Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ec.Valley Duplex Condominiumization.43-81t • 0 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen 1. DATE SUBMITTED: blig al rr 2. APPLICANT: Harb I d S\• � I No. 3- 4f/ STAFF: (�?fe 3. REPRESENTATIVE: O —Lt 9aG—/ 7D0 ✓"Inr `t1,.1.�"6r J,14 0 7:Z--A tiJ, ) \ ""7P 2ti// . �e6 6. TYPE OF APPLICATION: Rezoning Subdivision Stream Margin P.U.D. Exception 8040 Greenline Special Review Exemption View Plane Growth Management 70:30 Conditional Use HPC Residential Bonus Other ed►�dorn�ni���T� ��4'0�, �o L��i 7. REFERRALS: ash NoPkiaa�, X Attorney Sanitation District School District L Engineering Dept. Mountain Bell Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas Housing Parks State Highway Dept. Water Holy Cross Electric _ Other City Electric X. Fire Marshal/Building Dept. 8. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS: 0 0 0 r • 0 9. DISPOSITION: P & Z Approved ✓ Denied Date 6 12Z �J Council_Z 10. ROUTING: Approved __�,// rr"')S; S Denied Date, Attorney ✓ Building �Engineering Other C� • TO: FROM MEMORANDUM Aspen City Council Colette Penne, Planning Office RE: Valley Duplex Subdivision Exception - Condominiumization DATE: July 2, 1981 APPROVED AS TO FORM:i�aiu� G / ,v�u�./ Zoning: 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. 9 Memo: Valley Duplex Subdivision Exception - Condominiumi.zation 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, The duplex is a non -conforming 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. p 3. Non -conformity be noted on final plat. P & Z Action: The Planning and Zoning Commission concurred with the Planning Office recommendation at their meeting on June 23, 1981. Council Action: If Council concurs with the Planning Office recommendation 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. *MEMORANDUM* TO: Colette Penne, Planning Office ��- '� 91981 FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Department 4 ' I n! Cj.�J: r OFF1L'E, DATE: June 8, 1981 RE: Valley Duplex Subdivision Exception, Lot 11, Block 1/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*PITKINSEGIONAL BUILT DEPARTMENT MEMORA_'VDUM TO: Colette Penne , Planning Department FROM: Herb Paddock, Chief Building Official RE: Valley Duplex Condominization DATE: June 15, 1981 F Ff Z-1 JUN 1 G 1981 ASPEN / PITKIN CO. PLANNING DICE 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 61611 303/925-5973 • • MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineering Department City Housing Director Fire Marshal/Building Department FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office RE: Malley 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!!! LAW OFFICES OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH LEONARD M. OATES ROBERT W. HUGHES RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH DEBORAH OUINN City Council City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Planning Commission City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION SUITE 200 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 May 18, 1981 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office City Hall 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 920-1700 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, HtiGHES & 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, OATES, HUGHES, & KNEZEVICH, P.C. ' I B ��►�( \ \ti, \ Y Robert W. HughOls RWH:jb Enclosure +AXHI_BIT A TO SUPPLETAL APPLICATION FOR SUBDbISION EXCEPTION LAW OFFICES OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LEONARD