Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.pu.Gordan Subdivision/PUD Final.53B(88)89CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: DATE COMPLETS7'- PROJECT NAME: Project Address: Legal Address: _ APPLICANT: Elmore /Yow Aspen Ventures Applicant Address: REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann Vann Associates Representative Address /Phone: 230 E Hopkins Ave Aspen CO 81611 5 -6958 PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: $1550 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: P &Z Meeting Date ' zf�) �(D P Ir`) PUBLIC HEARING:- YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: Y NO ES VESTED RIGHTS: QZES NO dJ' "1_ r� Planning Director Approval: Paid: =' Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date: REFF� RI2ALS C ity Attorney ity Engineer Housing Dir. \T Aspen Water City Electric Envir. Hlth. �\spen Consol. S.D. Mtn. Bell Parks Dept. Holy Cross Fire Marshall Building Inspector Roaring Fork Energy Center School District Rocky Mtn Nat Gas State Hwy Dept(GW) State Hwy Dept(GJ) Other DATE REFERRED: ) a I a7 [F 5 INITIALS: a FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL: City Atty City En ine Zoning Env. Health Housing other: ` � FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. 3 88 89 STAFF MEMBER: #_.) 01/04/91 16:1- ec $5. j00 BK 637 PG 137 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 #329630 01 /18/91 11:47 Rec $100.00 BK 638 PG 88 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk:, Doc 5.00 P.U.D. SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT, !� GORDON /CALLAHAN RESUBDIVISION THIS AGREEMENT is made this �_ day of , " n 19 between JOHN A. ELMORE II and LIONEL L. Y (the "Ow ers "), ` and THE CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation (the "City "). RECITALS WHEREAS, Owners own that certain real property (the "Property ") located in the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin � legally described as: Lots 8 and 9, Callahan Subdivision, according to the plat thereof, County of Pitkin (owned by Elmore); and Lot 2, Gordon Subdivision, according to the plat thereof recorded A(lgust 16, 1989 in Plat Book 15 at Page 25, Reception No. 252398, County of Pitkin (owned by Yow) v and; WHEREAS, the Owners submitted an application for, and received approval for conceptual P.U.D development plan from the City on April 24, 1988, for the development of a residential project (the "Project ") and final approval from the City for the Subdivision and P.U.D application as well as a grant of vested rights status to the Project on July 9, 1990 by virtue of hi Ordinance 41, Series of 1990; and !\ WHEREAS, pursuant to the land use regulations of the n Municipal Code of the City of Aspen (the "Code "), the Owners and the City enter into this P.U.D. Subdivision Agreement for the Project which will provide for the construction of the public improvements associated with the Project; and WHEREAS, the Owners have submitted to the City for approval, execution and recordation a plat for the Project (the "Plat ") and the City agrees to approve, execute and record the Plat on the agreement of the Owners to the matters described herein, subject to the provisions of the Code and other applicable rules and regulations; and WHEREAS, the City has imposed conditions and requirements in connection with its approval, execution and acceptance of the Plat and such matters are necessary to protect, promote and enhance the public health, safety and welfare, and pursuant to the Code, the City is entitled to assurances that the matters set forth herein will be faithfully performed by the Owners and the Owners' successors and assigns; and #3 29333 01/04/91 16:14 Rec $9:,.00 BK 637 PG 138 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk:, Doc $.00 #329630 01/18/91 11:47 Piec $100.00 BK 638 PG 69 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk::, Doc $.00 WHEREAS, the Owners are willing to enter into such agreement with the City and to provide assurances to the City; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, and the approval, execution and acceptance of the Plat for recordation by the City, it is agreed as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Description of Project The Project consists of the reconfiguration of Lots 8 and 9 of the Callahan Subdivision and the subdivision of Lot 2 of the Gordon Subdivision into three free - market lots (Lots 2A, 2B and 2C). The terms of this Agreement shall apply to those five free - market lots owned by Owners, which are Lots 8 and 9, Callahan Subdivision and Lots 2A- 2C, Gordon Subdivision (the "Lots "). Each of the five free - market lots has a building right attached to it so each lot is exempt from the Growth Management Quota System competition. In addition, the Project will consist of four accessory dwelling units deed restricted to Housing Authority resident occupancy guidelines, to be located on Lots 2A, 2B, 2C and 9. 2. Acceptance of Plat Upon execution of this Agreement by all parties hereto, the City agrees to approve and execute the final plat for the Project submitted herewith and reduced -size copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibit A which conforms to the requirements of Section 7 -1004 of the Code. The City agrees to accept such plat for recording in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, upon payment of the recordation fee and cost to the City by Owners. 3. Construction Schedule and Phasing The City and the Owners mutually acknowledge that exact construction schedules cannot be determined at this time, and, further, that should Owners convey any of the Lots, they will not control the construction of improvements, other than public improvements, on the Property. However, it is anticipated that construction of any of the improvements approved for the Lots will begin no later than three years from the vesting of the Owners' property rights in their plans for the Lots. The anticipated construction schedule is as follows: a. The driveway (as shown on the Plat) and all other public improvements shall be constructed on or before June, 1991 and are anticipated to be completed as soon thereafter as possible. All such public improvements shall be completed by 2 #329333 01/04/91 16:14 t,�c $95.00 BK 637 PG 139 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 #39630 01/18/91 11:47 Rec $100.00 BK 638 PG 90 Silvia Davis, Pitk.in Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 Owners and inspected by the City prior to issuance of any certificates of occupancy for the Project or within three years of the date hereof, whichever first occurs. b. The landscaping improvements shall be installed in the first planting season following completion of construction, as more fully described in Paragraph 4. 4. Landscaping Improvements In accordance with the Code, the landscaping improvements shall be installed as represented and shown on the plan attached hereto as Exhibit B, which plan shows the extent and location as well as the type of plants to be installed, and all landscape features, flower and shrub definition, proposed treatment of all ground surfaces (e.g., paving, sod, gravel, etc.) and the other elements of the landscape plan. All areas disturbed as a result of the construction on the Lots shall be revegetated prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for each Lot. The rest of the landscaping shall be installed as soon as possible, no later than the first planting season following the completion of the construction adjacent to the area of planting. The Owners shall promptly replace any plants which have not survived for a period of two growing seasons following the final certificate of occupancy for the Project. The Owners shall document for review, by the Engineer, Parks and Planning Departments, those dead trees or shrubs, dead limbs from live trees or shrubs, and clearing of any dead material off the ground that shall be removed prior to June 1, 1991. The Owners and Planning staff have agreed to identify the live vegetation to be removed for defined view corridors by June 1, 1991. Any additional removal of vegetation after June 1, 1991 in the area between the stone wall and river shall require stream margin review. Prior to the issuance of any building permit before June 1, 1991, review by the Engineer, Parks and Planning Departments shall be required to determine that the Owners' action is consistent with the existing stream margin review. 5. Public Improvements a. Water Lines The Owners will provide a water line extension as shown on Exhibit C attached hereto. b. Sewer Lines The Owners will provide a sewer line extension as shown on Exhibit C attached hereto, in order to service the Project. 01 #329333 01/44/91 16:14 Rec $95.00 Et: 637 P8 140 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 #329631) 41/18/91 11:47 Rec $100.00 Et. 638 F6 91 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc x.40 C. Fire Hydrants The Owners will install a new fire hydrant as shown on Exhibit C attached hereto. d. Relocation of Riverside Ditch The Owners, in their discretion and subject to the approval of the Riverside Ditch Association, may relocate the Riverside Ditch from its current location to a new location; provided, however, that a copy of the easement to be granted by the Owners to the Riverside Ditch Association evidencing the new location of the ditch on the Property shall be provided to the City Engineer. e. Storm Water Drainage Improvements The storm sewer system and dry well for site drainage, water retention and other site drainage features will be installed in accordance with the representations, drawings, plans and reports attached hereto as Exhibit C. 6. Security for Public Improvements In order to secure the performance of the construction and installation of the public improvements described above, the Owners shall provide a bond, letter of credit, cash or other guarantee in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney in the sum of $34,128.50 (the amounts attributable to the specific public improvements is set forth on Exhibit D hereto). Said guarantee will be delivered to the City prior to the issuance to the Owners, or any third party grantee, of a building permit for any free - market construction associated with the Project. The guarantee documents shall give the City the unconditional right, upon clear and unequivocal default by the Owners in their obligations specified herein, to withdraw funds against such security sufficient to complete and pay for installation of such public improvements. As portions of the improvements are completed, the City Engineer shall inspect them, and upon approval and acceptance, he shall authorize the release of the agreed estimated cost for that portion of the improvements, except that ten percent of the estimated cost of the improvements shall be withheld for the benefit of the City until the completion of all of the described public improvements. The Owners shall require all contractors to provide a warranty that all improvements were constructed to accepted standards of good workmanship for the benefit of the City for the installation of the public improvements described herein for one year from the date of acceptance. In the event that any existing municipal improvements are damaged during Project construction, on request by the City Engineer, a bond or other suitable security for the repair of those municipal improvement shall be provided by Owners to the City. 7. Water Line Easement A water line easement, in the location as shown on the Plat, is dedicated by the Owners for the 4 #321. $3 01/04/91 16:14 Re 1195. _i BK 637 PG 141 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 benefit of the City and the City water district in order to facilitate the future looping of the water system in the immediate area of the Property. 8. Employee Housing Owners shall construct, or cause to be constructed, four accessory dwelling units on Lots 2A, 2B, 2C and 9 all of which will be deed - restricted to the Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority's (the "Housing Authority ") resident occupancy guidelines only, provided that the Owners or their grantees shall have the right to designate the occupant of each unit and give occupancy priority to qualified employees of the owner of the lot at the time. A sample of the deed restrictions for the accessory dwelling units is attached hereto as Exhibit E. Each purchaser of Lots 2A, 2B, 2C and 9 shall, prior to the issuance of a building permit to the purchaser for the construction of a single - family home on the purchaser's lot, execute and deliver to the Housing Authority a deed restriction for his lot. The employee units are exempt from Growth Management Plan requirements. 9. Park Dedication Park development impact fees shall be paid to the City of Aspen in accordance with Article 5, Division 6 of the Code. Such fees shall be paid in the amounts required by Section 5 -603 of the Code by each purchaser of a Lot at the time such purchaser is issued a building permit for development of the Lot purchased, in accordance with Section 5 -604 of the Code. 10. Pedestrian Bridge and /or Trail Improvements Owners shall construct a pedestrian bridge within twelve (12) months of the issuance of the initial building permit for the Project, such bridge to be built in accordance with those design standards as adopted in the Aspen Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway System Plan across the Roaring Fork River, connecting the existing trail easement traversing the Gordon - Callahan Subdivision with the municipally -owned property on the west side of the river. Alternatively, and at Owners' option, Owners may pay a cash sum in the amount of Twenty -five Thousand and no /100 dollars ($25,000.00) in lieu of construction of such bridge. If a cash sum is to be paid in lieu of actual construction of the bridge, such sum shall be paid at the time of the issuance of the initial building permit for the Project. If Owners elect to make the cash payment to the City rather than construct the bridge themselves, and the City is able to construct the bridge for less than twenty -five thousand dollars ($25,000.00), the City shall promptly refund to the Owners the difference between the sum paid by the Owners and the actual cost of construction. 11. Improvement Districts improvement district formed for located. Owners agree to join any the area in which the Project is #329630 01/18/91 11:47 Rec $100.00 BK 638.PG 92 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc x.00 #3.9333 01/04/91 16:14 Rec BK 637 PG 142 a Davis, Pitkin Cnty C1�., Doc $.00 12. Wood- burning Devices The Project shall comply with existing regulations applicable to wood- burning devices and gas devices, which currently allow for one gas fireplace and one certified wood- burning stove an unlimited number of gas appliances. 13. Maximum Floor Area The Project shall consist of the following maximum floor area limitations (not including the 250 square feet of bonus floor area for which each of the accessory dwelling units shall be eligible pursuant to the provisions of City of Aspen Ordinance 1, series of 1990): Lot 8, Callahan Subdivision: 4670 square feet; Lot 9, Callahan Subdivision: 4620 square feet; Lot 2 A, Gordon Subdivision: 4700 square feet; Lot 2 B, Gordon Subdivision: 4530 square feet; Lot 2 C, Gordon Subdivision: 6120 square feet. 14. Building Materials Materials used to build improvements in the Project shall be restricted to materials such as wood siding, non - reflective metal or wood roofs and masonry rocks similar to other residences in the Callahan Subdivision. 15. Material Representations All material representations made by the Owners on the record to the City in accordance with the approvals granted the Owners shall be binding on the Owners. 16. Fishing Easement The Owners shall dedicate to the use of the general public, for fishing purposes only and not as a public trail, a perpetual, non - exclusive easement and right -of- way along that portion of the Property lying between the center- line of the Roaring Fork River and a line which is 5 feet (measured horizontally) above the high water line of the Roaring Fork River, as shown on the Plat. The Owners reserve to themselves, their grantees; successors and assigns, the right to use and enjoy the easement area for all purposes which do not interfere with the public fishing rights dedicated hereby, and shall have no responsibility or liability in connection with the use of the easement by the fishing public. 17. Enforcement In the event the City maintains that the Owners are not in substantial compliance with the terms of this Agreement or the final Plat, the City Council may serve a notice of noncompliance and request that the deficiency be corrected within a period of 45 days. In the event the Owners believe that they are in compliance or that the noncompliance is insubstan- tial, the Owners may request a hearing before the City Council to determine whether the alleged noncompliance exists or whether any amendment, variance or extension of time to comply should be granted. On request, the City shall conduct a hearing according R #329630 01/18/91 11:47 Rec $100.00 BK 638 PG 9S Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk::, Doc $.00 #3. 333 01/04/91 16:14 $95 ^ )0 BK 637 PG 143 -.- Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cn£y Clerk:, Doc $.00 to its normal procedures and take such action as it then deems appropriate. 18. Notices Notices to the parties shall be sent by United States certified mail to the addresses set forth below or to any other address which the parties may substitute in writing. To the Owners: John A. Elmore II P.O. Box 381 Wrightsville Beach, N.C. 28480 Lionel Yow Yow, Yow, Culbreth, Fox & Pennington 102 North Fifth Avenue P.O. Box 479 Wilmington, N.C. 28402 To the City of Aspen: City Manager 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 with a copy to: City Attorney 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 19. Binding Effect The provisions of this Agreement shall run with and constitute a burden on the land on which the Project is located and shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the Owners' and the City's successors, personal representatives and assigns. 20. Amendment This agreement may be altered or amended only by written instrument executed by the parties. 21. Severability If agreement are determined to remaining provisions hereof. Attest: any of the provisions of this be invalid, it shall not affect the / V KATHRYN KOCH City Clerk THE CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation WILLIAM L. STIRLING, Mayor 7 #329630 0l/1B/91 11:47 Fec $100.00 Bf. 638 PG 94 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 ;29333 01/04/91 16:14 Rec X5.00 BK 637 PG 144 Silvia Davis, Pitk:in Cnty Clerk:, Doc $.00 Approved as to form: City Attorney 'l 5V�' - STATE J N A. ELMORE II STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) Acknowledged before me , 199 / by WILLIAM L. STIRLING, Mayor, and KATHRYN S. KOCHW City Clerk. Witness my hand and official seal. , C0n ""esa2aee �'� My commission expires: STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss COUNTY OF PITKIN ) b,� c N �� tary Publ Acknowledged before me OC , 199j_ by JOHN A. ELMORE II. Witness my hand and official seal. My Commission expires: (p IV A4 Notary Public . % 8 r #329630 01/18/91 11:4 Rec $100.00 Bk: 638 PG 95 j'•., Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 's M''••••.. N OF #32.!33 01/04/91 16: 14 Pie $95. vO Bf. 637 PG 145 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss COUNTY OF PITKIN ) Acknowledged before me COM A , 199, by LIONEL YOW. zy , My commission expires: 7 10 ... Witness my hand and official seal. `'•` L Notary Public My address is: a b #329630 01/18/91 11:47 Rec $100.00 BK 638 PG 96 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc x.00 Silvia Davis, Pitk:in Cnty Cleck, Doc `5.00 EXHIBIT. "A' V )V — �Op +i, LF 8�t EB,r�•St fi r i tt 'i5 { , �J C � G1 ( , ;E� �_., ��f Via^ ` 1 I' y` y �� i ` ' t� }.�� : _ t 2 6 a2 aE !t S•! I� i a t^ q i { � _ 4 {;.�. ii'f. ] 31 � �FS �. F !E F. .A �� }• �4 R ari * t ° ifiqt8 It F i tei €! • 4 S'+ df E { t ` i.� I� (/) I(}( i. ti d :{ s ., I {SE• 5a aElxrt= & Ig _fpa t i s� �im a ke t •� � "' E 4i ?3esd `. =84E ° = ?;€ } {�df? pa ti a 0 0 h h 1 , lel: c 0 a h v c 7 C O i ,y Z O FSp 2� a iiI ! t! l +dd f Is 1;! {i s a�•! ! tali: i asi ` 14 f a to t ag i� '1 E a F� P #1 I I F tea t I FF; �a iI f 7 FF� er 1 EXHIBIT 'Yp� � ! za |! }; . . ) §§$\ - \/ ( - w « ° © `�Gb 5 `��` . ~ � "�'`nj' +\ L ir , ; o/ PO <° OR COP ({ { § C. G 2 ON ViR , 2 :42 me ton m e !a wlwa a w 9 e In at 2 «P,V . . s. 00 � ! |! }; ) - 2( ) 5 § 0\ / +\ L ir (\ ( § { § C. G 2 ON ViR , 2 :42 me ton m e !a wlwa a w 9 e In at 2 «P,V . . s. 00 � ! |! § § / +\ / , 2 :42 me ton m e !a wlwa a w 9 e In at 2 «P,V . . s. 00 M L7 CL do 10 . .o u+ . U M 0 c a O . i Ifl i P UI U O >1 x 4j c -t U c i P CL 4 N 0 0 r-, rr, ti r1 .> P > V -� :W in MEYER 1512 *Urand Avenue, Suite 212 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 ' (303) 945 -1004 EXHIBIT "D" CONSULTING ENGINEERS i SURVEYORS t r•.• a io- r r. Item A. Water Utility 1. 8" waterline 2. Fire hydrant B. Sewer Utility 1. 1 -1/4" force main 2. 2" force main 3. Sewer manhole 4. CleanOut C. Electric Utility D. Telephone Utility E. Cable Utility F. Gas Utility G. Roadways 1. Main access lead H. Drainage Improvements 1. Culvert installation 2. Barrow ditch Unit Unit Total Quantity Cost Cost 200 L.F. 35.00 7,000.00 1 Each 1500.00 1,500.00 1 Sub total $ 8,500.00 183 L.F. $ 20.00 $ 3,660.00 145 L.F. 20.00 2,900.00 1 Each 2000.00 2,000.00 1 Each 1000.00 1,000.00 Sub total $ 9,560.00 200 L.F. 12.50 $ 2,500.00 200 L.F. 5.00 1,000.00 200 L.F. 5.00 1,000.00 200 L.F. 5.00 1,000.00 183 L.F. 44.50 8,143.50 50 L.F. 20.00 $ 1 570 L.F. 20.00 1,425.00 Sub total $ 2,425.00 ToMkL $ 34,128.50 9001 - 11/29/89 #329630 01/18/91 11:47 Rec s10G.00'9t: 638 1='G 103 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc x.00 EXHIBIT "E" #329333 01/04/91 16:14 Rec $95.00 BIG 637 PG 152 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 OCCUPANCY DEED RESTRICTION AND AGREEMENT RESIDENT OCCUPIED DWELLING UNIT ORDINANCE ONE THIS OCCUPANCY DEED RESTRICTION AND AGREEMENT (the "Agreement ") is made and entered into this day of 19 , by as between , of the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, whose address is (hereinafter referred to as "Owner "), and the ASPEN /PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY a multi - jurisdictional housing authority established pursuant to the AMENDED AND RESTATED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT recorded in Book 605 at Page 751 of the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office (hereinafter called the "Authority "). WHEREAS, the Owner owns real property more specifically described as ( "Real Property "), upon which the Owner intends to construct and a square foot bedroom Resident Occupied Dwelling Unit ( "R /O Unit "). For purposes of this Agreement the R/O Unit, , and the real property and all appurtenances, improvements, and fixtures associated therewith shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Property "; and WHEREAS, this Agreement imposes certain covenants upon the R/O Unit, when rented by Owner, which restrict the use and occupancy of the R/O Unit to working residents of Pitkin County and their families who fall within the Housing Authority resident qualification guidelines established and indexed by the Authority on an annual basis NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, Owner hereby covenants and agrees as follows: 1. Owner hereby covenants and agrees that the property shall not be condominiumized during the term of this agreement such that the R/O Unit and the single - family residence are considered separate properties, but that the R/O Unit shall be constructed and maintained so as to be capable of being rented separately from the single - family residence. 2. The Owner shall not be required to rent or lease the R/O Unit, but if it is rented or leased, occupancy shall limited exclusively to individuals who are employed full -time in Pitkin County, together with a spouse and related children. The lessee shall meet and comply with the definition and requirements of a working resident established and from time to time amended by the Authority. Owner shall have the right P1 #329630 01/18/91 11:47 Rec $100.00 BK, 638 PG 104 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc x.00 M a. 0 u 0 Ca V7 i L) U (U >- C O 4J EQ ro rej > fe) * U) ec Eby EE o #329630 01/1B/9 Rec $100 BK 638 x`199 Silvia Davis, f .kin Cnty Clerk, Doc $,rip I EXHIBIT "B „ zi �P an; z Zs \� m ` I C 11 �I1� Z E' A; \\ \ 1 \ q r / _i ' , Igli 1 � y ' � 1 � ` \`\` l ♦ ` A'� \ \ 1 I I / / / -• 1 1 / \�\` \ I \ \ 1 I � � •� I 'c $S I= 5 i .. Clorzl= x�l /c�.CAI-l4N 1' A; \\ \ 1 \ q r / _i ' , Igli 1 � y ' � 1 � ` \`\` l ♦ ` A'� \ \ 1 I I / / / -• 1 1 / \�\` \ I \ \ 1 I � � •� I 'c $S I= 5 i .. Clorzl= x�l /c�.CAI-l4N n c a = I tl+ ;E I A O Q G a of w P N OF .� U N ? C CU . C 4J P 4. a N .a > a O rnto M -H Cl > N '+ r) # to N O ED a � O M• � ao o a r N U ej C (� U a '.I •ei P � N A C . � •N P > # r uun S E i d p i Al I E d G _ d 3 ' 3 9 5 `r I UL- WE <- - A i Y ,s I - -- - I 5 ( I .OP v 1 I ! ° Q SFt V P 5 ( I .OP 1) >u i CL O a R 2 Q 4 Q� J Q J V � W 2 x Y � $ Z� Q`:i f Pl°$ #32V333 01/04/91 16:14 r , 9 ., k:� BK 637 PG 153 Silvia Davis, Fitk:in Cm, Cler*'., Doc x.00 to lease the R/O unit to a qualified working resident of his selection. 3. Written verification of employment of prospective tenants of the R/O Unit shall be completed and filed with the Housing Authority Office by the Owner prior to occupancy thereof, and must be acceptable to the housing Authority. 4. Occupancy of the R/O unit shall be limited to no more than two (2) adults and related children. 5. Any lease of the R/O Unit shall provide for a term of not less than six (6) consecutive months. A signed and executed copy of lease for the R/O Unit shall be submitted to the Housing Authority within ten (10) days of approval of residents. 6. This Agreement shall constitute covenants running with the Real Property as a burden for the benefit of, and shall be specifically enforceable by, the Housing Authority and the City of Aspen, their respective successors as applicable, by any appropriate legal action including, but not limited to, injunction, abatement, or eviction of non - complying lessees. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this instrument on the day and year above first written. OWNER: Mailing Address: #329630 01 /19/91 11:47 Rec $100.00 BK 638 PG 105 Silvia Davis, Pit[ -.in Cnty Cler4 Doc g.00 E #32 %�3 01/04/91 16:14 Rec $95.`" HK. 637 PG 154 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk:, Doc $.0u STATE OF COLORADO ) ss COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1990, by Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public Notary's Address: ACCEPTANCE BY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY The foregoing Agreement and its terms are accepted by the Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AND PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO By: Mailing Address: Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority 39551 Highway 82 Aspen, Colorado 81611 3 #329630 01 /18/91 11:47 Rec $100.00 Est:. 638 PG 106 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 } #329333 01/04/91 16:1 Rec $9 .00 BK 637 P6 155 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of _, 1990, by Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public Notary's Address:_ jeh \lu \elnare.odr #329630 01/18/91'11 :47 Rec *100.,00 BK 639 PG: 14 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Cierk, Doc $.00 4 ORDINANCE NO. 41 (SERIES OF 1990) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A FINAL PUD /SUBDIVISION, FOR TATS 2A, 2B, AND 2C OF THE GORDON SUBDIVISION AND A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR TATS 8 AND 9 OF THE C AHAN SUBDIVISION AND VESTED RIGHTS FOR LOTS 8 & 9 OF THE CA AHAN SUBDIVISION AND TATS 2A, 2B AND 2C GORDON SUBDIVISION, ASPEN COLORADO WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 7 -903 and 7 -1001 of the Aspen Land Use Code, the applicant submitted an application for a PUD review and Subdivision for the subdivision of Gordon Lot 2 into three lots for the development of three single homes; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7 -1003 of the Aspen Land Use Code, the applicant also requested a Lot Line Adjustment for Lots 8 and 9 of the Callahan subdivision for the development of a single family home; and } WHEREAS, a duly noticed Public Hearing was held by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission ") on March 21, 1989 to consider the conceptual PUD ,review, at which time the Commission reviewed the application; and WHEREAS, the Commission considered the representations and commitments made by the applicant and approved conceptual PUD of a site plan that included four homesites plus Lot 9; and WHEREAS, the City Council, at their April 24, 1989 meeting, approved, with conditions, the conceptual PUD development plan for only three homesites and Lot 9 and required an accessory dwelling unit in every home; and WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a final PUD /Subdivision development plan for three Gordon lots (2A, 2B, and 2C) for Final / 1 PUD /Subdivision review; and WHEREAS, at a March 20, 1990 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposal and the representations of the applicant and reviewed the Planning Office memo; and WHEREAS the Commission amended the conditions of approval and approved the stream margin review and conditional use for accessory dwelling units and recommended to the City Council Final PUD /Subdivision approval with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1• That it does hereby grant Final PUD /Subdivision as recommended by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, for Lots 2A, 2B, and 2C of the Gordon Subdivision with the following 1 conditions: A. Prior to the issuance of any excavation, foundation, or building permits: 1. the Final Plat shall be filed, the Plat shall contain, but not limited to: a. Surveyor's certificate to indicate date of survey, performance in accordance with CRS 1973, Title 38, Article 51, and closure within a limit of 1 /10,000. b. Note the plat amend plats recorded at books and pages (engineering department can provide the information). C. Monumentation of all property corners, including j witness corners "on line" for corners in the river. d. Adjacent subdivision - Gordon Subdivision; Riverview Association Subdivision. e. The City approval certificate should read "approved the day of _, signed this _day of _." f. A fisherman's easement along the river's edge for a stance of five feet from the mean high water line, or at least in the river to the mean high water line. g. The water line easement. h. All existing and proposed sewer easements. i. The seven foot strip that has been included in the revisions to Lot 8 of the Callahan Subdivision. j. Accessory dwelling units on Lots 2A and 2B and 2C and 9. k. Revised building envelopes for Lots 9, 2A and 2B as approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 1. The man -made rock wall, not to exceed 30 ". 