Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ex.Merson-Lot9-Aspen-Subd.1977 , ( 1 " \ ; "_I vi , J STATEMENT OF EXEMPTION FROM THE DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, ALAN MERSON and MARIAN MERSON, are the owners of a parcel of land located in Pitkin County, Colorado, more particularly described as: Lot 9, West Aspen Subdivision Filing No.1 County of Pitkin, State of Colorado WHEREAS, there exists on said property a duplex structure in which the owners wish to separate interest without parceling the land on which said structure is situate, and WHEREAS, there has been made an application for exemption from the definition of subdivision for such conveyance of interests pursuant to Section 20-19 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and zoning commission, at its meeting held on September 13, 1977, has determined that such exemption is appropriate provided that: a. neither of the dwelling units shall be leased for a period of less than six (6) months, except for two (2) short term rentals, b. that there be imposed a Park Dedication Fee calculated pursuant to Section 20-18 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, c. a right of first refusal being extended to the then tenants of the units in the event of sale thereof within ninety (90) days after October 11, 1977, that being the date of the grant of the exemption, and WHEREAS, the City Council has found the proposed division of interest in the existing structure to be without the intents and purposes of subdivision regulation provided that the constraints imposed in subsections a, band c, above, proposed by the Planning and zoning commission be maintained. .. THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Aspen does hereby determine that the proposed division of interest' in the duplex structure situate on the above-described land is without *' . . the intents and purposes of subdivision regulation, and does, for such reason, grant an exemption from the definition of subdivision for such action, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that this grant of exemption shall at all times be conditioned on compliance by the owners, their heirs, assigns and successors in interest, with the conditions itemized in subparagraphs a through c above: which conditions shall be Dated: &~ IS /'917 / S d b7~e same. - :;....---.L deemed a covenant running with the I, KATHRYN S. HAUTER, that the Statement of Exemption from the definition of Subdivision was considered and approved by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting held Tuesday, October lr, 1977, at which time the Mayor, STACY STANDLEY, III, was authorized to execute the same on behalf of the City of Aspen. c-'~ ~ KATHRYN S HAUTER, CITY CLERK STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing was acknowledged before me this ~ day of J1t'..<' J ~.J , 1977, by STACY STANDLEY, III and KATHRYN S. HAUTER, personally known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Aspen. My Commission expires, J..~, /1. /q 1 q - - - - tI ,- ~I~~~SS my hand and official seal. .. . - -'Y77iL~- v~0~wVC(1.p~, -::,- Notarygpublic -2- . --=- - CUSTOMER o CITY OF ASPEN FINANCE D-~RTMENT CASHIER\iECEIPT o iC 01.111 LICENSES & PERMITS 01.111 FINES & FORFEITS 511 0 BUSINESS LICENSES 561 o COURT FINES I 512 0 SALES T AX LICENSES 562 0 COURT BONDS. FORFEIT I 513 0 BEER. WINE. LIQUOR LICENSES 563.01 0 TOWING FINES. IMPOUND 514 0 CONTRACTOR'S LICENSES 563.02 0 TOWING FINES. NOT IMPOUND , 516 0 LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION 564 0 TRAFFIC FINES I' 517 0 DOG LICENSE 566 0 FALSE ALARM FINES 518 0 CENTRAL ALARM LICENSE 568 0 DOG IMPOUND FINES 519 0 BICYCLE LICENSES 569 0 OTHER FINES & FORFEITS 520 0 EXCAVATION PERMITS 521 0 CONSTRUCTION PERMITS 01.111 OTHER MISC, REVENUES 522 0 ELECTRICAL PERMITS 579 0 MAPS, CODES, ZONING REGS. 523 0 PLUMBING PERMITS 589 0 OTHERS (DESCRIBE) 524 0 HEATING PERMITS 525 0 SEPTIC TANK PERMITS 01.988.632.03 0 XEROXING (DESCRIBE) ~HER . ACCT. NO. tR -lJ \- ':;'K~ """""", ,"^"" ";'~" / \ \\P('S('11 , III / Lcst.sd ~(\bri Il. J L~( (() JR II) l )UOEK -t1?