Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ex.Francis St. Lots A,B Block 16 Re~orded at 2:09 P.M., Sept 18, 1978 Loretta Banner Recorder Reception No: ">(''''''.'' ~ 7 JTw .1, 1~::'~1t .,~,', \. OJ' , ~/ , .. ' _354 ,.916 . i". ,/' "." / ~ \ ':.., STATEMENT OF EXEMPTION FROM THE DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, the applicants, Billy E. Quigley and Robert H. Throm are the owners of the following described real property situate in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado: Lots A & B, Block 16, City and Townsite of Aspen, and, WHEREAS, there is presently constructed upon the property above-described two single family dwellings, and, WHEREAS, the applicant has requested an exemption from the definition of a subdivision for the purposes of sub- dividing the existing single family dwellings through condominiumization; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at its meeting held July 18, 1978, determined that an exemption from the definition of a subdivision was appropriate in the circumstances and recommended that the same be granted; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of Aspen, Colorado at its meeting held July 24, 1978 and upon the reco~endation of the Planning and Zoning Commission aforesaid, determined that the application of Billy E. Quigley and Robert H. Throm met the requirements of subsection (c) of Section 20-22 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and that, accordingly, the subdivision of the existing duplex through condominiumi- zation is not within the intent and purpose of Chapter 20 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of Aspen, Colorado does hereby determine that the proposed subdivision thrQugh the condominiumization of the two single family dwellings situate upon Lots A & B, Block 16, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, is not within the intent and purpose of Chapter 20 of the Municipal COGe of the City of Aspen and does, therefore, grant an exemp~ion from the definition of a subdivision for the purpi;)ses aforesaid; -* 1lI{f1l} PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the grant of the foregoing exemption shall be subject to and conditioned upon compliance with the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) of Section 20-22 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen and the further condition that applicants enter into a subdivision agreement providing for curb, gutter and sidewalks at such time as Seventh Street is improved. DATED: ~)~~~ IS- , 1978. foregoing Statement of Exemption From the Definition of a Subdivision was considered and approved by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting held July 24, 1978, at which time the Mayor, Stacy Standley, III, was authorized to \ ' . -, . , , . , . " ~. ,,""'," -V'~(1:j,,~" I execute the same on behalf of the Ci ty of/2\.13'P>~j!;:;iL:/.' . ." -'.j.,- -"". ", / .' it _' :,.;.- ~ .If ,;.,,', ,..-. _.f~. _ ';: '..:~, , ~-riL.,~ j"JtJddj'" Ka~0i-J _' "'-.;', .~~ ' " ." \>- ..','-i", Jo. ' ,.t:;":i::' ~. ,. III 1;, ", ,\.' -2- M E M 0 RAN DUM TO: Mark Danielsen Dave Ellis FRilll: Planning Office, Richard Grice RE: Francis Street Condominiumization - Subdivision Exemption DATE: June 22, 1978 This item is tentatively scheduled for the July 18 P&Z meeting. Written comments should be returned to the Planning Office by July l2 or it won't make the 18th. Please let me know if this date presents a problem. Mark, your copy of the application should have already have been delivered by hand by John Kelly, applicants attorney. sr . ~.. (JOliN THOMAS I(ELLY ATTORNEY AT LAW POST OFFICE SOX 1109 ASPEN, COLORADO BI611 TELEPHONE (:i() 31 925-'216 June 21, 1978 Mr. Mark Danielson Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority Pitkin County Courthouse 506 E. Main Street Aspen, Colorado 8161l RE: Francis Street Condominiums Exemption 'Request Dear Mark: Enclosed is as complete a rental history as I have been able to compile regarding the above referenced application. Attached is the letter from O. K. Clifton, who recently sold the property to my clients. I recently spoke to Mr. Clifton and he further informed as follows: 1. To the best of his recollection, both Stacey Swetil and Heather Campbell informed Mr. Clifton that they intended to terminate their tenancies prior to the sale. It is also his belief, although he is not positive, that they have left the area. They had vacated the premises by April l, 1978. 