HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ex.C.M. ClarkLots1-8,Blk8/RiversideAdd.1978\°CYl �X • �i
C.M. CLARK EXEMPTION FROM SUBDIVISION
Lots 1-8/Riverside Addition
L-
..A
MOLLY GieSOW LOOP CON00MINIUM5
OWNER'S CERTIFICATE
C. M. CLARK, BEING THE OWNER OF THE HEREIN -DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY, HEREBY
c w I P CITA.
CERTIFIES THAT THIS MAP OF MOLLY GIBSON LOOP CONDOMINIUMS HAS BEEN PREPARED
PURSANT TO THE PURPOSES STATED IN THE CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION FOR MOLLY
GIPSON LOOP CONDOMINIUMS DATED 1978, AND RECORDED
1978, IN BOOK AT PAGES AND ET
91EQ _CF THE RE -CORDS OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN,
-7500'
RGZ446?CAP iSTATE
OF COLORADO.
LOT
1 L07 a I LOT' 5
C. M. CLARX
STATE OF COLORADO
ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN
Y
L.C.E.
THE FOREGOING OWNER'S CERTIFICATE WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME
THIS DAY OF 1978, BY C. M. CLARK.
a
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
9
0
14Y COMMISSION EXPIRES:
NOTARY PUBLIC
z
-,3
TITLE CERTIFICATE
Lu
-v
I lihf
:s
13
w
ASPEN TITLE COMPANY, DOES HEREBY CERTIFY THAT C. M. CLARK IS THE FEE SIMPLE
OWNER OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE OWNER'S DECLARATION HEREIN, FREE AND
CLEAR OF LIENS AND ENCUMBRANCES EXCEPT DEEDS OF TRUST OF RECORDS.
I'
ASPEN TITLE COMPANY
BY
Q
STATE OF COLORADO
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN
{ THE FOREGOING TITLE CERTIFICATE WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS
DAY OF 1978.
W
Q i '�\
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
'ZS
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
Lb
:40TARY PUBLIC
SUIRVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
I, HAROLD W. JOHNSON (JOHNSON-LONGFELLOW & ASSOC., INC.), A REGISTERED SUP-
VEYOR IN THE STATE OF COLORADO, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT IN THE MONTH OF
11
JANUARY, 1978, A SURVEY WAS MADE UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION Or LOTS 1, 2,
lS
3, AND PART OF LOTS 7 AND 8 OF BLOCK 8, RIVERSIDE ADDITION TO THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO AND A ONE STORY CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX WAS FOUND TO BE
ENTIRELY WITHIN THE LOT LINES. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF THIS
PLAT SHOWS ALL EASEMENTS AND ENCROACHMENTS AND ACCURATELY DEPICTS THE
LOCATION AND ELEVATIONS OF ALL UNITS.
JOHNSON-LONGFELLOW & ASSOC., INC.
BY
L= 7
Z2.3,
HAROLD W. JoliNSON, LS 9-618--
STATE OF COLORADO
PARKINGCoss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN
THE FOREGOING SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BE -FORE
ME THIS DAY OF 1978, BY HAROLD W. JOHNSON, A REGISTERED
LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF COLORADO.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL THIS DAY OF
1978.
COMMISSION EXPIRES
POPTl Ct-11 OF- LOT 8MY
24.2'
NOTARY PUBLIC
PAP V, tl G,
71
CLERK AND RECORDER'S ACCEPTANCE
ACCEPTED FOR FILING IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER OF THE COUNTY
ca 00 .
_j
PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO, AT O'CLOCK THIS DAY OF
W. corz. REF1.!sp CAP�,)-75'09'1
1"W 75.C)O'
I
_.M,
1978, TN PLAT BOOK AT PAGE
CLERK AND RECORDER
si-r& PLAN
L.C. LIMITE 0 COMMON ELEMENT
G.C. E. -GENERAL CONtMON ELEMENT
MOLLY G I 6SON L00p
CON COMIICJ lums
L0T5 1. 2. 5 & PA QT OF
LOT5 7. & S, OLV, 8
asps", COLORADO
J0t4"501l1-L0"GFF=Ll_oW 8,6,550=
t. BOX 5547, '51,,OWM4155 V1 LLW)G, COLOr-U
JOE5 NO: eo- C5
5WEET I OF 'a
FZ65PL)ACZY
i
F
I
7
A
g
LOFT
11NLE55 OTt-IERW 15r= NOTED WA
SECTION C-C
t
C 'T
GE. = CEtLIN`, C-LEV[�TION
F. E = FLOOR ELEVl�TION
FI P5T FLOOR PLAN
79tbro.81
k
5EC7I0N D-D c.t 79�3.c� C.E79Co2.3Co -- --- ---- ----
79Co1.9i C.E.75fo2.11 C E79�o2.1 I
t UNIT B UNIT A
FE 7954.71
F 6 7954.Ot FE.79S4. of
KE."7953.06
SECTION B-B
-79rv2.31 � l
F. E 7954.31
}
MOLLY G1550N L00P
CONDQMINII�NIS
FLOOR PLAN
�kA0
1 2p
\O
O
POWnON OF LOT 7--- -__._
PORTION OF LOT 8
C" I PETA AVE-
REBL\l?P4 CAP S-75'OQi'1 I"E 91.4i')'
S1T1= PLAN
L.C-E.- LIMIT)=D COMMON ELEMENT
GC.C- -GENERAL COMMON ELEMENT
5MUGGLER LOOP CONDOMINIUMS
OWNER'S CERTIFICATE
:4. CLARK, BEING THE OWNER OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY, HEREBY
CERTIFIES THAT THIS MAP OF SMUGGLER LOOP CONDOMINIUMS HAS BEEN PREPARED
PURSUANT TO THE PURPOSES STATED IN THE CONDOMINUIM DECLARATION FOR SMUGGLER
LOOP CONDOMINIUMS DATED , 1978, AND RECORDED ,
1978, IN BOOK AND PAGES AND , ET SEQ. OF THE RECORDS OF
THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO.
C. M. CLARK
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
THE FOREGOING OWNER'S CERTIFICATE WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME
THIS DAY OF 1978, BY C. 14. CLARK.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
NOTARY PUBLIC
TITLE CERTIFICATE
ASPEN TITLE COMPANY, DOES HEREBY CERTIFY THAT C. M. CLARK IS THE FEE SIMPLE
OWNER OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE OWNER'S DECLARATION HEREIN, FREE AND
CLEAR OF LIENS AND ENCUMBRANCES EXCEPT DEEDS OF TRUST OF RECORDS.
ASPEN TITLE COMPANY
BY
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
THE FOREGOING TITLE CERTIFICATE WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS
DAY OF , 1978.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
:iOTARY PUBLIC
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
I, HAROLD W. JOH14SON (TOHNSON-LONGFELLOW & ASSOC., INC.) A REGISTERED SUP-
VEYOR IN THE STATE OF COLORADO, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT IN THE MONTH OF
JANUARY, 1978, A SURVEY WAS MADE UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION OF LOTS 4, 5,
6, AND PART OF LOTS 7 and 8, BLOCK 8, RIVERSIDE ADDITION TO THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO AND A TWO STORY CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX WAS FOUND TO BE
ENTIRELY WITHIN THE LOT LINES. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF THIS
PLAT SHOWS ALL EASEMENTS AND ENCROACHMENTS AND ACCURATELY DEPICTS THE
LOCATION AND ELEVATIONS OF ALL UNITS.
JOHNSON-LONGFELLOW & ASSOC., INC.
BY
HAROLD W. JOHNSON, LS 9018
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
THE FOREGOING SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME
THIS DAY OF , 1978, BY HAROLD W. JOHNSON, A REGISTERED
'AND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF COLORADO.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL THIS DAY OF ,
1978.