(\T~~ r I ' , I <;( \ \h 9A~Hr~R VA'rrp,Av~;,2~4-':?:Z I I I RECEIVED FRO" \ \S ~I '\ ~ \ L~ f:---c -r \ ') -----, iF':" r r 7 \ " U). h.~ ..... ,-.:. "..... ROBERT ~ GRUETER ATTORNEY AT LAW FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING 420 E_ MAIN STREET SUITE 206 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 TEl.EPHONE December 12, 1977 0215-41544 AREA CODE 303 Ms. Lois Butterbaugh City Finance Director City of Aspen- Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Park Dedication Fee - Merson Dear Lois: Enclosed herewith please find a check made payable to the City of Aspen in the amount of Three Thousand Six Hundred Forty-Eight Dollars and Twenty-One Cents ($3648.21). This check is in payment of the Park Dedication Fee imposed by the City Council of Aspen when exemption from the definition of subdivision was granted for this property on October 11, 1977. Please note that the payment of this fee is made under protest, as it is my opinion this fee is inappropriate and improper in a situation such as this one. Thank you very much. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT P. GRUETER By BAP:d Encl. xc: Alan Merson Dorothy Nuttall, City Attorney Recorded at 9:31 A.M., Dec ?~, 1977 Julie Hane, Recorder Rer 'tion Number: . ,. ")' "1 ,.......~ ;-'- ...}..1' J/l [;'/.- ... BOfllI341 fMJ 5', STATEMENT OF EXEMPTION FROM THE DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION , , WHEREAS, ALAN MERSON and MARIAN MERSON, are the owners of a parcel of land located in Pitkin county, Colorado, more particularly described as: Lot 9, West Aspen Subdivision Filing No.1 County of Pitkin, State of Colorado WHEREAS, there exists on said property a duplex structure in which the owners wish to separate interest without parceling the land on which said structure is situate, and WHEREAS, there has been made an application for exemption from the definition of subdivision for such conveyance of interests pursuant to Section 20-19 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, at its meeting held on September 13, 1977, has determined that such exemption is appropriate provided that: a. neither of the dwelling units shall be leased for a period of less than six (6) months, except for two (2) short term rentals, b. that there be imposed a Park Dedication Fee calculated pursuant to Section 20-18 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, c. a right of first refusal being extended to the then tenants of the units in the event of sale thereof within ninety (90) days after October 11, 1977, that being the date of the grant of the exemption, and WHEREAS, the City Council has found the proposed division of interest in the existing structure to be without the intents and purposes of subdivision regulation provided that the constraints imposed in subsections a, band c, above, proposed by the Planning and Zoning commission be maintained. THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Aspen does hereby determine that the proposed division of interest in the duplex structure situate on the above-described land is without BOOK 341 P,'Gt 58 the intents and purposes of subdivision regulation, and does, for such reason, grant an exemption from the definition of subdivision for such action, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that this grant of exemption shall at all times be conditioned on compliance by the owners, their heirs, assigns and successors in interest, with the conditions itemized in subparagraphs a through c above: which conditions shall be Dated: &~ IS Ict77 / S d bur~~Yte same. -"9//- /7'. - ~__,-L deemed a covenant running with the I, KATHRYN S. HAUTER, c: that the Statement of Exemption from the definition of Subdivision was considered and approved by the Aspen City Council at its regular me~,):,;rng;'iie-Nl;':.:ruesday, October 11,1977, at which time the Mayor, ".