HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ec.Second Aspen Company A71-94 2735-121-00-002
-
/-
.".
...
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
city of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 09J02~94 , PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: c:r 114l '1 '-! 2735-121 00-002 A71-94
/ ' STAFF MEMBER: LL
PROJECT NAME: Second Aspen Company Lot Line Adiustment
Project Address:
Legal Address: Lots 7 & 7a. Second Aspen Co. Sub.
APPLICANT: Antonia Zurcher
Applicant Address: Box 2019. Aspen.
REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann
Representative Address/Phone: 230 E.
Aspen.
925-6678
925-6958
Hopkins
CO 81611
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
FEES: PLANNING $ 215 # APPS RECEIVED 2
ENGINEER $ # PLATS RECEIVED 2
HOUSING $
ENV. HEALTH $
TOTAL $ 215
TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: -1L 1 STEP: 2 STEP:
P&Z Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
y~c ~e,~t,~n,g Date '. . f'
,~~~==~==~~dJ===~k~~~~=*=~===============================
REFERRALS:
city Attorney
_ ~ City Engineer
Housing Dir.
Aspen Water
City Electric
Envir.Hlth.
Zoning
Parks Dept.
Bldg Inspector
Fire Marshal
Holy Cross
Mtn. Bell
ACSD
Energy Center
School District
Rocky Mtn NatGas
CDOT
Clean Air Board
open space Board
Other
Other
DATE REFERRED: q/I) INITIALS: ";,W DUE: Od;?i.J
============================================~=~~~===========
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: /9 . ~ INITIAL:.2l:f..l:) .
___ city Atty )( city Engineer ___zoning ___Env. Health
___ Housing ~ Open Space Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
~
-
375841 6-765 P-692 10/27/94 02:15P PG 1 OF 4
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER
MEMORANDUH
REC
20.00
DOC
TO:
File
THRU:
Stan Clauson, Community Development Director
FROM:
Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director
DATE:
October 26, 1994
Second Aspen Company Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment -
Amendment
RE:
----------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
SOHMARY: As a result of the recommendations from the Engineering
Department regarding the adjusted lot line, the net lot area and
allowable floor area numbers had to be adjusted. This re'lised memo
changes those numbers (in bold) and the recorded lot line
adjustment plat will reflect the new net lot area and allowable
floor area for both Lots 7 and 7A. This revised memo will also
supersede the representations in the application.
The property owner of Lots 7 and 7A of the Second Aspen Company
Subdivision seek to adjust the common property boundaries with a
lot line adjustment to eliminate the non-conformity with respect
to the minimum of Lot 7A. Eliminating the non-conformity will
negate the issue of whether the lots were merged in 1975 which
would then enable the separate sale of Lots 7 and 7A. Please
review the attached application for the history the problem.
APPLICANT: Antonia Zurcher
ZONE DISTRICT: R-15
BACKGROUND: Although the Second Aspen Company Subdivision was
approved by the Board of County Commissioners in 1961 and Lots 7
and 7A of that subdivision should not have merged during the city
wide "merger" action in 1975, the non-conforming minimum width of
Lot 7A causes the lots to merge based upon the criteria of merged
lots. Section 24-7-1004 .A. 5 states that the merger provision
applies to all lots in the original Aspen Townsite and depicted on
the 1880 recorded incorporation plat, all lots in additions to the
Townsite and depicted on the incorporation plat, any lot or parcel
annexed into the city since 1880 which constitutes a non-conforming
lot of record, and any lot or parcel which has not received
subdivision approval from the BOCC or Council.
By definition, Lot 7A is a non-conforming lot of record because it
does not meet the minimum width requirement for the R-15 zone
district. The lot width is 25 feet whereas the required width is
75 feet.
During a meeting with the planning staff and the assistant city
attorney, it was suggested that the applicant pursue a lot line
~,"","', ,
.'~",~ori..:'.ili...!!:<:_
-
375841
6-765 P-694 10/27/94 02:15P PG 3
OF 4
and money with a very similar outcome. The Aspen Land Use Code has
not been amended in a manner that would affect a new subdivision
of these parcels.
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 non-conformity of the lot.
RESPONSE: A boundary adjustment will correct a current non-
conformity with respect to the minimum lot width for Lot 7A. The
Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal. The Department
made several recommendations that shall be complied with prior to
filing the final plat: development must comply with sto~ drainage
requirements, the applicant shall agree to join any future
improvement districts which may be formed for the purpose of
constructing improvement in the public right-of-way, all
encroachments into the public right-Of-way must be removed prior
to development, and the final plat shall meet the requirements of
section 24-7-1004.D. A final plat shall be reviewed and approved
by the Engineering Department and Planning Department. The plat
must be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within
180 days of final approval of this lot line adjustment or this
approval is void.
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.
RESPONSE: The lot line adjustment will not impact development
rights or density of any of the properties involved.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the lot line
adjustment between Lots 7 and 7A of the Second Aspen company
Subdivision, Aspen with the following conditions:
1. An amended plat shall be reviewed and approved by the
Engineering and Planning Departments and shall be filed within 180
days of final approval and shall include the adjusted lot line as
represented in the lot line adjustment application.
2. Prior to any development of Lots 7 and 7A, the applicant shall
agree to join any improvement districts, remove all encroachments
from the public ROW, and maintain historic storm runoff patterns
on both sites.
3. Prior to filing the final plat an adequate emergency access
must be indicated on the plat for Lot 7A.
3
MEMORANDUM
To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department C:lc.
Date: September 26, 1994
Re: Second Aspen Company Subdivision Exemption for a Lot line Adjustment
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. Access - The indicated width of the easement meets Code emergency access width
requirements, however the radius may be insufficient to permit access by emergency
response vehicles. The final plat must indicate the length of the radius of the access
easement.
I met with the Fire Marshal. For fire engine access, the outside radius must be a
minimum of 50 feet. If fire engine access is not provided, the buildings will be required
to be protected by sprinkler systems as necessary. If fire engine access is not provided,
the minimum outside radius must be 30 feet for ambulance access.
The future site design might benefit by the two lots sharing the one driveway,
therefore it is recommended that the access easement for Lot 7-A permit driveway use
by Lot 7.
