Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ec.Valley Duplex Condominiumization <--/" '-;, If c, : "'I' / ; , , / , . -) . . /1.: y& ~e., , ~50' D') 1,Q\t1 No. '/3-fI CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen 1. DATE SUBMITTED: 5jF~ jKI 2. APPLICANT: 140. i"O I d 0. (" 3d ke ') \J a 119 STAFF: Cole tie te 1i11f/ / 3. REPRESENTATIVE: lSOh H~res ) qOiO,/700 4. PROJECT MK" (n1:~ i~':~";I;;f ~~'/[:r~.;t'~ I ..a%~1 :t~~ , ' d'" 0 /&7/( , 5. LOCATIOt\: Lot II) 'Block J.Y,fkif\ yYie:s.~ ,\L.-d) IU'S,tm.J _({{-is) , / , 6. TYPE OF APPLICATION: Rezoning P.U.D. Special Review Growth Management HPC ~SUbdivision )( Excepti on Exemption 70:30 Residential Bonus ____Stream Margin ____8040 Greenline View Plane ~Conditional Use Other ConC/Of/lip Ii i i,rta/-;Olu 77J ('It tiZ I IJ/'U J'IJ n e 1(0, I'WI 7. REFERRALS: LAttorney ~Engineering Dept. X,Housing, _Water _City Electric Sanitation District ____School District _____ Mountain Bell ____Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas Parks ____State Highway Dept. Holy Cross Electric _Other ~Fire Marshal/Building Oept. 8. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS: ,'... - /", /'''''- , - . ~ - '-- ,.>' -......' 9. DISPOSITION: P&Z /" / Denied Date Approved C A'JJ.J! t,'; (j . I} c;~ il;- j 0_\ + 1 . :1 :lU,I '.1- ',to. '4:~~~~ ,:1;:- 1.!-' - J I r-\:'COI' . /i. I ;-, ) : :t \ ~{, t-t:s::-y 7 C 1 (\ 1- \ ., ,~ .. \ l.' ~ kJ;+/, I , \ ?\ ,\. ~) t', J 11'\' / . " ro - II ::~, I" - ,\ , I ',,--U, 1-' ,-, ,>, \ " n 1<::..--,...--\1... 1(\;11'/\ li/U ,;, , :~) ,\ .1-., . .+ j ~ /: ,f(r' (~ t. ( i ~. , ( ,,' r. I"' ' " A "-'0..' t \y , :~_,'-~. :' ..L.t ,;., \; I.u , \ {) / ;..{ " ,/ , _I~, " [ n. - . , C~f ! I i 4/'3/8/ Council ,/ APprovedL Denied Date 10. ROUTING: Attorney ~i1ding ~gineering Other .- - , > "'"" ......""" MEMORAI~DUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office RE: Valley Duplex Subdivision Exception DATE: July 2, 1981 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Zon i ng : R - 15 Lot Size: 15,610 square feet > Location: Lot 11, Block 1, Pitkin Mesa Subdivision (1135 Cemetary Lane) Referral Agency Comments: Engineering Department Having reviewed the above application for condominiumization and made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. The plat as submitted is not an adequate condominium plat. It lacks schematic floor plans indicating individual units and comment elements and fails to show significant additions to the easterly concrete pad area as well as fences and walkways. 2. The new plat also fails to adequately address many of the concerns raised in Louis Buettner's memorandum of June 6, 1979 as follows: a. While the new improvement survey shows the building it still does not locate it via ties to the lot line. b. Show areas in excess of 30% slope. c. The retaining walls to the west should be labeled as such. Any approval of this duplex condominiumization should be conditioned on a full revision and recordation of an adequate plat. City Attorney "I concur that the application to condominiumize applicant's duplex should be processed as a subdivision exception rather than exemption. In this regard the application should establish the conditions required by Section 20-19(a). Addi- tionally, the applicant should demonstrate compliance with the applicable requirements of Section 20-22." City Housing Director No comments received. Building Department No comments received. Planning Office Review: Mr. Valley first applied for condominiumization of this duplex in May of 1979. The application was never carried through the process, in part because no parking was provided. Since that time, an easement has been secured from the adjacent property owner and the applicant has expended in excess of $100,000 on interior remodeling. c ..." ~ Memo: Valley Duplex Subdivision Exception - Condominiumization Page Two July 2, 1981 / The structure has 3,138 total square feet with the upper unit containing five bedrooms and 1,570 square feet and the lower unit containing four bedrooms and approximately the same square footage. For the past three years the duplex has been owner-occupied and neither unit has been offered as a rental. Condominiumiza- tion of the structure will, therefore, not reduce the supply of low, moderate or middle income housing. No price restric- tions should be placed on the rental or sale of the units. The units would be subject to a six-month minimum lease with no more than two shorter tenancies per year. U",,"o... The duplex is a non-conforming str~et~I'e in that 10,000 square feet are required per dwelling unit in the R-15 zone. Planning Office Recommendation' Approval of the condominiumization of the Valley Duplex with the following conditions: 1. Full revision of the condominium plat to meet the require- ments outlined by the Engineering Department and, recorda- tion of this plat. 2. Compliance with lease restriction of six-month minimum leases with no more than two shorter tenancies per year. f'h'3~ . r10n~~Onf~rmity be noted on final plat. P & Z Action: The Planning and Zoning COlMlission concurred with the Planning Office recommendation at their meeting on June 23, 1981. Council Action: If Council concurs with the Planning Office recolMlendation and P & Z action the following motion would be appropriate: "I move to approve the condominiumization of the Valley Duplex located on Lot 11, Block 1, Pitkin Mesa Subdivision, with the following conditions: 1. Full revision of the condominium plat to meet the require- ments outlined by the Engineering Department and, recorda- tion of this plat. 2. Compliance with lease restriction of six-month minimum leases with no more than two shorter tenancies per year. 3. Non-conformity be noted on final plat. TO: Colette Penne, Planning Office Jay Hammond, Engineering Department ~ c \: H.i ... ;;: ~':r:i' :.H 11 9 1981Hlf ...------~,........; , ; ':.<~N co. ,'-' J:;;:";(;f *MEMORANDUM* FROM: r"c DATE: June 8, 1981 RE: Valley Duplex Subdivision Exception, Lot 11, Block I/Pitkin Mesa Having reviewed the above application for condominiumization and made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. The plat as submitted is not an adequate condominium plat. It lacks schematic floor plans indicating individual units and common elements amd fails to show significant additions to the easterly concrete pad area as well as fences and walkways. 2. The new plat also fails to adequately address many of the concerns raised in Louis Buettner's memorandum of June 6, 1979 as follows: a. While the new improvement survey shows the building it still does not locate it via ties to the lot line. b. Show areas in excess of 30% slope. c. The retaining walls to the west should be labeled as such. Any approval of this duplex condominiumization should be conditioned on a full revision and recordation of an adequate plat. ASPEN.PITKIN"REGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT ME MORA.T\lDUM ,'(;).,,~=-"-::--:~. "-.!