2. Joe Wilson who is a real estate salesman for Cooley Investment Co., occupied one of the units only for a short period and had no intention of remaining there for any length of time. He had sold his home in Mountain Valley and presently lives in Meadowood. 3. Dave Steele has, according to Joe Wilson, also found other housing. He did remain through the month of May, at no rent, in a caretaker capacity. I realize that the information provided is sketchy, but Mr. Clifton only occasionally visited Aspen, at which time he occupied one of the rental units himself. As he states in his letter, there were probably others who intermittently occupied the premises, but he has no knowledge as to who these individuals were. I would refer you to my comments on my application regarding tenant displacement and the low and moderate income housing question. If you have any questions, I would appreciate your contacting me. Thank you for your cooperation. John Thomas Kelly JTK/ms encl. , , ~.~' <" ~. ... .......,.,. Vallflf Entfltptij(Jj p, O. Box 1853 ~ Grand Junction, Colo. 81501 1355 North Fourth St. -...,.... Hr. Joe Wilson Cooley Investment 405 South Hunter St. Aspen, Co. 81611 Dear Joe) The rental data you requested on the Aspen Duplex will be a little sKetchie in bhat I never knew the names of all the people living in the big side of the duplex. Most of the time there were four persons there. However, I only dealt with one person and that is the name(s) shown below. Big side of duplex 1975 Suzanne Broderick 1976 Suzanne Broderick 1977 Jon Gardner Stacey Swetil Stacey Swetil $450.00 per month $S25.00 per month 1978 $560.00 per month $560.00 per month Small side 1975 1976 1977 1978 of duplex Ruth perry Dave Steele Dave Steele Dave Steele Joe Wilson Heather Campbell $140.00 per month $160.00 per month $180.00 per month $$380.00 to $505.00 per month If you need further information, please let me know. Yours truly, ~ ~ (') ~<C~ n. K. . 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Planning Office, Richard Grice RE: Francis Street Condominium Subdivision Exemption DATE: July 19, 1978 The attached application requests subdivision exemption for the condominiumization of two single family dwellings which are located on Lots A and B, Block 16, City of Aspen (zoned R-15). The application is made by John Kelly on behalf of the owners of the property, Billy E. Quigley and Robert H. Throm. The Engineering Department reports, "after having reviewed the improvement survey and making a field inspection of this project, the Engineering Department feels that the project satisfactorily complies with the subdivision regulations with the exception of street improvements along North Seventh Street. The master plan for curb, gutter and sidewalk within the city designates North Seventh Street as having curb, gutter and side- walk on both sides and as the development of the Institute property to the north proceeds, Seventh Street will be improved. Since the construction of curb, gutter and sidewalk would be more appropriate at the time of overall improvement to Seventh Street, we would recommend that the subdividers be required to enter into an agreement with the City for the specific improvements along the Seventh Street frontage. At such time as Seventh Street is improved, the existing graveled parking area would be reduced in size such as to prohibit parking. Subject to this one comment the Engineering Department recommends granting of the exemption." The application was also referred to the Housing Director. !lark recommends your approval and comments further that tenant displacement is minimal as there have been no tenants on the property since 4/1/78 with the exception of a caretaker who vacated in May. Also, a 90-day right of first refusal and six- month relocation time have been agreed upon by the applicants, as well as six-month minimum lease terms. This application was reviewed by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at their regular meeting on July 19, 1978. At that time, their recommendation was for approval of the subdivision exemption request subject to the six-month minimum lease restrictions of Ordinance #53 and provided the owners agree to enter into the improvements agreement suggested by City Engineering. RG:mc JOHN THOMAS KELLY ATTORNEY AT LAW POST OFFICE BOX 1109 TE:LEPHONE {303) 925-1216 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 June 21, 1978 City Council City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 8l6ll Dave Ellis City Engineer 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 8l6l1 Planning Commission City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 8161l Mark Danielson