2. an approved and recorded copy of deed restrictions for the four accessory dwelling units shall be filed with the Housing Authority, the deeds shall include, but are not limited to: a. The Owner hereby covenants that the Accessory Dwelling Units described shall at all times remain rental units and shall not be condominiumized. b. The Owner shall have the right to lease the Accessory Dwelling Units to "Qualified Residents" (pursuant to the Housing Guidelines) of his /her own selection. Rental or lease is limited to only 3 Qualified Residents. Such individuals may be an employee of the Owner, or employed as a resident caretaker, provided such a person fulfills the requirement of a qualified resident. C. Written verification of employment of persons proposed to reside in the Accessory Dwelling Units shall be completed and filed with the Housing Authority prior to occupancy and must be acceptable to the Housing Authority. d. Lease agreements executed for occupancy of the Accessory Dwelling Units shall provide for a rental term of not less than six consecutive months. 3. appropriate construction mitigation measures shall be identified, and reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department, to reduce erosion potential during construction. 4. a Subdivision Agreement shall be filed and shall include, but not limited to: a. a schedule of utility costs associated with the provision of public utilities. b. restrictive covenants restricting building materials to wood siding, non - reflective metal or wood roofs, and masonry rock to compliment the residences in the Callahan Subdivision. 5. an escrow account shall be established for bridge and /or trail construction contributions. 6. the quit claim deed shall be recorded with the Pitkin B! County Clerk and Recorder concurrent with the applicants final plat and a copy provided to the City Attorney. 7. a site specific inventory of bank stabilization, vegetation removal, pruning etc. for along the river bank shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks, Engiheering and Planning Department. No disturbance of any vegetation, except for what has been approved, between the building envelopes and the river will be permitted without Stream Margin Review. This shall include decks or any other structures or improvements between the building envelop edge and the rivers edge. B. The allowable floor area for each of the five lots shall not exceed the following floor areas (not including the bonus for accessory dwelling units) as submitted in the final application: t Lot 2A 4,700 square feet Lot 2B 4,530 square feet Lot 2C 6,120 square feet Lot 8 4,670 square feet Lot 9 4,620 square feet C. The accessory dwelling units shall be eligible for the floor area bonus, not to exceed 250 square feet, as provided in Ordinance 1. D. The applicants shall join a special improvements district if one is formed. E. Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for each lot, all areas disturbed as a result to construction shall be revegetated. 5 F. The City requests that any excavated boulders greater than 36 inch diameter, which the developers do not use, be provided to the City for public works use. Section 2• That it does hereby grant a lot line adjustment for Lots 8 and 9 of the Callahan Subdivision with the following condition: a. The allowable floor area for Lot 9 shall be 4,620 square feet. b. Prior to the issuance of any excavation, foundation, or building permits, the applicant shall include language on the Gordon Final Plat that indicates that lots 8 & 9 of the Callahan Plat have been adjusted. Section 3: That is does hereby grant Vested Rights for a period of I three (3) years from the effective date hereof in accordance with the terms and provision for Lots 2A, 2B, and 2C of the Gordon Subdivision and Lots 8 & 9 of the Callahan Subdivision. Section 4: That the City Clerk be and hereby is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 5 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the 0 remaining portions thereof. Section 6: Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to affect any right, duty or liability under any ordinance in effect prior to the effective date of this ordinance, and the same shall be continued and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 7• A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 9 day of July, 1990 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published one in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the // day of 1990. ATTEST: William L. Stirling, Mayor ll L LtZ- c' k,/&-4 Kathryn S Roc , City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of 1990. William L. irling, May r ATTE T: Kathryn S. koch, City Clerk 7 I O , E: '4j SCMMUUSER GOHDN+MEYFF Glsnwooa springs, Woraco 81601 (30.' 5-1004 (303) 92f-6501 Fax 3) 145.5948 CONSULTING ENGINEERS L Mr. Stan Mathis Stan Mathis Architects p.0. Box 1984 Aspen, 00 81602 RE: Gordon - Callahan Subdivision Pedestrian _Bridge Estig�ate Dear Stan: This is to confirm, our conversations of earlier this week with respect to the estimated cost to construct a pedestrian bridge near the above - referenced prope`."ty. The estimate is as follows: ``✓ 1. Abutment /foundation 10,000 2. Bridge structure 3 oo0 3. Bridge erection f 4. Earthwork/ approaches 1.000 Total $19,000 I trust this is consistent with our conversation. Y will be happy to provide additional information or more detailed backup for these estimates if required. rt' , Respectfully submitted, SCffi4QESER GORDON MEYER, INC. Dean Wj Gordon,/P.E. DWG: la &)Q llC cc: Mr. Sohn Elmore, owner 4l _M To: Leslie Lamont, Planning office From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer L77r4�- Date: Re: Final Plat - Gordon /Callahan Resubdivision Having reviewed the above referenced plat, the engineering department has the following comments: 1. Did your note mean that sheets 1 through 4 of the improvements drawings would be filed with the county clerk and recorder as part of the subdivision agreement? That would be awkward since the drawings are full size (24" x 36 "). I suggest that these drawings be filed as part of the plat with the pages renumbered accordingly and with an index on sheet 1 of the plat. This would not be atypical - I can show you at least one other plat (Truman Subdivision) and perhaps the original Callahan Subdivision which include_ improvements drawings as part of the final plat. 2. The following items from Ordinance No. 41 (Series of 1990) do not appear to have been addressed in the current submission: A.l.c (Current plat indicates monuments set in river - questionable. Also, monuments lacking on open space parcel.), and A.1.e. 3. The language of item A.1 of Ordinance 41 states that "the Plat shall contain, but not be limited to....." Therefore, we would like to request the following: a. Language on the plat to rededicate the trail easement together with a dimension for the trail width (12 feet). b. The original plat submission did not contain a P & Z certificate. The details of Ordinance 41 item A.l.e should be applied to this certificate. 4. The water line easement was not a condition of the engineering department, therefore I cannot certify it. If you need Delp with this, please let me know. The same with sewer easements. 5. I do not know about items A.i.i, j, k, and 1 and Section 2, Item b of the ordinance and am unable-at this moment to certify it. If you can provide information, I may be able to help. 6. Are the allowable floor areas based on developable area? We have not yet received developable area calculations from a registered surveyor. These would include slope reductions as well as land under water and surface easement reductions. 7. Comments on P.U.D. Subdivision Agreement: a. one exhibit label is unclear, apparently Exhibit "C." Exhibit " E " is attached and is clearly labeled. Any other required exhibits appear to be lacking. cc: Bob Gish, Public Works Director CR /cr /memo_90.168 Me *•- • � TO: John Elmore and Stan Mathis FROM: Leslie Lamont :RE: Gordon /Callahan Vegetation Removal Plan DATE: I would like to follow up on our site visit yesterday. one of the conditions of approval for your stream margin review for the Gordon /Callahan PUD /Subdivision required a plan indicating the amount and type of vegetation to be removed along the river subject to review and approval by the Engineering, Parks and Planning Departments. Any further alterations to the vegetation outside of the approved building envelopes will require stream margin review. As we discussed, Step 1 will include the removal of dead debris and pruning of certain trees and bushes to remove dead limbs. Pruning does not include thinning. Before you begin Step 1 we expect you to stake out or establish the facade of the approved building envelopes. Chuck also requested photographs of what will be removed and pruned. Hopefully by the end of this week you will let me know if work will begin this fall or if you will wait until next spring. Identification of view corridors will be the next step. Depending upon the view plane, we understand that some vegetation will ultimately be removed but those items shall be tagged for us to review before removal. Thank you for your cooperation. I do not think the endangered Navasota Ladies Tresses (Lilium sparksii) will pose a problem. cc: Sunny Vann Pat Duffy, Parks Chuck Roth, Engineering 1. PROJECT NOTES Gordon /Callahan FAR Chronology NXIMMOM Original Application Submitted September 21, 1988 Page 13, Table 1, Development Data Allowable Proposed Lot 2A 4,650 4,000 Lot 2B 7,110 4,500 Lot 9 4,744 4,500 C Note: The above floor areas were calculated based on actual lot sizes. The original application contained an apparent contradiction. Page 11 states that each lot's floor area is less than the maximum allowed, a statement which is reflected in Table 1. Page 19, however, states that "the FAR attributable to Lot 9 will be limited to that which could have been constructed prior to reconfiguration ". 2. October 31, 1988 Letter to Cindy Houben The purpose of the above letter was to clarify various representations contained in the original application. The letter reiterates the Applicant's intent to restrict the floor area of Lot 9 to that which could have been constructed prior to reconfiguration. November 22, 1988 Letter to Cindy Houben At the staff's and P &Z's request, the Applicants revised the original application. The above letter provided new floor areas based on changes in the definition of FAR contained in the City's new land use regulations. As the project was to contain common open space, the revised floor areas were calculated on a PUD based formula. Assuming a maximum of four (4) lots, exclusive of Lot 9, the maximum allowable floor area per lot was calculated to be 4,678 square feet. The letter, however, reiterated the Applicants intent to calculate the floor area of Lot 9 based on its original size prior to reconfiguration. The letter also contained the statement that the Applicant would reconsider voluntary floor area limitations at final plat based on the outcome of the Pit 's new accessory dwelling unit regulations. y �y 4 5. 0 December 19, 1988 Planning Office Memo to City Council Page 5, Lot Line Adjustment Cindy states that the proposed floor area for Lot 9 is 4,744 square feet, the maximum allowable given the lot's original configuration. Council approved the conceptual application based on this representation. January 31, 1989 Letter to Cindy Houben This letter pertained to the Applicant's request that Council reconsider its conceptual approval. Once again, my letter reiterated that the floor area of Lot 9 would be based on its original size. The allowable floor area of the four (4) additional lots which were proposed at that time was 4,678 square feet. December 11, 1989 Final PUD /Subdivision Application Page 4, Table 1, Allowable Floor Areas Allowable Lot 2A UB=-Jo 4,700 Lot 2B —4,530 Lot 2C (�J-'c - 6, 120 — Lot 8 4,670 Lot 9 4,620 Note: The above floor areas were calculated based on actual lot sizes. As no common open space is presently contained in the PUD, the above floor areas were calculated based on the actual lot areas. The PUD formula was not utilized. The reduction in the floor area of Lot 9 reflects the subtraction of the Riverside Ditch surface easement from Lot 9's original lot area. As Council eliminated Lot 2D, no voluntary reduction in allowable floor areas was included in the Applicant's final PUD /subdivision application. TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager/ 1 THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning Director FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning RE: Gordon /Callahan May 16 Work Session Summary DATE: June 11, 1990 SUMMARY: At the April 23 meeting, Council tabled review of the application and first reading of Ordinance and scheduled a work session with the applicants for May 16. I have attached the April 23 memo for your review. Several issues were identified at the May 16 work session. The .11-% issues and staff's response are as follows: ( 1,/ The Enloe Easement - It is the Attorney's position that ecause there is not a requirement to vacate the easement the issues of the adjoining property's access is no longer relevant to the review of this property. A brief history: during conceptual review a condition of approval required Mr. Elmore (the applicant) to vacate the access easement to Lot 1 of the Gordon Subdivision, a parcel of land owned by a Mr. Enloe. Mr. Enloe agreed to vacate the easement if the City agreed, in a written document, that an alternative, historical access to his property was a sufficient width. That alternative access is only 15 feet wide. The Engineering and Fire Departments have both agreed that the 15 feet was not a problem. (That documentation is contained within the file.) The City Attorney however, does not believe it is necessary to make a written agreement securing the 15 foot access. In addition, staff has eliminated the condition of approval requiring Mr. Elmore to seek a vacation of the easement. 2. Goldsamt Easement - Goldsamt built the roads rights -of -way to such ro that Mr. Goldsamt had Centennial Circle to the It is the Attorney's position that Mr. for the Callahan Subdivision and had the ids. The Attorney has no reason to doubt the right to convey access off of Gordon Subdivision. A brief history: Mr. Goldsamt, in 1988, conveyed an easement to Mr. Elmore and Mr. Yow granted an easement to the roads as platted in the Callahan Subdivision. 3. Lipkin TDR - Council asked the City Attorney to research r� '^, bridge could inclined, the trail could be out in like the Castle Creek bridge trail, etc. Please do not give up the opportunity to provide us with what will probably be our last chance at a safer trail option to town. Sincerely, L. Fredrick remaining portions thereof. Section 6• Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to affect any right, duty or liability under any ordinance in effect prior to the effective date of this ordinance, and the same shall be continued and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 7• A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 9 day of July, 1990 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published one in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of 1990. William L. Stirling, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 1990. William L. Stirling, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FA' Council person, On June 11th you will be reviewing the Gordon - Callahan Subdivision for first reading. Unfortunately I will be unable to attend that meeting. I do not agree with the developers present proposal reguarding easements, trails and bridges. The developer is proposing to to build a bridge across the river from 1010 Ute and then allowing for a trail to make a minimal 90 degree bend and exiting the property. This will indeed be a nice trail someday as it would travel down stream to the Cooper Street Bridge. Since only one more easement is needed this trail will be built anyway. What concerns me is the possibility of obtaining an easement to the Riverside Addition so that the residents of East Aspen would eventually have a much safer alternative route to Aspen. Given your present auto disencentive policy it would seem that you would wish to provide more routes for the citizens. The developer has proposed to build the bridge only if an easement is not required. A bridge can be built at any time however an easement is not easy to get. I would rather see you go for the easement. We need more safe trails for the East Aspen residents. This would also be ,justified as it would provide a trail outlined in the 1965 master plan. The argument that the trail would be too steep from the river to Riverside is not valid as there are solutions; the TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Bill Efting, Interim City Manager FROM: Amy Margerum, Planning Director and Leslie Lamont RE: Gordon /Callahan Final PUD /Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment, Vested Rights and First Reading Ordinance DATE: SUMMARY: The applicants propose to subdivide Lot 2 of the Gordon subdivision into three lots for three single family homes. They also propose to adjust the lot line of Lot 9 of the Callahan subdivision. At this step in the process, the applicants seek Final PUD /Subdivision review, a lot line adjustment and vested rights. This is also the first reading of Ordinance Please see attached Ordinance, A. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of Final PUD /Subdivision. COUNCIL GOALS: This Final PUD /Subdivision request is consistent with Council's goal #14: to develop a consistent and fair government... PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In April of 1989, the Council approved conceptual PUD review for a revised site plan of the subdivision. Council also eliminated one of the building sites along the river while requiring an accessory dwelling unit for each home. BACKGROUND: There is a brief history of this project on page one of the Planning and Zoning Commission memo, March 20, 1990, attachment B. The applicants, have pursued Final PUD /Subdivision for three lots, 2A, 2B, and 2C. They also propose to adjust the lot line of Lot 9 to orient the lot toward the river to enable a more efficient access into the subdivision. Please see the attached site plan C. As a result of the elimination of one lot along the river, the applicants also propose to adjust the lot lines of lots 2A and 2B, increasing the width of those lots fifteen feet each. This will enable an increase in the building envelopes but not the floor area. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the stream margin review and conditional use for the accessory dwelling units in the subdivision. The Commission also recommends approval of r'. Final PUD /Subdivision with the newly adjusted lot lines. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The review of the criteria for PUD and Subdivision have been detailed in the Commission memo (Part II), please see attached memo B. The conditions of conceptual approval with the applicants response are also outlined in that memo (Part I). The applicants also request a Lot Line Adjustment for Lot 9 of the Callahan subdivision. Pursuant. to Section 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 is an insubstantial change in the boundary between Lot 9 and Lot 2. While this will increase the size of Lot 9 and would enable the increase in the building's floor area, the applicants have agreed to maintain the original floor area as proposed which is 4,500 square feet. 2. Both landowners whose lot lines are being adjusted provide written consent to the application. RESPONSE: The applicants are the owners of both Lots 9 and 2. 3. It is demonstrated that the request is to address specific hardship. RESPONSE: The adjustment is necessary to enable the relocation of the existing access easement to Lot 2. According to the application, access to Lot 2 is provided from Centennial Circle via a thirty foot easement which parallels the boundary between Lot's 7 and 8 of the Callahan Subdivision. The easement was granted to the original owners of the Gordon subdivision. According to the application, there are two problems with the easement for access purposes. First, use of the easement would adversely affect an existing nearby residence in the Riverside Subdivision and second the existing alignment requires the construction of considerably more roadway than is reasonable to adequately serve the proposed development. The reconfiguration of Lot 9 will accommodate the revised easement alignment, and permit a reasonable building envelope which will improve the project's site design while reducing potential impacts on adjacent neighbors. 4. The corrected plat will meet the standards of this division, and conform to the requirements of this chapter, including 2 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: The reconfigured Lot 9 complies with all applicable dimensional requirement of the underlying R -15 zone district. The final PUD and plat will be amended to reflect this change. 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 applicant proposes to calculate the allowable floor area which could be constructed on Lot 9 based on the lot's original land area. The lot line adjustment will not create additional density for the Callahan or Gordon subdivision. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION VOTE: 7 FOR 1 AGAINST KEY ISSUES: 1. The Commission struggled with the location of the trail easement. At the conclusion of Conceptual review, a trail easement through the subdivision, along the driveway, was approved. During Final review staff questioned whether this really was the best alignment. Staff asked the applicant 'to consider an easement along the northern edge of the subdivision heading straight up to the Riverside subdivision, perpendicular to the bridge easement crossing over from 1010 Ute Avenue. This alignment follows more closely the proposed alignment of the Trail Element of the Comprehensive plan. The applicant demonstrated how a trail consistent with the Trails Plan would have to overcome too great a grade and consume too much land with a switchback to be feasible. At conceptual an easement through the subdivision, along the driveway, was approved. At final Commission review, the applicant offered to pay the full cost of construction of the bridge from 1010 Ute avenue to the Gordon property if the trail easement through the subdivision was eliminated. The Commission, in a straw vote, voted to require the easement and payment for the bridge. The Commission's final vote approved the trail easement only, through the subdivision along the driveway. Please see attached letter (immediately following this memo) from the applicant. 2. Staff had recommended against an increasing the building envelope as a result of increasing the lot size for Lots 2A and 2B. Staff feared a walled affect along the river. The Commission, after considerable discussion and some dissension, recommends approval of the lot size increase in order to give the architects enough room to effectively site the buildings on the parcel. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommend Final PUD /Subdivision for Lots 2A, 2B, and 2C of the Gordon subdivision with conditions as amended and outlined in Ordinance — ' The Planning staff recommends approval of the lot line adjustment for Lot 9 and vested rights. ALTERNATIVES: 1) Denial of the lot line adjustment. 2) Denial of the PUD /Subdivision requiring a new site plan review process. 3) Elimination of the trail easement through the subdivision. 4) Prevention of the increased building size for Lots 2A and 2B. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve the Final PUD /Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment for Lot 9 and Vested Rights with conditions as outlined in Ordinance lf/ , of the Gordon /Callahan Subdivision. I move to read Ordinance V/, Series 1990. I move to approve Ordinance'/(, Series 1990, on first reading. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: A. Ordinance B. Planning and Zoning Commission memo, March 20, 1990. C. Site Plan 4 VANN ASSOCIATES, INC. APR 1 9W Planning Consultants HAND DELIVERED Ms. Leslie Lamont Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Lot 2, Gordon Subdivision/ Final PUD /Subdivision Applica- tion /Trail Issues Dear Leslie: As we discussed earlier this week, Mr. Elmore is opposed to the trail alignment which the P &Z has recommended in connec- tion with their review of his application. The P &Z's recommended alignment does not appear on the City's adopted Trails Plan map. Furthermore, the imposition of this alignment would substantially impact the quality of life of the residents of his proposed development. There are a number of problems, we believe, with the recom- mended alignment. The principal problem, however, involves Centennial Circle and Crystal Lake Road, both of which are private. Given the safety issues that would undoubtedly arise, it is extremely unlikely that the entities that control these roads (i.e., the Aspen Club, Aspen Club Condominiums and the Callahan Subdivision lots) would grant permission for their use for trail purposes. It should be noted that one hundred (100) percent of the homeowners would have to agree to their use, and that no ability reasonably exists to locate the trail outside of the roadways. According to the Planning Office's P &Z memorandum, the purpose of the trail in question is to improve the accessi- bility of the Riverside, Knollwood, Eastwood neighborhoods from Ute Avenue. As you know, Ute Avenue is presently linked to Highway 82 by a trail which parallels the River behind the Aspen Club Condominiums. The trail originates near the entrance to the Benedict Building on Ute Avenue and termi- nates east of Crystal Lake at Highway 82. Two bridges presently span the River, one behind the condominiums and a second one in front of the Aspen Club. This trail takes area 230 East Hopkins Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 •303/925 -6958 residents off of Highway 82 sooner and provides a more direct, safer and scenic route to town. This linkage will be improve upon completion of the new trails which are to be constructed along the west side of the River below Ute Park and along the northern boundary of the 1010 Ute Subdivision. These two trails will provide a second link from Ute Avenue to the Aspen Club and Highway 82. A third link will be available upon the construction of the proposed bridge across the River below the 1010 Ute Subdivi- sion and the proposed trail along the east side of the River parallel to Riverside Avenue. As you know, easements are presently in place for the bridge and a major portion of the trail. Upon completion of the trails improvements outlined above, we believe that adequate access between Ute Avenue and Highway 82 will have been achieved. Unlike the alignment proposed by the P &Z, the alternative trails will be essentially free of vehicular conflicts, thereby improving the safety of both area residents and trail users alike. Given the availability of these alternatives, and the practical limitations of Centennial Circle and Crystal Lake Road, no real benefit would appear to be derived from the approval of the P &Z's recommended alignment. As you know, Mr. Elmore is supportive of the trails program and sympathetic to the need for improved access in the area of his project. He has offered, therefore, to pay for and construct the new bridge across the River below the 1010 Ute Subdivision. This offer, however, is conditioned upon the elimination of the trail alignment through his property. As the value of the recommended alignment is arguably question- able, his offer would appear to be not only generous but a valuable contribution to the success of the trails program. Should you have any questions, or require additional informa- tion, please do not hesitate to call. Your support of Mr. Elmore's offer, and the timely resolution of this issue, would be sincerely appreciated. Very truly yours, VANN SSSOCIATES, INC. Sunny VjAfn, AICP SV: ATTACHMENT B TO: FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner RE: Gordon /Callahan Final PUD /Subdivision Approval, Stream Margin Review, and Conditional Use DATE: SUMMARY: The applicants have submitted an application for final PUD /Subdivision approval, Stream Margin and Conditional Use Review for 4 lots known as the Gordon /Callahan Subdivision (Gordon Subdivision Lots 2A, 2B, 2C, and Lot 9 of the Callahan Subdivision). A Lot Line Adjustment is also required but is reviewed at Council. Staff recommends approval with conditions, however there are several issues that remain outstanding which are summarized at the end of this memo, Part VI. Review of this application was tabled at the February 20 meeting. Staff and the applicants have reviewed outstanding issues. Changes in this text have been highlighted for easy review. APPLICANT: John Elmore and Lionel Yow, as represented by Sunny Vann and Stan Mathis LOCATION: Lot 2, Gordon Subdivision and Lots 8 & 9 Callahan Subdivision ZONING: R -15 PUD APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Final PUD /Subdivision Approval, Conditional Use Review, Stream Margin Review, for Lot 2 and Lot 9 Gordon /Callahan Subdivision. PROJECT HISTORY: As this project has been through many reviews this memorandum will not review the entire history of the parcel. March 21, 1989 The applicants submitted a revised conceptual plan for P &Z review. The first application proposed 2 new homesites as well as Lot 9. The revised application proposes the development of the whole site consisting of a total of 4 homesites plus Lot 9. The P &Z supported the revised plan with conditions. April 24, 1989 The City Council approved the revised plan but eliminated one of the building sites along the river and required that all new homes include an accessory dwelling unit (adu). There were other conditions of approval that the applicants have addressed within this final submission. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicants own Lots 8 & 9 of the Callahan subdivision. Lot 9 has been adjusted to orient the lot toward the river. The access drive has been relocated between lots 8 & 7 to between lots 8 & 9 thus providing access to Lot 2 of the Gordon Subdivision. For final PUD /Subdivision review Lot 2 of the Gordon Subdivision has been subdivided into three separate lots: 2A, 2B, and 2C. In addition to the Lot Line Adjustment for Lot 9, the applicants propose to adjust the lot lines of lots 2A and 2B, increasing the width of those lots fifteen feet each, and to increase the building envelopes. REFERRAL COMIENTS: Aspen Water Department: The applicant has provided an easement for future utility connections. In accordance with previous discussions with the applicants' representative, we also note that the applicant has agreed to extend the water line and install a fire hydrant as shown on the plat. Subject to final inspection and approval of the line extension, and payment of the prerequisite tap fees, the City of Aspen will provide water to the project. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD): At this time there is sufficient line and treatment capacity to serve this project. The on -site collection system, as shown in the utility plan, does not meet District standards, and the District will not assume any responsibility for its' maintenance. I would suggest that as a condition of final approval, the applicant develop and attach to the title of each lot, a narrative to this effect. The applicant is providing each lot with a one and one - fourth inch sewer service line each of which join together in a two inch main. At some point the flow from each collect at an on -site lift station, which is then pumped to our system. The District line that the applicant wishes to connect to is relatively deep and could possibly allow lots 8 and 2C to be serviced by a standard gravity system. If feasible, we will require that the applicant run a District approved line extension to the paved driveway area to the south of Lot 2B, allowing flow by gravity from this point to our line. This line extension should terminate with a manhole which would be individually tapped by each individual service, allowing us the ability to shut off individual services if needed. If the applicant would like to have the on -site system meet District regulations and therefore become maintained by the +4 District, a considerable amount of review and or revision would be required of the District's engineer. Engineering: Having reviewed the application and made a site visit the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. The 30 foot trail, utility and access easement does not have sufficient width to allow for a separate trail. Emergency access width is 20 feet. 2. The roadway grades are acceptable. The driveway grades conform with existing ordinance (none), but it is recommended that a maximum driveway grade of 6% be provided if possible for 20 feet before entering the access road for the safety of pedestrians and vehicles already on the road. It is suggested that a stop sign be placed at the intersection to the new access road with Crystal Lake road. 3. The Engineering Department, upon advice from the City Attorney's Office, has not required, in the past or as part of this application, any change, modification, or enlargement of the Enloe access easement; neither, upon further review does the City anticipate requiring any change. 4. The Plat shall contain: a. Surveyor's certificate to indicate date of survey, performance in accordance with CRS 1973, Title 38, Article 51, and closure within a limit of 1/10,000. b. Note the plat amend plats recorded at books and pages _ (engineering department can provide the information). C. Language is needed to dedicate trail to public use. d. Monumentation of all property corners, including witness corners on line for corners in the river. e. Adjacent subdivision - Gordon Subdivision; Riverview Association Subdivision. f. The City approval certificate should read "approved the _day of _, signed this _day of _." 5. Developable area calculations still need to be submitted which have been performed by a registered surveyor. 6. Stream Margin Review - the City requests a fisherman's easement along the river's edge for a distance of five feet from the mean high water line, or at least in the river to the mean high water line. this would be indicated on the plat. The conditions of approval shall clearly state that no 3 the river will be permitted The City has seen where the riparian vegetation was completely destroyed between the building envelope and the edge of the river. Also, it should be made clear at this time if decks or any other structures or improvements will be permitted between the building envelop edge and the rivers edge. This Department recommends against permitting any development or disturbance whatsoever on the lands between the building envelop and the river. 7. The City requests that any excavated boulders greater than 36 inch diameter, which the developers do not use, be provided to the City for public works use. STAFF COMMENTS: In addition to final PUD /Subdivision review, and Stream Margin, the applicants have addressed the conditions of approval from conceptual PUD review. PART I - Conditions of Conceptual PUD Approval: Following are staff's and the applicant's response to the conditions of approval: 1. Any landscaping outside of the building envelopes shall be subject to individual Stream Margin Review applications to the extent it is required by the Aspen Land Use Regulations. RESPONSE: The applicant's have prepared a landscaping plan for the area outside the building envelopes. Additional restrictions are discussed pursuant to Stream Margin Review. 2. The exact location of the trail easement through the Gordon parcel shall be determined at the final development submissions stage. RESPONSE: The proposed trail easement has been relocated so as to increase its setback from Lots 2B and 2C. The proposed easement, which is fourteen feet in width as required by the City Engineers's Office, is depicted on the final plat. No public access is currently available to Highway 82 on Centennial Circle. The Parks Department is dissatisfied with the proposed alignment because it is a dangerous situation crossing driveways before connecting with Centennial Circle. As an alternative, staff is discussing the elimination of the trail easement through the Gordon Subdivision and working on an alignment along the northern edge of the property. This would enable the future connection with Riverside subdivision and Centennial Circle along the rear of the property. The applicants have agreed to contribute to the cost of building the bridge if the trail easement is eliminated from passing through the middle 4 of the subdivision. Staff is also working on a river trail from the 1010 Ute Avenue bridge crossing up the river to SH 82. The City is approximately 2 easements away from completing the trail. A river trail would provide a better trail experience. Note: in past applications for development on this parcel, full construction of the bridge was proposed for other considerations. 3. The applicants shall provide a water line easement at the terminus of the proposed line, northwest across Lot 2B to an existing main located in south Riverside Avenue. RESPONSE: The alignment is depicted on the final plat. Please see referral comments. 4. All necessary sewer line easements shall be illustrated at final submission. RESPONSE: All existing and proposed sewer easements are depicted on the final plat. 5. The applicants shall eliminate the 30' wide access easement along the eastern edge of the property. Documentation indicating the vacation of the easement shall be submitted at Detailed Submission. RESPONSE: The easement in question benefits Lot 1. As stated in the application, the applicants have no ability to unilaterally vacate the easement. They have negotiated with the present owner of Lot 1, Mr. Enloe, and to his satisfaction have increased the side yard setback of Lot 2C to 30 feet and have realigned the proposed trail. In return, Mr. Enloe has agreed to vacate the easement if the City validates his alternate easement /access to his residence that he currently uses. The Fire Marshall, has reviewed the alternative easement and has concluded that it currently provides satisfactory access for emergency purposes. Please see attachment D. In addition, please see the Engineering referral comments #3. Staff concurs that vacation of the easement and a 30 foot sideyard setback for Lot 2C is a better situation. Staff is also satisfied that this issue has been resolved. The vacated easement shall be indicated on the final plat. 6. Prior to final approval, the applicants shall verify the validity of the access agreement from SH 82 to the proposed development. RESPONSE: Attached are letters from Andy Hecht, the applicants' attorney, and Stewart Title addressing the matter of the easement 5 Mr. Goldsamt has granted to the applicants. Please see attachment E. 7. Any land transfers with the Benedict Land Company must comply with the requirements of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. RESPONSE: According to the application: The Benedict Land and Cattle Company has agreed to quit claim the parcel to the Applicants in exchange for a new parcel to be created at the southern most portion of the Lot 2 of the Gordon Subdivision. The new parcel will be prohibited from development. The quit claim deed will be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder concurrent with the applicants final plat and a copy provided to the City Attorney. The final plat shall illustrate the seven foot strip that has been included in the revisions to Lot 8 of the Callahan Subdivision. The inclusion of the strip will not affect the FAR of Lot 8 and can be approved as a lot line adjustment. The new parcel, which is to be conveyed to the Benedict Land and Cattle Company is to be created in connection with the subdivision of Lot 2 of the Gordon Subdivision. It is assumed by the applicants that the parcel will then be conveyed to the Mattalones who will merge the parcel with their present property. Please note, however, that the terms of the conveyance will preclude the Mattalones from using the parcel for additional .density or FAR purposes. A separate lot line adjustment will be necessary for the Mattalones to include this land in their parcel. 9. The applicant shall provide documentation that the Lipkin rights are actually available. The use of these rights by the Gordon Subdivision shall be documented and recorded in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. RESPONSE: Attached are two affidavits documenting the transfer of 2 development rights to Lionel Yow and John Elmore. Attachment F. 10. The application shall be allowed to be modified to include (above the proposed 4,500 sq. ft.) an additional 300 -500 sq. ft. of FAR on two of the lots for an employee unit. This additional square footage shall not however be allowed for Lot 2C and all proposals shall comply with the underlying dimensional requirements of the R -15 zone district." RESPONSE: Council eliminated Lot 2C along the river and modified this condition to include an adu on every lot. Staff supports Council's position of an adu on every lot, as affordable housing is at crisis levels. However, Ordinance 1 provides a floor area bonus (up to 250) for accessory dwelling units above grade thus, the above language is irrelevant. The applicants have voluntarily agreed to provide two accessory dwelling units. The applicants have also identified Lots 2A and 2B as those residences to include accessory dwelling units. The applicants maintain that because the Lipkin TDRs are exempt from employee housing requirements, that there is no basis for the exaction of 4 accessory units. Therefore the applicants ask Council to reconsider the requirement. If an adu is desired or required (which was a condition of approval by Council during conceptual review) on every lot the adu's shall be eligible for the floor area bonus as provided in Ordinance 1. PART II - Final PUD /Subdivision Review Section 7- 903.C.2: Section 7- 903.C.2 outlines the review criteria for a final development plan. 1 & 2: The applicant has submitted the general application information and a detailed plan of the proposed development. Specific design features of individual homes are unavailable as this is primarily a subdivision of the land. The applicants have submitted a detailed final plat including driveway and grading plans, and site development plans. 3. A statement specifying that the development complies with the dimensional and off - street parking requirements of the underlying Zone District. RESPONSE: The lots and building envelopes comply with the dimensional requirement of the R -15 zone district. All setbacks met or exceed minimum requirements. Building heights will comply with applicable criteria. One off - street parking space per bedroom will be provided within the confines of each lot. No variations from the dimensional requirements are required. The applicants have worked hard to set the building envelopes back from the river. As is discussed during Stream Margin Review, the construction of a rock wall is proposed to delineate the building envelopes from the natural vegetation along the river. The applicant has proposed to shift the building envelopes for Lots 9 and 2A to further break up the line of homes and straight line of the rock wall. 4. A statement specifying the public facilities that will be needed to accommodate the proposed development and what specific assurance will be made to ensure the public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed development. RESPONSE: All utilities are available for the project. Please see referral comments. A utility plan has been submitted and the 7 draft subdivision agreement requires the provision of an appropriate financial guarantee to insure the installation of all required utilities. 5. A development schedule including proposed public facilities the developer is proposing to construct. RESPONSE: A schedule is unavailable for the construction of individual homes. The applicants propose to construct the access driveway and install the various utility and drainage improvements during the spring and summer of 1990. 6. Compliance with the conditions of conceptual approval. RESPONSE: This has been discussed in Part I. 7. Preliminary elevations and drawings of proposed public facilities. RESPONSE: The applicants have indicated the public trail easement on the parcel. 8. Architectural sketch indicating floor plans and all exterior elevations of any building. RESPONSE: These are unavailable. However the applicants will incorporate restrictive covenants, to be recorded with the final subdivision agreement, restricting building materials to wood siding, non - reflective metal or wood roofs, and masonry rock to compliment the residences in the Callahan Subdivision. 9. A Landscaping Plan. RESPONSE: A landscape plan has been submitted for the area outside of the building envelopes. Landscaping within each envelope will be dictated by the design of each residence. 10. Slope analysis. RESPONSE: Slope calculations have been included on the final plat. 11. An open space plan. RESPONSE: There will be no common open space. 12. A final plat. RESPONSE: A final plat has been included in the application. Please see Engineering referral #4 for items necessary to be included on the plat. E PART III - Subdivision Section 7 -1004: During conceptual review the Planning staff determined that the application met the basic subdivision standards. For final review the applicants have submitted detailed storm drainage and utility plans. Please see Aspen Water and ACSD referral comments regarding the adequacy of the plans submitted. Note:. the ACSD believes that the on -site collection system is inferior and the District will not assume any responsibility for its' maintenance. Between conceptual approval and final submission the applicants have revised the development plan. The current proposal is to develop three single family homes along the river (Lot 9, Lots 2A, and 2B) and another home on the bench above the river(Lot 2C) . Because the Council eliminated one of the lots along the river, the applicants propose to expand the lot sizes and the proposed building envelopes. Although Lot Line Adjustment is a review at Council, staff would like to point out that an increase in the building envelopes would exacerbate the effect of a built wall along the river. It was staff's and Council's opinion that less building along the river would provide a more spacious river frontage. In addition, increasing the building envelopes results in Lot 2B impacting that area of the subdivision that staff originally attempted to preserve, the most northern portion of the site along the river. Staff recommends that the original building envelopes as identified in the conceptual plan, be retained for Lots 2A and 2B. Which are 4,980 and 4,800 respectively. The proposed lot sizes floor area and building envelopes are as follows: Lot 8: Lot Allowable Floor Area Building Envelope 17,869 sq. ft. 4670 sq. ft. not defined Lot 9: Lot Allowable Floor Area Building Envelope 24,394 sq. ft. 4620 sq. ft. 7359 (increase of 1% from conceptual) Lot 2A: Lot 21,344 sq. ft. Allowable Floor Area 4700 sq. ft. Building Envelope 5904 (increase of 19% from conceptual) Lot 2B: Lot 17,424 sq. ft. Allowable Floor Area 4530 sq. ft. Building Envelope 5450 (increase of 14% from conceptual) Lot 2C: Lot 45,738 sq. ft. Allowable Floor Area 6120 sq. ft. Building Envelope 10,755 (increase of 51% from conceptual) Part IV - Stream Margin Review Section 7 -504: Section 7 -504 of the Land Use Code outlines the criteria for Stream Margin Review as follows: Criterion A: It can be demonstrated that the proposed development will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be demonstrated by an elevation certificate prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado. RESPONSE: No development is located within the 100 year flood boundary. Criterion B: Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks /Recreation /Open Space /Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use. RESPONSE: The application proposes a trail easement across the Gordon parcel which is identified by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks /Recreation /Open Space /Trails Element. Staff has also discussed the possibility of realigning the proposed easement over to the northern edge of the property providing a future connection into the Riverside subdivision and the possibility of skirting the rear of the property out to Centennial Circle. The applicants have agreed to contribute to the cost of the bridge if the alignment is eliminated from the center of the proposed subdivision. Criterion C: The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. RESPONSE: The Plan contains no site specific recommendations for this parcel. The Plan, however, recommends the maintenance of the river as an accessible, public greenway. A resource to be preserved. The applicants and staff have worked hard to set the building envelopes away from the river frontage. Staff continues to recommend the least amount of development along the river frontage by maintaining the original building envelopes. The applicants propose restrictive covenants to limit the removal of existing vegetation outside of the building envelopes. A rock wall is proposed to define an edge between the building envelope and the area of land to remain in a natural state. 10 The City requests a fisherman's easement along the river's edge for a distance of five feet from the mean high water line, or at least in the river to the mean high water line. Criterion D: No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made that produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank. RESPONSE: The applicants maintain that no vegetation will be removed nor any slope regraded such that the River would be adversely affected. All disturbed areas will be revegetated and appropriate construction mitigation measures will be employed to reduce erosion potential. Because of staff's concern to the riparian zone along the river, no disturbance of any vegetation between the building envelope and the river will be permitted without further stream margin review. The applicant has proposed to work with the Parks, Engineering and Planning staff to identify a site specific inventory of work for bank stabilization, vegetation removal, pruning, etc. Any other disturbance beyond the building envelopes shall require stream margin review. Please see attached letter, March 14, 1990. The City has seen where the riparian vegetation was completely destroyed between the building envelope and the edge of the river. Criterion E: To the greatest extent practicable, the proposed development reduces pollution and interference with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary. RESPONSE: The application states that the building envelopes will not interfere with the riparian vegetation and natural appearance of the River Corridor. As we have seen in recent developments along the river, such as 1010 Ute Avenue, the integrity of the river front can be diminished by having development too close to and overhanging the river banks. The intention of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan is to preserve the corridor in order to provide the community with the appearance and the sense that the natural features of the landscape are vitally important to the quality of the development of the community. Recently we have spent an extensive amount of time developing the Rio Grande SPA which strives to upgrade the pedestrian experience along the river corridor. Each development which we review in the Stream Margin also tries to accomplish maintaining the integrity of the river frontage. Although mistakes may have been made which have allowed development to encroach on the river, we believe that it is essential that the river front be given a great deal of consideration in all land use reviews. 11 The Roaring Fork River is one of the natural focal points of the City and should be protected in order to provide future opportunities similar to the Rio Grande trail, etc. The physical location of homes packed along the river bank does not preserve the river as the natural focus of the area. Criterion F: Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. RESPONSE: No alteration or relocation of the existing water course. Criterion G: A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished. RESPONSE: No guarantee is required. Criterion H: Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the one hundred (100) year floodplain. RESPONSE: No alterations to the river course are proposed and to the best of the staffs and applicants knowledge no state or federal permits are required. PART V - Conditional Use Review Section 7 -304: The applicants propose to provide 2 adu's on Lots 2A and 2B. This was originally voluntary but now Ordinance 1 requires an adu for those lots that have not yet mitigated employee housing. During conceptual review, the Council made a condition of approval that every lot shall provide an adu's. The provision of an adu requires conditional use review. Section 7 -304 outlines the criteria for conditional use review for an adu as follows: Criterion A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed to be located. RESPONSE: The provision of an adu is in line with the goals of the community and Ordinance 1 to provide more affordable housing. The proposal is consistent with the residential zoning of R -15. Criterion B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances 12 the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. RESPONSE: The surrounding land uses are residential. Criterion C: The location, size, design and operating charac- teristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties. RESPONSE: The accessory units are proposed to be contained within the existing single family homes thus visual impacts will be minimized. Although the additional unit may increase the number of autos, the Code does not require parking for deed restricted studio or 1 bedroom dwelling units. The primary residences are providing a parking space per bedroom, as required by the code. Criterion D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protec- tion, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools. RESPONSE: There are adequate public facilities in place. Criterion E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. RESPONSE: There will be no increased employee generation because of the adu's. Criterion F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter. RESPONSE: The adu's shall comply with the standards imposed upon accessory dwelling units pursuant to Section 5 -508. The units cannot be less then 300 square feet, but may take advantage of the floor area bonus provided in Ordinance 1 provided that the aduIs are loot above natural grade. The units shall be deed restricted to the housing guidelines for a resident occupied unit. PART VI - Summary of Staff Comments: 1. Because Council eliminated one of the lots along the river, the applicants propose to adjust the lot line to increase the 13 width of Lots 2A and 2B fifteen feet each. The result is an encroachment into the area of the land that staff had wanted preserved from development. The width of the lots is not of major concern as is the applicants proposed increase in the building envelopes. Increasing the building envelopes will counter the purpose of the reduction in development along the river. Staff therefore recommends that the building envelopes remain as was originally proposed for Lots 2A and 2B, which is 4,980 and 4,800 respectively. 2. The on -site collection system does not meet District standards. The ACSD will not take responsibility for maintenance. Perhaps the applicants can address this issue at the P &Z meeting. l(3./ Mr. Enloe has requested the Engineering Department and City torney Office to issue a written opinion that Mr. Enloe's U access easement is sufficient for present and future uses. The Engineering Department, the Fire Marshall, and the City Attorney have concluded that the historical access to Mr. Enloe's property is sufficient. The Attorney's Office does not agree that this must be defined in an agreement between the City and Mr. Enloe. If an agreement is not reached and Mr. Enloe does not vacate the 30 ft. wide access easement behind the Gordon subdivision, the applicants will not provide a 30 ft. side yard setback between the Gordon subdivision and Mr. Enloe's property. Staff, while believing that the proposed agreement between Mr. Enloe and the applicants is desirable, cannot require the vacation of the easement or the 30 yard setback as offered by the applicants. 4. The applicants, staff, P &Z and Council have worked hard on this subdivision to preserve the river frontage from development impact. Staff feels strongly that no other development or disturbance of the landscape or riparian vegetation should occur outside of the building envelopes (except for what is depicted on the landscaping plan) without stream margin review. 5. The applicants have agreed to provide and construct a trail through the subdivision. However, the City is approximately 2 easements away from providing a public trail from the location of the 1010 Ute bridge crossing up the river to SH 82. This is a project that staff intends to pursue this spring. Staff is also recommending a realignment of the trail easement to go along the northern edge of the property to enable the future connection into the Riverside subdivision and the use of the easement along the rear of the property to access Centennial Circle. A realignment of the proposed easement would eliminant the trail through the subdivision. In return the applicants have agreed to help finance the construction of the bridge. In the past however, other applicants have offered to construct the whole bridge. 14 Pursuant to the Trails Element of the Land Use Plan, a connection has been identified between the river and the Callahan Subdivision. Staff feels strongly that a connection is important for the Riverside, Knollwood, Eastwood etc, neighborhoods. A strong trail link will enable those residents to come into town without using SH 82. Therefore staff is reluctant to eliminate any future trail connection between the river /bridge and Centennial Circle. 6. The applicants have offered to provide two adu's within the subdivision (Lots 2A and 2B). Council made a recommendation of approval that the applicants shall provide an adu for every free market unit. Pursuant to Ordinance 1, the development of the homes requiring an accessory dwelling unit or cash -in -lieu is as follows: a. Two of the 4 lots (9 and 2A) were establish prior to a requirement of affordable housing. Therefore these lots will be covered by Ordinance 1 and eligible for the floor area bonus which is 250 square feet. b. Lots 2B and 2C are to be developed by the Lipkin TDR's and Council has recently confirmed that the TDR's are not subject to an affordable housing requirement. However, the applicants have identified lots 2A and 2B as those lots providing adus. Staff is unconcerned about which particular lots provide adus. If the applicant desires or Council requires, via a condition of approval, five adu's, staff recommends that the adu's be eligible for the floor area bonus, above grade, as provided in Ordinance 1. 7. The applicants propose to construct a low rock wall to better define the edge of the building envelopes from the natural river edge. The applicants have proposed to shift the building envelopes of Lots 9 and 2A to create a broken line of wall and building along the river. S. The subdivision provides no common open space. Staff reiterates the need to preserve that area of the riverbank at the northern end of the subdivision to be set unimproved and unencumbered by an increased building envelope on Lot 2B. 9. The on -site collection system, as shown in the utility plan, does not meet District standards, and the District will not assume any responsibility for its' maintenance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use, and stream margin review, and recommends that the Commission recommend to Council approval of final PUD /Subdivision with the 15 following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of any excavation permit and any building permit the final Plat shall be filed. The Plat shall contain, but not limited to: a. Surveyor's certificate to indicate date of survey, performance in accordance with CRS 1973, Title 38, Article 51, and closure within a limit of 1 /10,000. b. Note the plat amend plats recorded at books and pages _ (engineering department can provide the information). C. The trail easement and language dedicating the trail to public use. d. Monumentation of all property corners, including witness corners "on line" for corners in the river. e. Adjacent subdivision - Gordon Subdivision; Riverview Association Subdivision. f. The City approval certificate should read "approved the _day of _, signed this _day of _." g. A fisherman's easement along the river's edge for a stance of five feet from the mean high water line, or at least in the river to the mean high water line. h. The water line easement. i. All existing and proposed sewer easements. j. The seven foot strip that has been included in the revisions to Lot 8 of the Callahan Subdivision. k. The building envelopes for Lots 2A and 2B shall be identified as 4,980 and 4,800 respectively. 