~-,,,,'\1.' ">;; " . f (..... 'i " ".,] 'L""; I';: ,)L:;.J. .......J i I - lr I- w~,' ""J A~,;:;;j'-.: / ;--. .\iN Z>J '<, PLANNiN0 OfFiCi: TO: FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Department Herb ~ddOCk, Chief Building Official RE : Valley Duplex Condominization DATE: June 15, 1981 The Building Department has no concerns with any Fire, Life, Safety items on the requested condominization. Please except this as our approval on the aforementioned project. cc: Planning Commission Oates, Hughes, Knezecich 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-5973 I' " '*0,..",,/ ,,~' ., .......-"" MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineering Department City Housing Director Fire Marshal/Building Department FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office RE: Valley Duplex Subdivision Exception (Condominiumization) DATE: May 19, 1981 Attached is an application submitted by Harold J. "Jake" Valley requesting approval for condominiumization of an existing duplex located on Lot 11, Block 1, Pitkin Mesa Subdivision in Aspen. This item is being scheduled for the June 16, 1981 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission meeting; please review the application and send your comme~ts to me by Wednesday, June 3. Thanks! ! ! / . .. LAW OFFICES OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH LEONARD M. OATES ROBERT W, HUGHES RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH DEBORAH OUINN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION SUiTE 200 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 May 18, 1981 AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 920-1700 City Council City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Planning Commission City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office ci ty Hall 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Supplemental Application for Subdivision Exception - Lot 11, Block 1, Pitkin Mesa Subdivision; Valley Duplex Condominiumization Ladies and Gentlemen : This letter is intended to supplement and revise (update) our earlier application dated May 22, 1979, for a subdivision exemption in connection with the above referenced duplex condominiumization. That application, together with the initial Engineering Department (Louis Buettner) comments that were then made accompany this application as Exhibit "A". Also accompanying this application is a revised plat (improvement survey) of the property that addresses the defienciencies raised by the Engineering Department with respect to the plat that accompanied the earlier application. For the better part of the past two years the applicant, Harold J. ("Jake") Valley, has sought to resolve the parking problem described in paragraph 2 of the earlier engineering memorandum, and only just recently was able to acquire an easement for parking purposes from the owner of the adjacent lot 10, Catherine Flaherty. That easement is depicted on the accompanying plat within the shaded area to the south of the southernmost boundary of lot 11. A copy of the applicant's easement agreement (recorded in Book 408 at Page 644 of the Pitkin County Records) with Ms. Flaherty is attached to this supplemental application as Exhibit "B". Since the time of the applicant's earlier submission, he has expended in excess of $100,000 on the remodeling of the duplex, . " " OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P. C. City Council Planning Commission Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office May 22, 1979 Page Two principally within the interior of the two units and his capital investment in the project has thus increased appreciably. Presently and for the past thirty-four months (i.e., including the ten months antedating the applicant's earlier application), the duplex has been owner-occupied and neither unit has been offered for rent or rented at anytime during this period, whether at low, moderate or middle income prices or otherwise. Given this, and the accepted interpretations given by you to Section 20-22 of the City Code (i.e., rental profile for eighteen months preceeding application), the ---- applicant feels that approval of this application will not at all reduce the supply of so-called low and moderate income housing and that, hence, neither unit should be deed restricted in terms of rental and resale price controls. The applicant is, of course, willing to restrict any leases of the condominium units to six month minimum terms with no more than two shorter tennancies per year. Finally, we note that the applicant's earlier application had requested an exemption from the definition of subdivision in connection with the condominiumization of the duplex. At that time, a subdivision exemption was the accepted procedure for projects of this sort. Since that time, however, the City Attorney's office has determined that a subdivision exemption is not appropriate and that a duplex condominiumization should be processed as a subdivision exception. Accordingly, this shall as well serve as an amendment to our earlier application in order that this application might be processed as a subdivision exception permitting one hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission and one (final plat approval) before City Council. Naturally, we will be happy to provide you with any further information you may require. We would appreciate an early setting on the Planning and Zoning Commission agenda. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, i I By IV",. j Ro ert W. I HUGH,ES , {' I I , ]"vrc~, \- V't ,'" P.C. OATES, I Hughe RWH: jb Enclosure ~XHIBIT A TO SUPPLEM~NTAL APPLICATION FOR SUBDTYISION EXCEPTION '. . - , LAW O,I'"IC~S OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH 2x 00RDAN 600 EAST HOP"'NS AVENUE Lr:ONARD "'I. OATES ASPEN, COLORADO Blel1 RONALD D_ .oo.u5TIN J. "',CHOLAS "'CGRATH, JR May 22, 1979 AREA CODE: 303 WiLLI...... R .JORDAN m TELEPHONE g2~'Z500 ROSERT W HUGHES RIC....ARD A.. K"'EZEVICH Ci ty Conncil Ci ty of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Planning Commission Ci ty of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office ci ty Hall 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Application for Subdivision Exemption, Lot 11, Block.l, pitkin Mesa Subdivision; Duplex Condominiumization Ladies and Gentlemen: We represent Harold E. (Jake) Valley who, by this application, seeks an exemption from the definition of a subdivi- sion (Section 20-19(b), of the City Code) in connection