Aspen Pitkin Housing Authority pitkip County Courthouse 506 E. Main Street Aspen, Colorado 8l61l Aspen/Pitkin Planning City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 816ll Office RE: Application for Subdivision Exemption Lots A & B, Block 16, City and Townsite of Aspen, Condominiumization, Francis Street Condominiums Ladies and Gentlemen: I represent Billy E. Quigley and Robert H. Throm, who by this application seek an exemption from the definition of a subdivision (Section 20-19 (B), Municipal Code of Aspen) in connection with the proposed condominiumization of two existing structures into two single family units situate on Lots A & B, Block 16, City and Townsite of Aspen. The proposed condominium will consist of two units. The northerly unit consists of 3 bedrooms and 3 baths and is approximately 1,628 square feet in size. The second unit is a one story house containing three bedrooms and two baths being approximately l,564 square feet in size. Both houses were purchased recently at a total cost of $200,000.00. The condition of the dwelling was extremely poor and the current plans involve extensive remodeling commensurate with single family use. An appraisal of the subject property is being prepared based on their value at completion of the remodel. It will be supplied to you well in advance of my presentation. Obviously, my clients recognize that the proposed project represents subdivision under the applicable state statutes and City Code. However, given that the primary intent and purpose of the subdivision laws is to facilitate orderly and planned development and that the existing structures are already con- structed in conformance with existing use and density require- ments, we believe that a subdivision exemption is appropriate in this case. City Council et al. June 2l, 1978 Page Two Admittedly, my clients' primary purpose in condominiumizing the existing structures is to enhance their marketability. In my view, this is the primary purpose in all subdivision exemptions of this type which are currently pending before you. By the same token, however, they are aware of the City's concern with the impact of condominiumization on tenant displacement and low or moderate income housing. I believe that in this case the impact of such condominiumization regarding those concerns is minimal at best. It may be that one of the proposed units will be occupied by Mr. Quigley (who is a self employed local contractor), as his permanent residence, but my clients' plans are somewhat indefinite at this tme. There are currently no tenants on the premises. The rental history of the property, which has been supplied to the Housing Director (see attached letter) indicates that at least the larger of the two structures was rented as an illegal triplex under previous owners, which, undoubtedly, had an adverse effect on the neighborhood. My clients intend that the condominium declaration shall provide that future use of the units shall be single family only and further, that there will be a short term rental restriction as required by Ordinance 53. There have been no tenants on the property, with the exception of one person who acted in a caretaker capacity for the months of April and May, since April 1, 1978. In addition, with one possible exception, termination of previous tenancies was a result of tenant action Accordingly, I feel the problem of tenant displacement is extremely minimal if same exists at all. It is my view that the units, regardless of the type of ownership, do not lend themselves to the potential for low or moderate income housing regardless of the form of ownership. The purchase price of the units, even in the sad state of repair which presently exists, was $100,000.00 per unit. Even were the units to continue to be rented without condominiumization, the units will have to be rented at a rate of at least $850.00 per unit per month simply to meet debt service on existing encumbrances, insurance and real property taxes. This, in my view, would clearly take the subject property out of low to moderate income housing market based on the figures compiled by the Planning Office or any other type of definition of low to moderate income housing which I can envision. While I do not believe that this particular request falls within the low to moderate levels, the units are, when condominiumized, more affordable to prospective purchasers than they would be if the property were to remain under its present form of ownership. My clients understand clearly that any tenants at the time of condominiumization are to be allowed a 90 day right of first ,~__,..,__.~"._.__"........._______~.~".__.._"~,"^,____.___~._~.e~~___'" . City Council et al. June 21, 1978 Page Three refusal, a period of 180 days in which to relocate, and further agree that the six month minimum lease terms will be imposed in the event their application is granted. In any event, they have no intention of renting short term and intend to provide such a restriction in the condominium declaration. Should you require any further information, I will be happy to provide you with same. I would appreciate as early a setting as is possible on the Planning and Zoning Commission agenda. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, John T. Kelly JTK/ms r "\ , JOHN THOMAS KELLY ATTORNEY AT LAW POST O"'I'"'CI!!: eox IlOliJ' TEL..EPHONE l303) 925-1216 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 June 2l, 1978 Mr. Mark Danielson Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority Pitkin County Courthouse 506 E. Main Street Aspen, Colorado 8l61l RE: Francis Street Condominiums Exemption Request Dear Mark: Enclosed is as complete a rental history as I have been able to compile regarding the above referenced application. Attached is the letter from O. K. Clifton, who recently sold the property to my clients. I recently spoke to Mr. Clifton and he further informed as follows: l. To the best of his recollection, both Stacey Swetil and Heather Campbell informed Mr. Clifton that they intended to terminate their tenancies prior to the sale. It is also his belief, although he is not positive, that they have left the area. They had vacated the premises by April l, 1978. 2. Joe Wilson who is a real estate salesman for Cooley Investment Co., occupied one of the units only for a short period and had no intention of remaining there for any length of time. He had sold his home in Mountain Valley and presently lives in Meadowood. 3. Dave Steele has, according to Joe Wilson, also found other housing. He did remain through the month of May, at no rent, in a caretaker capacity. I realize that the information provided is sketchy, but Mr. Clifton only occasionally visited Aspen, at which time he occupied one of the rental units himself. As he states in his letter, there were probably others who intermittently occupied the premises, but he has no knowledge as to who these individuals were. I would refer you to my comments on my application regarding tenant displacement and the low and moderate income housing question. If you have any questions, I would appreciate your contacting me. Thank you for your cooperation. John Thomas Kelly JTK/ms encl. ,.., . , . Vallflf Entfltptijtlj p, O. Box 1853 UlUllJOOOO(,U Grand Junction, Colo. 81501 1355 North Fourth St. -, , Hr. Joe Wilson Cooley Investment 405 South Hunter St. Aspen, Co. 81611 Dear Joe; The rental data you requested on the Aspen Duplex will be a little sketchie in hhat I never knew the names of all the people living in the big side of the duplex. Host of the time there were four persons there. However, 1 only dealt with one person and that is the name(s) shown below. Big side of duplex 1975 Suzanne Broderick 1976 Suzanne BrOderick 1977 Jon Gardner Stacey Swetil Stacey Swetil $450.00 per month $525.00 per month 1978 $560.00 per month $560.00 per month Small side 1975 1976 1977 1978 of duplex Ruth perry Dave Steele Dave Steele Dave Steele Joe Wilson Heather Campbell $140.00 per month $160.00 per month $l80.00 per month $$380.00 to $505.00 per month If you need further information, please let me know. Yours truly, ~ ~ r;), ~t/~ . K. . 0 ,-""" MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Office, Richard Grice RE: Francis Street Condominium Subdivision Exemption DATE: July 12, 1978 The attached application requests exemption from Subdivision procedures for the condominiumization of two single-family dwellings which are located on Lots A and B, Block 16, City of Aspen (zoned R-15). The application is made by John Kelly on behalf of the owners of the property, Billy E. Quigley and Robert H. Throm. The Engineering Department reports, "After having reviewed the improvement survey and making a field inspection of this project the engineering department feels that the project satisfactorily complies with the subdivision requirements with the exception of street improvements along North Seventh Street. The master plan for curb, gutter and sidewalk within the city designates North Seventh Street as having curb, gutter, and sidewalk on both sides and as the development of the Institute property to the north proceeds, Seventh Street will be improved. Since construction of curb, gutter and sidewalk would be more appropriate at the time of overall improvement to Seventh Street, we would recommend that the subdividers be required to enter into an agreement with the City for these specific improvements along the Seventh Street frontage. At such time as Seventh Street is improved, the existing graveled parking area would be reduced in size such as to prohibit parking. Subject to this one comment the engineering department recommends granting of the exemption." ~he application was also referred to the Housing Director. Included in your packet is a copy of Mark's memo covering the two subdivision exemption applications on this week's agenda. The fact is that these units are currently undergoing major renovation as two single family dwellings. Previously, this property was an illegal tri-plex serving moderate income persons. With or without condominiumization, it is doubtful that these buildings will ever serve persons of moderate income with under $18,000 per year gross income again. The planning office recommends approval subject to the 6-month minimum lease restrictions of Ordinance #53 and provided the owners agree to enter into the improvements agreement suggested by City Engineering. RG:mc vM,J . ....3 ~ C _.L .J r~ \""'~ ~ \L'-AY- G~fll'-""''''^ MEMO TO: RICHARD GRICE PLANNING FROM: DAVE ELLIS ENGINEERING ~ July 11, 1978 DATE: RE: Subdivision Exemption Request - Lots A & B, Block 16, Original Aspen Townsite (Francis Street Condominiums) After having reviewed the improvement survey and making a field inspection of this project the engineering department feels that the project satisfactorily complies with the subdi- vision requirements with the exception of street improvements along North Seventh Street. The master plan for curb, gutter, and sidewalk within the City designates North Seventh Street as having curb, gutter, and sidewalk on both sides and as the development of the Institute property to the north proceeds, Seventh Street will be improved. Since const~lction of curb, gutter and sidewalk would be more appropriate at the time of overall improvement to Seventh Street, we would recommend that the subdividers be required to enter into an improvement agreement with the City for these specific improvements along the Seventh Street frontage. At such time as Seventh Street is improved, the existing graveled parking area would be reduced in size such as to prohibit parking. Subject to this one com- ment the engineering department recommends granting of the exemption. jk ~ ~ H . ~ , ~.' ; ~ ;1 llj . I . i! \ I '. tl " ~ , !i >lj , , . fJ' .1 n: '>> << I f" \ .\ 'I' . ~, ~ "1 ,y ',I 11 'I L '~ ~ i} \ ~ I I ~ " ~ ,\ i ~ .~ ~ \^ ~ "\ \) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ 'I .~ '<\ ~, f--: ~ ~ ~ i 37 s- ~--_. 0- PINS SET 0- PINS FOUNO , PROPERTY IMPROVE~~NT SU~VEY / 1 ---~I f - -j.y E5 T 1':1 tr)L-,. "" V " \;' " '\ " ",-' 'ri'\j Il" ~~ '" '\ 7 :? 01 ~. r-- " " ,\ ~ \ " \ \.~ ~, ~1 f \\ \,~ " I' , , '\\"", I'; !l\ t: I'\.:~ '!i I ~ ~ '.\.\, ~ ; L 5C/Cl,::io' ~ - ~ n .~ .~ :j FR4/VC/5 - Aspho/,t Svrroce \ \ \ --\~ ~\ "', ,.~ ' -3" /VC7/K' ~': 60.0' 8;< /6,g 5,g 32.1? 'I /5;o1ory Frc;t/77& Ap~ ~ ,8/d;?_ 'I Q;) ~ C'OfE 48L .,;.... _: ~.:._~~L_~.f :I~~." " '13'''-rw",/A':';:'; 9' ~. "17" 49!! 10,1 ~l ' ...... '\1\ri ~ I:l ~~ ~ {. of 2'~" 'I 2' Sr'arv Frc/77e' Apr. ./ 1.-.1 'I ~ 8/c/;? C\J '\I "" 49!! ;.,,; ~:"! OJ' g "I I (,A,~ I ~ 16 ~I j..o ;:- )or)' i '" f3h' 50,0' 3'0.0' 60.0' ALLEY f}/oc.1 I 1 ,1 -- I I I I , i LEGAL DESCRIPTIOn Lots A and B in Block 16 of the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. !IMPROVEMENT SURVEY DATE I November 24, 1970 r ~ I, 1 i! i it ~ il ~ l , ~ , ~ : ij , f, . i' , J': ~ ~ SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT A FIELD SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED, UNDER MY SUPERVISION ON THIS DATE, OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY, AND THAT ALL BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS, EASEMENTS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN EVIDENCE OR KNOWN TO ME ARE CORRECTLY SHOWN ON THE ABOVE PLAT. I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THERE ARE NO ENCROACHMENTS BY ANDloR ON THIS PROPERTY, UNLESS SO NOTED. THIS PLAT SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR THE LOCATION OF FUTURE PERMANENT IMPROVEMENTS. 'I' /p~ .ff.~H I lJruc~ II, Shull, Registered Land Surveyor, I" Colorado Reg. No. 9963 i NELSON I HAlEY I PA HERSON I & QU I RK, I NC. PROJECT t\Q. 70-04-333 GREE~EY, GRANO JUNCTION, DENVER, COLORADO