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
i
i
NOTARY PUBLIC
i
CLERK AND RECORDER'S ACCEPTANCE
ACCEPTED FOR FILING IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER OF THE, COUNTY
OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO, AT O'CLOCK M, THIS DAY OF
1978, IN PLAT BOOK AT PAGE
CLERK AND RECORDER
2--""T I OF 2
5M000LGQ LOOP CONOOMiNiUMJ
I
i
Lt`7T5 4.5, 6 & PART OF
LJOT5 7 S 8, BL 4 8
QlVGP510Ic A001TION
A5PEN, COLORADO
JONNSON-IONCs�w_LLC)W B L.S OGil��CES, INC w
110X5547. SNOWMLISS VfLLGCsE.GOLfJRCaOEiiCot�
JOB NO: 80-03_ 1'tQ
FE6QlJAt•Z`� , t�378. L.H..{.{.yd:,,i._yJ.R'.`.t+.
elusions from Coverage 0
The following matters are expressly excluded from vie
coverage of this policy:
1. Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (includ-
ing but not limited to building and zoning ordinances)
restricting or regulating or prohibiting the occupancy"
use or enjoyment of the land, or regulating the charac-
ter, dimensions or location of any improvement now or
hereafter erected on the land, or prohibiting a separation
in ownership or a reduction in the dimensions or area of
the land, or the effect of any violation of any such law,
ordinance or governmental regulation.
2. Rights of eminent domain or governmental rights of
police power unless notice of the exercise of such rights
appears in the public records at Date of Policy.
Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other
matters (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by
the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company and
not shown by the public records but known to the insured
claimant either at Date of Policy or at the date such
claimant acquired an estate or interest insured by this
policy and not disclosed in writing by the insured claim-
ant to the Company prior to the date such insured claim-
ant became an insured hereunder; (c) resulting in no
loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or
created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting in
loss or damage which would not have been sustained if
the insured claimant had paid value for the estate or
interest insured by this policy.
Conditions and Stipulations
1. Definition of Terms
The following terms when used in this policy mean:
(a) "insured": the insured named in Schedule A, and, sub-
ject to any rights or defenses the Company may have had
against the named insured, those who succeed to the interest
of such insured by operation of law as distinguished from
purchase including, but not limited to, heirs, distributees,
devisees, survivors, personal representatives, next of kin, or
corporate or fiduciary successors.
(b) "insured claimant": an insured claiming loss or damage
hereunder.
(c) "knowledge": actual knowledge, not constructive know-
ledge or notice which may be imputed to an insured by reason
of any public records.
(d) "land": the land described, specifically or by reference
in Schedule A, and improvements affixed thereto which by
law constitute real property; provided, however, the term
"land" does not include any property beyond the lines of the
area specifically described or referred to in Schedule A, nor
any right, title, interest, estate or easement in abutting streets,
roads, avenues, alleys, lanes, ways or waterways, but nothing
herein shall modify or limit the extent to which a right of access
to and from the land is insured by this policy. .
(e) "mortgage": mortgage, deed of trust, trust deed, or
other security instrument.
(f) "public records": those records which by law impart
constructive notice of matters relating to said land.
2. Continuation of Insurance after
Conveyance of Title
The coverage of this policy shall continue in force as of
Date of Policy in favor of an insured so long as such insured
retains an estate or interest in the land, or holds an indebted-
ness secured by a purchase money mortgage given by a pur-
chaser from such insured, or so long as such insured shall
have liability by reason of covenants of warranty made by
such insured in any transfer or conveyance of such estate or
interest; provided, however, this policy shall not continue in
force in favor of any purchaser from such insured of either
said estate or interest or the indebtedness secured by a pur-
chase money mortgage given to such insured.
3. Defense and Prosecution of Actions —
Notice of Claim to be given by an Insured
Claimant
(a) The Company, at its own cost and without undue delay,
shall provide for the defense of an insured in all litigation
consisting of actions or proceedings commenced against
such insured, or a defense interposed against an insured in
an action to enforce a contract for a sale of the estate or
interest in said land, to the extent that such litigation is founded
upon an alleged defect, lien, encumbrance, or other matter
insured against by this policy.
(b) The insured shall notify the Company promptly in writ-
ing (i) in case any action or proceeding is begun or defense is
interposed as set forth in (a) above, (ii) in case knowledge
shall come to an insured hereunder of any claim of title or
interest which is adverse to the title to the estate or interest,
as insured, and which might cause loss or damage for which
the Company may be liable by virtue of this policy, or (iii) if
title to the estate or interest, as insured, is rejected as unmar-
ketable. If such prompt notice shall not be given to the Com-
pany, then as to such insured all liability of the Company shall
cease and terminate in regard to the matter or matters for
which such prompt notice is required; provided" however,
that failure to notify shall in no case prejudice the rights of any
such insured under this policy unless the Company shall be
prejudiced by such failure and then only to the extent of such
prejudice.
(c) The Company shall have the right at its own cost to
institute and without undue delay prosecute any action or pro-
ceeding or to do any other act which in its opinion may be
necessary or desirable to establish the title to the estate or
interest as insured, and the Company may take any appropriate
action under the terms of this policy, whether or not it shall
be liable thereunder, and shall not thereby concede liability or
waive any provision of this policy.
(d) Whenever the Company shail have brought any action
or interposed a defense as required or permitted by the pro-
visions of this policy, the Company may pursue any such liti-
gation to final determination by a court of competent
jurisdiction and expressly reserves the right, in its sole discre-
tion, to appeal from any adverse judgment or order.
(e) In all cases where this policy permits or requires the
Company to prosecute or provide for the defense of any action
or proceeding, the insured hereunder shall secure to the Com-
pany the right to so prosecute or provide defense in such
action or proceeding, and all appeals therein, and permit the
Company to use, at its option, the name of such insured for
such purpose. Whenever requested by the Company, such
insured shall give the Company all reasonable aid in any such
action or proceeding, in effecting settlement, securing evi-
dence, obtaining witnesses, or prosecuting or defending such
action or proceeding, and the Company shall reimburse such
insured for any expense so incurred.
4. Notice of Loss —Limitation of Action
In addition to the notices required under paragraph 3(b) of
these Conditions and Stipulations, a statement in writing of
any loss or damage for which it is claimed the Company is
liable under this policy shall be furnished to the Company
within 90 days after such loss or damage shall have been
(Conditions and Stipulations Continued and Concluded on Last Page of This Policy)
LVII S TITLE iN LJ R A INICE C3-mpany of Da!!as
Owner Policy
of Title
Insurance
POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE issued by USLIFE TITLE INSURANCE Company of Dallas,
subject to the Exclusions from Coverage. the exceptions contained in Schedule B and the
provisions of the Conditions and Stipulations hereof, USLIFE TITLE INSURANCE Company
of Dallas, a Texas Corporation, herein called the Company, insures, as of Date of Policy
shown in Schedule A, against loss or damage, not exceeding the amount of insurance stated
in Schedule A, and costs, attorneys' fees and expenses which the Company may become
obligated to pay hereunder, sustained or incurred by the insured by reason of.
1 . Title to the estate or interest described in Schedule A being vested otherwise than as
stated therein;
2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on such title;
3. Lack of a right of access to and from the land; or
4. Unmarketability of such title.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF. USLIFE TITLE INSURANCE Company of Dallas has caused these
�ir0"-- presents to be signed by its duly authorized officers in facsimile with its corporate seal
yvPp,,CE Cp 9 \ hereto affixed to become effective as its original signature and seal and binding on this
�` Company as of the date shown in Schedule A, the effective date of this policy.
• SEAL-: o`
President & Chief Executive Officer
Attest: Senior Vice -President, Secretary and Treasurer
Signature
AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION STANDARDOWN ER'S POLICY —FORM 8-1970 —AMENDED 10 17 70
Formerly DALLAS TITLE AND GUARANTY COMPANY Poch 1:4 (CO) 101.1 1276ti
• • B3'�8 Paa�
CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION FROM
THE DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, C. M. CLARK is the owner of certain real
property located within the City,of Aspen, County of Pitkin,
which location is more particularly described as: .
All of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8,
Block 8, RIVERSIDE ADDITION in and to
the City and Townsite of.Aspen, Colorado
described.by metes and bounds as follows:
Beginning at the Northwest corner of said
Lot 1 whence the witness corner to Corner
15 of Tract 41, East Aspen Addition bears
South 86045' West 210.38 feet; thence
South 14050149" West 150.0 feet along the
Westerly line of Lots 1, 7 and 8 to the
Southwest corner of Lot 8; thence South
75009'11" East 93.25 feet along the
Southerly line of Lot 8 to the Southeast
corner of Lot 8; thence around a curve to
the left with a radius of 794.02 feet, the
chord of which curve bears North 49026'
East 143.60 feet along the Easterly line
of Lots 8, 7 and 6; thence North 0014'
East 32.84 feet along the Easterly side
of Lot 6 to the Northeast corner of Lot
6; thence North 75009'11" West 166.48
feet along the Northerly line of Lots 6,
5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 to the point of beginning.