2. Site Drainal!e - Although the application is not an application for development, we
suggest requesting the applicant to commit to development plans that provide for no more
than historic storm runoff flows to leave either site.
3. Improvement Districts - It is typical for most land use approval applications to require
the applicant to agree to join any future improvement districts which may be formed for
the purpose of constructing improvements in the public right-of-way.
4. Encroachments - There is a wire fence that encroaches as much as 22 feet into the
public right-of-way. We recommend a condition of approval that the fence be relocated
to the property line or removed prior to signing the final plat. There are also a number
of boulders located behind the fence but in the public right-of-way. Item 6 of this memo
discusses permits for work in the public right-of-way. These boulders are potentially
encroaching into snow storage and pedestrian areas. The building permit application for
development on Lot 7 must include the intended design of the public right-of-way adjacent
to the lot.
5. Final Plat - The final plat must meet the requirements of Section 24-7-1004.D.
- Show the location of the 100-year floodplain line.
_ State in a general note that development of Lot 7-A will require Stream Margin
Review approvals as required by Section 24-7-504.
- State in a general note that there are no improvements on either lot.
6. Work in the Public Right-of-wav - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work
and development in public rights-of-way adjacent to private property, we advise the
applicant as follows:
The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for design
considerations of development within public rights-of-way, parks department
(920-5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or
development, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way from city streets
department (920-5130).
cc: Cris Caruso
M94.339
-
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone 920-5090 FAX 920-5197
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
City Engineer
Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
Second Aspen Company Lot Line Adjustment
Parcel ill No. 2735-121-00-002
RE:
DATE:
September 15, 1994
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Antonia Zurcher on
behalf of the Walter P. Paepcke Life Insurance Trust.
Please return your comments to me no later than September 26.
Thank you.
""",
,.,
VANN ASSOCIATES
Planning Consultants
August 3D, 1994
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Lots 7 and 7A, Second Aspen Company Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment
Dear Leslie:
Please consider this letter an application to adjust a lot line between Lots 7 and 7 A
of the Second Aspen Company Subdivision (see Exhibit I, Pre-Application Con-
ference Summary, attached hereto). The application is submitted pursuant to Section
7-1003.A.1. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations by Antonia Zurcher on behalf of The
Walter P. Paepcke Life Insurance Trust (see Exhibit 2, Authorization to Represent).
Please note that title to the lots in question is held in the name of Elizabeth H.
Paepcke, as executrix of the estate of Walter Paepcke (see Exhibit 3, Title Commit-
ment). Under Walter's will, his entire residual estate passed to the Trust. Permission
for Vann Associates to represent the Applicant is attached as Exhibit 4.
Existing Conditions
As the accompanying plat of the Second Aspen Company Subdivision indicates, Lots
7 and 7A were approved by the Board of County Commissioners on March 6, 1961.
The lots are presently vacant and are held in common ownership. Lot 7 contains
twenty-six thousand six hundred and fifty-eight (26,658) square feet of land area while
Lot 7A contains sixty thousand eight hundred and thirty (60.830) square feet. The
lots are zoned R-15, Moderate-Density Residential, as is the remainder of the Second
Aspen Company Subdivision.
The two lots obviously exceed the fifteen thousand (15,000) square foot minimum lot
area requirement of the underlying R-15 zone district. Lot 7A, however, fails to meet
the district's minimum lot width requirement of seventy-five (75) feet. The Land Use
Regulations define lot width as the distance between the side lot lines measured
congruent with the front yard setback line. The width of Lot 7A at the twenty-five
(25) foot front yard setback measures approximately thirty-two (32) feet. As a result,
Lot 7 A is non-conforming with respect to minimum lot width, and is therefore
considered to be a non-conforming lot of record.
lTJ ~as: Ho;~*w::::- A";'(''l;-ie 0 Asnen. Co:orado 8161 ~ . 30T925~G958. Fax 303'920-9310
'"
Ms. Leslie Lamont
August 30, 1994
Page 2
Background
Pursuant to Section 8-104.A.1.c. of the Regulations, the construction of a single-
family dwelling unit on a vacant lot is exempt from the City's growth management
quota system (GMQS) subject to compliance with all of the following requirements.
1. The lot was subdivided prior to November 14, 1977; and
2. The lot has not merged with any adjacent lot as provided for in Section 7-
1004.A.5. of the Regulations; and
3. The affordable housing impacts attributable to the exempt single-family
dwelling unit are mitigated by the lot owner prior to issuance of a building
permit.
The recorded plat of the Second Aspen Company Subdivision indicates that the
Board of County Commissioners approved the subdivision in 1961. The lots in
question, therefore, clearly comply with the first requirement, as they were legally
subdivided prior to November 14, 1977.
With respect to the second requirement, Section 7-1004.A.5. of the Regulations states
in part that "if two (2) or more lots within the original Aspen Townsite or additions
thereto have continuousfrontage and were in single ownership (including husband and
wife) on October 27,1975, the lots shaU be considered an undivided lot ..., and conveyance
of any portion shaU constitute subdivision". Section 7-1004.A.5. further states that this
so-called "merger" provision applies to the following types of lots.
1. All lots located within the original Aspen Townsite which are depicted on the
Aspen incorporation plat of record dated 1880.
2. All lots located within any addition to the Townsite which are also depicted on
the incorporation plat.
3. Any lot or parcel annexed to the City since 1880 which constitutes a non-
conforming lot of record.
4. Any lot or parcel which has not received subdivision approval from the City of
Aspen or Pitkin County.
Based on the above criteria, it can be argued that Lots 7 and 7 A have merged, and
must be considered a single, undivided parcel for development purposes. While the
two lots are not located within the original Aspen Townsite, and the Second Aspen
Company Subdivision was approved by the BOCC, Lot 7 A is by definition a non-
,.'"
.,.~.,
Ms. Leslie Lamont
August 30, 1994
Page 3
conforming lot of record, as it fails to meet the minimum width requirement of the
R-15 zone district. As noted previously, the minimum width requirement in the R-15
zone district is seventy-five (75) feet. Lot 7 A, however, measures approximately
thirty-two (32) feet at the front yard setback line.
