Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ex.810 W Smuggler St.1977OWL 61J W. 6MUGGLER E ram- �vpu� APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM SUBDIVISION 1. APPLICANT'S NA-IE: Barbara Moore, a married woman, previously known as Barbara McLoughlin. Title presently stands in the name of Barbara K. McLoughlin. The current encumbrances on the property are a first deed of trust to secure to Plesa Federal Savings & Loan Association a loan presently in the amount of approximately $40,000. A copy of an Ownership and Encumbrance Statement by the title company is attached hereto as "Exhibit A". The applicant is a 50% stockholder in Aspen Broadcasting Company, which is the owner of KSNO Radio, and has been a resident of Aspen for in excess of 15 years. 2. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY: Lots P and Q, Block 8, City and Townsite of Aspen, also known as 810 West Smuggler. This property is the first house on the north side of Smuggler Street (which is the street leading down to the City shops) to the west of 7th Street. One undeveloped lot on the northwest corner of the intersection of Smuggler and 7th separates this property from 7th Street. 3. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: The two city lots are improved with the construction approximately in the center thereof in 1971 of a duplex building containing up and down identical units having three bedrooms and two baths in each unit. The improvements also contain a two -car garage, laundry room and storage rooms in a lower basement level below the stacked living units. A xerox copy of a survey of these lots which was used for construction loan purposes is attached hereto as "Exhibit B". Condominium Maps are currently being prepared, which will show more precisely the exact location and size of the current improvements and will be provided, if available, prior to hearing. 4. CURRENT TENANTS: The owner of the premises has retained the upper unit for her own living purposes and at the present time is not occupied by any tenants. The lower unit is currently under a one-year lease by Fir. Larry Carter and his family. However, Mr. Carter is building his own home at the present time and will be ready for occupancy shortly, and it is his desire to be released from the lease so that it is not expected that any tenants will be occupying the premises at the time of any exemption approvals or condominiumization. 5. REASON FOR EXEMPTION: This application is for the exemption of the application of the City's Subdivision Regulations in order to allow the condominiumization of the above described duplex. Section 20-19(b) authorizes the City Council to exempt any divisions which are not within the intent and purposes of the subdivision regulations. The intent and purposes of the subdivision regulations are set forth in Section 20-2 of the Municipal Code, which purposes are summarized as follows: (a) To establish standards for subdivision design and improvements, e.g. standards for roads, paving, signs, lighting, drainage, curbs, etc. (b) To improve land records and survey monuments by establishing standards for plats, survey monuments, etc. (c) To safeguard the interests of the public and the subdivider and to provide consumer protection for the purchaser, e.g. to make sure the purchaser gets easements and adequate service hookups for utilities, access, etc. The zoning regulations (with which we are not concerned here) control the impacts on the community by regulating the density and types of use. Subdivision regulations assure the provision of certain amenities according to certain minimum design standards, so that a lot buyer can be guaranteed of getting utility easements and hookups, access, and paved roads, etc. It is clear that the intent and purposes of the subdivision regulations to assure these amenities do not apply to this already constructed house which was built on a City of Aspen Townsite lot. This city lot already has a paved city street running passed it, as plotted on the original townsite. It already has utilities installed and operable. The plat and survey monuments were accord- ing to the original City Townsite Plat. It is clear that the purchaser already has his water, sewer and other utilities in place, and there is no question about these being provided. Therefore, it is submitted that the condominiumization of the duplex which will technically be a subdivision, but the only effect of which is to change the form of ownership from one person owning two units to two persons each owning one unit, is not the type of subdivision which is within the intent and purposes of the subdivision regula- tions. Although irrelevant to the particular question here, it is equally clear that this type of change in the form of ownership does not create any additional impacts on density under the zoning codes because the people will be in both units whether they own them or rent them, and the impact on the community are identical. The Housing Director with the concurrence and cooperation of the Planning Office conducted a survey which developed evidence that most duplexes being condominiumized were purchased by local residents and employees, since two lower priced units were more within the financial reach of local residents than was one large and comparatively expensive duplex. On the basis of this evidence, the Housing Director and Planning Office concurrently recommended that the City Council adopt the policy of exempting such condominiumizations from the subdivision regulation application. The City Council has followed such recommendation and established such a policy approving these exemptions upon certain conditions, which policy was first articulated in the City Council Minutes of March 28, 1977, copies of which are attached hereto as "Exhibit C". In accordance with the policy of maintaining such units available for employee housing and discouraging tourist accommoda- tions, the applicant has prepared a proposed covenant against short term rentals providing for six-month minimum lease terms, a copy of which covenant is attached hereto as "Exhibit D". The form of the applicant's proposed certificate of exemption from subdivision which would be recorded with the County Clerk to give notice of the exemption is attached hereto as "Exhibit E". The park dedication fee calculation is attached as "Exhibit F". Respectfully submitted, i � f • _,"� .Applicant -2- Ftequl,ir Meaoting A.pe-n City Council November 1.4, 1977 Cottrell told Council he felt there wa:. a nred for a 3.2 beer place such as the Brass Bed used to be., if it wuru run correctly. CottreTl stated it wa:o not worthwhile- to his establishment as it stands. Mayor. Standley asked for opponents. There were none. Mayor Standley closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Johnston moved to approve the application for a beer and wine license for CDC Inc., as the needs of: the ncighbor.hood and desires of the inhabitants have not been met, and the moral and financial character of the applicant has been proven good; should the business sell, the same type of operation should be conducted; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. PURCHASE AND SALE - Buster McGee's Buster McGee's Jolly Jester Lennie Oates, representing the applicants, told Council the theme will be an Italian restaurant and the maitre'd and bartender will do magic tricks. The stockholders will be Rob Roy and Loyce Swift as joint tenants and Robert and JunO, Sheets as joint tenants. Councilwoman Johnston moved that the City Council approve the application for a three- way restaurant license for the Jolly Jester, Inc. that the needs of the neighborhood and the desires of the inhabitants have been shown; should there be a sale of the premises that the same type of operation be done, or they return to Council for approval of the . type of operation; seconded by Councilman Parry. Oates explained to Council that this is a transfer of stock, and the Sheets and Swifts are acquiring Aspen International Restaurant, Inc. The Sheets and Swifts intend to dissolve the corporation and form the Jolly Jester, Inc. in January of 1978. Oates,objected to insistance on part of the Council that it maintain the character of the operation. Council- woman Johnston told Oates that as the premises is a licensed operation, Council can specify the character and the use. Oates withdrew his objection. All in favor, motion carried. Aspen Steak Co. STOCK TRANSFER/PURCBASE & SALE/18-E - Aspen Steak Company/Hyman Street Deli Pur. and Sale 18-E Tom Dunlop, Sanitarian, told Council that the Aspen Steak Company has had existing conditions that have not been corrected and have had some of these since 1976. Dunlop asked that this license approval be conditioned on having the establishment brought into compliance. Peter Brown told Council that an existing door between the two premises would be opened up so they would be contiguous. It was pointed out that the Aspen Steak Company had started remodelling without a building permit. This has since been obtained. Councilwoman Johnston moved that Council approve the application of PEJO, Inc. d/b/a/ Aspen Steak Company for a stock transfer and extension of a three-way into Hyman Street Deli conditioned upon final approval of the building inspector and final approval of Tom Dunlop before signature of Mayor Standley; if there is any sale or change