HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ex.Lot16,Blk2,Edlin/Kimbrough
, """ ';f\fri ,'=' " ~~~l:~~~~i.~:": '
t.
< ~'. .:~tl],~';
~~~':~"f~!"'V ;... .
. . '.. ..'f~~.,~eS;4~.' .
.::.;{;,.~Jli\Q',l~~:':iJtJ$ <;.~~
~lOIt ..5l(",t) Jr~i"'''IC'~e$. '.:. c'.' '.
. " " "' :m~,F.tS~ ;.~.:_..:. : ",
',.......ll2' '..; 5aic:f l) ~F.IlCi ....
:..,., 'l)-'~'l(!~'( '.. :':569GJ.'.:Q"I'1_.&.$~i' '
i':ii_~.t~~~":.:. /~~uci~..'~;?~:'
.w~ l'it~ MaMlU _.' ,,- '519 CI 0TlMi..Q)ft;C1Il~ . H ..
.:#~g:;~~~T~' ,-m.98W~:~:'J.~._~t':
~ ......~~Kt. 'ACCT.H~(;l~4~ I~~-:-
~~~IkIOK:(NIdoIe.tiudeil.~TCJ: . 5)~I\JI~a,~Ctl
.:1?ktlP~ R~n')~
;<..,
..
"....,.,
j ',-,-,c;"
.,
l ,L~~4 t;'~h~* )';,50.0C
.;.:jtllC.'VEEt PRQM~'E~ch111K ''fX)~ro'' ,'. ..334'~. '
_._..------_._-----~--_._------~~_._.,-_._._~---_.~------_._---------_..'---~--~--~-_.~._._".-
STATEMENT OF EXEMPTION
q.1
Le" ctta Sanner Recorder ',r:;:(.... L.
X /' rr{)
~,I~
OOG1\352 ~G~833
Recorded 1:15 p~~ AUQust 14 ,)78 Reception # 206'182
FOCM THE DEFINITION OF SrnDIVISlOO
WHEREAS, NANCY EDLIN and MARY JO KIMBrourn are the o.mers of a parcel
of land located in Pitkin County, Colorado, nore particularly described as:
Lot 16, Block 2, SncMbunny Subdivision; and,
mEREAS, the applicants have an existing duplex located on Lot 16, Block
2; and,
WHEREAS, applicants have :reqrested an eJreIlPtion from the definition of
subdivision for the purpose of subdividing the existing duplex through
condaniniumization; and,
NIEREAS, the Aspen Plarming and Zoning Corrmission, at its neeting held
June 7, 1977, determined that an eJreIlPtion from the definition of subdivision
is appropriate and reCCllllleIlded that the sarre be granted; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council detennined that the subdivision of the existing
duplex through condaniniumization is not within the intent and purpose of
the subdivision ordinance set forth in Chapter 20 of the Aspen Municipal Code.
row, 'IHEREroRE, the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, does hereby detennine
that the proposed subdivision of the duplex located on Lot 16, Block 2,
SncMbunny Subdivision by its candaniniumization is not within the intent and
purpose of the subdivision ordinance and does, for such reason grant an
eJreIlPtion fran the definition of such action.
ProVIDED, HCmEVER, that the foregoing eJreIlPtion shall not be deerred to
relieve or exerrpt the subdividing of the duplex situated on Lot 16, Block 2
fran any park dedication fees which may be due; ani,
ProVIDED, H~R, that the foregoing exerrption is conditioned upon the
restriction of rental of said condaninium units to periods of not less than
six (6) successive nonths (or, in the alte:rnative, to not nore than twice
for short-term periods within any calendar year).