1. Staff is unconcerned which particular lots provide an adu, but they shall be defined on the final plat. M. Revised building envelopes for Lots 9 and 2A as approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. n. The man -made rock wall, not to exceed 30 ". 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, an approved and recorded copy of deed restriction for the accessory dwelling units shall be filed with the Housing Authority. The deed shall include, but is not limited to: a. The Owner hereby covenants that the Accessory Dwelling Units described shall at all times remain rental units and shall not be condominiumized. b. The Owner shall have the right to lease the Accessory Dwelling Units to "Qualified Residents" (pursuant to the Housing Guidelines) of his /her own selection. Rental or lease is limited to only Qualified Residents. Such individuals may be an employee of the Owner, or employed as a resident caretaker, provided such a person fulfills the requirement of a qualified resident. C. Written verification of employment of persons proposed to reside in the Accessory Dwelling Units shall be completed and filed with the Housing Authority prior to occupancy and must be acceptable to the Housing Authority. d. Lease agreements executed for occupancy of the Accessory Dwelling Units shall provide for a rental term of not less than six consecutive months. 3. Pursuant to Ordinance 1, the development of the homes requiring an accessory dwelling unit or cash -in -lieu is as follows: a. Lots 9 and 2A were establish prior to a requirement of affordable housing. Therefore these lots will be covered by Ordinance 1 and eligible for the floor area bonus which is 250 square feet provided that the adu's are 100% above natural grade. b. Lots 2B and 2C are to be developed by the Lipkin TDR's and Council has recently confirmed that the TDR's are not subject to an affordable housing requirement. If an adu is desired or required on every lot the above grade adu's shall be eligible for the floor area bonus as provided in Ordinance 1. 4. The applicants shall join a special improvements district if one is formed. 5. It is recommended that a maximum driveway grade of 6% be provided if possible for 20 feet before entering the access road for the safety of pedestrians and vehicles already on the road. It is suggested that a stop sign be placed at the intersection to the new access road with Crystal Lake road. 6. Prior to filing the final plat a site specific inventory of bank stabilization, vegetation removal, pruning etc. for along the river bank shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks, Engineering and Planning Department. No disturbance of any vegetation, except for what has been approved, between the building envelope and the river will be permitted without stream 17 margin review. This shall include decks or any other structures or improvements between the building envelop edge and the rivers edge. 9. Prior to issuance of an excavation permit, appropriate construction mitigation measures shall be identified to reduce erosion potential during construction. 10. The City requests that any excavated boulders greater than 36 inch diameter, which the developers do not use, be provided to the City for public works use. 11. Prior to filing the final plat, the front yard setback for Lot 2A shall be reduced in order to locate the building envelope further from the river 12. The subdivision agreement shall include, but not limited to: a. a schedule of utility costs associated with the provision of public utilities. b. restrictive covenants restricting building materials to wood siding, non - reflective metal or wood roofs, and masonry rock to compliment the residences in the Callahan Subdivision. 13. The quit claim deed shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder concurrent with the applicants final plat and a copy provided to the City Attorney. 14. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, an escrow account established for bridge construction contributions. 15. All areas disturbed as a result to construction shall be revegetated prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for each lot. m a ;✓t� = h' SITE PLAN;" ATTACHMENT C A PAR — cr CT,�(} . 'in � �I 83.00' ti� � �� • ^� ,y'.?:': - LC 2C Q IM L0'T , La 0.u0 .c r: k w ••.rn • f �p PONT Iv y / =+ rt-- :w rm vrtrry _ _ U . 9 _ r (. n • o —.. �• r J'' � �. � • / � � !' fi n. , . r H ..• ✓. 60Jr �. f�. .t . r � O �.\' h L. O T LOT 8 _ O ` `��- 1. ♦\. * as .u./ - SI �.. N .. LOT 2A \� C71 ' t o M r p�Jt O�.t °aso .art � F v P C n 57 1C At 70r' x r B ✓. i B' - 'LOT y.: Ch e- J � 1avr _ � PtS�o -. -✓ c xri \` 7 . Leslie Liniont, Plannef Aspen/Pitkin Piarfiilig Of flce City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Draft memo Gordon /Callahan Dear Leslie, 1n reap onz,e tot tide iteriis requiring clarification from life Or, items Part 11 (3), Part IV (criterion C), (criterion D); Part IV (2), (6a),(7), recommendations (3a), (61b), (8) & (1 1). I believe these references can be reduced to a few brief, I hope, explanations First, reducing the required front yard on Lot 2A will be counter productive to achieve the staffs desire to offset the perceived "wall of development" long the river. The reduced front yard setback will increase the setback parallel to the river, but the residence on the lot will be closer to the new access road, thereby reducing the open space along the new road. As an alternate plan the applicant proposes to make the parallel river setback intersect at a 90 degree angle to the side yard setbacks, thereby creating a guaranteed offset alignment along the river corridor. The proposed freeform stone wall will, of course, follow these new alignments, defining man made landscape and natural,but maintained, vegetation. STt\ 11'hN15 As part of the discussion above and to further define the applicants intent for the area between the stone wall and the river edge, the �R(.tffTtCTl1tF following description of scope of stabilization and maintenance of existing vegetation should be included in the discussion of Stream Margin PL NNN, Review. Post Off i ce Bo The vegetation along the bank of this portion of the Roaring Fork River 1964 is typical of the entire valley. On the subject property there are scrub, Aspen Colorado wild willows, service berry, small calipher aspen-less than I " -1 112 -0, 61612 cottonwood in various stages of growth 2 " -12 ", some rasberries bushes 303/920 -1434 along with dead wood and brush. The steeper river bank at the eastern end Regarding the fisherman's easement the applicant has no real objection to this requirement, but in light of society's current litigious bent, and the fact that the river bank is to be kept in a natural state, it seems fair that the city indemnify the applicant, planner, architect, prior, current, and future owners of the lots with fisherman easements in the event of a law suit. If you have any questions please feel free to call. r Tha Sta (3) n Tm�• C`1TT!.\T u t - . a Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District 565 Forth Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (303) 925 -3601 Leslie Lamont Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Gordon Subdivision PUD Final Plat Dear Leslie: Tele.(303)925 -2537 i ill i t'• At this time we have sufficient line and treatment capacity to serve this project. The on -site collection system, as shown in the utility plan, does not meet District standards, and the District will not assume any responsibility for its' maintenance. 1 would suggest that as a condition of final approval, the applicant develop and attach to the title of each lot, a narrative to this effect. The applicant is providing each lot with a one and one - fourth inch sewer service line, each of which join together in a two inch main. At some point the flow from I each collect at an on -site lift station, which is then pumped to our system. The District line that the applicant wishes to connect to is relatively deep and could possibly allow lots 8 and 2c to be served by a standard gravity system. IT feasible, we will require that the applicant run a District approved line extension to the paved driveway area to the south of lot 2b, allowing flow by gravity from this point to our line. This line extension should terminate with a manhole which would be individually tapped by each individual service, allowing us the ability to shut off individual services if needed. If the applicant would like to have the on -site system meet District regulations and therefore become maintained by the District, a considerable amount of review and or revision would be required of the District's engineer. Please call if you have aT)y questions. Sincerely. Bruce Matherly District Manager cc: Vann and Associates ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920 -5090 Sunny Vann Vann Associates 230 E. Hopkins Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Gordon Subdivision /PUD Final Plat and Stream Margin Review, Callahan Lot Line Adjustment and Plat Amendment Dear Sunny, This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that this application is complete. We have scheduled this application for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing on Tuesday, February 20, 1990 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to your application is available at the Planning Office. If you have any questions, please call Leslie Lamont, the planner assigned to your case. Sincerely, Debbie Skehan Administrative Assistant VANN ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning Consultants Ms. Leslie Lamont Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Lot 2, Gordon Subdivision, Final PUD /Subdivision Applica- tion Dear Leslie: The purpose of this letter is to amend the above referenced application to include a request for vested property rights status pursuant to Section 6 -207 of the Land Use Regulations. It is my understanding that all final land use approvals will now be adopted by City Council ordinance which, as you know, requires a public hearing. As the same public hearing may be used for both final development approval and vested rights status, I would appreciate it if you include an appropriate vested rights ordinance in the City Council's final PUD /sub- division review packet. Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, 5v:cwv 230 East Hopkins Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 •303/925 -6958 .P VANN ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning Consultants SAND DELIVERED Ms. Leslie Lamont Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Lot 2, Gordon Subdivision, Final PUD /Subdivision Approval Dear Leslie: Please consider this letter an application for final Pud /sub- division approval for the development of Lot 2 of the Gordon Subdivision (see Land Use Application Form attached hereto as Exhibit 1). In addition, the application requests approval to adjust the boundaries of Lots 8 and 9 of the adjacent Callahan Subdivision, and to amend the Callahan final plat and PUD development plan to reflect these adjust- ments. Stream margin review approval for the project's proposed building envelopes is also requested. The properties in question are located near the Roaring Fork River in the vicinity of the Aspen Club Condominiums and health club. Access to the properties is provided via Highway 82, Crystal Lake Road and Centennial Circle. The owners of the properties and project Applicants are John A. Elmore and Lionel L. Yow (see Title Insurance Polices, attached hereto as Exhibit 2). The Applicants' representa- tive is Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, Inc., Planning Consultants (see Permission to Represent, Exhibit 3). project History Given the extensive review which the project has already received, and the fact that you are replacing Cindy Houben in the review process, a brief overview of the project's history is perhaps in order. The Applicants' conceptual PUD application proposed to adjust the boundaries of Lot 9 of the Callahan Subdivision and to subdivide Lot 2 of the Gordon Subdivision into two (2) parcels, Lot 2A and Lot 2B. The further subdivision of Lot 2 was possible due to the Appli- 230 East Hopkins Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 •303/925 -6958 Ms. Leslie Lamont December 11, 1989 Page 2 cants' ownership of one (1) of the so- called "Lipkin" free market development rights. The project was initially reviewed by the P &Z on November 8, 1988. Cindy recommended approval of the conceptual PUD development plan subject to conditions. The principal conditions were that Lot 2A be reconfigured and that all building envelopes be setback further from the River. She also recommended that the remaining undeveloped area of the property located below the Riverside irrigation ditch and adjacent to the River be precluded from further development. As Cindy's recommendation significantly affected the proj- ect's design, the meeting was tabled to allow the Applicants time to address the P &Z's and Planning Office's concerns. The Applicants revised the project's site plan and the P &Z reconsidered the application on November 15, 1988. The revised plan reconfigured Lot 2A and relocated the proposed building envelopes as requested. Upon further discussion, the P &Z decided against prohibiting additional development adjacent to the River. Instead, their recommendation of approval to City Council limited further development of the property to no more than two (2) additional lots, one (1) of which could be located next to the River. The application was reviewed by the City Council on December 19, 1988. Council approved the conceptual PUD portion of the project with essentially the same conditions as recommended by the P &Z. They disagreed with the P &Z, however, regarding further development, adopting instead Cindy's recommendation that further development adjacent to the River be prohibited. Please note that approval of the proposed lot line adjust- ment, subdivision approval, and stream margin review were to occur concurrent with the Applicants' final PUD application. All of these issues, however, were considered preliminarily in connection with the project's conceptual PUD review. Subsequent to Council's conceptual approval, the Applicants obtained two (2) additional Lipkin free market development rights. The project's site plan was revised to include two additional lots, Lots 2C and 2D, and City Council was requested to reconsider its prohibition against development adjacent to the River. While the revised design was consis- tent with the P &Z's original recommendation of conceptual approval, Cindy believed that the proposed revisions war- ranted further P &Z review. Council concurred with the Planning Office and refused to reconsider its prior approval until the revised site plan was reviewed by the P &Z. Ms. Leslie Lamont December 11, 1989 Page 3 The P &Z reviewed the Applicants' revised site plan at its March 21, 1989 meeting and unanimously recommended approval subject to conditions. The City Council reviewed the revisions on April 24, 1989. The Council, however, rejected the P &Z's recommendation and approved the revised project subject to the elimination of Lot 2C which was located adjacent to the River and the mandatory inclusion of four (4) accessory dwelling units. The remaining conditions of approval were essentially identical to those identified during the Council's prior review. Proposed Project Revisions As presently approved, the conceptual PUD development plan for Lot 2 of the Gordon Subdivision provides for the recon- figuration of Lot 9 of the Callahan Subdivision and the creation of three (3) new lots, two (2) of which are located adjacent to the River. The final PUD development plan which accompanies this application is consistent, we believe, with the intent of the approved conceptual plan. It should be noted, however, that several refinements are proposed to further enhance the project. These refinements are described below. ® 1. The width of Lots 2A and 2B has been increased by fifteen (15) feet. This increase will reduce the perceived density of the residences to be constructed adjacent to the River while preserving the area below the Riverside irrigation ditch as required by the City Council. 2. Lot 8 of the Callahan Subdivision has been reconfigured slightly to eliminate the need for a driveway easement across the rear of the lot and to include a portion of the Benedict Land and Cattle Company out parcel. The size of the lot, however, remains relatively unchanged as does the lot's maximum allowable floor area. 3. The proposed trail easement has been realigned so as to reduce the impact of the trail on Lots 2B and 2C. The trail, however, continues to utilize a portion of the project's access driveway from Centennial Circle as originally proposed. The driveway is twenty (20) feet in width and serves four (4) residences. The proposed trail alignment follows the driveway for approximately one hundred and eighty (180) feet and terminates at Centennial Circle. 4. A portion of the existing Riverside ditch has been relocated so as to provide more flexibility in the Ms. Leslie Lamont December 11, 1989 Page 4 development of Lot 2C and to reduce potential visual impacts on neighboring properties. The lot's building envelope has been revised to reflect the relocated ditch. Permission to relocate the ditch at the Applicants' expense has been obtained from the Riverside Ditch Association (see Exhibit 4). 5. The allowable floor areas for Lots 2A, 2B and 2C have been revised to reflect the Council's elimination of the additional lot adjacent to the River. As discussed in our conceptual application, the allowable floor areas of Lots 8 and 9 will be limited to that which could have been constructed on the lots as originally platted. The project's revised allowable floor areas are provided in Table 1, below. Table 1 ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA C (Square Feet) Lot 2A a l — / �� 4, Lot 2 V 4,530 Lot 2� 6� 120 Lot 8 —/ -7V i� 4,67 Lot 9/9 -' 4, 620 Note: All floor areas have been rounded to the nearest ten (10) square feet. All floor area calculations exclude land under water and any land within an existing dedicated right -of -way or surface easement. Conditions of Conceptual PDD Approval The City Council approved the Applicants' conceptual PUD application subject to the conditions contained in Cindy's April 24, 1989 City Council memorandum. Please note, however, that Council modified the requirements of several conditions and deleted condition #7 in its entirety. while these changes are reflected in the minutes of the Council meeting, the Planning Office's language was never revised to I f Y Ms. Leslie Lamont December 11, 1989 Page 5 reflect Council's modifications. Cindy's original condi- tions, the Council's modifications, and the final PUD application's compliance therewith, are discussed below. i. "Any landscaping outside of the building envelopes shall be subject to individual stream margin Review applica- tions to the extent it is required by the Aspen Land Use Regulations.'$ A landscaping plan for the properties in question has been prepared and accompanies this application. Please note that landscaping is limited to those areas outside of the various building envelopes. Landscaping within the envelopes will be dictated by the design of the individual residences. 2. "The exact location of the trail easement through the Gordon parcel shall be determined at the final develop- ment submission stage.'$ As discussed under "Project Revisions ", the proposed trail easement has been relocated so as to increase its setback from Lots 2B and 2C. The proposed easement, which is fourteen (14) feet in width as requested by the City Engi- neer's office, is depicted on the final plat which accom- panies this application. While the Applicants have committed to the provision of a trail alignment, it should be noted ` 1 that Centennial Circle is a private road and that no public access across this road to Highway 82 is presently available for trail purposes. 3. $'The applicants shall provide a water line easement at the terminus of the proposed line, northwest across Lot 2H to an existing main located in south Riverside Avenue.'$ The Applicants have consulted with the Aspen Water Department as to the appropriate location for the requested water line easement. The resulting alignment is depicted on the final plat which accompanies this application. 4. "All necessary sewer line easements shall be illustrated at final submission." All existing and proposed sewer easements are depicted on the final plat. 5. "The applicants shall eliminate the 30' wide access easement along the eastern edge of the property. f , r Ms. Leslie Lamont December 11, 1989 Page 6 Documentation indicating the vacation of the easement shall be submitted at Detailed submission." As discussed in our conceptual PUD application, the access easement in question inures to the benefit of Lot 1 of the Gordon Subdivision. The Applicants, therefore, have no ability to unilaterally vacate the easement. They have, however, negotiated with the present owner of Lot 1, Mr. Enloe, with regard to the easement and the proposed PUD development plan. The Applicants have made certain conces- sions with respect to the location of the proposed trail and the building envelope for Lot 2C. In return, Mr. Enloe has agreed to vacate the easement subject to the City's confirma- C tion of an alternative easement which he presently utilizes to access his residence. The alternative easement is fifteen (15) feet wide and from Riverside Avenue across the Kastelic property , extends to Lot 1 of the Gordon subdivision. The legality of the J� easement is not in question; its width, however, has appar- raised some concern. While the Land Use Regulations (� do not contain a minimum driveway standard, the Engineering Department requires, I believe, a minimum width of twenty (20) feet for emergency vehicle access purposes. The City's Fire Marshall, Mr. Wayne Vandemark, has reviewed the alterna- tive easement and has concluded that it currently provides satisfactory access for emergency purposes (see Exhibit 5). Based on the above, it would appear to be in everyone's best interest for the City to formally confirm Mr. Enloe's alternative access easement. Upon such confirmation Mr. Enloe will vacate the thirty foot access easement across Lot 8 of the Callahan Subdivision and Lot 2 of the Gordon Subdivision as requested. In the absence of the City's confirmation, the Applicants cannot comply with the require- ments of this condition. 6. "prior to final approval, the applicants shall verify the validity of the access agreement from Highway 92 to the proposed development." This condition pertains to the non - exclusive easement to use the Callahan Subdivision's internal road system which was granted to the Applicants by Robert Goldsamt. This easement is necessary in order to provide access from the project to Highway 82. Mr. Goldsamt's easement grant, and letters from Andy Hecht, the Applicants' attorney, and Stewart Title addressing this matter, are attached hereto as Exhibit 6. r-� Ms. Leslie Lamont December 11, 1989 Page 7 7. "Lot 2C building envelope shall be modified with regard to setbacks from the river and the trail. The proposed setbacks are to be increased, and the building envelope is to be decreased by 10 %. These issues are to be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Planning and Zoning Commission at the final submission stage of the land use process." This condition was rendered moot when the City Council refused to approve an additional lot adjacent to the River. The Council minutes reflect that this condition was deleted from the Mayor's motion to approve the Applicants' conceptual PUD plan. 8. "Any land transfers with the Benedict Land Company must comply with the requirements of the Aspen Land Use Regulations." As discussed in the Applicants' conceptual PUD application, there presently exists an approximately seven (7) foot strip of land between the Gordon and Callahan Subdivisions which is owned by the Benedict Land and Cattle Company. The parcel in question, which is believed to have been created as a result of a prior surveying error, parallels the northern boundary of Lot 8 of the Callahan Subdivision. The Benedict Land and Cattle Company has agreed Obhifbited claim the parcel to the Applicants in exchange for a el to be created at the southern most portion of the Gordon Subdivision. The new parcel, which will from development, is intended to serve as a buffer between the adjacent Mattalone property and the River. The quit claim deed will be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder concurrent with the Applicants' final plat and a copy provided to the City Attorney as requested. As the accompanying final plat illustrates, the seven (7) foot strip has been included in the revisions to Lot 8 of the Callahan Subdivision. The inclusion of the strip will not affect the FAR of Lot 8 and can be approved as a lot line adjustment. The new parcel, which is to be conveyed to the )Benedict Land and Cattle Company is to be created in connec- tion with the subdivision of Lot 2 of the Gordon Subdivision. It is my understanding that the Benedict Land and Cattle Company will in turn convey the parcel to the Mattalones who will merge the parcel with their present property. Please note, however, that the terms of the conveyance will preclude the Mattalones from using the parcel for additional density or FAR purposes. Ms. Leslie Lamont December 11, 1989 Page 8 9. "The applicants shall provide documentation that the Lipkin rights are actually available. The use of these rights by the Gordon Subdivision shall be documented and recorded in a form acceptable to the City Attorney." The project is exempt from the City's growth management regulations. As discussed in the conceptual PUD application, Lot 2 of the Gordon Subdivision was created in 1983 via the City's so- called "lot split" procedure and is entitled, pursuant to Section 8- 104.C.a. of the Regulations, to one (1) single - family GNP exemption. For purposes of discussion, this development right may be assigned to Lot 2A. , A second free - market right, which may be assigned to Lot 2B, was acquired by Sheldon Gordon (i.e., the developer of the Gordon Subdivision) from Pitkin Limited in 1986 (see Exhibit 7) and transferred to Lionel Yow in connection with his purchase of the property. A third development right, assign- able to Lot 2C, was acquired from Aspen Mountain Park II by John Elmore in February of 1989 (see Exhibit 8). Pursuant to Section 8- 104.A.c. of the Regulations, Lots 8 and 9 of the Callahan Subdivision are each entitled to one (1) single - family GMP exemption since they were legally subdivided prior o the adoption of Growth Management. 10 "The application shall be allowed to be modified to include (above the proposed 4,500 sq. ft.) an additional 300 - 500 sq. ft. of FAR on two of the lots for an employee unit. This additional square footage shall not however be allowed for Lot 2C and all proposals shall comply with the underlying dimensional requirements of the R -15 zone district." As noted previously, the Council eliminated the additional lot located adjacent to the River (i.e., the original Lot 2C). In addition, they modified this condition to require that all four (4) of the remaining lots contain a mandatory accessory dwelling unit. As the Lipkin free market develop- ment rights are exempt from employee housing requirements, (� there is no basis for the exaction of four (4) accessory units. The Applicants voluntarily agreed to the provision of two (2) accessory dwelling units and, therefore, intend to ask the Council to reconsider this requirement at the �� ppropriate step in the review process. Final PUD Development Plan In addition to demonstrating compliance with the conditions of conceptual PUD approval, Section 7- 903.C.2. of the Ms. Leslie Lamont December 11, 1989 Page 9 Regulations requires that additional materials be submitted in connection with final PUD review. These requirements, and the Applicants compliance therewith, are summarized below. 1. Section 7- 903.C.2.a.(1) The requirements of Section 6 -202 are addressed in the text of this application and the various exhibits attached hereto. 2. Section 7- 903.C.2.a.(2) The information required by this section is depicted on the Final PUD Development Plan which accompanies this applica- tion. 3. Section 7- 903.C.2.a.(3) The proposed lots and their respective building envelopes have been designed in compliance with the dimensional requirements of the R -15 zone district. All setbacks meet or exceed minimum requirements. Building heights will comply with applicable criteria. one (1) off - street parking space per bedroom will be provided within the confines of each lot. To the best of the Applicants' knowledge, no variations from the dimensional requirements of the R -15 zone are required in order to develop the project. Section 7- 903.C.2.a.(4) As discussed in our conceptual PUD application, all utilities are readily available to the project site. The proposed extension of these utilities is depicted on the Utility Plan which accompanies this application. The attached draft PUD /Subdivision Agreement (see Exhibit 9) requires the provision of an appropriate financial guarantee to insure the installation of all required utilities. S. Section 7- 903.C.2.a.(5) it is presently unclear whether the Applicants will sell the proposed lots, develop them themselves, or undertake some combination thereof. A precise schedule for the construction of the individual residences, therefore, is impossible to provide at this time. The Applicants, however, propose to construct the access driveway and install the various utility and drainage improvements during the spring and summer of 1990. 1� Ms. Leslie Lamont December 11, 1989 Page 10 6. Section 7- 903.C.2.a.(6) The final PUD development plan's compliance with the condi- tions of conceptual PUD approval has been discussed previous- ly in this application. 7. Section 7- 903.C.2.a.(7) No public facilities are included in the Applicants' proposed development. S. Section 7- 903.C.2.a.