in the operation, it returns to Council; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Standley said the City is getting a bunch of marginal operations that cannot make it and resulting in too many transfers and turn offs. The Council is perpetrating marginal operations by letting anyone get into it. Councilwoman Johnston pointed out these people are businessmen who read the market, and if they want to take the risk and think they can do better than someone else, that's their chance. Mayor Standley said the reason that Dunlop, the Sanitarian, is having so much trouble is that these operations are not making enough money to do the upgrade work that is required. Councilman Hershey said he would like to see an economic study on what the City needs in the way of liquor licenses and restaurants. Mayor Standley said the Council, as local licensing authority, can say that the demands have been met, that the applicant has not proved to the satisfaction of the licensing authority that demand has not been met in the City of Aspen and deny tlee liquor license. Ulrych/Eagle/City SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION - Ulrych/Eagle's/City subdv, exempt. Planner Bill Kane told Council this is a request for a conveyance of 22,276 square feet of City owned land to Andre Ulrych, who will in turn use the same to construct an Eagle's Club. The planning office submits there would be no purpose served by going through full subdivision in that most of the planning concerns for the site have been addressed through the SPA master plan. The planning office recommends that Council approve this exemption. Kane had a survey and a description, which would be on the quit claim deed for the Mayor's signature at the time of conveyance. This is all pinned on the final plat approval; the City will pick up 2.2 acres, land will go to the Eagle's and the rest will become an official subdivision. Councilwoman Johnston said she felt this was awfully patchwork. Kane said actually this has been methodically thought out, although there have been problems brought on by unclear title on portions of the land. The creation of the lot to relocate the Eagle's is a subdivision activity; the planning office is asking that Council exempt the creation of the lot from subdivision. The argument is that the planning for the lot has been taken care care through the master planning for the Rio Grande as a whole. Councilwoman Johnston asked if this violated the growth management plan. Kane answered technically not because it was happening in a zoning district that is not regulated by the GMP. Councilman Behrendt moved to approve the subdivision exemption; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. Moore Subdv. SUBDIVISION EXL•'MPTI_ON_ - Moore Duplex Exempt. Kane told Council this is a request for a subdivision exemption to handle condominiumizatio of a s': Ituqular MceLing A:ipun C.it.y Council Novemhtr 14, 1,07 of a structure. 'There were two concorns voi(•ed by thn P s Z. There had huen an extra unit in the basement. The Nuildinq dcpart.mont invostig;itod this. There in a November 14 memorandum from Roger Hokenstad who inspectcd Lhr. buiIdirnl. Th„re was a court ordoi to remove the third unit. Clay toll. Mcyriny, huildinq inspector, found that <111. thine:, had been dealt with uxcepL the 220 clect:ricity. The plannin<f office rccounilends that Council approve the subdivision exemption subject to the three standard criteria, (1) six month - min.imum lease, (2) 90 day first right of refusal, and (3) and payment of the p� l sicduza- tion fee, and that prior to recording the 220 service be. removed. Councilman Hehrcndt moved to approve the subdivision exemption with the three_ standard conditions as listed and that the 220 be removed; seconded by Councilman Van Noss. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Hershey. Motion carried. SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION - Heller Triplex Kane explained to Council this is a three wait triplex on the corner of Waters and West End. City Engineer Dave Ellis inspected the site and found the sidewalk non-existent and asked they install a sidewdlk. The planning office recommends approval of the subdivision exemption with six month minimum lease restriction, 90 day right of first refusal, and payment of park dedication fees, and satisfaction of the City Engineer's requirement to install a sidewalk. Kane told Council that all units were about the same size, 800 square feet. Gideon Kaufman, representing Heller, told Council that upon'inspection of the premises, it shows that no one has sidewalks within two blocks of the place. Kaufman suggesting joining a sidewalk improvement district and not putting in a sidewalk until other people do. Councilwoman Johnston moved to approve the subdivision exemption with the four conditions as outlined; seconded by Councilman Hershey. Councilman Van Ness stated he had never seen anything beneficial about sidewalks in a residential area. Cement pavements is inconsistent with what Council stands for. Council- woman Johnston withdrew the condition for sidewalks from her motion. City Engineer Ellis told Council that generally he has not asked for sidewalks where there are none or where it does not appear to be likely in the future. This is a very high density area, and the sidewalk is approved on the sidewalk plan approved in 1975. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Behrendt. Motion carried. SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION - Carter Duplex Kane told Council this Duplex is located at 729 West Francis. The planning office recommends approval with the three standard conditions; six month rental restriction, 90 day right of first refusal, and payment of the park dedication fee. Councilwoman Johnston moved to approve the subdivision exemption with the conditions as outlined; seconded by Councilman Hershey. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - Use of Revenue Sharing Funds Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. Councilwoman Johnston pointed out that the Federal Government will accept a mid -census figure, which is being done now, and which may enlarge Aspen's revenue sharing funds. Mayor Standley told Council it is a Federal requirement to have a public hearing on the use of revenue sharing funds, which are a part of the City's budget. Mayor Standley closed the public hearing. ORDINANCE #54, SERIES OF 1977 - Rio Grande SPA rezoning Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Standley closed the public hearing. Councilman Van Ness moved to read Ordinance #54, Series of 1977; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #54 (Series of 1977) AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE APPROXIMATELY 11.50 ACRES OF LAND OWNED BY THE CITY OI° ASPEN AND KNOWN AS THE "RIO GRANDE" PROPERTY, ACCORDING TO AN APPROVED SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA MASTER PLAN FOR THE SITE, THE ELEMENTS OF WHICH MASTER PLAN WILL CONSTITUTE THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR THE AREA ALL AS PROVIDED BY ARTICLE VII OF CHAPTER 24 Or THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE was read by the city clerk Councilwoman Johnston moved to adopt Ordinance #54, Series of 1977, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Behrendt, aye; Hershey, aye; Johnston, aye; Parry, aye; Van Ness, aye; Wishart, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #56, SERIES OF 1977 - Water Main Extension Outside City Limits Mayor Standley opened the faublic hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Standley closed the public hearing. Heller Subdv. Exempt. I Carter Subdv. Exempt. Revenue Sharing Funds Ord. #54 Rio Grande SPA Ord. #56 Water extension AU44 /it arc fi ieu++-w-- iGwt x��.l (&,ff � l4at.( lNA-�Ntf f(uy 4 b y/pwq� 3 ws ewe ✓w � i� G,,,u n,a. ru�IcL yoQ� i,�azt . �t-final �� ftr�Tc-ae�. TO: FROM: MEMORANDUM Aspen City Council Planning Office (KS) RE: Subdivision Exemption Applications: Moore Duplex Heller Triplex Carter Duplex DATE: November 9, 1977 Over the last several weeks, the Planning and Zoning Commission has considered several subdivision exemption applications involving two duplexes and one triplex. Each of them requests permission to condo- miniumize. Because City Council has not acted on the proposed condo- miniumization ordinance, the City Attorney has advised us that we may not consider any factors regarding the conversion's impact on the supply of low and moderate income housing other than adopted Council policy to condition such conversions on a 90 day right of first refusal, six month minimum lease restriction, and payment of the appropriate park dedication fee. The details of each application are summarized below. The Planning Office.will bring copies of the improvement survey to your meeting. ,*MOORE. DUPLEX This duplex owned by Barabar McLaughlin Moore is located at 810 hest Smuggler, Lots P and Q, Block 8, of the original Aspen townsite. The lot constitutes 6,000 square feet, which in the R-6 zone district, is substandard in size by 3,000 square feet. It has been the practice of the City not to look to zoning compliance when reviewing subdivision exemption for condominiumizations of existing buildings. The standard rather has been compliance jgith subdivision design standards such as (1) roads, paving, and curbs; (2) land surveys, and (3) proper utilities access and easements. The City Engineer, by memorandum dated October 11, 1977, has certified that the improvement survey shows such conformance. He noted, however, that the second story balcony is built at the property line in violation of the side setback requirement of five feet. Planning and Zoning discussed this peculiarity, but determined, again, that this was a matter of -zoning non-compliance of an existing structure and that it was not warranted or appropriate to deal with it through the subdivision exemption procedure. In view of the application's compliance with subdivision design standards, full subdivision processing is not necessary. The change in form of ownership does not have any additional land use impacts and thus exemption from the full procedure is appropriate. The Planning and Zoning Commission therefore recommended approval at their October 18th regular meeting subject to: 1. The 6 month minimum lease restriction. 