H_ CATES ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 RONALD D. AUSTIN J. NICHOLAS McGRATH,JR. May 22, 1979 WILLIAM R. JORDAN M AREA CODE 303 R05ERT W HUGHES TELEPHONE 925-2600 RICHARD A. Am-12EVICH City Council City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Planning Commission City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office City 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 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 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 easement to permit to continue the approximate 14 square foot encroachment on her property caused by the concrete walk in 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, 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 & 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 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 information you might require. We setting on the Planning and Zoning for your time and consideration. RWH/jms Attachment happy to provide you with would appreciate an early Commission agenda. Thank any you Sincerely, OATES,1STIN, McGRATH & JO AN By ram, R ert W. Hughes M E MORANDUM TO: RICIIARD GRICE, PLANNING OFFICE FROM: LOUIS •DUETTNER) ENGINEERING OFFICE` d� DATE: June 6, 1979 RE: 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 building on the lot. b. Those areas over 300 slope. c. The two newly constructed retaining walls located to the i�est 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. 1 EXHIBIT B TO SAEMENTAL APPLICATION FOR &DIVISION EXCEPTION EASEMENT AGREEMENT THIS EASEMENT AGREEMENT made this 23rd day of March , 1981, by and between HAROLD VALLEY ("Valley") of Aspen, Colorado, and CATHERINE FLAHERTY ("Flaherty") of Shreveport, Louisiana, 'D M r, T TP 71 T C 1. Flaherty and Valley are the owners, respectively, of the following described adjoining pieces of property situate in Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, to wit: and, Lot 10 Block 1 Pitkin Mesa Subdivision 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 thereon and for the purposes more particularly hereinafter described all for the benefit of Lot 11, the owner or owners thereof, their heirs, successors, grantees and assigns. AGREEMENT NO4', THFRFFORE, in consideration of the payment by Valley to Flaherty of t he sum of TEN TliOUSAND AND NO/1 00i'1,S DOLLARS ($10,000.00), the receipt thereof by Flaherty is hereby acknowledged, Flaherty hereby grants in perpetuity 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 particularly described on Exhibit "A" hereto and 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 rig it 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 in 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 is to prevent any loss or damage by Flaherty, her quests, licensees or invitees, as a result of the use of the driveway easement described above by anyone. To this end and= -to t4ie—exten-t a.ftainabl,e, 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- � f • Such insurance shall be maintained in at least the following amounts and coverages:' $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 11, 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 made. DATED: `�{��,y_L 2� L `; � 1 1 Lot 10 CATHERI14E FLAHERTY DATED:. Lot 11 AAROLD '15.. VALLEY I/ V�. -3- LOUISIANA ' STATE OF E-E r -znDO ) PARI SE -ee�N-Y'Y OF CADDO ) The foregoing Easement Agreement was acknowledged before me this / J day of �� ��� , 1981, by CATHERINE FLAHERTY. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires:�J-C'^��� Notary Public NOTdBT PUBLIQ, C.ddo P-1a Lo�IIy cps _ ur 0,.. _ -d O Zs Pa We STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing Easement Agreement was acknowledged before me this.Z day of ► l''..i 1981, by HAROLD jr, VALLEY. WITNESS my hand and official seal. r My commission expires: Notary Public -4- A tract of land being a portion of Lot 10, Block 1 Pitkin Mesa Subdivision Amended, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado situated in the SWV' of Section 1 Township 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 N90000'W 56.10 ft. Thence 590°00'E 31.00 ft. along the North line of said Lot 10 Thence 504°49113"E 75.26 ft. to a point on the South line of said Lot 10 Thence N90°001W 19.00 ft. along the South line of said Lot 10 Thence N13043'S6"W 77.20 ft. to the point of beginning EXHIBIT A TO EASEMENT AGREEMENT FLAHERTY - VALLEY • • MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office RE: Valley Duplex Subdivision Exception Condominiumization DATE: June 10, 1981 Zoning: R-15 Lot Size: 15,610 Location: Lot 11, Block 1, Pitkin Mesa Subdivision 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 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 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 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. 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 remorlelling. 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. -Memo: Valley Duplex Subdivision Exception (condominiumization) June 10, 1981 Page Two 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: 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. MEMORANDUM TO: , City Attorney Zity 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!!! i CITY OF ASPEN JUN 91981 130 south galena street ASPEN / PITKIN Co. aspen, colorado 81611 PLANNINGC,T;c- 303-925 -2020 mpmnpAmnliM 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 exemption. 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. PJ T : sac • • LAW OFFICES OATES, HUGHES 8: KNEGEVICH PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION SUITE 200 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LEONARD M.OATES ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ROBERT W. HUGHES RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH AREA CODE 303 DEBORAH QUINN May 18, 1981 O1 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 City 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. -Tha easement is depicted on the accompan in lat within the shad area t _ oun ary of A cony of the ant's easement eco Paag 644 e tacked to this sup plemen� al al2j2l is�a ion as ExhihiJ- "B". Since the time of the applicant's earlier submission, he has expended in excess of $100,000 on the remodeling of the duplex, 0ATE:S, HUGHES & KtiEZEVICH, 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 d has bee - c een offered f or rented at iod whether a ow moder to or e income rices or othe e. Given 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 exrat tion was the accepted procedure for projects of this sort. since that time however rney's office has determined a s Fa7i-vision exem tion is not appropriate an=7 at a up ex condominiumizarTMr-ffM-Uld be processect as a 5TMiv1n exce ion. Accordingly, this s"hall 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, HUGHES, & KNEZEVICH, P.C. I t , B Y ( l�l\ } ., \Y \ Robert W. Hug dt RWH:jb Enclosure EXHIBIT A TO SUPPL ENTAL APPLICATION FOR SUB VISION EXCLPTION LAW OFFICES OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH 8L JORDAN 500 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LEONARD M. DATES ASPEN, COLORADO 81511 RONALD D. AUSTIN J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH. JR. May 22, 1979 WILLIAM R.JORDAN M ,. AREA CODE 303 ROBERT W HUGHES TELEPHONE 925-2600 RICHARD A. RNZZEVICH City Council City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Planning Commission City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office City 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 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 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 easement to permit to continue the approximate 14 square foot encroachment on her property caused by the concrete walk in 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, 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 condominiumi zing 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 OAT`s, AUSTIN, McGRATH & 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 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 information you might require. We setting on the Planning and Zoning for your time and consideration. RWH/ j ms Attachment happy to provide you with any would appreciate an early Commission agenda. Thank you Sincerely, OATES IhSTINI McGRATH & JO AN By R ert W. Hughes -'-. OJ M E M O R A N D U M TO: RICHARD GRICE, PLANNING OFFICE FROM: LOUIS-BUETTNER, ENGINEERING OFFICE`r DATE: June 6, 1979 RE: 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 300s slope. c. The two newly constructed retaining walls located to the Nest 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. W LAW OFFICES OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION SUITE 200 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LEONARD M. OATES ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ROBERT W. HUGHES RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH AREA CODE 303 DEBORAH QUINN May 18, 1981 TELEPHONE 920-1700 0 Px5 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 City Hall 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 r MAY 10 > } ��I'A AANNINO 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, PATES, 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. Sincetely, OATES, HUGH�S, & KNE EV CH, P.C. By RWH:jb Enclosure -EXHIBIT A TO SUPPL*NTAL APPLICATION FOR SUB*ISION LAW OFFICES OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH a JORDAN LEONARD M. OATES RONALD D. AUS'TIN J. NICHOLAS McGRATH, JR. WILLIAM R.JOROAN M RO BERT W HUGHES RICHARD A. KPLEZEVICH City Council City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Planning Commission City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 May 22, 1979 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office City Hall 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 EXCEPTION AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 925-2600 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 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 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 easement to permit to continue the approximate 14 square foot encroachment on her property caused by the concrete walk in 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, 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 a 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 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 information you might require. We setting on the Planning and Zoning for your time and