(S) As the lots may be sold to individual purchasers for the construction of their respective residences, no architectural plans are available. However, as discussed in our conceptual PUD application, architectural design guidelines will be incorporated in the project's restrictive covenants. These covenants will be recorded concurrent with the Applicants' final subdivision plat. • Building materials will be re- stricted to wood siding, non - reflective metal or wood roofs, and masonry rock to compliment the residences presently under construction in the reminder of the Callahan Subdivision. 9. Section 7- 903.C.2.a.(9) A proposed landscape plan for the areas located outside of the proposed building envelopes accompanies this application. Landscaping within each envelope will be dictated by the design of each residence. I*. Section 7- 903.C.2.a.(10) Slope calculations prepared by Schmueser Gordon Meyer are depicted on the accompanying final plat. 11. Section 7- 903.C.2.a.(li) The proposed project contains no commonly held open space. All of the land area in question is contained within the •proposed lots. No open space plan is therefore required. 12. Section 7- 903.C.2.a.(12) A final subdivision plat depicting the information required pursuant to Sections 7 -1004. D. 1.a.(3) and D.2.a. accompanies this application. Ms. Leslie Lamont December 11, 1989 Page 11 Subdivision The subdivision review standards of Section 7- 1004.C. of the Land Use Regulations were addressed in detail in the Appli- cants' conceptual PUD application. While the project has undergone minor revisions since it was initially submitted, the comments contained in Section IV.C. of our original application remain essentially unchanged. Therefore, in the interest of brevity, I have refrained from addressing the review standards again in this application. Please refer to our conceptual PUD application as may be required. Section 7- 1004.D.2. requires that additional information be submitted prior to City Council review. In general, this requirement pertains to the final subdivision plat and the information contained thereon. This section also requires the submission of a subdivision improvements agreement and engineering plans and specifications for proposed improve- ments. As discussed previously, the required improvements agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit 9. The final subdivision plat and related engineering plans accompany this application. Lot Line Adjustment, PUD Amendment and Stream Margin Review The applicable review criteria for these approvals, and the project's compliance therewith, were also discussed in the Applicants' conceptual PUD application. As our original comments continue to be relevant, please refer to Sections IV. A., B. and E. of our conceptual application for a detailed discussion of the applicable review requirements. Very truly VANN ASSOCIATES, INC. AICP SV: Attachments EXHIBIT 4 Riverside Ditch Association Jim Snyder 210 Midland Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Mr. John Elmore,II P. 0. Box 1088 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Dear Mr. Elmore: The Riverside Ditch Association hereby grants you permission to alter the present alignment of the ditch as it runs through lot 2C of the Gordon Subdivision. After the specific realignment has been engineered, an agreement will then be presented to the Riverside Ditch Association. Sincerely, Jim Snyder Riverside Ditch Association EXHIBIT 3 HAND DELIVERED Ms. Leslie Lamont Aspen /Pitkin 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, Inc. to represent Elmore /Yow Aspen Ventures in the processing of our application for subdivision /PUD and stream margin review. Mr. Vann is hereby authorized to act on our behalf with respect to all matters reasonably pertaining to the aforementioned application. Should you have any questions, or if we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ELMORE /YON ASPEN VENTURES OL Gam/ A . 'T1ACI*h T C MEMORANDUM To: Les12`e a n . I , Planning office n From: Chuck Roth, Interim City Engineer C Date: ru 4, 1990 Re: Gordon Subdivision /PUD Final Plat and Stream Margin Review, Callahan Lot Line Adjustment and Plat Amendment Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the engineering department has the following comments: 1. Concerning the histor of the parcel, please note that development applications for this property began with the 1984 residential GMP submissions. 2. Trail easement - The City has been working towards completing a trails link through 1010 Ute, through the Callahan Subdivision, to Highway 82. Are we unable to obtain such a link at this time as an easement for the public to use Crystal Lake Road for trail purposes only (no motorized vehicles - bicycles and pedestrians only)? The applicant has not offered to construct trails or a bridge, but Callahan Subdivision did both. Are we unable to ask for that at this time? In a previous review, we have commented that the 30 foot trail, utility and access easement does not have sufficient width to a:low for a separate trail. Emeroencv access width is 20 feet. Does the Citv want a tra'_1 which is separate from the roadway? 3. Water and fire pr_:iection - Water department to comment o^ adequacy of existing water service or the need for looping or other new facilities and on details of proposed fire hydrant installation. The Fire Marshall should be consulted for fire protection questions such as the adequacy and location of the fire hydrant. 4. Driveway and roadway grades - The roadway grades are accept- able. The driveway trades conform w.th ex_stino ordinances (none), but ._ is rec ^:emended that a max:m.!m driveway grade of 6% be provided if possib'_e for 20 feet before entering the access road for t: .ne sa'_ety c_ pedestrians and ve'..c:�s a- eadv on tine road. Tt is e.uaaestec that a stoo sian be placed at the inter- section of the new access road with Crystai lake Road. easemen` to that lot. ^� vacation of access easement - It appears that the city torney has accepted the fifteen foot wide access easement for Lot 1, Gordon Subdivision, in exchange for vacating the 30 foot March 19,1990 Leslie Lamont, Planner Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office City of Aspen 102 S. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81612 re: Gordon/Callahan Subdivision Dear Leslie, There are a few things that the Applicant has asked : The Applicant feels that a trail easement through the center of the development that is along the new driveway is not appropriate for several reasons. First, the impact on the marketability of the lots is great The permitted density for this property (including Lot 9) was 6 home sites. We did not try to maximize our density and only requested 5 home sites and the City Council, despite a unanimous endorsement from Planning & Zoning, cut that density even further to 4 lots. Because of these actions the Applicant can no longer afford to further devalue the property by permitting a trail through the center of it and thus feels it must withdraw their offer to do so. We would also point out that the adopted Master Plan for the pedestrian trails does not show, nor was a trail proposed,'to follow the current driveway alignment to Centennial Circle, a private road. Second, it was the Applicants understanding that we would provide either a trail easement or contribute money for the construction of the pedestrian bridge, but not both. However, the Applicant is willing to build the proposed bridge if the trail easement requirement is waived. After reviewing the trail location on the west side of the property (see attached studies) we believe the only logical trail alignments are either downriver to connect with Highway 82 or further upriver. The Applicant wants to confirm that the new Lot 2A and 2B will have the requirement of ARU's, n2Ldgt 9 or Lot 2C. Tha s, Stan athis SM /dm of the river are in various degrees of erosion, although none serious The applicant proposes, with supervision of the Engineering Dept, the Parks Dept., and the applicants landscape architect, to remove and thin bushes, shrubs, and prune trees to a degree that the vegetation will reurn to and remain in good health the vegetation is currently overgrown and competing with each other in a damaging way. Bank slopes will be stabilized and replanted with materials that are compatible with the climate and the river bank conditions. The work may be completed at one time or may be done on a site by site basis at the option of the applicant. In any case the work will be completed and approved prior to issuance of a C.O. for the subject lot. Any additional work will require additional Stream Margin Review. Second, while the applicant understands and appreciates the staff suggestions that the building envelopes be brought back to the original propossed sizes (see Part 3 - proposed lot size and envelope), the following rational is offered for larger envelopes. The applicant believes the experience of the Roaring Fork River is now the primary lure of the proposed development since the marvelous views to Ajax are completely compromised by the fiasco development that ate Aspen (i.e. 1010 Ute). Not even a two story residence can now enjoy the views that predate the existing structuresat 1010 Ute. There is one major site aminity, it is human nature to assign the design professional to get as many rooms and spaces as possible with river experience. Therefore, the smaller the envelopes, the greater the tendency to stack spaces upon each other creating taller structures with less variation in configuration, creating the wall of development that both applicant and staff have worked to eliminate. Larger envelopes, while not guaranteed to eliminate two story structures, allows the option of one story structures more in touch with mother earth. It does appear that the applicant will be able to meet the deadline for the building permit application for Lot 8, thus meeting the grace period outlined in Ordinance 1. (2) �ou�c�iperson. As , nearby landowner, but more importantly a full time residsnt of this community, l feel it is necessary to make commcnt reQUOrdiW the Gordon Callahan Subdivision proposal While I am vary dis*pointej that the developers feel it is necessary to imitate the large 1010 Vte type of develoupmenmt on this side of the river rather than reasonable residential housing for residents of the coamunity, iv appears that zoning will allow for thin and U is ljnfQrLt�/�&il/ thiar rzqht to do so. Q conserx iA *ith the present nikePath proposal. The or.ginal adplication called for a bikepath along the river, " vzry benificial asset to ALL the residents of the cu.nmunity. Unfortunatly we have already lost the walking patn Do the 1010 Ute side of the river. The present proposal svgqesL using the 'driveway' as a combinaw"on road and Dikepaih. This is an excellent solutior for the developer. Dy HIDING the hikepath on what would appaar Lu be a Private roadway you discourage most people from using this axcess because af its vagueness. Furthermore yoa do not have righW-of *ay thru the Aspen Club properties (Crystal Lake Road)� thermnre you would have yet another kiieparh Lending to nowhere. } urQo ?ou to persue the original proposed pathway alonq too ri/er, This could eventually connect with the 1010 Ute ' ~� �U\y| � '«��� / ~ ' � ' ` ` Proposal, Hioghway 82 and Ute Park makjog for a con and sensible bikepath benifiting EVERYONE inthe crmmunity. In the current wave of development Mono do not lomn sipt o f the underlAng assets of the comm"nit- and pleamn do not p ass up the OPPOrturity now to leave sompthinn of -ninc to th;, juturm RunintTrM votor ". full Limp - QS;MrV , J. F"Cdricf: CITY(D . ASPEN 130outh galena - _street aspen; eolorad6=81611 303-925 -2020 JUL - 7 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department FROM: Fred Gannett, Staff Attorney RE: Callahan Subdivision /Lot Split BACKGROUND John Elmore and his partner, Lionel Yow, developers of the Callahan Subdivision /Lot Split, submitted a land use application several months ago which has since been approved by Council. At one poin *, staff imposed a condition on the application requiring that the developers address an abutting landowner's ( Enlow) access easement with respect to width, grade and other code requirements. I have examined the plats of the Callahan Subdivision, the proposed lot split, and the abutting Riverside Drive Subdivision with respect to the Enlow access.easement. The Enlow access easement does not appear to meet current City codes as to width, grade and other related issues. However, the City did not require the developers of the Callahan Subdivision, as part of their application, to perform any remedial work on the Enlow access easement. Nor, after consulting with members of the Engineering Department, will the City require, as part of an abatement process, the upgrading or enhancement of the Enlow easement to meet current Code requirements. FWG /mc cc: Cindy Houben Andrew V. Hecht John Elmore ATTACHMENT E RONALD GARFIELD* ANDREW V. HECHT" WILLIAM K. GUEST. P.0 -" ROBERT E. KENDIG JANE ELLEN HAMILTON CATHERINE H. McMAHON•••• .V.p ,YIYI.0 b Ns` Try W ••,Ib W Wd b Dr Of CYw W ••Yr �rrd r • N,brY, MI hu, W "`•We ,biiC b wre: r ATTORtiEYS AT LAW VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN. COLORADO 91611 Fred Gannett, City Attorney 130 S. Galena Aspen, Co 81611 Re: Conceptual PUD for Subdivision of Lot 2, Gordon - Subdivision TELEPHONE (303) 925 -1936 TELECOPIER (303) 925.3008 CABLE ADDRESS 'GARHEC"' Dear Fred: Two questions have been raised in connection with the above referenced Land Use Application. The first concerns documentation of Robert S. Goldsamt's ownership of the roads in Callahan Subdivision and, accordingly, his ability to grant Lionell Yow and John A. Elmore, II (the applicant, hereinafter referred to as "Elmore /Yow ") , the non - exclusive easement to those roads recorded on March 31, 1988 in the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County in Book 560 at Page 59. The second conerns whether the amendment sought by - Elmore /Yow -with respect t es ad happroval of all other Callahan Subdivision re-uires the app interest within the Callahan Subdivision PUD as part of its Application. 1. Grant of Easement. See letter attached hereto from Stewart Title of Aspen to me dated December 16, 1968, evidencing n Subdivision roads to Lot 2, Gordon the access across the Callaha Subdivision..' 2. Approval of PUD Prope Owners: As part of the Application, Elmore Ow seeks an amen to the Callahan Subdivision PUD (a) adjusting the lot line of Lot 9 (owned by Applicant); and (b) amending the access easement to Lot 2, Gordon Subdivision, by creatinc a new easement across Lot 9 and ceasing to use the present easement to Lot 2 across Lots 7 and 8 (owned by Applicant). (As ex-plained in the Application, Elmore /Yow does not have an exclusive power to terminate the present easement. Therefore, it can only represent that it will no longer make use of that easement). GARFIELD & tIECHT, P.C. Fred Gannett December 1G, 1988 Page 2 The Aspen Land Use Regulations of the Aspen Municipal Code do not require the approval of all owners of interest in a PUD in cyder for the City of Aspen to approve an amendment affecting only the particular parcel within the PUD owned by the applicant. No: does the PUD Agreement for Callahan Subdivision contain any provision granting all owners of interest in Callahan Subdivision the right of approval of an amendment sought by another property owner that affects only his own property. Accordingly, absent any land use regulation or contractual right granted in the PUD Agreement, there is no requirement' that an amendment by Elmore /Yow with respect to its own property be approved by every other owner of interest in Callahan Subdivision. know. If I can provide any additional information, please let me Sincerely, Andrew V. Hecht cc: Cindy Houben V .. /dd. r � 1 I �TE�� "A RT 'I'ITLL OF ASPEN, INC. 603 E. NrMAN • ASPEN, COLORADO 61611 •.15071935 -7577 - nndrew V. Hecht Garfield & Hecht, P.C. 601 E. Hyman Aspen, Co. 81611 Re: Access to Lot 2 Gordon Subdivision (Order No. 15716) Dear Andv, I have reviewed the above referenced file with special attention to access easements benefitting Lot 2, Gordon Subdivision. As you may recall the gap between said Gordon Subdivision and the North line of Callahan Subdivision (the Benedict Gap) had been the primary concern regarding access. The problem was resolved by the acquisition of a new easement from John Flmore, who owns Lots 8 and 9, Callahan Subdivision, - which crosses the West line of said Callahan Subdivision and avoids the gap along the North line. To summarize access to Lot 2, Gordon Subdivision is provided by the- combination of -two easements, the new easement . from Elmore, described above, recorded in Book 560 at Page 325 which provides access across the West line of Lot 9, Callahan. Subdivision Easterly to the line common to Lots 8 and 91 Callahan Subdivision, then Southeasterly along said line to = rvstal Lace Road. The easement for the use of Crystal Lake Road was granted to Jack Van Horn (Predecessor in title to Gordon) by Robert Goldsact (the owner of all roads in Callahan Subdivision at that time) and was recorded in Book 316 at Page ?61. Crystal Lake Road provides the connection to Highway 82. Please contact me with any further questions. Sincerely �f�G' Randall Webb Senior Vice President a O C) C'7 r ATTACVK NT..F 0 TT N � Q - U � W m a r_ m . ASSIGNMENT OF FREE MARKET DEVELOPMENT RIGHT >L J U N = N Y THIS ASSIGNMENT - is given this 6th day of Febr y r 19 h�t ASPEN MOUNTAIN PARK II, a Colorado general partnership ( "Assignor "), to JOHN A. ELLMORE II ( "Assignee "), with refer- ence to the following: RECITALS A. By virtue of (i) the Precise Plan and Subdivision Agreement for Smuggler Mobile Home Park recorded in Book 424 at Pages 780, et seq., of the Pitkin County, Colorado real proper- ty records ( "Records ") and the completion of the development activity contemplated therein, and (ii) the P.U.D. and Subdivi- sion Agreement for The Pitkin Reserve recorded in Book 423 at Pages 417, et sec., and amendments thereto recorded respective- ly in Book 447 at -Pages 59, et seq ., and in Book 468 at Pages 853, et seq ., of the Records Tcollectively herein the "Land Use Agreements "), and the development activity contemplated therein and completed to date, Aspen Mountain Park, a dissolved Colorado partnership ( "AMP ") had conferred upon it by the City of Aspen, Colorado, nineteen freely transferrable and alienable free market development rights ( "Development Rights "), which represent exceptions to and exemptions from the free market development allotment review processes of the Growth Management Quota System contained in Article 8, Sections 8 -101, et spec., of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen ( "GMQS "). B. Six of the nineteen Development Rights were uti- lized in connection with the six single - family residential lots comprising The Pitkin Reserve Subdivision and one of the Development Rights was assigned by AMP to another. C. In ccnnection with the subsequent dissolution of AMP, the remaining twelve Development Rights were assigned by AMP to Levin who, in turn, assigned the twelve evelopment• Rights to Assignor, which has since assigned -� of the Development Rights to others. D. Assignee wishes to acquire from Assignor and Assignor is willing to transfer to Assignee two (2) of the Development Rights. W.I T N E S S E T H x ill rxwc 6 qQ) . xt, rc a i . A' R". eullnryl 41l, r lk, I Ar C� 111611 IN CONSIDERATION of the foregoing recitals and the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable considera- tion passing from Assignee to Assignor, the receipt, sufficien- cy and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, Assignor ASSIGNMENT OF FREE MARKET DEVELOPMENT RIGHT THIS. ASSIGNMENT is bye PITKIN 'Assignor "), to SHELDON GORDON the following: _J given this .LIMITED, a Colorado corporation ( "Assignee "), with reference to RECITALS B. Assignee wishes to acquire from Assignor and Assignor is willing to transfer to Assignee one (1) of the Development Right=_. A. By virtue of W the Precise Plan and Subdivision) Agreement for Smuggler Mobile Home Park recorded in Book 424 at Pages 780, et se q., of the Pitkin County, Colorado real property records ( "Records ") and the completion of the development activity contemplated therein, and (ii) the P.U.D. and Subdivi- sion Agreement for The Pitkin Reserve recorded in Book 423 at Pages-417, et se q., and amendments thereto recorded respectively in Book 447 at Pages 59, et se q., and in Book 468 at Pages 853, et se q., of the Records (collectively herein the "Land Use Agreements "), and the development activity contemplated therein and completed to date, Assignor is the owner and holder of several freely transferrable and alienable free market develop- ment rights ( "Development Rights ") conferred upon it by the Cit% of Aspen, Colorado, which represent exceptions to and exemption: from the free market development allotment review processes of the Growth Management Quota System contained in Article XI, Sections 24 -11.1, et se q ., of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado ( "GMP ").. w I T N E S S E T H: IN CONSIDEPATION Of the foregoing recitals and tae sun of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable considera- tion passing from Assignee to Assignor, the receipt, sufficiency and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, Assignor hereby assigna,unto Assignee one (1) Development Right and, in respect of the foregoing Assignment, Assignor warrants that: 1. It is.the owner Right with full and free right to Assignee; ! and holder of the Development to convey, transfer and assign i 2. The Development Right hereby assigned represents a valid and.subsisting exemption from or exception to the G`:P r� LOON �v hereby assigns unto Assignee two (2) Development Rights and, in respect of the foregoing Assignment, Assignor warrants that: 1. It is the owner and holder of the Development Rights hereby assigned with full and free right to convey, transfer and assign them to Assignee; 2. The Development Rights hereby assigned represent valid and subsisting exemptions from or exceptions to the GMQS and are subject to no limitations except as may be expressed in the Land Use Agreements; 3. That which was required to be done under the Land Use Agreements in order fully to vest the Development Rights and render their use unconditional has been done, and Assignor will neither do or cause or suffer to be done, by commission or omission, any act or thing that would defeat, interfere with or impair the Development Rights hereby assigned; and 4. The Development Rights hereby assigned will enable Assignee to build two free - market, dwelling units without having to (a) go through GMQS, or (b) provide any employee housing or cash in lieu thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Assignment has been executed and given as of the day and year first above written. AS Co STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) By The fore o n instrument was acknowledged before me this � 9ay of 989, by Aspen Mountain Park II, a Colorado general partne ship, by Michael B. Lipkin, its General Aaxtner. WITNESS my hand and official seal. p r4 ft .• N = ;MY commission expires: � 71Q/ (sE _ n Z Notar ub is ' uTa maaas a q+raNn�R . °- lelm rlua.. b.rrtn n,., eYnal'� [ rwh �0. 4 2 4�4 ES 11..P a nryap COleraAD •1611 11 -2- A f.� EXHIBIT 9 P U D SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR LOT 2. GORDON SUBDIVISION THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of , 19_, between JOHN A. ELMORE II and LIONEL L. YOW (the "Owners"), and THE CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation (the "City "). RECITALS WHEREAS, Owners own that certain real property located in the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin legally described as: Lots 8 and 9, Callahan Subdivision, according to the plat thereof, County of Pitkin (owned by Elmore); and Lot 2, Gordon Subdivision, according to the plat thereof recorded August 16, 1989 in Plat Book 15 at Page 25, Reception No. 252398, County of Pitkin (owned by Yow) and; WHEREAS, the Owners submitted an application for, and received approval for a conceptual P.U.D development plan from the City on April 24, 1988, for the development of a residential project (the "Project "); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the land use regulations of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen (the "Code "), the Owners and the City enter into this P.U.D. and Subdivision Agreement for the Project which will provide for the construction of the public improvements associated with the Project; and WHEREAS, the Owners have submitted to the City for approval, execution and recordation a plat for the Project (the "Plat ") and the City agrees to approve, execute and record the Plat on the agreement of the owners to the matters described herein, subject to the provisions of the Code and other applicable rules and regulation*# and WHEREAS, the City has imposed conditions and requirements in connection with its approval, execution and acceptance of the Plat and such matters are necessary to protect, promote and enhance the public health, safety and welfare, and pursuant to the Code, the City is entitled to assurances that the matters set forth herein will be faithfully performed by the Owners and the owners' successors and assigns; and WHEREAS, the Owners are willing to enter into such agreement with the City and to provide assurances to the City; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, and the approval, execution and acceptance of the Plat for recordation by the City, it is agreed as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Description of Project The Project consists of the reconfiguration of Lots 8 and 9 of the Callahan Subdivision and the subdivision of Lot 2 of the Gordon Subdivision into three free - market lots (Lots 2A, 2B and 2C). The terms of this Agreement shall apply to those five free - market lots owned by Owners, which are Lots 8 and 9, Callahan Subdivision and Lots 2A- 2C, Gordon Subdivision (the "Lots "). Each of the five free - market lots has a building right attached to it so each lot is exempt from the Growth Management Quota System competition. In addition, the Project will consist of two accessory dwelling units deed restricted to Housing Authority resident occupancy guidelines, on two lots to be determined by the Owners. 2. Acceptance of Plat Upon execution of this Agreement by all parties hereto, the City agrees to approve and execute the final plat for the Project submitted herewith and reduced -size copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibit A which conforms to the requirements of Section 7 -1004 of the Code. The City agrees to accept such plat for recording in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, upon payment of the recordation fee and cost to the City by Owners. 3. Construction schedule and Phasing The City and the Owners mutually acknowledge that exact construction schedules cannot be determined at this time, and, further, that should Owners convey any of the Lots, they will not control the construction of improvements, other than public improvements, on the Property. However, it is anticipated that construction of any of the Amprovements approved for the Lots will begin no later than three.tts from the vesting of the Owners' property rights in their for the Lots. The anticipated construction schedule follows: a. The driveway (as shown on the Plat) and all other public improvements shall be constructed beginning June, 1990 and are anticipated to be completed as soon thereafter as possible. All such public improvements shall be completed by Owners and inspected by the City prior to issuance of any certificates of occupancy for the Project or within three years of the date hereof, whichever first occurs. - 2 - b. The landscaping improvements shall be installed in the first planting season following completion of construction. 4. Landscaping Improvements In accordance with the Code, the landscaping improvements shall be installed as represented and shown on the plan attached hereto as Exhibit B, which plan shows the extent and location as well as the type of plants to be installed, and all landscape features, flower and shrub definition, proposed treatment of all ground surfaces (e.g., paving, sod, gravel, etc.) and the other elements of the landscape plan. The landscaping shall be installed as soon as possible, no later than the first planting season following the completion of the construction adjacent to the area of planting. The Owners shall promptly replace any plants which have not survived for a period of two growing seasons following the final certificate of occupancy for the Project. 5. Public Improvements a. Water lines The Owners will provide a water line extension as shown on the final plat. b. Sewer lines The Owners will provide a sewer line extension as shown on the final plat, in order to service the Project. C. Fire hydrants The Owners will install a new fire hydrant as shown on the final plat. d. Relocation of Riverside Ditch The Owners, in their discretion and subject to the approval of the Riverside Ditch Association, may relocate the Riverside Ditch from its current location to that shown on the final plat. e. Storm Water Drainage Improvements The storm sewer systa* and dry well for site drainage, water retention and other sita features will be installed in accordance with the represiXtions, drawings, plans and reports attached hereto as Exhibit C 6. ,Security for Dubllc lmproyemenLe ana ianu5uauii�v In order to secure the performance of the construction and installation of the landscaping and public improvements described above, the Owners shall provide a bond, letter of credit, cash or other guarantee in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney in the sum of $34,128.50 (the amounts attributable to the specific public improvements is set forth on Exhibit D hereto). Said - 3 - guarantee will be delivered to the City prior to the issuance to the Owners, or any third party grantee, of a building permit for any free - market construction associated with the Project. The guarantee documents shall give the City the unconditional right, upon clear and unequivocal default by the Owners in their obligations specified herein, to withdraw funds against such security sufficient to complete and pay for installation of such public improvements or Project landscaping. As portions of the improvements are completed, the City Engineer shall inspect them, and upon approval and acceptance, he shall authorize the release of the agreed estimated cost for that portion of the improvements, except that ten - percent of the estimated cost of the improvements shall be withheld for the benefit of the City until the completion of all of the described public improvements, and the retainage for the landscaping shall be withheld until two growing seasons following the certificate of occupancy for the Project. The Owners shall require all contractors to provide a warranty that all improvements were constructed to accepted standards of good workmanship for the benefit of the City for the installation of the public improvements described herein for one year from the date of acceptance. In the event that any existing municipal improvements are damaged during Project construction, on request by the City Engineer, a bond or other suitable security for the repair of those municipal improvement shall be provided by Owners to the City. 7. water Line Easement A water line easement, in the location as shown on the Plat, is dedicated by the Owners for the benefit of the City and the City water district in order to facilitate the future looping of the water system in the immediate area of the Property. 