with the proposed condominiumization of his duplex situate on Lot 11, Block 1, Pitkin Mesa Subdivision. The property is zoned R-15 residential. An improvement survey of the property accompanies this application, along wi th our check for $ 5 0 for the f i 1 ing fee. The duplex is a one and one-half story structure (i.e., one story being one-half below grade level) consisting of approxi- mately 3,138 total square feet--each unit consisting of approximately 1,568 square feet. The upper unit contains five bedrooms and the lower unit contains four bedrooms. Additionally, each unit contains tHO bathrooms, a utility room, living room, kitchen and dining area. The duplex is of the upstairs-downstairs rather than of the side- by-side variety. Mr. Valley's investment in this property to date, including land acquisition and construction costs is approximately $150,000.00, and he intends this Spring and Summer to undertake approximately $65-70,000.00 in home improvements, including lvork on the roof, the facade and entryways, the installation of a jacuzzi, and landscaping. We ought also to add here that Mr. Valley currently is negotiating with his neighbor, Catherine Flaherty, for an easement to permit to continue the approximate 14 square foot encroachment on her property caused by the concrete walk in ) J ~; .... OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JORDAN City Council Planning Commission Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office May 22, 1979 Page Two front of the duplex at its southernmost end. Failing in this, of course, Mr. Valley will cause the removal of the encroachment. All but one of the six duplex structures on this block of the subdivision and several duplexes in the remaining block have in the recent past been converted to the condominium form of ownership. These include the duplex of Richard Grimes (Lot 12), the Mogul Condominiums (Lot 13) and the Big and Little Butte' Condominiums (Lots 14 and 15), as well as the K & K Condominiums and the Double Shaft Condominiums (Lots 2 and 3, Block 2). Neither of the two units of Mr. Valley's duplex presently is being rented. In the past, only one of the two units has ever been offered for rent. The most recent tenancy was concluded in July of last year when the tenant fell several months behind on the rent. The monthly rent then payable was $700.00. Although the tenant did vacate the premises following service upon him of a notice for payment of rent, the matter is still in litigation for collection of sums owing to Mr. Valley and to recover property allegedly wrongfully removed by the tenant. Need- less to say, Mr. Valley's one experience with renting proved to be less than satisfactory. Naturally, Mr. Valley understands that the condominiumi- zation of existing duplexes constitutes a subdivision under existing interpretations of state law and the City Code. However, given that the principle purpose and intent of the subdivision laws is to accommodate orderly and planned development and that his duplex has already been constructed in conformance with existing use and density requirements, }\r. Valley believes that a subdivision exemp- tion is appropriate in this case. Obviously, concerns associated with a new division of land such as growth patterns, geologic hazards, extensions of public services, subdivision design standards and the like would not be involved here. Mr. Valley's principle objective in condominiumizing his duplex is to enable him partially to liquidate his investment in the property. He is, however, aware of the City's understandable concerns with tenant displacement and the supply of controlled housing, as expressed in sections 20-22(c) and (d) of the City Code. Recognizing this, he is prepared to restrict the sale or rental of one of the two units for a period of five years to the rental and .' '. ,- ,. ,) '- i , OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & cJORDAN City Council Planning Commission Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office May 22, 1979 Page Two sales price guidelines adopted by the City for low, moderate and middle income persons. However, as indicated above, since only one of the two units historically has ever been rented for prices within those guidelines Mr. Valley intends to offer the second of the two units for sale on the free market. Needless to say, since neither of the two units presently is being rented (the last tenancy having been concluded some ten months ago) condo- miniumization would not result in any tenant displacement whatso- ever. And, given that one of the bvo units has never in the past been rented and, hence, never constituted a portion of the supply of low, moderate or middle income housing, it obviously follows that its sale could not reduce the supply of this type of housing. Naturally, we will be happy to provide you information you might require. We would appreciate an setting on the Planning and zoning commission agenda. for your time and consideration. with any early Thank you Sincerely, OATE::~ST'N' Me;RAT" By.. ,/ccJ L ( ~ert W. Hughes & J07AN {DM RHH/jms Attachment ~..'~ '/~ ) C---v-~2 C \ . ,.0- .'^ '---'" --'. ~ ~\ l: 7 h Q ~ M E Man AND U M TO: nICllllHD GRICE, PLIlNNING OFFICE LOUIS'BUETTNER, ENGINEERING OFFICE~~~<? ,-...- 4-."L:;7 FROM: DATE: June 6, 1979 RE: Valley Subdivision Exemption After reviewing this exemption applic~tion in the office and during a trip to the property, I have the following r~marks to make: "- 1) The condominium map is missing information including: a. The location of the existing bu~lding on the lot. b. Those areas over 30% slope. c. The two newly constructed retaining walls located to the west of the bUilding. d. The width of access and utility easement along back of lot. e. Description of survey monuments set at property corners. 2) This property with improvements has a parking problem that has not been addressed in the past. This parking problem should be solved before an exemption is granted. , / I would recommend tabling this application due to the deficient information as listed above. The engineering department wishes to withhold recommendations for approval until such information is supplied. . ~ ~. . , - Ii.'