consideration. RWH/jms Attachment happy to provide you with any would appreciate an early Commission agenda. Thank you Sincerely, OATES, IASTIN, MCGRATH & JO AN By jMrt W. Hughes TO: FROM: DATE: RE: M E M O R A N D U M RICHARD GRICE, PLANNING OFFICE LOUIS-BUETTNER, ENGINEERING OFFICE�r�-��. June 6, 1979 Valley Subdivision Exemption 1-- t"I' �16g 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 buj_•lding on the lot. b. Those areas over 30o 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. CONDOMINIUM MAP OF VALLEY CONDOMINIUMS AN L"X15`rING ouPLEX 51TUANTED OtiL 1-07 11, C5L-001- 1, PITY -IN NLI=SA 9Ua IDIVISION AMENDED \ ASIOCN I �oLo2�Do OWNERS CERTIFICATE P M�BMDE ICo12G N 4a°OG> E 207.[O) M�t3RIDE 1612G W.L. 1 14.00 ' S , 1 � �� + 1 1 W 1 1 1 1 Io.s 1 1 1 1 CONG. N PACE N 1 1 ENTRY 6 i `r WITH °N N P N 1 1 WOOD WOOpDECK 1 I 2 STORY FRAME 3.3 � 1 1 I-IOUSE. WIT H 6� \ BASEMENT N e 1 1 1 � � 1 1 1 LOT 1 1 z 1 1 15, G 1 0 Sq. )-T. P 1 ZQ DECK � 1 1 ,• ' r, PESMAN 23��0 ; nl 90° o0' E 208 . ) ) 1 L i `y 1� !. 3® A� HERIN F LAHF=RTY � ,J 9 /,�- Yo El PC, cYY C.)C) IU SEWEtZ I=A5(5NILI�.IT LEGEND i NOTES SURVEY ORIENTED WITH FOUND MONUMC-WrS GALLS IN C ) RECORD ELEVATIONS/aSE CN la1"15 ASPEN AERIAL SURVEY J=ND. OR SET-suRVE.Y MONUMENT AS rJESC.RISED L.C.E. LIMITED C(ON1MC)N ELEMENT G.C.E. GENERAL. G(2)MMDN E.LEMaN-17 RETAINING WALL r3A515 OF BEARINGS ON' POUN 0 MONS. ON THE SW, COR, LOT P-> ArN0 THE N.W. \N.C.OV-7 LOTS BEING A r%5 RE - i3AR WIO GAP BEAD, IN G BETWEEN THE TWO CORS F3E.ING. N c1�SG' V-,/ + SET SPIKE 5URV EY CONTROL HA.ROI_O E. \/AL.L..1=Y AS OWNER OF LOT 11 f31..00K 1 PITKIN MESA1 5UL301V 1510K AM. ASP1=N co%-ORADO HEREBY CERTIF`( THAT Z1i\S P\-.AT OF THE VALLEY CONDO MlNIVMS HAS BE£NPREPA%ZT3 PUtiSVANTTOTNNV- PURPOSES STATED IN T\iE. CONDOhAIN%UM DECL.ARAT\ON FOR SAID CONDOMINIUMS DATED THIS DAB( OF AND vMcloRDEO IN BOOK AT PAGE OF THE RECORDS OF THE C'.ERK AND RECORp£R OF T41E C.O\)lAT`( Or STATE OF COLORAD0. STATE OF GOLORADO COUNTY OF P 1- YU N i S.S. 7"E FORE.GO\NG OWNERS CE.RTIF 1GAT E WAS ACtCNOW \. E0 GED 6£FOR£ ME. TH\S OF ZX AS OWNER WITNESS MY wANO AND OFFICIAL SISAL MY COMMISSION SlsP\RES NOTARY PUBLIC DAY SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I GER D H. PESMAN, A C-01-ORAZO REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL. ENGINEER AND LAND SURVEYOR I4ER ECiY C-%;kTIFY AS FOLLOWS : IN SEPT 1ti-78 A SURVF.'f Y-4AS MAOF. UNDER MY DIRT=CTION AND SUPERVISION QF > hT I I PSLX 1, DITICIN M SA SI�PsS�.iC1TY OF ASPZ2!.4 STATE OF COl_OVkADO, AND FOUND THEREON A LOCATS•O ENT IR%LY WMA IN THE SOUN O ARY LINES OF SAID OV-SoCR1SE0 PROPti=RTY AS SHOWN Olt T411S PEAT RAS60 ON THG. FIFCID EVIDENCE SHOWN AS FOUND T►I{c LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS OF THE BOUNDARY LINES, BUILDING AND IMPROVEMENTS, IN EVIDENCE. OR KNOWN TO ME ARE ACCUR ATG.LY SHOWN ON THIS MAP AND THE MAD AGC.uggAT CLY AND 50% STANT IA LL`( DEPICTS THE L0CAT101.1 AND THE HOF\IZONT A�- AND V6.RT1 CAI., MEASURE. MENTS O F THE. Su11.0\NG, THF. CONDOMINIUM UNITS THEREIN, THE UNIT DESIGNATIONS THEREOF, THE D\MENS\ON S OF SAID UNITS, AND THE ELEVATIONS OF T\AE FIN\SHE.D FLOOR AND CEILINGS• GfiRARO H. PV-'&MAN COLD. REG. PRoF. ENGR. AND LAND SURVEYOR Z37G STATE OF COLORA'DO > S,S. COUNTY OF PITIKIN THk. FOREGOING SURVEYOR'S C5LRTIF\CAT£ WAS AC.KNOWLEDGF,D BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF SN GGRARO H. PESMAN. W ►T N V-SS MY HAND /-NO OF FILIAL SC -.AL MY COMMISSION F-yPIRES NOTARY PupL\C- CLERKSRECORDER'S ACCEPTANCE ACCEPTED FOR FILING IN THE OFF1C.