WHEREAS, two duplex residences presently are located
on said property; and
WHEREAS, C. M. CLARK has applied to the,City of Aspen
pursuant to the provisions of Section 20-19(b) and Section
28-8.13 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen to exempt
said property from the definition of the term "subdivision"
and from the requirements of mandatory PUD review, respectively,
so that said real property may be divided into two separately
saleable parcels, to wit:
Parcel A:
A parcel of land being all of Lots 4, 5
and 6 and part of Lots 7 and 8; Block 8,
Riverside Addition to Aspen, Colorado.
Said parcel is more fully described as
follows:
Beginning at the Northwesterly corner of
Lot 4; thence S 75009'11" E 91.48 feet
along the Northerly line of'Lots 4, 5 and
6; thence S 0014' W along the Easterly
line of Lot 6; thence 143.79 feet along
a curve to the right having a radius of
794.00 feet (the chord of which bears S
49026' W 143.60 feet) along the Easterly
line of Lots 6, 7 and 8; thence N 75009111"
W 18.25 feet along the Southerly line of
Lot 8 to a point of intersection -with the
Westerly line of Lot 4 as projected
4
Southerly; thence N 14050149" E 150.00
feet along said projected line to the
point of beginning.
Parcel B:
A parcel of land heing all of Lots 1, 2
and 3 and part of Lot 7 and 8; Block '8;
Riverside Addition to Aspen, Colorado.
Said parcel is more fully described as
follows:
Beginning at the Northwesterly corner of
said Lot 1; thence S 75009'11" E 75.00
feet along the Northerly line of Lots 1,
2 and 3; thence S 14050'49" W, 150.00
feet along the Easterly line of said Lot
3 projected to the South line of Lot 8;
thence N 75009'11" W 75.00 feet along the
Southerly line of Lot 8; thence N 140 50'
49" E 150.00 feet along the Westerly line
of Lots 8, 7 and 1 to the point of begin-
ning.
and, so the duplexes which are located on each of said separate
parcels may be condominiumized into a total of four separately
saleable condominium units in accordance with the condominium
maps attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein;
and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission,
at its meeting held February 28, 1978, recommended that an
exemption from the definition of "subdivision" and, an exemp-
tion from the requirements of mandatory PUD review is appropriate
under these circumstances, and recommended that the same be
granted (subject to certain conditions); and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council, at its meeting on
March 13, 1978, did consider the requested exemptions and did
agree that the issuance of said exemptions was appropriate,
did grant the same subject to certain conditions.
THEREFORE, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City
Council of Aspen, Colorado, does hereby determine that the
proposed division of the real property owned by C. M. CLARK
into two separately saleable parcels and the concurrent condo-
miniumization of the two duplexes located on said two parcels
into four separately saleable condominium units is not within
the intents and purposes of the subdivision ordinance of Chapter
20 of the Aspen Municipal Code and also that the proposed divi-
sion meets the objectives of planned unit development and
therefore grants an exemption from the definition of subdivi-
sion in accordance with Section 20-19(b) of the Municipal Code
of the City of Aspen and grants an exemption from the necessity
of complying with the requirements of planned unit development
in accordance with Section 28-8.13 of the Municipal. Code of the
City of Aspen, for the purpose of creating two separately
saleable parcels as described above and the concurrent condo-
miniumization of the duplexes situated on said parcels into
four separately saleable condominium units and has granted
C. M. CLARK, his transferees, successors and assigns the right
to convey said parcels and units separately, if desi.red;
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the foregoing exemption is
conditioned upon the following:
2.
•
0
(a) Existing tenants shall be given written notice
when their unit is offered for sale, which
notice shall specify the sale price. Each
tenant shall have a 90-day non -assignable
option to purchase their unit at this prelim-
inary market value. In addition, each tenant
shall have a 90-day exclusive non -assignable
right of first refusal to purchase their unit
which shall commence when a bona fide offer is
made by a third person, and accepted by the
owner. In the event that such offer is made
while the 90-day option is still in effect,
the tenant may purchase the unit for the amount
of the initial sales price or the amount of the
bona fide offer, whichever is less.
(b) All units shall be restricted to six (6) month
minimum leases with no more than two (2) shorter
tenancies per year.
The conditionq hereby imposed shall be deemed coven-
ants running with the land and burden the same, and be binding
upon the applicant, his heirs, assigns and successors in
interest.
Dated: .I�Z�_l
G
,,3 !-i -2 25-
u _
I, Kathryn S. Hauter, City Clerk of the City of
Aspen, Colorado, do hereby certify that the foregoing exem-
tion from the definition of subdivision was granted by the
Aspen City Council at its regular meeting held March 13, 1978.
Kathryn Haute
STATE OF COLORADO )
County of Pitkin ) ss.
The foregoing was acknowledged before me this �/
day of 1978, by Stacy Standley, III and Kathryn
S. Hauter; Ma r and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of
Aspen, Colora o.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Ii (J,
[rotary Pub
i
MY Comrl-r-1
3.
_7
egllri �s hl-w r 31, 1932
kb
File No. or GF 77-06-22
AMOUNT S 205, 000.00
1. Name of Insured:
C. M. CLARK
• SCHEDULE A
Date of Policy: October 14, 1977
at 8:00 A.M.
•
POLICY NO. U 1 304250
2. The estate or interest in the land described herein and which is covered by this policy is: (a fee, a leasehold, etc.)
Fee simple.
3. The estate or interest referred to herein is at Date of Policy vested in:
The insured named above.
4. The land referred to in this policy is described as follows:
Please see Exhibit "A" attached.
Aspen USLIFE TITLE INSURANCE Company of Dallas
1301' Main Street
Dallas, Texas 75202
AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S POLICY, FORM 8 1970 AMENDED 10-17-70
Farm 1M (CO) Schedule A 1OM1276H
EXHIBIT "A" A'Ti AND MADE A PAFC OF US LILTLE
INSURANCE COriP Y OF DADS POLICY NMBER 0 1 304250
All of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, Block 8, RIVERSIDE ADDITION in and to the
City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado described by metes and bounds as follows:
Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Lot 1 whence the witness corner to
Corner 15 of Tract 41, East Aspen Addition bears South 86°45' West 210.38 feet;
thence South 14*50149" West 150.0 feet along the Westerly line of Lots 1, 7 and 8
to the Southwest corner of Lot 8;
thence South 75°09'11" East 93.25 feet along the Southerly line of Lot 8 to the
Southeast corner of Lot 8;
thence around a curve to the left with a radius of 794.02 feet, the chord of which
curve bears North 49*26' East 143.60 feet along the Easterly line of Lots 8, 7 and 6;
thence North 0*14' East 32.84 feet along the Easterly side of Lot 6 to the Northeast
corner of Lot 6;
thence North 75°09'11" West 166.48 feet along the Northerly line of Lots 6, 5, 4, 3,
2 and 1 to the point of beginning.
Pitkin County, Colorado.
• SCHEDULE B
POLICY N1 304250
77-06-22
a
This Policy does not inzure against loss or damage by reason of the following:
1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records.
2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspec-
tion of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown
by the public records.
5. The lien of all taxes and assessments for year 1977, and thereafter.
6. Reservations and exceptions as contained in United States Patent recorded in
Book 175 at Page 246.
7. Mineral rights as reserved in deed from A.R. Wagner, as it affects subject property,
recorded in Book 119 at Page 350.
8. Read right of way across the Westerly 10 feet of subject property, as revealed by
survey of Harold W. Johnson, L.S. 6018, dated January 16, 1973.
9. Encroachment onto subject property by a shed and fence as revealed by survey by
Harold W. Johnson, L.S. 6018, dated January 16, 1973.
10. Lease agreement recorded March 16, 1977 in Book 326 at Page 65.
11. Any tax, assessments, fees or charges by reason of the inclusion of subject property
in Aspen Fire Protection District, Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation, City of Aspen and
Aspen Valley Hospital District.
12. Deed of Trust from C.M. Clark to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, Colorado, for use
of Roman LeDuke and Frances V. LeDuke, to secure $63,000.00, dated August 12, 1977 and
recorded August 15, 1977 in Book 333 at Page 642.