- ~ " ....,,~....... -...-,; .~. . I' . ,..~ ,; " . STACY 'STANDLB:Y'-,\ III, was authorized to execute the same on behalf ..( 'i- . ": -....' ,; ~ , :Of,]:!\: GitX:d ?;spen. , ". ..~II;..: ' ~~', <t' ,.- : , ,..... !. ....", ~ r .' " ) " !; n (~ ..-, \.' ~.'\ " "'. tl ~ l' .,."..", ,rC,/ xl w~ ~. HAUTER, CITY CLERK STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing was acknowledged before me this ~ day of ~J~ J , 1977, by STACY STANDLEY, III and KATHRYN S. HAUTER, personally known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, r~~~+~ely, of the City of Aspen. ~ .' " , -',,:, " (' My Commission expires ( ~ J. I~. /q 1 q , . ?I ~TNESS my hand and official seal. > :) . ,:,~~:~~~".:.- :i,' (' 11\ ,\ ".' ", , ,., "-/h{b JJ ~ e.twuJ-- Notar;~tu~. . -2- ,,)- . '--.., z MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Planning Office (KS) RE: Merson Duplex - Subdivision Exemption DATE: September 22, 1977 j At their September 13th special meeting, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the subdivision exemption request application of Alan Merson. The application proposes to divide an existing duplex at the corner of Cemetary Lane and A1ta Vista Drive (Lot 9, Filing 1 of the West Aspen Subdivision) by tenants in common agreement. Built in 1976, the duplex is located on a 15,000 square foot lot in an R-15 zone district and therefore complies with the minimum lot size of the district, ( I The Planning and Zoning Commission conditioned their recommendation on: 1. A minimum six month lease restriction. 2. A 90 day right of first refusal to existing tenants. 3. Payment of the appropriate park dedication fee. 4. City Engineering approval, By memo dated September 16, 1977, the City Engineer has certified con- formance with subdivision design standards, Therefore, no purpose would be served by the full subdivision review procedure. 1mk FEE SCHEDULE (Subdivision, Exemption from Subdivision, Park Dedication) ~~ ~ff; i~ 8r~, ~ ;U qU~1b1t 'p, 6, &'1.- t22~ Name of Project: Address: Applicant's Name: Applicant's Address: Phone: FOR ZONES WHICH ARE R-1S, R-30, R-40, RR and CONSERVATION the Subdivision Fee Formula is as follows: Conceptual $100 + $S:OO/dwelling unit Preliminary $22.00/dwelling unit Final $3,OO/dwelling unit FOR ALL OTHER ZONES the Subdivision Fee Formula is as follows: Conceptual $100 + $60.00/acre of land Preliminary $280,OO/acre of land Final $35,00/acre of land EXEMPTION FROM THE DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION FEE: $50.00 l"llrrcnl IT,arj-,et value of it percentage of the J.:tnd prc',los('d a" tlh~ J0\,('lopJ:1cnt 5i h::, the I'Cl"Cl'lltil,-,C of th(' liwd b<.:intj dl'~crnl.int'd ill the rilt!' of 11,'0 <'Inll one-Lillf (2)~) acre's for every OIlO thO\l!<Clnd (J, 0(0) TesidcnU; of the l'ropo:-:ed dt.'velop'l1cn::: (th,ll i~~f the nurnl.'{'J': of rc~;jdG'nt.s m111tipli\~d hy ll,'cnty-fivc Lell thOus,lndlli;; (.C02:.) of im <'en' IJl~r n's.idl~llt). The llUI1l:Jer of nlsidcnts ilttributublc to the' development shall L.~ cillcul,ltcd in the following manner: PARK DEDICATION FEE SCHEDULE !.LE~f_.'~e}J_~~ Numher of Rc!}jdc'nls Per'. 6WCYITii~i - -Un} f--- ~lulti-F;nai ly studio one bl'clroom two bC'urClom thrc~' hedroolO and 1. J for (,.Jeh ildditioll,ll 1.0 1.3 2.7 4,0 bedroom Single FiU;li] Y or Duplex one bcdrool:\ tw,. bedrao:'l threc bpdroo:n lInd 1.3 for <..'ilCh udditiollul 1.3 i'.7 4.0 hpcroom A duplt-'x fit.ructurc Rhall con~;titt\te two dwelling unils for th(' l'urp"s~'s 01 this !;uh~;ccli.on. (3) An l.'xi.l.n'p]p of the <lppl iCCltion ()f the ahove formula j!-; a~; f(111()\,'~~, ilfj,;lJlIlinq the con~;lrtlct:ion 01 one s i tl'J I L' f dr.Li] y re:;i dl'nc(. o.::ont,l j n ill'} t.....o br;>droo:II:; 0:1 i! lot cOll{-ainill'l l5,O\)(1 ~;'j\lare feet "..ith (11:ldrf:~'l \',1]U0 of $bS.DOO.OO (or ~4.33 per 1:''J\lfl.I~P fOClt): , ) ~.7 (2 ]'\'droom" 2.7 rNiiu('nts) x 0.0025 .1ere'S x 43,~(,O (!;'l11;\t'(> fecl per ilcn.) x $4.33 (m,'1-- ket va]ll'! c( lilltd per ~quar(' foot) " $l t27].1~ (L) UlliI~i'n\\'('d IrHld ~;~1.:1] h,"'> nppr.:d~;crl ll{: the ('llrr,'nt Ii,"jl-).,.