As the attached correspondence between the City and Andrew Hecht of Garfield &
Hecht indicates (see Exhibit 5), the issue of merger was previously addressed in 1986.
At the time, the Planning Office was of the opinion that the merger provision did not
apply to the Second Aspen Company Subdivision (see Exhibit 6). It is important to
note, however, that the merger regulation in effect in 1986 was considerably less
sophisticated, and did not include a reference to the merger of non-conforming lots
of record (see Exhibit 7). The current merger provisions were apparently drafted in
connection with the adoption of the new Aspen Land Use Regulations in May of
1988.
It should also be noted that Mr. Hecht's letter appears to have been factually incor-
rect in its assertion that each of the lots complied with the requirements of the
underlying zone district. Based on my preliminary review, I believe that Lot 7A did
not meet the minimum lot width requirement in effect in 1986. As his argument
against merger was based in part on the subdivision's alleged conformance with appli-
cable zoning requirements, the failure of Lot 7 A to meet the applicable minimum
width requirement may have altered the Planning Office's position had the non-
conformity been noted.
Apparently, the issue of merger was dropped following the Planning Office's response
to Mr. Hecht's letter. No formal action on behalf of the City Attorney or Council
with respect to the merger question appears to have occurred. Only the Planning
Office's initial opinion, which was based on the regulations in effect at the time and
the assumption that the lots conformed to the dimensional requirements of the R-15
zone district. appear to be available to support a position of non-merger. As a result,
I believe it is questionable as to the extent to which the Applicant may rely on the
Planning Office's original disposition of this issue. The revisions to the City's merger
regulations which apparently occurred in 1988 obviously further complicate the mat-
ter.
As we discussed on August 18 with David Bellack, the new Assistant City Attorney,
the Applicant must resolve the issue of merger so as to permit the sale of Lots 7 and
7 A for estate tax purposes. The approach recommended by the Planning Office was
to obtain Planning Director approval of a lot line adjustment. More specifically, you
suggested that we simply reconfigure Lots 7 and 7 A so as to remove the existing non-
conformity. thereby eliminating Lot 7A's status as a non-conforming lot of record and
negating the merger issue. Based on the Planning Office's recommendation, the
Applicant proposes to reconfigure the lots as follows.
,"'"
, ,.
Ms. Leslie Lamont
August 30, 1994
Page 4
Proposed Lot Line Adjustment
As the accompanying sUlVey illustrates, the Applicant proposes to eliminate the
eastern boundary between Lots 7 and 7 A, and to incorporate the affected portion of
Lot 7A into Lot 7. An equal portion of Lot 7 will be incorporated into Lot 7A so as
to maintain the two lots' existing lot areas. To ensure legal access, an easement will
be granted across reconfigured Lot 7 to selVe Lot 7 A. The resulting changes in lot
area and allowable floor area are outlined in Table 1, below.
Table 1
DEVELOPMENT DATA
1. Existing Lot Area (Sq. Ft.)
Lot 7
Gross Lot Area
Net Lot Area
26,658
26,658
Lot 7A
Gross Lot Area
Less Land Under Water
Less DrainagelIrrigation
Easement
Net Lot Area
60,830
9,124
5,145
46,561
2. Revised Lot Area (Sq. Ft.)
Lot 7
Gross Lot Area
Less Lot 7 A Access Easement
Less DrainagelIrrigation
Easement
Net Lot Area
26,658
1,656
2,240
22,762
Lot 7A
Gross Lot Area
Less Land Under Water
Less DrainagelIrrigation
Easement
Net Lot Area
60,830
9,124
2,905
48,801
........
Ms. Leslie Lamont
August 30, 1994
Page 5
3. Existing Allowable Floor Area (Sq. Ft.)'
Lot 7
Lot 7A
5,200
6,390
4. Revised Allowable Floor Area (sq. Ft.)'
Lot 7
Lot 7A
4,970
6,530
All square footages rounded to nearest ten (10) square feet. Land under
water and surface easements have been excluded from the calculation of
allowable floor area where applicable.
The Applicant will record an amended plat of Lots 7 and 7 A which depicts the
approved lot line adjustment. The proposed easement which will provide access to
Lot 7 A is depicted on the accompanying sUlvey, and will be legally described and
dedicated on the final plat. The plat will be prepared and submitted for review by
the Planning Office and Engineering Department following the receipt of subdivision
exemption approval.
Review Requirements
Pursuant to Section 7-1003.A.1. of the Land Use Regulations, an adjustment of a lot
line between contiguous lots is exempt from the City's subdivision regulations subject
. to the Planning Director's approval. The specific review criteria, and the proposed
lot line adjustment's compliance therewith, are summarized below.
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,"
The proposed lot line adjustment represents an insubstantial change to a
recorded subdivision plat which will have no significant affect on the development of
the lots in question. No increase in permitted density will result from the proposed
adjustment to the boundary between Lots 7 and 7 A. While the adjustment will
increase the allowable floor area of Lot 7A by approximately one hundred and forty
(140) square feet, the floor area of Lot 7 will decrease by approximately two hundred
and thirty (230) square feet. As a result, the combined floor area of the two lots will
decrease by approximately ninety (90) square feet. Please note that the revised floor
areas are attributable solely to the various easements which encumber the property,
and do not result from changes in gross lot area.
"'"
-.
Ms. Leslie Lamont
August 3D, 1994
Page 6
2. "An landowners whose lot lines are being adjusted shan provide written
consent to the application."
As noted previously both Lot 7 and 7A are presently held in common owner-
ship. Permission from the owner to apply for the requested lot line adjustment is
attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
3. "It is demonstrated that the request is to address specific hardship."
The subdivision in which the lots in question are located was legally approved
by the Board of County Commissioners in 1961 and subsequently annexed into the
City. While Lot 7A is technically a non-conforming lot of record due to lot width, it
complies with all other applicable dimensional requirements of the R-15 zone district.
The regulatory requirement that minimum lot width be measured at the front yard
setback could not have been anticipated at the time the subdivision was approved.
The resulting merger of Lots 7 and 7 A is clearly outside of the intent of the so-called
"merger" doctrine, and represents a hardship which deprives the Applicant of a
substantial property right.