13. Terms, conditions and obligations as set forth in Subordination Agreement recorded
September 16, 1977 in Book 335 at Page 89.
14. Deed of Trust from C.M. Clark to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, Colorado, for
use of First National Bank in Aspen, to secure $200,000.00, dated October 11, 1977
and recorded October 13, 1977 in Book 336 at Page 538 and re -recorded October 13,
1977 in Book 337 at Page 114.
15. Disburser's Notice given in connection with above Deed of Trust, recorded October 13,
1977 in Book 336 at Page 541.
AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S POLICY, FORM B 1970 AMENDED 10-17-70
Form tM (CO) Schedule B 12M1276H
CONDITIONS AND STIPU*NS (Continued and Concluded From Reveside of Policy Face)
determined and no right of action shall accrue to an insured
claimant until 30 days after such statement shall have been
furnished. Failure to furnish such statement of loss or damage
shall terminate any liability of the Company under this policy
as to such loss or damage.
5. Options to Pay or Otherwise Settle Claims
The Company shall have the option to pay or otherwise
settle' for or in the name of an insured claimant any claim
insured against or to terminate all liability and obligations of
the Company hereunder by paying or tendering payment of
the amount of insurance under this policy together with any
costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred up to the time of
such payment or tender of payment, by the insured claimant
and authorized by the Company.
6. Determination and Payment of Loss
(a) The liability of the Company under this policy shall in no
case exceed the least of:
(i) the actual loss of the insured claimant; or
(ii) the amount of insurance stated in Schedule A.
(b) The Company will pay, in addition to any loss insured
against by this policy, all costs imposed upon an insured in
litigation carried on by the Company for such insured, and all
costs, attorneys' fees and expenses in litigation carried on by
such insured with the written authorization of the Company.
(c) When liability has been definitely fixed in accordance
with the conditions of this policy, the loss or damage shall be
payable within 30 days thereafter.
7. Limitation of Liability
No claim shall arise or be maintainable under this policy
(a) if the Company, after having received notice of an alleged
defect, lien or encumbrance insured against hereunder, by
litigation or otherwise, removes such defect, lien or encum-
brance or establishes the title, as insured, within a reasonable
time after receipt of such notice; (b) in the event of litigation
until there has been a final determination by a court of compe-
tent jurisdiction, and disposition of all appeals therefrom,
adverse to the title, as insured, as provided in paragraph 3
hereof; or (c) for liability voluntarily assumed by an insured in
settling any claim or suit without prior written consent of the
Company.
B. Reduction of Liability
All payments under this policy, except payments made for
costs, attorneys' fees and expenses, shall reduce the amount
of the insurance pro tanto. No payment shall be made without
producing this policy for endorsement of such payment unless
the policy be lost or destroyed, in which case proof of such
loss or destruction shall be furnished to the satisfaction of
the Company.
9. Liability Noncumulative
It is expressly understood that the amount of insurance
under this policy shall be reduced by any amount the Com-
pany may pay under any policy insuring either (a) a mortgage
shown or referred to in Schedule B hereof which is a lien on
the estate or interest covered by this policy, or (b) a mortgage
hereafter executed by an insured which is a charge or lien on
the estate or interest described or referred to in Schedule A,
and the amount so paid shall be deemed a payment under this
policy. The Company shall have the option to apply to the pay-
ment of any such mortgages any amount that otherwise would
be payable hereunder to the insured owner of the estate or
interest covered by this policy and the amount so paid shall
be deemed a payment under this policy to said insured owner.
10. Apportionment
If the land described in Schedule A consists of two or more
parcels which are not used as a single site, and a loss is estab-
lished affecting one or more of said parcels but not all, the loss
shall be computed and settled on a pro rata basis as if the
amount of insurance under this policy was divided pro rata as
to the value on Date of Policy of each separate parcel to the
whole, exclusive of any improvements made subsequent to
Date of Policy, unless a liability or value has otherwise been
agreed upon as to each such parcel by the Company and the
insured at the time of the issuance of this policy and shown by
an express statement herein or by an endorsement attached
hereto.
11. Subrogation Upon Payment or Settlement
Whenever the Company shall have settled a claim under
this policy, all right of subrogation shall vest in the Company
unaffected by any act of the insured claimant. The Company
shall be subrogated to and be entitled to all rights and remedies
which such insured claimant would have had against any
person or property in respect to such claim had this policy not
been issued, and if requested by the Company, such insured
claimant shall transfer to the Company all rights and remedies
against any person or property necessary in order to perfect
such right of subrogation and shall permit the Company to
use the name of such insured claimant in any transaction or
litigation involving such rights or remedies. If the payment
does not cover the loss of such insured claimant, the Company
shall be subrogated to such rights and remedies in the propor-
tion which said payment bears to the amount of said loss. If
loss should result from any act of such insured claimant, such
act shall not void this policy, but the Company, in that event,
shall be required to pay only that part of any losses insured
against hereunder which shall exceed the amount, if any, lost
to the Company by reason of the impairment of the right of
subrogation.
12. Liability Limited to this Policy
This instrument together with all endorsements and other
instruments, if any, attached hereto by the Company is the
entire policy and contract between the insured and the
Company.
Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not based on
negligence, and which arises out of the status of the title to
the estate or interest covered hereby or any action asserting
such claim, shall be restricted to the provisions and Condi-
tions and Stipulations of this policy.
No amendment of or endorsement to this policy can be
made except by writing endorsed hereon or attached hereto
signed by either the President, a Vice President, the Secre-
tary, an Assistant Secretary, or validating officer or author-
ized signatory of the Company.
13. Notices, Where Sent
All notices required to be given the Company and any
statement in writing required to be furnished the Company
shall be addressed to USLife Title Insurance Company of
Dallas, 1301 Main, Dallas, Texas.
-MRPPI
�k
� C
►:►M
0
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Planning Office, Karen Smith
RE: C.M. Clark Condominiumization- Subdivision Exemption Request
DATE: March 9, 1978
This application involves two duplexes located on Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, Block 8 of the Riverside Addition. The location is more practically des-
cribed as being on the right hand side of Highway 82 as you leave town. The
first is a yellow Victorian building with a large extension on the rear side
just opposite where Park Avenue joins the highway. The second duplex is lo-
cated just uphill from there. About a year or so ago, a duplex was moved to
that site and remodeled once located on the foundation. The zone district
is R-6 requiring 9,000 square feet per duplex.
The exemption request seeks permission to separate the lots into two parcels,
the first involving Lots 4, 5, 6 and parts of 7 and 8; the second involving
Lots 1, 2, 3, and parts of 7 and 8. In addition, the request is that each of
the four units be condominiumized. The first parcel would have 10,326 square
feet and the second 11,250 square feet.
Dave Ellis has reviewed the applicatior: and in December noted several res-
ervations about granting the exemption. First, he noted that adequate parking
may not be able to be located on Parcel A. Seven spaces are required because
there are seven bedrooms. Exemption for a split of Parcel A from B should
only be granted if the separation can meet all design standards including
parking. Secondly, he noted that a road and utility easement is not shown on
the western side of Parcel A. He felt that the exemption was not warranted
until further work was done demonstrating subdivision design standard compli-
ance.
The Planning Office noted then that the area is covered by a PUD procedure
giving further reason why the full subdivision procedure may be warranted.
A PUD exemption would, at a minimum, have to be granted. We also noted con-
cern about the second unit on Parcel A and wished to see a condominium map
ensuring that there are no more than two units on the site.
A revised improvement survey and condominium map were then submitted to
Planning and Engineering. From the condominium map, only two units are shown
on ParcelA,Io it appears that the Planning Office concern is satisfactorily
resolved by commitment to the structural features shown on the map.
The new plat also showed some resolution of the Engineering Department's con-
cerns. Parking was able to be located on Parcel A, and although it is not
the most desirable configuration according to Engineering, they have removed
their objection to the separation of Parcel A from Parcel B. One remaining
concern is that the utilities be located on the plat.
The Housing Authority Director has reviewed the matter and his comments are
attached. He expressed particular concern about the loss of Unit A on Parcel
A as low and moderate income housing. The remodeled duplex on Parcel B has
not been part of the housing supply for at least two years.