{'l' \',llu(' 01 lilt' f;i lu it\clll(!ill~lil:$ V:l.!uc "Urihut.lI>l,' t(l ['lIrh, 'IlIttI'15, J.;tll',"l, ~;id"W"lk lInd l!tilitj,_.,; if ill~\til]ldl lll1 111l' d;;lc' of 1"'J"mit. iSSlIIJ11C('. Itnl\J"r'\'('d j.'lld'; ,:11<1]) hl' i.l1-'1'l"<ij,-;,,',1 ,lccon'ljn'l to tlH'il" hj(:lH':~1 "ll,l l,('~,:!. \I~;,' taf;iIH] illin COll!iid"l',l. t.ion ('^i~'l it'll !;tl'uctllr..'~; ....'la,Lh,-,t- or Ill'\' th,'y "In~ c(.'!lfolmillq. ~l.\lk"t. \,,',111,' IlI.\Y l,l' ~'lIb~,l,lld i.ltetl by II c111{~\lI:I"'jtcd l'IlITh.ls,' p~ iCl' (jj 1111 ilnll'" l(.tl9th trilll,i<'vtioJ, !lot hie-'It,' l.h<lJl 1......) Y".tr~; 1),1:1). f.'l" by ilny olb.,J' IT'r'',-ll1il't.,j l:\,:.ltl~\r ,'Hl\'idcd ill..t .If;~;{'~;~;('il VClJ\\.i! ill!; ~;I,.JlI I\O! IiI' II'J f",] UJI ,I,; t'vid"Il':'--' of CIll'Jellt l1Idd:.,\ Vol}W'. In th.. l'\'''ld \!," ,'ily ;1I1J tI..", , l,-""" r',.'; 1 . I ~1t;1~.LI ~~ ~~ )1.7.7/ " ROBERT ~ GRUETER ATTORNEY AT LAW FIRST NATION....L BANI< BUILDING P. O. BOX ....;2.211 ....SPEN. COLORADO 81e11 TELE,.MONE September 20, 1977 .2....415.... .....11:.... CODE 303 Mr. Mick Mahoney city Manager Aspen, colorado 81611 /~I~ - ~ JI#fA IA 1.cU"1Ief- r::ND DELIVERED Re: Park Dedication Fee Merson Duplex Dear Mick: The purpose of this letter is to ask you to approve the following park dedication fee to be paid under protest by Alan and Marion Merson, as required in order to obtain approval for their request to be exempted from the definition of subdivision. According to my calculations the Mersons should be required to pay a fee of $3,647.2L. This is based upon an application of that formula found in ~7-143 of the Aspen city code to a , duplex, each side of which contains three (3) bedrooms, with ~~~the current market value of the unimproved property equal to ~~ $70BOOO, a value given to me by James Mollica, reduced by ad ~1""!'f~ val l."'" taxes paid on the property in the amount of $261.02. i~~ I would appreciate it if you would see if this fee meets with 1 your approval as we are scheduled to go before the city council for subdivision exemption on the 26th day of September, 1977. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you very much. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT P. GRUETER ~~ If) Bj 1J-t, ~ r /;. /; d;>- 'i3!oot A~ peterf3t' BAP:d xc: Alan Merson Dorothy Nuttall, Esq. MEMORANDUM FRO~': Clayton Heyring Mick Mahoney TO: DATE: RE: September 21, 1977 Park Dedication Fee Valuation Merson Duplex The accompanying letter from Brooke Peterson is acceptable in determining the park dedication fee valuation for the Merson duplex. Please consider the value of the lots to be $70.000. Thank you. PSM/pm " cc: Brooke A. Peterson 1 . , . , Aspen City Council OetDbDr II, 1977 ,----._--~------_._. -_.--------_.._" ----- -------_._-- - -_.--- ~ishart moved to table this license application for specified problems with .aarshal and health d<.:partmcnt are listed, and the consideration of a tavern 'and reschedule the issue at the applicant's discretionj seconded by Councilman i. All in favor, with the exception of Mayor Standley. Uotion carried. ,~ -T- I II ,I ,I ,I ! ~OIVISION EXEMPTION - Herson Duplex * ren Smith, planning department, told Council this request involves an existing duplex. is was tabled from the last meeting because the attorney wanted to investigate if the rk dedication fee had already been satisfied by the donation of land. They have not ~n able to find any substantiation to that effect. l1s. Smith told Council they are king for approval with the payment of the park dedication fcc, 90 day first right of fusal, and a six month lease restriction. Brooke Peterson said regarding the 90 day rst right of refusal, there are no