DATED: 6~w-ku 3. 1'17/
,
- P-
,..---
!LEY, III~OR
I, KA'IHRYN S. HAUTER, do hereby certify that foregoin~~t f
ExEnption fran the definition of subdivision was considered and approved by
the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting held M:Jnday, June 13, 1977, at
which tine the Mayor, Stacy Standley, III, was authorized to execute the sane
on behalf of the City of Aspen.
rlJiJ/' '1,;;.) .J ~.t0 )
M S,. I'llli, CITY ClERK
STATE OF cnWRAOO )
) ss:
cnUN'l'Y OF PITKIN )
The foregoing was acknCMledged before ne this //' day Of(a~ '
1977, by STACY STANDIEY, III, and KA'IHRYN S. HAUl'ER, personally lql(:Mn,., , ;;~'1P
be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Aspen, ,>., ,':;;....>\
WITNESS ill{ hand and official seal.>:~;':~">~(,." ~.... ~"~,'
"'(\\1'" .......
::. { , ..J-:>~_~ ~ :_1.. ~<~ff \
My ,",...::.;.jl:~~~~i;
,~..\~;. ",oJ; H.i.~.
,.~, ,~
ij-;'J
~J .
NOtary P
"':":';:'1,/
.........."".-" .,'
~ r:/ ....~ \~~ ,."
,':"'I:':II!;' ,..11'"
My ccmnission expires:
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Aspen City Council,
FROM: Planning Office (~)
RE: Edlin/Kimbrough Duplex
~.
DATE: June 9, 1977
Condominiumization - Subdivision Exemption
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
,.e-""-
-
'-.,..
M E M 0 RAN DUM
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 appl i cant '5 attorney, Gi deon 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
/
.""D"O"O "UDLlllHING CO., DItNY!!:R
RECORD OF 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.
E:dlin/Kimbrough
::ondominiumi-
zation
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-1S 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
/
al 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-1S. 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 condomipiumiza
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,Le.
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 aivided 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 siiid 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 grilntcd at the
discretion of the commission. It would strictly be a policy
decision.
C 1,1I:k t ,; un(!t'n; tandi 11<) 1 S th.l t tht' prov i sian for t'x\'lIll't i (111
appliL"; to uni u; th.lt WL'n~ m\lJhl\wd ulllkr the how; i n\] .Jnt hot' i I \'
1'1'1I1c11'1,',;. Our po:;ition is that i [ K,\lI[1Il,1l1 w.lIlt,; to put lilt'
lInil~; undt'r till' hOll~;illtJ pl'(llJt.,lIll, Wt' would l"l'C{)lI\lIh'llll tilt,
('x"\I\1'1 ion. 01 IH'I'wi:;,' w,' would qU,':;l ion i ria' would h.Jv,' 1 h,'
/
right to an exemption, regardless of the present use of the Use
and occupancy' ~reement and regardless or :he fact that they al:'
local people ~~cause that could change next week.
$"> Ih /,/ - n ,pKaufman defended this saying that it is a rare situation. They
c.. ~L-rv ;I~"''1''\. have already divided the interest.' It is already out of the
-2: -,~' -n ' purvue of the commission's authority. By having it come in agai
~ 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 condominiumizati
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 waivinc
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.
,'I,
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'
\\'
'\J~ d
\ ' :tlJ
"
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. lIed strom
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 per so:
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 tc'll,
new cost of housing, appreciation history, the effects of
condominiumization, the c..lUses of condominiumiz.\ tion. ld Ill'!'<"
could not afford to purchase their units. 52 percent \"<'1'1' 1'<'1
to move. 11 percent rClIldinl'd .It illcre.\sed J:l'nts. Loc.tl OWlh'I,
rl'pL\CI'l1 fonllL'J: tl'lhlIltS. AvaiLlbility of l'<'nt<ll hou"ill'! lid>'
contTdclt'd by B5 I'l'ITl'nt of thl' ';;llllpll'. '!'hi" h,1O' pol ie'"
implications. Units should be clhlllIlelcd to local prol'l'il'Lor,;
,......,
( (,.
~
M E M 0 RAN DUM
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 Edl in/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
<--....--...-.
APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION
FROM SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
Request is hereby made on behalf of Ms. Nancy Ed1 in 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 des cri bed 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,
G~/~
Attorney for Nancy Ed1 in and
Mary Jo Kimbrough (App1 i cants)
Dated this 17th day of March, 1977
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Office (HC)
RE: Edlin/Kimbrough Duplex Condominiu~s - 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