK & RECORDER'S ACCEPTANCE THIS PLAT IS ACCEPTED FOR RCORDING IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER OF PITKIN COUNTY. COLORADO AT _O'CLOCK M.. THIS - DAY OF . 199_ IN PLAT BOOK AT PAGE . AS RECEPTION NUMBER CLERK d RECORDER OWNER'S CONSENT STANFORD H. JOHNSON LOST DIAMOND INC. LYLE D. REEDER. PRES. LAND USE APPLICATION MAP L OAST DIAff0%P PROJECT TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PREPARED BY ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS. INC. 210 S. GALENA STREET P.O. BOX 2506 ASPEN. COLO. 81611 PHONE/FAX (970) 925-3816 REVISED FEB. 4. 1997 REVISED ELEV DATUM JAN. 31. 1995 JOB NO 25024D SEPT. 23. 1998 October 14, 1999 Mr. Stanford Johnson P.O. Box 416 Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Johnson: ASPEN - PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPME\T DEPARTMENT This letter is in response to your correspondence 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 of record has a separate Chain of Title. To date, tht 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, 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 • PHONE 970.920.5090 • FAx 970.920.5439 Printed on Recycled Paper October 1, 1999 Stanford Johnson 8987 E. Tanque Verde Road 9304 Tucson, AZ 85749 Dear Mr. Johnson: ASPEN • PnYJN COMMUMTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT This letter is in response your questions regarding the application process for a lot line adjustment for two adjoining parcels 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 lots 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. I Sincerely; A _r l (� L Nick Lelack, Planner Enclosure CC: Tom McCabe, City Council Member 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 • PHONE 970.920.5090 • FAx 970.920.5439 Printed no Recycled Paper ZONING MESS, WEST HOPKINS AVENUE, 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 % block wide strips of land on both sides of West Hopkins Avenue between South Yd Street and South 7`h 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 objectives of Planning and Zoning are to promote orderly layout of building lots, zoning individual areas to provide harmonious like -kind land use and development, guide growth to be compatible with the valley, cultivate the economic base, encourage private development of employee housing, design efficient transportation routing, and coordinate development of the City and County for the health, safety, and general welfare of those individuals who five, 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 family R-15 zone, a tourist lodge on nine 3,000 sq. fl. 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 AIR 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 harmonious 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 designations grossly conflicts with preponderance of multifamily development (approximately 80%) in this section, dictates that the Johnson and Lost Diamond parcels should properly be allowed multiple family housing use or in the least the alternative, R-6 Residential. •$Pr v C6 5 �OJ�1�v OJv�`�G vow o 017 ♦QYa�Cvo � s o o� QPoo a l5 v0 O� o00 R-6 CITY OF ASPEN ZONING MAP R-I$ `EST HOPKINS /SHADOW MOUNTAIN AREA i (FOR STUDY PURPOSES) AIII PUD o z5 50 100 ISO xo+ THE CITY OF ASPEN MEMO FROM JOYCE ALLGAIER OHLSON DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT vAL q -� _ Z 2-� 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADo 81611-1975 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 23, 1999 TO: Jim Lindt Nick LeLack Phillip Ring Patrick Merchant John Rushing FROM: Peggy Carlson��-&--� RE: New Employee Safety Orientation Meeting Hopefully your supervisor has advised you that you are scheduled to attend this meeting on September 30 in the Sister Cities Room at City Hall. The meeting will be from 9:00 until approximately 10:30. Call me at 5056 if you have any questions. See you then. /pc &fJ - 3 0 st,p VV*J 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 intergovernmental 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 Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) or develop a replacement system to allow more flexibility in meeting our affordable housing goals. (1-15) • 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. (G 16) • 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 downtown 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 within 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 mined use buildings. Complies with Action Items: Historic Preservation 1, Housing # 10, 11, 12 Lead Department: Community Development & Housing Authority Status: Unranked Action Items • Underlined headings 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 Study 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. (G1, 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 Existing, 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 implications 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): • Work on developing IGA's between the City of Aspen. Pitkin County, the Town of Snowmass Village and the Town of Basalt regarding containment of development within Community Growth Boundary's, annexations agreements, or by some other mechanism. (48) • Consider the 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: Encouraging Affordable Housing Provision/Development 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 Development Status: Lodge Preservation Code revisions being developed by Planner Chris Bendon Explore developing a sliding scale to apply to all substantial re -development 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 55 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 Management 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: Studv Mitigation of the Impacts of Growth and Change 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 of low -paving 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 long-term Economic Sustainability 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 mixfd-use development,re. Compli i Action Items: Economic Sustainability # 9 Lead Department: Community Development Status: Study the impacts of rezoning undeveloped commercially zoned land to neighborhood commercial or Cl 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 t'ie 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 Sustainability # 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 Sustainability # 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 Design Quality 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 tax 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 Open Space 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. If possible, 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 Benedict/Roaring 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 Department: 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 of revising 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 Health Status: ghSt- 1 1 Parking, Transportation Management 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 RFTA 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: Housing for Visiting Artists The Aspen/Snowmass 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 / 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 / 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" 7 All 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 Avenue (next door neighbor west of subject lot.) SUPPLEMENT TO JOHNSON - LOST DIAMOND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT SAP 2 199`: FILED SEPTEMBER 24,1998 HISTORY This Lot Line Adjustment Application Package, filed on September 24, 1998, contained the 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 find 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 containing all the legal descriptions was, in fact, 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 Staffs 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 tail like 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 at the head of 5`h 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 owned by Lost Diamond, Inc., in Pitkin County. (Before and After Exhibits "B" and "C"). Johnson the owner of the existing City lot, requested that the land in the County, that will be acquired to form a rectangular lot, be annexed by the City so that the entire lot will 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 by 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 Avenue. The lot line adjustment would provide a suitable 42' wide landscapeable entranceway for a driveway, utility access to Hopkins Avenue and view corridor up 5t' 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 hones. 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: 1. The construction of a long narrow triangular house on this existing lot would be a clumsy 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 efformation of the orderly lot layout (one of the objectives of planning). K 3. The excellence of the quality of Aspen's general appearance will be enhanced. This lot is situated where 5th Street ends at West Hopkins Avenue. Similarly, next door, at the south end of 61h Street is a much -admired classic Victorian home. Both of these sites are very visible for six blocks to the north up 5t' and 61h 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 Aspen a "wedgie". Stanford Johnson July 12, 1999 Enclosures: Original Application Vicinity Map Reeder Letter, 3/4/99 Rel. Annexation of Lost Diamond tract Title Commitment Copies of legal descriptions from Lot Line Adjustment/Annexation Survey Plat EXHITBIT "A" MEMORANDUNI 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 betnveen 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 nth Street as it was originally platted, unplatted lands southwest of 5th Street and Hopkins Avenue. 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 pan 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 entirelv within Citv 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. APPLICANT: i Stanford Johnson and Lyle Reeder, owners. LOCATION: 5th Street and Hopkins avenue. 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 26.33.030. STAFF COMMENTS: Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit -A.-The application has been included as Exhibit "B." RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Community Development Director deny this Lot Line Adjustment. DENIAL: I herebv denv this reauest for a Lot Line Adjusment benveen the Johnson and Reeder properties. •mil date l S1 y A flie Ann Woods. Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findinas Exhibit B -- application 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. 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 Findings There does not appear to be an engineering or survey error between these parcels. Response: 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. Response: "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. Response: 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 20' 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 rectangularly 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, diffictult 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. Response: 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 nonconforming 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. Response: 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 beink 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 Community Development's signature approving the Annexation plat is based simply upon the fact that the conditions for subdivision exemption have been checked —development rights densities and square footages are unchanged 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 5°i Street may have been vacated, therefore the area may be restricted from use in the FAR calculations. Response: 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 D.W. 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 City had not vacated the stub end of 5th Street, because the chain of title did not show the street being split in half with each half reverting to the abutting properties 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. Response: Here appears to be an attempt to muddy the waters with speculation. 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 not 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 EXIUBIT"B" I cc k3 cr 40 7920 q R) r I :3 a. IN hry Q e 4 - i � o z y 2 0 0 EXIIIBIT "C" r w � h � W W u � a W - cx QI >_ O a r - � - O 2 7920 ARM l !(! 11 ( 1 1 /d2M. CC r j z EXHIBIT "E" Subject Lot, south end of 5`h 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 61h Street at Hopkins Avenue (next door neighbor west of subject lot.) EXMTBIT "D" HAND DELIVER Ms. Julie Ann Woods; Aspen/Piddn Community Development Director 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Reeder/Johnson Lot Line Adjustment Dear Ms. Woods: P. O. Box 4959 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970-925-5360 March 4, 1999 (C(3-1P'y 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 Adjustments for both Aspen (Sec. 26.88.030 B.) 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 Adjustment...". 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 Agreement then Lost Diamond would be willing to consider annexing all of its lands: 1. Real Estate Transfer Taxes (RETT) - The present owners, Lost Diamond and Silviculture and/or any immediate purchaser(s) shall be exempted from paying any City imposed Real Estate Transfer Taxes. The RETT 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 Commitment, effective date 01/19/99 that covers all parcels; namely, "A" through "E". Should you have any questions, please contact me at your convenience. Yours truly, 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 18" (Parcel "E"), which are shown on the Annexation Plat. Silviculture is agreeable to participation in annexing its lands in the event Lost Diamond decides to annex. The access is through the alley. EXBMIT v'FTT 00,0Z ti f 44 .,PIS 'sz- —7 (A V) cl: 41 In sz IV z 0 rL 0 0 Lai . CD U) C) 60� 1 Ln cl Lo L) U. < to Li LO t— LO re) Ik U. V) rn EXIiIBIT "A" COI�IIT�IE`T FOR TITLE I\SURA\CE SCHEDULE A i. =fective Date. 01/19/99 at 08:30 A.M. 2. Pclicy or Policies to be i Ss::ed: a) FELT Owne-' s ' olicy-=crm, 1992 Proposed Insured: PROF ORMIA (b) A ,TA Loan Policy -Form 1992 Proposed Insured: Case No. PCT-9607C5 Amount$ T3D Premium$ Rate: STANDARD T OL__� •n'- r_m Premium$ Raze: Tax Certificate: 3. Title to the FEE SIVP_- estate or interest in the land de_scr_be- cr re=erred to in this CC"....__..ent is at the e:_?Ct1V� date hereof vested in: S7 -�P?RCELS A AND S LOST DIAMOND, INC., A COL.0=?_,)O CORPORATION, AS TO PARCELS C AND D S I L•V I CULTURE , LTD., A COLORADO CORPORATION, AS TO PARCEL E =_. The land referred to in t:^.is Commitment is situated in the County cf PI T iCIN, State of COLOR_A.DO and is deSCr4bed as follows: See Attached Exhibit "A" if PIT{IN COiJti'TY TITLE, .NC. 601 E . 'HOPKINS =_SP EN, CO. 81611 970-925-1766 970-925-6527 FAX _sir'_ORIZED AGENT Schedule A-PG.1 This Commitment is invalid unless the Insuri^� Provisions and Schedules A and 3 are attac':ed. SX ==BIT A P:=.CEL A: Of .. Sit, _ _..- Southeast Qu=_ter of S'?Ct10n 12, A tract land -:=" _ - _ -tr - - of a dart Of t^� C_-" ^Ov.^.c_tE C= (aka Ma=zh Washings n) Lcde _ a S N? S -No . - 7 _ - and The Mary R. lio . 2 Lode M: na _inc Clay... U. - = • -- C:aim U. S . %!. S . NO. 196 described as f011O:rs . CornNo. the said M W. CAE wt=ence Corner No. � C= -G_� of Asz)en bears S 6C°58'30" ', -9.56 left; 7o°3S' E 63.7G feet ;:Iona line 1-5Jc-= said M.W. Lode, to r:e _ , -_- POINT OF - _ _nce N 02'26' 342.40 feet to t^e South 1_ne of ) o�:cins S7-reet e^Ce �O'---'-MO- 'nterSct_cn Of the s 1d .SoucP c--h�line 1-6 of -c-- Tary B. Lode Miring Claim U.S.N?.S� No. -reet wit - =' 2 (unnatente) .^gars �i ;:'0:' 11" W 62.75 __�t; _ -Ce~S 75°09' 11 1i 1_�'.�; feet along said South line of F:CDti'_ =5 S-freet and _ts e.<tension to t^e Northwesterl-y- Corner Of Lot A, ^1CC{ 32of said City and Towns__e Of Aspen; Sc'..__erly along the Westerly line Or said Lot A, 66.77 feet to 3-" of said M.W. Lode; - --ence S 55°16' E 65.69 feet along said line 3-4- to Corner of s�_d t:_ yi . Lode; ----Ice S 02026' W 155.9 f�e: to Corner 5 of said M.W. Lode; S 70038' W 196.05 feet along line 5-1 of said M.W. Lode to the POINT OF BEGINNING. _-S SOUTHERLY 20 FEET OF DOTS A, B, C, BLOCK 32, CITY AND TOjw'NSITE OF 7XC7_PT those tracts Of land lying -Veved by Stan -Ford H. jc-nson to �. v..Jv recorded November 17, 1936 in Book ire Book 564 at Page 863. P` .CEL C: within the above Parcels A & L.Os= Diamond, Inc., by Dees 522 at Page 836'and May 25, B , 1938 A tract Of lard situateo in the Southeast Quarter of Sictin! Townsh_- _0 South Range 8= West Of the 6thCounty, 1 do the M.W. (aka Martina Washington) Lode Mining Claim S .N ?.S. �o ora• , >,o. 5753 described as follows: Beginning at Corner No. 2 cf said M.W. Lode Mining Claim whence Corner No. 8 of Tcwnsite of As_en, Colorado bears S 600581301, E 3268.56 feet; N 76°38' 63.70 fee: along lire 1-5 of said M.W. Lode Min' c - e � nc,e L Claim to the TRUE POINT OF BEGI�ji _1 ; r - e ce N 02026' E 321.47 feet to Line 7-9 cf t�� TOwnsite of spe n, reef nce S 55°16' East along said line 7-8 to Towns_te Of Ashen 22_3.1� fe=`o26' W l55 90 feet; .::ence S 76°38' W 196.05 feetto the TRUE POINT OF BEGiN-WING. _ ence S - i "4CEL D : X=IBIT A (Continue-, carcel of land being pa_t of Lot 17, situated in Section 12, -:wnship lO South, Rarge ,E.5 ;vest Of the 6th P.M. , lying Southerly of t*e Aspen City Southerly 'Zoun Cary, and Northwesterly of Line 2-3 of t.-.i Survey No. 5793, W- _C - _s further describe- as. ��c�nning at the ir_tersecf_on of sad Asce- .,cundary and Line 2-3, a_Os being the Nort.eaS-� Corner Of said Lot _!; t-ence S 76038'00 W 1^.Sz feet along said L_-e 2-3 to the Sc,-,:east Corner Oi _rot 17; t enCe N 55 ° 2 O ' 24 " si G . 7 ^ feet along said 7.0t 17 Scut-erly boundary; t :.ce N 02120"00" E 13 . C., feet to a point c- said A= en boundary; t=nce S 5511.7' 06" E 21. c = feet along said :_Spen boundary t0 the �Ortr'_east corner Of said.- 17, the point of beCl'.:!l-g. 71 CEL E: 18 A -ND M.S. 73210, Q7C770N 12, TOWVSFTD 10 SOUT-H, RA-N-GE 83 WEST 0= THE 6T P.M. COUNTY OF PIT{IN, STATE 0? COLO RADO. z23322�� S - Sec2ION i S3QQIREMENTS are the t�~ ^ seats to be comz, ® With: e £o21ow£=2 �2---- - - ;--- 2\=2 (�) Qa}e=6 to c. £c=�\./ account o: t{e�9-awto=3 0� me=Sg_�=_s &._ \��I coc3£3ela=£c2 £ems »e estate o= i\/ crest ®= be ins==e\. o£ --.- - - _ -inc EEe e=.ate or -'eras- to to 5 % \�(5) 2=cgel 1 c=eaa filed £o= =e=0=3 to-w£t: \sa\=e£ des= be- : S3av202g 2. J2 3 2K, AS TO 2. .�223 A _ND 3 LOS- - d from - ` ! = 2k2EELS E �D D AND iOyg, :\E., A EO£C � �O E22)S k2IO2, a� 20 =._��_ 32�ZIE2G3233, 23g., 2 E022= JO E02222 .JIO§, k3 20 . �__ _ _ : g222I33 TO §2 ED \2_S 5 _ Eat the Real Estate = a -;£e= 2. Z =_- atis£actcry to /5e Eomga=7 . ; g{ i99)) a.3�\=3i2:2c= �� ` §o. 20 (Sarre_ - -K°as as=a5liS5ec by 0.3==a==e \\. 13 (Se.£es o£ I590) Ea3 5=_2 paid o= exes22e3. =-,ued by the transferor (s). (3E£3 o£ 2oa£ole ig2 s-___-s e.xecz�\,� \\\\\5E52= is not I . inns =o _e Ieco.^@�} o.y to t._a Eomgany that the Declaration of Sale, r=;;tis£acc 4dance \K.§. 128S has been ccmOl£ec \et ice to County Assessor as r,I=e3 byv;=e3 to E ,�,_3e3, but mast be (Th-s instresazt is =�- =e.-- ���£2 the County i2 'v the Assessors Office . }\ve=ed =o and re- —ea 2. \£cE c,a 21operty is Sit=a=e6} o£ Form 22 107) regarding the wit-olding o£ Colorado Tax =@.=a\r ==sans, corno£ations and firms Selling meal . \»e sale by \ § i2st=ement is'not =egaired the State o= E=2o=ado. (This 0o be recorded) r47 c SCEDULE B SECTION 2 EXCEPTIONS --e zo icy Or Colic1aS tO he issued Wi i 1 CC.^.tar._ exceptions to t e oll-- ing un_ess the Sam= are disposed of to t' e satisfaction of .� t. 1. .'c^ts cr claims of _ar::es in _cssess_or. not ^_r the _ ___c records. 2. Zase'e.^its, 0= claps of ease'an:s, not shown. hy pu 1-.. re" rds. 3 . D:screoanc:es, ccn=lists in LC :' G_ ! lines, s.'_ - -_�' in area, e ncroac any facts which a cores: survev and inspection of :. e Premises would d_sc1C e a and w :icn are not s -�;N- , :e _ .,c records. ,- --en, cr r:Cnt Z:- a Ser i_CeS, 1=__�._, :':��? �.G.. .. .'JLCi �'� or ered.ter _�..-.._sned, _m =csed bylaw and not s c- the _ -C records �. :-afects, liens, encu....,_ances, adverse claims or Ct..e_ ma_..ers, if: any, .seared, first a_ gear_ - in _-e _ ubl_c records or a::a_.-_-g subses-cent to t e effec:_ve date hereof bu: _ _- _ :o t_^.e date the _ - ,:sed insured a= _res ..: record :or .value ...vie esta:_ cr __merest or C:or -fie thereon covered by ::is Commi:ment . 6. :axes due and ga.vable; and anti tax, special asses-smen:, C :arge or lien imccse for water cr sewer service Cr 'cr a.^_v other Sgecial :axe - d_s:-,c:. 7. ..:g:a Of the propr_etor C= a vein or lode to e:<=_act and remnove his ore therefrom, shc-..:'_d the same be found to _ _.__ rate Or intersect Che remises hereby gra .ted and right of way =cr d_:c hes or canals constructed by the authority of the United States as reserved in Lnited States Patent recorded September 16, 1923 in Book 136 at Pages 405 and 453. S. Easement for ingress and ecress as set fort_. __. Deed recorded Nove-mber 17, 1986 in Book 522 at Page 836. NOTE. In the event that a purchaser e ire acqu s al of the e property described in this Commitment under one name Cie above excerption wil l he deleted. r. 7-his commitment is invalid unless Schedule B-Section 2 the Insuring Provisicns a-d Sc edules Commitment No. PCT-9607C5 and B are attached. .-47 - _ :NAL 1IN ORMATION DISCLOSURES : o V..-- S Dp i icy t0 ;�=ue ., if any s..all Contain the =ol o 4 nc: items in addition to ones set forth above: r (1) The Deed of Trust, _f -any, required under Schedule B-Section 1. (2) r7a..e_ _- _s, c___..._ cr t__le to water. (-NOTE: T_ TS R'_CC-XPT7ON ;•rife= - _ _='- oN _ -_ �;, NIF ' S A.;D M011 Tc%c� Lc_ c�- To _� to _nsura.^.ce Fe:u_...t_-n 8--2; NC==• =ach title enti-.• _all notify in writing every pre- `ctive :nSurcd in an Gwn=r'� t_z1c insurance ^O!'-cy for a s_. le =1 -=s_CenCe (1nC! ? C� iCOT._n_G[ Or townhouse un4 ) (i) o- ?; ,.hat title ent_ ,• C_ne_-.l require...=nts for the deletion Of a" e Cection or eaC_:s;cn tC coverage relatlna to un`i 1=^., meChan_cs Cr -, aterlalmens 1--ens, except when said Coverage insurance O r e _S extended to the _nsu_ed L :der the terms of the pol_c.. A satisfactory aff__�v_t and acreenenz i ndemnifyinc the Ccr:.^and. -: a'___s t u 'filed ...e. n_Cs ' and�Or 1'Ta _ _ ___ en s ! '_ens e- , the verso-^_s _ 7.44 Cc._eC the attaC---;. copy of said at=ldav _t -.:st be L _ :r%_shc... t0 the Company. Lon. receipt of these ice — an any to be spe-c_f_ed by the Ccmpanv u_ cn request, Pre --_Tinted Number 4 may be deleted from the C.%mer's contact the Company for =t:rt)_cr lnicr-st1C_^.. Notwithstandina_ the fo_-egoina, nothing contained in ._is Pa= Cra..h shall be deemed to im:ose' ary requirement _.. any, :it-!-- insurer to provide mechanics or in-.terial--er.S .-en coverage. NC:=. ! i the .> CC n�4--:rs the owners Cr loan closing under ci rc=_ c:.: where 4t i s resoons i ble for the recordir_a or =111%C ,f al docu-eats from Said transaction, the COmpan y Ni11 be d__ a to have provided "Gap Coverage". PurSuan_ to S=.._ - ill c_ (CRS 10-11-122) ; (-) T.-e S t Reel . ropercy9 may be located in a Special Taxing D_= :r ( ) A der: _-ate of .axes Due listl::g each taxing jurisdiction ma_- =u_ned form the County treas•--rer of the County TreaS s Authorized Agent; (c) 1._fcr- .on regarding Special Districts and the boundaries of S:c:_.._ riots rrav be Obtained from the Board of*County Cam-, ;hers, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County_ IsseS_ No'-7 2. t=:t 'Car f i ca e w_'_1 be ordered __-= Cc<<.pa an : the costs thereof unless w= ten i-structicn to the c0mpa_ r - _or to tree issuance of this COm% _ _men t . '.his commitment -s invalid unless Pr-':1S40:_S an_ SCPeduleS and _rare ra_t_ ched. from the County Treasurer by charaed to the proposed insured ccn.trary are received by the the Title Policv anticiaated by Schedule B-Section 2 Ccc;'.,::_tment No. ?CT-9o07C= LEGAL DESCRIPTION CITY MONUMENT SE BLOCK 19 J OMNSON PA RCEL PARCEL.A ' A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12. T©WN$HIP 10 SWTH. RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6th P.M. BEING SITUATED IN THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN. PITKIN COUNTY. COLORADO DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGANNI1G..AT CORNER NO. I OF SAID M.W. LODE WHENCE CORNER NO. 8 OF SAID TOWNS'ITE OF ASPEN BEARS S60.58'30-E 3,368.56 FEET: THENCt NTO 38*E 63.70 FEET ALONG LINE 1-5 OF SAID M.W. LODE. THENCE 1402'26'E 325.12 FEET TO LINE 7-8 ASPEN TOWNSITE. THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE NO 2`26'E 16.39 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF WEST HOPK 1348 `*VEi<lUE Tip b`d9'II'E 152.37 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY AND ITS EXXTT :11:. _ ` V THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT -A. BLOCK 32 OF SAID CITY AND.` fiE QQF ASPEN: THE $HI*RLY'ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT A. 69.79 FEET TO LINE 7-8 AB TOWNSITE: THE NIrE N55'17'06'W 158.27 FEET TO THE.,POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL B: THE SOUTHERLY 20 FEET OF LOTS A. B. C. BLOCK 32. CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN LOST DIAMOND PARCEL PARCEL C A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12. TOW SHIP 10 SOUTH. RANG 85 WEST OF THE 6th P.M.. PITKIN COUNTY. COtORADO. THE M.W.(ckc MARTHA WASH INGTON) LODE MINIMG CLAIM U.S.M.S NO. 5793 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT CORNER NO. I OF SAID M.W. LODE MINING CLAIM WHENCE CORNED NO. 8 OF ASPEN TOWNSITE BEARS S60'58'30'E 3268.56 FEET: THEN0E::N76'38'E 63.70 FEET ALONG LINE 1-5 OF SAID M.W. LODE MINING CLA114 TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: N22626'E 321.47 FEET TO LINE 7-8 OF THE TOWNSITE OF ASPEN: $. 5 16 E ALONG SAID LINE 7-8 TO THE TOWNSITE OF ASPEN 223 15 SEE' T 'S02'26"W 155.90 FEET: TIiENCE S76'38'W 196.05 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL D. A PARCEL OF LAND BEING PART OF LOT 17. SITUATED IN SECTION 12. TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH. RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6th P.M.. LYING SOUTHERL` O� TNIr P;EN CITY SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY. AND NORTHWESTERLY OF LINE 2-3'OF #off $ VEY NO. 5703. WHICH IS FURTHER DESCRIBED AS: i BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF SAID ASPEN BOUNDARY AND LINE 2-3 ALSO BEING TW,NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 17: T#iENCE S 76-38.00-W 14.85 FEET ALONG SAID LINE 2-3 TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 17: THENCE N 55'17'06'E 21.64 FEET ALONG SAID ASPEN BOUNDARY TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT '7. THE POINT OF BEGINNING x JOHNSON TO LOST DIAMOND A.TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12. T IitSH P 10 10, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6 t h P.M. BEING S f TUATED 1 :.� 10{ A� 64SITE OF ASPEN. PITKAN COUNTY, COLORADO DESCRIBED AS :Fdit S : BEDIW,WGIATITHE�lR_THWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT A. BLOCK 32 OF SAID CITY Aria. x TE 0P'*kslr0- _ . TRE14M..t0 W5¢`4g' `$9-.#9' ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT A TO THENCE N55r.'.I.i' Q5`.N` 45.05 FEET ALONG SAID LINE 7-8 ASPEN TOWNS I TE : THEi�CE 'N *50'4WIt 54.48 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF WEST H4RKc.l?15 A: 'rm< THWENCE S75'00':1 14E- 42.73 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY R I GHT OF WAY OF WEST HdP.K[NS AVENUE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 4.433 SQUARE FEET WORE OR LESS. LOST DIAMOND TO J OHNSON AAMXA TI ON PARCEL A_TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12. TOWN,Sfi IP 10- SOUTH. RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6 t h P . W. . P I TK I N COUNTY. COLORADO. THE MAI - (aka MARTHA WASH INGTONI LODE MINING CLAIM U.S.►d.S -140 . 5793 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 8EG1HNItIG AT CORZR NO. I OF SAID M.W. LODE MINING CLAIM WHENCE CORNER 140.:6,QF-.ASPEN TOWSITE BEARS S60058'30'E 3268.56 FEET: THe N7,6 U ' E. fr3. 