tenants, they are owners, and they are willing to :ept the conditions. ~ncilwoman Johnston moved to approve the exemption from subdivision with the conditions the payment of the park dedication fee, 90 day right of first refusal and six month ~imum lease; seconded by Councilman Wishart. All in favor, motion carried. ) GRANDE SPA, in Stanford, planning office, told Council that SPA's ar~~dopted by ordinance and ~sented Ordinance *54 for consideration. The plan presented resulted from a study ;sioo and includes (1) area dedicated to greenway area adjacent to the river, (2) SPA ;ludes a recreational park with a future building zone, (3) SPA with a fraternal lodge ich is involved in the Andre's trade. lncilwoman Johnston said she assumed that the recreation could in time be passive :reation. Councilman Hershey asked why the right-of-way road from Spring street did : go through. Planner Bill Kane told Council that a 60 foot right-of- wey was needed :h 24 feet of paving, drainage system, etc., and there is not enough room without cutting : the ball field. z(ane said there was nothing to prevent building a road in the future. le explained that the playing field is B feet above grade, a berm is needed, and there a 3 to 1 slope. Incilman Hershey moved to read Ordinance #54, Series of 1977; seconded by Councilman ;hart. All in favor, motion carried. ORDmANCE *54 (Series of 1977) AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE APPROXIIlATELY 11. 50 ACRES OF LAND OWNED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN A.'W KNOWN AS THE "RIO GRANDE" PROPERTY, ACCORDING TO AN APPROVED SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA ~~STER PLAN FOR THE SITE, THE ELEMENTS OF WrlICH ~~STER PLAN WILL CONSTITUTE THE DEVELOP lENT REGU- LATIONS FOR THE AREA ALL AS PROVIDED BY ARTICLE VII OF CHAPTER 24 OF : THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE was read by the city clerk Incilwoman Johnston moved to adopt Ordinance #54, Series of 1977, on first reading; :onded by Councilman Wishart. mcilman Parry said he did not think this should be planned without putting a street in ~re. Councilman Parry said he hated to see the street closed off. Councilman Parry ~d if a road would be open to the parking lot. Kane said that access to Aspen One a legal concept and a pencil concept to the parking lot. Councilman Hershey said he dd not go along with this concept if there was no road at all. Councilman Parry .nted out the closure of the street would create traffic on r1ill for people that live that end of town. le told Council that the City spent 1.75 million dollars for this piece of property. there is to be a road there, that's all there will be, a road and a parking lot. The mcil wants something other than just a parking lot. Mayor Standley pointed out that the City built a road there, it would have to meet the same standards set for everyone. !e said if this is adopted, it will enable the City to subdivide and trade land with .re ~lrych. Councilman Hershey said he support a road being built through the property. :1 call vote; Councilmcrnbers Wishart, aye; Van Ness, aye; Parry, aye; Johnston, aye; 'shey, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. TLE A~NIE SKI AREA - Joint Review Process or Standley said this is a request to ask the City to enter into the joint review cess for Little Annie. Mayor Standley removed himself from the discussion; Councilman .shey removed himself also as he might have an interest in the matter as a law firm. Dcilman Parry was appointed to run the meeting. ~ Garfield, representing the proposed Little Annie Ski Area, was asking Council to join the joint review process to study the area to find out whether it has any merit as a area. This is not asking for approval, just asking to get the process going. The nt process is a Method of studying the ski area. Prior to this time there has been no rdination of governmental entities, which are 25 state agencies, Forest Service, and a1 governmental authorities. There will be a committee formed with representatives each governmental agency. The planning office submitted a memorandum, which brings Council up-to-date on this project. On September 19, Pitkin County agreed to go into , joint review process, and also agreed to act as the lead agency. The Forest Service also agreed to enter the process. ...... Regular Meeting Aspe~. City Council September 2G, 1977 HOLY ('nos;. 