. -I EXHIBIT r, B TO SU~1EMENTAL APPLICATION J FOR ",.J3DIVISION EXCEpTION EASE!1ENT AGREEMENT THIS EASEMENT AGREEMENT made this 23rd day of Harch , 1981, by and between HAROLD t. VALLEY ("Valley") of Aspen, Colorado, and CATHERINE FLAHERTY ("Flaherty") of Shreveport, Louisiana, RECITALS 1. Flaherty and Valley are the owners, respectively, of the following described adjoining pieces of property situate in Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, to wit: Lot 10 Block 1 pitkin Mesa Subdivision and, Lot 11 Block 1 Pitkin Mesa Subdivision 2. The parties are mutually desirous of granting and confirming an easement over and upon Lot 10 at the place th~r~on and for the purposes more particularly hereinafter describ~d all for the benefit of Lot 11, the owner or owners thereof, their heirs, successors, grantees and assigns. AGREEMENT 'JOVe, THERFTORE, In consid~ration of the ;:;aYii,ent by Valley to F'J ah~rty of t he sum of TEl'I THOUSP,ND i,ND NO/IOOTHS DOLLARS ($10,000.00), the receipt thereof by Flaherty is h~rcby acknowledged, Flaherty hereby grants in perp~tuity unto Valley, his heirs, successors, grantees and assigns, not in gross but as an appurtenance to Lot 11, Block 1, pitkin Mesa Subdivision, that certain above-grade easement more particularl~ described on Exhibit "A" hereto ~nd incorporated by reference herein, for the purposes of the parking of vehicles and the installation of relate facilities, including driveways, garages or carports, with the ri'.]lt t! . \ ( > c.' ( in Valley or the owners at any time of Lot 11, above-described, their guests, invitees-or licensees to pass and repass over so much of the easement above-described at any time as may be necessary or convenient to its purposes aforesaid, including ln the erection and construction of driveways, carports or garages; provided, however, that the obligation now and hereafter to maintain the easement and any parking facilities that may be constructed thereon in a safe manner, and in a manner aestheti- cally, architecturally and structurally consistent with the improvements now or hereafter (but prior to the construction of any such parking facilities) contemplated upon Flaherty's property above-described, shall be and remain that of Valley or the owners at any time of Lot 11, above-described, as the case may be; provided further that the rights and obligations herein shall be and hereby are deemed to run with the properties above- described, and to be a benefit and burden thereto and to the owners thereof, their heirs, successors, grantees and assigns, and provided further that Valley or the owners at any time of Lot 11, above-described, as the case may be, agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Flaherty harmless from and against any liabilities or claims for injury to person or property, as well as against any injury to the property of Flaherty, arising out of the use of the driveway easement described above by Valley or the owners at any time of Lot 11, above-described, as the case may be, their guests, licensees, invitees, successors, grantees, assigns or trespassers using the driveway. The purpose of this indemnity 1S to prevent any loss or damage by Flaherty, her guests, licensees or invitees, as a result of the use of the driveway easement described above by anyone. To thi send and=to,--tf1€-eJften.e ,(,I c' ~ C-~ ~LLainabl€, Valley or the owners at any time of Lot 11, above- described, as the case may be, shall cause Flaherty to be named and remain as an additional insured under Valley's homeowners' liability insurance policy as Flaherty's interest may appear. -2- ( , , Cj "..0." v Such insurance shall be maintained In at least the following amounts and coveragesi $50,000.00 for personal property damage and $100,000.00 per person, $300,000.00 per occurrence for bodily injury. Upon her reasonable requests, Valley or the owners at any time of Lot II, above-described, as the case may be, shall furnish Flaherty with evidence of such insurance. The failure to maintain such insurance shall not be grounds for declaring a forfeiture of the easement herein granted but rather, shall be grounds for Flaherty temporarily to forbid by any appropriate means the use of the easement until such time as such insurance coverages shall be in full force and effect. Each party, upon tender thereof by the other party, shall promptly execute and deliver to the other party or to any nominee or nominees of the other party, all instruments, including deeds or other instruments of title, that may be necessary, convenient or appropriate to fully and fairly effec- tuate all provisions of this Agreement. If either party shall fail to execute and deliver any such instruments to the other party, then this Agreement shall constitute an actual grant, assignment and conveyance of such property and rights in such manner and with such force and effect as shall be necessary to effectuate the terms hereof. In the event of any litigation concerning any of the provisions hereof, including the use of the easement hereby granted, the party substantially prevailing in such litigation shall be entitled to recover his or her costs and reasonable attorneys fees as part of any judgment m~de. DATED: ll..r-~L 2, \ c; 2 ! Lot 10 (\ . -.- I--~r--L-L_~_~+- J , CATHERINE FLAHERTY /" ..) DATED: ~)\~lLt, ~y. I i(J r" : ; >. Lot 11 . L;f.c:' r . '/ L_ '-..c.'rl'//' /3 . ~., I HAROLD ~. VALLEY ; ,/"' / /.. //1 /,.(; t":I{'(- / ,/ tl -3- " II -, - ,. - . \.' STATE OF PARI SH {;ffijrIT'i OF ( LOUISIANA EBWR.~ ) ) CADDO ) ss-. ( The foregoing Easement o-ttL before me this 0 day of Agreement was acknowledged ~_~L , 1981, t/' by CATHERINE FLAHERTY. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: ~~~~J . ~' STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) before me The foregQing 'l'<;\(\ this.-y. ..r day of ~"!~J&g-etV G--!~ Notary Public Alf,v.&. liXLLl: C(),p.4j NO'U.ll.T PUBLIC. Cadlkl PIlO'1*-. I..oaUl'~ 1(r~"b7r:lt:Lltt Easement Agreement , ;) ')"'.\r,\.' , I ,..v. .'--. by HAROLD t. VALLEY. was WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: (ell/ /r l! I." ! ii I : (, Ii \' J ~ \,l~ ' Notary Public -4- acknowledged , 1981, I I /. / \ ! \;ll" ',I , I . '. . " '...... c A tract of land being a portion of Lot 10, Block 1 Pi tkin Mesa Subdivision -Amended, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado situated in the SWt of Section 1 iownship 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6~P.M. described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line of said Lot 10 whence the Northwest corner of said Lot 10 bears N90.00'W 56.10 ft. Thence S90.00'E 31.00 ft. along the North line of said Lot 10 Thence S04.49'13'~ 75.26 ft. to a point on the South line of said Lot 10 Thence N90.00'W 19.00 ft. along the South line of said Lot 10 Thence Nl3"43'56"W 77.20 ft. to the point of beginning , II I EXHIBIT A TO EASEMENT AGREEMENT FLAHERTY - VALLEY ~ Ii r" '. >.,.,.,...... MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office RE: Valley Duplex Subdivision Exception Condominiumization DATE: June 10, 1981 Zoning: R-I5 Lot Size: Location: Referral Agency Comments: Planning Office Review: 15,610 Lot 11, Block 1, Pitkin Mesa Subdivision Engineering Department Having reviewed the above application for condominiumization and made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. The plat as submitted is not an adequate condominium plat. It lacks schematic floor plans indicating in- dividual units and common elements and fails to show significant additions 'to the easterly concrete pad area as well as fences and walkways. 2. The new plat also fails to adequately address many of the concerns raised in Lou'i s Buettner's memorandum of June 6, 1979 as follows: a. While the new improvement survey shows the building it still does not locate it via ties to the lot line. b. Show areas in excess of 30% slope. c. The retaining walls to the west should be labeled as such. Any approval of this duplex condominiumization should be con- ditioned on a full revision and recordation of an adequate plat. City Attorney "I concur that the application to condominiumize applicant's duplex should be processed as a subdivision exception rather than exemption. In this regard the application should establish the conditions required by Section 20-19(a). Additionally, the applicant should demonstrate compliance with the applicable requirements of Section 20-22." City Housing Director No comments received. Building Department No comments received. Mr. Valley first applied for condominiumization of this duplex in May of 1979. The application was never carried through the process, in part because no parking was provided. Since that time, an easement has 'been secured from the adjacent property owner and the applicant has expended in excess of $100,000 on interior remo~elling. The structure has 3,138 total square feet with the upper unit containing five bedrooms and 1,570 square feet and the lower unit containing four bedrooms and approximately the same square footage. or' - -Memo: Valley Duplex Subdivision June 10, 1981 Page Two " - Exception (condominiumization) For the past three years the duplex has been owner-occupied and neither unit has been offered as a rental. Condominiumiza- tion of the structure will, therefore, not reduce the supply of low, moderate or middle income housing. No price restrictions should be placed on the rental or sale of the units. The units would be subject to a six-month minimum lease with no more than two shorter tenancies per year. The duplex is a non-conforming structure in that 10,000 square feet are required per dwelling unit in the R-15 zone. Planning Office Recommendations: The Planning Office recommends approval of the condominiumiza- tion of the Valley Duplex with the following conditions: I I , i I 2. Compliance with lease restriction of six-month mlnlmum [ leases with no more than two shorter tenancies per year. I .3 jM - ~,~ ~ NkJ WcfmJlJ I 1. Full revision of the condominium plat to meet the require- ments outlined by the Engineering Department and, recorda- tion of this plat. -:l,/R '- MEMORANDUM TO: .;C'Jty Attorney ~ity Engineering Department City Housing Director Fire Marshal/Building Department FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office RE: Valley Duplex Subdivision Exception (Condominiumization) DATE: May 19, 1981 Attached is an application submitted by Harold J. "Jake" Valley requesting approval for condominiumization of an existing duplex located on Lot 11, Block 1, Pitkin Mesa Subdivision in Aspen. This item is being scheduled for the June 16, 1981 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission meeting; please review the application and send your comments to me by Wednesday, June 3. Thanks!!! PEN , 0 (';c ( ~ "~nCin~,""" :,-1 ',r'>":::..:,~ i.'_ . '...- it 1\\,.. I" ,,' I 1,1i . J.1il JUN 91981 ,.. J L.::: ."_.__~.~_,. ___,~ ASPEN / ,oiTKiN r:U PLAr'^'I~'r' r"T '~(". ~I~ ",:1 '.l' " "'--'I- 130 asp MEMORANDUM DATE: June 9, 1981 TO: Colette Penne FROM: Paul Taddune RE: Valley Duplex Subdivision Exception (Condominiumi- zation) I concur that the application to condominiumize appli- cant's duplex should be processed as a subdivision exception rather than exempt1on. In this regard, the application should establish the conditions required by Section 20-19(a). Additionally, the applicant should demonstrate compli- ance with the applicable requirements of Section 20-22. PJT: hlC /..-'. , , ."'..",",- "', '" LAW 0 FFICES OATES, HUGHES & KJ-."EZEVICII LEONARD M. OATES ROBERT W. HUGHES RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH DEBORAH QUINN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION SUITE 200 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 61611 May 18, 1981 AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 920-1700 City Council City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Planning commission City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office Ci ty Hall 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Supplemental Application for Subdivision Exception - Lot 11, Block 1, Pitkin Mesa Subdivision; Valley Duplex Condominiumization Ladies and Gentlemen : This letter is intended to supplement and revise (update) our earlier application dated May 22, 1979, for a subdivision exemption in connection with the above referenced duplex condominiumization. That application, together with the initial Engineering Department (Louis Buettner) comments that were then made accompany this application as Exhibit "A". Also accompanying this application is a revised plat (improvement survey) of the property that addresses the defienciencies raised by the Engineering Department with respect to the plat that accompanied the earlier application. For the better part of the past two years the applicant, Harold J. ("Jake") Valley, has sought to resolve the parking problem described in paragraph 2 of the earlier engineering memorandum, and only just recently was able to acquire an easement for parking purposes from the owner of the adjacent lot 10, Catherine Flaherty. That easement is depicted on the accompan in lat within the shad area t ~ r- LL.... oJvuLl.lt;;;;,LUllLUSt boundarv of .lOt .t.t. A r.nnv of the ~ant's easement ~~~~:~:~t ~;eco;d~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~nR rir Paa~ 644 e ~jf-"I,.,;'r'\ C~pmt~l' ..' L II. 1 l. .: ;:\rtached to this supplemental aJ201ir.F1rinn as ExhihiJ- I1BII. Since the time of the applicant's earlier submission, he has expended in excess of $100,000 on the remodeling of the duplex, ,....... - ...-, '- OATES, HUGHES & K:\'EZEVICH, P. C. City Council Planning Commission Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office May 22, 1979 Page Two principally within the interior of the two units and his capital investment in the project has thus increased appreciably. Presently and for the past thirty-four months (i.e., including the ten months antedating the a licant's earlier a plication t e d has bee - c een offered f or rented at iod whether a ow mode te or e income rices or othe e. G~ven this, an the accepted ons given by you to Section 20 22 of the City Code (i.e., rental profile for eighteen months preceeding application), the---- applicant feels that approval of this application will not at all reduce the supply of so-called low and moderate income housing and that, hence, neither unit should be deed restricted in terms of rental and resale price controls. The applicant is, of course, willing to restrict any leases of the condominium units to six month minimum terms with no more than two shorter tennancies per year. Finally, we note that the applicant's earlier application had requested an exemption from the definition of subdivision in connection with the condominiumization of the duplex. At that time, a subdivision ex!:ption was the accepted procedure for projects of this sort. Since that time however . rney's office has determined at ~v~s~on exem t~on is not appropriate and that a up ex condominium u be r cesse as a ~ivI n exce2 ~on. ccordingly, th~s s a as well serve as an amendment to our earlier application in order that this application might be processed as a subdivision exception permitting one hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission and one (final plat approval) before City Council. Naturally, we will be happy to provide you with any further information you may require. We would appreciate an early setting on the Planning and Zoning commission agenda. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, OATES, P.C. HUGH,ES, & j' I I ! ! ; By . \ \h j Ro ert W. i Hughe \'.w RWH: jb Enclosure EXIUBIT A TO SUPPLp~ENTAL APPLICATION FOR SUBl.'T<VISION EXCEPTION ') " , . '" .~ LJ.W O,f"1CES OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & ,JORDAN 600 EA5T HOPI\,INS AVENUE LEONARD M. v.a:rES ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 RONALD D. -"UST1N J. NICHOLAS JolcGRATH. JR_ May 22, 1979 AREA CODE :303 WILLIAM R. JORDAN m TELEPHONE 925-2600 ROSERT W HUGHES RIC....ARD A.II.N!:ZEVICH City Council Ci ty of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Planning Commission ci ty of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office ci ty Hall 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Application for Subdivision Exemption, Lot 11, Block 1, Pitkin Mesa Subdivision; Duplex Condominiumization Ladies and Gentlemen: We represent Harold E. (Jake) Valley who, by this application, seeks an exemption from the definition of a subdivi- sion (Section 20-19(b), of the City Code) in connection with the proposed condominiumization of his duplex situate on Lot 11, Block 1, Pitkin Mesa Subdivision. The property is zoned R-15 residential. An improvement survey of the property accompanies this application, along with our check for $50 for the filing fee. The duplex is a one and one-half story structure (i.e., one story being one-half below grade level) consisting of approxi- mately 3,138 total square feet--each unit consisting of approximately 1,568 square feet. The upper unit contains five bedrooms and the lower unit contains four bedrooms. Additionally, each unit contains two bathrooms, a utility room, living room, kitchen and dining area. The duplex is of the upstairs-downstairs rather than of the side- by-side variety. Mr. Valley's investment in this property to date, including land acquisition and construction costs is approximately $150,000.00, and he intends this Spring and Summer to undertake approximately $65 --70,000.00 in home improvements, including \vork on the roof, the facade and entr~vays, the installation of a jacuzzi, and landscaping. We ought also to add here that Mr. Valley currently is negotiating with his neighbor, catherine Flaherty, for an easement to permit to continue the approximate 14 square foot encroachment on her property caused by the concrete walk in .. I ". -/ ..J ,-.-",,"'.... OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH 8< JORDAN City Council Planning Commission Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office May 22, 1979 Page Two front of the duplex at its southernmost end. Failing in this, of course, Mr. Valley will cause the removal of the encroachment. All but one of the six duplex structures on this block of the subdivision and several duplexes in the remaining block have in the recent past been converted to the condominium form of ownership. These include the duplex of Richard Grimes (Lot 12), the Mogul Condominiums (Lot 13) and the Big and Little Butte Condominiums (Lots 14 and 15), as well as the K & K Condominiums and the Double Shaft Condominiums (Lots 2 and 3, Block 2). Neither of the two units of Mr. Valley's duplex presently is being rented. In the past, only one of the t\vo units has ever been offered for rent. The most recent tenancy was concluded in July of last year when the tenant fell several months behind on the rent. The monthly rent then payable was $700.00. Although the tenant did vacate the premises following service upon him of a notice for payment of rent, the matter is still in litigation for collection of sums owing to Mr. Valley and to recover property allegedly wrongfully removed by the tenant. Need- less to say, Mr. Valley's one experience with renting proved to be less than satisfactory. Naturally, Mr. Valley understands that the condominiumi- zation of existing duplexes constitutes a subdivision under existing interpretations of state law and the City Code. However, given that the principle purpose and intent of the subdivision laws is to accommodate orderly and planned development and that his duplex has already been constructed in conformance with existing use and density requirements, Mr. Valley believes that a subdivision exemp- tion is appropriate in this case. Obviously, concerns associated with a new division of land such as growth patterns, geologic hazards, extensions of public services, subdivision design standards and the like would not be involved here. Mr. Valley's principle objective in condominiumizing his duplex is to enable him partially to liquidate his investment in the property. He is, however, aware of the City's understandable concerns with tenant displacement and the supply of controlled housing, as expressed in sections 20-22(c) and (d) of the City Code. Recognizing this, he is prepared to restrict the sale or rental of one of the two units for a period of five years to the rental and 1-,.... ..,) , I J, OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH 8. .JORDAN City Council Planning Commission Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office May 22, 1979 Page Two sales price guidelines adopted by the City for low, moderate and middle income persons. However, as indicated above, since only one of the two units historically has ever been rented for prices within those guidelines Mr. Valley intends to offer the second of the two units for sale on the free market. Needless to say, since neither of the two units presently is being rented (the last tenancy having been concluded some ten months ago) condo- miniumization would not result in any tenant displacement \vhatso- ever. And, given that one of the two units has never in the past been rented and, hence, never constituted a portion of the supply of low, moderate or middle income housing, it obviously follows that its sale could not reduce the supply of this type of housing. Naturally, we will be happy to provide you information you might require. We would appreciate an setting on the Planning and Zoning Commission agenda. for your time and consideration. \vi th any early Thank you Sincerely, OATE{lET'N 'I MC~RATH ,/ccJ l (, ert W. Hughes & J07AN {e, M By RIVH/jms Attachment ".~ 1~) M E Man AND U M (~/(_. \ ---. """' .'^ ~'=-"<-.J ~\ l,~ ~~Q~ TO: RICIlAHD GRICE, PLANNING OFFICE LOUIS'BUETTNER, ENGINEERING OFFICE~~~ June 6, 1979 FROIA: DATE: HE: Valley Subdivision Exemption After reviewing this exemption application in the office and during a trip to the property, I have the following r~marks to make: \ 1) The condominium map is missing information including: a. The location of the existing buj~ding on the lot. b. Those areas over 30% slope. c. The two newly constructed retaining walls located to the west of the building. d. The width of access and utility easement along bacK of lot. e. Description of survey monuments set at property corners. 2) This property with improvements has a parking problem that has not been addressed in the past. This parking problem should be solved before an exemption is granted. I would recommend t~bling this applicafion due to the deficient information as listed above. The engineering department wishes to withhold recommendations for approval until such information is Supplied. . . I I I I . f ~ -. ., c """ ...,i LAW 0 FFICES OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH F'ROFESSIQNAL CORPORATION LEONARD M, OATES ROBERT W, HUGHES RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH DEBORAH QUINN SUITE 200 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO St61l May 18, 1981 AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 920-1700 City Council City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 o ]dt7J~..jFi;c..CC~"".'-1- . .:~~H ;"'711 ~\) ~_,,;.. . :'j I' . ii. :, '!IAY h UJ81 :i I' '- ... . i'UJ ASI1i.I1/~,;J 00.' .. #\ANNIN@ (Jffl~E' Planning Commission City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office Ci ty Hall 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 .~t~~.;- Re: Supplemental Application for Subdivision Exception - Lot 11, Block 1, Pitkin Mesa Subdivision; Valley Duplex Condominiumization Ladies and Gentlemen : This letter is intended to supplement and revise (update) our earlier application dated May 22, 1979, for a subdivision exemption in connection with the above referenced duplex condominiumization. That application, together with the initial Engineering Department (Louis Buettner) comments that were then made accompany this application as Exhibit "A". Also accompanying this application is a revised plat (improvement survey) of the property that addresses the defienciencies raised by the Engineering Department with respect to the plat that accompanied the earlier application. For the better part of the past two years the applicant, Harold J. ("Jake") Valley, has sought to resolve the parking problem described in paragraph 2 of the earlier engineering memorandum, and only just recently was able to acquire an easement for parking purposes from the owner of the adjacent lot 10, Catherine Flaherty. That easement is depicted on the accompanying plat within the shaded area to the south of the southernmost boundary of lot 11. A copy of the applicant's easement agreement (recorded in Book 408 at Page 644 of the Pitkin County Records) with Ms. Flaherty is attached to this supplemental application as Exhibit "B". Since the time of the applicant's earlier submission, he has expended in excess of $100,000 on the remodeling of the duplex, o .-. '-' OATE:;i, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P. C. City Council Planning Commission Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office May 22, 1979 Page Two principally within the interior of the two units and his capital investment in the project has thus increased appreciably. Presently and for the past thirty-four months (i.e., including the ten months antedating the applicant's earlier application), the duplex has been owner-occupied and neither unit has been offered for rent or rented at anytime during this period, whether at low, moderate or middle income prices or otherwise. Given this, and the accepted interpretations given by you to Section 20-22 of the City Code (i.e., rental profile for eighteen months preceeding application), the---- applicant feels that approval of this application will not at all reduce the supply of so-called low and moderate income housing and that, hence, neither unit should be deed restricted in terms of rental and resale price controls. The applicant is, of course, willing to restrict any leases of the condominium units to six month minimum terms with no more than two shorter tennancies per year. Finally, we note that the applicant's earlier application had requested an exemption from the definition of subdivision in connection with the condominiumization of the duplex. At that time, a subdivision exemption was the accepted procedure for projects of this sort. Since that time, however, the City Attorney's office has determined that a subdivision exemption is not appropriate and that a duplex condominiumization should be processed as a subdivision exception. Accordingly, this shall as well serve as an amendment to our earlier application in order that this application might be processed as a subdivision exception permitting one hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission and one (final plat approval) before City Council. Naturally, we will be happy to provide you with any further information you may require. We would appreciate an early setting on the Planning and Zoning Commission agenda. Thank you for your time and consideration. Since~ely, OATES; HUGH CH, P.C. ., \ By RWH: jb Enclosure EXHJBlT A TO SUPPL, '. i:NTAL APPLICATION FOR SUBL TSION EXCEPTION 1 \ , , -' LAW OF,'CES OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH B. ,JORDAN 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LEONARD M. OATES ASPEN, COLORADO a16l! RONALD D. AUSrlN -J. NlCHOLAS McGRATH, .JR. May 22, 1979 WiLL'........ R. JQROAN ill AREA ..ODE 303 ROBERT W HUGHES TELEPHONE 925-2600 RICHARD A,Il.I'IlEZEVICH Ci ty Council Ci ty of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Planning Commission Ci ty of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office Ci ty Hall 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Application for Subdivision Exemption, Lot 11, Block 1, Pitkin Mesa Subdivision; Duplex Condominiumization Ladies and Gentlemen: We represent Harold E. (Jake) Valley who, by this application, seeks an exemption from the definition of a subdivi- sion (Section 20-19(b) , of the City Code) in connection with the proposed condominiumization of his duplex situate on Lot 11, Block 1. pitkin Mesa Subdivision. The property is zoned R-15 residential. An improvement survey of the property accompanies this application, along wi th our check for $50 for the filing fee. The duplex is a one and one-half story structure (i.e., one story being one-half below grade level) consisting of approxi- mately 3.138 total square feet--each unit consisting of approximately 1,568 square feet. The upper unit contains five bedrooms and the lower unit contains four bedrooms. Additionally, each unit contains two bathrooms, a utility room, living room, kitchen and dining area. The duplex is of the upstairs-downstairs rather than of the side- by-side variety. Mr. Valley's investment in this property to date, including land acquisition and construction costs is approximately $150,000.00, and he intends this Spring and Summer to undertake approximately $65 - 70,000.00 in home improvements, including work on the roof, the facade and entryways, the installation of a jacuzzi, and landscaping. We ought also to add here that Mr. Valley currently is negotiating with his neighbor, Catherine Flaherty, for an e2SP1;1cnt to permit to cont_inlle the opproximClte 14 square foot encroachment on her property caused by the concrete walk in '....r OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & cJORDAN City Council Planning Commission Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office May 22, 1979 Page Two front of the duplex at its southernmost end. Failing in this, of course, Mr. Valley will cause the removal of the encroachment. All but one of the six duplex structures on this block of the subdivision and several duplexes in the remaining block have in the recent past been converted to the condominium form of ownership. These include the duplex of Richard Grimes (Lot 12), the Mogul Condominiums (Lot 13) and the Big and Little Butte Condominiums (Lots 14 and 15), as well as the K & K Condominiums and the Double Shaft Condominiums (Lots 2 and 3, Block 2). Neither of the two units of Mr. Valley's duplex presently is being rented. In the past, only one of the two units has ever been offered for rent. The most recent tenancy was concluded in July of last year when the tenant fell several months behind on the rent. The monthly rent then payable was $700.00. Although the tenant did vacate the premises following service upon him of a notice for payment of rent, the matter is still in litigation for collection of sums owing to Mr. Valley and to recover property allegedly wrongfully removed by the tenant. Need- less to say, Mr. Valley's one experience with renting proved to be less than satisfactory. Naturally, Mr. Valley understands that the condominiumi- zation of existing duplexes constitutes a subdivision under existing interpretations of state law and the City Code. However, given that the principle purpose and intent of the subdivision laws is to accommodate orderly and planned development and that his duplex has already been constructed in conformance with existing use and density requirements, Mr. Valley believes that a subdivision exemp- tion is appropriate in this case. Obviously, concerns associated with a new division of land such as growth patterns, geologic hazards, extensions of public services, subdivision design standards and the like would not be involved here. Mr. Valley's principle objective in condominiumizing his duplex is to enable him partially to liquidate his investment in the property. He is, however, aware of the City's understandable concerns with tenant displacement and the supply of controlled housing, as expressed in sections 20-22(c) and (d) of the City Code. Recognizing this, he is prepared to restrict the sale or rental of one of the two units for a period of five years to the rental and , OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & cJORDAN City Council Planning commission Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office May 22, 1979 Page Two sales price guidelines adopted by the City for low, moderate and middle income persons. However, as indicated above, since only one of the two units historically has ever been rented for prices within those guidelines Mr. Valley intends to offer the second of the two units for sale on the free market. Needless to say, since neither of the two units presently is being rented (the last tenancy having been concluded some ten months ago) condo- miniumization would not result in any tenant displacement whatso- ever. And, given that one of the two units has never in the past been rented and, hence, never constituted a portion of the supply of low, moderate or middle income housing, it obviously follows that its sale could not reduce the supply of this type of housing. Naturally, we will be happy to provide you information you might require. We would appreciate an setting on the Planning and Zoning Commission agenda. for your time and consideration. \vi th any early Thank you , JOE By RHH/jms Attachment . .. " (v-:( . \ ~,-,b ~\ ~~hQ~ I. j M E M Q RAN DUM TO: RICIl1\.HD GRICE, PL1\.NNING OFFIGE LOUIS 'BUETTNER, ENGINEERING OFFICE~~~~<7 ,-,.- ..v~ FROM: DATE: June 6, 1979 HE: Valley Subdivision Exemption After reviewing this exemption application in the office and during a trip to the property, I have the following remarks to make: \ 1) The condominium map is missing information including: a. The location of the existing bu~lding on the lot. b. Those areas over 30% slope. c. The two newly constructed retaining walls located to the west of the building. d. The width of access and utility easement along back of lot. e. Description of survey monuments set at property corners. 2) This property with improvements has a parking problem that has not been addressed in the past. This parking problem should be solved before an exemption is granted, I would recommend tabling this applicafion due to the deficient information as listed above, The engineering department wishes to withhold recommendations for approval until such information is supplied. 1 I r " ~.