£ OF CLERK AND RECORDER OF T\AZ COUNTY OF Pi-TKIN/ STATE. OF COLORADO AT O'CLOCK_M./ THIS DAY OF 19l IN PLAT BOOK _ AT PAGE REcti=.P'TION NO. CLERK AND RECORDER SHEET 1 Orr 2 J-043 * 3307 CONDOMINIUM MAP OF VALLEY CONDOMINIUMS AN >=XiS`; lr`1G tOVP�cX S1Tu�T�p ply I.OT 11, CS1-OCIr- 1, t�ITICIN NAI'SA su�301V1S1oW AMENDED ASPCN �oLO���a OWNER'S CERTIFICATE P M�BRIDE ICo12.G �� _ � N 9C�°GdE. 2A7.10) M�-F3R\DE IG12�1 Vv^L. 1 14.00' ,V 1 24A O w 1 1 � 1 1 Io.s N 1 CONC. N 1 1 in.o 33 PAS N 1 W IT o `� Q 2 STORY PRAMS WOOD HOUSE `/�/ITH DECK s.3 O� 1 ; 1 BASEMENT N 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 i 1 LOT I I 1 1 Z 1 1 n I S, O I O Sq. 1= r. Z. P 2.4 DECK 1�ESMAN ?31� ; s , �-j 0 ( N 900OO,E 1J RIME FLAHERTY EAST HAFtVARD -R COS O. 80 Z3Y U N 13 K LKJ rG PC, G cf Y 10 S EWI_ IZ l ASa t\AIL't I-r • 1. -J oe S ti O • .- LEGEND i NOTES SURVEY OR\ENTE17 WITH FOUND MONUMCNTS GALLS IN c ) RECORD ELEVATIONS a/-�N,SE c7N 1c'l-15 ASPEN AERIAL SURVEY FNO. OR SET SURVEY MONUMENT AS IOE� R\SED L.C.E. LIMITED El__.I=MENT G.C.E. GENERAL COMMON F-LEMENT ----- RETAINING WALL BA515 OF BEARINGS ON' FOUN D fMONS. ON 1 HE SW. COR. LOT E AN THE N.W. W.C. CDF' LOTS SEINE A 5 RE-f3AR VV/O CAP SEARING BETWEEN THETWO CORS r3E.ING. Nc1�5G'V\/ i- SET SPIKE SURVEY CONTROL __HAROLD VAL.L-ICY AS OWNER OF I-.OT 11 6.OG1<- PITKIN MESA S 1301VI5Iow AM, /k Pi-"N — COLORADO F\ERE6Y CkRT1FY THATTH\S PI -AT OFTNE VALLEY CoNDo MINI )WIC, HAS BEEN'MkaPARE'O PURSVANTZ'O THE PURPOS�cS STATED IN THE CONOOMINIUM DEG\. ARAT\ON FoR SAID CONDoMINjuMs DATED TH\S DAB( of AND REGORDEO IN BOOK AT PAGE OF THE RECORDS OF T\aE CLERK AND RECORq£R OF t�\E. COUPITY dF STATE OF CO\-ORADO. STATE. OF C.OLORADO COUNTY OF_p IT u 1IV THE FOREGO1t1G OWNERS CF.RT\F\CATE WA5 ACKNOWL EQG£p S6FORE. MF, TN\S DAY OF Bi AS OWNER WITNESS MY NAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL, MY C,OMM1SS10N EXP\RES SURVEYOR'S NOTARY PUBLIC CERTIFICATE I GERAP�O H, PESMAN, A COLORADO REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER ANO LAND SURVEYOR HERESY c-%RTIFY AS FOLLOWS: 1N SEAT Iq'I8 A SURVE`( MF V4-MI NS MIAOW- UNDCcSiC. R MY OIRTION AND SUPERVISION Q>= I nT- 11 P,L.\c 1 DITK11� ^�� Rn CITYAO ! ! Spj.� STATEO OF C\-ORADO, AND FOUND THEREON A L=Xt�-T�\`!, Ck \P X LOCATED ENT I RZLY WMA IN l'NE BoUN D ARY LINES OF SAID DE6CRISED PROPERTY AS SHOWN ON TIAIS PI-AT,AASED ON T►AE SHOWN AS FOuND THE LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS OF THE DOUNDARY LINE.S, SUILOING AND IMPROVEMENTS, IN EVIDENCE OR KNOWN TOME ARE ACCURATCLY SHOWN ON TH\S MAP AND-M-Z MAP AGGUgAtCLY qNp SUB STANT IA LLY DEPICTS THE. LOCATION AND THE HORIZONTAL. AND VG.RTI C,AI„ MEASURE mZ%TS O F T\1E SU4,0\NG, THE CONDOMINIUM UN1-rS THEREIN, THE UNIT DESIGNATIONS THEREOG,T\iE OIMENS\ONS OF SAID UNITS, AND THE ELEVATIONS OF T\-►E FIN\SHE.D FLOOR AND CEILINGS. GERARO H. PESMAN COLD. REG. PROF, ENGEI. AND LAND SURVEYOR Z37G STATE OF COLD RApO ) COUNTY OF PiTKIN j S.S. TIIF. FORI<GOING SURVEYOR'S CPcRt►F\cAT� WAS ACKNOWLEDGED 6GFORfc ME THIS DAY OF WY GGRARD H. PF-SN\AN. W IT N R. SS MY NANO ANO OF FIC.IAL SSM.- MY COMMISS\ON EXPIRES NOTARY Pu%L\c. CLERK4RECORDER'S ACCEPTANCE ACCEPTED FOR FILING IW THE OFFICE OF CLERK AND RZCORDER OF T\AF- COUNTY OF p,T,,,u STATE OF COLORADO AT O'CLOCK,_M.1 THIS DAY OF 19T IN PLAT BOOK AT PAGE R ECti= PT ION NO. CLERK AND RECoRDER SMEF—T I oor z J-013 u 330? lJ G b 41 4�t 0 1W CONDOMINIUM MAP OF VALLEY CONDOMINIUMS vN t=XtS`'tNG IOUPL..EX 51TL)4%-rE0 Orl LOT It, lZ5LOGh 1, RITV-IN MESA 5U3OIV1510N AMENDED ASPEN , C-O L-02�Do OWNER'S CERTIFICATE M�BRIDC 1Co12G N gcpo >'E 207.10') M�PR\OE 1 14.0 O ' 1 Za .3 1 -i• a' ,l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r r 1 1 0 1 1 1 � < 1 1 1 1 1 PESMAN ?3-7� 1 r T 1 l_ n 1 , CATKERIN� rLAHF-RTY 9'49 5: EAsr HAR VARD OFNVr--R , COLO. 80Z31 0 HAROLO E. N/AL I.