'J'M~J~ F()IWE In:('()~'f.11,:tlP^'1'10N Ci ty ManiHler r1.lllOJl('Y told COllllcil he had wanted to make the wording of the resolution ~;o th..t. it W/IU]r!ll', Ill' so open cnded and make a commitment for the City. 'l'his has bC'I'n dOIlt' now. ;John :;t;lllf\)rd, planning office, reque~tcc1 that Council accept what has been adopted j II I hI..' 110] Y ('1 o:;~; Ci tizcns Task }o'orcc resolution as the master plan for the Holy Cro5~ prop('rry. Cuuncilman Wishart moved to adopt the recommendations contained in the Holy Cross Citizen': 'l'aHk F'orcc resolution as amended; seconded by Councilwoman Johnston. Last time Mahoney felt that the City would be giving up the right of decisions and the task force would be assuming the responsibility of the building. Councilman IJcn;ht'Y ~;d i d he saw nothing objectionable in the ten points. Stanford told Council they were tryin1j l' get the Holy Cross building registered with the National Trust. Councilwoman Johnston asked if there would be problems on not owning the land for 20 years. City Attorney NutL, ~aid the City could still get loans on the escrow even though we don't have the deed. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Behrendt moved to expand the facrlity planning board to include Dick Carter, Mary Helen Cattell, Barbara Conviser, Nick'DeWolfe, Marty Kahn, Janet Landry, Diane Lcwy, Roger Moyer, Nos Pouliot, Bob Starodoj, Carla Stroh, Missy Thorn, Laura Wheeler, Larry Yaw; seconded by Councilman Hershey. Janet Landry told the Council that this is a development board only and is appointed for one year. Their job is to make up the by-laws and procedures for a visual arts center and bring them back to Council. All in favor, motion carried. SUBDIVISION EXEIlPTION - Merson Duplex *' John Stanford, planning office, told Council this is a request for exemption from subdivi- sion for an existing duplex located on Snowbunny lane. The P & Z has reviewed this and given their approval with the four conditions identified in a memorandum to Council. Brooke Peterson addressed the payment of the park dedication fee. Peterson said this is an existing subdivision and the park dedication fee in this instance is not proper at ther, is no increased use of City facilities being created. Councilwoman Johnston asked if the dedication fee was paid at the time this was subdivided. Peterson answered no. Council- woman Johnston pointed out the City Code said it has to be paid. Peterson said at the time this was subdivided land was dedicated for parks for the West Aspen subdivision. City Attorney Nuttall said that may make some difference and is worth looking into. Councilman Hershey moved to table this item until the dedication is resolved; seconded by Councilwoman Johnston. All in favor, motion carried. FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL - GignDux/Lynch Stanford told Council this subdivision is for the creation of two lots of property behind the Concept 600 building. There is an existing building on one of the lots, and there is proposed to be a Sears building on the second lot. The P & Z gave a use determination for a Sears store in that location. Pat Lynch told Council there is presently a very old house on the lot, and the person living in the house plans to try to move the house. Stanford told Council there were a number of problems but these have been worked out to the satisfaction of the planning office and engineering department. The applicant is urging that the park dedication fee be paid only on th newly created lot. Councilman Parry asked if the project had employee housing, and if not, why is the City collecting a park dedication fee. Stanford answered the Code required in non-residential areas a 6 per ~ent land value fee. Councilman Behrendt asked what the guarantees were that the landscaping that is proposed will actually be done. Albie Kern told Council there is a subdivision agreement with the City. Mayor Standley asked if the alley had been vacated by the City. Kern said he had had a title company to a very thorough search. When Hs. Gignoux bought the property, she received a deed to one-half of the alley. The City gave a Mayor's deed. The title company found no proof of any vacation of the alley. Kern stated as far as he was concerned that is a City alley. Mayor Standley directed Hahoney to open up that alley. Councilwoman Johnston asked the size of the lots. Stanford answered lot I is 10,890 squarv feet; lot 2 is 12,863 square feet. Councilwoman Johnston read from the Municipal Code concerning payment of the park dedication fee. Ms. Nuttall said she did not think the City could charge for lot 1, which will not be developed. Kern said they were granting a perpetual easement on the property for 10 feet from Pat Lynch to the City. Kern explained that Bleeker street is shown as 60 feet wide all the way through. In fact, Blecker street is not 60 feet wide; it narrows down as a result of many Mayor's deeds given out to adjdc- ent land owners. The City is taking 10 feet from lot 1. City Engineer Ellis told Council that every utility but Mountain Bell was prepared to underground down there. Councilman Behrendt moved to approve the subdivision subject to escrow or performance bond I to the City l-tanagcr for landscaping and completing thZlt plan; subject to norm.:ll encroach- I. ment provisions and agreement concerning the metal building on lot 2, and SUbject to the " seven points identified by Dave Ellis in his memorandum of September 22; and subject to till' pllyment of the park dedication fee on lot 1 only at this time and it is not to be accepted as a waiver for the rest of the lots if they are to be further developed; seconded by COllIll"i 111ldll Ni:;lidrt. All in favor, motion carried. ,"I'.' .I~' '~:~:..r, ~UUUIVISION - Schiff apartments }O::"Tf'n Smith, lol."lllninq al lOl.! r:..;' 1',1'; .'1. that most 11,j"H. ,1.1'11 ofrirl', told this is conceptual ~ubdjvi!,:j011 fllr "Il existing building n,;. ::["\'" '.howed Council .1 ,,1,1 of tfh~ ~~llt"!'\.I"ion and requested n'~.l ~ ':.;""lIls be waivl'd until tJh' prt.dil:dll.ll i' 1,1~ll stage. The LJuild- -.. ~ -- ROBERT ~ GRUETER ATTORNEY AT LAW FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING 420 E. MAIN STREET SUITE 206 ASPEN, COLORADO a1611 TELEPHONE November 1, 1977 9215_41544 AREA CODE 303 Ms. Karen Smith county Planning Dept. Ci ty Hall Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Merson Dear Karen: Per your request, please find enclosed a copy of the Memorandum from Mick Mahoney. Should you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT P. GRUETER "y,~ ~o ke A. Peterson BAP:d Encl. .... 'I /6-717 ~ ~ i~ ~/J: J. JPiu; ~ z., WMA. ~'-~hJe ~. Ft. d{jJC4.A'J)1 -f-&. . ~~ feItt~ . . vc-- i ! Ii i I 'I ,I 11.~ ',fiidd, ~~ .1 ~~~~ ~diiJ~ ~ Wi' tL- ddr ' d- fk~ p~ is. ~~. I ji I I I Ii i ., ,;' .1 M E M 0 RAN DUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Planning Office (KS) RE: Merson Duplex - Subdivision Exemption DATE: September 22, 1977 At their September 13th special meeting, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the subdivision exemption request application of Alan Merson. The application proposes to divide an existing duplex at the corner of Cemetary Lane and Alta Vista Drive (Lot 9, Filing 1 of the West Aspen Subdivision) by tenants in common agreement. Built in 1976, the duplex is located on a 15,000 square foot lot in an R-15 zone district and therefore complies with the minimum lot size of the district. The Planning and Zoning Commission conditioned their recommendation on: 1. A minimum six month lease restriction. 