2. 90 day right of first refusal to existing tenants. 3. payment of the appropriate park dedication fee (which the City Manaqer and the Planning Office have checked and certified). s . Memorandum Page Two November 9, 1977 One final condition attached by the Planning and Zoning Commission was to correct any single family deed restriction pertaining to the property. One P&Z member pointed out that he believed there was such a deed restriction. Ms. Moore's attorney, however, has not found such to exist and we are checking further with the City Attorney. We have also asked Clayton Meyring to inspect the premises and certify that an illegal third unit in the basement has been removed. In summary, then, there are 5 conditions that might be attached to any approval. HELLER TRIPLEX Nick Heller requests subdivision exemption to condominiumize a triplex located on Lots R and S, Block 113, Aspen, just northwest of the corner of Waters Avenue and West End Street. Zoning for the area is R11F. The lot is 6,9UO square feet; if zoning compliance.were an issue here, the lot would be only slightly deficient as three 2-bedroom units would require 6,300 square feet. The City Engineer has reviewed the plat and indicates that most engine- ering concerns are satisfied. Dave Ellis does ask that a condition of subdivision exemption approval be construction of a sidewalk along the West End Street frontage. The applicant has provided us additional information regarding disposi- tion of the units, each of which is 800 square feet. Mr. Heller currently resides in one and will continue to do so, he plans to rent long term the second. The third unit will be sold at the price of approximately $65,000. Inasmuch as the intent of the subdivision regulations have been met, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval at their October 18th meeting subject to: 1. 6 month lease restriction 2. 90 day right of first refusal to existing tenants 3. payment of the park dedication fee 4. Satisfaction of the City Engineer's requirement of a sidewalk CARTER DUPLEX The Carter duplex is located on a 6,000 square foot lot in the R-6 zone district at 729 West Francis Street. Annie and Harvey Carter are asking subdivision exemption approval in order to condominiumize the seven -year -old two story structure. Dave Ellis has made a site inspec- tion and reviewed the improvement survey and makes favorable comment. We again find that the change in o<<rnership has no additional land use impact, and inasmuch as the intent of the subdivision regulations have been met, the Planning and Zoning Conlnission recommended approval of the exemption at their November 1st meetint subject to: 1. Six month minimum lease restriction 2. 90 day right of first refusal to existing tenants 3. Payment of the appropriai:e park dedication fee Fae MONK JOSEPH E. EDWARDS JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW THE WHEELER OPERA HOUSE P. O. BOX 1541 ASPEN. COLORADO 8161 1 (303) 926-71 16 November 16, 1977 k� Ms. Karen Smith nn` .11Y City -County Planning Office Aspen City Hall Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 \ Re: McLoughlin ,fc Dear Karen: I am enclosing a xerox copy of the deed by which the Paepcke life insurance trust gave title under warranty to Lots P and Q of Block 8 which is the Barbara McLoughlin duplex property and. you will note that in this deed there are no conditions making the title subject to any covenant that it only be used for single family dwelling. Such a covenant or restriction has never shown up on any of the title insurance commitments we have had. Therefore, we have no evidence that any such restriction ever existed. I cannot imagine that if Mrs.Paepcke had in fact placed such a restriction on the property that she would not have re- ferred to it in the deed by which she conveyed title to the McLoughlin's. It would seem to me that since we have been unable to locate the existence of any such covenant other than Mr. Baranko's statement, it would seem to me appropriate to require the P and Z or perhaps the City attorney to develop some further evidence that such a covenant exists since we cannot determine that that is the case. All of this, of course, is apart from the fact that it is not the appropriate business of the city subdivision exemption procedures to be enforcing any private covenants or deed restrictions and there is no provisions in the Code anywhere so authorizing. If further research is required on this matter, please advise. Very truly yours, Jos 6�Q. E wards Jr. JEE:meh • ,,qw.,,,, . ., .. .«-�, +.Mc»�:*y,,.�rw-+.m..-•<-:.•... . ��r .....,.�...,., ..:arms:�ti.�`rs��:ay...�.,.,........_...,. ....�-... _-. .. 1976 1t.e reaaa l�_00*'elo'k._� x. ! lteepdos No.__��'.���• +,••' al�!.%C_RI:1Flt�_..Jteeeedee. N THOMAS V. MCLOUGHLIN whose address is Aspen County of Pitkin , and State of Colorado , for the consideration of Ten dollars and other valuable consiJeration dpl)Va( in hand paid, hereby sell(s) and convey(s) to BARBANN K. McLOUGFILIN whose address is Aspen Pitkin , and State of Colorado i Cc_n,e of Pitkin County of the a '.,«'ir.g real property in the , and a, of Colorado, to snit: Lots P 6 Q, Block B, rit,f and Townsite of Tt:ccn, t^^ether with all improvements thereon. with all its appurtenances [l1¢;lsd/r�LLft(�jL l►ti'4n5l,gNbtt4/ctgiyAjlllhflvt/(i¢e�/(t� l Signed and delivered this 3rd day .f December . 1976 In the presence of \../....:.....:................_.:_......... ..:.'.....:.........:-:-...(SEAL] _.._.............................................................................[SEAL] __...._.......... .............. _.................. _........... __.......... (SEAL) STATE OF COLORADO, 1 County of PITKIN J� ,., •..TWforegoing inr.trunient Bras acknowledged before me this 3rd day of December, 1A"16•;•.;;by" TII011AS V. YCLOIIGIILIN. �1�ifr`enmmiaeion expires �t/ 3 ,, 19 77. Witness mr hend and official seal. .Yo. 900. New '67.a�a ++mot" ...,'p,,,M r—Ynd/.N rYOlUaly fe., t4 aN fllwa{ e,...a Dse,i, fil.nn.- b: 1 r,.�,r••,,,•._�......,..,-•xy�,,,...,....,�,r,.•.�-.:--�'�"+•!`�►�F�•.�. .. � .. . �.-m.s�qw�,,,�...,.m..,�a�.,..,...'.�..»,...,.r•..,.,.,,,.,�T.•�.--�•�!..t+.r-F.�'7'�"'.. w.230 exE253 STATE OF 1T:.W YORK ) ea. ' COL:.: L OF NZ6 YORK ) 4"ne foieyc.;..y instrument wat ac'rcnawiedaed before :ae this %/ day of July. 1970 by STrPiu.N MCK.-,=RUL, TA. as Trustee of the WALTER P. PAEPCM LIFE !NSU-A"IZE TRUS I. My commission axpires: wj=ESS wy band and official seal. :�v' ✓ Notary Public V NOLry ►ua•c State .t P4*w Vot j^. ko 31:.:,C\76.5 •Jr "f.d .n NCI VC,A Coin Qu w.rn L+�.rn WrW X. 194 SIGNED and Eeiiverea this :7- day of ,A 4 1970. Eii7abeLh ii v S aC,iiier v Stephen McK. DuB--ul. -Jr. 0 j All as Trustees of the WALTER P. PAEPCKE LIFE INSURANCE TRUST STATE OF COLORADO ) I ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN The foregoi;- instrur,-�cnt waz acknowleci-4ed before vme,Ois day of l97'_- '.y E:LlzAB,.zni H. PAErc=. as C% 12truit!,�4 f the WALTER P. P.AEPCXE LIFE INSURANCE TRUST. P :My commission expires; j FS ;P WITNESS my nand and oiiicia seal. 0� Cep STATE OF ILLINOIS COUu:1' or COOK The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of � 1970 by J. V. SPACH!,MR, as Trustee or the W.ALTER P. PALPCKE LIr-t' INSUMNCE TRUST. a My commission expires: WTT=S my hard and official seal. C 41 Notary r--Iic Z 2 E WIF y/l•••. -_ F•i Y..Iw. Wems"- Aft- u�.v.w:,,C.:,ils'.• .•.....a y..r1. •M `,..iiMlwr4<$.ti... Hurd for Record at 2.47 o'clock P.M. Auauwc 25, 19?U RecePt+on ?w„esr 141877 Pe;Wr E. Kt};1} L, wswc6er AUG STATUTOgy WApoa-N-."Y DEED 1,51y1Q------ - - - - -- KNOW AL: KEN BY THESE PRESENTS that we, ELIZABETIi H. YAEYCKE and J. V. SPAChNEF of c^e County O7. Cook and State of Illinois, and STEPHEN Kr:;. J'JBRTlL, JR., of New York City, as Trustees of THE WALTER P. .!.EPCY.E LI-M INSURAJiCL• TRUS-a, for the ,!onsideraticn of Ten Do. Tars and other valuable considerations in 'sand paid, hereby 1 and corvay to THOMAS V. MCLOUGHLIN and BARBARA K. KCLOUGi.:,IN, of the County of PITVtN and State of COLORADC. not as tenants in common. but as juint tenant.: with right of survivorship, the following real property situate in the County o' Pitkin and S,er.e of Colorado, to-w•.t: Lots P and Q, Block 8 in tle city and Twnsite of Aspen, Colorado with all its appurtenances aid warrant the t;tla to 0— aw+nP (thin warranty being in tl.:! capecity of Trustees, but not individually). Subject to patent reser,ations, current taxes to be proratel to the date hereuf, and easements, if any, now in existence. This conveyance is exec,ited and delivered by Grantors, as the a=ti„g and qualif4ed Trustees of the WALTER P. PALPCKE LIFE INSURANCE TRUST, acting wader powe :s i' co-ferred by Art�cleIV of the Trust Irstr>ment recorded :n Book 1S6, Page 265, Office of the Pitkin County Clerk and r Recorder, Stephen Mc}:. Dubrul, Jr., heina the duly appointed and acting successor trustee to Paul Nitzc. i rv.:ifM+ i iK 7n'►J: '�iYi'arlt`v`.. _..a.a:�.