The P & Z recommended approval of subdivision exemption at their February 28,
1978 meeting, finding the proposal to be in compliance with ordinance #53.
They also exempted the matter from PUD procedures inasmuch as the purposes of
PUD would not be undermined. The subdivision exemption was conditioned on the
six month minimum lease restriction, 90 day right of first refusal and the
showing of the utilities on the plat.
Qcr A .
0
W
'a
R
cu1aEYn Lvc-
5GT W.C- 2EBdtd & CAP
5-7509' 11' E 7 5. 00'
'ek
12 0o LC)T I LOT 2 I
LOT 3 2�
Poucu
ti
I I
9
m
I 92b 2.4S'II
hry
Z Z
CO
I -
.sue• �
I q �2
2L5'
I
I
1 ,
I
�
I
y
�
I I
D ' I
� I
U7 tq
I I
I
-
I
(JA117
I
N
tP_
N
8 2• 22.3'
V
n1
N
W
15-T u
r
N
Z4.2'
12.00
N7509'1I"\V 75OC
_T REEvlR a CLIP
FoQTION of LOT 7
SrcT REB1]R & CAP
sET W.C. LZUR^Q 8& CAP
LOTS 1,2,3 AND PART OF LOTS 7 AND 8 BLOCK 8
RIVERSIDE ADDITION TO ASPEN, COLORADO
I, HAROLD W. JOHNSON (JOHNSON-LONCPELLOW & ASSOC.), A REGISTERED
SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF COLORADO DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ON.THE
30th DAY OF AUC;UST 1977, A SURVEY WAS MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION
OF LOTS 1,2,3 AND PART OF LOTS 7 AND 8 OF BLOCK 8 RIVERSIDE ADD-
ITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO AND A ONE STORY DUPLEX WAS
FOUND TO BE ENTIRELY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES AS SHOW14 ON THIS PLAT.
ALL EASEMENTS OR ENCROACHMENTS IN EVIDENCE OR KNOWN TO ME ARE AS
SHOWN. SAID SURVEY IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOW-
LEDC;E AND BELIEF.
JOHNSON-LONC;FELLOW & ASSOC.
BY:
t?A OLD W. JOHNS
VU1e
•�
o.
if of C0L�2�
w)(016IT-B
cutpr=�-,A ovr..
RDIZr101,3 OF LOST 7
RDQ-r Q of LOT a
9ET pt;�&
SET R1=BAR6 CAP
LOT-4
S75•C79'l1`E 91.48'
LOT 5 j
I
BLOCK a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I /
I
I
2110 S-rO[iY
OVERHANG
I
I
r I
I
I
�; UNIT
N o
N�`` A
� Y
_ a4 O
r
21JD sTORv �\ ��
_ OV ERHA,NG �� �
� v
vIQ
0
FR')o [ZEgAR a CAP
W7rj09'11"W 1a.25'
O
q
R=7944p0
L• A5.19'
S6"T 5piKQ
FNOWC.REBAQ& CAP
pf
N
NFWD REESbA
w
N
LOTS 4,5, & 6 AND PART OF LOTS 7 & 8 BLOCK 8
RIVERSIDE ADDITION TO ASPEN, COLORADO
I, HAROLD W. JOHNSON (JOHNSON-LONGFELLOW & ASSOC.1' A REGISTERED
SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF COLORADO DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ON THE
30th DAY OF AUGUST 1977, A SURVEY WAS MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION OF
LOTS 4,5.& 6 AND PART OF LOTS 7 & 8 BLOCK 8, RIVERSIDE ADDITION TO
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO AND A TWO STORY DUPLEX WAS FOUND TO BE
ENTIRELY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT. ALL EASE=:
►CENTS AND ENCROACHMENTS IN EVIDENCE OR KNOWN TO ME ARE AS SHOWN.
SAID SURVEY IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BE-
LIEF.
JOHNSON-LONGFELLOW & ASSOC.
0O
BY: 2: .Z
HA OLD W. JO 018 {1S 0O i s S
�7 O':
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION TO
APPLICATION OF C. M. CLARK FOR
EXEMPTION FROM THE DEFINITION OF
A SUBDIVISION UNDER SECTION 20-19(b)
OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN FILED ON
NOVEMBER 29, 1977
In compliance with Ordinance No. 53 (Series of
1977) of the City of Aspen (which Ordinance, it should be
noted was passed subsequent to the filing of this applica-
tion), the following evidence with respect to whether ap-
proval of this application will reduce the supply of low
and moderate income housing is submitted:
(1) With respect to Parcel "A", the front unit
located on Parcel A consists of a four bedroom, two bath
apartment which Applicant seeks to condominiumize into Unit
"A". It is presently being rented for $750.00 per month and
therefore it should not be considered low or moderate income
housing and its condominiumization will not result in a
reduction of such housing.
(2) The rear unit located on Parcel A consists
of a three bedroom, two bath apartment which Applicant seeks
to condominiumize into Unit "B". It is presently subject to
a long term lease at a monthly rental of $405.00 per month,
which lease contains a renewal option for the benefit of the
tenant for an additional two years, which, if exercised would
extend the lease to December of 1980. Therefore, if the
rental price of said unit qualifies it as low or moderate
income housing, the condominiumization will not reduce the
supply of such housing in the near future, if at all, because
there will be no tenant displacement.
(3) The Applicant has no present plans to offer
either of units on Parcel A for sale and in the event he
were to do so, the existing tenants would be provided with
at least 180 days after final Council approval, or when
their unit is sold to a third person, whichever date is later,
in which to locate other housing.
(4) With respect to Parcel "B", the two, two
bedroom, two bath units which Applicant seeks to condominium-
ize as Units A and B are presently vacant, and in fact have
never been rented since they have been owned by the Applicant.
The duplex located on Parcel B was moved to its present site
from Lot 5 of Dean's Addition to the City and Townsite of
Aspen in a totally dilapidated and unrentable state by the
Applicant's predecessor in ownership. The Applicant has re-
cently remodeled the units and placed them in a liveable
condition, but the units have not been used for any type of
housing within at least the past two (2) years and thus their
condominiumization and sale will have no effect on any housing,
much less low or moderate housing.
FOR THE APPLICANT:
SLEMON, MAZZA & LaSALLE, P.C.
By G�-
David R. Sle on
P
T
n
r
C
�l
NI
c-i
V
IT
•
506 E. MAIN STREET
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Mark Danielsen
DATE: February 28, 1978
RE: Application for Exemptions
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
Planning & Zoning Commission
Recommendations and Comments:
C.M. Clark Application for Exemption:
1. With respect to the joint unit of panel "A", $750/
month for a four bedroom, two bath unit is considered
to be moderate income housing. Such condominiumization
t•,culd result in a reduction of such housing.
Previous owner Ray LeDuke was also getting $750/month.
2. It is agreed that the rear unit of Parcel"A" is low/
moderate income housing. Three bedroom, two bath at
$405/month on a long term lease is such for sure.
(December 1980 option)
Owner plans to keep them, but does not want to promise
it. Covenant should be included to retain rear of
Parcel "A" for PMH.
3. Unit has not been utilized for housing for past A
years. Question here is whether two yearsissuf=
ficient time to consider it "out of the vouchet"?
If so, then okay with me. If not, and I believe it
should be considered "in the market", then it would
help to remove PMH housing supply and Y would recom-
mend against it.
A Owner intends to sell for $160K/unit
B. Owner reluctant to identify construction
costs; still under construction.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
raw w c. r. enrcKn. e. a. s �, to.
Continued Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning February 23, 1S7t
The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a continued meeting February 2121,
1972, at 5:00 PM, in the City Council Chambers. L.en.bers present were Chic
Collins, Olaf Iledstrom, John Schuhmacher', Frank Baranho, llonald Ensign, Joan
filar and Welton Anderson. Also present were Karel: Smith and Hill i:ane from
the Planning Office. This meeting was continued from the February 21, 1978,
sheeting.
Brownell Subdivision Smith explained the application. The request is to
and PUD amendment condominiumize a two story fourplex on the corner of
King and Gibson. They also ask: to amend the PUD and
final plat. There are three lots, common area and
parking area. Smith clarified that they are asking
for a subdivision exception for the final plat amend-
ment, Section 20-19. The engineering office supports
this. The P&Z must approve 1) condominiimiization,
2) subdivision plat amendment and exception, and
3) PUD amendment. Smith explained that the common
area was originally used by all three living units.
They wish to reserve it for only Lot 1. They will
be providing additional parking spaces.
filar asked if there was parking on Lot 1. Smith said.
there are two spaces on Lot-1. Baranko asked what the
zoning is on these lots. Smith said R-15. filar asked
if the adjacent property owners had been notified.
Smith said they would only be notified if P&Z did not
except the amendment hand it went back to a preliminary
plat stage. ,F(ov% iV- PiOAAW /?
Gideon Kaufman, representing the applicant, said that
this land has always been owned by the.Brownells. The
subdivision came up in 1972 and the major concerns at
that time were parking and creation of a substandard
lot which then became the common area. The common
area is the backyard of Lot 1 and looks directly into
the bedroom of the house. It was never used by the
other lot occupants. It will remain open space for use
by Lot 1.
Ensign asked why they needed to go through all this.
Smith said it was necessary for a boundary line change.
Collins asked about the possible widening of Gibson.
;id this would not affect them. Ensign asked
how long the Rigi1L .; Say is. lr:aufrian said GO feet.
.he noted that there are eight parking spaces proposed.
Smith noted, Mat Dave Ellis, City Engineer, did not
rhention the improvement of Gibson Street. The parking
will not interfere with any improvement that is -GO feet
or less.
Iledstrom moved to recora-,fond approval of the PUD
! amen(hi,'ent to (elete the common lot
area and reallocate it to Lots 1 and 2, inasmuch as
�j talc conditions of tho subdivision have changed sinc-e
initiation, Ensign secon("od. The Boar(i 61ScusSeci
possible traffic.. arld }mr:h .inch i:ol1 call vote:
SCilltil3ual'l]eY, a'1 o 1iC'l ; C1'C�!' , Z"Vo;
aye;:f)'; lC)11115, £1\ e; hl?Ol_1.O11
approved.
Continued Meeting Aspen Planning and 'Zoning February 28, 1978
Hedstrom moved to recommend exception of the Brownell
Subdivision from full subdivision procedures including
both conceptual and preliminary plats, inasmuch as
there are special circumstances or conditions affecting
the property such that the strict applications of the
subdivision procedures would deprive the applicant of
reasonable use of his land and that the exception is
necessary for-the,preservation and enjoyment of a sub-
stantial property right of the applicant and that the
granting of the exception will not be detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to other property in
the area, Klar seconded. All in favor, motion approved.
Mark.Danielson, Housing Authority, gave some background
on the Lots as required by Ordinance 53, 1977, in re-
gard to housing im]p`act. His finding was that it was
within the guidelines for PATH housing. Kaufman noted
that there will be no tenant displacement. Danielson
said he would like to see a covenant placed on the
rental units that they will not be sold in the near
future. Kaufman said that it is illegal to restrict
the sale price. He noted that the owner has not raised
the rent in two years. Smith recommended they put the
restrictions of 6 month minimum lease, 90 day right
of first refusal to existing tenants.
Hedstrom moved to recommend granting of the Brownell
Subdivision exemption from the definition of full
subdivision inasmuch as it -will result in no tenant
displacement and subject to the requirements of Ordi-
nance 53, 1977, six month minimum lease and 90 day
right of first refusal, inasmu.cli as the intent and
purposes of the regulation have been met, Ensign
seconded. All in favor, motion approved.
?Manor House Smith explained the application. This is an application
Cv„C:Lptual for conceptual subdivision review for the purpose of
Subdivision condominiumizing an existing multi -family building.
The zoning is Lodge-1. It has been used as short term
housing in,the past and they propose to continue this.
The engineering department memo of January 31, 1978,
contains their concerns, some of which have been re-
solved. The Title Insurance Policy has been provided,
the zoning on adjacent parcels is required to be shown
o.i the plat and there is a parking problem. The Plan-
ning Gffice recommends that they condition approval on
providiry as many parking spaces as possible.
Marty Kahn, repicsonting the applicant, said they hope
to provide at least 12. lie provided pictures of the
area. Iie noted that approximately 1/2 of the building
has already been renovated and the other half will soon
follow.
Smith addressed the question of Low and Moderate Income
housing. She noted that they propose to offer the
studio as an employee unit to be sold through the
housing authority for $40,000 plus as increase based on
national Housing costs.
Danielson noted that the Manor house could be considerei'
Low and Moderate. Iiousing. Ile felt it acceptable that
the studio unit be sold through the llousing Authority.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
roRM 4E C. F. N/I cm. !. !. • C. CO. -- ---_--
Continued Meeting Aspen P anning and :_;oning February 28,197B
Smith noted that the zone L-1 discourages long term
housing but that the sale of this one unit is a good
compromise to this situation. Danielson noted that
there are G 2-bedroom, 1 1-bedroom, 1 3-bedroom, and
1 studio unit. Smith recommended approval subject to
the conditions of the housing authority and resolution
of the engineering department's concerns.
Hedstrom moved to grant conceptual approval of the
condominiumization of the Aspen Manor house subject to
1) utility road Right of Way easements be clarified,
2) maximum parking be provided and appear on the pre-
liminary plat submission and 3) adherence to the sale
procedures of a studio unit as contained in the letter
C1Martin H. Kahn to the P&Z dated February 28, 1978,
E,2
Baranko seconded. All in favor, motion approved.
Iledstrom left the meeting at 7:00 PM.
C.I.S. Clark Smith explained the application. This subdivision.
Subdivision exemption will accomplish two things; 1).separation
Exemption of one set of three lots from another set of three
lots and 2) condominiumize the duplexes'on each of
these lots. Engineering had a problem with the park-
ing situation. The plat was revised to resolve these
reservations. The engineering department now recom-
mends approval with the condition that the road and
utility easement dedication be shown on the plat.
Danielson determined that the front unit of Parcel A
is within the definition of PMII and that condominiumi-
zation would reduce the supply of low and moderate in-
come housing. The rear unit of Parcel A is in need of
repair but could also be considered PMH. The house on
Parcel B was moved there -and has not been used for four
years. He said it did not reduce the nui,.tber of low and
moderate income housing as it has not been on the mar-
ket for four years.
V>J 6310,326
a.L 3:o asked the lot size of these two parcels. John
%..aSalle, rttresenting the applicant, said that they are
v 7/� and 11,z3 =q. ft. There will be no tenant dis-
placement. Clark hac no intention to sell parcel A.
Ile does intend to sell parcel B. LaSalle does not feel
that this constitutes low and moderate income housing.
M�y4Ensign moved to approve the subdivision exemption re-
quest quest for the C.M. Clark property contingent on the
dedication language on the final plat, inasmuch as it
meets PliD requirements, G month minimum lease restric-
7 ion, 90 day right of first refusal to existing tenants,
�( aranko seconded. All in favor, motion approved.
kJA
Ordinance & 4, 1978 Baranko moved that Ordinance 3 and 4 1978, as submit-
ted by the Planning Office, be recommended for adoption
by Council, Elar seconded. All in favor, motion_ ap-
proved.
I:lar moved to adjourn the meeting, sciiuihmacher secondo ; .
All in favor, motion approved. Pieeting adjourned at
7:20 PM.
Schuhmacher moved to reopen the meeting, Baranko
seconded. A1.1 in favor motion approved.
Continued Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning February_28, 1978
Klar moved to schedule the GMP review meeting for
March 14, 1978, at 5:00 PM, in the City Council Chambers,
Anderson seconded. All in favor, motion approved.
Klar moved to adjourn the meeting, Ensign seconded.
All in favor, motion approved. Meeting adjourned
at 7:30' Pro.
Shery Simmen, Deputy City Clerk
• r�L ( q'),
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Office, Karen Smith
RE: C.M. Clark Condominiumization - Subdivision Exemption Request
DATE: February 16, 1978
This application involves two duplexes located on Lots 1,2,3,4, 5,6,7,
8, Block 8 of the Riverside Addition. The location is more practically
described as being on the right hand side of Highway 82 as you leave
town. The first is a yellow Victorian building with a large extension
on the rear side just opposite where Park Avenue joins the highway. The
second duplex is located just uphill from there. About a year or so ago,
a duplex was moved to that site and remodeled once located on the foun-
dation. The zone district is R-6 requiring 9.000 square feet per duplex.
The exemption request seeks permission to separate the lots into two par-
cels, the first involving Lots 4,5,6 and parts of 7 and 8; the second
involving Lots 1,2,3, and parts of 7 and 8. In addition, the request
is that each of the four units be condominiumized. The first parcel
would have 10,326 square feet and the second 11,250 square feet.
Dave Ellis has reviewed the applications and in December noted several
reservations about granting the exemption. First, he noted that adequate
parking may not be able to be located on Parcel A. Seven spaces are re-
quired because there are seven bedrooms. Exemption for a split of Parcel
A from B should only be granted if the separation can meet all design
standards including parking. Secondly, he noted that a road and utility
easement is not shown on the western side of Parcel A. He felt that the
exemption was not warranted until further work was done demonstrating
subdivision design standard compliance.
The Planning Office noted then that the area is covered by a PUD pro-
cedure giving further reason why the full subdivision procedure may
be warranted. A PUD exemption would, at a minimum, have to be granted.
We also noted concern about the second unit on Parcel i" and wished to
see a condominium map ensuring that there are no more than two units
on the site.
A revised improvement survey and condominium map were this week submitted
to Planning and Engineering. From the condominium map, only two units
are shown on Parcel, so it appears that the Planning Office concern is
satisfactorily resolved by commitment to the structural features shown
on the map.
The Engineering Department has not yet completed its review. Prelimin-
arily they have stated that there is no dedication language shown on the
plat for the road easement, utilities are not shown, and the parking
areas are very tightly squeezed in and need to be checked. We will report
Tuesday on whether Engineering feels that these matters can be resolved
throught the exemption route or whether they still feel they are serious
enough to require full subdivision review.
We have attached the information recently submitted by the applicant re-
garding housing impact and compliance with Ordinance 53. We have also
asked the new Housing Authority Director, Marc Danielson, to review and
comment and expect his response late this week.
sir
lj .T-�-T� _ _�. -- -� �-_t�..T�._-_ .-_...--- .r-_- - � - - _ _ � - .- -� - �
i
�� ,
- - �- LLV - -- -- --!-- _
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Office (KS)
RE: C.M. Clark Subdivision Exemption
DATE: December 30, 1977
This application involves two duplexes located on Lots 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, 8, Block 8 of the Riverside Addition. The location is more
practically described as being on the right hand side of Highway 82
as you leave town. The first is a yellow Victorian building with a
large extension on the rear side just opposite where Park Avenue joins
the highway. The second duplex is located just uphill from there.
About a year or so ago, a duplex was moved to that site and remodeled
once located on the foundation. The zone district is R-6 requiring
9,000 square feet per duplex.
The exemption request seeks permission to separate the lots into two
parcels, the first involving Lots 4, 5, 6 and parts of 7 and 8; the
second involving Lots 1, 2, 3, and parts of 7 and 8. In addition, the
request if that each of the four units be condominiumized. The first
parcel would have 10,326 square feet and the second, 11,250 square feet.
Dave Ellis has reviewed the applications and has several reservations
about granting the exemption. First, he notes that adequate parking is
probably not able to be located on Parcel A. Seven spaces are required
because there are seven bedrooms. Exemption for a split of Parcel A
from B should only be granted if the separation can meet all design
standards including parking. Secondly, he notes that a road and utility
easement is not shown on the western side of Parcel A. He feels that
the exemption is not warranted until further work is done demonstrating
subdivision design standard compliance. In any event, while the exemp-
tion may be appropriate for condominiumizing the 4 units, it is not
apparently warranted for the split into two lots.
The Planning Office notes that the area is covered by a PUD procedure
giving further reason with the full subdivision procedure may be
warranted. A PUD exemption would, at a minimum, have to be granted.
We are also concerned about the second unit on Parcel A and wish to
see a condominium map ensuring that there are no more than two units on
the site.
To date, we have not received the necessary information relative to
Ordinance #53, the condominiumization policy and therefore recommend
tabling unless that is furnished to us in time for review by your
Tuesday meeting.
Two options for action exist; one is to table the exemption request
for further work in satisfaction of Dave Ellis' concerns. The applicant
is not assured that the exemption route will be possible even with the
additional work, however. The second is to process the application as
a conceptual subdivision. This might be possible on Tuesday provided
that we can get the appropriate map, ownership and encumbrance reports,
and housing impact information in time for Tuesday. We await word
from the applicant's attorney as to how they wish to proceed.
lmk
enc.
APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION
FROM THE DEFINITION OF A SUBDIVISION
UNDER SECTION 20-19(b) OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN
Pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 20-19 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, C. M. CLARK (herein-
after referred to as "Applicant") hereby applies for an
exemption from the definition of the term "Subdivision" with
respect to the division of certain real property described as:
All of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8,
Block 8, RIVERSIDE ADDITION in and to
the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado
described by metes and bounds as fol-
lows:
Beginning at the Northwest corner of
said Lot 1 whence the witness corner to
Corner 15 of Tract 41, East Aspen Addi-
tion bears South 86045' West 210.38 feet;
thence South 14050'49" West 150.0 feet
along the Westerly line of Lots 1, 7 and
8 to the Southwest corner of Lot 8; thence
South 75O09'll" East 93.25 feet along the
Southerly line of Lot 8 to the Southeast
corner of Lot 8; thence around a curve to
the left with a radius of 794.02 feet,
the chord of which curve bears North
49026' East 143.60 feet along the Easterly
line of Lots 8, 7 and 6; thence North
0014' East 32.84 feet along the Easterly
side of Lot 6 to the Northeast corner of
Lot 6; thence North 75009'11" West 166.48
feet along the Northerly line of Lots 6,
5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 to the point of beginning
into two separately saleable parcels, to wit:
Parcel A: Lots 4, 5 and 6 and Part of
Lots 7 and 8, Block 8 Riverside
Addition to Aspen, Colorado
Parcel B: Lots 1, 2, 3 and Part of Lots
7 and 8, Block 8 Riverside Addi-
tion to Aspen, Colorado.
The existing improvements to the property described
above consist of a duplex unit on each of the parcels. The
Applicant also desires to concurrently condominiumize the
two duplexes into a total of four separately saleable units.
Two improvement surveys are attached to this
application as Exhibits "A" and "B". Exhibit "A" is a survey
•
•
of Parcel A (the westerly side of the property) and Exhibit
"B" is a survey of Parcel B (the easterly side of the property)
showing the duplexes situated thereon. The duplex on Parcel
A contains a four bedroom, two bath apartment which Applicant
seeks to condominiumize into Unit A and a three bedroom, two
bath apartment which Applicant seeks to condominiumize into
Unit "B". The duplex on Parcel B contains two, two bedroom,
two bath apartments which Applicant desires to condominiumize
into Units "A" and "B".
The purpose of this application is to obtain exemp-
tion from the term subdivision so that the two parcels (and
each duplex) may be sold separately and also so that each of
the four apartments in the two duplexes may be condominiumized
and sold separately.
The current zoning of the property in question is
R-6, permitting two family dwellings provided there is 9,000
square feet of lot area per dwelling. The existing structures
conform to all of the existing requirements of the zoning
code, including minimum lot area and set backs. The total
square footage of the property is approximately 21,576 square
feet. As shown on the attached improvement surveys, the
duplex on Parcel A occupies approximately 10,326 square feet
and the duplex on Parcel B occupies approximately 11,250
square feet.
The Applicant submits that the exemption would be
appropriate in this case for the following reasons:
(1) The division of this property into two parcels
and a total of four condominium units is not within the intent
and purpose of Chapter 20 of the Municipal Code regarding the
regulation of subdivision because the property in question
is located within Riverside Addition to Aspen and all streets,
utilities, access easements, storm drainage and other sub-
division design considerations have already been complied
with.
2.
(2) The division of this property conforms to the
density considerations of recently enacted land use legisla-
tion as reflected in the zoning provisions of the Municipal
Code with respect to this property, the zoning of which has
been outlined above.
For the reasons stated above, it is the contention
of the Applicant that this particular division of land is not
within the intent and purposes of Chapter 20 of the Municipal
Code of the City of Aspen and therefore that exemption from
the definition of subdivision under the provisions of Section
20-19(b) of the Code is appropriate.
The Applicant would appreciate consideration of
this application by the Planning Commission at its next regu-
larly scheduled meeting.
Dated:
For the Applicant:
SLEMON, MAZZA & LaSALLE, P.C.
i Il
By
John D. LaSalle
1
3.
0 10
B EGORD OF PROr,ELDINGS 100 Leaves
The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission ltc•.l d :a regular meeting on Januar. y 3, 1978, at 5: 00 P:
in the City Council Chamber.. Mumbc:rs prpsenL wvrr ChIc Collin:;, Tom Isaac, John Schuhmacher,
0onald Ensign and Joan Mar. Also present were 1' un Smith and 'B�11. lane of the 1'janni.n;;
Office.
Approval. of ;•1inuLcs The minutes were postponed to the next mooting.
C. 31. Clark Isaac roved to table action on this item, Ensign st•conde.i. All in
Subdivision Exemption favor, motion approval.
Creektroc, Public
Kane explained that there are four alteraat-ives to the trail casepent
Hearing on Amendment
question. The first: is no trail at all. The Planning, Office dons
to Preliminary Plat
not support this idea as tinge is a nece for this trail. PrPsunt
for. Trail Alignment
access is down Neil Street- which is inadequate to handle pedestrians,
The second alternntive is the "adopted trails plat" which places the
trail down au existing old driveway, west on flay Street: and dotal: acr=
Sprint; Street. The resident:; felt this was the least acceptable Liter
native. The bridge crossing at Spring Street would be the Eost expen-
sive one to construct as there is a substantial gr.uce difference ;e--
tween the two sidew of the river at this location. The Planning, Offic.
does noL support this alternative r_or these reasons. The thirc Men -
native is the 1°Eastern Alternative" which places the trail to the east
of the Andre iilrych property. This alternative pl.4ces the trail_ vary
close to the Ulrych dwelling and the grade is steep enough to make
construction very complicated. The Planning Office does not support
this alternative. The fourth alternative is to place the trail. Wown
the driveway, swinging west along the property line and crossing the
river where it is narrow and the banks are evenly gradY. The Plannio,
Office, City Council and the property owner all support this al.terna--
tine. Kane- noted a comment from a resident that traffic may come
through Oklahoma Flats down Bay Street and on to this trail.. Kane
suggested a gate to be operates' by the property owners which would kec ,
people from doing this. Kane noted that: any decision will go bacl•- to
Council for final plat amendment.
Isaac asked when they propose to build the trail.. Kane szid noxt.
spring. Klar asked :if the fourth alternative was on the property li.nc .
Kane said yes. Ensign ashod the existing conuition of the property.
Kane said there is the existing ; dr lveyLy, low vegetation and ;;Dill
Aspen trees, and part of the trail follows what moy be an oici road i>c.c' .
Klan aal:eci about: Cite grade of the :land. Krhne said most parts are flit
but part of: it was somewhat steep, perhaps 10% gr&e.
Ensign asked'if the trail on alternative two could he straightened oui
as it takes a very sharp turn along the property line. Earle said thV:
would infringe on the lot. The property owners prefer to keep it at
the boundary line. Klar ash& the distance of Lho :steep part of the
trail. Kane estimated botween 150-200 feet. Klnr asked if there was
a significant cost difference between all the alternative. Kchne notes'
the more expensive possibilities.
Collins opened the public. hearing.
Frank Donofrio Donofrio is a resVont of Oklahoma Ylacs. He read a letter: from
Richard Volt that strongly opposed t.ho trail. Ifs also read a .loner
(rout Itemo Lavaf,n.iirut which strongly opho::ed the trail.
BetLy Coates She is also a resident of. Oklahoma Flats. She read two Jej tvva from
Howani 1Wnsen opposing any trail Lhr.ounh Oklahoma Flats. Spooking
for herself, she also strongly objects to any trail. She stshid why
they must have lour- hrldgus an such a ::mull arcn, She also asked
hots( the ClLy p dint to maintain this trail as many other City trails
are not maintains-d presently.
CITY OF ASPEN
MEMO FROM KAREN SMITH 12-5-77
Dave,
t Please find attached an application made by C.M.
Clark from the Definition of Subdivision. I am
tentatively scheduling this exemption for the
December 20th P&Z meeting. May I have any comments
that you may have by December 14th.
Thank you.
Karen
31
a' is
r s �
,i � t''<a+a• - "S4 ;E It .
r .� � ti yr. � p�s�y, � ;Vti •.
. _ T i', �, .. -� - . . -E✓' � d. -'•t� "t�ti ___.. ��. -0 t.+� 4.'� -_ - _._- Y� i y`�.5$.'�',..51 x ... r.,".=e.a,� �I. `r.: _
4
16 FEE SCHEDULE 0
(Subdivision, Exemption from Subdivision, Rezoning, Park Dedication)
Name of Project: Exemption from Definition of Subdivision
Address: Block 8, Riverside Addition - Lots 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8
Applicant's Name: C.M. Clark
Phone:
Applicant's Address: Represented by John LaSalle 925-2043
FOR ZONES WHICH ARE R-15, R-30, R-40, RR and CONSERVATION the Subdivision Fee
Formula is as follows:
Conceptual $100 + $5.00/dwelling unit
t
Preliminary $22.00/dwelling unit
Final $3.00/dwelling? unit
FOR ALL OTHER ZONES the Subdivision Fee Formula is as follows:
Conceptual $100 + $60.00/acre of land
Preliminary $280.00/acre of land
Final $35.00/acre of land
EXEMPTION FROM THE DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION FEE: $50.00 77
REZONING APPLICATION FEE: $125.00 (once a year)
PARK DEDICATION FEE SCHEDULE
I: II) OF ff'JCCC5 :LiS lt.' (.eras
current market value of a percentage of the
land proposed as the development site, the
percentage of the land being determined at the
rate of two and one-half (211) acres for every
one thousand (1,000) residents of the proposed
devclop.mcnt•(that is the number of residents
Multiplied by tw•tnty�five ten thousandths
(.0025) of an acre per resident). The number
of residents attributable to the development
shall be calculated in the following manner:
Type of Dwelling Number of Residents
Per Dwelling Unit
Hulti-Family
studio 1.0
one bedroom 1.3
two bedrezm 2.7
three bedroom 4.0
and 1.3 for each additional bedroom
Single Family or Duplex
one bedroc:a 1.3
two bcdre -i 2.7
three bcd_com 4.0
and 1.3 for each additional bedroom
A duplex str::,ture shall constitute two dwelling
units for the ourroees e' this subsection.
(3) An example of the application of the above
formula as follc,;s, ascurtir.g tlto construction
of one single family res dance containing t.o:o
Lcdroo.._: on a lot containinq 15,000 square
r.feet
with a .arket value of $65,000.00 (or $4.33 per
square foot):
2.7 (2 hcc:room - 2.7 residents) x 0.0025 acres
x 43,560 (::quart fret por acre) x $4.33 (mar-
ket value of land per square foot) � $1,273.15
(b) Vnir,proved land shall ht appraised at the
current r...::.rt value the cite inclu.!tnq its value
attrit+ut�h.r to curl,, ,:uttrrt str,et, sidewalk
nn.l utiltit.•s if inr.t.+Il,•d to the c!.ttr o: p emit
i t.!.t:.IT! . .. ,t''t•�,! 1.,:. _...:1 ! .I;,pit!.. r;( ac; ut.!in,*
to their hht iav:.dnd th c::t ut.: taAtnq luto COW-.lderd-
tlon c�it.t-it:� .tru;•tur,:t: whothor or notthey are
conforn,in.t. ?1.uket. value• may he t:uh::tant.lated by
I
docunn•ntod purchasean s price (if dint'length
ion nut Imtt th.ut two yc.0 e. r_.)d)01 by any
other rtco,1nized means; ;rovide,t thdt assessed
Valuation -:,.ell r.at. be 1(.11od on as evidence of
Current mart.et value. In the event the City and
4W40&
r. t 4VI u.0 �c�cy��2��"'y
CITY OF ASPEN
CUSTOMER
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
CASHIER'S RECEIPT
01-111
LICENSES & 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
&25
❑
SEPTIC TANK PERMITS
01-988-632-03 ❑ XEROXING (DESCRIBE)
❑ OTHER - ACCT. NO.r`, I I i
ESCRIPTION: (NAME, NUMBER, ETC.):
11256
RECEIVED FROI