8 Employee housing Owners shall construct, or cause to b constructed, two accessory dwelling units on any two of the five free- market lots which the Owners determine appropriate, both of which will be deed - restricted to the Pitkin County Housiinq.Authority's resident occupancy guidelines only, provided =the Owners or their grantees shall have the right to desi occupant of each unit and give occupancy =! ? prioritIN oyees of the owner of the lot at the time. The }{ deed rens for the employee units are attached hereto as v Exhibit E. The employee units are exempt from Growth Management Plan requirements and the park fee dedications. 11. Park dedication The City agrees to accept a trail easement in the location depicted on the final plat in satisfaction of the park dedication fees. (Section 5 -606). 12. improvement Districts Owners agree to join any improvement district formed for the area in which the Project is located. - 4 - 13. wood -burn Devices The Project shall comply s with existing regulation applicable to wood- burning devices and gas devices, which currently allow for one gas fireplace and one certified wood- burning stove and unlimited number of gas appliances. devices.] ? ?? 14. Maximum floor area The Project shall consist of the following maximum floor area limitations: Lot 8, Callahan Subdivision: 4670 square feet; Lot 9, Callahan Subdivision: 4620 square feet; Lot 2 A, Gordon Subdivision: 4700 square feet; Lot 2 B, Gordon Subdivision: 4530 square feet; Lot 2 C, Gordon Subdivision: 6120 square feet. 15. Material Representations All material representations made by the Owners on the record to the City in accordance with the approvals granted the Owners shall be binding on the Owners. 16. Enforcement In the event the City maintains that the Owners are not in substantial compliance with the terms of this Agreement or the final Plat, the City Council may serve a notice of noncompliance and request that the deficiency be corrected within a period of 45 days. In the event the Owners believe that they are in compliance or that the noncompliance is insubstantial, the Owners may request a hearing before the City Council to determine whether the alleged noncompliance exists or whether any amendment, variance or extension of time to comply should be granted. On request, the City shall conduct a hearing according to its normal procedures and take such action as it then deems appropriate. 17. Notices Notices to the parties shall be sent by United States certified mail to the addresses set forth below or to any other address which the parties may substitute in writing. To the Owners: John Elmore P.O. Box 381 Wrightsville Beach, N.C. 28480 Lionel Yow Yow, Yow, Culbreth, Fox & Pennington 102 North Fifth Avenue P.O. Box 479 Wilmington, N.C. 28402 - 5 - To the City of Aspen: City Manager 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 with a copy to: City Attorney 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 18. Binding Effect The provisions of this Agreement shall run with and constitute a burden on the land on which the Project is located and shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the Owners' and the City's successors, personal representatives and assigns. 19. Amendment This agreement may be altered or amended only by written instrument executed by the parties. 20. Severability If any of the provisions of this agreement are determined to be invalid, it shall not affect the remaining provisions hereof. Attest: THE CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation KATHRYN S. KOCH City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney WILLIAM L. STIRLING, Mayor JOHN A. ELM9RE II LIONEL YOW I STATE OF COLORADO ) )SS. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) Acknowledged before me , 198_ by WILLIAM L. STIRLING, Mayor, and KATHRYN S. KOCH, City Clerk. My Commission expires: Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public Acknowledged before me , 198_ by JOHN A. ELMORE II. My Commission expires: Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public Acknowledged before me 198_ by LIONEL YOW. My Commission expires: Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public c: \jeh \lu \elmore.pud JEH - 7 - SCNMUESER GGhuJN MEYER r r •,� � is •w :.. r r. (i enwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (303) 945 -1004 Sub total $ 8,500.00 B. Sewer Utility 1. Unit Unit Total item Quantity Cost Cost A. Water Utility L.F. 20.00 2,900.00 1. 8" waterline 200 L.F. 35.00 7,000.00 2. Fire hydrant 1 Each 1500.00 1,500.00 Sub total $ 8,500.00 B. Sewer Utility 1. 1 -1/4" force main 183 L.F. $ 20.00 $ 3,660.00 2. 2" force main 145 L.F. 20.00 2,900.00 3. Sewer manhole 1 Each 2000.00 2,000.00 4. Cleanout 1 Each 1000.00 1,000.00 Sub total $ 9,560.00 C. Electric Utility 200 L.F. 12.50 $ 2,500.00 D. Telephone Utility 200 L.F. 5.00 1,000.00 E. Cable Utility 200 L.F. 5.00 1,000.00 F. Gas Utility 200 L.F. 5.00 1,000.00 G. Roadways 1. Main access road 183 L.F. 44.50 8,143.50 H. Drainage Improvements 1. Culvert installation 50 L.F. 20.00 $ 1,000.00 2. Barrow ditch 570 L.F. 20.00 1,425.00 Sub total $ 2,425.00 TCMP,L $ 34,128.50 I 9001 - 11/29/89 EXHIBIT 1 1) Project Name 2) Project Iocatian C—'rd-/K G �i'-�� r •" v .ry (i address, lot & block amber, legal descripti ubere appropria 3) Present Zoning 4) Iat Size �/✓ 7G� 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # �U y�/r�s�92s 2G�2 6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # 7) Type of APplicati n (please dmc k all that apply): Conditional Use _ conoepbual SPA Conceptual Histor Dev. _ Special Review Final SPA 8040 Greesnline ConceptURI PW Stream Margin Final POD Maintain View Plane vSubdivision Final Historic Dev. Minor Historic Dev. Histori D®Dliti n Historic Designation _ C K)S Allotment GMS EMEPtiOn 8) Description of E stirij Uses (mzbw and type of edstinq stnvtUXes appronamate sq. rt.; amber of bedrvcros; any previous approvals %mftted to the property) - ME . --« ,_ .. 10) Havq, yw attached the folluAW- Response to Attachment 2, Minima Sion Contents Response to Attadment 3, Specific SULM axinn Omtents Response to Attadmeit 4, Review Standards far Your APP io tirn As TA OW NIAS POLICY - A-.ed10 10, 17.10 PD LMF SCHEDULE Order No.: 15 Policy No.: 0 9941 38274 Date of Policy: March 31, 1988 At 4E37 FM Amount of Insurance: S2,000,000.00 1. Name of Insured: JOHN A. FLMORE. II 2. The estate or interest in the land described herein and which is covered by this policy is: FE.13 SIMPLE 3. The estate or interest referred to herein is at Date of Policy vested in: •JOHN A. F.LMORE, 11 4. The land referred to in this policy is described as follows: Lots 1. 2. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 , 8 and 9. CALLAHAN (VISION, according to the recorded plat thereof. Sounty of Fitkin, State of Colorado ' �X 5 AITCHORIZED V Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. 602 E. Hysan Aspen, Cc 81611 303 - 925 -3577 STEWART TITLE COAAANTT COMPANT CODE 0017 _ Page 2 1 7 ] a a 7 e$4r092.70 uu. wo.. c...c1 . +uP oua• .•s +o.nE.....n auow o-.•u .M1..0 ca..a, EXHIBIT 2 9 10 I1 17 17 FIRST SPECIAL CHARGE CREDIT) SECOND SPECIAL CHARGE ICREDITI I THIRD SPECIAL CHARGE (CREDIT) .rr AYOV41 .rs nn ...O.M' 14 se Is 17 U 1 Is 1 20 As TA OW NIAS POLICY - A-.ed10 10, 17.10 PD LMF SCHEDULE Order No.: 15 Policy No.: 0 9941 38274 Date of Policy: March 31, 1988 At 4E37 FM Amount of Insurance: S2,000,000.00 1. Name of Insured: JOHN A. FLMORE. II 2. The estate or interest in the land described herein and which is covered by this policy is: FE.13 SIMPLE 3. The estate or interest referred to herein is at Date of Policy vested in: •JOHN A. F.LMORE, 11 4. The land referred to in this policy is described as follows: Lots 1. 2. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 , 8 and 9. CALLAHAN (VISION, according to the recorded plat thereof. Sounty of Fitkin, State of Colorado ' �X 5 AITCHORIZED V Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. 602 E. Hysan Aspen, Cc 81611 303 - 925 -3577 STEWART TITLE COAAANTT COMPANT CODE 0017 _ Page 2 7RDQ; Uri.i I137f SCHEDULE B Policy No.: This policy does not insure against loss or damage by reason of the following: 0 9941 38274 I. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished. imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. knv and all unpaid taxes and assessments and any unredeemed tax sales. The effect of inclusions in any general or specific water conservancy, fire protection, soil conservation or other district or inclusion in any water service or street improvement area. Reservations and exceptions as set forth in Patent recorded June 17, 1949 in Book 175 at page 246 as Reception No. 96480 which recites the following: first: That he grant hereby made is restricted In its exterior limits t boundaries of the said mining premises and to any eins a odes of quartz or other rock in place bearing a d, ilvec, cinnabar, lend, tin, copper or other valrjlble depos to, which m y have been discover -d within saUand s s equent to and which were not known to exist on [h -th d day of March ii. D. one thousand ei undr fight -five. Second: That should any vein or 1 e or otY1e n place bearing gold, silver, cinnabar. lead, tin, or other valuable deposits be claimed a known _o exist within the above described premises at said 1a -na _d date, the same is expressly excepted and excluded from — these presents. Third: That the premises hereby conveyed may be entered by the proprietor of any vein or lode of quartz or other rock in place bearing gold, silver. cinnarbar, lead. tin, copper or other valuable deposits, for the purpose of extracting and removing his ore from such vein or lode, should the same, or any part thereof, be found to penetrate, intersect, pass through, or dip into the mining ground or premises hereby granted. Fourth: That the premises hereby conveyed shall be held subject to any vested and accrued water rights for mining, agricultural, manufacturing, or other purposes, and rights to ditches and reservoirs, used in connection with such water rights as may be recognized and acknowledged by local laws, customs and descisions of courts. Fifths That in the Legislation by Congress, the legislation of Colorado may provide rules for working the mining claim or premises granted involving easements, drainage and other See Continuation rage STFN'AItT TITLE tG1312WA MI Para ov.0 rr 11 Colo•.• I nrDE}t NO. s1S 85 Attached to and made a pan of Stewart Title Guaranty Company Policy No. 0 9941 38274 Continuation of Schedule B necessary means I.o complete development thereof. 8. Reservation of Utility Easements by Benedict Land and Cattle Companv et sl, as set forth in Deed recorded May 19, 1976 in Book 112 at Page 177 as Reception No. 183913. 9 Easements and restrictions as shown on Plats of Callahan Subdivision recorded May 19, 1976 in Plat Book 5 at Page 7 as Reception No. 183889, and as amended by Plat recorded August r 17, 1977 in Plat Book 6 at Page 16 as Reception No. 196746. Terms, conditions, obligations and restrictions as set forth in Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Agreement recorded May 19. 1976 in Rook 112 at Page 110 as Reception No 183890 and as modified by Notice recorded April 29. 1977 in 328 at Page 79 as Reception No. 194018. 11. Easements as set forth in Reciproc sement Gra recorded May 19, 1976 In Book 312 at Page 1_ Reception . 183919. 12. Terms, conditions and igations a et forth in Agreement between Patricia E. Ma one and Ro t S. Goldsamt recorded May 19, 19 in Book 31 Page 169 a Reception No. 183912. 13. Terms, con tions, 0 b 19 no and restrictions of Grant of Easement as et forth in trument recorded September 23, 1976 in Book 316 t Page 961 as Reception No. 187218, and as amended by Agreement a orded August 29, 1978 in Book 353 at Page 527 as Reception 206663. 14. Easements for ingress, egress and underground utilities as set forth in Grant of Easement recorded September 23, 1976 in Book 316 at Page 961 as Reception No. 187248. 15. Reservations and restriction, in regard to roads within Callahan Subdivision, as set forth in Easement Grant recorded August 17, 1977 In Book 333 at Page 727 as Reception No. 196750. 16. Terms, conditions, covenants and restrictions as set forth in Protective Covenants recorded October 17, 1984 in Book 475 at Page 236 as Reception No. 263351. 17. Right of wav of the Riverside Ditch and Building Set -back lines 10 feet either side thereof as shown on the Plat recorded in Plat Book 5 at Page 7. 18. Pedestrian access easement granted to Aspen Club International, Inc. see Continuation Page Paso — STEWART TITLE INA. n.n� GUARANTY COMPANY ORDER NO.r15985 Attached to and made a pan of Stewart Title Guaranty Company Policy No. 0 9941 38274 Continuation of Schedule 8 as set forth in Deed of Access Easement recorded January 11, 1985 in Book 479 at Page 661 as Reception No. 265342. NOTEt Deed of Trust executed by Aspen Club International for the benefit of The Bank of Aspen encumbering said pedestrian access easement recorded January 11, 1985 in Book 479 at Page 669 as Reception No. 265345. NOTEt Right of Entry Agreement by and between the above noted parties encumbering said Pedestrian Access Easement recorded October 21. 1985 in Book 497 at Page 598 as Reception No. 272455. 19. A Deed of Trust dated March 30, 1988, executed by John A. Elmore, II, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, to secure an indebtedness of $1,000,000.00, in favor of Central Bank of Aspen, N.A., recorded April 4, 1988 in Book 560 at Page 334 as Reception No. 298821. co� hoe — , STEWART TITLE (MN nin - GUARANTY COMPANY �... .•, ..., -,.._„ a a.e„�e ..o AOD ! 81,438.50 1 3 ] 1 ! ! 7 ,...n.Tr.... vA•ot'. n s.o...0 +..., uc � nsr..c. ,,.. oa ul.. wou e.ues r2 12 nRST SPECIAL CHARGE ICREDITI SEOp6D a• .GAL CHARGE ICREDITI THIRD PfCIAI CHARGE ICREDITI p• I >r 775.40 '.9 .•.0 mr rrH .40W1 re ri re n u n xo ALTA OWNtR! POLICY - Amg&d 10,17/70 PD /LHP SCHEDULE A Order No.: 15716 Policy No.: 0 9941 38276 Date of Policy: April 04. 1988 At 1108 PH Amount of Insurance: S 800,000.00 1. Name of Insured: I.IOHEL T.. VON 2. The estate or interest in the land described herein and which is covered by this policy is: FIE SIMPLE 3. The estate or interest referred to herein is at Date of Policy vested in: LIONEL L. 7 4. The land referred to in this policy is described as follows: Lot ". Gorden Suldivitfon, ace2ordinq to the thereof tecoEded August If.. 1 ?03 In Plat 11ook 15 at Pa 25 an Pc:ceptton Nn, 2517 ?8. Cr•unty rrf Pitkln. State of Colorad V Steuart Title of Aspen, Inc. 602 E. Hyman Aspen, Co 81611 303 -925 -3577 { AUTHORIZED COl)NIFRSIGNATURE 'roq Y Page 2 ESTEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY i } OP11t . Nn • 157 1 F, St 1LE 8 Policy No.: O 9941 38276 This policy does not insure against loss or damage by reason of the following: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. S. A11y .11141 :all unr• +id tdxea and at;zessments arid any unredeemed tax .:all -;;. 6. The effrrt of inclusions in any general or specific water conservtanrv, fare protection, sell ronservation or other Alistrir:t or Ir1r'Insion in ;any water service or street 1. any vr•u, or 11%1« tit iity rtv or other rock in place bearing gold, silver, vir4nnbnr. 1r•r „t, t;ra, topper or other valuable deposits r_ldiged or known I.n erisl. Mar"h 23, 1866 d the right of the pr ielor r11 , anv vein or 1Mr or Co ua tz r other rock in place ben, Itol clo1q, silver, cinruaLar, lead, . in copper or other usltuabl4; dr- PO:AIIn I.or the [Vr e ( ext. sting and removing Lhe .-re tri-m xllrtt velf, nr 1M oho aid the alms be found to Penetrnl.e or internee , pre _s, all as reserved in patent recorded Buie 17, 19 9 in H oh 75 at Page 246 as Reception No. 95480. 8. ki nl hr W .11r 1«t n vein or lode to extract and remove his nr,1 t «relro t'.hotald the setae be round to penetrate or inter ;:rrl. h« pr .mlGr:: herrhy grunted, as reserved in United SL:al.r:: pni r•n. erord„d xtrnitnt 79, 195R In Book 185 at Page 69 as krrrpl. il.rt N:1. Inf.874. 9, TFrms. con4111.1ons and rnaements as reel forth in stipulation, t'Ivf1 hctinit N,,. 411611, Utntrirt Cnurl for Pitkin County, C0lortado, rrr4,rrded February 77. 1976 in Nook 309 at Page 165 as P.era•pl.lon No. 1R18Y0. Ttte specifle location of which is not defined. 1A. 1,rnt:menL 'in rert ire width tat: granted to hspen Metropolitan Sanil;ntioo llistrict to aunstruct, install, maintain and use a swI Lnry sewer 11.rie, recorded July 23, 1970 in Book 249 at Page .96 up Rect•ptira. Ii 147494, the specific location of which is nnl. Aetinalrl. II. l9lpements, tratip, dlt•che.s rand restrictions as shown on Plat See Continlaatitln Page EXCEPTIONS NUMBERED 1 THEU 4 ARE HEREBY OMITTED- bT EWA I2T TITLE 1613120M 3451 Par onu•nTT Corr..• gp.DER N0. Il5716 Attached to and made a pan of Slewan iaranry Company Policy No. 0 9941 38276 Co of Schedule n recorded August 16. 1983 in Plat Book 15 at Pave 25 as Reception No. 252398. 12. This policy does not Insure title to land comprising the shores or bottoms of rivers and is subject to any build up or loss of property along the Roaring Fork River caused by the processes of accretion and relicition, or caused by man made changes in the flew of water or in the course of the river bank or river channel: also subject to the free and unobstructed flow of the water of said river. j 13. Terms, conditions and restrictions as set forth In Statement of Exemption from Subdivision recorded August 16, 1983 In Book 450 at Pave 368 as Reception No. 252397. 14. Terms, conditions, oblivations snd restriction set forth in Easement Aqreement recorded August 1983 in k 450 at Page 374 as Reception No. 252400 and re a rded Septe r 1, 1983 in Book 451 at Page 263 as Reception 252845. 15. Terms, conditions, Ohl tions and trictions as set forth in Grant of Easement reco September 3, 1976 in Book 316 at Page 961 eception 87248. 16. Terms, c tions. oblig ns and restrictions as set forth in Grant of Fe went recorde Aril 4, 1988 in Book 560 at Page 325 As Recep i No. 298818. 17. A Deed of Tru dated March 30, 1988, executed by Lionel L. Ycw, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, to secure an Indebtedness of 91.000,000.00. In favor of Central Bank of Aspen, N.A., recorded April 4, 1988 in Book 560 at Pave 340 as Reception No. 198822. LZ ,,,.., STPINVA14T TITI.F. 1 GUARANTY COMPANY YOH ENDC 'O TITLE POLICY FORM 100. 31 SERIAL 0 9V41 38276 CHARGE No- 15716 S375-40 ISSUED BY STL Wilk. 1Z'1` TIT LL GUARANTY COMPANY HEREIN CALLED THE COMPANY The Company hereby insures the insured against loss which the Insured shall sustain by reason of physical, but not aesthetic, damage to improvements existing on the land at Date of Policy or constructed thereon thereafter resulting from the exercise subsequent to the Date of Policy of any rights to use the surface of the land under the mineral interest referred to in Exceptions No. 7 and 8 of Schedule B ('the mineral rights )I)"Ject, however, to the following terms and conditions: \� K 1. The insured shall notify the Compan"romptly in <rritinq in case knowledge shall come to an insured be" utun�der of any actual or threatened exercise of the mineral right \ S 2. The Company shall have the right, at 1}is cost, to take any action which in its opinion may be'ngcessary or airable in order for the Company to avoid or mini 0iz� de the extent of its liability under this endorsement Including, but no mated to any or all of the following (a) In the CompanfN own rSgh fin the name of the insured for the Company's bene> to tit e, prosecute and pursue to final determination any oceedinas at law or in equity, or before any municipal, administr tile, or regulat tribunal or board; (b) in the company's own right, or in the name of the insured for the Company's benefit, to compel the giving of security bond or undertaking by the person or persons from whom the insured is entitled by law to such security, bond or undertaking, and in the same amount or amounts to which the insured would have been so entitled had this endorsement not been issued; and See Continuation Pace The Erdooemen, n merle ."I or ,aid polTV eW n wblen to he icnedulet, conditlont and ftipuaitipnt thare:n,..Ml w inlddied W the pro,isuns Mreot. Nothinr heaiin contained that' be concnued as ntmdmr or chmpno the effective dole of sed 000. unles, otherwiw eapreWY tailed. Sired order ml to• ,M Co,r wy. Wt thlt to W vand c when it bears m wMOrtred cwnainir mun, this the 04th dw'fApril ! B wrEw,%,wr iTITLE V 4,6.", .Volpe... C..Yeape ,Chairman of the Bo ! / ay Preaidem Cihanwr4rieo the lOB :e Ctltwm�J; ife �� W3 WQI i t ORDER NO:1ti716 Mtached to and made a pan of Stew& ,aranty Company Policy No 0 9941 38276 Continuation of Schedule FOp.M 100.11 (c) To retain or be paid out of any such security, bond or under- taking, or out of any compensation or funds recovered by the Company or the insured, such amount as will reimburse the Company for all payments made Lo the insured by the Company by reason as to insurance afforded by this endorsement together with all costs and expenses incurred by the Company in connection therewith, including attornev's fees. of this endorsement shall be deemed to have regalned intact, in the same manner as if this endorsement had 4N issued. 3. No rights, benefits or defenses are intended to or shall be deemed to flow or be made available to any person or entity other than the insured by reason of the insurance afforded by this endorsement and the insured agrees that all of the insured's rights and remedies against third parties relating to the subject matter � c pap RU .., STIAVARTTITLE, 1.1161, GUARANTY COMPANY 6. Plat contents: a. Surveyor's certificate to indicate date of survey, performance in accordance with CRS 1973, Title 38, Article 51, and closure within a limit of 1/10,000. b. Note that plat amends plats recorded at books and. pages (engineering department can provide the inf_o_rma- tion). C. Language is needed to dedicate trail to public use. d. Prior to signing of the final plat, all property corners are to be monumented, including witness corners on line for corners in the river e. Adjacent subdivisions - Gordon Subdivision; Riverview Association Subdivision f. The City approval certificate should read "approved the day of , signed this day of " 7. Developable area calculations still need to be submitted which have been performed by a registered surveyor. 8. Stream Margin Review - a. It is suggested that the City request a fisherman's easement 'along the river's edge for a distance of five feet from the mean high water line, or at least in the river to the mean high water line. This would be indicated on the plat. b. Following unfavorable experiences with previous stream margin projects, it is suggested that the conditions of approval be clear that no disturbance of any vegetation between the building envelope and the river will be permit- ted. The City has seen where the riparian vegetation was completely destroyed between the building envelope and the edge of the river. Also, it should be made clear at this time if decks or any other structures or improvements will be permitted between the building envelope edge and the rivers edge. This department recommends against permitting anv develoamen' or disturbanr_e whatsnever on th- lands between the building,envelope and the river. 9. The City requests that any excavated boulders great than 36 inch diameter which the developers do not use be provided to the City for public works use. cc: Bob Gish, Public Works Director memo-90.26 46� t 9 y �s II 'refi � e � as f$ Y5 xR !� t o S F $� \ \ 1 , s 1 , I xn r r� � � 1 I rl 1 �� �I 1 ` 11 1 1 1 y 1'' 1 1 '', A 11 II � � lip tl 111 1. r I�1 m 1 ' \ \ 1 , s 1 , I xn r r� � � 1 I rl 1 11 it � �I ;1734 r5H' TL I s HEM T. r.t. 11324476 07/1.9/$'0 09:tll Fee 57.O.Oo Bt' 625 FC, 156 ado + :. — nf.. �ilvi.a Devi.•_, Fitt in Cr C: cr k', Doc uo BARGAIN AND SALE DEED KNOW ALL mEN BY 'FIIESE PRESENTS, - i hatA/ BENED'fCT LAND AND CATTLE COMPANY, a Colorado corporation s' whose addro * +h 1280 lite Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611 J "Caantyof Pitkln and State of Colorado , for the consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) nod other good and valuable considerations AdMDrb/ in hand pawl, hereby sdl(s) and convey(s) to Charles T addalolle andi ar jated Popi s h Mad alone, gyros tees of the patricia Maddalone Family 1982 As yen, Colorado 81611 ' whose legal address is 1325 Riverside Drive, f County of Pitkin ,and Stateof Colorado the following real pro situate in the County of Firkin and Stare of Colorado, to wit: Sea Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof by tilts reference. dY4d kkfi!'d bbbfrblt/aN b! / with all it appurtenances. Signed and delivered this 25th day of April ATTEST' •Yd •'¢u•"•- <"'41 Fabienne Benedict, Secretary .1989 BENEDICT LAND AND CATTLE, COMPANY Fredric A. Bens let, President STATE OF COLORADO, II as. County of Pitkin The foregoing instrument was acknowledged hcfore me this C-T9S day of . AP�4)'.1 d - • 19 89�b Fredric A. Benedict as President and Fahienne Beredlc ¢'.`,la Secree'r.` of Benedict Land and Cattle Company, a Colorado corporation. 00 , 199G WiuKSeYnv IW(t�a 1 i \dal My commission expires V '� • T < .. •� � seat 4 .ti Nu. 901. R <v.2.88, CO a AGAIN Ann SALE DEEDIS FOrm, ml, A,; Lxx.•w _Pt is —Dull IIbnWN 2xx �..fY GPYryp ioee N'JG_C a.J 11:35 GNFFIELD e, HtE,:wHT:.i.��P;b E•F': 625 PG 157 _ vie+ 1')avi:;, Pi "I::in C r C arlc Doc* $- SCNMU ESEA COADCN e R ItrC. ,r Glenw.. Springs, Colorado 81601 (303) 945.1004 CONSOLtINe ENGINEEAS 6 SUAVE ZAubit A I 16 March 1989 Job #9001 A tract of land situate in Section 18, 'Township 10 South, Pange 84 West of t1.e 6t1' p.M., more particularly described as follows' Q. 0 uq P ' � CM Beginning at the most easterly corner of Lot 2 of the Gordon State of Colorado ence N Subdivision, 90'0 0'00" City of Aspen, County the of Pitkin, south line of Lot 2; thence S. 00 00'00" 5 8.31 feet 194.52 feet along along the east line of Lot 2 to the northwest oorner 0@ Lot 9 of the Calla feet ban Subdivision of said City of Aspens the 11 89'52'14" E Ca1lah 201.39 along the north lines of Lots 9 and 8 of W 10.44 feet to the point of said ntainin beginning, 5 s S -11 41'11'00" feet more or less. P ' � CM ATTACI •IENT D MEMORANDUM TO: SUNNY VANN, VANN ASSOCIATES FROM: WAYNE VANDEMARK, FIRE MARSHAL DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 1989 RE: 610 RIVERSIDE SUNNY, I HAVE REVIEWED THE STRUCTURE IN QUESTION AND FIND THAT THE ACCESS ROAD IS ADEQUATE AS PER SECTION 207(B) OF THE 1988 UNIFORM FIRE CODE. 601 RIVERSIDE IS WITHIN 150 FT. FROM AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS ROADWAY. } AN APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION /PUD AND STREAM MARGIN REVIEW ELMORE /YOW PROPERTIES Submitted by C Elmore /Yow Aspen Ventures ' P.O. Box 381 ^ 'J Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480 7 �� (919) 686 -0844 �C Prepared by VANN ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning Consultants 210 South Galena Street, Suite 24 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925 -6958 and STAN MATHIS Architecture and Planning P.O. Box 1984 Aspen, Colorado 81612 (303) 920 -1434 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. PROJECT SITE 4 A. Lot 2, Gordon Subdivision 4 B. Lots 1 through 9, Callahan 8 Subdivision III. PROPOSED IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS 15 A. Lot Line Adjustment 15 B. Subdivision /PUD Amendment 20 C. Subdivision 21 D. Planned Unit Development 28 E. Stream Margin 30 APPENDIX A. Exhibit 1, Form Exhibit 2, Polic Exhibit 3, B. Exhibit 1, Final Exhibit 2, Final Land Use Application Title Insurance ies Permission to Represent Gordon Subdivision Plat Callahan Subdivision Plat i � ATIACII24EM 1 EXHIBIT 1 J ` / AAM USE APMCAMCK rUt 1) Project Name 2) Project Iocatioa, a p an where (indicate street m s , lot & block number, legal -r appropriate) 2� X15 4) lot Size 3) Present Zc[lixlq C' 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone $ 6) papxesentative's Name, Address & Phone $ 1 // )• �� �� ?) Type of APPlication (Please deCk all that apply): Conditional Use coal SPA __ Conce Histori Dev. Special Review Final SPA _ �p40 Greenly � / Stream Yargyn _ Final RID Maintain / View Plane Subdivisicn . Cordiuminiumization _ Text/Map.Amendment Final Historic Dev. Minor Historic Dev. Historic Demolition H istori c Designation GZQS Allotment lot split/Tot line — �' ne Adjustmen FSrictim Uses (Ilmi7PS existing cbmlcb- *tea iwGr,rz -i cn of and type of t3 of bedzoms: any P�os approvals gr � to the approodmate sq. ft. ; nmbe'r property). 