- �, ors - _,l f. .. y MEMO TO: KAREN SMITH PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: CLAYTON H. MEYRING BUILDING DEPARTMENT DATE: November 14, 1977 RE: INSPECTION AT 810 W. Smuggler Basement This morning Roger Hokenstead and I inspected the one time third unit located in the basement of 810 W. Smuggler. Attached is a copy of the Motion to Dismiss and Judge Scotts order granting the Motion to Dismiss provided certain things were done. Also attached are three pictures we took this morning showing the condition of the premisses. All of the conditions of the Motion to Dismiss have been complied with except the 220 wiring for the stove unit has not been removed. The stove unit was disconnected and would be very easy to connect again. CJ MEMO TO: KAREN SMITH PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: DAVE ELLIS CITY ENGINEER DATE: October 11, 1977 RE: SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION REQUEST FOR LOTS P&Q, BLOCK 8 Having reviewed the improvement survey I see no engineering problems. For your information the improvement survey shows a zero setback on the west side at the second story balcony. M E M O R A N D U M TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Office (KS) RE: Moore Duplex Condominiumization - Subdivision Exemption DATE: October 14, 1977 This matter was first scheduled for the September 7th Planning and Zoning meeting, and tabled at that meeting. We have, therefore, attached our previous description and comment again for your information. Since that time, the City Engineer has requested a better improvement survey. His review indicates no engineering problems, but does point out that there is a zero setback on the west side at the second story balcony. The R-6 zone requires five feet. Also relevant is the fact that Council passed, on first reading, an ordinance specifying additional requirements for duplex and multi- family condominiumizations, which is attached for your review. The public hearing will be held on . We will ask the applicant to present any additional evidence showing that the conversion will not reduce the supply of low and moderate income housing. lmk enc. M 40 )L TO: FROM: RE: DATE: MEMORANDUM Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Planning Office (KS) Moore Duplex Condominiumization - Subdivision Exemption September 2, 1977 Subdivision exemption has been requested for the application by Barbara Moore (formerly Barbara McLaughlin) to condominiumize a duplex at 810 West Smuggler, Lots P&Q, Block 8 of the original townsite of Aspen. The duplex is located on a lot of 6,000 square feet in the R-6 zone. The improvement therefore does not comply with applicable zone district regulations requiring 4,500 square feet per unit. It has been the practice of this Board to not look solely to zoning compliance for justification for subdivision exemption, but rather to compliance with subdivision design standards such as (1) roads, paving, curbs; (2) land surveys; and (3) proper utilities access and easements. Unless the City Engineer notifies us differently prior to the meeting, we believe that by virtue of its location in the original townsite, the lot and improvements are in substantial compliance. Full subdi- vision reviews are not warranted in the case where desiqn standards are already met. The change in form of ownership will not have any additional land use impacts and the public interest will not be jeop- ardized by the subdivision exemption. We do however recommend the conditions of a six month minimum lease and payment of the appropriate park dedication fee. With respect to the former, the applicant's attorney has attached a proposed covenant accomplishing that objective. Her attorney has also calculated the dedication fee to be $11,379.81. The City Manager has certified the appraised value and we have checked arithmetic and find it to be correct. A 90 day right of first refusal in this instance will not have the desired effect because the existing tenant will be vacating to move into a house he is building. In the absence of revised condominium policy there is no other requirement possible to insure the continued avail- ability to local permanent residents. lmk JOSEPH E. EDWARDS JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW THE WHEELER OPERA HOUSE P. O. BOX 1541 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-7116 September 9, 1977 Ms. Karen Smith Planning Office City Hall 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Karen: I am enclosing a xerox copy of an amended ownership and encumbrance statement for Barbara McLoughlin's (now Barbara Moore) duplex located on Lots P and Q, Block 8. You will recall that we have filed an application for exemption from subdivision in order to allow condominiumization of this duplex. The previous ownership and encumbrance statement was cluttered up with a number of documents that have sub- sequently been released, and I thought it would be easier for everyone to understand the current status of the property by having this amended statement. Therefore, please substitute this new statement for the one that was submitted with the prior application. I have contacted Mr. Pessman and, hopefully, will have an improvement survey prior to the next meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission. Very truly yours, 1 *osepEdwa r. JEE:rld Enc. •' :TEWART TITLE OF ASPEN, INC. HEREBY CERTIFIES from a search of the books in this office that the owner of Lots P and Q, Block 8, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Situated in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, appears to be vested in the name of BARBARA K. MCLOUGHLIN and that the above described property appears to be subject to the following: Deed of Trust from Thomas V. McLoughlin and Barbara K. McLoughlin to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for the use of Mesa Federal Savings and Loan of Grand Junction to secure $46,000.00 dated December 15, 1970, recorded January 19, 1971 in Book 253 at page 217. Public Notice, dated March 12, 1976 and recorded March 12, 1976 in Book 309 at page 522. Although we believe the facts stated are true, this Certificate is not to be construed as an abstract of title, nor an opinion of title, nor a guaranty of title, and it is understood and agreed that Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. neither assumes, nor will be charged with any financial obligation or liability whatever on account of any statement contained herein. Dated at Aspen, Colorado, this 1st day of September A.D. 1977 at 8:00 A.M. C STEWART TITLE OF ASPEN, INC. BY 1: - 1 --�� Second Vice President 4 STEWART TITLE OF ASPEN, INC. HEREBY CERTIFIES from a search of the books in this office that the owner of Lots P & Q, Block 8, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Situated in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, appears to be vested in the name of BARBARA K. McLOUGHLIN and that the above described property appears to be subject to the following: Deed of Trust from Thomas V. McLoughlin and Barbara K. McLoughlin to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for the use of Mesa Federal Savings and Loan of Grand Junction to secure $46,000.00 dated December 15, 1970, recorded January 19, 1971 in Book 253 at page 217. Deed of Trust from Thomas V. McLoughlin and Barbara K. McLoughlin to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for the use of First National Bank in Aspen ' �r to secure $6,828.89 dated July 27, 1973, recorded July 30, 1973 in Book 278 at page 391. Deed of Trust from Thomas V. McLoughlin to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for the use of First National Bank in Aspen to secure $43,703.76 dated July 27, 1973, recorded July 30, 1973 in Book 278 at page 394. Lis Pendens, in the District Court in and for the County of Pitkin-and State of Colorado, dated February 13, 1975, Civil Action No.._5484,..,First National Bank in Aspen, Plaintiff vs Thomas V. McLoughlin, Barbara K. Qom= McLoughlin and Helen Zordel, as Pitkin County Public Trustee, Defendants, CIO and recorded February 18, 1975 in the office of the Clerk of Pitkin County,7. Colorado in Book 296 at page 325 as Reception No. 173133. ''o", l Transcript of Judgment Docket, of the District Court in and for the County f .: of Garfield and State of Colorado, dated February 13, 1975, Civil Action No. 7475, Thomas V. McLoughlin, Debtor and Credit Bureau of Glenwood Springs, Inc., Creditor, in the amount of $1,789.48, and recorded February 18, 1975 in the office of the Clerk of Pitkin County, Colorado in Book 296 at page 328 as Reception No. 173135. Public Notice, dated March 12, 1976 and recorded in the office of the Clerk " �, �f" of Pitkin County, Colorado in Book 309 at page 522 as Receptio , No. 182069. Lis Pendens, in the District Court in and for the County of Pit in--arfd State of Colorado, dated April 5, 1976, Civil Action No. (q58, Barbara K.