2. A 90 day right of first refusal to existing tenants, 3. Payment of the appropriate park dedication fee, 4. City Engineering approval, By memo dated September 16, 1977, the City Engineer has certified con- formance with subdivision design standards, Therefore, no purpose would be served by the full subdivision review procedure. lmk 1 NOTE-O-GRAM<B> ~ ~ THE DRAWING SaARD . BOX ~D5 . DALLAS, TEXAS "CITY OF ASPEN ~, P. O. B~ . ASPEN, CIJL~OO B1611 " MESSAGE REPLY 1- ~ ~ ~ljl TO r-~-v1... ~~~ DATE ~: ~ ~ &;~I.....'; L 41 '0 /7/''7J /) t-Ud-4h' DATE 1I~l77 ..;T A~ H.C- f'/?O~Ie.--~ t-<.Ith:. ft[..~ ~4,"'/ 4A/tc{ Um.J/re~~ cyrvr.} 4- ~n4/ ~ 'i<.~, BY ~~ z: SIGN"ED '_ y...,,,', u ,'y rr J c, r ", [~ r "' -- ~ .~ f.15,77 .( "it!- ~ ~ '1 ~ ~ ~ ! I .! /10 -/~/~ ~ ~ yl"--'- t :l4tt ~ cLJ.. ~ ~~ ~;~U~'cJI.t Pwf ~ if- ~ I f! ~ 4.,/~~.. -<I ~;J __ ~/(- ~/~~ ~ tkt- ~ .Uc.-~ , ,l : i II ,I I~ 10 ~p'UW-- ~ j, I ,I : i I. 'It> Iky I 2 "MA) ; 1~~' 11!4,~, ~ .1 ii , " , .. , : j i \ . I M E M 0 RAN DUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Office (KS) RE: Merson Duplex Condominiumization - Subdivision Exemption Request DATE: September 2, 1977 This application proposes to divide a one and one-half story duplex located at the corner of Cemetary Lane and A1ta Vista Drive; more specifically on Lot 9, Filing 1 of the West Aspen Subdivision, Zoning is R-15 which allows a duplex on 15,000 square feet for previously subdivided lots. The duplex was built in 1976 by Alan Merson who now wishes to divide the property through a tenants in common agreement, Unless we hear differently from the City Engineer, we recommend approval of the subdivision exemption inasmuch as the improvements meet the current subdivision design standards. Therefore, no purpose is served by the full subdivision review. In accordance with Council policy regarding housing impact, we recom- mend approval be conditioned on: 1, A minimum six month lease restriction, 2, A 90 day exclusive non-assignable right of first refusal to the existing tenant to purchase the unit at current fair market value, An additional condition should be payment of the appropriate park dedi- cation fee, ~~ ~. I> 1~ " APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION Pursuant to Section 20-19 of Chapter 20 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, ALAN MERSON and MARION MERSON, hereby apply for an exemption from the definition of the term "Sub- division" with respect to the real property described as: LOT 9, of West Aspen Subdivision, Filing No.1, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. The applicant submits that the exemption in this case would be appropriate. The application involves subdivision of an existing duplex. The owners of the property will be tenants-in-common and there will be a declaration of restrictions applicable to the property and does not in any way increase the land use im- pact of that property. The applicant submits that such an exemp- tion in the instant case would not conflict with the intent and purpose of the subdivision regulations which are directed to assist, among other things, orderly, efficient and integrated development of the City of Aspen; to insure the proper distri- bution of population; to coordinate the need for public services; and to encourage well planned subdivision. They are directed to considerations of subdivision design and improvements and to rest- rict such building where it is inappropriate after considering its land use impact. In the present application those decisions cannot be made as the building exists, and the density would not effect the prevailing contemplated or desired population density on this property. We would greatly appreciate your consideration of this matter at your next regular meeting.