-'F-Y AS OwNF-R OF L-OT 11 t31"OCt< 1 Pl-rKIlS hA=A AM, /LSPFN COLORADO HERESY GER?\F`( THAT Z!i\S P\-NT OF THE VALLEY CPNQs9jin11VMA HAS BEENPREPAREp PUGISVANTTO THE PURPOSI¢S STATEO tN T\1E CONOOMINIUM DEC.\. ARAT\QN Ra1A P SAID CONDOM\NIUMS DATED TF\\S OA-I( OF AND REC0%k0260 IN BOOK AT PAGE OF THE RE.GORDS OF 'THE c1 EAK AND A%r-(5vkv3vst Of 'f►1t S.OU"111 OF STATE OF COLORADO. 10 SEWI=2 T!:—AS�--ML'. -r LEGEND E NOTES SURVEY OFi\ELATED WITH FOUNT] MONUMCNTS GALLS IN ( ) RECORD ELEVATIONS oN Iq-15 AS PEN AERIAL SURVEY ENO. OR SET SURVEY MONUMENT AS LIMITED COMMON EL.1= MINT G.C.E. GENERAL COMMC>N EL.EME.NT ----- RETAINING WALL 135A515 OF BEARINGS ON' FOUN 0 N10NS. ON THE SW. COFR., LOT E, AT\ 0 THE N.W. \N.C.O� LOTS i3EING A 'a5 RF.-f3AR WJO C-AP BEARING BETWEL.N THE -TWO CORE F3L.ING. N�I�SG Vim/ + 5ET SPIKE SURVEY CONTROL STATE OF GOLORADO � S.S. COUNTY OF PITUIN i THE FOREGO\NG OWNERS GE.'RT\F\CATE WAS ACKNOWt-EDGED %EFORE M% TH\S OF Zlf AS oWNSR WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL MY COMMISSION S7CP\RE.S SURVEYOR'S NOTARY PU9L\ C CERTIFICATE UN ,I i GERMko .l.. PESMAN, A COLORADO REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AND LAND SURVEYOR H'ERE6Y G1aRT1FY AS FOLLOWS: IN 5EPT 1-I�8 A &- SURVEYA�Wv�._NS MAOE. UNDER MY D\RSC-TION AND 1< SUPRV\5\ON �1-- I C>y 110 psi y'1.1 plTK1h\ M �,A SllF1 .iC1T`( PSPF.t.>, STATE OF CO\-oRADO, AND FOUND THEREON A X T1 \(- IJk\COL-.X LOCATED ENT%RXL`( WITHIN THE BOUNDARY LINES OF SAID DESCRIBED PROPERTY AS SHOWN ON T"XS P>-AT,'BASZD ON THE. F\Sa\D E\11DENCE S\\OWN AS FOUND TIUI-a LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS OF TVkE DOUNDAR`( LINES, SUI1.O1NG AND IMPROVEMENTS, lwl EVIDENGG. OR KNOWN TO ME ARS ACCUR ATG.LY SHOWN ON TN\S MAP AND THE MAP ACC.UP�AT CLY AND SUB STANT IA LLY oEPIGTS THE LOCAT\ON ANO THE F\OFtI'LONT A\_ AND V6.RT1 GAL MEASURE tAE%TS O F THE BUII.,p\NG, THE CONDOMINIUM UNITS T\\ERE.IN, THE UNIT DESIGNATIONS THEREOF, THE DIMENS\ON S OF SAID UNITS, AND THE ELEVATIONS OF T\AE F\N\SME.D FLOOR AND CEILINGS. GERARC) VA, PESMA.% CO\.O. FtEG. PROF. E:NGR. AND LAND SURVEYOR 237G STATE OF COLD RAPO i S.S. COUNTY OF PITLtIN TFIFs FOREGOING SURVIEYOR'S GERTIF\CATS WAS ACKNOWI.SOGED SSE -FORS ME THIS OAY OF OY GG.RARO 1-1. PESMAN. W IT N E SS MY 'AANO AND OFF\CIAL SC AL MY COMM\SS\ON EXPIRES NOTARY PUSL\C CLERK aRECORDER'S ACCEPTANCE ACCEPTED FOR F1UNG IN THE OFFICE- OF CLERK AND RECORDER OF T%AE COUNTY OF FP\TK\N$ STATE OF GOLO R ADO AT O' CLOCK _ M.I THIS DAY OF 191 IN PLAT BOOK AT PAGE REGt_.PTION NO. CLERK- AND RECORDER 5HEF.T 1 0ir a J-013 * 33o4 IRSPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES County 00100 — 63711 09009 — 00000 Subdivision/PUD 63712 Special Review 63713 P&Z Review Only 63714 Detailed Review 63715 Final Plat 63716 Special Approval 63717 Specially Assigned City 00100 — 63721 09009 — 00000 Conceptual Application 63722 Preliminary Application 63723 Final Application 63724 Exemption 63725 Rezoning 63726 Conditional Use PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00100 — 63061 09009 — 00000 County Land Use Sales 63062 GMP Sales 63063 Almanac Sales Copy Fees Other Name: l' Address: Check No. Receipt No. P S �p Project: Phone: I Ilv l u. p �