`-__ McLoughlin, Petitioner and Thomas V. McLoughlin and First National Bank in Aspen, Respondents, and recorded April 7, 1976 in the office of the Clerk of Pitkin County, Colorado in Book 310 at page 461 as Reception No. 182647. Satisfaction of Judgment, in the District Court in and for the County of — Pitkin and State of Colorado, dated February 16, 1977, Civil Action No.(4958� �ru� Barbara K. McLoughlin, Petitioner and Thomas V. McLoughlin, Respondent, and The First National Bank in Aspen, Defendant, and recorded February 16, 1977 in the office of the Clerk of Pitkin County, Colorado in Book 324 at pale 940 as Reception No. 192144. - ,' �ik4.ea4etr . .CS.�-tea • }r � �G.e_.� (Aa �c co��cl��Jaa L" ExAIEM A • I Although we believe the facts stated are true, this Certificate is not to be construed as an abstract of title, nor an opinion of title, nor a guaranty of title, and it is understood and agreed that Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. neither assumes, nor will be charged with any financial obligation or liability whatever on account of any statement contained herein. I DATED at Aspen, Colorado, this 28th day of June A.D. 1977 at 8:00 A.M. STEWART TITLE OF ASPEN, INC. BY (2) r~ • Regular Meeting Aspen City Council Marcia 28, 1977 direction, etc.. Frank Iluaaunel submitted a letter to Council stating that he could do this work starting the end of April and could improve upon the City's existing plan. Hummel stated he would be willing to do the work for $1500 to $1000 depending upon what topographic maps are available. Mayor Standley reported that Recreation Director Ted Armstrong reconunends that the City go ahead and do this as it is minimal cost and will give the City a fair evaluation of the quality that can be done at the present golf course. Armstrong said he would like to see the Council appropriate the maximum to have Hummel take this through the planning process. City Manager Mahoney stated he felt this was appropriate and would like to take the funds from park dedication money. Councilman Behrendt moved that Council take funds from the park dedication and do this; seconded by Councilman Parry. �j Councilwoman Pedersen asked if the lessees of the Plum Tree should help as an improved j golf course would greatly enhance their operation. Councilwoman Johnston pointed out this is very minimal; should the City need help later, they could approach the Plum Tree lessees. �I All in favor, motion carried. WATER EXTENSION TO BRUSH CREEK - Michael ller.nstadt Mayor Standley stated that this item should not come to Council until it has been endorsed by the County Commissioners. Michael Ilernstadt told Council there is an agreement signed F, by the City in 1967 with Elay to supply water- and is still in existence. Mayor Standley Cstated that the City's water attorney has declared that that contract is inoperative. Councilman Parry moved to table this item for two weeks; seconded by Councilwoman Johnston. All in favor, motion carried. TRANSPORTATION REPORT Mayor Standley announced that Jim Furniss has resigned as the City's transportation director effective May 15. Furniss told Council. he had mixed emotions about the Council intending to bring a consultant in to analyze the operation in Aspen. Furniss stated he would recommend that if he felt the system was in trouble. Furniss told Council that his direction had been to enhance and increase the bus ridership. Furniss stated that, very honestly, he felt that had happened. Furniss passed out graphs and charts to Council to substantiate this. Furniss told Council that most consultants were geared to urban big city systems like RTD. Aspen is a unique small town with a unique system. Vail has a bus system which basically forces tourists to ride the bus. The transportation department did a comparison between Vail and Aspen, the overhead, maintenance, marketing costs, etc. Aspen will be pretty close to hauling 260,000 people; Vail hauls over a million. The costs of Aspen's system are in line; Furniss said he felt very good about the operation here. Furniss reported that the system has creating a local working market riding the bus. It appears that about 15 per cent of the people riding the bus are tourists; the rest are local working people. The system will transport about 20,000 people between Silver}ring and downtown. Furniss told Council if they want increased ridership, they cannot get it by cutting down the routes. The buses are being on time and getting people in a frame of mind to start using them. Furniss showed graphs of ridership and a graph of overall cost by month. Furniss told Council he did not like the shuttle route and feels it should be dropped. Furniss reported that each month the costs are declining. The costs are figured on every cost except the debt service on the buses. Furniss gave Council graphs that would help analyze the system and analyze where to cut back if they wanted to. Furniss told Council he felt that split shifting the bus drivers is an absolute mistake. Furniss told Council that the M.A.A. is a very demanding service in the summer. Furniss suggested that there is no way the City bus system can handle the M.A.A. at all. Furniss told Council that Duane Fengel should be appointed acting transportation director. Mayor. Standley suggested that with Furniss leaving, and the County not having a transpor- tation director, why not try to put back together a joint transportation for the City and County. The UMTA study is pushing towards a busway. CONDOMINIUMI'LATION POLICY Mayor Standley reported that Council had had a work session on condominiumization policy. After this session, Council wanted a memorandum from Brian Goodheim with specific implementation regarding condominiumization of multi -family units. Council also wants a memorandum from City Attorney Dorothy Nuttall regarding where the City's legal strength lies in this policy. Councilwoman Johnston moved to table condominiumization policy on multi -family units until they get more information. This should be ready by the next Council meeting; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Standley noted that it is the recommendation of Goodheim and the planning office that the Council grant subdivision exemption on duplex condominiumi.zations. Councilwoman Pedersen stated that she still had some questions in her mined that have not been answered. Planning Director Kane told Council that as a result of their data, they found that many local people are buying these units. The actual net rental. market may be lower f.or people, but condominiumization is allowing many people topurcha.:e units. The planning office is sugQosting two conditions; six month rental rc.,;trictions, and right. of first refusal. to oxisti.ng tenant to purrha-r. at: current. fair nar:r}:crt value. This would he a 90 day notice. Kane told Council that most of the applicants haver aurocd to these conditions. Leonard Uates suy1lestecl that instoad of fat r market Va l W', user the! t.crmn bona fide offer. Bob George asked if the intent was to allow 90 days after the bona fide offer. Coodheim stat.cd that the 90 day notice would give a to.-nant time to :orrancle financing. Goon lheim stated he would like to look at the sales contracts to sve who the purchasers aa�.,. r' F. .ar Meeting • Aspen City Council March 28, 1977 orsdh%i.m told Council that: New Jersey has legislation that could require the developer o find comparable. rental housing for people displaced. parry Edwards told Council that his firm has suhmitted data illustrating that virtually very duplex or multi -family unit has been bouciht by local people. Edwards stated .hat one cannot get a sales contract or price certain until they get exemption or orrdominiumi.zation done. 'ouricilwoman Johnston stated she had no problem with condominiumization of duplexes, but could insist upon six month rental provisions. Councilwoman Pedersen asked what would appen to the rental pool of duplexes for the summer people. These are vital to the .rtistic events that take place in town. 'ouncilwoman Johnston moved that the Council adopt a policy of condominiumization of uplexes with the City's six month rental restrictions on both -sides of the duples and 90 day notice to tenant before selling with a right of first refusal. or an option. fayor Standley asked if by adopting a policy that has specific performance elements in t, is the Council walking into a trap whereby anybody who meets these conditions has o be granted an exemption, even though the Council may find some other serious problems. ity Attorney Nuttall answered no, these are just general guidelines. Council discussed i.th Barry Edwards, Leonard Oates, Rob George and John Doremus the wording of the second condition; whether it should be notice and non -assignable option to tenant, the structure ,f the time period and notice. Mayor Standley stated that this condition would be only lien it goes through condominiumization; it is a one time shot. fayor Standley suggested that Doremus, Edwards, Oates and George draft a polies statement or the benefit of. the. Council and to be considered at the next Council meeting. Mayor tandley stated that articulation of these elements is very important in the policy tatement. Coodheim stated that it is difficult to anticipate all the various problems appening down the road. Goodheim suggested that right of first refusal against a bona ide offer is appropriate. 