4. "The corrected plat win 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 shan not increase the nonconfor-
mity of the lot."
The amended plat to be submitted following approval of the proposed lot line
adjustment by the Planning Director will comply with all applicable requirements of
the subdivision regulations. Similarly, the revised lots will conform to all applicable
dimensional requirements of the R-15 zone district, and the existing non-conformity
with respect to lot width will be eliminated.
5. "It is demonstrated that the lot line adjustment win not effect the develop-
ment rights or permitted density of the affected lots by providing the opportu-
nity to create a new lot for resale or development."
No increase in permitted density will occur as a result of the proposed lot line
adjustment, as the gross lot area of Lots 7 and 7A will remain unchanged. While the
allowable floor areas of Lots 7 and 7A will change slightly, the combined floor area
of the two lots will actually decrease as a result of the new access easement.
Based on the above, the proposed lot line adjustment complies with all applicable
review criteria. The adjustment is insubstantial in scope, is necessary to address an
existing hardship, and will not increase the development rights of the lots in question.
In addition, the owner of the lots has consented to the adjustment, and an amended
-
'""
Ms. Leslie Lamont
August 30, 1994
Page 7
plat of Lots 7 and 7 A will be recorded which meets the requirements of the City's
Land Use Regulations.
As you know, I will be out of town until September 16. Should you have any ques-
tions in my absence, please call Art Daily at Holland & Hart. Your prompt attention
to this matter would be sincerely appreciated.
Yours truly,
SV:cwv
Attachments
cc: Antonia Zurcher
Arthur C. Daily, Esq.
c:\bus\city.applapp26194.adj
"....
/......,
01- - 0 I /0
CITY OF ASPEN
~PRE-APPLICAT1fN COZERENCE SUMMAR~ ~
PROJECTd VL ~~ ~J(). -. (r+ L 1M. ~J) ll':> ,
APPLICANT I S REPRESENTATIVE: ~ U Y\ Y\ \ --1 \ \J CL V\, V"-
REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: ~ - (0 q ~
OWNER'S NAME9Q~f(:t-~ - ?~--.-+Q-J.---Q_
SUMMARY
Type of APPlication:J-.cJ+ L; 1/J....f5Vd ; {)6-f~
J
2. Describe action/{type Of. develo~ment being requested: r
0~ +U __~l (p~ ~~ l~ /<; N
cf{t \.L d ~ ~.p (~V\ r () Y('~nu :sU /od i'A ~ A~
, I
EXHIBIT 1
1.
3. Areas is which Applicant has been requested to respond, types
of reports requested:
Policy Area/
Referral Aqent Comments
Water De t, contact for ta fee re
~.
(\
'--
4.
-
CJ( l'-"^^";' r\; 'r 0 .-h-"" r0.Y
Review is;..s '(P&i~On~(t'C'--'~lY) J (P&z then to CC)
Public Hearing: (YES) ~ ..
Number of copres of 'the application to be~bmitted: ~
What fee 'was appl'icant requested to submi ';1 c!l ) 5
Payment form Attached for signature: (YES)~~
Anticipated date of sUbmission:~,
5.
6.
7.
8.
9,
10,
COMMENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS:
frm.pre_app
"
EXHIBIT 2
August 25, 1994
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen/Pitkin county Planing Office
130 West Galena street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Authorization to Represent
Dear Ms. Lamont:
Please consider this letter authorization for Antonia
Zurcher to represent the undersigned in the submittal and
processing to completion of an application for a lot line
adjustment between Lots 7 and 7A, Second Aspen Company
SUbdivision, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Ditch Book
2A at Page 363, city of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. Ms.
Zurcher is authorized to act on behalf of the undersigned with
respect to all matters reasonably pertaining to such application.
Sincerely,
THE WALTER P. PAEPCKE LIFE
INSURANCE TRUST
By: 2: {dllU //xi ')-f. /ceJv
( ; Trustee
'J
Address of Trust:
c/o Julius Lewis, Esq.
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal
8000 Sears Tower
Chicago, Illinois 60606-6404
(312) 876-8033
1134956.
........
TR:'J'
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
SCHEDULE A
EXHIBIT 3
1. Effective Date: 07/01/94
at
08:30 A.M.
Case No. PCT-9170
2. Policy o~ policies to be issued:
(a) ALTA Owner's Policy-Form B-1970
(Rev. 10/90)
Proposed Insured:
PROFORMA
Amount$ TBD
premiumS
Rate:STANDARD
(b) ALTA Loan Policy,
(Rev. 10-90)
Proposed Insured:
Amount$
PremiumS
Rate:
Tax Ce~tificate $20.00
3. ~itle to the FEE SIMPLE estate or interest in the land desc~ibed o~
referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof
vested in:
ELIZABETH H. PP~PCKE, AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF WALTER P. PAEPCKE
4. The land refe~red to in this Commitment is desc~ibed as follows:
LOTS 5, 6, 7, AND 7-A, SECOND ASPEN COMPP~~ SUE-DIVISION, according to
the Plat thereof reco~ded in Ditch Book 2A at Page 363. COm,TY OF
PITKIN, STATE OF COLORP~O.
Countersigned at: PITKIN COm,TY TITLE, INC.
601 E. HOPKINS
ASPEN, CO. 81611
303-925-1766
Fax 303-925-6527
Schedule A-PG.1
This Commitment is invalid
unless the Insuring
Provisions and Schedules
A and B are attached.
.-.
r"-
TR~
SCHEDULE B - SECTION 1
REQUIREMENTS
The following are the requirements to be complied with:
ITEM (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors
of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured.
ITEM (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be
insured must be executed and duly filed for record to-wit:
1. Recordation of certified copy of Letters of Appointment of the
Personal Representative in the Estate of Elizabeth H. Paepcke,
deceased.
2. Personal Representative's Deed from the Personal Representative of the
Estate of Elizabeth H. Paepcke stating the date and time of
appointment conveying the subject property to The Walter P. Paepcke
Life Insurance Trust.
3. Deed from
to
The Walter Paepcke Life Insurance Trust
Parties to be determined
4. Duly executed Trust Affidavit for The Walter P. Paepcke Life
Insurance Trust, a trust, disclosing the name of the trust, and the
names and addresses of the trustees empowered to act pursuant to '73
CRS 38-30-166, as amended.