9) Dscriptien of Develc went Application lo) Have�Yne attached the foLlowixxj? Rye to Attachment 2, Minimm Submi contents Response to Attadwent 3, Specific omission contents Response to Attachment 4, Review standards for Your Application APPENDIX A TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page C. Exhibit 1, Crystal Lake Drive Easement Exhibit 2, Assignment of Free Market Development Right D. Exhibit 1, Letter from Dean Gordon Re: 100 Year Floodplain ii I. INTRODUCTION The following application requests approval to adjust a portion of the existing property boundary between the Callahan Subdivision and the adjacent Gordon Subdivision, and to subdivide Lot 2 of the Gordon Subdivision into two (2) separate parcels (see Land Use Application Form, Exhibit 1, Appendix A). As the Vicinity map on the following page illustrat es, the affected properties (hereinafter referred to as the project site) are located near the Roaring Fork River in the general vicinity of the Aspen Club Condominiums and health club. Access to the properties is provided via Highway 82, Crystal Lake Road and Centennial Circle. The owners of the properties and project Applicants are John A. Elmore and Lionel L. Yow of Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina (see Title Insurance Polices, Exhibit 2, Appendix A). The Applicants' representative is Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, Inc., Planning Consultants (see Permission to Represent, Exhibit 3, Appendix A). The application has been divided into three (3) separate parts. The first part, or Section II of the application, provides a brief description of the project site, while Section III describes the Applicants' proposed development. The third part, or Section IV, addresses the proposed development's compliance with the applicable 1 1 1 , \ \ \ _ I \ t \ I-- , 1 1 � 1 � 1 I \ �r � I 1 1 I ..nr V SCALE I' • IC1.D' VICINITY MAP review requirements of the new Aspen Land Use Regulations. For the reviewer's convenience, all pertinent supporting documents relating to the project (e.g., property surveys, title insurance policies, etc.) are provided in the various appendices to the application. It should be noted that the project site has been the subject of several previous land use applications. Lot's 1 and 2 of the Gordon Subdivision were approved in August of 1983 via the City's so- called "lot split" procedure. In 1984, a growth management application was approved for the development of three (3) duplexes on Lot 2. A year later, a second GMP application was approved for nine (9) units on a parcel of land consisting of Lot 2 of the Gordon Subdivision and Lots 4 through 9 of the Callahan Subdivision. Both of these approvals, however, subse- quently lapsed. A third application, which requested permission to subdivide Lot 2 into two (2) single - family homesites, was tabled to permit the resolution of various technical issues and subsequently withdrawn prior to approval. While the Applicants have attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Land Use Regulations, and to provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of the application, questions may arise which result in the staff's request for further information 3 r : and /or clarification. The Applicants would be pleased to provide such additional information as may be required in the course of the application's review. II. PROJECT SITE The project site consists of two (2) distinct parcels, each of which is separately owned. The first parcel consists of Lot 2 of the Gordon Subdivision and is owned by Lionel Yow. The second parcel consists of Lots 1 through 9 of the adjacent Callahan Subdivision and is owned by John Elmore. The two owners have formed a joint venture partnership, Elmore /Yow Aspen Ventures, for the purpose of developing the project site, and should be con- sidered as co- applicants with respect to this application. A more detailed description of the two parcels is provided below. A. Lot 2, Gordon Subdivision As shown on the Gordon Subdivision final plat (see Exhibit 1, Appendix B), Lot 2 contains 2.182 acres, or approximately 95,048 square feet of land area. The parcel is bounded on the north by Lot 1 of the Gordon Subdivision and on the east by the Callahan Subdivision. The parcel's western and southern boundaries are located within the Roaring Fork River. The parcel is undeveloped and is zoned R -15 (PUD), Moderate - Density Residential, 4 r- '"*N Mandatory Planned Unit Development. Existing improvements are limited to the Riverside irrigation ditch which traverses the parcel from south to north. In general, the topography of Lot 2 slopes from east to west towards the Roaring Fork River (see Existing Conditions map, page 6). While the majority of the parcel contains slopes of less than twenty (20) percent, there are several areas below the Riverside ditch and near the river bank where the slopes are considerably steeper and, therefore, subject to the PUD density reduction criteria of the Land Use Regulations (see Slope Analysis map, page 7). Natural vegetation consists primarily of a large central meadow and stands of mixed aspen and cottonwood located adjacent to the River and in the vicinity of the parcel's northeast corner. As the Existing Conditions map illustrates, an eight (8) inch sanitary sewer is located within a thirty (30) foot access and utility easement which parallels the parcel's northeast boundary. The sewer line extends from Crystal Lake Drive across Lots 7 and 8 of the Callahan Subdivision to Riverside Avenue and Highway 82. An eight (8) water line, and electric, telephone, natural gas and cable TV service, is conveniently located in Centennial Circle. As the Gordon Subdivision final plat illustrates, an existing twelve (12) foot easement parallels the 4 I i r / J / r r 1 / t ii i / , I / I / i r p / . y ' 1 i I i I / \ 4 i v I N / k I J I 1 I O lq r �N �QQ �N ti l� $ d 3 Y F Ti i � �I A A 4 Lu J I S 6 0 Z W a J ,, z e a OaV6oloD N3dsy vwma 17 £71 £) b961 XO8 Od ,° err�r�e JNINNVId P— JdAiJ311HJ6V 0 ONOMa SIH1V'W Nd1S "` 2 Ma 101 16 oii'ffiie 6 i \' d m � S a � z �oz 7:1 S Y i; 11 ;I J N F � F 1 � w V l R v ��- w,r- } .3 od ♦ I I 111 1 / Q. I 1 1 ( II J 1p: zz c � \ - 4.1r k'p � / � I II 11V111111\ 11 � \1 11 / l � 'j / i � I I 11 1 1 1 1 1 I '�/ I '. �•/ / 1 � 1 77 \ \ �4 1 60 W I r d " d a ¢ w a oUUl �i f�4 J ]� oid of Jd p " p,i� w 3 Ni w II I 1 11 5= ' I 1 IS �. W CL \ \ �4 1 60 W I r d " d a ¢ w a oUUl �i f�4 J ]� oid of Jd p " p,i� w 3 Ni Roaring Fork River to a point opposite the Ute Children's Park and the 1010 Ute Subdivision. B. Lots 1 through 9, Callahan Subdivision The second parcel consists of Lots 1 through 9 of the Callahan Subdivision. Only Lot 9, however, is relevant to this application. The remaining eight (8) lots are presently listed for sale and their boundaries are to remain as originally platted. As the Callahan final plat illustrates (see Exhibit 2, Appendix B), Lot 9 forms a partial boundary between the Gordon and Callahan Subdivisions, and contains approximately 19,075 square feet. The entire parcel is zoned R -15 (PUD), Moderate - Density Residential, Mandatory Planned Unit Development and is presently undeveloped. The topography of Lot 9 consists of a gradually sloping bench located below the Riverside irrigation ditch. The Lot slopes from east to west and no slopes exceed twenty (20) percent. As the Existing Conditions map illustrates, natural vegetation consists of grassland meadow and stands of mixed aspen and cottonwood. As noted previously, all utilities are currently available in Centennial Circle. The Riverside ditch parallels the property line between Lots 8 and 9, and the previously referenced thirty (30) foot access and utility easement parallels the eastern boundary of Lot 8. 8 The Applicants propose to reconfigure Lot 9 of the Callahan Subdivision and to subdivide Lot 2 of the Gordon Subdivision into two (2) separate lots. As the proposed Site Development Plan, page 10, illustrates, the Ap- plicants wish to rotate Lot 9 approximately ninety (90) degrees. The reconfigured lot, which will now front on the River, effectively bifurcates Lot 2 of the Gordon Subdivision resulting in the creation of two (2) new lots, hereinafter referred to as Lots 2A and 2B. Access to Lot 2A will be provided directly from Centennial Circle. Lot 2B, and the reconfigured Lot 9, will be indirectly accessed from Centennial Circle via a new easement to be granted across Lot 9. It should be noted that the Applicants have obtained an easement to use Crystal Lake Road and Centennial Circle for purposes of accessing the proposed development (see Exhibit 1, Appendix C). The proposed development is exempt from the City's growth management regulations. As noted previously, Lot 2 of the Gordon Subdivision was created in 1983 via the City's so- called "lot split" procedure and is entitled, pursuant to Section 8- 104.C.a. of the Regulations, to one (1) single - family GMP exemption. For purposes of discus- sion, this development right may be assigned to Lot 2A. A second free - market development right, assignable to Lot 2B 9 was acquired by Sheldon Gordon (i.e.,the developer of the Gordon Subdivision) from Pitkin Limited in 1986 (see Exhibit 2, Appendix C) and transferred to Lionel Yow in connection with his purchase of the property. Pursuant to Section 8- 104.A.c. of the Regulations, Lot 9 of the Callahan Subdivision is entitled to one (1) single - family GMP exemption since it was legally subdivided prior to the adoption of Growth Management. As the Site Development Plan illustrates, residences will be restricted to specific building envelopes. These envelopes have been selected so as to minimize disturbance of the natural terrain and to maximize the preservation of existing vegetation. To enhance privacy, all setbacks exceed the minimum requirements of the underlying zone district. In addition, landscaping will be installed where appropriate to help screen individual residences from neighboring development and to offset any loss of existing vegetation (see conceptual Landscape and Grading Plan, page 12). To reduce bulk and ensure visual compatibility, architectural controls will be incorporated in the proposed development's subdivision /PUD agreement. All development will be subject to architectural review. As Table 1 on page 13 illustrates, the proposed FAR of each lot is significantly less than the maximum allowed. In 11 W 10 addition, building materials will be restricted to wood siding, non - reflective metal or wood roofs, and masonry rock to complement the project site's exceptional natural beauty. Roof forms will be predominantly hipped or gabled, and all building heights will conform to the applicable provisions of the Land Use Regulations. Table 1 DEVELOPMENT DATA 1. Existing Zoning 6. Proposed Floor Area (Sq. Ft.) Lot 2A 4,000 Lot 2B 4,500 Lot 9 4,500 Note: The allowable floor area for Lot 9 is based on the lot's original dimensions. All floor areas based on single - family construction. 13 Lot 2 R -15 (PUD) Lots 1 -9 R -15 (PUD) 2. Existing Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) Lot 2 95,048 Lot 9 9,0751 3. Minimum Required Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) 15,000 4. Proposed Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) Lot 2A 17,519 Lot 2B 75,736 Lot 9 20,368 5. Maximum Allowable Floor (Sq. Ft.) Lot 2A 4,650 Lot 2B 7,110 Lot 9 4,744 6. Proposed Floor Area (Sq. Ft.) Lot 2A 4,000 Lot 2B 4,500 Lot 9 4,500 Note: The allowable floor area for Lot 9 is based on the lot's original dimensions. All floor areas based on single - family construction. 13 As noted previously, all utilities are readily available to the project site. Water service will be extended from the existing main in Centennial Circle to the property line of each lot. The proposed development's sewage will be collected at a central location on Lot 2B where it will be pumped to the existing line which parallels the Lot's northeastern boundary and the boundary between Lots 7 and 8 of the Callahan Subdivision. Telephone, electrical, natural gas and cable TV service will be provided to the boundary of each lot as may be required. All on -site utilities will be located under- ground. To ensure adequate fire protection, a new hydrant will be installed in the vicinity of the access driveway to Lot 2B. The specific location will be determined prior to the final PUD development plan submission. As the Site Development Plan illustrates, a limited amount of regrad- ing will be required to accommodate the driveway. The existing Riverside ditch, however, will require the installation of a culvert under the driveway. To enhance access and safety, the proposed driveway will be twenty (20) feet in width, paved and appropriately lighted. A minimum of one (1) parking space per bedroom will be provided for each residence within the confines of each lot. On -site drywells and surface detention areas will accommodate stormwater runoff. 14 IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS The proposed development is subject to a variety of review requirements. The reconfiguration of Lot 9 of the Callahan Subdivision will require approval for a lot line adjustment and an amendment to the Callahan Subdivision final plat and PUD development plan. The reconfiguration will result in a de facto division of Lot 2 of the Gordon Subdivision and, therefore, will also require subdivision approval. Given the project site's mandatory PUD designa- tion, the resulting subdivision must be reviewed as a planned unit development. Finally, stream margin review will be required for the proposed development's building envelopes due to there proximity to the River. Each of these review requirements is discussed below. A. Lot Line Adjustment Pursuant to Section 7- 1003.A.1. of the Land Use Regulations, the adjustment of a lot line between con- tiguous lots which are under separate ownership is exempt from compliance with the City's subdivision regulations subject to review and approval. The specific criteria of the Regulations, and the proposed reconfiguration's compliance therewith, are summarized as follows. 1. "It is demonstrated that the request is to correct an engineering or survey error in a recorded plat 15 I or is to permit an insubstantial boundary change between adjacent parcels." Approval of the Applicants' subdivision exemp- tion request will permit an insubstantial boundary change between Lot 2 of the Gordon Subdivision and Lot 9 of the Callahan Subdivision. While the proposed reconfiguration will result in a larger Lot 9 than previously approved, the additional land area will be contained within a access easement which cannot be utilized for density purposes. 2. "Both landowners whose lot lines are being adjusted provide written consent to the application." Inasmuch as the owners of the affected lots are co- applicants with respect to the proposed development, no further consent to the reconfiguration would appear to be required. 3. "It is demonstrated that the request is to address specific hardship." The purpose of the reconfiguration is to permit the relocation of the existing access easement to Lot 2 of the adjacent Gordon Subdivision. At present, access to Lot 2 is provided from Centennial Circle via a thirty (30) foot easement which parallels the boundary between Lot's 7 and 8 of the Callahan Subdivision. The easement was granted to Jack and Jane E. Van Horn (the original owners 16 0 of the Gordon property) by Robert S. Goldsamt (one of the developers of the Callahan Subdivision) in September of 1976. While the easement was relied upon for access purposes in three (3) subsequent land use approvals involving the Gordon property (i.e., the original Gordon lot split and two GMP approvals), questions regarding its legality arose in 1986 in connection with the review of a request to further subdivide Lot 2. Apparently, the conveyance of the easement should have been formally reviewed and the Callahan Subdivision final plat and PUD development plan amended accordingly. In view of the considerable reliance placed upon the ability to utilize the easement for access purposes, the Planning Office recommended that a PUD amendment be processed in conjunc- tion with any review for further development of Lot 2 of the Gordon Subdivision. The 1986 application, however, was withdrawn prior to approval. Theoretically, could be utilized for subject to the approval above. There are, howeve using the easement for exist an approximately between the Gordon and the original access easement purposes of this application, of a PUD amendment as discussed r, at least three problems with access purposes. First, there seven (7) foot strip of land Callahan Subdivisions over which 17 � 111 The reconfigured plicable dimensional requ zone district as well as subdivision regulations. and PUD development plan later in this application. Lot 9 complies with all ap- irements of the underlying R -15 the design standards of the The adopted Callahan final plat will be amended as discussed 5. "It is demonstrated that the lot line adjustment will not adversely affect the development rights or permitted density of the affected lots by providing the opportunity to create a new lot for resale or development." The proposed reconfiguration will not affect the development rights of either the Gordon or Callahan Subdivisions. While the size of Lot 9 will increase, the additional land area will not permit additional develop- ment since access easements cannot be included in the calculation of density. Furthermore, the Applicants propose to compute the maximum allowable floor area (i.e., FAR) which could be constructed on Lot 9 based on the lot's original land area. In other words, the FAR attributable to Lot 9 will be limited to that which could have been constructed prior to reconfiguration. With respect to the Gordon Subdivision, a request for subdivision approval for the division of Lot 2 is included in this application. The two (2) new lots 19 11� r'" the ownership is contested. Apparently, approval for the original easement to cross this strip of land was never obtained and its disputed owner is presently not inclined to rectify the problem. Second, use of the easement would adversely affect an existing nearby residence in the Riverside Subdivision. Finally, use of the existing alignment for purposes of this application would require the construction of considerably more roadway than is reasonable to adequately serve the proposed development. In view of these problems, the Applicants' believe that sufficient hardship exists to warrant the requested lot line adjustment. While simply relocating the access easement would significantly reduce the amount of roadway necessary to serve the proposed development, avoidance of the disputed ownership would involve con- siderable land area, thereby adversely affecting Lot 9's potential building envelope. The reconfiguration of Lot 9, however, will accommodate the revised easement align- ment, and permit a reasonable building envelope which will improve the project's site design while reducing potential impacts on adjacent neighbors. 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." created as a result of the proposed reconfiguration of Lot 9 will comply with all applicable requirements of the Land Use Regulations and, as discussed previously, already have the requisite development rights. No growth management allocation is required and no increase in the development potential of Lot 2 will occur as a result of the proposed subdivision. B. Subdivision /PUD Amendment The approval of the Applicants' requested lot line adjustment will necessitate the amendment of the Callahan Subdivision's final plat and PUD development plan. Pursuant to Sections 7- 907.B. and 7- 1007.B. of the Land Use Regulations, the principal criteria for such amendments is that the proposed change be "consistent with the approved plat and conceptual development plan for the Subdivision ". As discussed previously, the proposed reconfiguration of Lot 9 will have no material affect upon the Callahan Subdivision other than to increase the land area of the lot. This increase, however, will not result in any further development potential nor will it increase the maximum allowable FAR which could be obtained on Lot 9. The Lot's FAR will be no greater than that which would have been allowed prior to reconfiguration. In addition to reflecting the revised configuration of Lot 9, the Callahan final plat and PUD development plan 20 0 --N will be amended to depict the new access easement to Lot 2 of the Gordon Subdivision. As discussed previously, the new alignment should resolve most, if not all, of the problems surrounding the existing easement. The new alignment reduces the impact of development on adjacent properties while avoiding the disputed strip of land. Similarly, the formal approval of the Applicants' PUD amendment will rectify the problems surrounding the conveyance of the original easement. To further clarify this issue, the Applicants are prepared to vacate their interests in the original access easement upon approval of their proposed development. From a procedural perspective, the Applicants will submit an amended final plat and PUD development plan for the Callahan Subdivision, and proposed amendments to the existing subdivision /PUD agreement, in conjunction with their final PUD development plan for Lot 2 of the Gordon Subdivision. The Applicants' Site Development Plan, however, should be sufficient at this stage of review to illustrate the proposed amendments. C. Subdivision Pursuant to Section 3 -101 of the Land Use Regulations, the division of land into two (2) or more lots, tracts or parcels is by definition a subdivision. Consequently, the proposed division of Lot 2 of the Gordon 21 Subdivision into two (2) separate single - family lots is subject to the City's review and approval. Section 7- 1004.C. of the Regulations sets forth the basic review standards for a development application for plat. These standards, and the proposed development's compliance therewith, are summarized as follows. 1. "The proposed subdivision shall be consis- tent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan." Two (2) elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan appear to be applicable to the Applicants' proposed development. The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan indicates that the project site is located within the so- called "Residen- tial /Single - Family" and "Open Space" land use categories. The intent and purpose of these two categories is to allow for single - family development and to preserve the natural heritage and environment of the community. It should be noted that the Plan does not appear to preclude develop- ment within designated open space areas but rather attempts to ensure that such development occur consistent with applicable review criteria. As noted previously, the project site is zoned R -15 (PUD), a single - family zoning category. In addition, no less than three (3) separate land use applications have been approved for the residential development of the property, the original Gordon lot split and two (2) 22 subsequent GMP applications. In view of the property's existing zoning, and the numerous development approvals which have been previously granted, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan's land use element should not be an issue. The Parks /Recreation /open Space /Trails element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan identifies two (2) trail segments which affect the Applicant's proposed development. The first segment, which parallels the Roaring Fork River, would link Ute Avenue to the Hopkins Street pedestrian bridge. The second segment would link the east end residential areas to Ute Avenue via Highway 82 and a trail alignment through the Riverside Sub- division. With respect to the first segment, the City has already obtained a trail alignment from Ute Avenue across the 1010 Ute Subdivision, the River, and Lots 1 and 2 of the Gordon Subdivision. With respect to the second segment, the Applicants propose to dedicate a twelve (12) foot trail easement along the northern boundary of Lot 2 as depicted on the Site Development Plan as a condition of subdivision approval. This alignment will provide a continuous link from Ute Avenue to the rear property line of a vacant lot in the adjacent Riverside Subdivision. The City need only obtain an additional link to Riverside 23 Drive to complete access to Highway 82. The Applicants' provision of this trail segment should be sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the trails element of the Comprehensive Plan. To the best of the Applicants' knowledge, no other element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan contains recommendations which preclude, or otherwise pertain to, the proposed development. 2. "The proposed subdivision shall be consis- tent with the character of existing land uses in the area. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas." The proposed development is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area, and will have no adverse effect on the area's future development. The surrounding site area consists almost entirely of single - family residential development (e.g., the Callahan Subdivision, Riverside Subdivision, 1010 Ute Subdivision, etc.) and is essentially fully developed. 3. "The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of the Land Use Regulations." The proposed development has been designed to comply with the applicable requirements of the underlying 24 1`1 R -15 zone district and all other relevant provisions of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. 4. "The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rock - slide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision." The project site is suitable for development. There are no known natural hazards or other conditions that will be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the project's residents. Both the Gordon and Callahan Subdivisions were legally created, ostensibly in com- pliance with the provisions of the Land Use Regulations. It should be noted, however, that the one hundred (100) year floodplain boundary on Lot 2 of the Gordon Sub- division was revised in connection with the most recent development application for the property (see Exhibit 1, Appendix D). As a result, the area of the property subject to flood potential has been significantly reduced. 5. "The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficien- cies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs." 25 l "`a No governmental inefficiencies, duplication of facilities, or unnecessary public costs will occur as a result of the provision of public services to the proposed development. All required utilities are currently available in the immediate site area. All costs for the extension of utilities to serve the project will be borne by the Applicants. In addition to requiring compliance with the above review criteria, the Land Use Regulations also require that various improvements be provided for the proposed subdivision, and that specific standards be adhered to in the subdivision's design. The applicable improvements and design standards are summarized as follows. 1. Water service to the project will be provided via the existing eight (8) inch main located in Centennial Circle. Service lines will be installed to the boundary of each lot by the Applicants as depicted on the Site Development Plan. 2. As the Existing Conditions map illustrates, an eight (8) inch sanitary sewer is located in the utility easement which parallels the property boundary between Lots 7 and 8 of the Callahan Subdivision and the northeast boundary of Lot 2 of the Gordon Subdivision. The proposed development's sewage will be collected at a central `TI location on Lot 2B and pumped to the existing sanitary sewer as depicted on the Site Development Plan. No improvements to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation Dis- trict's collection facilities are required. 3. Electrical, telephone and natural gas service is presently located within the Centennial Circle right -of -way and will be extended to serve the project as necessary. All required extensions of these utilities will be located underground. 4. Access to the proposed development will be provided via private driveways from Centennial Circle. As noted previously, Lot 2A will be accessed directly from Centennial Circle. Lot 2B will be accessed via an easement across Lot 9. All driveways will be twenty (20) feet in width and comply with applicable design standards. As the Site Development Plan illustrates, the proposed driveway to Lots 9 and 2B has been designed to provide adequate access for emergency vehicles and to permit convenient turnaround capability. 5. Easements to accommodate the proposed utility extensions and entry driveway to Lot 2B will be provided as may be required. All utility easements will comply with the applicable width requirements of the Land Use Regulations. The access easement for the driveway to Lot 2B will be thirty (30) feet in width. 27 6. Fire protection for the proposed develop- ment will be provided by the Aspen Volunteer Fire Depart- ment. An existing fire hydrant is conveniently located adjacent to Centennial Circle across from Lot 9. In order to enhance fire protection, and to comply with applicable regulations, an additional hydrant will be installed by the Applicants in the vicinity of the proposed entry driveway to Lot 2B. 7. The proposed development's storm drainage system will be designed to maintain historic flow rates with respect to surface water runoff and groundwater recharge. As the Site Development Plan illustrates, on- site drywells and surface detention facilities will be utilized to intercept and detain runoff from building roofs and impervious areas, and to control the rate of groundwater recharge. A detailed drainage plan will be prepared and submitted in conjunction with the Applicants' final development plan submission. D. Planned Unit Development As noted previously, Lot 2 is zoned R -15, Mandatory PUD. As a result, the proposed subdivision is also subject to review as a planned unit development. While the mandatory PUD designation was most likely applied because of the property's proximity to the River, the size and configuration of the property provide little W_ opportunity for the incorporation of traditional PUD design approaches. In fact, no variations in the dimen- sional requirements of the underlying R -15 zone district have been incorporated in the Applicants' Site Development Plan. The proposed development, however, is consistent with the basic purpose and general requirements of the PUD regulations. With respect to density, the proposed develop- ment is within that allowed within the R -15 zone district. As the Site Development Plan illustrates, approximately sixty -five thousand three hundred and ninety -one (65,391) square feet of land area remains after density reduction for steep slopes and the subtraction of land under water and existing access and utility easements to accommodate the proposed development. Based on the R -15 zone dis- trict's minimum lot area requirement of fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet per detached residence, a maximum of four (4) single - family dwelling units could be accom- modated on Lot 2 of the Gordon Subdivision. As discussed project site is suitable accommodate the propose, utilities are adequate to and no adverse impacts quality are anticipated. under subdivision review, the for development and can easily i density. Existing roads and serve the proposed development upon the area's air or water The proposed Site Development 29 Plan is compatible with the site's existing topography and minimal regrading will be required. The majority of the project site's existing vegetation will be retained and additional landscaping will be provided to enhance privacy and reduce visual impacts. It should be noted that no central open space is either required or provided by the Applicants' proposed development. The proposed lots are large enough, and the building envelopes and proposed FAR's sufficiently restricted, to provide for adequate open space for the project's residents. The undeveloped portion of Lot 2B will be retained for possible future development. Any subsequent request for further development approval, however, must stand on its own merits and will be subject to the receipt of a growth management allocation. B. stream Margin Pursuant to Section 7 -504 of the Land Use Regulations, all development within one hundred (100) feet of the high water line of the Roaring Fork River is subject to stream margin review. Given the proximity of the proposed building envelopes to the River, review and approval pursuant to the City's stream margin regulations is required. The specific review criteria, and the proposed development's compliance therewith, are sum- marized as follows. 30 1. "It can be demonstrated that the proposed development will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development." As the Site Development Plan illustrates, the Proposed building envelopes are located outside the one hundred (100) year floodplain boundary. Consequently, no increase in the base flood elevation will occur. 2. "Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks /Recreation /Open Space /Trails plan map is dedicated for public use." As discussed under subdivision review, the Applicants will grant an easement across Lot 2 of the Gordon Subdivision to accommodate the trail segment identified in the Trails element of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. "The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development to the greatest extent practicable." The Roaring Fork Greenway Plan contains no site specific recommendations with respect to the project site. The proposed building envelopes, however, have been located so as to preserve to the maximum extent feasible the riparian vegetation and natural appearance of the River corridor. Restrictive covenants will be adopted 31 f which will limit the removal of existing vegetation. The location of the building envelopes and the proposed covenants will ensure that development is consistent with the Plan's general recommendations. 4. "No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made that produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank." No riparian vegetation will be removed nor any slope regraded such that the River would be adversely affected. Appropriate safeguards (e.g., hay bales) will be employed during construction of the residences to prevent sedimentation of the River. All disturbed areas will be revegetated. 5. "To the greatest extent practicable, the proposed development reduces pollution and interference with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary." Inasmuch as the building envelopes are located outside the one hundred (100) year floodplain, the proposed development will have no effect upon the natural changes experienced by the Roaring Fork River. As noted above, no pollution of the River is anticipated. 6. "Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or 32 1" -^. relocation of a water course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency." No alteration or relocation of the existing water course will be required as a result of the Ap- plicants' proposed development. 7. "A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished." Inasmuch as no alteration or relocation of the water course is proposed, no such guarantee is required. 8. "Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the one hundred (100) year floodplain." To the best of the Applicants' knowledge, no federal or state permits are required to construct the proposed development. 33 ALTA ow4u s POLICY- Ane.ded 10,17 10 FDr LMF SCHEDULE Order No.: 15785 Policy No.: 0 9941 38774 Date of Policy:March 31. 1988 At 4137 FM Amount of Insurance: S 2,000,000.00 1. Name of Insured: JOI1N A. F.LMORE. II 2. The estate or interest in the land described herein and which is covered by this policy is: FEM SIMPLE 3. The estate or interest referred to herein is at Date of Policy vested in: -Y)MI A. ELMORE. ii 4. The land referred to in this policy is described as follows: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, G. 7, 8 and 9, CALI.AHAN . IVISION, accurdinq to the recorded plat. thereof. C'ounty of Fltkin, State of Colorado Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. 602 E. Hyrsan Aspen, Co 81611 303 - 925 -3577 j AUTVIORIZED COUNTERSIGNATURE STEWART TITLE CODE 0012 Page 2 GUARANTY COMPANT x o A s a 7 e$4,092.70 Cw.1,41 P 10 f2 13 EXHIBIT 2 FIRST SPECIAL CHARGE ICRE DITI SECOND SvEUaI CHARGE ICREDITI THIRD SPECIAL CHARGE (CREDITI .n ...... .•1 .wL... 03 A000.. 16 16 to 17 11s U 20 ALTA ow4u s POLICY- Ane.ded 10,17 10 FDr LMF SCHEDULE Order No.: 15785 Policy No.: 0 9941 38774 Date of Policy:March 31. 1988 At 4137 FM Amount of Insurance: S 2,000,000.00 1. Name of Insured: JOI1N A. F.LMORE. II 2. The estate or interest in the land described herein and which is covered by this policy is: FEM SIMPLE 3. The estate or interest referred to herein is at Date of Policy vested in: -Y)MI A. ELMORE. ii 4. The land referred to in this policy is described as follows: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, G. 7, 8 and 9, CALI.AHAN . IVISION, accurdinq to the recorded plat. thereof. C'ounty of Fltkin, State of Colorado Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. 602 E. Hyrsan Aspen, Co 81611 303 - 925 -3577 j AUTVIORIZED COUNTERSIGNATURE STEWART TITLE CODE 0012 Page 2 GUARANTY COMPANT f tK.' 11�71•`. SCHEDULE B Policy No.: This policy does not insure against loss or damage by reason of the following: n 9 ?41 36274 t. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or clamors of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. `. km• and all unpaid taxes and assessments and any unredeemed tax sales. The effect of inclusions in any general or specific water conservancy, fire p•otection, soil conservation or other district or inclusion in any water service or street improvement area. Reservations and except ions as set forth in Patent recorded June 'l7, 1349 in Dook 17 at Page 246 as Reception No. 96460 which recites rl.e tollowiny: First: That .he grant hereby made is restricted in its exterior limits tt_ boundaries of the said mining premises and to any •eins Ol,.Ddes of quartz or other rock in place bearing a d, ilver, cinnabar, lead, tin, copper or other 'valuable depos ts, which m y have been discovered within s li is s saguaro to and which were not known to exist or. th tUn t th d day of Harch A.D. one thousand ei Indr ight -five. Second: That should any vein or 1 e or Ott e n F•lace bearing gold, silver, cinnabar. lead, tin, or ether valuable deposits be claimed a known _o exist within the above described premises at said la -na _d , date, the same is expressly excepted and exc lu•ied from hose Fresents. Third: That the premises hereby conveyed may be entered by the proprietor of any vein or lode of quartz or other rock in place bearing gold, silver, cinnarbar, lead, tin, copper or other valuable deposits, for the F•Urpose of extracting and removing his ore from such vein or lode, should the same, er any part thereof, be found to Penetrate, intersect, pass through, or dip into the mining around or premises hereby granted. Fourth: That the premises hereby com•eved shall be held subject to any vested and accrued water rights for mining, agricultural, manufacturing, or other purposes, and rights to ditches and reservoirs, used in Connection with such water rights as may be recognized and acknowledged by local laws, customs and descisions of courts. Fifth: That in the legislation by Congress, the legislation of Colorado may provide rules for working the mining claim or premises granted involving easements, drainage and other See continuation rage ST 14T TIT LP; 1613 120M 3 85, Palma oe u�ar• to�e�w• F l ^« \ nrMl NO. N�85 Attached to and made a pan of Stewart Title Guaranty Company Policy No 0 9941 38274 Continuation of Schedule B necessary means t.o complete development thereof. 8. P.eservatim of Utility Easements by Benedict Land and Cattle Company et al, de; set forth in Deed recorded May 19, 1976 in Book 112 at Paoe 177 as Reception No. 183913. 9. Easements and restrictions as shown on Flats of Callahan Subdivision recorded May 19. 1976 in Plat Book 5 at Page 7 as Reception No. 183889, and as amended by Plat recorded August 17, 1977 in Plat Book 6 at Page 16 as Reception No. 196746. 10. Terms, conditions, obligations and restrictions as set forth in Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Agreement recorded May 19. 1976 in Rook 312 at Page 110 as Reception No 183e90 and as modified by Notice recorded April 29. 1977 in 328 at Page 79 as Reception No. 194018. 11. Fasements as set forth in Reclproc sement Grat recorded May 19, 1976 In Bonk 312 at Page 1. Reception 183919. o 12. Terms, conditions and b igations as et forth in Agreement between Patricia E. Ma one and Ro t S. Goldsamt recorded May 19, 19 in Book 31 Y Page 169 a Reception No. 183912. 13. Terms, con tions, oblig na and restrictions of Grant of Easement as et forth in trument recorded September 23, 1976 in Book 316 t Facie 961 as Reception No. 187218, and as amended by Agreement a orded August 29, 1978 in Book 353 at Page 527 as Rece PLion 206863. 14. Easements for ingress, egress and underground utilities as set forth in Grant of Easement recorded September 23, 1976 in Book 316 at Page 961 as Reception No. 187248. 15. Reservations and restriction, in regard to roads within Callahan Subdivision, as set forth in Easement Crant recorded August 17. 1977 in Book 333 at Page 727 as Reception No. 196750. 16. Terms, conditione, covenants and restrictions as set forth in Protective Covenants recorded October 17, 1984 in Book 475 at Page 236 as Reception No. 263351. 17. Right of wav of the Riverside Ditch and Building Setback lines 10 feet either side thereof as shown on the Flat recorded in Plat Book 5 at Page 7. 18. Pedestrian access easement granted to Aspen Club International, Inc. See Continuation Page Page STF,NVART TITLY', ,00.. coNraNr cuaaANTV w i.e•, r^ ORDER NO.:15;,,, Attached to and made a part of Stewart Title Guaranty Company Policy No 0 9941 38274 Continuat of Schedule 8 19 as set forth in Deed of Access Easement recorded January 11, 1985 in Book 479 at Page 661 as Reception No. 265342. NOTE: Deed of Trust executed by Aspen Club International for the benefit of The Bank of Aspen encumbering said pedestrian access easement recorded January 11, 1985 in Book 479 at Page 669 as Reception No. 265345. NOTEt Right of Entry Agreement by and between the above noted parties encumbering said Pedestrian Access Easement recorded October 21. 1985 in Book 497 at Page 598 as Reception No. 272455. A Deed of Trust dated March 30, 1988, executed by John A. Elmore, II, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, to secure an indebtedness of $1,000,000.00, in favor of Central Bank of Aspen, N.A., recorded April 4, 1988 in Book 560 at Page 334 as Reception No. 298821. Pape __ M., "°" STENVART TITLI; GUARANTY COMPANY At TA OWNERS Poua— A^rtnaea 10:7170 rDiLHF SCHEDULE Order No.: 15716 Policy No.: 0 9941 38276 Date of Policy:April 04. 1 988 At 108 08 PH Amount of Insurance: S 800,000.00 1. Name of Insured: I,IONEZ T.. VON 2. The estate or interest in the land described herein and which is covered by this policy is: FEE SiHPLE 3. The estate or interest referred to herein is at Date of Policy vested in: LI014EL T•. 701 4. The land referred to in this policy is described as follows: Lot :. Gorden 51.11dtvtrdan, accotdinq to the thereof tecntded ?rlauel. If. 1 ?P3 In Plat Book 15 at Pa. 25 as Pecert ion Nc•. Cr•unty rrf 1'11 Rate of Colored Stetrart Title of Aspen, Inc. 502 E. Hystan Aspen, Co 81611 303 - 925 -3577 AUTHORIZED COUN71MSICHATURE STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY 1 012 Page 2 i 91,438.50 •ssr uRr uu..o•. c -A , u ..e.; mt..r +m .r o-c.+n....n r% r a 10 11 12 12 FIRST SPECIAL CHARGE rCRED SEGZ ' IS- .CAI CHARGE ICREDITI ITHIRDSPECIA L CHARGE (CAE DT) '1'190. 1" "C' 375.40 •..r lA is 1s 17 1e /P 20 At TA OWNERS Poua— A^rtnaea 10:7170 rDiLHF SCHEDULE Order No.: 15716 Policy No.: 0 9941 38276 Date of Policy:April 04. 1 988 At 108 08 PH Amount of Insurance: S 800,000.00 1. Name of Insured: I,IONEZ T.. VON 2. The estate or interest in the land described herein and which is covered by this policy is: FEE SiHPLE 3. The estate or interest referred to herein is at Date of Policy vested in: LI014EL T•. 701 4. The land referred to in this policy is described as follows: Lot :. Gorden 51.11dtvtrdan, accotdinq to the thereof tecntded ?rlauel. If. 1 ?P3 In Plat Book 15 at Pa. 25 as Pecert ion Nc•. Cr•unty rrf 1'11 Rate of Colored Stetrart Title of Aspen, Inc. 502 E. Hystan Aspen, Co 81611 303 - 925 -3577 AUTHORIZED COUN71MSICHATURE STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY 1 012 Page 2 i C OPL Nn • 157I Si 1L 8 1 Policy No.: This policy does not insure against loft or damage by reason of the following: 0 9941 38276 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 1 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the Public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. i S f illy •n nl :Ill nr id lmxes rsnd L aw ac:Zes sments and any unredeemed nf,i.•_, 6. Thp rf f - rrrt or inclurinns in er.7 general or DPecif water conr:prv4nr-v, fir" Pr otecL ion, snll rnnservetion or other d i.st.r 4 :t nr Irtr ;n fury water service or street fi t ,rvq. • Ar,y Jr•,n n,- Ir.l� Of rp l;Ir t;•. nr nther rock In Place beacincr gold, Bi r n . , •in +, h+tr. In 1,• - „t, L;n, .•opr•er or other valuable deposits •- 141141 -,t nr F1vxJn rvi -1. Mar•rh ?7, 1894 Prnl:r ;rfr,r nl , tnv „ r ir, nr ln.tp of d the right of the Geer 111,1 4:,I,t, ;:ilve•r, c;pn:4w[. leada tz r other rock in Place ua luflLlc dr•P, Inr hi, C•ur p COPPer or Other Lhe .:re Ir :nsr•h vbirl nr lrwie n f pXt., cti ❑q and removing Penetr4t.p or intprnrr, � hc'I Lhe am- be found to rerord, ihsn.+ 'I " ?, pre - , all as reserved in 9.4811. 19 9 i.n to At P4ge 246 as ReceptoneNo. 8. F,i -(nl „ i hr prrq,r irt, his „ f, «r .•I r„ 4 v or lade Lo extract and remove I rots -r ;.p,•t b „ 011 Ijld Lhe -Ame hp round to Penetrate or Pr ! ;I` :: horot•v or ;tnted, as reserved in United S Lrat.e;: p: -Il,.n r•rnrcf.•d Aum :. as kr.,. N.,. Inf.R74, t za, 1959 in Book 185 at Pnqe 69 7. Tyr °5, <n„IIt.i1•rrn 41111 r4nptepnfs a, seL forth in stipulation, Ciuil Ar•Lir,,, Nn, 411.k, j, Ili:arivi- Cnurf for P'1tk1n County, Co11,r qAn. u•r• /','hr u4ry ::7, 1976 In Monk 709 at Paqe 165 as d e'ppt. i nn No . IRIA "lb. 97,p specific lncetion of which is not del inpri. 10, F; °pnL '711 reel. in widl'h a:: crantpd to As Pen Metropolitan San 71.11 P,i„n Ilia Cr ir`1- Lr, r:unat.rurt, install, aenllnry ur,arr l iris,, recorded Tul aaintatn and use a 196 141, Nr•r'rpLinn No, 1414v4, Lhe t 23, is in Book 249 at Page not d.•f irrod. Pecift location of which is FJinompntd, tr4iIs, ditches esr+d restrictions as shown on Plat See Crtnt.inrlal ion Page EXCEPTIONS NUMBERED 1 THBU 4 ARE HEREBY OMITSp 1 6 1 3120M3.95, ISr EN'AHT TITLE Peel oo.,t..rr cnrrrrrr {(� N ORDER N0.?T5716 Attached to and made a pan of Stewatl ia Company Policy No 0 9941 38276 Continuation of Schedule R recorded August 16. 1983 in Flat Book 15 at Fags 25 as Reception No. 257398. 12. This policy does net insure title to land comprising the shores or bottoms or rivers and is subject to any build up or loss of property along the Roaring Fork River caused by the processes of accretion and relicition, or caused by man made changes in the flow of water or in the course of the river bank or river channel: also subject to the free and unobstructed flow of the water of said ricer. 13. Terms, conditions and restrictions as set forth in Statement of Exemption from Subdivision recorded August 16, 1983 in Book 450 at Page 368 as Reception No. 252397. 14. Terms. conditions, obligations and restriction set forth in Easement Agreement recorded I.ugust , 1983 in k 450 at Page 374 as Reception No. 252400 and re a rded Segte r 1, 1983 in Book 451 at Face '..63 as Reception . 252845. 15. Terms, conditions, ob Lions and tractions as set forth in Grant of Easement reco September 3, 1976 in Book 316 at Page 961 .eception 87248. 16. Terms, c ' tions. obliq ins and restrictions as set forth in Gran t of Fe meat recorde aril 4, 1988 in Book 560 at Page 325 ns kecep i No. 298818. 17. A Deed or Tru dated March 30. 1988, executed by Lionel L. yo to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, to secure an indebtedness of $1.000,000.00, in favor of Central Bank of Aspen, N.A.. recorded April 4, 1988 in Book 560 at Page 340 as Reception No. 748872. Page STI;NVAI2T TITI,I'; GUARANTY COMPANY �.j� ..iTi1'T�hEbf2MTrK 2 4ae,w �y� YT>r,Sw[tyTM�� 31 � 90ti ENDG .O TITLE POLICY No. 1 SERIAL 0 9941 38276 IXP m ISSUED BY FO RM 31 5 375..40 TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY HEREIN CALLED THE COMPANY The Company hereby insures the Insured against 1038 which the Insured shall sustain by reason of physical, but not aesthetic, damage to improvements ezI t I nq on the land at Date of policy or constructed thereon Lhereafter resulting from the exercise subsequent to the Date of Policy of any rights to use the surface or the land under the mineral interest No. 7 and referred t¢ in Exceptions t 8 Of Schedule B i mineral rights" ?, `pub Exceptions Ject, however, to the following terms and conditions: \ \ I. The knowledoe shall s come to an insured ymhereur ` dpyin gin case threw Lened exercise of the mineral er of a antual or rights,, Y � 2. The Companv shall have the right, at ets cost, to take any action which in Its opinion ■ay be\n5ces3ary or desirable in order for the Company to avoid or minimize \the extent endorsement lncludlnq, of Its liability under this but n0 J1mited to any or all of the following: !al In the COmpanf own rlghtr the Company's ben :in the name of the insured for e'f it, to institute, prosecute and pursue to final determination any r oceedings at law or in equity, or before any municipal, administrative, or regulatory tribunal or board; In L Company's own right, or in the name of the insured for i the the Companan y's benefit, to compel the giving of security bond or undertaking by the person or persons from whom the insured is entitled by law to such security, bond or undertaking, same amount or amounts to entitled had which the insured would hae been this endorsement not been issued; and See Continuation Pave Tnie EntlOtYmM� µ m,tle a oast o' .,e nmmr and n mn,ecr to in, unego4t, conaniw, and ebowsoom ine e.[ept an mptlJ,ea er tnl povuom harlot NoMinp nano conve ned Mau pa connruW er as V�d•nq or 0M1,ny Me e•4rnve doe of and Wfn:,. uNn, othnw,tt uovY�r tbVtl. 9pned undo eeo lo. rn< Comoenv, bm Ms Eno - nntm •, ,o be W,d omr wnen -t bevt an amnonutl eounten tau Me tlar of April 19 88 04th ' ,Chan man oI tnc BoVd�� Coun'11411 b / ' tt; wE q� P,es,tlent nJtnw „ao s+! TITLE - OF 7SSFQ7, �” `a; Comoany TEta1� ' Cny. Sut WJ SOM Tn•'•r.a. mum . . • -9904. 629775 , " M1 h •. t i I, I L (•�'� O.RDD] 110:1~716 Attached to and made a pan of Stews ,aranty Company Policy No 0 9991 38276 Continuation of Schedule FORM 100. (c) To retain or be paid out of any such security, bond or under- takinct, or out of any compensation or funds recovered by the Company or the Insured, such amount as will reimburse the Company for all payments made to the insured by the Company by reason as to insurance afforded by this endorsement together with all costs and expenses incurred by the Company in connection therewith, including attorney's fees. 3. No rights, benefits or defenses are intended to or shall be deemed to flow or be made available to any person or entity other than the insured by reason of the insurance afforded by this endorsement and the insured agrees that all of the insured's rights and remedies aaainst third parties relating to the subject matter of this endorsement shall be deemed to have reeakned intact, In the same manner as if this endorsement had IN issued. Page _ IsTENVAH TITI.E ���_�� GUARANTY COM n VANN ASSOCIATES ° anrnng Consultants August 1, 1988 Mr. Alan Richman Planning and Development Director Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Permission to Represent Dear Mr. Richman: EXHIBIT 3 Please consider this letter authorization for Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, Inc. to represent Elmore /Yow Aspen Ventures in the processing of our application for sub - division/PUD and stream margin review. Mr. Vann is hereby authorized to act on our behalf with respect to all matters reasonably pertaining to the aforementioned application. Should you have any questions, or if we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ELMORE /YOW ASPEN VENTURES SV:cwv P 0 Box 8485 • Aspen. Colorado 81612 • 303;925 -6958 I_1» :`I DIVA :1 APPENDIX C WHEREAS, Goldsamt is the owner of the road improvements and rights -of -way as to such roads within the Callahan Subdivision ( "Subdivision ") according to, and more particularly described in the official approved plat thereof recorded on May 19, 1976 in Book 5, Pages 7 -10, of the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado, and the official approved amended plat thereof recorded on August 17, 1977, in Book 6, Pages 16 -19 of the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Goldsamt desires to grant this Easement to Elmore /Yow. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. Goldsamt hereby grants to Elmore /Yow, a non - exclusive easement to the roads as platted for the Subdivision and Goldsamt consents to the grant by Elmore /Yow of rights under this easement for each purchaser of any of the Property described in Exhibit A hereto and for persons acting with such purchaser's consent to use such roads to pass between Colorado State Highway 82 on the roads within the subdivision by the most direct route over such roads and in accordance with any rules and regulations adopted for their use by the owner of the rights of way for such roads (provided such rules and regulations do not prohibit the access Elmore /Yow grants hereunder to such purchaser, but there shall be no limitation as to the application of such rules and regulations to persons whom access is based on the consent of the purchaser). Goldsamt reserves relocate any such be limited by the and by the terms Club Condominiums the right to dedicate to public use, and to roads and the easement granted hereunder shall terms of the Amended Condominium Declaration )f the Condominium Declaration for the Aspen L ( "Condominium Declaration ") subject to the EXHIBIT 1 z �Bou N 560 WE 59 0° EASEMENT GRANT 1 �� IS AGREEMENT made this �� day of March, 1988, by end,,: between ROBERT S. GOLDSAN.T on the one hand, (referred to as "Goldsamt "), and - John - A- Elmore, II and Lionell Yew on the other hand, (together referred to as "Elmore /Yow "). WHEREAS, Goldsamt is the owner of the road improvements and rights -of -way as to such roads within the Callahan Subdivision ( "Subdivision ") according to, and more particularly described in the official approved plat thereof recorded on May 19, 1976 in Book 5, Pages 7 -10, of the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado, and the official approved amended plat thereof recorded on August 17, 1977, in Book 6, Pages 16 -19 of the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Goldsamt desires to grant this Easement to Elmore /Yow. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. Goldsamt hereby grants to Elmore /Yow, a non - exclusive easement to the roads as platted for the Subdivision and Goldsamt consents to the grant by Elmore /Yow of rights under this easement for each purchaser of any of the Property described in Exhibit A hereto and for persons acting with such purchaser's consent to use such roads to pass between Colorado State Highway 82 on the roads within the subdivision by the most direct route over such roads and in accordance with any rules and regulations adopted for their use by the owner of the rights of way for such roads (provided such rules and regulations do not prohibit the access Elmore /Yow grants hereunder to such purchaser, but there shall be no limitation as to the application of such rules and regulations to persons whom access is based on the consent of the purchaser). Goldsamt reserves relocate any such be limited by the and by the terms Club Condominiums the right to dedicate to public use, and to roads and the easement granted hereunder shall terms of the Amended Condominium Declaration )f the Condominium Declaration for the Aspen L ( "Condominium Declaration ") subject to the BOU 560 obligations of the Protective Covenants of Aspen Club Lots 1 -10 recorded in the real estate records of Pitkin County in Book 475 at Pave 236 to provide a percentage of the cost of maintaining, improving and replacing roads within the subdivision. 2. The foregoing covenants shall be deemed covenants running with the land and shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns and personal representatives of Goldsamt, and Elmore /Yow. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Easement Grant was executed on the day and year first above written. Robert S. Goldsamt by Andrew v. Hecht, his attorney -in -fact S� ATTEST: Secretary State of )ss County of , _ ) The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me this / day of March, 1988 by Robert S. Goldsamt by Andrew V.,Hecht as his attorney -in -fact. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Q. My cdrm;ission expires: ' r - State of ��• /r. ,�, ) )ss County of _ ) Notary Public The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me this "/ day of March, 1988 by John A. Elmore, II and Lionell Yow. WITNESS my hand and official seal. • o��'' My commission expires: o%'.; Notary Public mix 560 pas: 61 Exhibit A to Easement Grant Goldsamt /Elmore /Yow Property Description Lot 2, Gordon Subdivision, according to the Plat thereof recorded August 16, 1983 in Plat Book 15 at Page 25 as Reception No. 252398. EXHIBIT 2 c� ASSIGNMENT OF FREE MARKET DEVELOPMENT RIGHT .d THIS ASSIGNMENT is given this 23 day of Anil , 1986, by.PITKIN LIMITED, a Colorado corporation ( "Assignor "), to SHELDON GORDON ( "Assignee "), with reference to the following: RECITALS A. By virtue of (i) the Precise Plan and Subdivision Agreement for Smuggler Mobile Home Park recorded in Book 424 at Pages 780, et seq., of the Pitkin County, Colorado real property records ( "Records ") and the completion of the development activity contemplated therein, and (ii) the P.U.D. and Subdivi- sion Agreement for The Pitkin Reserve recorded in Book 423 at Pages 417, et sea., and amendments thereto recorded respectively in Book 447 at Pages 59, et sea., and in Book 468 at Pages 853, et s_ etc . , of the Records (collectively herein the "Land Use Agreements "), and the development activity contemplated therein and completed to date, Assignor is the owner and holder of several freely transferrable and alienable free market develop- ment rights ( "Development Rights ") conferred upon it by the City of Aspen, Colorado, which represent exceptions to and exemptions from the free market development allotment review processes of the Growth Management Quota System contained in Article XI, Sections 24 -11.1, et se q., of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado ( "GMP").. B. Assignee wishes to acquire from Assignor and Assignor is willing to transfer to Assignee one (1) of the Development Rights. W I T N E S S E T H IN CONSIDERATION of the foregoing recitals and the sun of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable considera- tion passing from Assignee to Assignor, the receipt, sufficienc} and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, Assignor hereby assigns unto Assignee one (1) Development Right and, in respect of the foregoing Assignment, Assignor warrants that: 1. It is the owner and holder of the Development Right with full and free right to convey, transfer and assign ii to Assignee; i 2. The Development Right hereby assigned represents a valid and subsisting exemption from or exception to the GMP V� and is subject to no limitations except as may be expressed in the Land Use Agreements; 3. It has done and completed that which it was required to do under the Land Use Agreements to vest in itself tfie Development Rights and render their use unconditional, and it will neither do or cause or suffer to be done, by commission or omission, any act or thing that would defeat, interfere with or impair the Development Right hereby assigned; and 4. The Development Right hereby assigned will enable \ Assignee to build one free - market, single - family dwelling without having to go (a) through GMP, or (b) provide any employee housing or cash in lieu thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Assignment has been executed and given as of the day and year first above written. PIT IITED, a Colorado cor By President STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN )- The foregoi g instrument was acknowledged before me this o 3� day of VIVA , 1986, by Pitkin Limited, a Colorado corporation, by Michael B. Lipkin, its President. WITNESS my hand and off *c My commission expires:��/'�r (SEAL) rwh20.58 -2- APPENDIX D H 00 X W C� 0� O M Cot V - O O zs > r f yp9 sr �tt� A QZZa FpZZp E �r Sj = r <So 24 5 e _ , e O ®h Y_U PE � FQr �Vy e C� e� VL r T ! a r r oiln r 8" bo rod 2 - �u � r CJ i n x° Y; Q z 8g� Y 3 1 a:= n r I 0 1 I I � Q p� 6Z Ey � 4 Vl �r s b rw p G/� F � 12 1 I I H � ® 9E I v E"I nib t�� � I E9 °az '4® r b�'��G �(d Yzz Z S CF n n tl €iG r i (3 � 3 I 1= IE I� 1 3 6 n i Fm t 4 i Y r i H i' Vf a I Y,1 A i < I" N I 3 e X34 : a 0 { y5y 3?�io N H � 6 3 � I Y r or, �b� a 7 ° �. ?a E Yr o �Y9 �9 p4 I" N I 3 e X34 : a 0 { y5y 3?�io N H � 6 3 � I i� "I �, I i a 0 S Z W s N M me_ W X W w pua w 7 � a w� wJ Z Q J a H Z W 2 IL 0 LU w LU C m Q J CL J Z LL `a 3 i .od � 0 A d wwa -AOGR wn tt0 r R� � €zz�a ow�7Fr � y 55� yy � 1 O Z�wa y� � Z � aW F F ° JyV "a' l � n� LLwwS , n y ��R m ; m �p [g F6 hr� ° i x $wry �' '8an C 2 �Y' Q wW WJ�1�JJJWa WW W lJW � €> a W N x . ?( gr ��E Z � °F �� n �8xs <. wwiuY'w _ws� �80w�oH�NyV 2M w 8 w wW � i [LI s uuu,g Mm LLO LL9aj �Fa� ° Z ° 3 FF .�Op. u xw ;Yfgw� ° wo 3 &a K o :vd� amR'a� a y 1 mm W Fl (1 's 6,,ZHl 2PZM w 9 U 8 -w © OO C -��@i8° 9S g 8 SnS wa sg9 �8gS d v��.a �87a . 38y �a rgaxA' iu O C O a �$ a xg�Na�aa$a9 �i t D = o � a 2 s m L N t t 5 8 LLJ A � h 1 n N o W 9� 54�R LL l r 0 J { � o C 33 9 $ F� :g i' . u & m m B w o L ' 1 m m 8 gem m o � a d n i a �9 s w eV y S g m r✓ `� _ u�. U 8 -w © OO C -��@i8° 9S g 8 SnS wa sg9 �8gS d v��.a �87a . 38y �a rgaxA' iu O C O a �$ a xg�Na�aa$a9 �i t D = o � a 2 s m L N t t 5 8 LLJ A � h 1 n N o W 9� 54�R LL l r 0 J { � o C 33 9 $ F� :g i' . u i m mm G B . x � ' 1 w m 0 d n a �9 o a w eV y 9 a u i m mm G B . x � ' 1 w m 0 d n a �9 o a w eV y 9 a a o L tt � Z Sp` N I A p Y yJJ S L�J c nu� az� JAI >s a l ° odS g z6 }z WD F 9� s a qq.. CC�h K V-�Y t2� K 9 C > » R Ja �L LL a0 R° r y W wk ti 0 3 i 4 a i I V c a 5 h w a ? r z o q w rcyyo {� o a Ls ` t8a$ � j °41V u F + rc -s,o � 8•t c� s 7 ch x a' a rc> iW 4 d F� o� i B . x ' 1 w m r ' W wk ti 0 3 i 4 a i I V c a 5 h w a ? r z o q w rcyyo {� o a Ls ` t8a$ � j °41V u F + rc -s,o � 8•t c� s 7 ch x a' a rc> iW 4 d F� o