'ouncilwoman Johnston moved that the City Council adopt a policy of allowing. condomin.iumi.- ation of duplexes with the City's normal six month or two short term rental. restrictions n both sides with at least 90 day notice to any existing tenant plus a right of first cfusal to any bona fide offer; seconded by Councilman Wishart. All in favor, with the xception of Councilmembers Behrendt and Pedersen. Motion carried. 'ity Manager Mahoney pointed out that this policy limits the use of private property, and herefor.e, would require an ordinance. Mayor Standley read front the Charter and asked s. Nuttall if this did limit the use of private property. Ms. Nuttall answered that the ounc.il was only imposing guidelines. Mayor. Standley asked if this were in ordinance orm, would the Council then be hidebound. Ms. Nuttall answered yes. ?Mayor Standley tated he would take under advisement Mahoney's comment and Ms. Nuttall's interpretation nd go ahead as chair and allow Council to act on these requests given the guidelines stablished by motion. ,UBDIVISION EXEMPTION - Alpine Acres arty Edwards told Council he would be happy to go along with the six month rental estrictions on the 90 day notice as conditions for exemption from subdivision. llal. :lark, planning office, recomratended this for approval cor.ditionr'rl upon payment of 6,716.94 park dc:clic:ativn fee and the two other co;id-it.ions. 'councilman Behrendt moved to approve the subdivision exemption with the conditions; econded by Councilman Wishart. All in favor, motion carried. �UBDIVISTON EXEMPTION - Doremus al Clark told.Council that this is unique in that it is a reoues:t to c:ondomi.niumize building that, does not exist. Clark stated it is the recommendation of the planning ffice for approval based on the policy statement and payrner,t of the park dedication fee .t the time the building permit is issued. 'ouncilman Behrendt moved to approve this subject to council's program and payment of a Park dedication fee at time of building permit issuance. 'ouncilwoman Pedersen stated she cannot see condomi.niumizing something that isn't. loremus explained to Council that this is merely a matt -or Of financing. Councilwoman 'ohnston pointed out there is no tenant to give right of first refusal to. ,11 in favor, with the exception of Councilwoman Pedersen. Motion carried. 1; 1111DIVISION EXEMPTION - Interwcst. 'lark told Council this was another request to condominiumize a building that does not :xist. It is located on Snowbunny. The planning office recommends approval with Policy tatement and payment of park dedication Fee upon building permit issuance. 'ouncilman Behrendt moved to approve subioct to Council's policy statemont and payment of he park dedication fee upon building permit issuance:. All in favor, with the exception of Councilwoman I,cderscn. Motion carried. 1113DIVISION EXEMPTION -• t-;ard 'lark explained this is an existing duplex locatr,d on Snowl)Ull,ly. Thc• dodicat.i.ac; f,c works -- Put to $2.,201i.Y. with a dodurtion for tixet: pcitt to the City ovrr the last 12 yoars, t.hc- .atat foe will hr. $1,562.84. Jon Mulfurd Lold Council he. -• a tenant and doe!! have an option to purclia::c. OVENANT RESTRICTING SHORT • TERM RENTAL OF CONDOMINIUM UNITS WHEREAS, the undersigned Barbara K. Moore, a married woman formerly Barbara K. McLoughlin, is the owner of the following de- scribed land located in Pitkin County, Colorado, to wit: Lots P and Q of Block 8 of the City and Townsite of Aspen. - WHEREAS, the undersigned desires to condominiumize the existing duplex residence and an exemption from the definition of a subdivision to allow such condominiumization was granted, conditioned in part upon a covenant not to rent such units short term, and WHEREAS, in order to comply with the city's conditions and insure that the structure will be occupied by residents or employees of the city, the owner has agreed to covenant the land so that no unit may be leased for a period of less than six successive months unless the owner is living in the unit. NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned owner of said Lots P and Q of Block 8of the City and Townsite of Aspen agrees that no condominium unit on said lots shall be leased for a period of less than six (6) successive months provided, however, that in the event a unit is occupied full time as a residence by the owner thereof_, that said owner may rent said condominium unit for lesser periods,not to exceed two such short term rental periods within any calendar year, and that this restriction shall constitute a covenant for the benefit of the owners of such units and the City of Aspen running with the title to the above described lots and may be enforced by appropriate legal proceedings. Date Barbara K. Moore, formerly Barbara K. McLoughlin STATE OF COLORADO ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing was acknowledged before me this of 1977 by Barbara K. Moore, formerly Barbara K. McLoughlin. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public ka-X�i(S�- IT I> *CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION • FROM THE DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, Barbara K. Moore, formerly Barbara K. McLoughlin, is the owner of a pracel of land located in Pitkin County, Colorado, described as Lots P & Q, Block 8, City of Aspen, Colorado, aka 810 West Smuggler. WHEREAS, there is an existing duplex located on said property, and WHEREAS, applicant has requested of the City of Aspen an exemp- tion_from the definition of subdivision in order to allow the existing duplex to be condominiumized, and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and. Zoning Commission, at its meeting held recommended that an exemption from the definition of a subdivision is appropriate under these circumstances and recommended that the same be granted, NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of Aspen, Colorado does hereby determine that the proposed subdivision of the duplex located on said property by its condominiumization is not within the intents and pur- pose of the subdivision ordinance of Chapter 20 of the Aspen Municipal Code and does, for such reason, grant an exemption in accordance with Section 20-19(b) of such Code from the definition of a subdivision, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the foregoing exemption is conditioned upon the condition that said condominium units shall be deed restricted to prohibit rentals for periods of less than six (6) successive months, provided further that if such units are owner occupied as a full time residence that they may be rented for lesser periods but not more than twice for short-term periods within any calendar year. Dated: STACY STANDLEY, III, Mayor I, KATHRYN S. HAUTER, do hereby certify that the foregoing Certificate of Exemption from the Definition of Subdivision was considered and approved by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting held Monday, June 13, 1977, at which time the Mayor, STACY STANDLEY, III, was authorized to and did execute the same on behalf of the City of Aspen. KATHRYN S. HAUTER, City Clerk STATE OF COLOr-ADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing was acknowledged before me this day of , 1977 by STACY STANDLEY, III and KATHRYN S. HAUTER, per- sonally known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Aspen. Witness my hand and official seal. My Commission expires: Notary Public JosrLpu E. EDWARDS JR. ATTORNEY AT LAN' THE NVIIESLER OPERA HOUSE P. O. I30X 1 5-1 1 ASTIEN. COL.ORADO 8161 1 (303) 926-71 16 August 24, 1977 Mr. Mick Mahoney City Tanager Aspen City Hall Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Calculation of Park Dedication Fees Dear Mick: I represent Barbara McLoughlin who, by marriage, now goes by the name of Barbara Moore, who is the current owner of Lots P and Q, Block 8, City of Aspen, also known as 810 West Smuggler Street. This property comprises two city lots for a total of 6,000 square feet and is improved with a duplex structure which was built in 1971. This is an up and down duplex which is identical on both floors, and each floor contains three bedrooms. It is Mrs. Moore's desire to condominiumize this duplex to allow the separate sale of these units, and it is my understanding that the City Council, prior to granting any exemptions under the authority of Section 20-19(b) of the Code, has condition- ed the grant upon the payment of a normal Park Dedication Fee required in the event of a subdivision. Although we do not agree that the assessment of the Park Dedication Fee under those circumstances is authorized by the language of the City Ordinances, nevertheless, we have determined to proceed at this time to effect the condominiumization and to pay the fee in spite of our belief that the City is acting inappropriately in assessing it. In following the formula established by Section 20-13, we determined that the two dwelling units containing three bedrooms each would result in the formula number of the equivalent of eight residences. Multiplying those residences by the factor of .0025, which is the acreage per residence to be dedicated, results in a .02 acres or the equivalent to be dedicated. The .02 acres multiplied by 43,560 results in a total of 871.2 square feet, or the equivalent value to be dedicated. Since Mr. Mollica has determined these two �=,XH((I "F"' U • • Mr. Mick Mahoney August 24, 1977 Page 2. lots to be valued at $80,000, we divided that figure by the 6,000 square feet of the two lots to determine a per square foot value of $13.33. Multiplying the per square foot value times the total number of square feet to be dedicated results in a Park Dedication Fee, according to our calculations, of $11,615.71. Since the date of construction of this building, the records in the Assessor's office have shown that there has been paid to the City ad valorem taxes assessed and paid in the total amount of $235.90 This information was obtained from the Assessor's office. Since the provisions of Section 20-18 (a)(8) provide that we are entitled to a credit for those taxes, the Park Dedication Fee would be reduced by that amount, and the net fee payable would be in the amount of $ 11,379.81. Please review our calculations and confirm that they are correct or advise us of the correct amount of the fee. For your reference, a copy of Mr. mollica's appraisal is enclosed. Our position on the authority to assess the Park Dedication Fee was more fully set forth in my prior letter of July 5, 1977, directed to the Planning Office, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. Very truly yours, � l Joseph`E Edwards, Jr. JEE:rld Enc. James I M0111M & Associates, hit Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants Mason Et Morse Building • 315 East Nyman Avenue, Suite 209 Aspen, Colorado 81611 •303/925-8987 Aspen, Colorado July 15, 1977 74r. Joseph E. Fdwards, Jr. Attorney at Law ,dheeler Opera House Box 1541 Aspen, CO 81611 Re: An "Opinion of Value" for the Barbara Noore Property, 81.0 West Smuggler St. Lots P & Q of Block 8, City of Aspen. Mr. Edwards: Pursuant to your request I have personally inspected the subject property, have gathered and analyzed applicable market data for the purpose of estimating the Fair ,.arket Value of the subject site, if vacant. The site contains 6,000 square feet and is presently improved with a two-story duplex_ residence and average site improvements. The zoninis presently R-6, residential which allows for the develop- IDr eut of a sinvl` family residence. The subject structure is considered a non- conforming use since there is not sufficient lard (9,000 square feet), however, for the purpose of this analysis the land is being valued as if free and clear of the improvements and available for duplex construction. Your appraiser has gathered and analyzed recent sales of residential property in Aspen's West End area. Attached to this letter is a comparable sales chart which reflects the most recent sales in the neighborhood. The most comparable of these sales appears to be sale it1, Lots M, N, and 0, Block 8, directly adjacent to the subject property. This sale took place in December 1976 for $75,000. Sales 1:,`2, #3, 1./, ;5, and "-6 are also very near the subject and lend good support to sale #1. From analyzing the all of the sales on the chart, there appears to be little difference in value between a two lot sale and a three lot (duple.•r) sale. trader current zonin- three lots are required for the develop -tent of a ut-tplex and two lots are required for a single family residence. Your appraiser gives the greatest weight to sale #1 in estimating the valtie for th_= subject Land, however, a time adjustment of seven months is required to update this sale. It: is noted that appreciation rates on vacant land for residential develop- ment hes increased the value from say 1 - 3% per mouth. Your appraiser sug csts a conservative appreciation rate of 1% per month or say, are updated value of $80,000. This conservative time adjustment is offset by sale Pl's three lots versus the sub- Ject's two lots,. Li J James J. Mollica, R.M. Appraiser- Consultant Mr. Joseph E. Edwards Barbara Moore Property July 15, 1977 Page Two As a result of my investigation it is my opinion that the Fair Market Value of the land if vacant and available for duplex construction, as of July 15, 1977 is: Eighty Thousand Dollars $80,000.00 This valuation was offered in a brief letter form at the client's request. However, contained in my files is other supporting market data and exhibits from which I have based this opinion. If I can be of further assistance in the interpretation.of this letter I trust you will not hesitate to call. I hereby certify that I have no present or future contemplated interest in the subject property, that to the best of my knowledge the information contained herein is true and accurate, and that my fee is not contingent upon the valua- tion herein. Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. Sincerely, �y✓� J nes ifollica, R.M. eal Estate Appraiser Attached: Comparable Sales Chart Appraiser Qualifications JJM:sy Java 110111NL � ASSOC1011's. Ills. Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants u jaw"M J. M0111CR & Associates, ioc. Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants Mason & Morse Building • 315 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 209 Aspen, Colorado 81611 •303/925-8987 Aspen, Colorado QUALIFICATIONS OF APPRAISER James J. Mollica Residential Member (R.;I. ) Designation of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, 1976 Licensed Real Estate Broker in the State of Colorado Member of Aspen Board of Realtors Member of National Association of the Board of Realtors Instructor University of Colorado Continuing Education Division EDUCAT ION Business and Advertising, BSJ, Ohio University Real Estate Lava, Ohio University Course 1-A, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers Course 9, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers Course 201, Society of Peal Estate Appraisers Course 2, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers BACKGROUND A\'D FYPERIENCE Incorporated James J. Mollica & Associates, Inc., February 1977 Independent Fee Appraiser and Real Estate Broker, associated with Mason & Morse, January 1974 to present. Appraiser Intern - associated Consultants and Appraisers, Inc., June 1972 through November 1973. Construction, Deffett Companies, Ohio (during college) MAJOR CLIENTS SERVED Asoen Highlands Ski Corp. Aspen Industrial Bank Aspen Savings and Loan Association Bank of Aspen Bank of Snowmass City of Aspen TYPES OF PROPERTY r'PPRAISrD Commercial Condominiums PURPOSES OF APPRAISALS Acquisition Condemnation Estate Planning Lodges Ranches County of Pitkin First National Bank of Aspen First Western Mortgage Corp. Holland & Hart, Attorneys Majestic Savings and Loan Oates, Austin, McGrath, Attorneys Exchange Insurance Liquidation Mortgage Residential Vacant Land Partition Sales Tax Planning �r James J. Mollica, R.M. Appraiser -Consultant Co;n-oarable Saks Chart Sale It B1ock Lot(S) Grantor Grantee 1. 8 M,N,O. Paepcke DoreMus 2. 2 A-E, F-I Paepcke Erdman Price Per Single i'atn.ily Date Deed Book Price Price Per Lot Building Site R-6 b �. 12/76 321/384 $ 75,000 $251000 $751000 10/75 303/732 150,000 16,667 50,000 with excep- tions 3. 2 F,G,H,Ia Erdman Semple 4/76 311/824 62,400 27,467 62,400 4. 15 A-F Williams Troyer 12/76 321/405 170,000 28,333 56,666 5. 18 C & D Lawrence Popell 11/76 320/287 50,000. 25,000 50,000 6. 18 E & F Lawrence Teschner 11/76 320/291 50,000 25,000 50,000 7. Shaw Triangles Shaw City of 3/77 N/A 100,000 50,000 approx. 100,000 Aspen 8.. Shaw Property (Partially ImprovedaShaw pP'ri 3/77 N/A 500,000 75,000 approx. 100,000 Second Aspen Company Subdivision Sales Sale # Lot Price Date Size Sale # Lot Price Date Size 9. 1 125,000 11/76 1 ac. 15. 11 90,000 11/76 3/4 ac. 10. 2 125,000 11/76 1 ac 16. 12 90,000 11/76 3/4 ac. 11. 3 125,000 6/77 1 ac. 17. 13 79,500 11/76 1/3 ac. 12. 8 90,000 3/77 3/4 ac. 18. 14 80,000 11/76 1/3 ac. 13. 9 100,000 5/77 3/4 ac. 19. 16 100,000 5/77 1/2 ac. 14. 10 90,000 3/77 3/4 ac. .Although four lots by description, this sale is partially cut by a city street taking approximately 1,000 SF. Usable area of this site prompts us to consider it three lots rather than four. - Sales 1 and 3.are zoned for duplex development. Sale 1 was purchased as a duplex site. Sale 3 buyer paid more but developed the site as a high-priced single family residence. - Ie 7 contained approximately 6,?00 SF-8,200 5F and was purchased as a City Park CITY, OASPEN 1 3 0 so h galend street aspen, lorado 8 16 11 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 1, 1977 TO: Clayton Meyring FROM: -lick Mahoney`✓'5v^ RE: Barbara Moore Property I have enclosed a letter from attorney Joe Edwards along with an appraisal by Jim Mollica. Please accept the $80,000 value and check the arithmetic. PSM:mc cc: Joe Edwards Al-I'r RNEY A'1' I.AW "1111: VVI II:L1JSJt O IVRA 11011";1: P. O. IIOX 1.541 ASPEN. ('OLORADO 13161 1 (303) 926-7 1 10 August 24, 1977 Mr. P-lick Mahoney City Manager Aspen City Hall Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Calculation of Park Dedication Fees Dear Mick: I represent Barbara McLoughlin who, by marriage, now goes by the name of Barbara Moore, who is the current owner of Lots P and Q, Block 8, City of Aspen, also known as 810 [Nest Smuggler Street. This property comprises two city lots for a total of 6,000 square feet and is improved with a duplex structure which was built in 1971. This is an up and down duplex which is identical on both floors, and each floor contains three bedrooms. It is Mrs.-Moore's desire to condominiumize this duplex to allow the separate sale of these units, and it is my understanding that the City Council, prior to granting any exemptions under the authority of Section 20-19(b) of the Code, has condition- ed the grant upon the payment of a normal Park Dedication Fee required in the event of a subdivision. Although we do not agree that the assessment of the Park Dedication Fee under those circumstances is authorized by the language of the City Ordinances, nevertheless, we have determined to proceed at this time to effect the condominiumization and to pay the fee in spite of our belief that the City is acting inappropriately in assessing it. In following the formula established by Section 20-18, we determined that the two dwelling units containing three bedrooms each would result in the formula number of the equivalent of eight residences. Multiplying those residences by the factor of .0025, which is the acreage per residence to be dedicated, results in a .02 acres or the equivalent to be dedicated. The .02 acres multiplied by 43,560 results in a total of 871.2 square feet, %r the equivalent value to be dedicated. Since Pair. Mollica has determined these two a Mr. Mick Mahoney August 24, 1977 Page 2. lots to be valued at $80,000, we divided that figure by the 6,000 square feet of the two lots to determine a per square foot value of $13.33. Multiplying the per square foot value times the total number of square feet to be dedicated results in a Park Dedication Fee, according to our calculations, of $11,615.71. Since the date of construction of this building, the records in the Assessor's office have shown that there has been paid to the City ad valorem taxes assessed and paid in the total amount of $235.90 This information was obtained from the Assessor's office. Since the provisions of Section 20-18 �(a)(8) provi'de that we are entitled to a credit for those taxes, the Park Dedication Fee would be reduced by that amount, and the net fee payable would be in the amount of $ 11,379.81. Please review our calculations and confirm that they are correct or advise us of the correct amount of the fee. For your reference, a copy of Mr. 1,4ollica's appraisal is enclosed. Our position on the authority to assess the Park Dedication Fee was more fully set forth in my prior letter of July 5, 1977, directed to the Planning Office, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. Very truly yours, ) t _ Joseph E., Ewards, Jr. JEE:rld Enc. r,• '14111CS].l�n���i��'����,i��f:cil ,IfIC. Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants Mason G Morse Building • 315 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 209 Aspen, Colorado 81 G11 •303/925.8987 Aspen, Colorado July 15, 1977 Mr. Joseph E. Edwards, Jr. Attorney at Law Wheeler Opera House Box 1541 Aspen, CO 81611 Re: An "Opinion of Value" for the Barbara Noore Property, 810 West Smuggler St. Lots P & Q of Block 8, City of Aspen. Mr. Edwards: Pursuant to ;our request i have personally inspected the subject property, have gathered and analyzed applicable market data for the purpose of estimating the Fair I:arket Value of the subject site, if vacant. The site contains 6,000 square feet and is presently improved with a two-story duplox residence and average site improvements. The zoning is presently f.--6, residential which allows for the develc rent of a single family residence. The subject structure -s considered a non- conforming use since there is not sufficient land (9,000 square feet), however, for the purpose of this analysis the land is being valued as if free and clear of the improvements and available for duplex construction. Your appraiser has gathered and analyzed recent sales of residential property in Aspen's West End ar.e3. Attached to this letter is a comparable sales chart which reflects the most recent sales in the neighborhood. . The most comparable of these sales appears to be sale #1, Lots M, N, and 0, Block 8, directly adjacent to the subject property. This sale took place in December 1976 for $75,000. Sales 12, #3, �'+; =5, and §16 are also very near the subject and lend good support to sale #1. From analyzin- the all of the sales on the chart, there appears to be little difference in value between a two *lot sale and a three lot (Jup.le_r) sale. LTtider current zoninc, three lots are required for the development of a Juplex a-nd two lots are required for a single family residence. Your appraiser gives tht.'. Cfreatest weight to sale11 Al In estimating the value for thy: subject land, however, a time adjustment of seven months is required to update sal.e. Ic is noted that appreciation rates an vacant land for residential. develop- ment has increased the value from say 1 - 3% per month. Your appraiser sug gists a consc.rvativc appreciation rate of 1% per month or say, an updated value of $80.,0" This conservative ti=e RajUStment is off` -'et by sale 171's three lots versus the sub -- A Pct's two lots. P-ml. James J. Mollica, R.M. Appraiser -Consultant Mr. Joseph E. Edwards Barbara Noore Property July 15, 1977 Page Two As a result of my investigation it is my opinion that the Fair Market Value of the land if vacant and available for duplex construction, as of July 15, 1977 is: Eighty Thousand Dollars $80,000.00 This valuation was offered in a brief letter form at the client's request. However, contained in my files is other supporting market data and exhibits from which I have based this opinion. If I can be of further assistance in the interpretation of this letter I trust you will not hesitate to call. I hereby certify that I have no present or future contemplated interest in the subject property, that to the best of my knowledge the information contained herein is true and accurate, and that my fee is not contingent upon the valua- tion herein. Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. Sincerely, 4- J-_,nes Mollica, R.M. i:eal Estate Appraiser Attached: Comparable Sales Chart Appraiser Qualifications JJM:sy i 0 JOHICIS .1.110111 I � Assorlalcs, Iff. Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants i 1 .�`�� i�'►' .�. l� i��� i ILI t �1S�IECIil Il1C. Heat Estate Appraisers and Consultants Mason Fi Morse Building • 315 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 209 Aspen, Colorado 81611 9303/925.8987 Aspen, Colorado QUALIFICATIONS OF APPRAISER James J. Mollica Residential 'Member (R.M.) Designation of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, 1976 Licensed Real Estate Broker in the State of Colorado Member of Aspen Board of Realtors Member of National Association of the Board of Realtors Instructor University of Colorado Continuing Education Division EDUCATION Business and Advertising, BSJ, Ohio University Real Estate Lava, Ohio University Course 1-A, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers Course 9, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers Course 201, Society of Real Estate Appraisers Course 2, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers BACKGROUND AND-F_XPERIENCE Incorporated James J. Nollica & Associates, Inc., February 1977 Independent Fee Appraiser and Real Estate Broker, associated with :Mason & Morse, January 1974 to present. Appraiser Intern - associated Consultants and Appraisers, Inc., June 1_972 through November 1973. Construction, Deffett Companies, Ohio (during college) MAJOR CLIENTS SERt;-ED Asoen iiiG'nlands Ski Corp. Aspen Industrial Bank Aspen Savings and Loan Association Bank of Aspen Bank of Snowmlass City of Aspen TYPES OF PROPERTY APP112'sISF.D Commercial Lodges Condominiums Ranches PURPOSES OF APPP..aISALS Acquisition. Condemnation Estate Planning 0 County of Pitkin First National Bank of Aspen First Lestern Mortgage Corp. Holland & hart, Attorneys Majestic Savings and Loan Oates, Austin, !McGrath, Attorneys Exchange Insurance Liquidation Mortgage r'J Residential Vacant Land Partition Sales Tax Planning L-3 James J. Mollica, R.M. Appraiser -Consultant Co%ipa.rable Sales Chart Price Per Single ram.i.ly __.•-, Sale 4 Block Lot s) Grantor Grantee Date Deed Book Price Price Per Lot Building Site R-G b 1. 8 M N, 0 Paepcke Doremu s 12/76 321/384 $ 75,000 $25,000 $75,000 2. 2 A-E, F-I Paepcke Erdman 10/75 303/732 150,000 16,667 50,000 with excep- t.ions 3. 2 F,G,H,I` Erdman Semple 4/76 311/824 82,400 27,467 82,400 4. 15 A-F Williams Troyer 12/76 321/405 170,000 28,333' 56,666 5. 18 C & D Lawrence Popell 11/76 320/287 50,000 25,000 50,000 6. 18 E & F Lawrence Teschner 11/76 320/291 50,000 25,000 50,000 7. Shaw Triangle° Shaw City of 3/77 N/A 100,000 50,000 approx. 100,000 Aspen 8. Shaw Property (Partially ImproveddShaw WPW 3/77 N/A 500,000 75,000 approx. 100,000 Second Aspen Company Subdivision Sales Sale 4 Lot Price Date Size Sale ',It Lot Price Date Size 9. 1 125,000 11/76 1 ac. 15. 11 90,000 11/76 3/4 ac. 10. 2 125,000 11/76 1 ac 16. 12 90,000 11/76 3/4 ac. J 11. 3 125,000 6/77 1 ac. 17. 13 79,500 11/76 1/3 ac. 12. 8 90,000 3/77 3/4 ac. 18. 14 80,000 11/76 1/3 ac. 13. 9 100,000 5/77 3/4 ac. 19. 16 100,000 5/77 1/2 ac. 14. 10 90,000 3/77 3/4 ac. a.Although four lots by description, this sale is partially cut by a city street taking approximately 1,000 SF. Usable area of this site prompts us to consider it three lots rather than four. °Sales 1 and 3.are zoned for duplex developMcnt. Sale 1 was purchased as a duplex site. Sale 3 buyer paid more but developed the site as a high•-priced.single family residence.