70.1FEET ALONG LINE 1-5 OF SAID M.W. LODE MINING CLA TRI=t "NO2'26*E..;fZI ..47 FEET TO LINE 7-8 OF THE TOWNS I TE OF ASPEN THE TR POIS1NT -W tMINNi S55917`_ "� i-M 22 FEET ALONG SAID LINE 7-8 ASPEN TOWNSITE: 4��v0 w 4.42-FE.ET: TF�NCE N77 58 49971 95 FEET: THENCE NO2`26'E * .14 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. LG MAR Y SUBD/Vl. lu 1 Did ce) MA►17i13i 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 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 Avenue, 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 annexatiog 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. APPLICANT: Stanford Johnson and Lyle Reeder, owners. LOCATION: 5th Street and Hopkins Avenue. 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 "B." RECOMMENDATION: 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. %I date ie Ann Woods, Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Application FA • F9 LJ 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 nonconforming lot, in which the adjustment shall not increase the nonconformity of the lot. Staff Finding. A plat hs not been provided. 0 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. MEMORANDUM To: Chris Bendon, Planner Thru: Nick Adeh, City Enginee From: Chuck Roth, Project Engineer 0/e 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: 1. 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 Right-of-way - 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 §26.88.040.D.2.a. 5. Work in the Public Right-of-way - 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 , street and alley cuts, and shall obtain permits 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 98M 186 STRNFORD JOHNSON BOH 416 RSPEN, COLORROO 81612 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 8987 E. Tanque Verde Road #304 Lost Diamond, Inc. Tucson, AZ 85749 Box 4859 (520) 749 4081 Aspen, CO 81612 (970) 925 5360 1 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 Avenue 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 Avenue, 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: 1. This is an insubstantial boundary change between adjacent parcels designed; to improve both parcels A - B and 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, 4 simple lot line adjustment were reshaped into a rectangle, a normal shaped house site would be accomplished and the future appearance of the neighborhood 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. 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. � / n / 11 �� / I .I- _ r r 1 / ® - .• � II r I I I.� i��t I I I � • oz61 � mqz !" R_ CD o_ ti ` m b �i e 2 O ` n - -- i crc ' '.ci iiij j;F -EE iI c': N•,�• • PIP 71 C) c _• < T ii i3 � �• � c 2 C - R4 ;ELA L rn i ') �� 8987 EAST TANQUE VERDE ROAD #304 TUCSON, ARIZONA 85749 R E C F (�J (520) 749 4081 NOV 1 i 1998 Abrt1., rl, r\,N 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. Thank you for your assistance. Yours truly, Stanford Johnson 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 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 51h 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 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 Aspen from your conceit, of a separatC building site :esultiag from tl:e Lot Line Adjustment. T_h_is 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 terminate and the subject tract of land shall merge with that annexed portion of Parcel C. 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., 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 M.W, Lode Mining Claim whence Comer No. 8 of Townsite of Aspen, Colorado bears S 60058'30" E 3268.56 feet; thence N 76038' E 63.70 feet alono line 1-5 of said M.W. Lode Mining Claim to the TRUE POINT OFv BEGINNING; thence N 02°26' 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 Stanford H. Johnson Approved City of Aspen Accepted: Lost Diamond, Inc 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 fax 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, ow__ �,�Ags� Stanfo d H. lohnson cc: Chris Brendon This concept is approved by Lost Diamond, Inc: By, Lyle D. Reeder, President I _k THE CITY OF ASPEN MEMO FROM CHRISTOPHER BENDON PLANNER ary f_6- d dz I d +4� �„uI dwe4,��d. 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 51611-1975 PHONE 970.920.5072 • FAx 970.920.5439 e-mail: chrisbCci.aspen.co.us - 11 . 1 0 04774oppam"r ZM February 10, 1997 THE CITY OF ASPEN Mitch Haas Planner Community Development City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 31611 RE: Lvle 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 8.2 13 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 dis_t,ositive of the issue. Subsection 5 reads as follows: 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 of any portion shall constitute subdivision. As Aspen Townsite lot or addition thereto includes all lands depicted on the Aspen incorporation plat of record, . dated 1880, plus any lot or parcel annexed to the city since that time which constitutes a nonconforming lot of record, plus any lot or parcel which has not received subdivision approval by the City of Aspen or Pitkin County, but excludes any subdivided lot in the City of Aspen which conforms to the . requirements of this title. 130 SOCTH GALFNA g7QF=7 . A--,- C 91411 --- _--- 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." 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 would 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. 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 his/her right to protest the annexation of the property by the City at some unspecified future date. Sincerely, David Hoefer Assistant City Attorney cc. Julie Ann Woods ATTACHMENT 4 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 development. ** There is no Attachment 5 associated with this application. att4.11a 0 • 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 corner 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. LOST AMOND, INC., Date,�" y: D D.