5. Deli very to the Company of an executed copy of the Trust Agreement /.9.6 ,.It.!
for The Walter P. Paepcke Life Insurance Trust for inspection and
approval prior to issuing any policies. Subject to any additional
requirements deemed necessary by the Company upon review of said
Trust Agreement.
6. Evidence satisfactory to the Company that the Real Estate Transfer
Tax as established by Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979) and Ordinance
No. 13 (Series of 1990) has been paid or exempted.
7. Certificate of nonforeign status executed by the transferor(s)
instrument is net required to. be recorded)
{This
8. Evidence satisfactory to the Company that the Declaration of Sale,
Notice to County Assessor as required by H.B. 1288 has been complied
with. (This instrument is not required to be recorded, but must be
delivered to and retained by the Assessors Office in the County in
which the property is situated)
9. Completion of Form DR 1079 regarding the witholding of Colorado Tax
on the s&le by certain persons, corporations and firms selling Real
Property in the State of Colorado. (This instrument is not required
to be recorded)
(Continued)
.........
TRW . .
NOTE: THIS COMMITMENT IS FURNISHED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY,
AND IS NOT A COMMITMENT TO INSURE TITLE, THE COMPANY HEREBY RESERv~S
THE RIGHT TO ~~ ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT AND/OR EXCEPTIONS AS DEEMED
NECESSARY IN THE EVENT A PROPOSED INSURED IS NAMED. UNTIL SUCH TIME
AS A PROPOSED INSURED IS NAMED ANY RECIPIENT OF THIS COMM:TMENT
EXPRESSLY UNDERSTANDS THAT THIS IS ONLY A INFORMATIONAL COMMITMENT.
,.-
,........
TR'" '.
SCHEDULE B SECTION 2
EXCEPTIONS
The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the
following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the
Company:
1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records.
2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, enchroachments,
any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose
and which are not shown by the public records.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien. for services, labor, or material heretofore or
hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records.
5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any,
created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the
effec~ive date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires
of record for value. the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by
this Commitment.
6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessment, charge or lien impoGed
for water or sewe~ service or for any other special taxing district.
7. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his
ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the
premises hereby granted and right of way for ditches or canals
constructed by the authority of the United States as reserved in
. United States Patent recorded in Book 55 at Page 02.
r~Restrictions, which do not contain a forfeiture or reverter clause,
,P ~ but omitting restrictions, if any, based on race, color, religion or
national origin, as contianed in instrument recorded May 28, 1962 in
Book 197 at Page 475.
9. Easement and right of way granted to Aspen Metropoli~~~ Sanitation
District by instrument recorded:tcember 4, 1972 in~~~k 269 at Page
428 and Grant of Easement to Asp Sanitation District and City of
Aspen recorded April ~, 1978 in ook 345 at Page 631.
10. Apparent foot path easement as disclosed on Survey of Carmichael
Surveying, Inc., as Job #94-52, dated July 12, 199~.
:his commitment is invalid unless
:he Insuring Provisions and Schedules
, and B are attached.
Schedule B-Section 2
Commitment No. PCT-9170
ENDORSEMENT SCrDULE FOR OW!\TERS POU"""'-
rhe following endorsements will be issued in connection with the Policy to
Je issued hereunder as referenced above:
~ONE REQUESTED
Exceptions Numbered I, 2, 3 & 4 will be deleted from the final Title Policy,
upon compliance with the requirements set forth below.
THE FEE FOR DELETION OF PRINTED EXCEPTIONS IS:
OWNER'S POLICY: $30.00
Exception Number 6 will be amended to read: Taxes for the xear 1994 not yet due
or payable, upon evidence satisfactory that the Taxes for 199,) have been paid.
NOTE: A satisfactory affidavit and agreement indemnifying the Company against
unfJled mechanic I sand materialnlens liens, executea by the borrower and
any additional parties deemed necessary by the Company. The company
hereby reserves the ri<>ht to make additional requirements as may be
deemed necessary in the event additional facts regarding development,
construction or oilier building or work are disclosed to the company
that may fall within any lien period as defined in the Statues of the
State of Colorado, and may Iesult in additional premiums and/or fees
for such coverage. . .
NOTE: A current survey, certified by a Registered Colorado Land Survevor must
be delivered to, apP1:oved and retained '6y jhe Com:Qagy Jor Deletion 'Of
Printed Exceptlon No.3. (NOT REQUIRED FOR CONDOMINIUM UNITS)
This Commitment is invalid unless
The Insuring Provisions and Schedules
A and Bare-attached.
Schedule B-Section I-Continued
Commitment No. PCT-9170
TR~
,.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
AND DISCLOSURES
The Owner's Policy to be issued, if any shall contain the following
items in addition to the ones set forth above:
(1) The Deed of Trust, if any, required under Schedule B-Section 1.
(2) Water rights, claims or title to water.
Pursuant to Insurance Regulation 89-2;
NOTE: Each title entity shall notify in writing every prospective
insured in an owner's title insurance policy for a single family
residence (including a condominim or townhouse unit) (i) of
that title entity's general requirements for the deletion of an
exception or exclusion to coverage relating to unfiled mechanics
or materialmens liens, except when said coverage or insurance is
extended to the insured under the terms of the policy. A
satisfactory affidavit and agreement indemnifying the Company
against unfiled mechanics' and/or Materialmen's Liens executed
by the persons indicated in the attached copy of said affidavit
must be furnished to the Company. Upon receipt of these items
and any others requirements to be specified by the Company upon
request, Pre-printed Item Number 4 may be deleted from the
Owner's policy when issued. please contact the Company for
further information. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing
contained in this Paragraph shall be deemed to impose any
requirement upon any title insurer to provide mechanics or
materialmens lien coverage.
NOTE:
Pursuant
(a)
'(c)
If the Company conducts the owners' closing under
circumstances where it is responsible for the recording or
filing of legal documents from said transaction, the Company
will be deemed to have provided "Gap Coverage".
(b)
to Senate Bill 91-14 (CRS 10-11-122);
The Subject Real Property may be located in a Special Taxing
District;
A Certificate of Taxes Due listing each taxing jurisdiction
may be obtained form the County treasurer of the County
Treasure~ls Authorized Agent;
Information regarding Special Districts and the boundaries of
such districts may be obtained from the Board of County
Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County
Assessor.
NOTE: A tax Certificate will be ordered from the County
Treasurer by the Company and the costs thereof charged to
the proposed insured unless written instruction to the
cont~ary are received bv the company prior to the issuance of
the ~itle Policy anticipated by this Commitment.
This commitment is invalid unless
the Insuring Pro~isions and Schedules
A and E are attached.
Schedule B-Section 2
Commitment No. PCT-9170
--
,"'~."
EXHIBIT 4
August 30,1994
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Leslie Lamont
AspenlPitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Permission to Represent
Dear Ms. Lamont:
Please consider this letter authorization for Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, Planning
Consultants, to represent The Walter P. Paepcke Life Insurance Trust in the processing
of an application for a lot line adjustment for Lots 7 and 7A of the Second Aspen
Company Subdivision which is located in the vicinity of Roaring Fork Road in the City
of Aspen. Mr. Vann is hereby authorized to act on the Trust's behalf with respect to all
matters reasonably pertaining to the aforementioned application.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not
hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Antonia Zurcher
P.O. Box 2019
Aspen, CO 81612
925-6678
SV:cwv
c:\bus\city.ltr~tr26194.1I1
"'"""
',-
'--.
...
EXHIBIT 5
GARfiELD & HECHT, P.C.
W\Ll1AM K. OUEST. P.C
JEIlEMY M. BERNST~N
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
VICTORIAN SQUARE BUlLDINCi
601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE
(303) 925-1930
TELECOPIER
(303) 925-3008
CULl! ADDIl.ESS
"0ARIl1lC"
RONALD OA~lELD
ANDI\f.W V. HECHT
November 20, 1984
The Honorable William Stirling, Mayor
Aspen City Council
Ci ty Hall
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Lots 5, 6, 7 and 7a of the Second Aspen Company
Subdivision, as platted in Ditch Book 2A, Page 263
of the Real Estate Records of pitkin County,
Colorado (Hereafter referred to as the "Lots"
Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council:
Pursuant to Section 20-l9(b) of the Municipal Code of
the City of Aspen (the "Code") the Estate of walter P. paepcke,
as owner of the above described Lots, hereby applies for a
declaration that each of these Lots, as currently recorded are
distinct and individual properties and exempt from the definition
of subdivision as contained in Section 20.3(s) of the Code. In
particular, exemption is sought from the provisions of Section
20-4(c) of the Code, which would merge these Lots and compel the
owner to reapply for subdivision approval to return the Lots to
their present status as distinct parcels.
These Lots are exempt from these sections of the Code
because the provisions of section 20-4 of the Code exclude these
Lots; the inclusion of these Lots within the purview of these
Sections of the Code would be contrary to the intent and purpose
of the Code: and because the inclusion of these Lots would result
in the needless imposition of undue and unintended hardship on
the property owner.
Section 20-)(s) of the Code defines a subdivision as
the division of a tract of land into two or more lots. On its
face, this definition is inapplicable to the above defined Lots,
because each of these Lots has already been duly recorded as
distinct, separate tracts of land. However, Section 20-4(c) of
the Code arguably might be construed to "merge" all of these Lots
into one all-encompassing tract of land, so that any attempt to
transfer, alienate or convey any of the individual Lots would
constitute a subdivision. Such a strained construction of the
.......-....
'"~
,
~
GARfIELD & HECUT. P.C.
William Stirling, Mayor
November 20, 1984
Page 2
Code would be contrary to the letter, intent and purpose of the
Code.
Section 20-4(a) of the Code appears to prohibit any
such application of the Code. That section provides that
" [SJubdivisions filed and reoorded on a final plat prior to the
effective date of this section shall not be regulated by this
chapter unless proposed for resubdiviiIOn..." In the ourrent
oase, Lots 5, 6, 7 and 7a were duly recorded in their present
form, as separate and distinct tracts in a final plat which was
approved and recorded on Deoember 2, 1961. (A oopy of this plat
is attaohed hereto as Exhibit A.) When this area was annexed by
the City in 1965, it was annexed on the basis of this plat, and
these Lots were annexed as distinct, already divided parcels of
land.
The clear intent to recognize pre-existing divisions of
property, at least to the extent that such divisions do not
conflict with zoning requirements, is further reflected in
Section 24-11.2(0) of the Code. That section exempts from the
allotment procedures of the Growth Management Quota System the
oonstruction of single-family structures on lots subdivided prior
to November 14, 1977. Again, each of the Lots in the current
case was duly recorded as a subdivided, separate Lot in 1961 and
should be considered as already subdivided. The Code clearly
intended that this prior division be respected, as far as
possible.
There is nothing in the merger provision of Section
20-4(c) that directs that this paragraph shall supersede Section
20-4(a) or 24-11.2(c). Further, the intent behind Section
20-4(c) indicates that it should not be applied in the current
case to supersede Section 20-4(a) and in effect merge all of the
Lots.
Section 20-4(c) has been applied exclusively to compel
the owner of several contiguous lots which do not individually
"meet zoning requirements, to merge these lots in order to bring
their aggregate size into compliance with applicable zoning
standards. But this zoning objective is not a concern in the
current case, for each of these individual Lots already meets the
applicable zoning ordinances, and no variance or exemption from
these zoning provisions is sought or contemplated.
When the City annexed these Lots in 1965 it annexed
them as individual Lots and tacitly approved the previously
platted division of these Lots. If the merger requirements of
,.."-......
",.--."..
GARfiELD" HECHT, P.C.
William Stirling, Mayor
November 20, 1984
Page 3
Section 20-4(c) were now imposed, the current owner of the Lots
would be required to reapply for subdivision approval so that the
Lots can be "subdivided" into precisely the same tracts in which
they currently exist. Such a procedure might be appropriate
where the merger and re-subdivision is needed to bring the Lots
into compliance with the applicable zoning standards. But here,
where each Lot already complies with the zoning regulations, this
procedure only serves to impose added and unwarranted burdens on
the property. ~his was clearly not the Code's purpose.
The applicant therefore requests a declaration by the
City Council that the individual Lots 5, 6, 7 and 7a, as
described on the recorded plat for the subdivision, will be
exempt from the requirements of the City subdivision regulations
and the Growth Management Quota System.
Respectfully submitted,
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
By:C-----~--~ ~
Andrew V. Hecht
AVH/mp
J
.J
'-
EXHIBIT 6
MMORANDOM
TO:
Paul Taddune, City Attorney
RE:
Steve Burstein, Planning Office
Merger Exemption of the Second Aspen Company Subdivision
FROM:
DATE:
March 17, 1986
==~===~==~~:=~=-=~===~==~~=============;==~=:~~=-~=-===-=~=:=~=~;=
I have reviewed your memorandum to the Planning Office dated
December 13, 1984 and Andy Hecht's letter of November 20, 1984 to
Mayor Stirling regarding the merge.r provision of Section 20-4(c)
as it applies to Lots 5,6,7, and 7a of the Second Aspen Company
Subdivision.
According to Section 20-4(c) of the Municipal Code"...lots or
portions of lots within the original townsite or additions
thereto..." are subject to the merger provision. The Second
Aspen Company Subdivision was created in 1961 through approval of
the pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, and annexed into
the City in 1967. The Planning Office believes that the Second
Aspen Company Subdivision is. not subj ect to lot merging because
it is not part of the oriqinal townsite or the early additions
that made up the early settlement. The merger provision applies
primarily to the standard 3,000 square foot lots which left
uncombined are non-conforming in the residential zone districts.
The subj eet Second Aspen Company lots range from 26, 658 squa re
feet to 60,830 square feet in size and are conforming in the R-15
zone.
A possible clarification which you might consider initiating to
Section 20-4(c) would be to di5tinguish "lots located in a
subdivision approved by either the Board of County Commissioners
or City Council" from lots 1n the original townsite and additions.
This language was used in Ordinance 8 (Series of 1986) to amend
the lot split GMP exemption approved by Council on March IO, 1986
and would certainly help to avoid the kind of case-by-caSe
interpretations Andy has asked us to make in this instance.
It should be noted that any lot splits of Lots 5,6,7 and 7a of
the Second Aspen Company Subdivision can only be accomplished
through a growth management allocation, as per the approved'
Ordinance 8 (Series of 1986).
cc: Alan Richman, Planning Director
I
'<
--
/
.
-x-
e~'.,
8~~~
EXHIBIT 7
520.4
fi 20-5
SUBDMSlON
this chapter unless proposed for resubdi vision in such a
manner as to fall within the provisions of section 2().3(s). In
the instance of large tracts or blocks of land contained
within a recorded subdivision and intended or designed for
resubdi vision into smaller tracts, lots, building sites,
condominium units, apartments, multi-family dwelling
units, or otherwise so as to constitute a subdivision under
said section 2Q.3(s), such resubdivision shall comply with
all provisions of this chapter.
(b) This chapter is not intended to repeal, abrogate, annul
or in any way impair or interfere with existing provisions of
other laws or ordinances, or with existing provisions of
subdivision agreements or restrictive covenants running
with the land. Where this chapter imposes a greater
restriction than that imposed by such existing provisions I)f
law, contract or deed, the provisions of this chapter shall
control.
(c) If two (2) or more lots or portions of lots within the
original Aspen townsite or additions thereto have continu-
ous frontage and are in single ownership (including
husband and wife as in all cases a single owner) on the
effective date of this section, the lots or portions thereof
involved, regardless of diverse times of acquisition, shall be
considered an undivided parcel for the purposes of this
chapter, and conveyance of any, whether or not along lot
line, shall constitute a subdivision.
(d) Nothing herein shall be construed to preclude any
owner affected by the above provisioDS from applying for an
exemption from the definition of subdivision pursuant to
section 2().I9(b) when the provisions of said section are
satisfied. (Ord. No. 73-1975, S 1)
See. 26-15. Compliance.
(a) General prohibition. It shall be unlawful for any
person, firm or corporation, to violate any of the provisioDS
of this chapter or to transfer, sell, lease or agree to sell or
lease, any lot, tract, parcel, site, separate interest (includiug
leasehold interest), interest in common, condominium
Sllpp. No. 19
1207
375841 8-765 P-692 10/27/94 02:15P PG 1 OF 4
SILVIR DRVIS PITKIN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER
REC
20.00
DOC
MEMORANDUM
TO:
File
THRU:
stan Clauson, Community Development Director
FROM:
Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director
DATE:
October 26, 1994
RE:
Second Aspen Company Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment -
Amendment
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: As a result of the recommendations from the Engineering
Department regarding the adjusted lot line, the net lot area and
allowable floor area numbers had to be adjusted. This revised memo
changes those numbers (in bold) and the recorded lot line
adjustment plat will reflect the new net lot area and allowable
floor area for both Lots 7 and 7A. This revised memo will also
supersede the representations in the application.
The property owner of Lots 7 and 7A of the Second Aspen Company
Subdivision seek to adjust the common property boundaries with a
lot line adjustment to eliminate the non-conformity with respect
to the minimum of Lot 7A. Eliminating the non-conformity will
negate the issue of whether the lots were merged in 1975 which
would then enable the separate sale of Lots 7 and 7A. Please
review the attached application for the history the problem.
APPLICANT: Antonia Zurcher
ZONE DISTRICT: R-15
BACKGROUND: Although the Second Aspen Company Subdivision was
approved by the Board of County Commissioners in 1961 and Lots 7
and 7A of that subdivision should not have merged during the City
wide "merger" action in 1975, the non-conforming minimum width of
Lot 7A causes the lots to merge based upon the criteria of merged
lots. Section 24-7-1004 .A. 5 states that the merger provision
applies to all lots in the original Aspen Townsite and depicted on
the 1880 recorded incorporation plat, all lots in additions to the
Townsite and depicted on the incorporation plat, any lot or parcel
annexed into the City since 1880 which constitutes a non-conforming
lot of record, and any lot or parcel which has not received
subdivision approval from the BOCC or Council.
By definition, Lot 7A is a non-conforming lot of record because it
does not meet the minimum width requirement for the R-15 zone
district. The lot width is 25 feet whereas the required width is
75 feet.
During a meeting with the planning staff and the assistant city
attorney, it was suggested that the applicant pursue a lot line
375841
8-765 P-693 10/27/94 02:15P PG c
OF 4
adjustment to eliminate the non-conforming lot width of Lot 7A.
rather than undergo a full subdivision to divide the lots.
Therefore, the applicant proposes to eliminate the east property
boundary between Lots 7 and 7A and to incorporate that portion of
Lot 7A into Lot 7. An equal portion of Lot 7 will be incorporated
into Lot 7A so the existing lot size remain the same. An access
easement will be granted for the benefit of Lot 7A across Lot 7.
The gross lot area for Lot 7 is and will remain 26,658 square feet
and for Lot 7A it is and will remain 60,830.
Because irrigation, ditch, and access easements are also within the
property, the lot area available for floor area purposes will be
adjusted. For Lot 7 the "net lot area" was 26,658 and will be
22,066 (subtraction of easements reduces the ultimate lot size for
building purposes). For Lot 7A the "net lot area" was 46,561 and
will increase to 48,579.
CURRENT ISSUES: Pursuant to Section 24-7-1003, the following
criteria for a lot line adjustment are as follows:
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.
RESPONSE: This proposal is an insubstantial change to the
previously approved subdivision plat. The lot line adjustment will
not affect surrounding or future development. Based upon current
floor area calculation the allowable floor area for Lot 7 was 5,200
sq. ft. and will be 4,924 sq. ft. For Lot 7A the allowable floor
area was 6,390 sq. ft. and will be 6,515 sq. ft. The combined
floor area of the two lots decreases by 151 sq. ft. The floor area
must be adjusted due to the various easements that are on the
property and not because of the lot line adjustment. The gross
parcel size remains the same.
2. All landowners whose lot lines are being adjusted provide
written consent to the application.
RESPONSE: The parcels are held in common ownership. Consent to
pursue this land use review is included in the packet.
3. It is demonstrated that the request is to address specific
hardship.
RESPONSE: The adjustment is necessary to clear up the question of
whether the properties have merged. If the properties were found
to have merged, a full subdivision review process would be required
to subdivide these previously subdivided and currently vacant
parcels. The parcels are well over the minimum lot area
requirement for the R-15 zone district, which is 15,000 sq. ft.
A new subdivision proces would cost the applicant considerable time
2
375841
B-7&5 P-694 10/27/94 02:15P PG ~
OF 4
and money with a very similar outcome. The Aspen Land Use Code has
not been amended in a manner that would affect a new subdivision
of these parcels.
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 non-conformity of the lot.
RESPONSE: A boundary adjustment will correct a current non-
conformity with respect to the minimum lot width for Lot 7A. The
Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal. The Department
made several recommendations that shall be complied with prior to
filing the final plat: development must comply with storm drainage
requirements, the applicant shall agree to join any future
improvement districts which may be formed for the purpose of
constructing improvement in the public right-of-way, all
encroachments into the public right-Of-way must be removed prior
to development, and the final plat shall meet the requirements of
Section 24-7-1004.D. A final plat shall be reviewed and approved
by the Engineering Department and Planning Department. The plat
must be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within
180 days of final approval of this lot line adjustment or this
approval is void.
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.
RESPONSE: The lot line adjustment will not impact development
rights or density of any of the properties involved.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of
adjustment between Lots 7 and 7A of the Second
Subdivision, Aspen with the following conditions:
the lot line
Aspen Company
1. An amended plat shall be reviewed and approved by the
Engineering and Planning Departments and shall be filed within 180
days of final approval and shall include the adjusted lot line as
represented in the lot line adjustment application.
2. Prior to any development of Lots 7 and 7A, the applicant shall
agree to join any improvement districts, remove all encroachments
from the public ROW, and maintain historic storm runoff patterns
on both sites.
3. Prior to filing the final plat an adequate emergency access
must be indicated on the plat for Lot 7A.
3
Attachments:
1. Application
2. Engineering Referral
37:58'+ 1
Pursuant to section 24-7-1003, I hereby
approve the Second Aspen Company lot line
adjustment or Lots 7 and 7A, Aspen with
t e m n d conditions of approval.
Community
B-765 P-695 10/27/94 02:15P PG 4
OF 4
4
Development
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen. Colorado 81611
, (303) 920-5090 (j) r
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES J 135';;)/ JOOJ
CITY:
-63250-134
-63270-136
-63280-137
-63300-139
-63310-140
.63320-141
-63330-150
-63432-157
-63432-157
-M ROll
HISTORIC PRESERVATION:
-63335-151
-63336-152
-63337-153
-63338-154
-63339-155
COUNTY:
-63160-126
-63170-127
-63180-128
-63190-129
-63200-130
-63210-131
-63220-132
-63230-133
-63240-149
-63450-146
-63235-148
REFERRAL FEES:
-63360-143
-63340-163
-63340-190
-63340-205
00115
00123
00125
PLANNING OFFICE SALES:
-63080-122
-69000-145
GMP/Conceptual
GMP/Final
SUB/Conceptual
SUB/Rnal
AII-2 Slep Applicalions
All 1 Slep Applicalions
Staff Approval
Zoning Plan Check
Sign Perm~
Use Tax for Sign Permits
Exemption
Minor
Major Devel.
Sign~. Devel.
Demolilion
GMP/General
GMP/Detailed
GMP/Final
SUB/General
SUB/Detailed
SUB/Rnal
All 2 Step Applications
All 1 Step Applications
Staff Approval
Board of Adjustment
Zoning Plan Check
Engineering - County
Engineering - City
Housing
Environmental Heallh
County Code
Other (Copy Fees)
TOTAL
Name Artf~Cl. 2t.lrCh.er
Address: B D'{.. 20/ Cj
A<,/J4I
Check #:
-\
'4/\1
~\
2-/'7.00
):
.../C:;.oo
Phone:
Proj ?~JLcf-s. 7r7A-
2~~SfU'lO -LbJ-.~II{j.
/
Date:
,,1,1011
No of Copies: