Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ex.Lot16,Blk2,Edlin/Kimbroughlco-� - E--k - 0-�\ E L CUSTOMER CITY OF ASPEN isFINANCE DEPARTMENT CASHIER'S RECEIPT 01-111 LICENSES 8, PERMITS 01-111 FINES & FORFEITS 511 ❑ BUSINESS LICENSES 561 ❑ COURT FINES 512 ❑ SALES TAX LICENSES 562 ❑ COURT BONDS - FORFEIT 513 ❑ BEER - WINE - LIQUOR LICENSES 563-01 ❑ TOWING FINES - IMPOUND 514 ❑ CONTRACTOR'S LICENSES 563-02 ❑ TOWING FINES - NOT IMPOUND 516 ❑ LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION 564 ❑ TRAFFIC FINES 517 ❑ DOG LICENSE 566 ❑ FALSE ALARM FINES 518 ❑ CENTRAL ALARM LICENSE 568 ❑ DOG IMPOUND FINES 519 ❑ BICYCLE LICENSES 569 ❑ OTHER FINES & FORFEITS 520 ❑ EXCAVATION PERMITS 521 ❑ CONSTRUCTION PERMITS 01-111 OTHER MISC. REVENUES 522 ❑ ELECTRICAL PERMITS 579 ❑ MAPS, CODES, ZONING REGS. 523 ❑ PLUMBING PERMITS 589 ❑ OTHERS (DESCRIBE) 524 ❑ HEATING PERMITS 525 ❑ SEPTIC TANK PERMITS 01-988-632-03 ❑ XEROXING (DESCRIBE) Cl OTHER - ACCT. NOa DESCRIPTION: (NAME, NUMBER, ETC.): �Ci l U I SIC�11 RECEIVED FROM �. j% A S� I E v I F� 1 6�a_.�__r_� Recorded 1 :15 PPS August 14078 Reception L0tta 'fanner Recorder STATEMENT OF EXEMPTION FROM THE DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, NANCY EDLIN and PVdY JO KIMBROUGH are the owners of a parcel of land located in Pitkin County, Colorado, more particularly described as: Lot 16, Block 2, Snowbunny Subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the applicants have an existing duplex located on Lot 16, Block 2; and, WHEREAS, applicants have requested an exemption from the definition of subdivision for the purpose of subdividing the existing duplex through condominiumization; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, at its meeting held June 7, 1977, determined that an exemption from the definition of subdivision is appropriate and reconmended that the same be granted; and, WHEREAS, the City Council determined that the subdivision of the existing duplex through condcrainiumization is not within the intent and purpose of the subdivision ordinance set forth in Chapter 20 of the Aspen Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, does hereby determine that the proposed subdivision of the duplex located on Lot 16, Block 2, Snowbunny Subdivision by its condominiumization is not within the intent and purpose of the subdivision ordinance and does, for such reason grant an exemption from the definition of such action. PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the foregoing exemption shall not be deemed to relieve or exempt the subdividing of the duplex situated on Lot 16, Block 2 from any park dedication fees which may be due; and, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the foregoing exemption is conditioned upon the restriction of rental of said condominium units to periods of not less than six (6) successive months (or, in the alternative, to not more than twice for short-term/periods within any calendar year DATED: L of ne• if e I, KAT= S. HAUI`ER, do hereby certify that the foregoing -Statement df 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 execute the same on behalf of the City of Aspen. KATHRYN S. HA R, CITY CLERK i STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss: COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing was acknowledged before me this day of 1977, by STACY STANDLEY, III, and KATHRYN S. HAUI'ER, personally known tq.,me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Aspen vl�E,a 1U v F WITNESS my hand and official seal. Va• c �H� My ccniTdssion expires: Myrr mjs;�;U,j apau Ja��ar', 24) 19-3 (4.r�-Q,.,� � i Notary Publi .-' �fiu�.L� � h� � . G �,��.� :� TITKIN COUNTY 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Planning Office (KS) RE: Edlin/Kimbrough Duplex Condominiumization - Subdivision Exemption DATE: June 9, 1977 At their June 7th meeting, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recom- mended approval of the requested subdivision exemption application for condominiumization of the Edlin/Kimbrough duplex situated on Lot 16, Block 2 of the Snowbunny subdivision. The duplex has been governed for the past several years by a use and occupancy agreement. The applicant has, because of this arrangement, requested waiver of the park dedication fee, arguing the property has already been divided. The Planning Office found that the duplex and related improvements already complies with subdivision design standards and therefore, full subdivision review procedures are not called for. In accordance with adopted Council policy for condominiumization of existing buildings, Planning and Zoning recommended that approval of the subdivision exemption application be conditioned on: 1. Payment of the park dedication fee. 2. Restriction of use of the premises to a minimum of six month terms. 3. A 90 day non -assignable right of first refusal to be given to existing tenants to purchase the units at market value. lmk 41 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Office (KS) RE: Edlin/Kimbrough Duplex Condominiumization - Subdivision Exemption DATE: June 3, 1977 At your April 19th meeting, the matter of the Edlin/Kimbrough Exemption was tabled by you because the applicant's attorney, Gideon Kaufman, argued for a waiver of the park dedication fee. The Planning Office and a number of P&Z members were not in favor of waiving the park dedication fee. The City Attorney has researched the ordinance authorizing exemptions and has not found any authority to waive the fee. The applicant now requests that you remove the matter from the table and consider a motion to approve. The Planning Office recommendation remains the same, that is, we recommend granting subdivision exemption subject to the following conditions: 1. Payment of the park dedication fee. 2. Restriction of use of the premises to a minimum of six month terms. 3. A 90-day non -assignable right of first refusal to be given to existing tenants to purchase the units at market value. lmk ■RAD►ORD ►UDLIt1NING CO., DENVER RECORD O F PROCEEDINGS Continued Meeting Planning and zoning Commission April 19, 1977 given two policy considerations: 1) six-month minimum lease and 2) a ninety day notice to existing tenants to allow them to purchase the units at market value. :dlin/Kimbrough :ondominiumi- ;ation / Hunt made a motion to recommend exemption of the Alpine Acres f: strict application of the subdivision regulation as the intent of those regulations have been complied with. The following conditions apply: 1) non -exemption of the park dedication fee; 2) compliance with R-15 zoning conditions applied to the property during annexation ; and 3) six-month minimum lease restrictions. Collins seconded. All in favor. Motion approve Edlin/Kimbrough Duplex Condominimums - Subdivision Exemption iial Clark discussed this issue. Mr. Kaufman was the legal representative for Nancy Edlin and Mary Jo Kimbrough. The use and occupancy agreement is already in existence. The property is zoned R-15. Our recommendation is for approval subject to these restrictions: 1) payment of the park dedication fee; 2) six-month leases; and 3) 90 day notice to existing tenants for the right to buy units at the market value. Collins questioned division in ownership. Kaufman said he would explain then he had a special request. Kaufman said that the use and occupancy was like condominiumize tion but without actually dividing the interest on the deed. Each side has an undivided one-half interest in the whole. Legally the ownership is split just as in condominiumization. Instead of two deeds there is only one. This was done before park dedication fees were used for use and occupancy. Clark interjected that it would currently be treated as a subdivision. Kaufman went on to say that the law was changed. Kaufman requested that the Edlin/Kimbrough Duplex be exempt frc the park dedication fee. The intent of the park dedication fee (PDF) is to be placed upon division of new interest, i.e. condominiumization or new building. In this case there was a prior in time splitting of the interest by use and occupancy. Today that would require a PDF. When this was done there was no required fee. Since intent and interest were 'divided before the required fee, and since the code does not speak about going back in time to tax things which were exempt at the time, I would say that the intent is clear to not impose PDF on things that were exempt or subdivided prior to the enactment of PDF. Eight months ago Edlin and Kimbrough bought the duplex. One of the banks has since required them to condominiumize the dupl Thus forcing them to go through the subdivision requirement even though it is already divided. They could stay the way the are now and not pay a PDF. Because it was a prior in time division, it would be a perfect exemption. Collins said that it was rather unusual arrangement. Did two lending institutions take mortgages even though a single title: Kaufman said yes. One of the banks felt better having them condominiumize. Instead of one deed, each will have their own deed. Both banks own the first mortgage on the property. Nuttall conunented that the exemption can be granted at the discretion of the commission. It. would strictly bo a policy decision. C1.111.7k':; U1Id('rsL,IIldiII(J i:; th.lt t 10 l)roviSi(_)n f01- ON0111l)tio ll alllll.i��s to ull i t:; th,lt WLIT:e mallakled 1111der this hall:: i nll .lilt Ilc�l i t prin(-il)iIhlr po.,;itioII i:; th.It. if KIII fill III w,lnt:; to lust lht, I1111 l :; Illlll(�I- t ho Ilot I!;1II') pl-o(II-,till , wo WallI(I rec ollllllk•II(I tI c�xl ull�t i()It. of hl,rwi';(' we woll lit (lu(,:;t icon i t lit, wollld h,lvl t hl� right to an exemption, regardless of the resent use of the ust and occupancyreement and regardless o resent fact that they ar, local people JR-ause that could change next week. f•, Kaufman defended this saying that it is a rare situation. They I%r-shave already divided the interest.' It is already out of the "�:t�? purvue of the commission's authority. By having it come in agai Il they are under your authority. I feel it would be appropriate to waive it in this situation. Hedstrom questioned why the bank would take the condominiumizat.i position. Kaufman said that whether right or wrong the bank has the right to ask them to change the loan. They had a temporary loan. They are now obtaining a permanent loan. The bank council preferred to have it condominiumized. The use and occupancy agreement was arranged in 1974. Park dedication fee was adopted a year and a half ago. In use and occupancy the deed has both names. Each has one half undivided interest in the whole as opposed to owning one whole unit. Collins brought up two past situations. One was a duples which wanted to condominiumize. We required the PDF. The other precedent that we might set is that there might be more of this use and occupancy approach to things if this is a way of waivin( the PDF. On those two he recommended that the PDF be included. Kaufman said that it is the division which makes one responsibl for the PDF. This division already existed. Just requiring it because it is there is no reason to require the fee. The interest has been divided which is what subdivision is. It is considered a subdivision under your code. Since house was bought eight months ago, Isaac questioned use and occupany agreement if the property isn't owned. Kaufman answered that it goes with the property. It is recorded, in the court house. It was bought divided. Collins felt that if subdivided legally that would answer the question. Audience asked what deed read like. There was a need to analyze the language. 1. Clark was not in favor of waiving the PDF. Nuttall wanted to �\ read the ordinance which authorizes the exemption. There may not be any authority. Clark said that there is only exemption if in compliance with the housing program. Collins entertained a motion to table the action. Hedstrom was not in favor of waiving PDF. There is not hardship on owner because of marketability. Hunt agreed with Hedstrom. Motion was tabled. Report on Condominiumization ondominiumi- ation Brian Goodheim discussed the report. This report covers the Redwoods, 700 W. Hopkins, Aspen View and the Tailings. 46 conveyances were involved. A survey has been done of the new owners and of those who were displaced. Approximately 60 perso: were involved and we have 22 surveys returned. The law does not exist on the subject of rental and condominium, market. It is a grey area. NYC and Miami rental markets are being eaten up. Both legislatures are developing statutes which parallel the NJ statutes. Nuttall reiterated that it is an unchallenged area.. Goodheim said that the survey was designedto answer five or si.-: questions: the effect on those involved, who replaced the tell, new cost of housing, appreciation history, the effects of condominiumization, the causes of condominiumizati.on. t,.i pei-k­ could not afford to purchase their units. 52 percent woi-e fe1 to move. 11 percent 1-e1111llled at increased rents. Loc,il owtict repLICOcl former tenant:;. 1lvail.ihi 1 i ty of retltal hour i n,1 ha:; contracted by £35 percent- of the :;.wil)10. `Phi:; ha:; pol i.•%' implications. Units should be channeled to local pro1)ri(,Lo1-:; 0 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Planning Office (KS) RE: Edlin/Kimbrough Duplex Condominiumization - Subdivision Exemption DATE: June 9, 1977 At their June 7th meeting, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recom- mended approval of the requested subdivision exemption application for condominiumization of the Edlin/Kimbrough duplex situated on Lot 16, Block 2 of the Snowbunny subdivision. The duplex has been governed for the past several years by a use and occupancy agreement. The applicant has, because of this arrangement, requested waiver of the park dedication fee, arguing the property has already been divided. The Planning Office found that the duplex and related improvements already complies with subdivision design standards and therefore, full subdivision review procedures are not called for. In accordance with adopted Council policy for condominiumization of existing buildings, Planning and Zoning recommended that approval of the subdivision exemption application be conditioned on: 1. Payment of the park dedication fee. 2. Restriction of use of the premises to a minimum of six month terms. 3. A 90 day non -assignable right of first refusal to be given to existing tenants to purchase the units at market value. lmk 0 0 APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Request is hereby made on behalf of Ms. Nancy Edlin and Ms. Mary Jo Kimbrough (hereinafter referred to as applicants) under Section 20-19(a) of the Aspen, Colorado, Subdivision Regulations, for an exemption from the definition of the term "Subdivision" with respect to the real property described as: Lot 16 Block 2 Snowbunny Subdivision Pitkin County, Colorado It is submitted that an exemption in the case would be appropriate. The application involves an existing duplex already subdivided by a Use and Occupancy Agreement. A subdivision for the condominiumization of one lot with a duplex on it creates conditions whereby strict compliance with subdivision regulations would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of their land. If an exemption is granted, the owners of the property will continue to use the property in the same way it is presently used and there will not be any increase in the land use impact of the property. An exemption in this case will not conflict with the intent and purpose of the subdivision regulations which are directed to assist the 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. The granting of this application will not undermine the intent of the subdivision regulations as it is clearly within the area intended for exemption under 20-19. The building is already in existence, a sub- division already exists and there will be no change in density which is presently in line with the desired population density for the property. The applicants would appreciate your consideration of this application at your next regular meeting. Very truly yours, 9c-a- � 4 4- Gideon I. Kau maf n Attorney for Nancy Edlin and Mary Jo Kimbrough (Applicants) Dated this 17th day of March, 1977 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Office (HC) RE: Edlin/Kimbrough Duplex Condominiums - Subdivision Exemption DATE: April 15, 1977 .� This is a request by Ms. Nancy Edlin and Ms. Mary Jo Kimbrough for a Subdivision Exemption to condominiumize an existing duplex located on Lot 16, Block 2, Snowbunny Subdivision. The duplex is already divided in ownership by a Use and Occupancy Agreement. The property is zoned R-15. The Planning Office recommends granting the Subdivision Exemption subject to the following conditions: 1. Payment of the Park Dedication Fee. 2. Restriction of use of the premises to a minimum of six month terms. 3. A 90 day right of first refusal be given to existing tenants (non -assignable) to purchase the units at market value. lmk