-REEDER, President Date STANtORD OHNSON lldr se F TITLE 0 CHAIN O EXTENSION OF FIFTH STREET SOUTH OF HOPKINS AVENUE, ASPEN, COLORADO BK/PG DATE DEED GRANTOR / GRANTEE and DESCRIPTION 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 tract of land or parcel of land within the limits of said Townsite and being all of that tract of land lying between the un-numbered Block south of Bl;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 Corporation to Stanford H. Johnson. "A tract of land bounded by the easterly side -line of the fractional unnumbered block south of 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 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 Colorado." 268/738 11/13/1972 QCD 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 Colorado." 417/423 11/10/81 QUIT TITLE DECREE • September 28, 1998 Mr. Lyle Reeder, president Lost Diamond, Inc. P.O. Box 5948 Aspen, Colorado 81612 BOX 416 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 LETTER AGREEMENT Subject: Lot 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 the Lost Diamond property with access to West Hopkins Avenue (see attached plat). This easement does not provide for utilities. The Subject Lot Line Adjustment Plat will provide Lost Diamond, Inc. with 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, utilities and landscaping and will render the referenced easement unnecessary. Therefore, it is agreed that for the consideration contained herein, Lost Diamond will extinguish the referenced easement by quit claiming its interest in and to the referenced easement to Stanford H. Johnson or assigns simultaneously with the Comunity Planning Department Director's approval of the subject Lot Line Adjustment Exemption and the annexation by the City of Aspen of the southerly part of the lot line adjusted tract of land, Yours truly, Stan ord .Johnson v6 �� Lost Dia nd, Inc. b 0 yle D. Reeder, president a W v Q t �t r � P� � o0 O `O • `2 1+ I o all N 7Y 7 m - J 7920 THE CITY OF ASPEN OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 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, John P. Worcester City Attorney - cc: Chris Bendon, Community Development Dept. JPW- 10/26/98-G:\john\word\letters\reeder.doc 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET - ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 PHONE 970.920.5055 FAX 970.920.5119 Printed on Rec%ded Paper LOST DIAMOND, INC. P.O. BOX 4859 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 (970)925-5360 October 19, 1998 John P. Worchester, Esq. Aspen City Attorney 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Worchester: a� OCT 199821 C�Y Attome U Qf`icr Y's o c- w l 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 the above telephone number. Thank you for your assistance in processing this annexation. Sinc ly, ost Diamond, Inc. Lyle 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 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 the landowner of one hundred percent of the territory included in the area to be annexed, exclusive of streets and alleys. 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 S60°58'30"E 3268.56 FEET; THENCE N76°38'E 63.70 FEET ALONG LINE 1-5 OF SAID M.W. LODE MINING CLAIM; THENCE NO2°26'E 321.47 FEET TO LINE 7-8 OF THE TOWNSITE OF ASPEN THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S55°17'06" 113.22 FEET ALONG SAID LINE 7-8 ASPEN TOWNSITE: THENCE S14*50'49'W 24.52 FEET; THENCE N77°58'49"W 91.95 FEET; THENCE NO2o26oE 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. Petition Lo Diamond, Inc (date) Lyle D. Reeder, President STATE OF �- ) COUNTY of P ) ss . Subscribed and sworn to before me thisa�th day of October, 1998 by Lyle D. Reeder. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires / 'Nofary Pu lic ----------- ------ OFFICIAL SEAL Lou Ellen Mollet Notary Public, State of CJnois My Commission Expires 9i"11110 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 the landowner of one hundred percent of the territory included in the area to be annexed, exclusive of streets and alleys. 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 S60°58'30"E 3268.56 FEET; THENCE N76°38'E 63.70 FEET ALONG LINE 1-5 OF SAID M.W. LODE MINING CLAIM; THENCE NO2°261E 321.47 FEET TO LINE 7-8 OF THE TOWNSITE OF ASPEN THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S55°17'06" 113.22 FEET ALONG SAID LINE 7-8 ASPEN TOWNSITE: THENCE S14°50'49'W 24.52 FEET; THENCE N77°58'49"W 91.95 FEET; THENCE NO2°26°E 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. Petition �C, 7 Lo Diamond, Inc (date) Lyle D. Reeder, President -Z(- Lit�v STATE OF@t- ) JieleJJ'�{- ) COUNTY of P3Ei#- ) ss. Subscribed and sworn to before me thiso3_th day of October, 1998 by Lyle D. Reeder. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires /'—�z —ele, Z) 'Nofary Pu lic -------------------- OFFICIAL SEAL Lou Ellen Mollet Notary Public, Stale of 111inols My Commission Expires 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 the landowner of one hundred percent of the territory included in the area to be annexed, exclusive of streets and alleys. 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 CORNER NO. 1 OF SAID M.W. LODE MINING CLAIM WHENCE CORNER NO. 8 OF ASPEN TOWNSITE BEARS S60°58'30"E 3268.56 FEET; THENCE N76°38'E 63.70 FEET ALONG LINE 1-5 OF SAID M.W. LODE MINING CLAIM; THENCE NO2°261E 321.47 FEET TO LINE 7-8 OF THE TOWNSITE OF ASPEN THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S55°17'06" 113.22 FEET ALONG SAID LINE 7-8 ASPEN TOWNSITE: THENCE S14°50'49'W 24.52 FEET; THENCE N77°58'49"W 91.95 FEET; THENCE NO2°26°E 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. Petition Lo,A Diamond, Inc (date) Lyle D. Reeder, President STATE OF �- ) lielcJ' ) COUNTY of P ) ss. Subscribed and sworn to before me thiso2Lth day of October, 1998 by Lyle D. Reeder. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires N ary 4ul • --------------------- OFFICIAL SEAL Lou Ellen Monet Notary Public, Stale of Illinois My Commission Expires 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 the landowner of one hundred percent of the territory included in the area to be annexed, exclusive of streets and alleys. 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 S60°58'30"E 3268.56 FEET; THENCE N76°38'E 63.70 FEET ALONG LINE 1-5 OF SAID M.W. LODE MINING CLAIM; THENCE NO2°26'E 321.47 FEET TO LINE 7-8 OF THE TOWNSITE OF ASPEN THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S55°17'06" 113.22 FEET ALONG SAID LINE 7-8 ASPEN TOWNSITE: THENCE S14°50'49'W 24.52 FEET; THENCE N77°58'49"W 91.95 FEET; THENCE NO2°26°E 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. Petition Lo Diamond, Inc (date) Lyle D. Reeder, President -Z(-L.ti(lo--Z STATE OF ) I�elc�' ) ss. COUNTY of Pt ) Subscribed and sworn to before me this,:�2;,jLth day of October, 1998 by Lyle D. Reeder. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires / N ary Pu lic OFFICIAL SEAL Lou Ellen Mollel Notary Public, State of Illinois My Commission Expires 9/23/2000 MEMORANDUM TO: Plans were routed to those departments checked -off below: #0........... City Engineer O ........... Zoning Officer O ........... Housing Director #W .......... Parks Department O ........... Aspen Fire Marshal O ........... City Water O ........... Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District O ........... Building Department O ........... Environmental Health O ........... Electric Department O ........... Holy Cross Electric ,0 .......... 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) October 21, 1998 OTHER REFERRALS DUE TO PLANNER: October 28, 1998 ENGINEERING REFERRAL DUE TO PLANNER: October 30, 1998 Thank you, Chris. :r. r� �...- a �.. �. .. -. _ _ .. ._ ' ��U��� ��.... - .. a . ;��'�,: 8987 EAST TANQUE VERDE ROAD #304 TUCSON, ARIZONA 85749 5 49 4081 (9 O V November 2, 1998 •� John P. Worchester, Esq. Aspen City Attorney � �V 130 South Galena Street ZZtZ0-40" 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 51h 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 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 Aspen 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 terminate and the subject tract of land shall merge with that annexed portion of Parcel C. 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., 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 M.W, Lode Mining Claim whence Corner No. 8 of Townsite of Aspen, Colorado bears S 60058'30" E 3268.56 feet; thence N 76038' 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 55°16' 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 Stanford H. Johnson Approved City of Aspen 0 Accepted: Lost Diamond, Inc 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 fax 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 d H. lohnson cc: Chris Brendon This concept is approved by Lost Diamond, Inc: By, Lyle D. Reeder, President Lost Diamond, Inc November 2, 1998 - Signed Copy John P. Worchester, Esq. Aspen City Attorney 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 8987 EAST TANQUE VERDE ROAD #304 TUCSON, ARIZONA 85749 ,bro s'�� (520) 749 4061 Zia F, � o �&AJ 4 Offs� h, e tZ 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 5 h 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 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 Aspen 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 terminate and the subject tract of land shall merge with that annexed portion of Parcel C. TOTAL P.04 11-05-1998 09:51AIhl STANFORL, JOHNSON 602 ?494081 P.07 John P. Worchester, Esq. Aspen City Attorney November 2, 1998 Page 2 PARCEL C: A tract of land sluated in the Souteast Quarter of section 12. Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th R.M., Pit,n County, Colorado, ttne M.W. (aka Martha Washington) Lade Mining Claim U.S.M.S, No. 5793 described as follows: Beginning at Comer No. 2 of said M.W, Lode Mining Claim wt+enoe Comer No. 8 of Townsite of Aspen, Colorado Means S 60058'30" E 3268,56 feet; thence N M38' E 63.70 feet along line 1-5 of said M.W. Lode Mining Owrn to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: thenoe N 02°26 E 321.47 feet to Line 7 - 8 of the Townsite of Aspen: thence S 55016 East along said line 7 - 8 to the ToNnsile of Aspen 223,15 feet; thence S 02026' W 155.90 feet; thence S 7R°38'1,N 19e.05 fast to the TRUF POINT OF BEGINWING. Grantor Approved: Accepted: City of Aspen Lost Diamond, Inc 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 import&-r, to keep t!us Lot Line Adjustment process moving along. I would appreciate hearing from you on this 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 tLnie betwon Aspen and Tucson. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, This concept is approved by Lost D' At/ Stanfo H. hnson By,' Lyle D. Rceder, President cc: Chris Brendon is i • iw PARCEL ID. 2735 124-00661 DATE RCVD:" C..... 6 CASE NAMEI Johnson/Reeder Lot Line Adjustment PROD ADDR: 5th and Hopkins CA t" .. . Lot Line Adjustment P '�a4 OWN/APP: Stanford Johnson ADR 8987 E. Tanque Verd C/S/Z: Tucson, AZ 8574' REP: Lyle Reeder (co -applicant) ADR. P.O. Box 4859 C/S/Z: Aspen, CO 81611 FEES DUE J FEES RCYD REFERRALS REMARKS CLOSED: BY PLAT (BK,PG): CASE NO A087-98 PLNR: P (520) 749-4081 PHN` 925-5360 DATE OF FINAL ACTION CITY COUNCIL:r-- BOA: DRAC: